The Meaning and Value of Work  (April 10, 2018)  

       An article in today's Wall Street Journal is entitled "One-Year Alternatives to College Pop Up."  (Page A3).  On first glance, I assumed the article dealt with a variant of for profit technical colleges that rip-off so many unsophisticates.  The first sentence belied the judgment, noting the student who opted for the program had sought admission at Dartmouth, Vanderbilt and UVa.

      The paragraph that hit me hardest read, "While alternative colleges can teach a person how to work , they don't teach their students why they are working, said Gardner Campell, an English Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University.  With that context, graduates of these programs run the risk of becoming well-paid drones, he said."  [Emphasis Added].

      College is supposed to teach us why we work?  I always thought that we work to survive.   I went to college.  What did I miss; what English course didn't I take?  If Professor Campbell's point, perhaps, is intended to refer to Maslov's Hierarchy of needs, I'm thinking he is a mis-guided and under credentialed sociologist.   Excepting only superimposition of a elitist perspective that alreadys owns emotional security in business of paying the wages of survival, including housing,  people work to survive.  

      Stated differently, it seems to me that we don't go to college to learn why we work.  We go to college to learn about human history, different cultures, gain an appreciation for art and history, and to learn the traits -- critical thinking,  writing skills, and practical skills, to functionally compete in the world after graduating and hopefully enjoy the working years a bit more than we might otherwise.  

The Media and Fake News (April 11, 2018)  

Few things bother me more, in a literary sense, than official references to 'fake news.'  The New York Times and other traditional news outlets, together -- more generally, with most journalists, impress me as highly principled and ethical.  After all, New York and Washington outlets broke the Pentagon Papers and Watergate.

Then, today, I considered my views on news articles that report on crimes and jury trials.  As a former public defender, i.e., attorney, I've read newspaper articles concerning trials and matters with which I was personally familiar, that were -- in my mind, reported in good faith.  Very commonly, the newspaper accounts were biased or, at least, incomplete.  

How to reconcile my confidence in what I read in the newspaper about every subject except criminal jury trials with my view and personal experience reading about criminal jury trials?  Journalists -- most at least, are individuals of high professional, moral character, but their product, sadly is probably as vulnerable to mis-interpretation or incomplete reporting as that I know (or at least believe to exist) in criminal courts reporting.

Maybe my judgment of the 'fake news' criticism is unduly harsh.

The Jungle (intermediate) Book Report  (April 12, 2018)

      The book The Jungle, which I'm about half-way through, has taught me two things.  It is regrettable to judge a book on the writing style of a critic.  The book is indeed haunting, though simultaneously captivating.  The second, and more important takeway involves the message and it's depiction of the life of an Lithuanian immigrant family in turn of the century (1900) Chicago.  We, or at least, I have no reason to complain, ever.

     Further, there are political observations equally applicable today.  Jurgis, the protagonist, learned that "America differed from Russia in that its government existed under the form of democracy.  The officials who ruled it, and got all the graft, had to be elected first; and so there were two rival sets of grafters, known as political parties ...."

#MeToo, Trump and Bill Cosby (April 12, 2018 -  ed. 4/01/19)

If, as it appears, Trump seeks re-election, it will be interesting to see whether the #MeToo movement hits Trump.  To date, it hasn't seemed to.  Will the political activism hit the ballot box as hard as it hit the Entertainment Industry?  As a generally suspicious person by nature, I'm thinking political activity may be insulated from most cultural revolutions -- if only as it involves permitting the President to remain above the fray.

As to Bill Cosby, from all that's been printed so to speak, he sounds like he was an absolute predator, probably not unlike many of his fellow celebrities.  I recall reading some quote involving an article about Hugh Hefner referring to Qualudes as (causing women to be more open to sex).  Hefner called them, "thigh openers," as I recall.  Maybe it wasn't about Hugh Hefner, just my recollection.  Whatever the truth, celebrities, including Mr. Cosby, have a tough time getting a fair trial.  And some like white hefner avoid them altogether.

What about alcohol?  How many women have been seduced by alcohol?  Yes, of course, there is a difference between being unknowingly slipped a pill, but what about unknowingly drinking, either by deception or inexperience?   Many men, it seems to me, were, have been, and will continue to 'utilize' (for lack of a better word) alcohol for the same purposes as Mr. Cosby is accused.  

More on The Jungle and Politics  (April 13, 2018)  

Now, more than two-thirds of the way through The Jungle, I'm prepared to announce it is one of the best books I've ever read.   The further we move from a Great Depression, the softer generations become, it seems to me.   That's one lesson to current day readers.  In the early 1900's in America, people who were unable to find work often starved.  The book brilliantly highlights the need for oft ridiculed entitlements.  Moreover, the capitalistic depiction it offers is magnificient.

I am disappointed that I was not asked or required to read the book in high school.  It should be required reading, even as it may impress current readers as fanciful.  My parents and those of my generation mostly grew up during the Great Depression.  They were tougher that us.  We heard their stories first hand.  Our children, if fortunate, might be permitted some time with their grandparents, but the time is far too precious to spend recounting the hardships of their own childhood.

As a result, we are softer than our parent's and the standard deviation from which our children begin is likewise lessened.  

The other message of the day, dear reader, is that we all -- excepting perhaps a very small percentage, experience parent issues.  

Attack on Syria (April 13, 2018 - 2nd)

First, let me submit, a humanitarian approach to liberally accepting Syrian refugees represents a worthy immediate national priority.  Second, Pres. Trump was right in launching an assault against Bashar Al-Assad's genocidal rule.  Al-Assad has survived only because of Russia and Putin's support.  To their credit, they seem to have managed to beat ISIS; something with which the US struggled mightly.  But Putin, most respectfully -- is perhaps the most dangerous despot of our generation.  Putin's actions taking over Crimea are so enormously troubling.

The best and only way to deal with a bully is to punch him in the nose.  The resulting uncertainty depends on how irrational the bully is.  If Putin is as smart as most, he'll take the message and walk away.  Stalin and Lenin abided and reportedly promoted horrific domestic cruelties.  And, not since Hitler -- I think -- has the First World endured a leader as stupifyingly irrational.   Odds are that Putin is not either, and that the missile attack designed to degrade Al-Assad's ability to chemically poison the human beings he was, by divine right (?), honored to serve.

Daily Thought (April 14, 2018)

Gimme Shelter is an iconic song by the Rolling Stones.  One of their very best.  Watching a live video of their performance on the Ed Sullivan show, one can hear the shreiking of the young female fans.  The video is from 1969.   Assuming a young lady swooning at Mick Jagger was eighteen, in current years -- so to speak, she was born in 1951 and is now sixty-seven years old.  Oh, life catches us by the tail.  Day-by-day, the drip is so imperciptibly slow.   Then suddenly, we are not so young. 

Republicans and Democrats (April 20, 2018)  

It's an oversimplication to say that Republicans care only about the rich and Democrats only the poor, with no one standing for the middle class.  A better protrait, perhaps, highlights the Republican priority on self-reliance and the right to build wealth,  even as the latter may not be enshrined in the Constitution.  The Democrats, for their part, appreciate the reality that there is destined to be a segment of the population unable to care for itself, owing to some weakness, perceived weakness or random chance.  The Democrats seek to corral, or redirect, some measure of wealth toward our collective moral responsibility to care for the weak and infirm.

A problem is, principally that given the commanding influence of money, the (our political) system practically tilts toward the direction of the high moral virtue of self-reliance theory because it provides effective camoflage desire to accumulate more wealth by the already wealthy.  After all, a political slogan, We're Not Quite Rich Enough, Just Yet, would likely be unsuccessful.

Separately, Gina Haspel, nominee to head the CIA, reportedly was the person who authored the memo ordering destruction of video-recordings of terrorist suspects being water boarded.  People can have different positions regarding application of water boarding.  What's tough to countenance is elevating to head management a person who effectively gave the order to destroy evidence.  If the practice was contextually justified, stand by your decision.  Ordering the destruction of evidence documenting the CIA's action -- and further without regard to the decision to document them in the first place, ought to disqualify the nominee.  If alternatively Ms. Haspel is confirmed, the nation, Our Nation, is properly recognized as professionally respecting a person who sought to suppress evidence of the truth, a bad omen for the nation.  

Infinite Jest, Correction and Suicide  (April 22, 2018)  

Read an article today that indicated that CIA head Gina Haspel was not the person who ordered the destruction of evidence (of US agents water boarding suspects).   Rather, apparently, she only drafted the cable articulating the order.  If the same defense worked at the Numberberg trials, some German officers and officials would probably have lived longer.  (Anticipatorily, I do not mean to demean or diminish the horror of the Holocaust by the comparison.  My point is to suggest that whether or not Ms. Haspel issued the order to destroy evidence of torture, or merely committed it to writing and communicated the order, Ms. Haspel's elevation to CIA chief is, respectfully, undeserved.

Moving onto The Infinite Jest, David Foster Wallace was a brilliant writer.  The instant review is limited to the first 100 pages.  First up, is the book the longest suicide note ever?  The book is fiercely humorous in bursts, and then sometimes reads a bit weird -- and even boring.  Nonetheless, Wallace hits with insights that hit in the metaphorical solar-plexus.  The sun as a key hole to hell.  The sound of tennis balls being hit resembling poppage (sp?) of a champagne bottle.

Foster Wallace also brilliantly describes the game of tennis and (separately) conjures a herd of feral hammsters.  He also displays and incorporates exemplary knowledge of HVAC air conditioning systems and the functioning of alarm systems.  The display of multi-disciplinary expertise is breathtaking, yet he errs when referencing Tucson, AZ's area code, incuding adding an extra digit.  If Foster Wallace were still alive, I think an excellent question would be whether the contextual collision between extraordinary subject matter expertise and the clumsy mix-up of Tucson's area code was intentional?  In my mind, other people boo the question.

On the subject of suicide, what is it that collects so many brilliant artists?  David Foster Wallace, Ernest Hemingway, John Kennedy Toole, Kurt Cobain, and Sylvia Plath, of course.  What is it that leads exceptionally talented people to disproportionately intentionally/ prematurely leave life?  What do they feel, or potentially, better understand?  That, by the way -- prematurely leaving life, I submit is a more dignified description of suicide.  For those unfamiliar with the book, A Confederacy of Dunces is a worthy book.  

Two Sets of Books   (April 23, 2018)   

Did you know that Big American Corporations keep two sets of books?  They do:  Tax and GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles).  The consequence was known but impacted me upon learning of Congress' decision to allow immediate expensing of capital expenditures (versus requiring their amortization (expensing) over time through depreciation -- intended to reflect the fact that long term capital, e.g., equipment, investments ordinarily hold value for a period of years.  Depreciation = expensing the cost over a period of time.

The sanctimonious (or at the very least self-servingly named the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2018, cut the corporate tax rate.  As a result, corporate profits go up, stock prices go up, and the party continues.  But wait, what about allowing immediate expensing of long term capital investments?  If you allow their immediate expensing -- versus requiring progressive expensing as depreciation, if capital investment goes up -- net income in the short term, which is all that really matters to today's investors will go down.  Hmmm, won't the changes to depreciation rules (i.e., immediate expensing) offset or at least partially offset the stimulative intent of the TCJA, by reducing reportable profits?

Why no, it won't.  The reason is that corporations keep two sets of books.  The 'other' set of books, the one that for public corporations is annually audited, relies on GAAP, the reasoned standard of reporting financial performance and standing.  (For those who may be interested, Income Statements reflect performance over the past year; Balance Sheets reflect financial standing at a particular point in time.  So, why the differences between tax and GAAP reporting?  

The answer that I offer is that GAAP accounting -- as honorable and noble as it is no longer accurately tracks performance and standing, given the material changes wrought by the TCJA.  Previous justifications of mere "timing difference" no longer hold sway when, as mentioned, immediate expensing is now permitted.

Dicta and Eighty Year Olds  (April 24, 2018)  

Dicta is language in a court opinion that is non-essential to the holding, to wit, the issue the court is deciding.  It's extraneous discussion.  Lawyers frequently quote dicta in a brief or motion, and the opposing lawyer will sometimes point out that the language is dicta.   If courts are truly overworked, why stuff opinions full of dicta?  Just get in, decide the issue and get out.  Instead, the judicial affection for stuffing opinions full of thoughts (legal reasoning) amounts to an indulgence of ego.  Of course the rejoinder is that while dicta is not controlling, it may be offered as 'persuasive' authority.   Interesting to consider that persuasive authority extends to comments unnecessary to matter at issue.

Separately, at some point, we ought to examine lifetime appointments for federal judges.  Three of the nine current Supreme Court justices are eighty+ or nearly eighty:  Ginsburg (age 85), Kennedy (age 81), and Breyer (age 79).  For the most part, we don't trust eighty year olds to drive, and even when we do we keep a close eye on them.   People in their eightiers remember the way things used to be.  Some are,  understandably, out of touch with today's generation, though they undoubtedly have strong feelings about 'modern' America.  Who thinks it's a good idea to allocate/ entrust 33% of authority to decide presumably the most important legal questions submitted for consideration by the Supreme Court -- which likely will affect current Americans into the forseeable future, to the intellectual reasoning and mindsets of (at some point perhaps) a plurality of eighty year olds?  Back in 1787, it wasn't particularly a concern.  Ironically, then, it's peculiar that Ginsburg is perhaps the best and wisest Justice.

Context and Obscene Wealth  (April 25, 2018)

"Natural gas billionaire Michael S. Smith and his wife, Iris Smith," agreed to buy a home on two adjoining parcels on "Malibu's famed Billionaire's beach," for $110 million.  (Malibu sets a new home sale record, Los Angeles Times, Business section, page C1, April 24, 2018).  The seller, Peter Morton, acquired the two properties in separate transactions for $5.6 million.  Morton was reportedly initially hesitant to sell.  His long term real estate agent, "asked for a number.  Morton came back with $110 million."

If your bulb is burned out and you nonetheless forget to turn off the light switch, does it cost you more, i.e., the electricity flow to a non-functioning apparatus?

A guy, and his wife, who pays $110 million for two beach front lots with a nice house really do not care what it costs.  In fact, Mr. Morton, who maybe even feels like a charitable guy for 'letting the property go' at all, might as well have offered up $150 million, as his price.  But, really, when you're talking that sort of money, heck, what's the difference between $110 and $150 million.  It's not like you're going to have start flying economy, forego the purchase of Blue Buffalo dog food for Purina, or cut back on the cable package.  Meanwhile, the median annual wage at Amazon is $28,466.  But, if you live on Billionaire's beach, at least you don't have to worry (much) about that riff-raff coming around.  #OldPeopleColdinBostonBecauseGasBillisHigh.

Infinite Jest, Disease, Regional America and, I guess, Abortion  (April 27, 2018)

So, I'm still reading the Infinite Jest, an ambitious project.  David Foster Wallace is in brilliant burst an unrivaled author.  He has a bit comparing Hawaii Five-0 with Hill Street Blues that gives meaning to fantastically humorous insight.  About alcoholism he writes, 'So this purports to be a disease, alcoholism?  A disease like a cold?  Or like cancer?  I have to tell you.  I have never heard of anyone being told to pray for relief from cancer.  Outside maybe certain very rural parts of the American South, that is.'  

Our license plate holder says, "UCSD Parent."  A couple of days ago, I saw one that said, "I'm Adopted.  Thanks Mom for having and not aborting me."  It was something like that.  A legitimate feeling, I thought, for an adopted person to decide to elevate.  A relevant potential feeling for any human, but adopted persons are probably more entitled to the feeling.  

Glad you're glad that you are you and alive.  But, the anti-abortion message is not really persuasive put in one's face that way.  In fact, it's probably not a persuasive argument you might conceivably, reasonably expect to win via bumpersticker.  Most people have a position already.  In Bakersfield, CA in fact there are people that periodically stand at intersections with posters of what it appears is blood colored tissue extracted during an abortion.  

Abortion involves a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term.  There are few decisions men should be excluded from; one involves passing on the legality of abortion.  A man will never be pregnant and women are not chattel.  None of that is particularly provocative.  Now, it may be a matter worthy of discussion in family courts on the issue of Child Support.  If a woman exercises her right to carry a fertilized egg to term, over the objection of her male partner who genuinely urges an abortion, should a court discount an award to the woman for monthly child support?  Should the court decision be means based, agreeing a rationale basis exists if the sperm donor's financial contribution is necessary to assure child's adequate needs.   The term adequate needs is a placeholder for that level of support that is considered societically justifiable as neither too stingy nor too greedy.   Legislators often leave such terms undefined, with the result judges are obliged to interpret them.

If a female becomes pregnant during consenual sex, it seems to me she is entitled to exclusive authority over the decision as to whether to carry the baby to term.   And, if the dad disagrees, too bad, except that the female should expect to incur some diminished level of financial support for the child, except as may be necessary to provide for the child's adequate needs.   Unfortunately, a nettlesome aspect of the aforementioned rule is that it would be likely to sway some number of financially savvy men to claim that they did not want a child (despite actually desiring the woman to carry the fertilized egg to term), based on a calculus that the female's desire to have a baby (or avoid abortion) will over-ride her consideration of his objection.

Red  (Pacific Beach, CA; April 28, 2018)

Great Writers and David Foster Wallace  (April 28, 2018)  

Even the best writers work includes a solid amount of extraneous text.  Also, DFW knows/ knew a great deal about the secrets of addiction; secrets that are unknown and probably unknowable to those who have not grappled with it.  "[M]ost Substance-addicted people are also addicted to thinking, meaning that they have a compulsive and unhealthy relationship with their own thinking."  

Distance of Wilderness to Taco Bell?  (April 29, 2018)  

There is a picture of unequable natural beauty (or ok, great beauty) in the May 2018 edition of Backpacker magazine.  There may be and probably are more, but that's not germane to the point intended here.  (* I have not finished reading the magazine).  The photo is a two page spread by the Wyoming State bureau of advertising, or whatever it's called in Wyoming.  The picture features a couple hiking above a beautifully isolated lake which coincidentally has a two lane roadway along one of its shores.  The message is -- This Beauty is Accessible.   Fair enough, but how far to the nearest Taco Bell.  I don't mean that Taco Bell is my favorite fast food place, it's not.  Rather, don't try to sell me on accessibility because the road parallels the lake, if the nearest town where I might ever consider living is an hour and fifteen minutes away.  

In other words, if you want to sell me, persuade that your wilderness is comparatively, significantly closer to where it's possible to live without sacrificing accepted rudiments of simple life -- fastfood access, a supermarket or Walmart, and maybe a movie theatre.  I don't go to movies much, but the standard of a movie theatre still -- it seems to me, continues to confirm a measure of critical mass upon a local community.

Proof of Depravity, Immigration and Donuts (May 1, 2018)

"Ratio of the wealth held by the world's 42 richest people to that held by the poorest 50 percent:  1:1"  (Source Harper's Magazine/ April 2018, p. 9).

What kind of sick human beings can enjoy obscene wealth, as hundreds of millions starve and otherwise grind out an existence so frightening that most of us could not watch if it were televised (or to indulge the millenial vernacular live streamed).  Moreover, there is an element in America that celebrates the Horatio Algeresque so-called opportunity to accumulate such wealth.  And yes, it happens to some people, but how many homes can you have in the toniest enclaves of San Francisco or Malibu or Manhattan, or the Hamptons or Tahoe, when kids and adults go hungry all over the world, everyday ... or starve?

I was thinking about how much flack President Obama caught as "Deporter in Chief."  Compared to President Trump, President Obama was the personification of (Ellis' Island) the Statute of Liberty.  Further, Trump has sent a lightening bolt down the spine of the U.S.A.  Forget what a national version of (former California Governor) Arnold Schwarzenegger looks like -- yes, Californians, you elected Schwarzenegger twice.   There is a substantial element of America that looks down on Mexicans and, coincidentally or ironically which I'm not sure, is mostly scared that Mexicans will take their jobs.  No matter how poorly we may consider intolerant/ racist Americans, I can't imagine the bias is progeny related.  The heart wants what the heart wants.

The Democrats need a message beyond, we hate Trump.  It's too complicated to attempt to explain that the radical tax cuts that Trumpian America wrought will cripple future generations (starting with maybe the next generation).  Then again, if I were as self-involved as some report Trump to be, why not set things up to rain Champagne today?  If it doesn't pour even better drink tomorrow, that's then the fault of the lesser President that followed.

Linda's Donuts occupies a shot in nearby mini-strip mall.  It recently flashed a "Closed" sign by 1:00 p.m. on a Sunday afternoon.  On other days, it seems to me it stays open later.  I mentioned my sense of changing closing times to my wife, who reported, 'that's because they sell out of donuts.'  Great point, I thought, you sell out, you close.  Later I thought, do they really wait until they're sold out.  What about if you've got a collective $1.50 of donuts to sell?  How about, we've just got $5 of donuts left?  I'm thinking they probably shut up shop, at least, by then.

But then how does that compare with third world countries?  How frivilous would the idea seem to shut down the business if there was just $7.39 of retail priced merchandise left, when the goal may be to work 15 hours to scare up $3 or $4?  And the richest 42 individuals on earth possess  as much wealth as the poorest 50%.

Thomas Frank  (May 2, 2018)   

Thomas Frank is among the best political writers.   "[F]lat or sinking wages are a standard feature of Western economies:  with unions weak and an arsenal of wage-suppression techniques in the hands of management, business booms have for many years been confined to shareholders only.  ...    And the obvious and direct things that government can do to help working people -- raise the minimum wage or make it easier for workers to join unions -- are off the table with Republicans in charge of Congress."  Four More Years (The Trump reelection nightmare and how we can stop it), Harper's Magazine, April 2018.

Dog Park Rules, May 2, 2018

Municipal Sexism and a Riff on Dogs  (May 2, 2018)

San Diego Municipal Code Section 63.0101 provides, inter alia, it is unlawful in a Capehart Off Leash Dog Park to "have a female dog in estrus (heat cycle)."  See above.  Why is the female dog discriminated against?  Yes, of course, we've got to collectively protect against dog overpopulation.  But why disadvantage female dogs, rather than an equally effective "have an un-neutered male dog."  

More on The Infinite Jest (May 5-6, 2018)

The Infinite Jest may be among the most important books written.  I'm only 1/3 of the way through, fortunately.  Already, the book provokes the best comparisons to JD Salinger's Catcher in the Rye, but better, much better.  For those unfamiliar with Mr. Wallace and/or who do not have the time to embark on the 1,000 page + book is to check out the Commencement address he made.  It's entitled This is Water, and is available on Youtube.

Wallace's brilliance is so penetrating, then one considers that he committed suicide.  How persuasively should insights being taken from persons who killed themselves (i.e., without suffering from an imminently terminal disease)?  The question presupposes a underlying assumption that persons who commit suicide somehow failed.  They failed to show up for work.  They failed to show up for the rest of their lives.  I think that's the attitude that leads me to ask whether it's worth questing the wisdom of DFW.

The answer it seems clear to me is that the wisdom and his eventual decision to kill himself are, while perhaps and indeed certainly interwined in the intracacies of his mind, are not relevant to consideration of the brilliance of his gifts and insights.  DFW was most probably the classical tortured artist -- I never interviewed him, obviously.  If accurate,  that torture perhaps more than anything sharpens the relief and respect properly accorded.

Still, there is an element to suicide that is akin to quitting.  You quit the game.  Maybe you had a good reason, but you quit.   It's not that I mind that he (or somebody) quit or checked out.  I don't buy into the religious proscriptions against suicide, and believe it can represent a logical choice.  But, what troubles me -- from a trying to figure out what it means standpoint, is that DFW's insights into life, including advice, appear brilliant.  Yet, he checked out.  How much confidence can one, should one have in a guy who offered advice and later quit the game.  Did he not believe his own stuff (teaching) or was the torrential avalanche of his own thoughts too much to overcome the rational brilliance of his insights.  Pluse, there's the punction point, period, of quitting.  

What to make of DFW?  The Infinite Jest is infinitely more readable than, say, Kant, at least for me.  Kant is dense and even if you slow down to consider and really think of his writing, its impact is less lasting than DFW's storytelling mixed with jarring, stabbingly penetrating insights and 'laugh out loud' humor, with most clever set-ups and timing.

A Talented Jurist  (May 8, 2018)  

David Lampe in Kern County, Ca., impressed me as highly intelligent and fair minded.  Unfortunately, appointed judges more commonly are selected from lawyers who are generally known as likeable people (irrespective of intellect) or prosecutors who win high profile trials.

To those attorneys who may be reluctant to apply because you do not want to 'judge' people, please reconsider.  Most importantly, you can positively affect/ effect more people's lives from the bench than as, for example, a public defender.   The comparison pie chart ratio as it involves time necessary to prepare for versus present a trial is along the lines of 90:10, at least based on my experience which I'm glad to concede is probably considerably bested by gifted trial attorneys.  As trial attorneys are preparing, judges are passing on other matters materially affecting/ effecting people's lives.

Popularity, Jeff & Kim and Below the Lake-Line  (May 10, 2018 - 2nd)

Kim and Jeff are friends from high school.  They each have a Great Lakes level circle of friends and are incredibly social.   From this sample size, I hypothetize that the most social and popular people generally live above the lake-line, in terms of conversation (and perhaps introspection).   By implication, one figuratively encounters fewer companions/ colleagues below the surface, plumbing (but for the perjorative connotation) the under-surface.   The deeper one dives the fewer keep up.  DFW was an exceptionally deep diver.  By comparison, I'm underwater enough only to see how amazingly deep he was able to go and see.  In life, I would best love to spend life among friends of people who, upon popping back up on the surface, would burst out:  "Did you just see that?!"  While of course maintaining, respecting and always appreciating the friendship  and consideration of the Above The Lake-Line types, who permit and may even have a fond affection for Below-the-Lake-Line people, which may approach cutely amusing, even maybe attractive, in a way only certain recessive genes can be.

On Ageing, I read a gossip piece today on Nypost.com (page six).  Either beautiful female Cardi B. (age 25) and beautiful female Nicki Minaj (age 34 or 35) are quarreling or they are not.  Nicki Minaj, however, is ten or nearly as many years older.  Fame came earlier, perhaps, to Cardi B., though both achieved it.  Cardi B.'s english grammar, as reported, is not good.  Yet, as between NM and her, Cardi B.'s youth advantage (among females in today's popular society) appears prohibitive.

Popularity, Jeff & Kim and Below the Lake-line

DFW, CeilingArt.com, Judgment and Tattoos (May 11, 2018)  

Dear Reader,

The CeilingArt.com people want $2,199, or some such figure for the web-site name.  Remain convinced it's a great idea, i.e., not Michelangelo painting, but modern day physics inspired devices to hold pictures up there.  However, the domain name -- without more, does nothing special to corner the market or own a percentage of the prize if the idea takes off.

It was definitely unfair to refer to The Infinite Jest as the world's longest suicide note.   As widely recognized, DFW's aspiration was to make people feel better and happier.  His dissertation on AA is perhaps the most convincing recommendation ever.  I apologize.  Also, forget about the tattoo.  Instead, I presently prefer the idea of displaying a flag with his name or The Infinite Jest, or maybe buying a shirt:  Ask me about The Infinite Jest.  Worked for Herbalife, but not so well for Bill Ackman.

On judgments, AA is applauded (rightfully so) for their non-judgmental value system.  That's top shelf, but I'm thinking judgments are what makes us human.  If someone really doesn't judge, I'm suspicious.  Fake or self-deluded.  Or maybe the person freezes up if visiting McDonald's.  We all judge, I think.  There is a good line from the movie The Bill Chill where the guy who played in the Fly movies posits that rationalization is more important that sex, e.g., how many days can you get through without rationalization?  Great line, in fact, but if it rationalization were a hand gesture in rock-paper-scissors, it would surely lose out to judgment.  You couldn't live a single day without making multiple judgments -- so we're to believe there are a subset of happy and well adjusted humans that doesn't bring the same measure of analytical or reptillian (or both) thought to the matter of judgments involving other homo sapiens (and/or their actions).  

Bumper Stickers, Tattoos and T-Shirts  (May 12-13, 2018) 

There is a great commonality, it seems to me, in ways that we seek to announce and identify ourselves to others.  This is who I am, this is my style, this is how I roll, look at me.  Tattoos and bumper stickers are examples.  My problem with tattoos, for the most part, is that they impress me as too common a way to attract attention.  Don't like the hard work of studying in school?  Dye your head red or get a garrish tattoo to announce your own individuality to the world.  (The below the ankle tattoo psychology continues to fascinate me.  I internally call it the limited rebel look.  I'm a rebel though am mostly constrained by convention, but not totally.

The Kardashian's it seems to me excel in this skill, even as it's important to recognize the family's sheer physical beauty.  Among those who might choose to make a sex tape, the sample size of those whose participation would spike internet sales is low.  I've never seen it and tend to believe it's incredibly debasing, excepting my respect for the wildly successful commercial Kardashian industry it spawned.  It would be interesting to consider the cross-section that both watches The Big Bang Theory and the Kardashians.

For other superficially deeper beings, we want to be known and respected and longed for based on nothing so gouche as looks or style.  We want to be admired and preened over because of our minds, or intellectual compassion, or wit (though not wit so great as, say, a Chris Rock, who by virtue of his exceptional with falls outside the class).   The class believes, as momentarily appointed self-authortarian, that intelligence matters and the fact that he can run faster and is generally better liked and more athletic pales in comparison to academic and intellectual achievement.

Believe it or not there are actually those aligned others that agree.  Which brings me to the point, though before I get there it's worth addressing bumper stickers.   They are potentionally effective, except some people go and blow it by putting on something like fifteen or twenty.  Discretion and refinement is important in messaging, I think.  Plus, I frankly do not want to be stuck in traffic behind someone with a Make America Great Again bumper sticker.  I would periodically fantacize, but do not struggle, with the vision of running into the back of their automobile -- at very slow/ non-soft tissue injury speed (only enough to slightly dent the F-150 aluminum frame) , emerging from my own to offer "sorry" while mentally recalling John Belushi smashing the guitar in Animal House.  Fortunately, there are very few MAGA bumper stickers on cars in Pacific Beach, perhaps because they might get keyed.  In fact, saw a small kid walking Elsa yesterday or the day before approaching with a red ball-cap with script on it.  I thought, oh God, a little brainwashed kid.  Once up close, saw it read, Make America Skate Again.  We passed one another before my brain circuits switched from a sense of disappointment to appreciation.  Still, in this day in age very advisable and socially politic to not engage conversation with a little kid (*absent his parent or guardian in close proximity, to wit, hearing range).

T-shirts are the answer.  The ball bearings reference wrung true from Fletch.   When I go backpacking (or dog walking), I'd like to wear an Ensfield Tennis Academy t-shirt.  No skinned ink to later regret or bumper sticker (which while I don't think it would piss anyone off), which even if successful might at most draw a horn, a t-shirt puts it out there while simultneously restrictfully limiting its cast to immediate presence.  I do not have an opening line, but I do have this t-shirt,  which in a world where access to resources is prized is, likely, inherently self-defeating.  

Completing the loop, maybe that is why big and brawned or outwardly wealthy so often win the day.  Intellectual depth is typically tough to project, without mention of the phenomena of those lacking even that little they would otherwise seek to project, i.e., offering a hypothesis here, not making any objective claim to intellectual depth. 

Happy Mother's Day, Enfield Tennis Academy and Terry Southern  (May 13, 2018)

An older lady at the Dog Park that asked me what I was reading and with whom I invited to read a page or so of the book, featuring the saga of the kid whose misfortune most closely parallelled Clipperton, involving first a competitive victory and then some Nestle Quik, pretty much shunned me today.  A takeaway:  tell people you're reading the Bible, if you want respect for studious pursuits.  Also, the Book (re: Infinite Jest, though likewise deserving of capitalization) is not for everyone, just like the other, Book.  

Happy Mother's Day.  Odd, or maybe not that it should fall on the 13th.  Apparently, the holiday was inaugurated by President Woodrow Wilson and, coincidentally, fared better than the League of Nations.

Subject for discussion:  The Infinite Jest and The Magic Christian share common traits.  

Hillary Clinton's Legitimate Wisdom and the Federal Reserve's Impact on Our At-Risk National Economy  (May 14, 2018)

I read or watched or viewed (the torrential cornucopia of news proves itself indistinguishable or run together like water colors, but that's not the point) Hillary Clinton comment that each day she grows more worried about our country.  Her reason (there may be many) is that Pres. Trump does not apparently seem to have any coherent theme of governance.  She's right in the traditional sense.  President Donald J. Trump's approach sure seems scattershot.  Today, for instance, to great Cheer and local acclaim the US opened its Embassy in Jerusalem.  Previous presidents were loathe to similarly act.  Not Trump.  Meanwhile, Israeli troops shot dead something like 40+ dangerous protestors, mostly armed with slingshots, apparently.

(Editorially note, I'm not intelligent enough to solve (nor conceited enough to claim to solve) the Palastinian/ Israeli problem, and accept there is plenty of hatred and fright on both sides to go around.  Presently -- and since prior to 1967, Israel has commanded the significantly superior military advantage -- perhaps born out of desperation.  

Back to Trump.  He's inexperienced and yet the economy has blossomed like nobody's business (for the most part) since he assumed the presidency.  Maybe the lesson is that the staid, thoughtful, didactic, ponderous, intellectual, studied president's got it all wrong.  Maybe effective governance of the (presently) strongest nation is best served by 'keeping them on their toes,' uncertain in which direction the next serve will be hit; when reliably for decades it's been hit into the court denoted by the rules of the game.  However, at present, the Country (or voters within it) appear lucidly thinking if they infer, Trump's a great breath of fresh air.

The American public's approval, respectfully, rides and falls (generally speaking) on the Economy.  President Trump hit the proverbial trifecta of market timing, i.e., the accelerant of the Fed's reducing the rate of funds to next to nothing; a give him credit for understanding that stripping away regulations (aka Protections) assist in the accumulation of wealth, and a devil may care live for today Republican Congress, who agreed to stunningly slash taxes without associated spending cuts, thus spawning a new species of deficit whale.  It's all working out, until it won't.

Recessions are cyclical and sooner or later the  current boom will ebb (and/or drop depressingly down), before (who knows how long afterwards) bottom out.  The Federal Reserve has a really tough job, presently.  They don't want to douse the long and nicely humming recovery by raising interest rates too quickly (thereby, for example, peeling off equity investor dollars to the bond market, and/or effectively increasing Corporation's cost of borrowing as it involves considering investments admidst projected internal rates of return calculations.  Meanwhile, having reduced the short term rate to near zero to pull out of the Kamikaze like dive resulting from the lack of governmental oversight in the mortgage/ banking industry, shot all but the essence of their proverbial wad.  

Before the Fed can even start thinking about any new needed Stimulus, they have to re-charge their gun.  At the leisurely (or perhaps more self-congratulatory termed 'self-disciplined' or 'orderly' rate of .25% each half year (or long quarter -- rates of action vary slightly), it's an awfully slow reload rate, in case another big, bad character, a dangerous Bear, walks into the metaphorical barroom any time soon.  In which case, we might all (or most of us -- excepting of course the very rich and protected) wish that we could turn to a professorial type slowly dragging on a pipe, instead of a town (non-drinking) big mouth, who managed to get himself elected on the basis of the town's xenophobic proclivities.  In other words, pick your sheriff wisely. 

p.s. -- Meanwhile as the reloading ammunition plant's managers are working with great deliberation (non-haste) to reload the gun, maybe it's advisable to slow down the Shoot 'em up contest, or at least formulate a working thesis that doesn't cause many other actors to worry that you're shooting at them, which -- for a while may work, but ultimately will leave you asking, et tu Sarah Sanders?

Facebook and Regulation  (May 16, 2018)

Preface:  I don't use Facebook.  I don't have a book of business to build and would be (sadly) embarrassed rather than proud of the small number of persons in my friend group, interpreting the number self-critically because both having and being identified as having lots and lots of friends is viewed, generally, as a validating construct.  I lack that construct, but, fortunately, possess others.  Back to the point:  Why did we recently have Congressional hearings regarding the fact that a free internet service (Facebook) was directly or indirectly responsible for monetizing the shit you put on there?  The sense of indignity.   My God, it's almost as if I was slapped across the face and told there is no such thing as a free lunch.  

Same thing with Google.  It would be unbelievably naive to think companies would grow to be worth billions of dollars, all the while providing free product.  Yet, suddenly the cry, hue, shriek for regulation to protect us from the commercialization of our data about which we, at least, should reasonably have known goes forth.  Get Zuckerberg in here.  Now Darnit!  The Administration that wants to hack regulations, civility and a bunch of other shit suddenly are wringing their hands in genuine concern for us dumb common folks that Facebook or Google need to be policed.  If they're serving food or providing medical treatment or making sure the water I drink is not like Flint Michiganesque or something like that, then sure I want my government involved.  But if there is a wildly popular free service that doesn't sell my Social Security number or something like that; why would we need to get the government involved?

Tim Cook and Disappointment  (May 17, 2018 -edited)

Still bothered by Tim Cook's crack-back criticism against Mark Zuckerberg that 'our customers are not our product.'  CNBC, April 10, 2018.  Okay, so your product, e.g., Iphones, cost $1,000 apiece, and Facebook is free.  Why are you sanctimoniously berating Mr. Zuckerberg, especially because he is a fellow resident of the pretty darn cool tech universe, his company doesn't seem really to compete with yours, and you guys both probably live within a few acres of separated mansions in or around Palo Alto.   Won't your grocery buyer feel embraced running into his grocery buyer the next time they meet at the start-up Organic Hydroponically grown on Tahitian spring water transported in the gently rinsed and rumored aphrodisiac possessing, responsibly harvested local deep shell molluks? 

Having not received an invitation to Meghan Markle's wedding, I'm not planning to attend.  It occurs to me that in the world in which we live there are probably dozens of people who probably believe (a) Meghan Markle is secretly (or not so secretly in love with them); (b) are experiencing actual disappointment over not receiving an invitation, despite never having met anyone remotely involved in the wedding; and (c) falsely, quite earnestly and enthusiastically believe they did, in fact, receive an invitation.  

I have spent some time thinking about Meghan's and Harry's tax situation.  As a US citizen, subject of course to any prenup, there are domestic tax implications when you realize gosh, Prince Harry probably receives some impressive coin each year.  And now some of it may be sent back over to America.  Couldn't decide (didn't know enough) to consider whether they'd file Married- Joint, or Married- Filing Separately.  

Separtely, back on the DACA issue.  Let me be clear, DACA kids, young adults and adults are properly granted relief from being deported to a country which in most every instance is majority foreign to them.  

Royal or Outcast?  (May 18, 2018 - Supp.)  

We are all Royals or Outcasts, absent outside societal and economic consideration and/or constructs.   Those who defend recognition of Royalty ought to, it seems to me, as fiercely defend the Lottery.  

If something I say rubs you the proverbial wrong way, please consider the likelihood that this web-site may have been Hacked.   

Perseverance (No.'s 1 & 2)  (May 19, 2018)

Habit, Status and Marriage  (May 20, 2018)  

At a certain age in America, it would seem -- from a social status perspective, it's better to have been married and divorced, than never married at all.  But what's the reason behind the suspicion regarding those who have never been married (apart from the most obvious relationship phobic)?   It may have to with our belief in human's habit forming proclivities.  The longer you are alone, the more time for your habit tree to grow at awkward angles outside one or two standard deviations.  An alternative perspective considers loneliness as a fading phenomena:  Do we get more set in our (crazy old) ways or just become more comfortable with ourselves?  Regardless of the answer, it seems to me the bias persists.  

Nonetheless, it seems to me that age related concerns regarding others should Never control one marital decision, re:  the biological clock factor.  Once married, if you made the wrong decision, life will confront you with potential right others (however false appearing they may believe -- a function of one's romantic projecting abilities).  The point is from a romantic standpoint, don't let age dictate your choice, much at least.  As to biology, if the decision to marry is linked to having children (and thus time becomes at some point a mandatory consideration), why get married to have a child?  [Not discussed in this essay is accidental pregnancy.  The context here is a partner who desires to have a child/ children and considers the ethereal question of how long to hold out]. 

Intellectually separately approach the two questions:  Is this somebody that (1) I want to commit my life to; and (2) do I need to make a relatively quick decision as to whether I want to have a decent shot at a naturally occuring pregnancy.  (Also not discussed in this essay are the comparative merits of IVF pregnancy options).  There are unquestionably financial matters worth considering.  Would child support be available, if things didn't work out?  If this is a question, then why would you consider marriage with a person's whose ability to satify you regarding the ability to meet minimum child support obligations is an issue?  The point is some basis for some people at some age to consider de-linking marriage and having children.  

At the MGMT concert yesterday at the San Diego Civic Theatre, a beautiful venue, my wife and I were the oldest people there.  I've lost the ability to distinguish between high schoolers and persons of undergraduate college age, the latter now appearing to me to resemble the former.  Feeling a bit self-conscious, I suggested to my wife, if anyone asks, tell them we're chaperones.

Gun Control, Politics and the Second Amendment  (May 21, 2018)

Maybe the best political cartoon I ever saw pictured robed judges climbing onto the roof of the Supreme Court to look at the weather vane.  The accompanying caption read, "Supreme Court justices doing important legal research on abortion."  The reality is that our 'leaders' too often sycophantically, albeit understandably, followed, track, poll public opinion.  The reason?  Re-election.  The judgment is neither naive nor cynical.  Everyone wants job security and it takes a lot for a politician who really acts out of principle.  Heck, even Senators Coker and Flake fell in line with the Republican train, even though they're retiring.

What's it got to do with gun control?  In the aftermath of a young kid shooting and killing classmates and at least one teacher in Sante Fe, Texas, I read Texas Governor Greg Abbott is interesting in convenining a "roundtable" of stakeholders.   (CNN, May 21, 2018).   Derivatively, I heard at least one Texan complain that the idea of a roundtable at this point amounts to horseshit.   The interviewee utilized better language.  Teachers with guns; more locks on schools; more cops on schools; background checks for the mentally ill.  The reality is there are already way too many guns to kill animals for sustenance.  But perhaps that judgment ignores the Constitutional significance of the Second Amendment.  Whatever one believes about guns and society, the right of gun ownership (around which the right of private ownership lies) is built into our Constitution.  

There are a limited number of justifications for the adoption of the 2nd amendment:  (1) Guns are needed to defend against 'savages' (e.g., Native Americans from whom we 'took' the country and/or other foreigners against who we need to be adequately assured of our right to protect ourselves.  After all America in the late 1700's and early 1800's represented the frontier.  Self-defense, whether real or contrived as it involves White People's arrival amounted to a legimate concern for White People; (2) the 2nd Amendment was intended to permit the private citizenry to defend and protect against the specter of Girls-Gone-Crazy governmental oppression.  Forget for the moment the rationale contemplates enshiring a right based on a conventional definition of treason.  Further, what people -- committed as they color-blindly were to the grace of their New Nation, would contemplate the need to equip citizens to actively (and with gun powdered device effectiveness) assert resistance.  A third, less probable explanation, is that in Wild America, there were many scary (non-mammalian) creatures one might confront and guns represented the best protection.  A fourth is to hunt, for survival; probably the most convincing for the time period and, ironically, least likely.

Regardless of the box one chooses to support creation of the 'right'  (consider why not a right to possess knives or clubs?), an obvious truth seems to be that -- unless one subcribes to the judgment that the right to possess guns is to allow us to fight, if necessary, our own government, there is no reason for AR-15's or their like to be legal.  Indeed, the alleged Sante Fe high school killer reportedly used a shotgun and revolver.   A shot gun and revolver.

We really need a round table to consider after Santa Fe, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Columbine (and dozens of other sites that equally deserve recognition)?  But there is that irksome matter that politicians want and need to get re-elected, and if common sense were to prevail countervailing money would rise up like a swell that surfers use a jet ski driver to ride, and crush them.   The reason we give federal (Article 3) judges lifetime tenure is to insulate them against political waves of popular emotion.   Ergo, legislators are appropriately exposed to and beholden to popular opinion, leaders beware -- unless you are so vain or seldomly generationally occuring talented a being to believe and execute a move beyond simply achieving the most successful politicians ability to seemingly position themselves at (or indeed sometimes marching right out front of) of the inexorably rising tide.

Immediately, Ban assault rifles is an obvious first start.  It wouldn't have stopped Sante Fe, yes, admitted.  Gun makers can apparently (or may be able) to design guns that may only be fired by the owner -- think Apple Iphone device recognition.  The prospect apparently drives the NRA nuts -- though it would allow the owner to use his/ her gun (?).  Query:  Is the NRA's position a product of a perspective that fears goverment oversight -- maybe a conspiracy to turn off the operational software?  I'm left with the conclusion that NRA and like minded constituencies believe the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is rooted in a supposed need to protect ourselves from our own government.

Scary Stat (May 22, 2018)

Death of a Sibling with Living Parent(s)  (May 22, 2018)

I never ask my mother how she finds the strength to move through each day following the death of her daughter and my sister.  My sister, herself the mother of two fantastic daughters, sharply pivoting to a blessed early death, a wasted life, both, and much more?  Heard the cliche, Grief is Love with Nowhere to Go.  Much truth in many cliches.  Consider the societally (famially expanded)  infection point twist asking how she finds the courage each day to face the day, day after day, after the loss of a child to whom she devoted an enormous investment of life energy (and the enlightening authority of the answer), and on the other hand, asking the woman who I most worship in this life to return her mind to the most painfully vivid, lightening striking migraine and/or cardiac producing experience imaginable, the loss of a child.  So, I go through life with further Himalayamly heightened respect and admiration regarding how she deals, without asking; seeing that she does.

Thought on College  (May 23, 2018)

The college years, at least based on an interpretation of David Mamet and David Foster Wallace (bio pieces) are, perhaps the best years any of us may expect to experience from a wanderlust perspective which more generally encapsulates the male life zeitgeist, for some, I submit.  Thinking about college, I was persistently stuck with the unhappy conviction that I (streamed vicariously through my parents) was being charged to permit myself to be assigned to perform work (whether reading books or working out accounting problems).    In the real world, they pay you to do biding.  

Reconciling the de-linking between college is good and you're paying to get assigned work, first, your days are freer in college.  Second, I suppose, you can drop a class if it's that intolerable.  Third, for accountants and engineers and other various technical fields, you're paying them to teach you a trade, so that you do not have to learn another, less well paying or heaven forbid one calls unskilled.

Day Late, Dollar Short (May 23, 2018 - 2nd)

Found David Foster Wallace after he de-mapped, AC/DC after Bon Scott essentially did the same, and went to Berkeley only in the 80's.  Pains deeply that unable to have appreciated the experience during its heyday/ life, with the accompanying ability to express appreciation.  But does it matter?  Philip Roth, just died.  A great writer who won every award, except the Nobel Prize.  That's right you fuc*ers, be sure to stick that finger in his otherwise RIP eye.  Nobel Prize wins are, respectfully, non-requis.   Not a paranoid commentator to believe there was an anti-Semitic perspective that was adopted.  

Never read Portnoy's Complaint; however close mindedly believe no book may/ can/ will ever match The Infinite Jest.  Ordered 2nd "Enfield Tennis Academy" t-shirt.  The answer, it seems to me, is that no it doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter a lick if one is alive at the same time as the Artist.  Perhaps it's the celebrity phenomena that causes us to believe otherwise.  Would I have felt more special had I lived during Ernest H.'s life?  Maybe if I met him, which traces out to groupie, I'll never wash this hand again adoration of a famous person.

Two Decapitated SoCal Palms & Signage (c. 2018)

Binary Based Misunderstandings  (3/24/2018 -edited 6/15 & 6/16/2019 and maybe afterwards)

It's convenient and probably natural to interpret events, people and appearances as one or another.  As a young person, I struggled on dates with the question how would you describe yourself?  Only years later, after no doubt offering up terribly one dimensional answers did I realize, it's an impossible question.  We are all -- it seems to me, infinitely complicated beings, by which I mean a couple of things.  And, as a neurotic, there is no way for the guy, e.g., the author, to not routinely screw up the answer, with a physical response, neuro-chemical expression, whatever assured expression of a turn-off insecurity pheramone (sp?).  You'd love me, hopefully, if I didn't openly communicate my inadequacy, so immediately.  Some are destined, no matter whatever their moral worth/ lack thereof to embarrassingly express interest, principally as a product of insecurity, I think.*  Or, maybe the author is autistic.

First, within any particular personal quality, there is a spectrum of striatians (sp?).  Second, like Medilian genetics, there are a vast and potentially limitless number of attributes that might be said to define us.  Third, inconsistent traits can exist within the same person.  For instance, a selfish person might consistently demonstrate altruistic characteristics in a particular situation.  But then, perhaps, the better question involves application of the selfish label.

On the issue of selfishness, aren't we all selfish?  It's a question, I suppose, also implicating the philosophy of Hedonism.  And, if alternatively, we choose against our own happiness, what social influences guided our evolutionary and revolutionary development?  To the extent we might collectively identify and applaud this or these collective values, we might better promote them.  

Certainly, the word "Tribe" has arisen more recently, with good reason.  As a child born in the 1960's, I was taught America was "the Melting Pot."  Reading Robert Caro's biography about LBJ, I've come to better understand that for many children born in an earlier generation, the Melting Pot general sense of "us" was a "we are we, and they are they" sense of racial identity -- except for perhaps the northeast who, as a political community were more, frankly, developed.  Bigotry was taught to generations of white Americans.

* Insecurity does not define the writer or, I presume, most of us.  But sometimes, the realization we are alone on this journey proves so overwhelming that to be honest demands its confession.

Artwork courtesy of Francesca Moore

Criminals, Women's Right to Choose, and Irish Referendum (May 25, 2018)

Criminal, as a noun, is mostly non-sensical.  Good people make mistakes and vice versa.  Hypocrisy too often rules, with judgment.  Paul H., a former Berkeley roommate, shared that "Criminals are strategic:  They want the most with the least amount of effort."  Unless one has time for a Socratic discussion, it's mostly a waste of time to try to convince another that Criminal is vacant term.  For instance, how many convictions does it take for you to consider the person a criminal?  The illogic may usually be teased out within a three to four questions.  The strategic part really got me.  They want the most with the least amount of effort.   Hmmm . . . .  Don't we all?  Any other desire/ ambition elevates inefficiency.   Consider the richest people in the world.  For the most part, they make money off investments; very few make significant money from work.  

The Irish are voting on Abortion today.  Actually, a better/ more accurate phrasing may be voting on allowing the poor access to abortion.  Fortunately, wealthy Irish females deciding to exercise their right over their body must presently absorb the inconvenience of getting a visa and traveling to England, but they are not at the mercy of traditions established by males.  Further, as the following comment is made by a person with Irish roots -- an introduction similar to that which permits blacks to use the n-word with moral impunity, but fatally condemns a white person.  The Irish are fairly unique among first world countries that kill(ed) each other on the basis of religion, until recently.  [Political judgments involving governments excluded].  Protestants and Catholics stopped killing one another something like three hundred years ago, except in Ireland.  No wonder the country is tied up in knots as to a poor woman's right to control her own body.

The same principle holds true for domestic (USA) laws, as to the wealth factor.  Abortion is legally recognized in several of the United States.  Accordingly, state legislators from states continually dreaming up restrictions consistent with so-called Pro-life (anti-women's rights) groups and constitutents.  If Democrats were bright(er), they would frame a woman's right to control her own body not only as involving privacy and gender rights, but significantly as affecting fundamental economic fairness, a term for far too long unrecognized.

Women and Profanity; DFW (May 25, 2018 - 2nd)  

Women who use a lot of coarse/ foul language on-line or in real life usually do not succeed with particular regularity with men.  However much men may like their partner to be 'one of the guys' as it involves traditionally male dominated activities, fishing, hunting, etc., the language does not sit well with guys looking for a mate.  It's chauvanistic, inter alia, in that men may conclude/ judge that there is nothing as disqualifyingly unattractive in cursing.  

An article in, I think,  the New Yorker regarding DFW observed that in high school -- a period during which he was a highly ranked tennis player, he sweated so much from anxiety that he carried around a towel, and that his accompanying self-conciousness was so equally rarified that he carried around his tennis racket (to invite an inference from those around him that the sweat they saw was the protect of his athleticism).  A cynic, I suppose might ask whether DFW wasn't really trying to show off or feature the conceit of a tennis star during non-tennis hours?  For anyone prepared to indulge the speciousness of the question.  See Charlie Rose Interviews of DFW.  DFW appears among the most acutely self-aware human beings born since said time as the evolutionary progress legimated the term's award.  As important, the lesson, point should issue:  Self-consciousness is Wholly Independent from an Ability to Achieve Great Things, no matter how improbable the mirror's appearance may seem.  That's a lesson from DFW.

Best Sticker Ever (May 25, 2018 - 3rd)

I'd seen the car/ sticker once before and not since for six months.  Back today, glad.

There's Always One in the Bunch that Just has to Go Ruin it for Everyone Else  (May 26, 2018)

"'Mr. Weinstein did not invent the casting couch in Hollywood,' Benjamin Brafman said, referring to the practice of a person in power demanding sex in exchange for career advancement. " (Los Angeles Times, page A-1, May 26, 2018).  

No he surely didn't invent it, but his boorish, allegedly criminal manner of employing it has pretty much ruined the gig for dozens of other directors, producers and studio executives.  How many of them are bemoaning the end of their inglorious practice of extracting sex for promises (illusory, real or otherwise) of stardom or a shot at something approaching it?  

The Casting Couch, an institution in Hollywood for time immemorial or as long as celluloid was first utilized to market entertainment, is suddenly derailed or at least dealt a crippling blow by a guy who couldn't (allegedly) -- from the perspective of practitioner beneficiaries, play the game by the time honored rules.  No outright force or at least infrequently applied with a modicum of restraint.  The promise is, by lay observer standards, the trick.

There's always that guy who has to go and ruin it for everyone else.  Same kind of deal with fraternity hazing.  The positive upshot:  How many dozens, hundreds or thousands of fewer women will be sexually abused and victimized because the ugly, not so secret practice finally achieved the societal vilification it deserved but was denied for decades?  That's an award, for social contribution, that Uncle Harv might deserve.   If he's convicted, maybe Brafman can cast  the positive effect as mitigation legacy in hastening the CC's fall.

Implicit Governmental Pro-Prosecutorial Bias  (May 26, 2018 - 2nd)

If you survey 100 or 1,000 persons, or pick a number, in America and ask, "Do you feel the government is competent?" the percentage of No's would be substantial.  Yet go into any criminal courtroom, where the government is solely responsible for the charging decision and the overwhelming majority of prospective jurors figure, he (less frequently she) wouldn't be here unless she was guilty.  The invariable working assumption is that the government got it right, even as human beings populate the offices that make stops and initiate charging decisions.

Consider Confirmation Bias.  A police officer is on New Year's Eve patrol on DUI enforcement duties along a bar drag.  Person A (coincidentally an African American, but not necessarily so) had one beer and exactly more.  However, A now has alcohol on his breath.  Our friend, A at 12:15 a.m., leaves the bar, and as he's driving down bar drag, feels his phone go off in his pant's pocket and knows he shouldn't but reaches down just to see who it is, not to talk.  As he shifts his weight to get his hand into his pocket, the car drifts a couple of feet and back again as A grabs his phone, checks out it's a call from his mother, and shoves it back in it's pants.

Alert officer sees the weaving, on DUI duty, suspects he may have a violator activates his emergency lights and initiates a traffic stop.  Police Lights = Panic.  A's heartbeat probably jumps by a factor of two within three seconds of seeing the lights.  She may not pick out the most immediately accessible spot to pull over (another sign duly noted as suggestive of intoxication).  Upon being contacted, the officer detects the unmistakable smell of beer.  How much have you had to drink?  One drink sir.  Boom, that's what they all say, though more say two drinks.  

After fumbling for the wallet and stressing out over where the G** damn license is, Field Sobriety Tests follow, aka Exercises Under Stress (EUS's).   Like many of us, A can't hold one foot up for long on the resting ground, lest on a street past midnight with patrol car lights and a flashlight peering, guy in a uniform who can arrest me more critically note taking than the gymnast Karoli guy.  Oops, also missed again on the finger count test.  Silver appearing bracelets and condescending admonishment about endangering good citizens follow.  Maybe A gets treated to a few, unexpected fast stops which result in bruising facial injuries, owing to his intoxication.  Convinced unfairly treated throughout, A refuses the breath test, which -- upon reading the police report, the prosecutor effectively argues was only refused because A knew the result that the jury already knows, like the prosecutor, beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's just a DUI.  Consider the specter of confirmation bias when tens or hundreds of hours are invested in confirming that which appears, it seems, obvious.  But wait, only guilty people get arrested.

Miramar National Cemetery, San Diego, Ca.  (May 28, 2018)

Thank You Veterans and My Dad and Those Incredible People who volunteer their time to place flowers on the graves of veterans, sailors, soldiers, airmen, leathernecks and aviators personally unknown to them.  

False Hope Beats No Hope  & The Seven Deadly Sins (May 30, 2018)

The merits of paternalism, whatever they may be said to represent, pale against the right to self-determination, without governmental obstruction, at least when consideration of harm to others is absent.  So, it's disappointing that House Democrats largely voted against the "Right-to-Try" bill which passed the House 250-169 (months after Senate approval).  The measure -- signed into law by Pres. Trump, improves access by persons suffering from terminal illness to experimental drugs.  

Assuming arguendo  unapproved drugs are likely less efficacious than FDA approved ones, terminal patients desperate for some hope need not be blocked by FDA regulatory approvals.  Who is the government to step in to block a person with a terminal illness from attempting some seeming far fetched medicine, drug, balm, salve, etc.?  It might kill you; okay, but if you're suffering from a terminal illness the risk is definitionally severely tempered.  Besides don't deny terminal patients access to the Patron Saint of Hope:  The placebo effect.

The Seven Deadly sins are (allegedly) Pride, Wrath, Lust, Sloth, Gluttony, Greed and Envy.  That's it.  From my personal experience, the worst two -- in terms of physical and/or emotional reaction, would seem to be Selfish and Fat.   Let's start with Fat.  It's in there, for the most part, with Gluttony.  I'm too often guilty of that one, but in my own defense does that really rank among the lowest of the low human behaviors or predispositions?  No (* my opinion).

Then consider Selfish.  Selfish, amongst a community of beings, perhaps impresses me as the most hard-hitting criticism one might level against another.  In fact, it pretty much covers Lust and Envy and Greed and Pride, and Probably wrath.  The upshot:  Selfishness and Gluttony must be The True Deadly Two.   

This is Not a Love Song  - Public Image Limited (June 1, 2018)

No web-site, it seems to me, should be a shrine to another artist's art.  That said, DFW's The Infinite Jest spectacularly amazes.  The liner/ back cover and other reviews speak to the book's thematic focus on Entertainment.  And DFW is (was) a brilliantly comedic philosophical storyteller.  The book is an Academic Treatise and Classically Artistic Ode to and better develops and more intelligently and viscerally details Depression and Addiction (and Religion) than any writing or artwork I've ever encountered.  Plus, you are gifted philosophy and psycho-social insights.  Examples:

-  "The idea that achievement doesn't automatically confer interior worth, is (to adolescents), still, at this age, an abstraction, rather like the prospect of their own death."  (p. 693);

-  "Forget so-called peer-pressure.  It more like peer-hunger.  No?  We enter a spiritual puberty where we snap to the fact that the great transcendent horror is loneliness, excluded encagement in the self."  (p. 694) ...  "[W]e're all lonely for something we don't know we're lonely for.  How else to explain the curious feeling that he goes around feeling like he misses somebody he's never even met?  Without the universalizing abstraction, the feeling would make no sense"  (n. 281);

-  "The authorative term psychotic depression makes Kate Gompert feel especially lonely.  Specifically the psychotic part.  Think of it this way.  Two people are screaming in pain.  One of them is being tortured with electric current.  The other is not.  The screamer who's being tortured with electric current is not psychotic; her screams are circumstantially appropriate."  (p. 696);

-  On AA and addiction:  "Joelle is hitting the Reality is For People That Can't Handle Drugs Group."  (p. 707).   "Fearful partly because the Ennet (Recovery) House Staff strongly discourages residents forming any kind of sentimental attachment to member of the opposite sex . . . .   This is a corollary of Boston AA's suggestion that single newcomers not get romantically involved for the first year of sobriety.  The big reason for this, Boston AAs with time will explain if pinned down, is that the sudden removal of Substances leaves an enormous ragged hole in the psyche of the newcomer, the pain of which the newcomer's supposed to feel and be driven kneeward by and pray to have filled by Boston AA and the old Higher Power, and intense romantic involvements offer a delusive analgesic for the pain of the hole, and tend to make the involvees clamp onto one another like covalence-hungry isotopes . . . .   Relevant gnomes here might include 'Addicts Don't Have Relationships, They Take Hostages' (sic) and 'An Alcoholic is a Relief Seeking Missile.'"  (n. 292(a), p. 1054).

The New Yorker Movie Critic Anthony Lane  (June 2, 2018)

Anyone who ever aspires to professionally review movies surely better read Anthony Lane's review of "Solo: A Stars Wars Story" and "How to Talk to Girls at Parties."  The New Yorker, June 4 & 11 th, 2018, p. 102-03.  Knowledge of that which came before is critical to intelligent commentary, and smart humor helps a good deal.

Warren Buffett Investing Advice (June 3, 2018)

Warren Buffett is indisputably financially brilliant.  He recently shared advice that included the statement, Being contrarian has no special value over being a trend follower.  (See CNBC, June 1, 2018).   Buffett went on to explain it's a matter of looking at the underlying numbers.  Still, how often has the investing community mocked trend followers?  Contratrian is Intellectual; in fact Trend Following is the exact opposite of what studious types determine early on to defeat, in an overall life's a longer game than high school sort of way.  Warren delivers a blow to investors determined to stand cooly on the other side of the gym or fish from the uncrowded side of the boat.   Question for discussion:  Does it all prove out in the end, generally speaking?

Quote and Poem from Dad   (June 7, 2018)

My dad, by profession, was an Attack (bomber)/ Fighter pilot in Vietnam, Strategic Theorist of What the Government Did Wrong in the War, and Aeronautical Engineer.  Very technical thinking guy.  As a kid he told me, "Mechanical problems don't get better by themselves."  

As to his poetry (as a child growing up in Alamagordo, NW, and Springerville, AZ), he wrote the following as a kid:  A fly was buzzing like a bee; it went so fast it could not see; upon a window it did splat; and said -- it takes nerve to do that.

The kid that wrote that later dutifully flew 111 Combat Missions and won, inter alia, the Distinguished Flying Cross and Purple Heart.

General Admission Concert Attendance, Dogs & Anxiety  (June 10 -11, 2018)

Saw Jack Russell's Great White at a small venue.  Despite arriving hours early, learned the price of front row viewing involves not only physical presence, but rhetorical defense.  "You're tall (you need to move back)," apparently represents a morally effective and defensible accusation by late arriving companions.  As it involves General Admission attendance, want a great spot, get there early, was my initial thought.   Still, the barage of you're tall (and at 6'0', not even all that tall), by one particularly determined female had a measure of persuasive effect and she eventually ended up in front of me.  Good for her, I thought.

Vis-a-vis the Kooks principally early 20's crowd, the Jack Russell Great White crowd included two fifty(?)-something front row (early arriving) wheel-chair bound women, one with the clear plastic oxygen tube that telegraphs more serious health problems.  Both were good people, with attendant care takers, one of whom looked terribly bored with the experience, until JR started.  The band was terrific, though anyone familiar with Great White and Jack Russell might reasonably be concerned about Mr. Russell's health.  He is among the most -- with an appreciation for history -- 10,000 talented human beings, at least in the context of contemporary music.  Notwithstanding a "VIP -- meet and greet) ticket, I elected to keep my first row stand in artistic preference for seeing the artist, over meeting the artist.  For those interested in 80's rock, Mr. Russell, Mr. Meneketti (sp?), and Mr. Dokken are among the most respect deserving.

Dogs experience anxiety.  Listen to yours sigh sometime.  Your dog's day was just as stressful as any traffic wasting, co-worker interaction, meeting boss expectations day of the best paid, even as that's seldom the definition of hardest working and most deserved.  The point is your dog put in another day of doing his/ her best.

Drug Addicted, Natural Born, or Solipsism?  Romanticism and The Infinite Jest  (June 12, 2018 -ed. 5/04/19)  

"If a halfway-attractive female so much as smiles at Don Gately as they pass on the crowded street, Don Gately, like pretty much all heterosexual drug addicts, has within a couple of blocks mentally wooed, shacked up with, married and had kids by that female, all in the future, all in his head . . . ." 

Addiction aside, what percentage of men are like that?  Romantically lonely/ ravenously romantic?  Falling in love with beautiful girls walking down the street and imagining a future.  It's not limited to addicts, probably.  There is a romanticism among some men that condemns them as to happiness, unless famous -- in which case the failure of romanticism is invariably diminished, if only through the incremental loss of youth.

What percentage of humans meeting minimal Maslow's hierarchy physical hierarchy needs nonetheless ache for some unfilled emotional canyon, and -- as grotesquely crude as it sounds and must be, is the comparative need any less urgent than that of a being denied the luxury of contemplating self-actualization, so to speak?  From my own personal fly on the wall of life perspective, most people seemingly walk around reasonably contented with their lot in life, even as they stream into and fro the corner liquor store.  DFW does a marvelous job of developing AA themes, including reducing the impossibility of witheringly enduring a projected panic of un (or under) fulfilled days into a day-by-day (second by second, if necessary) stop motion production.  

Is Achieved (Sustainable) Romanticism ever actualized on the Maslow scale or is the curse uniquely DNA tied to addicted (aka OCD (?)), non-AA salvaged, personalities?

Wedding Congratulations and (Non-USA TV viewable) World Cup, and Immigration (June 16, 2018)

We routinely congratulate each other upon news of a Wedding, even as it invariably seems only one half of the couple's family like ever believes the union is deserving or worthy of their child's partner.   You married over your head or punched over your weight, you crazy, modest bastard, you probably did but -- I suspect the aversion/ representation/ statement you make to someone you're trying to impress is -- probably, less than 50% of the time true.  I, incidentally, do not lay claim to an estimate of the percentage of time said assertion might be objectively assessed to have been spoken with a genuineness of spirit by the speaker, assuming arguendo determination of said percentage could be reliably be ascertained.

About the World Cup, why can't I watch it on any USA TV cable station, even it's something that usually only runs qualifying Ivy league qualifying La Crosse tournaments, e.g., FoxSports or (to avoid allegations of political bigatory, ESPN2).  The answer, it seems to me, is the product of Russian sanctions -- about which as a general matter, I have no problem -- but come on, with World Cup, let's air the games.

One last (admittedly political point), I cannot believe Pres. DJT supports/ permits/ abides separating alleged illegal border crossers from their minor children, particularly of the toddler, where the parent is THE irreplaceable/ unique/ the center of my universe which is the only thing that keeps small beings tethered to an existence that is not exclusively defined by fright. 

The Secret to Success  (June 19, 2018) 

Dr. Saffian was my dentist as a child.  Really loved him because after each appointment he led me to a drawer which contained toys and let me pick one out.  The other thing was that he was a talker.  Among the lessons I learned as he probed around my mouth and do what dentists do, was his counsel to me about life, "ABC."  The secret to life, according to Dr. Saffian, was Ability, Breaks and Contacts.  I didn't think much about it at the time, but remember his chatty comment more than others.

Read Robert Caro's trilogy, though by now maybe it's up to four volumes about LBJ.  Suppose I was interested in what made this appearing less than charismatic figure President of the United States.  The answer, lesson I took from Caro -- apart from LBJ's great personality, is that individual success is -- for the most part, the product of a person endearing himself to another that has power.  In LBJ's case, it was -- as best I understand, his ability to cultivate great affection and protectiveness from/ by Congressman Sam Rayburn and Senator Richard Russell, Jr.   Rayburn, from my reading, loved LBJ like the son he never had and Russell loved LBJ, believing he was best situated and committed to maintaining the South's rejection of Equal Rights.  Either way, both men adopted and promoted LBJ.   Then, JFK -- realizing he needed the south, turned to LBJ who by force of Russell's and Rayburn's pull supported and identified LBJ as the southern son.  LBJ, from a reading of Caro was peternaturally coniving in his own right and blessed with a storyteller's charm.  But, what won him his spot and ultimately the presidency was his ability to charm older men that held power.  

Hats Off or 'Props' to Anthony Lane (June 20, 2018) 

Famous author James Patterson and former President Bill Clinton collaborated on a recent book.  When I read the first review, I immediately thought -- Clinton gave him (Patterson) some insights and spent some time generally discussing the direction of the book, and ... Patterson wrote it.   Working through this week's New Yorker ran into a review of the book.  Okay, interesting, paused and went about doing whatever needed doing.  The New Yorker is a weekly banquet.  There is simply too much to read and digest; apart from the cartoons, you've got to pick and choose.  

When I returned to the buffet-line, I saw Anthony Lane (the revered movie critic!) wrote the article.  Writing to share one gaspingly brilliant critic only comment:  "All of which brings us to another famous William.  Bill Clinton, who can write, has hooked up with James Patterson, who can't, but whose works have sold more than three hundred and seventy-five million copies, most of them to happy and contented customers for whom good writing would only get in the way."

Behold failed writers, it's not your fault -- it's just that the powers that be prefer S'y writing.  But even better, dear reader, Mr. Lane is either (1) flagrantly insulting you (as a fan and reader of Mr. Patterson), or (2) appealing your elitist intellectual self-impression that Patterson writes Pop books beneath your The New Yorker reading sensibilities, so you get Mr.  Lane's joke.   Not knowing the breakdown (demography?) of The New Yorker's readership, i.e., does it represent an intellectual subset of those that recreationally read, or do most people who read James Patterson novels never bother to think about reading The New Yorker (or perhaps other periodicals).  How wide is the crowd out there that reads, I guess.

Onto The Poet, a book by Michael Connelly.  -- kinda apprehensive of what Mr. Lane might think, but he's an engaging writer.  Very good.  In three days, over page 400 both a function of Mr. Connelly's ability to write engaging fiction and gratefully received affirmation that I can still read at a level that would satisfy Fifth Grade Standardized testing (absent the pre-feeding of answers which allegedly previously happened in Georgia, I think).

Success & James Patterson a Plagarist? (or More Meaningless Nonesense Thoughts; How's that Grab You?)  (June 21, 2018) 

As to Dr. Saffian's ABC formula to success (Ability, Breaks and Contacts), the more Contacts, the more likely to catch an opportune Break -- statistically speaking.  Thus, it follows, being a People Person is an inherently/ objectively positive quality, assuming as we do that success is likewise objectively positive, in the event the (People Person) status is a personality characteristic subject to choice.  Don't think it is.

On the subject of friendship, the Key is Conversation, it seems to me.  Spousal or Otherwise.  Your best friends are people you can talk with.   Connections?  Yeah, you may feel and believe and know you have a connection with another.  Maybe you do, who knows?  Realizing it (the connection) depends on whether and how well you can talk, unself-consciously converse about things involving mutual interest.  Then you have a friend.

The read (my read) of Anthony Lane's review of the Clinton/ Patterson revealed a scandalous revelation.  (David Denby, by the way, is another terrific The New Yorker reviewer, though -- shamefully, I don't recall seeing his work recently and inadvertently neglected to Google research his present status.)  In the review by my reading, Mr. Lane does all but just about accuse James Patterson of plagarism in his (Lane's) review of the Clinton/ Patterson collaboration, The President is Missing.

Lane writes, "...   As a collaborator, (Patterson's) the top.  Barely can he sketch an outline without reaching for a sidekick.  So numerous are his assistants that one has to ask, less in snotty disapproval than in ontological awe, how many of Patterson's books are actually 'his,' and to what extent is he a writer at all, as opposed to a trademark or a brand. . . .   Last year in a splendid article in Digital Humanities Quarterly, Simon Fuller and James O'Sullivan applied stylometric analysis to a variety of Patterson's texts -- much as earlier scholars attempted to sift the Fletcher from the Shakespeare in 'Henry VIII' - reported that 'Patterson's collaborators perform the vast majority of the actual writing."

On the Subject of Indoor Cats and their Functional Equivalents, Part I  (June 23, 2018)

"Foundation," to wit, a witnesses knowledge/ expertise about a subject is considered important to the weight their opinion(s) is/ are properly accorded.  Makes sense.  I spend about an hour a day at the local (small -- under 25 lbs.) dog park.   The park is probably 100 yds long and maybe 25 yards wide, at it's widest.  It borders a busy sidewalk and four lane roadway, bounded by 6 ft. chain link fence which borders the adjacent sidewalk.  It's a five minute or so drive from my house and the adjacent lot has good parking.  From my experience, some dogs are impressively social and play together (e.g., a particular pair whose owners thereafter planned and regularly meet to facilitate the obvious friendship).  Others will (seemingly) happily chase around in circles with like minded beings for a bit.  French bulldogs are among the cutest, as their short legs and thicker body type -- upon sharp stops, will send them rolling.  Other dogs, like mine (Clooney) will smell around for a good long time but seldom engage with another.

A more marked, common occurrence happened again today.  The dogs in the patch/ park are happily (or not so happily but peaceable co-existing).  The guardians of one of the dogs leaves.   Instead of driving away, she started down the adjacent street driveway.  A plurality of the dogs, who had henceforth been contented with their lot, suddenly went beserk.  I'd seen it before, a dog unknown (or now apparently known) outside the fence represents a presence deserving of fierce barking energy.  A difference was that two minutes earlier the dog was in their midst and no source of any particular attention.

Government Surveillance (June 26, 2018)

Are we surveilled?  There is something coincidentally flattering.  The government is interested in what I think?  If there is an FBI agent reading this unextraordinary prose on a regular basis, it's worthwhile to consider the possibility of affecting their inner life.  Read an article about Social Investing and Effective Altruism and belief they are related, even as I'm highly uncertain of my ability to explain their connectedness.  Almost like a math equation to lay out to sastisfactorily prove.

Social investing involves, as I understand, picking investments consistent with socially responsibly acting public enterprises.  Making good person judgments in other words.  Let me show/ demonstrate my moral/ ethical superiority with the endowence of my investing dollar.  Regrettably, I'm far too judgmental for my own taste.  So, I'm fine to say making money decisions are best bounded by making money.  Send money to fight cancer, but if Altria is going to outperform the market, that's the purpose of the market.

As to Effective Altruism, to wit (as best I understand) applying practical reasoning to the inherent good of giving, you'll never eat an ice cream again without feeling guilt/ anxiety.  Give a dollar to the cashier at Jack-in-the-Box as I highly recommend, could you be better devoting that dollar?  It's too much too get too caught up in whether a non-profit enterprises' admin percentage is 10 or 12 percent.  Pick what makes you feel good.  That's the purest altruism, qualified only in the context of an inherently selfish beings ability to experience altruism, excepting only heroes.

Deadliest Catch and Personal Responsibility (Jan 26, 2018 - 2nd)

Consider the deckhand that is tasked with deciding whether a borderline length/ age crab is 'legal' to keep.  Talk about making life and death decisions.  Candidly, I'd get PTSD in less than an hour of quote successful fishing, worsened only by any Judas like monertary bonus paid at the end of the trip.  At Boalt (law school), I was asked to research whether Lobsters feel pain.  I don't know the answer, even yet, though praise the intelligence/ wisdom of the professor who assigned the question.  The class was Advanced Legal Research, about which I was myself highly insecure about my ability, until he shared "We'd have called it Remedial Legal Research, but they wouldn't allow us to give credit."  

Old Spice Deoderant (June 28, 2018)  

Proctor & Gamble not only manages to insult your Grandmother(s), but their purchasers too.  Guessing the invited inference is you'll get sex like your grandfather if you use this.  Guys@P&G:  Is it supposed to be funny, or is your thought our consumers are either that stupid, uneducated and/or unsophisticated to laugh, smile, internally laugh or smile, or think it's funny?  Forget, for one moment, that some P&G executive presumably approved planting this on every red stick of Old Spice.  Think about the Corporate Brainstorming meeting and or outside Advertisting Firm who made a presentation, where the idea won out. 

FYI - in personal defense, didn't look at the back side until after returned home; and my sense of (politically/ social) progressive outrage is, regretfully, less -- at least as it involves a deoderant whose smell I don't mind, than consideration of the subjectively viewed purposeless (boycott-like) exercise of walking back to the store to ask for a refund -- or complain with a negative comment to a presumably good human being,  store-clerk who already has enough on his/ her busy, underpaid, under-appreciated hands without having to deal with the social views of a customer who, in his own right either has too much time on his own hands, or is way too sensitive on what bullsh** expressions advertisers choose to post on the back of their smartly plastic designed encased consumer hygiene products -- or, who maybe should have taken an extra two seconds to turn the product around to critically assess it's secondary/ tertierary (?) marketing pitch.  In fact, props to the Placement Managers who, at least, had the good sense to recognize damage minimizing placement.  Just a thought:  Suspect a team principally gender comprised of men came up with the idea, and the executing product placing team had at least one female, though maybe that's giving P&G too much credit.  

Unbalanced World Cup (June 28, 2018 - 2nd)  

Unfair is the best word I can think of.  Left vs. right side.  Except for Spain, it's not the strongest roster of teams.  As a Germany (flamed out this WC) fan, looking at Sweden, who Germany was highly fortunate to beat in Group competition on one of the most amazing kicks ever occuring in the World Cup, respectfully.  Germany, however, fell apart against South Korea -- who, no doubt deserve strong credit.  Separately, it's tough to be hungry on the top of the mountain, and Germany -- like most others before it, fell off, satisfied with its full belly.  The main beneficiary, a highly efficient Sweden team enjoys an almost gifted trip to the Finals.  And, if Spain gets tripped up along the way, all the better.  

Disclaimer:  Spain is the favorite, and I'm an underdog fan.  It's not Racial; how could you have thought that, unless you harbor a racial bias or undue racial sensitivity.  Indeed, Germany (obviously lost) the year Spain won the World Cup, so I harbor a measure of resentment toward teams that have between Germany, including also France, Italy and Argentina.  As a fan, I like my team and don't like the teams that triumph over my team which invariably -- even if you pick a disproportionately winning team, will happen more times than most.  England will quadrentiannally, assuredly choke -- nothing personal England, the term 'choke' is not intended in the sense of over stressed, rather that -- I'm not sure how else to put it, despite an intrinsic sense of superiority, you're not? 

If I were betting in Vegas, my $20 goes for Uruguay.  I know nothing of the country, except that it's in South America and is frequently overlooked in favor of Brazil and Argentina, it has a twin, Paraguay, and pretty much otherwise -- apart from the good company of Columbia, is a pretty incredible stand out.  In the Anglo media, Iceland -- deservedly got a lot of play.  In a racially fair world, Uruguary might be our favorite and is mine.  The toughest draw?  France vs. Argentina.  Neither deserves to be eliminated in the round of 16.  Recommendation:  Seed the teams, by international score, between the brackets.  This term the left siders have an indifferently steep hill to climb.

Herb Caen Three Dot Journalism and Nature vs. Nurture  (July 4, 2018)  

At Pacific Beach today, two F-14's flew by today paralleling the beach, a highly unusual occurrence.  Was it an intentional display to promote patriotism and, indirectly appreciation for the significant amounts taxpayers pay for the aircraft, or was it two young military pilots thought -- what the heck let's fly by the beach today.  ...  The most imaginative tattoo I've seen was a faux (?) UPC label on a guy's neck.  Impressive as to the existential meaning regarding the value of life, I suppose.  An interesting question is whether the sporter undertook to design/ consider the particular computer meaning of the code.  Or maybe UPC code tattoos are sufficiently common that the sporter just pointed to it in the album that tattoo customers may flip through, in which case did the designer consider the meaning or just, essentially, copy a random UPC code.  Not sure. ...

Of our four dogs, two are metaphorically high maintenance.  Elsa, having as quickly become habituated to her daily walk as a patient receiving morphine injections (sentient beings quickly identify patterns); and Clooney, who likewise has become excited about a daily (small) dog park visit.  Incidentally, the adjoining large dog park is barren/ all dirt, and seldom populated while the small dog park area is green grass populated with a visitor yesterday offering me her opinion that the grass is not cut often enough.  

The other two dogs (Piper and Berkeley) are low maintenance, never desiring to leave the house.  Commenting on the coincidental and unforseeable non-statistical even split in bringing home a high or low maintenance companion, Kim countered with the view we failed to adequately socialize Berkeley and Piper.  Hmm.  Setting aside value judgments on agoraphobia, why would a suitably socialized dog prefer one lifestyle over another?   In an era of blatant identity theft, risks may inhere in sharing family dog names, though the specter runs smack into the dumb riddle (it seems to me) of the 'if a tree falls in the forest' trope.  

The LA Times Sports section today featured, as an advertisement, a re-print of the interestingly spelled (and full of complaints) Declaration of Independence.  Reading it causes me to reflect on the subsequent and separately occuring thought that the election of Pres. Donald J. Trump perhaps represents the most worrisome moment in US political history.  (Hillary Clinton's election, in my view, would also have qualified as a disquieting event; party establishment entitlement is itself similar to a monarchy/ noblesse oblige).   Personally, Jill Stein impressed me.

Yes, it's early, but I'm optimistic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will become our Nation's first female President, when she turns old enough  ...  Donald Trump is a dangerous President, though maybe the 'founders' of the Country, who permitted slavery might have approved of him; in turn, maybe Trump truly reflects and enshrines the values of America as it was originally established and upheld as an ideal of conservatives.   ...   The Declaration of Independence is a relic of a bunch of white men, albeit a high minded one only as it involves their own liberty interests.   

The upcoming appointment of a Sup. Crt. Justice is Important as it involves the future of Roe v. Wade.  If Trump gets his way, as is likely if only because Sen. Joe Manchin is more interested, in my opinion, in re-election than in standing for (or at least supporting) a woman's right to choose, then a plurality of white males will  have succeeded in forcing poor women to carry pregnancies to term, irrespective of their wishes.  Where is their (women's, especially economically dis-advantaged ones) Declaration of Independence?   Wealthy girls and daughters, deserving in a sort of slip-stream resemblemance will still find re-productive rights in California, which despite its own excesses and moral viciousness, including the original "Three Strikes" which saw hundreds sentenced to life in prison for 'third strike' simple possession of drugs, petty theft with priors and other non-serious 'third strike' offenses, maintains a measure of  -- albeit at times miniscule, social consciousness.

The Death Penalty, Nevada, Paralytic Agent,  and Scott Dozier  (July 12, 2018)

The State of Nevada seeks to execute convicted killer Scott Dozier.  Mr. Dozier waived his appeals, sharing "Life in prison isn't a life.  Dozier told the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Sunday.  "This isn't living, man.  It's just surviving."  (LA Times, page A-6, July 12, 2018).  The distinction between living and surviving is itself an interesting subject.  While personally opposing the death penalty, I respect Mr. Dozier's right to self-determination as it involves his severely limited options.  A judge (temporarily) halted the execution because the manufacturer of one of the drugs to be used claimed the drug, Midazolam, was purchased via false pretenses/ representations.

The three drug "cocktail" -- an obscene term to assign to a drug protocol to be used to kill a human being, Nevada seeks to use involves 1) Fentanyl (a highly lethal opiate, targeted by some government officials as a significant culprit in the Opioid Epidemic which is reportedly is 100 times more potent than morphine); 2) Midazolam (a sedative); and 3) Cistatracurium (a paralytic agent).

Why use a paralytic agent which principally serves to mask the condemned's ability  to communicate pain, if the execution is botched, as numerous one's have been?  According to the government, Cistatracurium is to be used "to preserve the dignity of the prisoner."  Quite a claim by the agent of the entity (the government) that seeks to kill one of its citizens.  I have another theory:  Use of Paralytic operates to protect the feelings of the witnesses and persons employed to carry out the execution, and the voting public who reads reports of it.

Assuming as it appears is quite certain (by authority of the government) that Fentanyl is so X'ing lethal.  Why use a 'cocktail' at all.  If the government is bent on killing to show that killing is wrong, why not exclusively rely on a booster shot of Fentanyl, provided that Fenatyl is truly as dangerous as reported?  Consider, for instance, the PR if Fentanyl earns a reputation as the execution drug on public opinion.  

Use of Cistatracurium or any paralytic agent, in my view, violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against Cruel and Unusual punishment.

Hall & Oates are Great and Dog Guardianship  (July 13, 2018 - 2nd)

Hall & Oates never won their deserved measure of fame.  ... The first girl I ever loved (Vicki Hall) however briefly shared, during joint undergrad experience, that she disdained people who don't remember, post meeting, other people's names.  I'm and the absolute worst of that -- remembering other's names, principally owing to the exquisite sense of self-consciousness I typically experience being introduced to/ meeting another.  

Vicki became an M.D., i.e., she was/ is incredibly smart/ bright/ intelligent.  What to make of the proposition that she so valued/ prioritized the ability of another to remember another's name, upon introduction?  Another difference, Vicki -- my opinion, believed REO Speedwagon were (functionally) effemimate.  Really always liked REO Speedwagon.  

Regarding dogs, we are their guardians (versus owners).  They are our companions.  No problem with those who refer to themselves as dog Moms or Dads.  I personally don't, though refer to our (3) girls and little guy.   Based on my life experience, dogs (among their other quality traits) might be graphed as (Mendalian chartable) love receivers and love givers.  There may be a human analog.  Evidence:  Berkeley is Kim's favorite.  Frequently fashioned with Kim's lipstick.  Other dogs outwardly communicate/ gush love.  Absolutely sentient; dogs may be stoic.

On the Surrealness of Ageing (July 15, 2018)

Listening (again) to Hall & Oates, and separately, of course, Erasure, the reality of ageing is existentially threatening, surreal and, yes, real.

Wall Street's Treatment of Offensive Language, a Case Study:  Papa John's and Tesla  (July 16, 2018)  

Society's reaction to varying sins represents a fantastically interesting study.   Compare, for instance, the consequence of the Papa John's guy allegedly using the n* word, with Elon Musk calling a hero of the feel good story of the decade a "pedo."  How does society rank the comparative insults?  The gross discimination implicit/ EXPLICIT in a person who would use the n* word is scandalous.  Falsely calling someone Child Molester similarly represents a grievous insult.  How, if at all, does the associated corporation's survival/ success figure in the investing community's (sub-set of society's judgment, perhaps/ most likely/ certainly skewed vis-a-vis 'normal') evaluation regarding objectionableness and reasonable corporate sanction?  

My own thought is that the Papa John guy is less important to the profitability of his company than Elon Musk.   How to compare/ evaluate the wrongfulness of the N* word and falsely accusing a person of being a child molester.  Both are so wrong, but -- in my view, exist on such totally different universally planed axes to defy comparative ranking.  Both are impossibly inexcusable, among polite company.  

Greed Begets Greed:  How Much is Enough? & Walter Kirn  (July 22, 2018)

"Gavin Newsome says he won't run for president, but don't be so sure."  LA Times oped on page A -22 of today's paper.   For readers of this space, I'm not a big fan of Lt. Gov. Newsome, but don't fault his ambition.  The oped's box summary reads, "He's almost sure to win the governorship of the biggest state in the union.  Ambition breeds ambition, not contentment."    What a fascinating thought.  The same goes for greed, but I like the word begets better.  

As to the Presidency, there is a seemingly endless supply of highly talented and charismatic beings (which in real terms is sharply limited to perhaps fifty or a hundred persons in any generation, maybe a few more) who realistically -- with encouragement and objectively experienced success, can envision themselves as reaching the top rung of political success.  Recalling Robert Caro's biographies of LBJ, Senator Frank Church of Idaho was one; Senator Richard Russell of Georgia was another.  One by one, their aspirations fall away, like a dream escaping the tide of grasping fingers.

On reflection, I disagree that ambition breeds ambition.   Rather, ambition -- in whom it may be said to truly exist, presses (or eats) at its host.  Each step reaffirms the confidence that inspired the previous.  Greeds proves the hypothesis.  For those who want, including me, it strikes me that for many it's never enough.  I would be happy if only (x).  Get (x) and the goals posts move.  Newsome isn't so different at all; very little by way of achievement it seems to me begets contentement.

Walter Kirn authored the August 2018 edition of Harper's Easy Chair.   It's a non-chalant walk with his visit and meeting with a Trump supporter.  For those like me, for whom Trump represents a fisherman who pulls a trout out of a stream to watch with contentment as it gasps for air, and dies, Trump devotees represent inscrutuables -- a take perhaps on Hillary "Tone Deaf" Clinton's 'Basket of Deporables' comment.  (I'm not running for President).  Anyway, Kirn makes the point that in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's, Russia was the Bogeyman.  Liberals -- or at least some rolled their eyes at Joe McCarthy, and (for me) the John Birch society.  Right wing crazies who were paranoid about Russia.  Trump, himself a very dangerous demagogue, in my view, embraces the sensibilities of the old left ... Russia is not be irrationally feared.  

Russia certainly tried to influence the 2016 Presidential election, which Hillary Clinton incidentally won the popular vote by some 3 million plus votes.  Trump is, in my view, a very dangerous person to entrust with the Presidency, but -- and without embracing his Putin Bro-love (which is kind of strange), Kirn's point -- as I understand, is that Russia is not the existential threat to US or world security that so many of us are/ were conditioned to believe.   As I interpret Mr. Kirn's remark, Putin's take over of Crimeia is illegitimate, though it does not excuse/ explain the Democrats reversal of philosophy which now looks upon Russia with McCarthyesque suspicion.

Jocularity and the Courtroom, and Legal Ethics  (July 24, 2018)  

Either because judges sometimes get lonely or miss the give and take of litigant banter, or because they believe a criminal defendant is less than a feeling person, following closing arguments, in chambers, judges will share their personal opinion of what the jury is likely to do, sometimes expressing an personal opinion along the lines of, 'you did a great job, I bet the jury is going to acquit.'  In California state courts, at least, there is legal authority supporting the judge's role as the 13th juror.  If the jury convicts and you (the defense attorney) bring a motion for a New Trial citing --  in a declaration, the judge's informally shared (I trusted you) remark, and you're a pariah.  No judge will ever talk to you again, and all those discretionary rulings that judges are permitted to make?  Get ready to be CRUSHED.

The ethical question:  What's my duty to my current client vis-a-vis my ability maintain effectiveness to serve future clients?  Stated differently, my reputation matters to me.  The question/ subject/ issue is deserving of exposition.  The easiest answer is how stupid could a judge be to banter with attorneys.  It happens all the time, and in a small county -- well, you judge the cost of a defense attorney acting holier than though.   

As previously shared, few answers/ solutions are 0-100/ binary.   A new, brilliantly talented lawyer metaphorically represents a sappling.  If he calls out the judge (i.e., effectively humiliates by sharing a 'I'm pretty sure we all understood this was a casual/ confidential conversation), his/ her career is toast.  Best to go along with the boy's club attitude of -- hey, they're all guilty, but it's part of the game.   When, in fact, the reality is more akin to victim shaming.  Judge, you told me that you thought the jury would come back Not Guilty.  It's a Human Being's fate we're talking about.  

Jury's work hard, but sometimes (obviously) get it wrong.  Judges, most times, are selected for either (a) their favorable disposition, or (b) their reliably conservative judgment.  The need to put food on the table for one's family counsels/ directs many defense attorneys' willingness to push back, for fear of becoming a pariah -- e.g., you can't tell him anything, too often conscripts the defense attorney into a silent/ never acknowledged conspiracy against his/ her client because otherwise future clients would suffer.

Wickedness and the Value of Life (July 27, 2018 - edited)

Read the Japanese executed six more people after earlier executing seven.  Japan hangs 6 more in cult's subway gas attack, LA Times,  July 27, 2018, p. A4.  (Not even an editor's capital H on the hang?)  Thought to myself, Europeans -- who don't kill humans for criminal violations better respect the meaning of life; it (life) is cheaper in Asia.  (America deserves no star, but to read of seven and then six executions of humans in a day is disturbing, even by what I'd consider our own most red state standards, for a nation).  Then I thought about Nazi Germany's Concentration Camp sign, "Arbeit Macht Frei."  That's cruel beyond belief and/or any Japanese action.  Japan/ Asia (in context) is ignorant, Germany/ Europeans were Evil.   I credit people with the optimism to belive most humans are good natured.

Edit - It's wrong to compare a government's willingness to engage in the execution of persons convicted of crimes (an inherent wrong) to mass execution of a peoples on the basis of religion (Germany and the Holocaust -- an unforgivably wrong against Existence).   What Germans were led to accept is incomprehensible.  As half-German, guilt by association, resulting in an inherited obligation to apologize for evil or ignorant forebears.

Accordingly, Israel is supremely justified, without remotely intending to denegrade the Palestinians subjugation, in its hyper-vigilance.  Germans, reportedly, complain about the Turks.  Want to pay amends, Germans?  Merkel's judgment is right.  Palestinian, Syrian, Turk, Libyan, etc., take them all in.  Arbeit Macht Frei.  The reality is, respectfully, the world is a Melting Pot.  Hopefully, one day, as a species we may get beyond differences of religion, skin color and in what God we believe.  

Alcoholism (July 28, 2018)  

An uncle was an alcoholic and was my sister.   When I was young and my Dad told me about my uncle, I asked why he just didn't stop drinking, since drinking was ruining his life.  As best as I recall, my dad replied that his bother told him, I like to drink.  As a kid, the answer was incongruous/ insoluble.  Also as a kid, our family visited Death Valley and Scotty's Castle.  The story -- as I recall involved a doctor telling Scotty an essential organ (his liver presumably) would shatter if he had so much more as one single more drink.  I had an image of a fragile glass vessel inside Scotty.   Scotty apparently had the prohibited drink and likely many more, died, leaving his castle for tourists to hear of his alcoholism.   As an adult, I'm thinking, I would go back to Death Valley, let alone build a castle there; perhaps that's why Scotty drank, to excess.

Once during my freshman year at Berkeley, I handed out drink tickets at a dorm.  A young male approached and he was obviously already intoxicated.  He handed me tickets and I passed him on to get more, even as I was pretty sure he'd already had his allocated two.  Another time during a weekend trip to go see the SF Giants play at (then their stadium) Candlestick the group included a guy who was glad to drink vodka at 10:00 a.m.  I thought, oh gosh, this guy has a problem.

Why do people drink alcohol when/ even as the harm is objectively recognized?  Because they (as their current beings) view the decision as affording a better experience.   Then, what makes the real world so depressing that alcohol becomes the number one (perhaps) self-medicating substance?  The Opioid Epidemic may rival but doesn't supplant alcohol, but a long distance.  What's the reason alcoholics are genetically suspectible (from a Darwinian perspective); same question as to opioid dependence.   What is the common thread that ties persons to a judgment that what life has to offer is so drab that (a drug) no matter how debilitating is preferred?  Actually, phrasing it that way, perhaps it's easier to understand Scotty's  decision to pursue a more pleasurable existence in the barren desert, except there are probably/ certainly wealthy alcoholics in Beverly Hills and other more commonly considered pretty places.

Urban Meyer, Ohio State, and Title IX  (August 2, 2018)

The scandal over and suspension of Urban Meyer impress me as over-reaction.  It would be one thing if he committed an act of domestic violence, but his alleged sin is failing to report an alleged act of (misdemeanor) domestic violence committed by one of his -- since fired, assistants, of which he presumably learned through his wife.  Yes, I understand the parallels to Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, though submit there is an incomprehensibly deep chasm between failure to report allegations of serial child sexual molestation and an isolated incident of (misdemeanor) domestic violence.  DV is absolutely abhorrent, but the prospect that a person (who did not commit the act) should lose his job because he/sher failed to report an incident represents a dis-proportionate penalty, particularly in view of miscreants who -- for example, reportedly brag about being able to grab women by the genitals, and both enjoy continued employment and strong approval ratings.   

Tithing and Private Lives (August 12, 2018)  

Tithing,  giving ten percent of your income to the church, is admirable.  Delving into overthinking mode, if I choose to tithe,  to do it properly am I permitted to ask whether the 10% is calculated on the basis of gross or after-tax (net) income?  That is, am I permitted to ask about the definition of the rule in order to both adequately satisfy/ meet the goal, while simultaneously inquiring as to the accessibility of self-interested savings?  And if the thought occurs to me -- and I dare presume to ask the morally petty (it seems) question, does that diminish the moral credit, if any, to which I otherwise may be entitled upon delivery of my tithe?

Personally, my most satisfying gifts are to homeless persons (to whom there are zero indirect administrative expenses involved in delivery of the contribution, and who almost universally are exceedingly grateful and who can immediately find purpose for the gift, irrespective of the giver's judgment as to the worthiness of the resulting expenditure.  Give without making judgments.   As previously shared, I also applaud tips to fast food workers who are almost always underpaid and underappreciated.  At many coffee/ bagel shops, for instance, there are tip jars.  But no tip jars at Jack-in-the-Box, McDonald's or Carls Jr., even as employees of the latter probably endure tougher days for equal if not lower pay.

Separately, we all, it seems to me have and live private lives, that is not disclosing to others certain thoughts or experiences to others, no matter how emotionally close the others may varyingly be.  Consider, even the most open people must, I suspect, hold back.  Indeed, the expression, 'spilled his guts' is testimony to the social custom of the propriety of holding back.  Viewed differently, consider our own 'masks' a term I think I first learned reading the book Ordinary People.  

How are you different at home from work?  Everyone, or most people, at least are more or less real in different social settings in matters extending beyond practical differences of work vs. home.   A cliche involves the dad who comes home from work to proverbially kicks the dog, presumably having exhausted his patience during the day.   The cliche, I suppose, presumes we are more real at home than the forced happy smile persons encounter meeting us at work, even as most probably know of many unhappy and unpleasant people at work.  Somehow I tend to believe people unhappy at work are probably at least as unhappy at home.   Is it or how false is it (and/or how essential to survival is it) that we secret parts of our lives from others, even those about whom we most care and trust?

Consider the Lobster  (Aug. 16, 2018)

Recommended book of the month is by David Foster Wallace.  His pieces regarding Tracy Austin and 9/11 are otherworldly.  Kafka as a humorist and the dictionary as a product of bias?  Oh my gosh, any literary adult of a certain generation is blessed to find and read DFW, and to mourn his premature departure.

Coincidence and Literature (Aug. 19, 2018)  

At Berkeley among my most consequential courses was Introduction to the Study of Fiction.   The Professor's last name was Tuttle.  He was older and I wish I'd better sought to speak and interview and just talk with him.  Instead, my interest was all grade based, with the result that learning was a functional byproduct.  There is a social reward for the approach, even as an older aldult the words rue and regret may be properly attached.

Back to Professor Tuttle.  My main takeaway from the class was an author's reliance on Coincidence to advance the plot.  The best authors' designs, as I understand, minimize reliance on coindence.  The point impresses me as legitimate.  Did Professor Tuttle conjure the point, or was it even to him -- a most distinguished teacher, derivative.  Among the books we were assigned to read (ten books in a ten week quarter), I read most except Moby Dick which I found impenetrably dense and uninteresting.  The best including Pride and Prejudice, and -- an offbeat pick, John Barth's The Floating Opera.   Moll Flanders and Great Expectations were also on the list.   Read them both, and have since also listened to Great Expectations as an audio book, and ultimately found it depressing.   In the more romantic of worlds, in my view, Ms. Havisham would have been Pip's benefactor.  And Pip would have married Estella, with both finding happiness.

Curt Flood and Colin Kaerpernick (Aug. 26, 2018)

Colin Kaepernick sacrificed his (remaining/ though to a debatable degree) professional playing career to Social conscience principles, as Curt Flood decades earlier did for MLB Player Economics, even as his skills were similarly declining.  Indeed, Mr. Flood's (players' rights) stand might also be portrayed in a social justice setting (wealthy private management versus labor), though more self-interested (Flood was a player) and thus, necessarily, less noble than Mr. Kaepernick's.  

First saw Mr. Kaepernick when he quarterbacked Nevada, and watched as he ran like a gazelle in his team's victory over Cal.  He was a college and then NFL star.  But by the time he chose to make his stand, Mr. Kaepernick had thrown an interception at a supremely inopportune time in a Superbowl, and his team lost.  Subsequently Kaepernick's professional star dimmed.  (There is a longer version, including the eventual departure of 49er's coach Jim Harbaugh  -- replacement by less qualified/ inspiring person(s), signing of a big contract, and dissession amongst San Francisco's team). 

How, if at all was the timing of Mr. Kaepernick's conscience/ Social Justice actions a product of an internal judgment that his professional skills were or were at risk of, a) actually declining, or b) being professionally discounted.  Does it matter?  Curt Flood's professional career in MLB was derailed by his stand on free agency.  Mr. Kaepernick's was (my opinion) blackballed on grounds of his view regarding Police Brutality, without regard to his probably being independently accorded a lesser merit based role.   Now multiple-NFL'ers kneel or sit during the National Anthem or otherwise wish to communicate their support for a Social Justice committed response.   And for years MLB'ers have enjoyed the impunity of (sometimes) arrogantly walking the Free Agent Path.  See Scott Boras (again opinion).  

Submit at some point (if, for example, ESPN survives) we'll see a E:60 piece on Mr. Kaepernick comparing his courageous stand -- in a similarly historically significant perspective, to Curt Flood.  Kaepernick, even with his feet of clay (diminished and figured out limited athleticism) remains praiseworthy.  Willingness to take a controversial position necessarily involves a measure of risk assessment with principle (as x axis) and self-preservation (as y).  To Messrs. Flood and Kapernick's praiseworthy credit, many never find that X trumps Y.   For both, their personal albeit limited sacrifices remain and impress.

If Entertainment (Songs, Video Games, Music, etc.) Inspires Violence, then the Opposite Holds too, right?  (Aug. 30, 2018)

There is a scene in the movie Casino where Robert De Niro's character is summarily denied a fair hearing before the Gaming Board.  As the scene plays out and De Niro seeks acknowledgement the result was fixed -- he yells, at a character played by one of the Smothers' brothers, "I was at the dinner, give me that."  Alas, allow the barest of truths.  If, as some (many?) social conservatives believe, entertainment provokes violence, then admit the corollary:  Entertainment motivates (and/or feed/ promotes) peaceful movements as well.   Exhibit A from the 1960's:  Black Sabbath's song War Pigs, n.b. - the anti-war movement likely inspired BS and their song (and others') bolstered the peace movement.   Other bands more recently traded on the thesis, e.g. System of the Down, B.Y.O.B.   Give me that, at least?

Separately, the LA Times ran a piece about a bowhunter being mauled by a blackbear the hunter shot moments earlier.  The (mortally -- as we later learn) wounded bear attacked the hunter as he approached.  Having backpacked some in the Sierras, black bears are sentient creatures and unless accompanying one or more cubs, are definitely bashful -- except only perhaps if a camper has ignorantly left food lying out, and even then quite easily discouraged (first hand knowledge)  -- and highly anxious to get away from humans.   My only sympathy in the matter is for the bear.

Alcoholism.2  (Sept. 2, 2018)

The social alarm over the Opioid Epidemic is indicative of one of three potentialities:  (a) the media biases our perception to the point that we are oblivious to it; (b) the liquor/ alcohol lobbying and governmental influence is pervasively dominant; or (c) American (post-Prohibition informed) Tradition does not consider politically appropriate discussion of alcohol as an addictive substance health threat in the same league as opioids or marijuana.

Opiate overdoses kill however many thousands of persons each year.  The number pales as to alcohol related deaths.  The resulting recent indignation over those physicians who may over prescribe opioids -- reliant on a minute number of outrageously greedy physicians, ends up practically (in my opinion) denying critical pain relief to thousands of others.  As or more importantly, it keeps the public's eye off the devastation alcohol visits.

Ultimately, my point is not to bash alcohol -- a substance that provides a subjectively worthy periodic escape or 'relaxation.'  Rather my point is to comment/ observe that alcohol is 10 (or more) times more deadly in our society than opiates.  Yet politicians busily occupy themselves decrying the opioiod epidemic.   Same thing as to the federal government's (and certain states') prohibition and treatment of marijuana.   Marijuana as an Existential threat?  That is perhaps the one message in my lifetime that I believe the US government was successful in communicating.

Now, as an adult, consider the attendant risks and consequences of alcohol and marijuana.  Politics and ideas (or at least many) are inherently debatable, or there would be no reason for -- I imagine, language.  Rather than inviting/ intending to suggest a discussion regarding the comparative risks/ hazards/ benefits of alcohol and marijuana, my submission is that the alcohol industry is so powerful as to deny recognition that public discussion of the point is as over due as any matter relating to human affairs might be, excepting obvious examples such as sex trafficking and slavery.

Non-Provocative Friendship, Honesty and Flies  (Sept. 4, 2018)  

Dale Carnegie apparently wrote a book and established a highly successful program along the lines of How to Win Friends and Influence People.   Personally, and I do not mean to suggest expert talent in the field, I believe the answer is to be positive.  People like being around positive people.  But back to Dale.  Heard that among his instruction was, if you disagree with someone, don't say.   Maybe Dale was a linguist who identified a relationship between friendship and language and the word disagreeable.  

Of course there are times to keep one's differences (opinions) to oneself, but if you adopt the practice as a rule it impresses me that person is false -- giving a mis-leading impression to the other person of implied/ acknowledged agreement or acquiescence.  The Rule of Genuineness:  'Like me or don't like, I want you to like me -- if you do, for me.'  Otherwise it seems like life amounts to performance art when in public, though maybe that's what permits the highest achieving person to be successful, they agreed with Dale Carnegie.  

There are too many flies in this world.  That's an agreeable statement.  Another thing is that I never see a baby fly, meaning like a small version of a fly.  Only see full grown flies.   Driving up to the Sierras years ago, a daughter observed, 'up here the flies are slow and the ants are big.'  Both spot on statements, with which I agree. 

The Essence of Jury Trials (Sept. 4, 2018)  

A good judge in Kern County tells pre-instructs juries that a jury trial is a "Search for the Truth."   It's a beautiful sentiment and, in my experience as a Public Defender, practically naive.  A criminal jury trial, at least, in my experience is a competition between attorneys, to win.  If a prosecutor affects dis-interest in the outcome, he or she has either concluded that the appearance enhances credibility with the jury, or he/she is properly terminated for being indifferent to the outcome of their case.   Mostly if the truth plops out in the verdict it is often a coincidence, though that's an overstatement. 

Intellectually, more troubling is the fact that a "Search for the Truth" statement effectively operates to lessen the government/ prosector's burden of proof.  In criminal jury trials, the state's/ government's/ People's burden of proof is Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, the highest standard our law recognizes.  A judge's initial instruction/ education that a jury trial is a search for the truth is, irrespective of later (CALCRIM) instructions, likely to set the jury to serving as detectives.  

Jurors -- and great respect is owed to those who serve instead are present, in criminal trials, not to search for the truth, but to determine in a very clinical fashion whether the government has met its burden of proof.  Ideally the truth will be served but communicating to the jury in a manner which affirms subjective/ individual perspectives (i.e., often biases) principally serves -- in criminal trials, to offer a head start to the prosecution, internally validating the common belief that the defendant "wouldn't be here if he wasn't guilty." 

However cynical of governmental competence we generally may be, it's beyond curious to consider how we so commonly believe that the government is significantly more competent in the singular area of criminal law and reliably 'gets' the guilty person.   The belief reinforces a security and comfort in our world.  Otherwise consider how terrifying it would be to consider that authorities accuse persons (only) with the (in)competency that defines other governmental agencies.  

That's why, including the competitiveness and vanities and ambition that human nature regularly reveals, I disapprove of Judges telling juries a trial is a Search for the Truth.  The Government, in all its mite/ might (sp?), accuses a sole, lone, individual human being.   That's not a fair fight, unless the jury truly understands the burden the government is expected to heft.  

Anonymous NYT Oped by Senior White House Official  (Sept. 7, 2018 - 2nd)

How fascinating is it that a Senior White House official would trust the New York Times to keep his/ her identity a secret?  If President Trump were dead, this would truly spin him in his grave, as the saying goes.   No doubt, in my mind, that VP Pence did not author the piece.  First, he desperately wants to and (reportedly) believes he is destined to be president.  He wouldn't dare  entrust to the ethics of a left leaning publication (no matter how ethical) a secret that if revealed would destroy his dream.  Second, he apparently took a pledge to not negatively campaign.  The reverent looks he presents when photographed watching DJT convince me he is a genuine, even if a deeply troubled and mis-guided, person.  (Regarding troubled, I can't imagine a healthy human being believing they are destined by God's grace to be the President of the United States). 

Rather, I tend to think success as a politician chiefly draws from the confluence of most or all of the following qualities:  Likeability (a personality trait probably most genetically gifted); serious ambition; a willingness to live a conventionally straight life (i.e., refrain from involvement in counter-culture behaviors, at least until reaching a level of success where ego believes in a sense of untouchability); a good measure of intelligence, and money. 

Strong religious faith is essential in some areas, just as expressed liberal or conservative views are demanded in others.  So a willingness to be chameleon like, I suppose, is another consistent quality in most politicians  -- if you are truly principled, then I'll submit you can only be a successful regional or national (i.e., something more than a local candidate -- where it is somewhat natural/ predictable that a person would grow up to adopt 'community' values -- after all, that's how most biases arise) candidate if you are prepared to conform your views to the voting audience, and then sell them persuasively, and with the benefit of enough money to communicate the same to a sufficient number of voters to find purchase as genuine and convincing and hit electoral paydirt. 

Paydirt, itself, presents interesting meanings, as politics as often as not leads successful practitioners to substantial wealth, though more commonly the most successful practitioners come from it, including Bush I and II, and Trump ... respectfully.   Politics -- wealth to success; success to wealth.  

Elsa & Yogurt  (Sept. 8, 2018)

Turned on its head in my lifetime.  Writing on Deadline (Sept. 9, 2018 - edited Sept. 11, 2018)

Journalism is a profession/ avocation/ vocation, etc. (a person -- a musical instrument player, once corrected me on the difference  - making the point that playing a musical instrument for a living involves the definition that falls toward a profession).  I thought to myself -- okay, sure, having been brought up to believe there are but a handful of professions, limited to doctor, lawyer, accountant.  A child of an emigrant from Europe after WWII, I understood -- prepare yourself to be employed, evening if everything else falls to pieces (or chaos).   In the world of those who were born of WWII parent/ survivors (whether Holocaust or German), you cannot perhaps appreciate what (how much) your children learned from your experiences, now coming on 2 generations removed.

Note:  Holocaust survivors and victims had it harder than anyone, and a comparison is objectionably inaccurate and diminishes the HORROR of the Holocaust.  Rather, the comparison is better stated as a response to economic conditions during and post- WWII in Germany with the American Depression.  I apologize.

I could never play an instrument for (even) spare change in my life.  My admiration and respect for professional musicians rivals that of the same for Quentin Tarantino.  Hit it big it music and you are a hero.  Don't and it's -- I guess in my mind, a hobby, an admittedly sanctimoniously shallow based decision model.  Worst of all are those guys that sit around a fire pit and want to play covers of songs with other people happily singing along.  The idea of watching another person playing nostalgic (and/or other covers) that causes everyone to (most probably fakely) happily sing along and sway and grab the person next to them.  That's why I stay home; not my gig.  Are a bunch of people really that happy, that often together, or is the construct properly limited to beer commercials?

The point remains that jouralism as a (whatever) has been turned on its head ... by the internet.  Newspapers have folded by more than droves.   The worthiness of the tactile feel of a paper in your hands loses to the instant gratification preference for instant access to news.  The Wall Street Journal, for instance and despite their reported right-wing ownership bias, hires great writers.  But every time I sit to read their viewpoints, it's the morning following the last 12 (or so hours) news cycle.  I end up reading yesterday's news (which requires a heightened level of something approaching patience to consume, recognizing that up-to-date national and regional news is just a few feet and clicks away).

So,  Journalism (except for PGA level professional golfer comparison analog types) is/ was struck dead by the internet.  Just like Coal Mining by Climate Change.  fn.  Political influence may domestically (and, by separately by necessity in impoverished poor lands) continue to support the coal industry for the foreseeable future.  If a government, for instance, knows that certain number of people will die of hunger/ poverty if coal mining is not allowed, then 1) the government will almost always permit the activity, even if in only a limited manner;  2) people will do it illegally, if it proves necessary to survival; or 3) render a judgment based on a calculation of the marginal pick-up of voters in the next election.  

Coal will always hold some intrinsic value ... to heat homes, to provide light.  Journalism -- writing (to me) that captures contemporary events but whose writers either choose against or lack the ability to write book like pieces.  Writers, the best writers, will always survive precisely because bad times enrich the imagination/ escapism they offer in any coming depression.   If/ when tough times hits, I imagine the prioritized list of sacrifice (from first to last) reading probably goes: paper (e.g., LA Times), magazines (Harper's or New Yorker), and then and only then books.  

Yet, book writers don't confront deadlines and the creative taser that time pressure seemingly delivers.  In other words, I imagine it is devastatingly crushing to be put under deadline for a creative or humor piece.  Journalists?  It's a fact of life and i) stunts creativity; and ii) probably provokes a sense of writing triage.  Just put it on the paper.  Get the guts out, deadline is happening.  Journalists are ER doctors, they have to deal with everthing that comes in on a time essential basis.  Writers are more like medical specialists who, often, can better afford the opportunity offered by considered thought and reflection.

What's a blog then?  Obviously, it theoretically allows unlimited time to carefully craft each message.  Nope, not if you are writing for even one abstract reader.   THANK YOU if you are there.   ... Separately, there is an internal deadline to share something  new, for heaven's sakes.   Who, on earth, could not come up with one single worthy creative idea over the course of 24 hours?  Me, for instance.

Explanation:  Connectivity - Points of Conversation, journalism is dead ... journalism may not be a profession or rather is in the same way as music.   Coal has kind of died like journalism but for different reasons ...  Journalism died because of market conditions, coal for environmental ones.  Yet coal has been resurrected because of politics.  The market will kill support (or allow to die off) species that cannot independently survive, unless government steps into save it.  The California Condor is an innocuous example.  Coal is another.  Different motives in different jurisdictions.  Culturally California and Brusquely politically craven Washington, D.C., except that protecting the Coal Industry actually means a great deal to the people that live (and vote there).  If the reason for protecting the coal industry were really to look out for those people -- poor people in West Virginia, I'd respect it, more, provided at least streams and waterways were protected.

Sidewalk Art - San Diego, CA.  (Sept. 11, 2018)

The Predictable Fraud/ Falsity of Goat Yoga (Sept.  17, 2018)

Pictures and pieces about Goat Yoga are cute.  In the most recent article I saw, there was only one goat.  Not everyone is going to experience the feeling of a goat on his/ her back, at least not naturally.  Is there a person responsible for carrying the goat around from person-to-person, while one waits to do a pose that is not going to freak out the goat.  Time for you to pose so  I can put the goat on your back, hold still.  Meanwhile, what about the rest of the class?  Wait your turn and partake in the feel-good moment and smile as your classmate meets the goat, or work on your yoga poses.  The socially responsible/ courteous approach (frankly) doesn't sound like much of a real work-out, unless the goat is sort of an introduction and then everyone gets down to serious exercise.  Not really Goat Yoga then.

If I attended Goat Yoga, two things:  First, I would want free ranging Goats.  Second, I would prefer a 1 to 1 ratio (or thereabouts) of goats to participants, especially since not all goats may understand (or be interested in their role to go stand on the back of a stranger).  It's a fraud/ false experience, it seems to me, because (excepting well and properly trained goats -- and then the experience may no longer be said to be "natural")  we may presume goats -- among a room of strangers would not (statistically speaking) be expected -- as a group (or singularly) to regularly or consistently hang out until the humans took the/ a yoga pose that puts them in a position to (with reasonable comfort, as these things go) stand on a person/ or from the human perspective host a standing goat on your body.   Assuming a concidental coming together occurs, does the goat or yoga practitioner get bored or uncomfortable first?

Editor's Note:  Goats are great, and yoga may be but unless you live on a farm and are into yoga and your pet goat develops a preternatural interest in climbing on top of you while you do yoga (and even then I'd bet it might seem endearing the first time but from then on, mostly, represents an annoyance), Goat Yoga is most likely a false experience and involves disrespectful treatment of goats, though there are obviously worse treatments like killing and eating them.  Consider if a recruited yoga goat doesn't work out is he/ she more likely to end up in a pit covered with banana leaves and coals?   I'm not sure.

First World Luxury:  Value of Art vs. Live Art  (Sept. 25, 2018)

So Maslow put self-actualization atop his hierarchy of needs.  Fair enough, but it's a First World pyramid.  If you live in poverty, self-actualization might as well represent the prospect of climbing Everest's summit to a coal miner in West Virginia.  Respectfully, it's an elitist perspective on life, adventure and achievement.  Kind of obvious otherwise that survival (shelter and food) are basics, and if you have those -- and only then may you begin to think,  "Why am I here," or "What is the meaning of this thing?"   Maslow might have and his intellectual progene ought to introduce his reasoning/ writings/ teaching with, for First Worlder's with the luxury to consider this stuff, here goes:  Once you have all your physical needs met, you can think about and pursue existential meaning and/or other philosophical thought you may consider makes sense.  He's obviously correct, I think, but those with the privilege to consider his work are necessarily First Wolders.  Perhaps the nature (and value) of intellectual achievement is restricted to elites.  For who else has significant time to study, without incurring permanently destabilizing Student Debt.

You can can go the Getty Museum in LA for free.  Initially thought it was $10-15 dollars, but doing research learned the museum shares admission "is always free."  But cars/ parking costs $15, and it's tough to go almost anywhere in LA without a car.  (Discussion of Uber and its relative/ comparative costs is outside the scope of this note).  At the Getty, you can see some great art.  Or, you can pay $200 to see Beyonce, an artist of historical significance equal to those you may see at the Getty, live at a stadium during the prime of her career.   Assuming for purposes of the following the statement, admission to the Getty was $10-15, the 10x ratio fairly reflects the premium paid to experience the artist while vibrant.  Cynically, must allow that some historically significant artists continue to perform past -- and in some cases, well past, the life-term of their talent (plus a standard deviation or two).  Art: Live Art Value ratio for the later is still, most probably positive, though likely not more than 2:1 because while you are seeing the artist live, the quality of the art has materially decreased, respectfully.  In some cases, it may be only 1+.00000001, and remains positive because of the experience of sharing oxygen and laying live eyes on a legend who once created.

Organ Donation, Motorcyles, the NFL and Dog Anxiety (Sept.  29, 2018)

A recent commercial features a seemingly endless line (the cinematography is nicely pulled off to give the image) of persons we understand are in need of a liver transplant.  Into the commercial the message is interjected that there are people who really care about YOU.  Other persons, guides perhaps, are shown in the commercial accompanying people as they step out of the line and move upwards, alongside toward the front.  Apparently, if the commercial is to be believed, an outfit called UPMC can help you jump the line.  It's an incredible commercial because one thinks, I would think, the line to get a new liver is fairly administered and jumping the line, then, amounts to cheating.  Further, what does it say about the system if there is a business out there that can actually help you jump the line.

If Organ donation and transfers are truly to be meaningfully advanced by means of a public relations campaign, motorcycle companies and motorcyclists should be directly targeted for signups, similar to facilitating voter registration.  Nothing expressly against motorcyles other than a recognition that people who choose to drive them on freeways and streets (where negligence by other drivers) routinely occurs demonstrate an attitude toward risk that runs toward recklessness (a willful or wanton disregard for safety of persons or property, in California).  Yes, motorcylists can be trained to avoid accidents, etc.  The point here is not to get into a debate with motorcylists, but rather to acknowledge the reality of physics + negligence.  If you want to boost organ donation rates, sign-up more motorcyclists.

Prediction:  Within our lifetime the NFL will fail, with the most remotest sort of analog to the popularity of Lions eating Christians (which is really a bit too much vis a metaphor (editorial note)), and more recently, professional boxing.  Football is great to watch.  It's also an inherently dangerous sport from a brain damage perspective.   Play football, get hit in the head, get hit in the head enough times (i.e., play football long enough) and you'll likely get CTE, Chronic Traumatic Encepalopathy.   Society demonstrates probably an overwillingness to permit entertainment assume the form of physical harm to others in the spirit of competition.  Eventually however our better instincts prevail.  

The expression, "You want a friend, Get a Dog," is generally imbued with a perjorative meaning.   The brighter reality is that it beautifully captures the majesty of dogs.   Become a guardian to a dog, and he/she will be your friend.  No guile, no pretense.  100% yours, excepting only traits of behaviorial mistrust wrought by abuse before she/he was yours.  Also, some dogs have anxiety.  Some dogs, in fact, would probably benefit from (and some no doubt are given) anxiety reducing medication, generally a pill.  Unfortunately, some dogs that probably don't need anxiety medication are nonetheless administered, so the population of dogs with anxiety is (statistically) not a circle within another comprised of dogs being treated would precisely or neatly fit.   

The idea of dogs experiencing anxiety and/or reflecting on whether or how best to empathize represents another uniquely First World concern.  As frankly does the notion of jumping line to speed up eligibility  for/ access to a Life Saving Liver Transplant, respectfully.

Why Wait When You Need a Liver Transplant? (Oct. 1, 2018)

Truly astonishing.  Maybe the last innocence lost is learning that if someone needs an organ (liver) transfer -- i.e., a procedure which necessarily presupposes the death of another and which thus ought to be administered with honor, is that the process is not -- if advertising is to be believed fair.   On the positive side, the innocence lost will necessarily occur as an adult when concepts of life's tendency toward some measure of unfairness was long ago the subject of disabuse.  Still, jumping the line strikes me as unethical, and advertising the service ought to be illegal and punished.  (If the answer is that UPMC is simply an outfit that creates it's own in house list and beat the proverbial bushes harder and better than most for persons willing to donate their organs to UPMC, the television commercial is nonetheless disturbingly misleading -- in my opinion, because it shows people leaving a thick snake like line of people (presumably in need of the same lifesaving procedure) from far down in the line's body to be treated as a VIP and escorted to the front.  The message is not manisfestly, we get more donations; rather it's that you can jump the transplant line.  Scandalous.

Appropriate Societal Self-Consciousness and Drug Addiction (Oct. 3, 2018)

The Holocaust was the worst thing that people did to other people, ever.  Germans are and will forever be branded and self-conscious regarding their forefathers' sins because those sins were inexcusable.   (Yes, some are simply that way).  Yet, no German kid and precious few German (living) adults bear personal responsibility for any act that defines the horror -- the best word the English language can come up with, even as the history is so horrific that no word to describe it has yet or may ever conceivably be imagined, so dark is the place in hell. 

The societal shame in Germany is righteously burdened and understood as a necessary mark.  A Scarlet H, but more deeply humiliating and so unforgivable that you can't ask for foregiveness.  That's German shame.  Americans are different.  Americans and the American government lied to and nearly exterminated a nation of Native Americans.  There is little in the American psyche that permits a sense of enduringly held societal shame.  (Any comparison with the Holocaust is necessary to fail, and the point here is only to illustrate a spectrum of wrong that may warrant self-reflective, long standing collective humility).  Rather, as an American (and observer here), I tend to believe that President Trump accurately represents the plurality of American attitudes, to wit, "Don't Like it, too bad, we're America; we've given charity to every nation on the planet, sacraficing blood and treasure; we get to do whatever we like and expect some measure of gratitude."   (See also closing court testimony scene from A Few Good Men.)

Tend to believe the offensive bluster Americanism apparently so broadly demands derives from an intense history of emotional (and physical) insecurity.   As for Native Americans, Americanism, I think, involves a sense of 'you got your reservations, right?  ok then.  That's not enough; okay, here's gambling, now scram.'  

Checking out Greg Allman on Youtube, led to interview with Conan O'Brien, which referenced an earlier interview by Conan with John Lydon, aka, Johnny Rotten (in 1995 -- the time of the interview,  with Public Image Limited, after achieving international stardom with the Sex Pistols).   Conan is actually a pretty quick-witted and likeable host.  Anyway, Conan asked about Sid Vicious and the movie Sid and Nancy.  Lydon was dismissive of the film and of his bandmate and girlfriend, "They were junkies."   The line that hit me as worth noting came seconds later:  "Herion and any kind of drug addiction, really, it's a slow, deliberate suicidal choice and there's not much you can do to stop these people once they start."  Wow.  That's an extremely honest opinion.

* Editor's Comments:  1) Immediately: Add reference to America's experience with slavery and associated history of ignored societal responsibility (and, indeed for the most part utterly the opposite -- historically hostile resistance and reaction by many  Americans, powerful and otherwise, to slavery's abolition), though do not attempt any comparative ranking; and 2) Consider extending reference to deserved deep sense of collective American shame (viz Native Americans) to Vietnam and Vietnamese, but only if it can be described in a way not to dis-honor the soldiers who were drafted and/or otherwise ordered there to fight as their duty was explained (if it was explained to them -- military order is not to question orders, or ask for an explanation) but rather to the leadership of the American government and, in turn, the collective responsibility of the American voting public who installed those who made the decisions, to wit, us -- and/or our forefathers.

Justice Kavanaugh (Oct. 5, 2018)  

We/ the truth as I interpret it lost; angry Brett is the kind of guy that would do that.  But the Nation will recover.  Christine Blasey Ford will forever be my hero.  Thank you Dr. Ford.  You did your best; the Nation/ your companions failed you.  There was no corroboration?  How often/ most times rapes and sexual assaults occur in private.  Sen. Collins betrayed my faith, respectfully.  Senator Flake, you are a good human being, but lack a puncher's spirit in terms of battling against evil.  Corker is close too.  What's wrong with you guys.  No one stands up to the bully, at least in the Fonzie like following group.  

Too much of life is like West Side Story, the Jets versus the Sharks.  Depending on how well things are going, we refine reasons to disagree.  

The Defining First-Worlder Transition from Child to Adulthood, in Practical Terms  (Oct. 19, 2018)

Preface:  First-Worlders are those whose existence is not exclusively or principally (necessarily) consumed by self- and family-survival concerns.  

School ... Learning ... Knowledge.   The beauty of studying to acquire knowledge to learn about any number of subjects is epic to many/ most (?)  adults, and I suppose a lower percentage of young students.   (There is something to be positively said, it seems to me, about a morality that tends to resist what is sometimes indoctrinated as mandatory, or at least (more accurately) to question and examine the statement's/ assumption's truth, before moving on even if the moving along is reflexively accepted). 

To the young person, never will you again be able to focus on knowledge and learning for its own sake, without pretense, and with general confidence in the apolitical perspective of your Professor, teacher, instructor (personally shaded perhaps but otherwise unaffected by any self-interested measure of capitalistic or political machinery bias).   The immediate point being that if someone presupposes to 'teach' you in a context where his/ her econonic interest extends beyond communicating the substantive elements and associated rules and philosophy (should that word be listed first? - ed.), it is worth perhaps visiting a measure of cynicism.  Separately, never will you -- the college student, even if you work a part-time job(s), have it easier vis-a-vis full-time employment and expectations of continuing concerted application of effort.  

As young adults tranisition from school to work, lift-off assumes an inevitable discovery:  I want to start getting paid for stuff I'm assigned.

More on Gun Control (Oct. 29, 2018)

What kind of person goes out and shoots a bunch of other people, especially at a temple or other place of worship?  (Pittsburgh in grief as dead are identified; LA Times, 10/29/18, p. A-1).   The answer is that there are, it seems to me, a minisculely small (thank heavens) number of inherently terribly disturbed persons.   Despite their low number, access to firearms permits them to inflict horrific damage, far beyond their statistically insignificant numbers.  The solution is to better control guns.  Years ago a prosecutor in California told me that if gang members knew the criminal penalties for using a gun, they would go back to using clubs and knives.  The comment presumed rational calculus affects criminal behavior.  (Gang conduct is outside the scope of this post, except to say gangs form and thrive for a reason, principally a family substitute).   Another prosecutor told me that the principal activities of a gang (an element of a gang enhancement in California) are kicking back and drinking beer, neither of which would meet the elements to successfully pursue a true finding on the enhancement.

Back to the point, it makes good sense to restrict access to non-hunting guns, e.g., Saturday Night Specials (leave that to Lynrd Skynrd to most memorably develop) and AR-15's and like assault rifles.   To be sure, the Second Amendment indeed is properly respected as an elevated Constitutional principle, as are all constitutionally endowed rights.  Indeed, the Second Amendment validates/ justifies the right of all persons but most significantly some of those who live in rural America, e.g, Idaho and Montana,  and existentially fear that somehow a group of federal forces are going to someday invade acres and plains where few people have existed, undisturbed for decades.

Existential or not, it's actually not that farfetched a worry; just ask Native Americans confined to reservations on South Dakota.  To rural Americans, your paranoia is probably not justified, especially since the vast majority of you are white.   Further, and assuming the legitimacy of the fear, even if gifted with the opportunity to possess AR-15's, Americans' collective and righteous and actually quite legitimate commitment to the Nation's defense ensures that an individual's and/or communities commitment to gun possession is, really, meaningless.  Hunt animals, if you must, but permit the government to restrict Assault Rifles Nationwide.  To rural Americans, to wit, those most nobly and constitutionally principled in their positions, consider the lives you could save.

Happy Halloween, (October 29, 2018 - 2nd.) 

The beauty, to me, is the innocence that Elsa doesn't possess any self-consciousness or awareness that she is dressed as a squirrel.  She just obliges.   Photo courtesy of Brigitte K. Moore, E.'s rescuer.

Whitey Bulger - Our Corrupt or Grossly Negligent Government (Nov. 3, 2018)  

Let's start with Whitey Bulger was scum.  If federal prison officials put (convicted and Hollywood immortalized mobster) Whitey Bulger into general population as reported (even if at his request at age 89) in any lock-up excluding perhaps a minimum security facility, our government bears heavy responsibility for his death.  Bulger was 1) a publicized FBI informant, and 2) about as infamous as prison inmates come.  Knocking him off presented a rare opportunity for the assaulting inmate to gain notoriety within a mileu otherwise defined by anononymity.  Prisoners are numbers and are invisible to outsiders.  Some governmental official approved Bulger's transfer and another presumably ok'd his placement in General Population.

Powers within our federal government were no doubt furious over Bulger's alledged corruption of FBI agents.  But society (we)  and the government (our elected representatives) assume a sacred responsibility for the physical safety of those who we determine to imprison (or euphemistically "incapaciate" -- some small number is rightfully separated).   

Bulger's notoriety was well established/ known.  To place the 89 year old in the prison in which he was murdered was a conscious decision.  Whitey Bulger's murder was sanctioned by our government, just as Jamal Khahoggi's was by Saudia Arabia.  The difference is our government possesses the power to perhaps better delay executive branch gratification.  The FBI and Bureau of Prisons finally delivered to Bulger what the federal government in court was unable to achieve, his violent existinguishment.

Universal Healthcare and Our Constitution  (Nov. 5, 2018)  

In the professional hierarchy, doctor beats lawyer like rock beats scissors.  New York University recently announced it would no longer charge its medical students tution.  (New York Times, Aug. 16, 2018).  No law school would ever do that.  Lawyers, while necessary, are probably  too many already.  Yet, we elevate right to assistance of counsel, to wit, a lawyer to a constitutional dimension  (Sixth Amendment). 

There is no corollary, constitutionally guaranteed right to healthcare.  Why is that?  Recognizing the importance society rightfully places on the role of  doctors and health, why don't we similarly respect a human right to healthcare?   Perhaps medical care (science) was so undeveloped in the 1770's that access to a doctor didn't for the most part qualitatively effect survival or quality of life.  Or, maybe because when the founders founded, they were principally focused on potential governmental abuses, understanding for instance the chasmic disparity in power between the the government and individual and further appreciated the potential abuse of the government, vis-a-vis criminal prosecution.  (A different piece is why -- as many people do, we rightfully question the competency of government, but almost reflexively assume in the context of a criminal prosecutions the government got it right and snap judgment frequently believe/assume a criminally charged/ accused defendant is guilty).  

Liberty and health are both hugely important.  If we provide 'universal' access (i.e., federal entitlement) to lawyers, it impresses me that we might justifiably provide and elevate the right to a doctor (healthcare) to an equivalent level.   It will happen, eventually.

Arcane Difference between BBC and NPR; Gun Control  (Nov. 9, 2018)

BBC interviews end with the interviewer thanking the interviewee for his/ her time, cut.  NPR interviews afford/ indulge the additional time for the interviewee to reciprocate with their own thanks.  It's a really small point but over the course of thousands of interviews probably amounts to a significant chunk of time.  Perhaps the difference is attributable to a difference in sensibility between American and British manners.  Even as the British are, I think, generally perceived to be better mannered, NPR chooses to make the allowance for social niceties.  Separately, as an insomniac of sorts, frankly prefer BBC as a matter of taste, though highly appreciate NPR.

Further, in the BBC ledger column, listened this afternoon to a NPR interview of an author whose novel features the story of a New York Times reporter who resigns after Trump's election as president.  NPR is, as much as I like it, biased.  Nowhere have I heard such appreciative approached -- as was this one, of Trump conspiracy backing novels, even if they masquerade as non-fiction and maybe that's the difference.  Anyway, BBC does not, at least from my perspective, appear to take a political point of view.  Still, NPR impresses me as substantially closer to the truth than Fox, my opinion.

There was a (another) mass shooting at a Country Bar in Thousand Oaks, Calif.  Unbelievably, one of the victims previously survived the mass shooting in Las Vegas at a much larger country music affair.  And a crying mom painfully called for gun control, decrying and rebuking "prayers and thoughts."  The shooter was apparently a Veteran, who previously served in Afghanistan and -- while separately a troubled soul, may have suffered from PTSD.  What responsibility for the ultimate turn of events may Pres. George W. Bush for having involved our country in war, which in turn -- in my humble/ pea brained opinion, provoked retribution on an asymmetrical level, in turn provoking a necessary response in Afghanistan.  How many of our youths were unnecessarily sacrificed?   And, back to the point, how do we trace and, infinitely more important, most quickly and effectively treat the cause of the most recent Thousand Oaks shooting? 

Dogs, Trauma and Corporate Charity (and Bird Watching) (Nov. 21, 2018 - edited 11/28)

Do mother dogs suffer trauma when their puppies are taken away, euphemistically adopted out?  Yes, I know, intellectually the mother dog is happier than if her puppies were euthanized, though submit at the time of separation all she knows as a sentient being is that her puppies are being taken away.  Of course, no need/ bother inquiring about the father dog.  Coincidentally, dog lovers justifiably love their, respectively, female and male companions equally, though some definitely prefer the companionship of one gender over the other.  Some human parents are that way too, I guess.

Ed. Note:  Nicely put, not too hamfisted.  Dumbest, or among dumbest questions ever is, did you guys ever want to have a boy?  People who ask that are not impolite, they and there are many, simply demonstrate genuinely held gender bias.

At Dick's Sporting Goods today, I bought a surf rod and some tackle.  After the clerk rang up my purchase, he asked if I wanted to donate to some cause or another.  I didn't pay particular attention because it is irksome, to me, to be solicited for charity at a for-profit store.  I said no, and refrained from asking:  Why don't you instead ask me if I want Dick's to donate some (or all) of the profits from the merchandise I just bought?  But the clerk was just doing his job and didn't deserve any abuse.  The non-discouraged and undeterred clerk then asked if I wanted to 'round up' the amount of my purchase and contribute that to charity.  Again no.  I don't think he was being passive-aggressive with the second request, but if he was in response to his perception of the tone of my no (which I intended as neutral), I compliment him on the play.  Anway, pay, drop my stuff in my car and walk to the nearby Ralph's grocery store to pick-up a couple items.  Dick's and Ralph's are on Sports Arena Blvd. in the Rosecrans area of San Diego.  It's not a sketchy neighborhood, though it operates as something of a corridor to the beaches for San Diego's homeless. 

Before walking into Ralph's I see a store sign immediately outside apologizing for the inconvenience of solicitors on the sidewalk and assuring me their presence is not authorized or encourage by Ralph's.  Interesting, corporate interests are self-servingly invested in soliciting their own customers for a handle of charity donations but curiously regard outside solitication as something of a nuisance.  Pick up and pay for my items, and as I'm leaving see a store security person kind of shoo-away a homeless person.  I open my wallet to check my cash situation -- having paid in both places with plastic.  I have five or six or seven one dollar bills.  By this time, the homeless person is walking away.  I follow him and say, "Excuse me, sir."  He stops, and I hand him my singles.  It was obviously a trivial gift as it involves a human's needs, but 1) there was no administrative cost associated with the charitable contribution and I felt much better than if I had given a dollar or two or ten or twenty to Dick's to distribute; 2) I felt like I was giving him a million bucks and imagine that it was to him probably an above mean handout which was gratefully appreciated, as in 'this day just got a whole lot better.'  How many times can we (do we) say that out our day's impact?

Last Sunday I met up with a friend who is a passionate bird watcher.  He is older and semi-retired and travels around parts of California to spot birds.  He is so kind and (separately) gave me a book, "Field Guide to the Birds of North America."  It's nearly 600 pages long, so obviously there are a good number of both bird species in North America and people who thoroughly enjoy seeking them out and watching them, thereby resulting in the decision to publish the book.   Bird watchers, it seems to me, are much better, than those who seek them out to shoot and kill them, excepting only subsistence hunters -- and as to them, I offer no opinion.  The the notion of being fascinated by the idea of watching birds impressed me as fascinating itself.   So, I asked my friend if he finds it interesting to look at pigeons.  He said no and offered that starlings are apparently even less highly (or non-highly, I guess) regarded.  It makes sense, I suppose, that the pursuit values the experience of visually capturing rarity.  If that's the case, is there a measure of elitism associated with most bird watching?

EN 2:  I was not guilted into giving the homeless person money because of the experience at Dick's, which if it were the case is reason enough to socially support for profit corporations hitting up customers who immediately before contributed to the aforementioned corportation's profits.  You already spent some money for yourself, want to give some to the needy?  I've become accustomed and almost but (obviously) not quite inured to being hit up (accosted from an alliterative standpoint) for money for charity by cashiers -- interestingly usually grocery stores, and rarely thereafter follow-up by giving money to a passing homeless person, though I'm not certain that admission makes me appear (or otherwise) a better person.   

Thoughts from Las Vegas (April 9, 2018)  - ed. 5/22/19

My wife and I returned from a trip to Las Vegas.  The Strip, it seems to me, is designed to appeal to a human being's id.   The following thoughts hit me while there.

-- On Marriage

     Pick a single human being to spend the rest of your life with, to violate grammar's cardinal rule of sentence ending prepositions.  Anyway, the point is that marriage involves the most significant choice/ investment (e.g., financial, emotional, experiential, etc.) most human beings make.  For ever after, metaphorical alternative investment opportunities (gender independent) will emerge, and you've made your pick.  By extension, rather than pitying or privately ridiculing lifelong singles, who chose not to marry out of a desire to hold out, it's worth admiring, celebrating and respecting these living and breathing hopeless romantics.

     My roomate in law school, Michael Mundaca, once suggested to me that -- as to marriage, everyone settles.  

-- The Gender Breakdown for Cold Feet

     At the hotel, my wife and I shared an elevator trip with woman from New Mexico.  Never a talented conversation starter, I asked her where she was from.  It was a slow elevator ride and a conversation was born.   I shared my father was born in Espanola and mostly raised in Almagordo.  She offered she was from a town near Farmington and said the name.  I didn't recognize it and she -- crediting me with more knowledge than I deserve, must have concluded that Farmington would be a city that I could identify.

     The lady shared she was visiting Las Vegas to attend her niece's wedding, scheduled for later that afternoon at the hotel.  She implied (or said) her niece was experiencing self-doubt jitters.  What do you say in a moment like that?  The best I could think of was to compliment the bride to be's sense of accountability for the decision of marriage.  After all, there is no need to feel sick to your stomach (so to speak), if you view the arrangement as disposable.  During the moment, I recognized praising "accountability" would be the wrong adverb, and (without realizing) think it may have unintentionally triggered a thought that I was suggesting pregnancy prompted the wedding.

      Instead, I told her I thought her nieces's reaction showed great conscience and appreciation for commitment.  There are, to be sure, many reasonable causes for cold feet, and some surely reflect positively on the person thinking those thoughts.

       May 22, 2019 edit:  To be honest, we later ran into the bride.  She was sobbing.  Didn't want to get married but felt no choice.  Nothing we could say.  Sorry not to have demonstrated the strength to be honest about the experience.

-- Memory Takes Us There

     I can describe a place at Upper Paradise Valley, specifically, when you cross the bridge -- which for many years was a huge log,  to start toward Woods Creek (in Kings Canyon National Park) and my wife will instantly know what I mean.  We hiked the Rae Lakes Loop many times.  It's incredible, but that's not the point.

    One of my favorite jokes is the psychologist who visits a mental hospital.  The overseer guide takes him to a group meeting of older, long-time residents.  One of the residents says, "Forty-five," and everyone starts laughing.  The psychologist has no idea what's going on and asks his guide, what just happened.  The guide explains that the patients have been there for so long, they've numbered the jokes.

     Intrigued, the psychologist asks if he could try.  Sure.  He steps up and says, "Thirty-Seven."  Silence.  Nobody laughs.  The psychologist turns to his guide and asks what happened?  The guide shares, "You didn't tell it right."  

-- On Blogs    

      There is considerable vanity associated with blogs.  Sort of a public diary, whose popularity (value (?) the market determines).  To end here with a sublime type intended observation:  Most of us, as the expression goes, live lives of quiet desperation.  The balance post cat videos.  I have neither a cat nor know how to post a video of one.  However, I do have a dog (we have four).  One -- Elsa, is my favorite.  On walks, on her leash, she assumes an attitude of a lion in ancient Rome released to chase Christians.  Released from her dog leash in a dog park, she will quickly dart between my legs for protection from others, no matter who friendly or unassuming.  There are tremendous commonalities.      

The Most Significant Period of Your Life, 4/05/2018

What age range, say decade, strikes you as the most meaningful or significant in your life?  For me it was 20-30.   Twenty is not far removed from the naivete of high school.  My twenties defined the period when I most experienced dating,  secured an education, got and worked my first real job, and set about that path that would -- at least to current times, define my life.   I'm thinking that's probably a fairly common phenomena -- to pick 20-30 as the most significant decade in a person's life.  (*I recognize the social bias inhering in the previous comment.  I apologize.  For millions or tens of millions, the answer is no doubt immensely better, "my first because that's all there was." Or for many others that survived longer, "they were pretty much all the same, unending and unrelenting expecations of physical labor).  

Internet and Other Daily Thoughts  (3/30/2018)

The Facebook privacy issue is fascinating.   Perhaps most amazing is the cut-throat reaction of other high tech executives.   Tim Cook of Apple was so (my opinion) sanctimonious telling an audience how Apple's customers "are not their products."  Meanwhile, Elon Musk reportedly deleted Tesla and Space-X's Facebook pages and said something about Facebook giving him the willies.   It's interesting to see the sharks attacking one another,  excepting notably Mark Zuckerberg.

What has Facebook done so horribly?  Monetized your data.  So what?  You get a free app to post pictures and connect with friends.  No one is so foolish as to believe in something for nothing.  Zuckerberg is going to do this for nothing?  Sillicon Valley Venture Capitalists are going to do this because they believe in funding America's Happiness Quotient?  No, they can use and sell your data.  Big deal, if it gets me a free email account (I do not use Facebook), it's worth it.

My other daily thought is that American Business (publicly traded) is overly focused on the short term.  For example, using money from the Corporate tax cut to buy back stock versus capital investment.  To most companies and CEO's, it seems to me, the Holy Grail is propping up the stock price, tomorrow be damned, except as it relates to the stock price.  A professor at Berkeley in 1979-80, David Teese, told me (then) that the American capital model focused too much on short term results.  Japan, he offered, did a much better job focusing on long term profitability.

For followers of this column, no progress to report on The Jungle.   Remain unexcited about the prospect of reading a book that promises to leave me "haunted."  On the other hand, do not want to give up or quit.  One of my Dad's main points was "Don't Be a Quitter."  Another favorite saying of his was, "Keep your Options Open."  There is great merit in both sayings,  even as all or at least many of us violate both sayings.  Life involves a series of choices.   Solid guidelines periodically must give way to re-adjustment.  See e.g., the "Sunk Cost Theory" of Accounting.  

Pelicans are Beautiful, Seagulls get Overlooked (Nov. 24, 2018)

Solitude and Relationships (12/07/18) 

Solitude impresses me as a strong word and quality (noun ?) to appreciate.   Googling solitude the word loneliness was the first listed synonym.  Loneliness impresses me as a weak word and/or quality with which to be associated.  The Sierras, wilderness - another listed synonym, gifted me both -- even as I envy those who find only positive experience in solitude.

What percentage, do you think, of people who are and remain married stay in the relationship because of their morally principled commitment to marriage, vis-a-vis their individual (and/or collective(?)) sense of happiness?  It's an interesting question (asked differently, what percentage do you think of couples remain married despite an overall 'unhappy' characterization, and how much traces to their sense of commitment).  Better yet, what is the average percentage ratio of each partner in a marriage as to (1) I stay married because of the commitment I made, and (2) I stay married because I am as happy (or as I might reasonably expect to be)?  And as to the latter group, what is their mean tipping point, to wit, when sense or commitment is overrun by unhappiness (or non-happiness, attention from others, etc.)?

Bought a loaf of Bimbo's white bread (yes the name is strange) while in Ocean Beach this afternoon and doled it out to birds at the seaside park.  The cost was $3.49.  Felt like a billionaire as the birds competed, and felt satisfied as they filled themselves.  Tried to feed as many as I could and asked for permission to go buy a second loaf.   Hopefully there are a greater number of birds in OB tonight with a full belly.  Considered whether the same $3.49 might have been better spent if contributed to a charity benefitting persons.  The thought left me feeling guilty; but c'mon it was only $3.49.  Nothing in a first world country. 

What's in a Name; Universal Healthcare; and Life Mistakes  (12/12/18)  

The YMCA is a terrific, diversity inclusive and embracing non-profit.  But it's name, Young Men's Christian Association, offers just about something for every socially conscious person to object.  Young (age bias); Men's (gender bias); Christian (religious bias).  At one level, why fret over the name, the organization does stellar work.  On the other, why should reasonable people abide an affront presumably designed to identify mission.  YMCA's all inclusive mission statement is belied by their name.

The best, or maybe just a solid, argument for universal healthcare is that society provides basic health care to prisoners.  Collectively, society for reasons beyond the scope of this note effectively denies prisoners most (or many) basic decencies/ needs (and yes there is a difference between decencies and needs, though language is imprecise).  The point is that society treats prisoners pretty shabbily and one may debate the justification, e.g., we don't want to reward people for committing a crime and/or persons who commit crimes do not deserve heightened social entitlements, especially compared to law abiding persons.   Yet, it's (almost) reflexively understood that we owe basic healtcare to those who we, as a society, choose to incarcerate.  So, if we agree that basic healthcare is an entitlement to prisoners, why not to all?   

For all the mistakes we all make in life, or that I've made -- my best defense perhaps is inexperience.  It's my first time through.

Gender Neutrality, The Nature of Life and More on Abortion (12/ 29/18) 

Why -- in talking with one another about children, do we commonly ask, how many boys/ girls do you have?   It amounts to an irrelevant inquiry involving pensises and vaginas.   Conversation with a Gender Studies major invites re-examination of some long held unquestioned biases.   On Reproductive Rights:  A Woman's (human being's) agency is not terminated at conception, unless -- you know, men know better.  Writ large:  Get pregnant, you better carry to term, it's my progeny.  Traditional moralists, respectfully, are gender biased, I believe, not because they are bad human beings; indeed they are inherently morally good because of their heightened respect for traditional values.  They are, however, deeply mis-guided as some (many (?)) traditional moral values are revealed as desperately flawed, in some though assuredly not all contexts.   See New York Times,  Opinion,  A Woman's Rights,  Dec. 28, 2018 (More and more laws are treating a fetus as a person, and a woman as less of one, as states charge pregnant women with crimes).  

As to life/ death:  When you die, it's because your mind or body or both broke down/ failed.  Old age is (generally) recognized as the accepted best result because (implicitly) it suggests your spirit got the most out of its physical package.   To comfortably presume growing old truly represents the best and most desirable outcome tends to ignore a seemingly highly relevant co-efficient:  Quality of Life.   There is a tremedous social stigma associated with suicide (and surely there are persons with treatable depression, who are vitally deserving of intervention that dissuades continued consideration of suicide).  And even those jurisdictions recognizing a right-to-die limit the right to persons with terminal diseases.   Why shouldn't, for instance, a quadriplegic or an individual who experiences unceasing/ unrelenting back pain (multiple other disadvantaged scenarios might be offered and, simultaneously, some strong and courageous sufferers live lives of satisfaction/ happiness -- others, I suspect, do not) be permitted to fully and legally exercise absolute self-determination?   To conservative moralists who might nonetheless consent to some consideration of right-to-die, factual recognition that we are all terminal (and thus perhaps deserving widening of an individual's right to self-terminate) represents either sophistry or threatens value overload in a sort of it's too confusing to consider terminal without imposing currently accepted medical diagnoses.

Crisis Management Philosophy 101 and Alcohol Advertising (Jan. 2, 2019)  

Whenever large corporations encounter major liablity issues, standard legal advice generally involves a variation of:  Put on ads featuring what a good community citizen you are; that's your future juror pool.  Whenever I see Kaiser commercials positively spinning the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, I think why are they paying to run this ad?  Does Kaiser really want, as a business, to spend profits cheerily telling people to live healthy?  If yes, then why not run ads bashing fast food or Budweiser.   Or, if Kaiser is genuinely interested in your children's future, run ads promoting renewable energy (or efforts to pay down the national debt).  

The "Please drink responsibly" marketing campaign  is just as fake.  First, Jack Daniels, etc., wants you to buy (and presumably drink) as much of their product as possible -- without threatening a shortened buying life-span owing to cirrhosis, or hurting people as a result of their inherently danger inducing product.  Putting a "please enjoy responsibly" qualifier in their ad ought to qualify as a punitive damage multiplier.   You profit from an inherently dangerous product that enough people 'enjoy' to over-ride the life killing ravages it inflicts on others to win legality, which represents a legitimate societal judgment -- just spare the irony/ hypocrisy.  Want to honestly warn consumers?  Say something like, our product is among a class of drugs destined to ruin approximately 10% of its users (maybe higher) lives in a horrifying manner (flash shots of guys and women without teeth who hold signs to collect change to pay for their next bottle and live in tents that annoy your enjoyment of downtown streets), often leads to poor decision making, fights, sexual assaults, lost jobs, broken families, etc.   Forget that and, instead, Please Drink Responsibly, I guess. 

Personal Happiness (Set Point Theory) - (Jan. 27, 2018, deleted and republished Jan. 13, 2019)

Most people, I suspect, are familiar with the Set Point theory (of weight, or perhaps more accurately, of dieting).   Essentially -- as I understand, diet all you want or might, whether 'successful' or not, your weight will, within a reasonably short period of time, rebound back to what it was.   If you are like me and possess the dominant 'fat' gene (highly helpful in times of famine but less so in modern day America), you are probably more likely to be familiar with the theory.   Which brings to mind a comment during my freshmen year at Berkeley by the boyfriend of a dorm floormate (it was a co-ed dorm):  So, do you really like seconds?  The comment was genuinely innocent and devoid of malice.  The young man was skinny and authentically curious.

Briefly explained, diets are destined to fail because -- they, in a post-industrial sense, represent a defined period during which one adheres to restricted eating.   "I'm sorry, I can't eat that (right now)," either because a) one is a closet eater, or b) is on a diet, or c) normal and sated.  Then after the restriction comes off -- in the event of a diet, the lost weight most regrettably and inexorably returns to the point of initial departure or bounces up a couple, few pounds perhaps out of disappointment.  Eventually, it'll come back down (most times) to that (for many) mildly unsatisfactory but tolerable (over)weight.   And yes, the theory respects that if you change your eating habits, then long term weight loss is more likely long term manageable.  But tell me, if I was not reasonable contented with my eating habits would I ever want/ choose to go on a diet?   Damn vanity, but you get the point.  Further, yes, the theory may tend, or at least appear,  to absolve heavier people of personal responsibility for their weight/ eating habits.  Those of us with the mendelian fat gene mostly recognize the minds of naturally  skinny people work differently.  Heavier people, generally observed, like to eat more (both literally and figuratively).

It seems to me persons' comparative level of happiness operate similarly and is pre-determinedly set to a genetically limited range.  To assess the truth of the theory/ hypothesis, it's important to lay out obvious boundaries.  Someone wins the lottery, or finds new love, no matter how low or high their normally set point range, one's level of happiness will jump, though just like a dieter one's comparative level of happiness will, over time, tend toward their mean.  Same thing with negative experiences.   Get cancer, for instance, and no matter how happy or unhappy one is, you're bound to be less happy/ more unhappy.  But, I submit, over time, persons with a higher happiness set points rebound relatively quickly.

Bumped up by improved or temporarily tossed back by circumstances, as to happiness as with weight we regress toward our own personal mean, or Set Point.  If you are usually and think of yourself as an upbeat and positive person (and I don't mean in a faking or inauthentic sort of way), then I suspect you're like the naturally skinny person (from an envy, if not necessarily evolutionary standpoint).  Even among billionaires or fabulously successful artists, I suspect, most are as generally happy or unhappy as their set point permits.  For example, on his death bed (hopefully many years away) will Rod Stewart reflect back and think (as he almost assuredly would from any objectively reasonably standpoint), I've had such an incredibly great and lucky life?  The answer, I submit, depends on his personal set point.  Some fabulously successful artists, entrepeneurs, doctors, lawyers, etc., will look back with, if not negativity, then perhaps blandness.    Successful or not (in a societally recognizable way) same thing with the rest of us.  That's the Set Point theory of Happiness.

Note:  A word about attitude.  Attitude absolutely matters.  One can, it seems to me, will oneself to be positive, just as surely as one may retreat to self-pity, as it involves a particular experience or day's mood.  But, at some point, it's like a diet.  Absent attempting to manipulate your mind or behavior, just as with weight, we all (or mostly come) with a genetically pre-determined contentment/ happiness/ positivity set point.

Marx and the Opioid Crisis   (Jan. 14, 2019)

Karl Marx reportedly said, "Religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions.  It is the opium of the people."  Presumably he meant that, absent the solace many persons find in religion and its promise that if you live a worthy life you'll find a better (after) life in heaven, people would either much more frequently rise up against the rich (no doubt a very bad and unwanted occurrence to the rich), or kill themselves in much higher numbers, being unwilling to endure the indeterminant promise of poverty, to be broken only in death.  In other words, religion delivers a critically important message -- bear with it, there is much better to come!   Indeed, the history of the world is fairly measured in terms of grinding poverty and menial labor, amidst small populations of weathly people.  Consider what Thoureau wrote, "The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."  

Opium and opioids -- among other effects, provide some measure of euphoria which generally operates like a skinny mirror:  they make things appear better than they actually are.   Stated more crudely, the argument goes, drugs make the world seem a little less shitty than it really is.  Of course, for those whom life is not shitty, including the very rich and powerful (two groups with substantial overlap), why would you need anything like that?   For the rich and powerful, life is good -- perhaps excepting those with bad attitudes, and for them it must seem at least abidingly endurable.  For the poor, maybe drug use is self-medicating, justifiable self-medicating, medicating against the trauma the world and life inflict.

Further, why, if as President Trump so proudly heralds, his America, white-pride America, is going up, up and up, has opioid dependence begun to flash like a solar flare?  The answer is that the crisis is in part a byproduct of Trump's determination to successfully deliver to the ruling (or most highly propertied) class.  The statement is not intended to deny pharmaceutical companies credit for their significant role, who proved that aggressive marketing of an addictive product will win consumers and the profits over every single time.  We learned that most recently with cigarettes, though their high -- once famously compared to gummy bears, pales in relation to opioids.

A modern day development is that the poor are increasingly better able to see, watch and witness the obscene excesses that wealth allows.  It's one thing to think, heck, life for the most part is pretty crummy.  It's another to suddenly have that message delivered with a sledgehammer.  Think your life is bad?  Well, in the next half-hour get ready to see how truly wonderful it is to privileged people.  Heck, what must it be like to be a waiter at a party where rich people complain that the snow this year at Vail wasn't as good as it usually is, or how much the exclusive private schools their children attend expects in 'donations'?  We ought to have more compassion for the problems of the rich.    

Stunning increases in the value of the stock market are terrific, provided, if you own stock or indirectly benefit from the markets' rise.  Poor people don't own stocks, poor people don't have 401(k) accounts -- or at least note one's that might reasonably appear to provide an anxiety free retirement, especially in view of NASA satellite sky-rocketing health insurance rates.   Again, the news that we've never lived better and every day life continues to blossom -- excepting those irksome imigrants from failed states.  Everything is better, though unfortunately it's not, at all.  

For many Americans, including many young people, most everything is worse.  The reason is understandable.  The nation proved itself so industrially successful that we priced ourselves out of the low or medium low skill market.  People in other countries will do it for less.  (A quick word on tariffs which increase the cost of imported goods.  History has proved over and over, tariffs backfire, badly).   In turn, millions of Americans lost their jobs over the past ten, fifteen or twenty years and they and their children grievously suffered. At the same time, America's wealthy, the wealth of persons who matter (See Citizens United) -- who can deliver important political contributions or who have influence over those that can, immensely grew.

With fewer people seeing anyway out, the opioid pathway, anyway pathway out of the predictable experience of an ugly daily struggle for the rest of my life so promintently juxtaposed against a conveniently accessible view of the life of the rich, is it any wonder more and more people have fallen victim to opioid pills that give them a hourly or daily respite?  And if they are denied access to those prescriptions, resort to heroin buys with its accompanying criminal risks.  However depressing addiction may be, perhaps it provides a more manageable path for those who will surely never be permitted entrance to those most exclusive gated communities.  

But remember dear reader, the rich rely on and cultivate the availability of the desperate working class.   To be sure, with limited exception, the accumulation of wealth derives from profitably exploiting the labor of others.  Heavens, don't let them take drugs, it will only leave them less willing to be exploited.  Of course, there are many high minded and good rich people.  Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg spring to mind.  To my thinking, too many others escape scrutiny behind the pale of the rich who do good.  Just a thought.

Returning to religion, there is a sound basis to believe if it operates as an opiate -- which I believe it does, at least in comparison to drugs, it's a natural high.  It's also a 'high' or at least backstop that operates to effectively retard or redirect toward malaise the masses, lest they chose to mobilize to challenge the grossly disproportionate wealth gulp.  (Wealth gap is old school.  A gap happens; a gulf is the product of world event.  Dearest readers:  We have a gulf).   Historically then, was religion a construct of the powerful millennium ago to distract or placate the poor?  Maybe.   There are many other theories, including our collective reason to believe, we must be here for some reason, especially when it is so bad and harsh for so many.

Criminal Law - A Note on Winning Jury Trials             (Jan. 26, 2018)

The above title does not mean the author won all his trials, or even all those he expected or might reasonably have expected to win.  Nonetheless, the secret to successfully defending a client at jury trial is simple:  Give the Jury a Reason to Acquit.   Jurors, I am convinced, are well intentioned and take their task seriously.  It follows that they want to walk away from their service believing they did the right thing.  Thus, a defense attorneys' job is to educate and persuade jurors as to why "Not Guilty" is the right verdict.

A major obstacle involves the extraordinarily disproportionate chasm between the power of the Government (the prosecution team) on the one hand, and the single individual, the defendant.  The power of the State, in most every instance, overwhelms the individual.  Seldom is a person of enormous wealth, capable to stading toe-to-toe with the resources of the state prosecuted.   Further, paradoxically, in a world where most of us harbor a healthy suspicion about the ability of our government to walk and chew gumb at the same time, when it comes to criminal trials, the perspective is often reversed.  "He wouldn't be here if he wasn't guilty."  

So, when we read the papers, when we show up in court, we often presume the government got it right.  Indeed, many times information released to the media is released by the prosecution.  First impressions matter.  The defense, as frequently, contacted before any real opportunity for independent investigation is available, is asked for a response.  The journalism is fair;  the process is not.    Further, a conviction validates our desire for an ordered existence.  The police protect us, so we can trust them to make reliably solid judgments.   A conviction affirms that the system worked and affirms the investment of time and effort by the policemen that we admire.

By implication, it takes a good measure of courage to acquit, especially if there is a victim.  It's human nature to want to see the scales set right, or at least to want to see a wrongdoer held accountable.  Sometimes the scales can never be set right.  Where there is a victim, it's natural to want to see another held accountable -- and, as a juror, to have a hand in getting it done.  That's why posses existed, to get justice.  Our mixed up, unfair world then seems a little less mixed up and unfair, even if only for an instant.  At least, it's our instant.  It's tough but necessary to make sure that jurors understand that sometimes the right verdict is one that is going to leave them feeling incomplete, -- as if they did not complete the circle, one that is not going to leave them feeling comfortable.

An equalizer is the burden of proof.  To convict, a jury must unanimously vote that the government proved the accused committed every element of the charge Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, the highest standard our law recognizes.  In California, the standard is defined to mean juries are not permitted to convict each and every juror possesses an abiding conviction of the truth of the charge.

"Abiding" -- the word means permanent, everlasting, unchanging.  No matter the extent of reflection, it won't change in two hours, two days, two weeks, or twenty years.  (Criminal convictions are everlasting).  Some prosecutors will reply, in rebuttal, there is no rearview mirror time stated in the defining jury instruction, which is true.  The duration of permanent remains unaffected.   As to "Conviction," what are your convictions?  What beliefs do you so strongly and absolutely hold that they deserve the rarefied status of your convictions?   Indeed, how many convictions do you really have?

---  Future subjects:  Confirmation Bias and the Importance of Communicating to Jurors the Importance of Individual Opinion versus Committee working towards consensus.

Addressing Teenage Pregnancy (and its consequences)            Jan. 22, 2018

Young girls who are obviously and reasonably protected by the State and presumed to not possess the maturity to consent to sex and its possible result, pregnancy, are properly protected against pregnancy.  Children born to teen mothers -- while not condemned to proverty, are undeniably less likely to receive the economic security and support necessary to go and graduate from college or move beyond unskilled work, excepting daughters of wealthy families who might underwrite economic consequences often associated with teen pregnancy.

Consider that, in California, an adult male commits statutory rape, if he has sexual intercourse with a female under the age of eighteen, and in most instances is chargeable as a felony.  California Penal Code Section 261.5 is premised on the legislative judgment that a girl under the age of eighteen cannot legally consent to have sex.  Virtually all fathers support the wisdom of the judgment and might even support an increase of the age.  Back to the point, given general absence of controversy over 'age of consent' laws, it's reasonably inferred that the moral majority -- and most likely the full majority, support the judgment.  Some states settle on a lower age, but in California and multiple other states it's eighteen.

Irrespective of what we may collectively -- if polled, choose to believe constitutes the best choice regarding imposition of a number as it involves a young woman's right to make a decision to have sex, what about associated governmental involvement in her right to choose an abortion, if she becomes pregnant?  In other words, if society, collectively decides as a matter of law that a female under the age of eighteen cannot consent to have sex, how can society collectively assert the indisputably greater right to end a resulting pregnancy by abortion?

Pro-Choice advocates admirably, laudably and rightfully support a woman's right to control her body, including but not limited to the decision as to whether she will carry a pregnancy to term -- at least for some period prior to or contemporaneous with viability.  (There is an unspoken ugliness associated with 'experts' who opine on viability -- given the stakes.    Nonetheless, what is the quotient when our collective judgment -- and endorsement of authority to District Attorneys, to prosecute and convict (whenever reported and (ethically) supported by adequate evidence) a male who has sex with an underage female?  Added penalties apply if the girl becomes pregnant.  Specifically, California Penal Code Sec. 12022.7 considers the occurrence of pregnancy as constituting Great Bodily Injury which transforms the crime to a  "violent" felony.  Since when did pregnancy -- the reported beginning of life, represent an 'injury," let alone Great Bodily Injury?  

A seventeen year old girl, it would seem, undeniably possesses the moral right to make her own decisions about a multitude of subjects, including (I imagine) whether to continue a pregnancy.  ('Right to life' persons will disagree, and cleverly crafted their label.  Respectfully, a zygote is not a life, in my opinion, but assumes that status at some moment prior to emerging from a womb). 

How does one reconcile a moral judgment to deny a young woman the right to choose to have sex, while permitting her right to choose to abort the result of the act?  Indeed, and without judgment to the 'best' answer, it follows that if one is prepared to allow a young woman the self-determined judgment as to whether to have an abortion, she is necessarily qualified to make an accountable judgment about whether to have sex.  Otherwise, if society is prepared to insist a young girl is not legally recognized as permitted the judgment to engage in sex, why not deny her the right to choose regarding an abortion, if she becomes pregnant following non-forcible intercourse?  (Note:  All but kooks support a ban against abortion as it concerns pregnancy resulting from rape).

Followed to its logical conclusion:  Included among appropriately required inoculations is delivery of a safe, limited term birth control medication.  Every person, it would seem, possesses the right and privilege to control their own body -- until at the very least the question of when pregnancy implicates discussion as to when 'life' is best decided to begin as it involves legal protections.  So then, what to make of decrying and criminally penalizing sex with a young female, while simultaneously asserting she possesses the wisdom to choose an abortion, if the act results in pregnancy.  Liberals and conservatives might each consider the present hypocrisy.  

Dystopian Major Party Values        (Jan. 11, 2018)

Regarding abortion -- pro-choice versus pro-life, there is no more vulnerable potential being than a fetus, yet Democrats are firmly pro-choice. How can Democrats portray themselves as the protectors of the weak, vulnerable and dis-enfranchised, when a embryo possesses less power than any member of any underclass?

Meanwhile, Republican's triumph individual rights. Private property owners possess the right, within limits principally involving notice, to evict tenants. By inference, Republican philosophy is seemingly more easily harmonized with support for a woman's right to choose. The woman and her uterus constitute the landlord, the embryo -- the tenant.

As to climate change, most agree regarding our collective, macro effect on the environment, the climate, and -- in the long run the survivability of the planet. So, the question is what weight to accord the interests of children and grandchildren, vis-a-vis current adults, parents, care providers and taxpayers.  If Democrats truly seek to claim the mantle of working people today, it follows that altruistic concern for future generations must be subordinated to current demands.  Agreed, everyone -- or most everyone, would like to provide for our children and future generations, but at what cost to our present ability to provide for ourselves and, presently and most manifestly, our children?  Yet, Democrats would have coal miners find a new line of work, lest future generations' well being is compromised.  Meanwhile, some Republicans tout oxymoronic 'Clean Coal.'

Bills come due today (or within the monthly billing cycle).  Further, the fact is life is a struggle.  We earnestly hope for and want the best for my children and theirs.  At the same time for most, life does not permit the beautiful indulgence of planning for the financial well being of my offspring's offspring.  For most, one's main duty is to their spouse and chidren.  Only the rich, seemingly, possess the economic luxury to worry about future generations.

Republicans meanwhile -- a working consortium of the wealthy and those who believe hard work and accountability are reliable indicators of future success, are seemingly better positioned to care about and lobby for the rights of future generations.  Truly, if the American Dream holds enduring promise, coal miners of today may be fairly asked to shoulder the heavy burden of those who will follow them.  

President Trump eschews Paris protocols designed to protect future generations. Democrats complain, even as blue collar workers stand to best benefit from deferring economic costs associated with transition from coal and natural gas to alternative energy sources.  Meanwhile, Democrats rail for women's right to choose, even as the 'victims' are the utterly powerless upon which the party stakes their own prideful claim.

What percentage/ pie chart involving life and happiness is Zero Sum?  On Winning, Socialism and California.   (Jan. 20-22, 2019)

It feels good to win, very satisfying.  But for every win, there is a necessarily associated loss (or worse, loser).  And however satisfying the sense of win, loss may be connected with feelings ranging from indifference (the far side from fairly experienced exhiliration) to humiliation (a feeling probably counter-weightedly more than proportionately damaging vis-a-vis winning, depending on the circumstances, I'm fairly sure).  Most experiences of winning do not involve exhalting in the pain of the (episodic) loser, though some human element, deep down, I suspect may.  It is the nature of man, some men, to value/ respect the word/ vision of vanquish.  Among those more accepting, perhaps of co-existence, how much of happiness/ is happiness connected to non-competitive endeavors, and how does that compare to those who implicitly measure themselves by competitive success.   

Beauty and competitive success both end, most assuredly as, if only, youth brings a new champion. 

Work for social justice without a predominating personal motive.  Does the motive matter so long as the work/ effort moves (or attempts to move) forward a societal good?  Stated differently, how might/ does winning and promoting socially worthy pursuits contribute to individual happiness, comparatively, together with family, God, children, pets.  What are the top ten most common contributors to happiness, for instance.   Forget what we claim to believe and tell others, for a moment.  As to happiness, among those that are genuinely/ authentically/ scientifically assessably happy, how would they break down their comparative percentages, assuming happy people are self-aware.   Whatever answer, I suppose it would be worthy to strive toward a similar allocation, unless we are so psychologically hardwired that trying to parallel even a true path/ recipe to increased happiness resembles a diet.

California appears moving in the direction of socialist state.  Given Americans' wealth -- or perhaps more specifically, grotesque extremes of income inequality that exist on the rich side, the social experiment is warranted.  (It is not ironic, I suppose, that if/ as California tilts socialist, the richest who populate Malibu, Beverly Hills, San Francisco, Lake Tahoe, Rancho Santa Fe, Del Mar, etc., will contribute more and more, until they either pay their fair share or spurn the state for a less geographically and temporally attractive state.   But that's the thing:  California is so beautiful and they are so rich that they won't move no matter how high taxes go.  We are, of course talking about the very rich, and a 70% income tax would be fair.  The rich live far from the poor and, I suspect, are glad to pay to keep it that way, if historically successful efforts to pay off the politically powerful should, for example, suddenly fail.  

Increasing Acceptance of an Often Non-Binary World  (Jan. 23, 2019)

The present (partial) federal goverment shutdown highlights the cliched disfunction in Washington, D.C.  Many times what happens in D.C. amounts to a sideshow, but the current situation could lead to tragedy, with neither Air Traffic Controllers nor TSA agents being paid.  An Army travels best on a full stomach, and it's worth worrying more about air safety.  Don't leave it to risk of, We're So Sorry.  ...  The domestic economic effect, estimated at some fraction of a percentage of GDP per week, may instead prove epic, financially.  The resilience of the market to date is evidence of how jaded institutional investors are to pretty x'ing big governmental screw-ups.  From a coporate point of view, the Tax Cuts were passed and regulations keep getting cut.  Still, it seems to me any half-witted economic advisor would tell (politely beseech) Trump to do, at least, these two things immediately:  1)  Remove tariffs on China (tariffs are empirically proven to be self-destructive), and 2) Sign any bill that reopens the federal government.  If the feds, to wit, affected federal government employees, are not necessarily great (and in many cases are demonstrably not), then acknowledge, at least, they are i) publicly hired, ii), ours, and accordingly deserve, to the full faith and credit of the government, get paid. 

From an economic standpoint, Republicans increasingly (and it seems to me fairly) view Democrats as socialist, with Demoncrats eyeing Republicans with equal suspicion (or revulsion) as heartless capitalists.   Millennials are gracing us with epiphany like wisdom, if we listen to it, beginning with enlightened thought involving gender.  (For instance, how coincidental in all the millennium that preceded today each biologically born male was equally precisely matched with an equally uniquely defined masculine being, however defined -- e.g., liking girls, being tough, etc., with the same applying to biological females).

Millennials, if nothing, are en masse confounding us with their revolutionary thinking regarding historically and traditionally accepted beliefs.  (Something the US Supreme Court has held out as deserving a measure of deference.  See Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (1977); see also Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 506 (1965)).  Millennials are more likely to go, "No, that doesn't make any sense, I don't care how long people have throught otherwise."  Millennials (or more accurately many of them), are historically best/ most efficiently accessing information at, critically, a time that coincides with coming of age -- when many, most deep seated beliefs are formed, and are jolted by, inter alia, income inequality and perhaps thereafter/ thereupon more often embrace and respect aspects of socialism.  Manifestly, such a belief does not mean those/these millennials are socialists, though some may be, it's a legitimate political philosophy.  

The reality is the non-binary gender millennial crowd, to wit, Millennials typecast, simply don't accept a socialism/ capitalism divide as binary either.  It's not a surprise, except perhaps to those battened down (and/or comfortably esconced) in the corridors of D.C. power.  Consider, China introduced capitalism to communism.  You can have a socialist-capitalist society (we already have on, but still engage in sophistrical (sp?) denial), with the key to workable policy -- because too much policy can dull/ dilute individual ambition/ motivation, being in identifying the/a  sweet spot, e.g., how much accumulated wealth is enough in a world, society, country where suffering and poverty are plentiful (before you are asked to seriously step up and contribute to the care of the less fortunate).  And, in turn, what marginal tax rate does not overwhelm greed.

Ed. Note:  I do not mean to suggest that Millennials possess inherently greater wisdom.  Instead, I suppose on the basis of believing that Human Beings are ultimately (mostly) empathetic, Millennials are the first to see/ experience access to how much horror occurs on a daily basis throughout the world, to wit, the Internet's greatest contribution.  If one assumes people are inherently kind and good and empathetic, then it's natural to blanche at obscene wealth in the midst of grinding poverty.  Let people be rich; it's important to encourage risk taking.  But ... the point is there comes a limit.

Cultural, Music and Hip  (April 22, 2018)  

There is a scene in the celebrated movie Guess Who is Coming to Dinner, when Sidney Poitier, the brilliant African-American actor -- explaining the demonstrated in the movie superior dancing of a black person explains, (paraphrasing), you dance the Watusi, we invented the Watsui.   Maybe it's an insanely racist comment that was written for Mr. Poitier to deliver.  

As much as religion seems to destructively tear apart at us, music brings people together.

Ed. note:  There are a lot of brilliant African American actors and actresses.  Do you mean one of the first?  If so, specify, but only if you are sufficiently knowledgeable regarding those African American actors and actresses that came before.  

Immigration Findings (Jan. 28, 2019)

The Build-the-Wall idea/ Campaign promise is, of course, bullshit and is intended to principally appeal to/ placate White Nationalists, who still occupy a position of significant electoral power, mostly in rural America. ....   Immigration represents a current third rail of political discussion; if you start in on it, peoples' attenae are instantly aroused to scents of bias and prejudice.  In fact, if a white person offers a pro-border security position, it is often immediately interpreted as reasonably compelling evidence of racism, at least in popular California culture. 

Most illegal immigration involves people with darker (non-'white') skin, thus threatening (some) white people.  The reasons are unclear.  Why does a person's skin color matter?  It doesn't, thus the economic, drug and crime tales are advanced.  Democrats are grabbing at the false bait, the Wall, in an effort to advance the party's appearance as authentically populist, ethically neutral and altogeter inclusive  -- excepting traditionally popular southern biases -- sexual, racial, anti-semitic and gender.   The Wall, if built, will not materially affect southern migration.   If the Democrats actually sought to support natural human rights to asylum in America, they would hail President Trump's proposal to build a Wall (or fencing) along mostly desolate areas of western desert.  Build away.  It's represents a significant infra-structure project with fairly innocuous consequences to most putative emigres.  Indeed, building fences in the desert and moutains where statistically few immigrants enter, we might save some lives -- by effectively re-routing these folks to established entry routes (with access to water).

The alleged failure in effecting established immigration policy, from a skin colored dis-interested person's standpoint, is not the lack of fencing in desolate areas but too few Immigration Judges.  There are something like 800,000 pending asylum cases/ claims.  Build the fence on moutains and deserts.  Desperate immigrants from Central (and soon South, esp. Venezuela) America will rightfully present themselves at established crossings), and will mostly in fairly short order be at least temporarily admitted, pending adjudication of their claim  -- which obviously by the numbers will probably be hugely delayed.  Or, perhaps there is no failure in U.S. immigration policy, provided the tacit, agreed compromise is that the nation will apply a generally generous approach to those who make it here, while claiming to rectfully enforce its laws with periodically public instances that mainly inflame the fringes, e.g, a person deported who should have been granted asylum or, on the other hand, an undocumented person who commits a crime with tragic consequences.

News Hurts  (Jan. 31, 2019)  

BBC radio recently (Jan. 23, 2019) played/ featured a piece regarding non-institutional butchers, with a point being how they actually or somehow better care about the animals.  As far as I could tell, there was no bias beyond that inhering in reminding us that we mostly are indirectly responsible for the killing/ murder of fellow sentient animals.  The part I remember involves a friendly Nigerian butcher answering a question which the (paraphrased) answer involved:  the customer wanted a suckling cafe, and I had just a moment to grab it from its mother.  

Another piece, also on recent BBC radio, involved the revelation that something like 2,000+ elephants are held captive in India, enslaved to various enterprises including, circuses, religious organizations, and persons who use the beings to beg.  Apparently many of the elephants are held in objectively abusive circumstances.  

It's tempting to offer up (or think about figuring out) a snappy conclusion regarding the heart break experienced by the art that journalists, as a critical part of their work (see Journalism as perhaps the greatest agent of Change), discover and report.  Sometimes the news is so bad/ troubling you wish you remained ignorant.

Irony in Youthful Wisdom  (Feb. 10-11, 2019)

Millennials (n.b., the new generation, Z, is too immature to characterize -- not in an insulting sort of way; rather character takes time to develop and sufficiently manifest itself to justify a reputational judgment, right or wrong) seemingly increasingly disclaim the philosophy of binary answers.  (Ancient man, I suspect, sought clean, binary answers to calm, if nothing else, angst over the meaning of life).  The sun proved a god.   Simple, straightforward and definite answers are comforting.  Subsequent generations frequently questioned the wisdom of those from before but mostly from it's the wrong answer point of view.  You got it wrong, so wrong.  Totally wrong.  To my limited experience, newsters continue the tradition of rejecting conventionally held beliefs, though more questionningly.  A place perhaps where Vietnam war support would neither be assumed nor reflexively opposed.  (No extended comment on the righteousness or its lack regarding Vietnam* is intended, though history to date suggests it was a terrible decision on the part of America.  However, one must allow that the best and brightest who we entrusted and who took us there -- and the 50,000+ young American soldiers who lost their lives, were guided by some measure of intelligent and strategic thought -- though it's necessary to note the 50,000+ were there because of duty and orders). 

Most of life is more complicated than 'Yes' or 'No.'  The irony/ an irony is that as we -- through newsters, better learn life in all its brilliant (and despairing) aspects is rarely binary, the same generation seeking to educate us (or maybe they don't, maybe it's enough for many probably to be secure in their own world view vis-a-vis an instinct or impulse to educate others) is swept/ surfs in/ is delivered on a tech wave where computer code and, in turn, reality is ultimately all 1's and 0's -- demonstrably, compellingly, and absolutely binary.

* In conventional venacular of white America (and maybe more) of a certain age referring to "Vietnam" was casually understood as a reference to the war, versus unequivocally to the nation.  As ego-centrically offensive as the suggestion appears -- rightfully so, the same treatment it seems to me befell Iraq. 

El Chapo Convicted on All Counts: Paternalism, Puritanism and World Power (Feb. 12-13, 2019)

Joaquin Guzman Loera, "El Chapo", was convicted on all counts today (Feb. 12, 2019) of, inter alia, delivering to Americans products Americans wanted (mostly involving various chemical compounds), despite their government's paternalistic contrary determinations, together with some other legitimately bad stuff.  Guzman Loera is certainly no hero.  Indeed, from reported appearances, he is a violent villain and hard core immoral businessman, like hundreds of others (probably) in Russia, China, and Afganistan, for starters.  He will, almost certainly spend the rest of his life in the worst part of America, Colorado's Supermax prison.  Supermax is presented on television almost as an advertisement for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons' muscle.  Hell on earth, minus only the physical torture.  At the Supermax, it's all mental.  An egregiously cruel example of what a (mostly) civilized nation is willing to abide done to persons convicted of infamous crimes.  The puritanical and equally powerful hypocritically righteous strain that commonly runs in America presumably(*) permits, if not encourages, its existence.

Then consider, if a poor person comes to America, illegally, and commits a crime, he is a prime candidate for deportation.  A criminal alien, he (and more seldomly she) is called.  Right to the top of the deportation list.  But if you are a big shot Latin American (see also Manuel Noriega) that commits drug crimes, i.e., delivering to Americans that which they want, you are forcibly brought to the U.S.A. and, as with today, given ( a sort of sadistic) Permanent Residency.

(*) 'Presumably' because Congress, not Americans en masse authorized construction and operation of Supermax and because those elected representatives that do vote accurately, or reasonably accurately, guage and express the associated biases and meanness necessary to build a fortress to house human beings in perpetual solitary isolation, notwithstanding mostly empty lip service to an hour a day (week?) outside a cell.  

Of course, the government necessarily possesses the right to incapacitate certain persons (the spectrum of who qualifies varies).  With incapacitation, however, the government concommitantly first assumes a heavy burden.  To demonstrate decency to those it uses its massive powers to deprive of liberty.   Second, as to non-citizens, the government ought to -- its seems to me, not apply the bully principle inhering in extraditing alleged criminal suspects only from those sovereign nations effectively possessing no comparable geopolitical power.

National Emergency, Amazon and Partial Government Shutdown, Pt. II Avoided  (Feb. 14, 2019)

Happy post-Galentine's Day.  Reportedly, President Trump will both sign-off on a Budget Fix, and because said fix 'only' provides $1.something billion of the $5.something billion to build a shining fence/ wall/ barrier from America the Beautiful's Sea to Shining Sea (south exposure) will declare a "National Emergency" to build that wall.  At some level, represents a fairly massive infrastructure project, though not one Democrats wanted.  But Dear Democrats, Mr. Trump was the one Americans elected, and you wanted public infrastructure spending.  

How much traction Democrats will get out of Mr. Trump's promise that Mexico would pay for the Wall?  Probably zero.  Among the better quips was Trump supporters take him seriously but not literally, while detractors take him literally but not seriously.  And -- dear detractors what a price you paid.  (Separate article/ note/ this reference places blame on the Democratic establishment which essentially sought to enforce ceding nomination to Secretary Clinton (of the Clinton's (Like family Bush, modern day American Royalty) in a coronation of sorts.  Only old crusty Bernie refused to obey.  But Mrs. Clinton, darn it, wasn't very likeable, especially when the message is presented as a form of a lesson to learn or duty to be grudgingly performed).  Trust me to do the right thing, don't tell me.

Consider Amazon pulling out of its 2nd HQ in NYC.  Sure it's a loss of a serious (est. 25k) number of jobs in NYC.  But how many more jobs does/ has Amazon wipe (already wiped) out locally, across the country in the past 25 years  - and, as importantly, reaching into the future?  And, who has the change enriched?  Hmmm.  Start with local bookstores.  Conservatives decry/ deride voices of, for instance, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, even as OC's perspective serves to protect the average/ every/ hard working/ man/woman. 

Why don't conservatives care about the average guy/ gal that just wants to get on in life?  That's my question.

Technology will invariably prevail.  (See e.g., The Forbin Project and the Disney Movie).    And battling inequalities delievered by capitalism is scorned as socialism, meant as an insult.  Back to the point:  Amazon is technology and it's coming, just like the high tide surf overtakes your feet previously on dry sand.  Millennials and Z'sters will have to decide how to integrate technology's savagingly primitive nature into their beautifully humanistic constructs of how we can, collectively, improve the world.  

Where do the Strong Turn? & Ska  (Feb. 15, 2019)

Recall reading an article about then House Speaker Hon. John Boehner meeting the Pope and being in his presence in an elevator.  Recall Boehner saying how overwhelmed he (understandably) felt in the Pope's presence and told the Pope so.  The Pope honestly replied, Boehner shared, "Pray for me."  The Pope knew/ knows the burden he carried/ carries.  People turn to, rely on, more than that on the Pope.  And the Pope is human.  How much can even the strongest human bear?

The weak turn to the strong.  To whom do the strong turn?    My personal opinion is that we are all, ultimately, insecure.  Some carry it off better, and there are many dimensions.

Will be attending a concert by The Specials, who are historically important because of their single "Free Nelson Mandela."  

Fame:  A Goal Mostly for the Vain? and The Vagina Monologues (Feb. 27, 2019)

Many want fame but few of us live in a small town.  The functional equivalent.  To most famous people, I suspect, after the initial exhiliration (accompanying explicit and super-charged public shows of adoration) wears off and the reason underlying the initial celebrity (music, acting, business success, etc.) fades -- as it does for many, and the novelty of the reception wears out, and one ages and doesn't want the hassle of having to prepare for constant recognition and potentially (now unspoken) negative judgment, the experience I imagine begins to resemble a sort of inescapable conspicuousness.  Reminiscent of life in a small town.  Small town residents can (mostly) find their way back to anonymity by visiting or moving to a metropolis.

Attended the Vagina Monologues at UCSD, the school's 20th annual production.  UC Schools excel in cultivating Critical Thought.  Eve Ensler wrote/ developed the initial play.  It represents a breathtakingly courageously imaginative feminist statement.   Perhaps more educational than entertaining.  Unquestionably bold.  Avant garde in the best sense of the word.   As updated, why does having an inny rather than an outie (belly-button reference) justify an inny being paid $0.77 for each $1.00 an outie receives?  (Socratic Giveaway:  It doesn't, manifestly, emphatically).

The UCSD directors praised, then criticized it.  Yes, it promoted feminist thinking, but struck out on Race, Sexuality and Gender Identity.  Completely agree, and am starstruck by the critical thought involved in minds that not only recognize the revolutionary nature of VM, but are unhestitating in their simultaneous willingness to critique it with even more forward thinking perspectives.  Intelligence Squared.  Further, the production introduced, to me and probably some others, the word Intersectional.  As I understand, common biases are often overlapping; neither often unshared nor neatly compartmentalized, with a fluid confluence reaching into minority bias on the basis of race, gender identify and sexual preference.  

The only act that slightly saddened me involved a highly talented transgender male.  His piece defty riffed on societal advantages bestowed on men, including the blessing to allow hair to grow in all its beautiful places.  Nice touch.  Why should women be expected to shave legs and under their arms.  If Men didn't also think so, we'd either shave too or stop funding Hair Restoration treatments.  Males spend how much time and money on their hair.  But the performer, dressed smartly in slacks and a white buttoned down shirt, wore his hair in a stylish male fashion.  I'd like to ask:  You obviously possess the courage to defy conventional expectations.  But if, as you reasonably share, hair is beautiful, why do you cut yours like boys/ men are expected to?   The only act I affirmatively dis-liked involved performers Shouting the "C" word and then recruiting pre-selected audience members, including identified boyfriends of performers, to shout back the "C" word.  Few words have earned infamy so severe they deserve to be forgotten as quickly as possible.  

Several acts were standing ovation deserving and all were expertly professionally presented.

Literary License & Honesty and their Intersection  (March 5, 2019, edited March 6, 2019)

Sometimes, very rarely, it is necessary to bend the rules to get ahead, while simultaneously and principally living a life of good and moral value.  Some may shriek or more probably dismissively disapprove, in some form (mostly if reading in the presence of others).  Shreikers, collectively, are either hypocrites or less than they otherwise might have been.  Indeed, I suspect most persons better than I more frequently, adaptively and aggressively bent/ rationalized opportunities permitting self-advancement (implicity, i.e., long-term, or otherwise). 

The very best are those that subordinate self-advancement (personal winning) to their moral truth and conscience Only After deliberate reflection.  The second best people are those that consistently, invariably do the right thing because it is the right thing, without considering self-advancement aspects.  They are second because they did not consciously consider, overcome and conquer a moral dilemma/ temptation.

The third group is comprised of those that mostly do the right thing because it's the right and honest thing.  That's me.  People in this group commonly do wrong things, but -- as indicated mostly work to do the right and good thing.  And have a conscience and agonize over wrong things we've done, like cheating on a Chemistry test in high school.  Conscience, the Catholic Church recognizes most good, flawed people find a measure of relief through Confessing.  (Ironically, the Criminal Justice System punishes people for it).  Few prosecutions are stronger than with a confession, and many aggressive prosecutors drive hard on the basis of their case.  Without a confession, the case gets weaker.

The fourth group is those who don't care or who (mostly) can't distinguish between right and wrong.  We have prisons to protect society from the most Unwilling to conform (excepting, inter alia, wealthy bankers and financiers of the 2008 Fiscal Crisis) and consign most mentally ill persons Unable to conform to prisons as well.   Correction:  Prison over reaches its necessary population, mainly on the basis of policies and laws the effectively discriminate against the poor, e.g., drug laws condemning, for instance, communities or populations that self-medicate.

How Honest Are You?  (March 5, 2019 - 2nd)

With Others.

Miscellany (March 7, 2019)  

LA Traffic teaches newer drivers lessons, and now in San Diego and likely other high traffic areas.  Switching lanes requires no particular advance notice to others, provided only adequate space permits the move.  Blinkers are greatly appreciated.  (Herb Caen ...)  

Why Child Molestation is so Horrible and Inter-generationally Destructive (from a lawyer's perspective);   Most of sexual triggers, I believe,  are evolutionary.  Others are socialized, like the teasing/ cloaking nature commercial America puts on areolas/ nipples.  We can be trained to think/ believe a body part is erotic, irrespective of feel - the sense that privately, conventionally  is permitted to feel erotic pleasure.  Actually, it's positive be manipulated, sometimes.

Victims of Child Molestation, with some frequency, grow into adulthood to be perpetrators.  Even if/ as they knew it was wrong as a kid, they were a kid.  It got impressed on their brain, as a victim as something to be avoided, something wrong, something sexual, as something that must from an adult (modeling) perspective be something sexually erotic. 

Where do expect children to learn sexual etiquette beyond today's evolved sense of express consent.  Fortunately most kids are protected from child molest but mostly must struggle their way through sexual contact with the opposite (or same) sex.   Sexuality is mostly private outside binary barriers.  Wrong and erotic commonly get confused.  To some, only wrong is erotic.

As to Child Molest, victims under the age of 16-18 are righteoulsy pitied, protected, and guaranteed a lifetime of protection because few other experiences, I expect can be as incapacitating, in terms of dealing with life.   And then, if (among those whose) brains/ sexuality was effected by their victimization, at the Age of 18, they transform from a Criminal Justice perspective into monsters.  Not to suggest Child Molestation is anything but the most, second only to murder of the most horrific crimes.  With three daughters, vigilance to their adulthood was necessary.  The solution is impossible, pre-crime.  Place in a secure but comfortable segregated environment for some subset of abused children. 

Knife Control.  We talk so much about guns.  Opening our top kitchen drawer, I periodically recognize how dangerous sharp knives (all knives) are.  But their are no cries over knfe control, except perhaps in the UK which mostly banned guns.  The reasons I think, apart from the natural resort to the next most availably effective alternative, is that knives require real commitment to do harm, while guns wreck disportional havoc with the pressure of a finger, on a trigger.  Gun Violence -- through the advent of gunpowder) is removed from an ordinary understanding of inflicted harm in a way obvious to knife assaults.

Immigration Statement:  What's it Cost me as a Taxpayer (March 24, 2019)

Border Security and Immigration are too often caught up as political markers.  Good humanists support it; racists oppose it.  All I really care about, frankly, is what it means as a taxpayer.  I am fine with paying something more, especially for worthy humanitarian needs.  Same goes with the homeless, don't let people starve.  Any contrary impulse is objectionably puritanical.  Skin color, religion, gender, place of origin matters zero (unless you're born in America in which case you won a lottery of sorts already).  What does kind of bug me though from a liberal leaning person's perspective is implicit pressure to oppose Republican interests in regulating immigration.  Cost does matter.  That's a separate issue from White Nationalism which (personally) means Trump, who many Republicans support, which explains why Republican points are almost justifiably (even justifiably) reflexively opposed.  

Reputable historical studies demonstrate undocumented immigrants typically contribute more economically versus social/ public costs.  However, demographics have changed.  Does the same still hold true with family arrivals versus single (principally) males who came to find better economic opportunities to provide for their family elsewhere?  As indicated, glad to support and pay a measure of taxes and even higher taxes for humanitarian reasons, that's what America is all about, supposedly.  Just want the government to keep the Public cost in mind when formulating appropriate policy.  And not use the military to install Concerntina wire.  Both how wasteful (as to the military) and hateful (to seek to physically injure another) its installation.  Poetic justice outcome involves its theft.  Trump pays for Mexico's poorest to steal from border wall.

Just Plain Mean  (March 25, 2019)  

Mayor Faulconer, of San Diego, has/ will announce a measure to ban, i.e., outlaw, living in your vehicle.  (San Diego Union Tribune, today).  Residents have complained, hundreds.  God Bless San Diego wealth.  People do not live in vehicles because they want to.  People live in Rancho Santa Fe, Del Mar, and La Jolla because they can.  People live in their cars because they have to.  In a feignt (sp?) to compassionate conservatism, the Mayor proposes to open up three public parking lots, where poor people might legally and safely park their vehicles.  Well, thank you Benevolent mayor.  Three whole lots?  Five, ten, twenty, won't work.  Plus, what if i don't even have a car to park and irk wealthy co-citizens -- or is the nuisance to the rich principally limited to cars imposing on public spaces adjoining so pricey purchased real estate?  What really bothers the rich?   That they can't eliminate exposure to the poor?  Where should the poor sleep, in bushes out of sight or off highways.  The issue is poverty.  From where should we outlaw the poor, Mr. Mayor?

Lee Child - Jack Reacher Series:  On a Lighter Note  (March 31, 2019)

Lee Child is a terrifically talented and entertaining pop writer.  (No insult intened by pop reference.  It's a category, just like serious, greatly respected mostly boring fiction reading might be.  Less high brow, more devourable.   If I could meet him, I would ask Mr. Child please re-consider his decision to move from Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher in movies.  Yes, Cruise is not 6'5" and 250 lbs., or so.  But Mr. Cruise personifies, by natural din of his persona, the confidence/ conceit with which Mr. Child endows his stoically and cynically patriotic fictional hero.   Mr. Child, you hit it right.  Mr. Cruise is a brilliant dramatic actor (see A Few Good Men) and beautifully captures the essence of Jack Reacher, just as Mr. Cruise nails every action hero role, respectfully.

Fat, Gluttony, and Genetics & Music Review (April 9, 2019)

How much better human communication would be if it occurred with the honesty of an AA meeting?  Fraught with issues of weight for a lifetime, struggle with believing my failings and by extension others' are the product of personal shortcomings, not visited on skinny and thin people.  The belief means I credit myself to scoring high on the Slothful and/or Gluttoness spectrums.  Kids early in life confirmed the accurateness, resulting in a humiliating sweaty physical reaction:  You're Fat/ You're Overweight.  Either adjective hit the sensitivity Solar Plexis.  

Rather than the product of some ingrained short circuit, the reality is more likely that 1,000 years ago one of my ancestors survived in a village where there was a seasonal drought or perhaps a famine.  Most in the village died because they didn't have enough fat reserves.  The phenomena repeated itself with sufficient regularity over the preceding and following centuries and decades (or millenium), etc., with survivors mostly coming from the fatter ones (even as some skinny ones survived).  Over time, the trait proved dominant, re: Mendelian genetics.  I tend toward fat because my ancestors found it a useful/ necessary adaptation to really like eating in times of plenty, for example.  Yet, society -- and my self-conscious physical reaction prove socialization (wrongful or right) can morally overwhelm genetic truths or scientific reasoning.  Self-consciousness and guilt flow from conviction it's traceable to self-control and discipline.  You and many others who similarly harshly judge, simply lack it.  Who knows?  Maybe fat people and dogs and cats are just lazy, slothful and no good.  Thin cats, I suspect are preferred.

Musical Suggestion:  Heard today, Oliver Tree (band), Hurt (song).  It's great.  Playing in SD soon.

In Defense of Lori Loughlin and Felicity Huffman, et. all & a Riff on Discrimination.  (April 10, 2019)  

Much news oxygen is consumed over the College Admissions scandal involving rich parents paying a guy to help their kids get into college, illicitly.  How times have changed.  Donald Trump was diagnosed with Bone Spurs, which may or may not have been legitimate and resulted from having wealthy parents.  Assuredly others parents paid healthy sums to win exemptions/ exclusions for their sons from becoming draft eligible and packed off to Vietnam.  (No gender deafness intended as only eighteen year old boys/ men were Selective Service candidates).  Probably, in earlier wars, rich parents did the same.  How many parents were indicted regarding fabricated medical diagnoses that protected their sons from being killed in war?  Zero.  And Ms. Loughlin and Huffman and other mothers and fathers are, today, scorned and face the power of the United States Department of Justice, not because others faced death in war but because their children gained access to some elite colleges (some of which admit wealthy legacy applicants), and -- in other respects apply either race based (whites dis-advantaged) or racial biased (white favored) admission standards. 

Maybe U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is right in his (apparent) judicial philosophy:  Who Says Life is Supposed to Be Fair.  Maybe Hon. Justice Thomas is a Historically Rare Stoic deserving of Greek philosopher type reverence.  I don't think so.  Courts should be bastions, maybe the last, of fairness.  Muslims, Blacks, Mexicans and poor were and continue to be discriminated against.  However, an important point is that things have improved, except as for Muslims who probably suffer more vis-a-vis Central American and Mexican Emigres.  Institutional racism exists but deservedly and belated has righteously experienced progress since at least the 1950's,  Until Trump, respectfully.  

Moms will do what they can for their progeny.  The public shaming already is enough, it seems to me.  Further, it's hard to believe our federal government does not have more important matters to attend to, re: criminal prosecutions.  Too often the Criminal Justice System traps and prosecutes those who it can because it has the proof.  Fish in a barrel, irrespective of the defendant's threats to the social compact, when other serial and more serious violators escape because the case is harder to make, or less (perhaps) salacious.

Good Luck Ms. Loughlin and Ms. Huffman.  Regarding Ms. Loughlin's potentially ill considered decision not to accept the government's "offer" to plead.  Why the rush to apply the screws.  Often, when faced with the specter of having to eat from one of two most unpleasant dishes (e.g., a criminal trial or guilty plea), human beings lock up, engage in magical thinking, and/or sometimes are misled by their counsel, who may stand to profit through trial and thus 'support' their clients' (often) natural self-rationalization or belief that even with a strong case the proof won't hold up.  And sometimes it can't and doesn't, which is also why it's important not to pre-judge.  Sometimes clients are Not Guilty, even as previously all but convicted by press accounts.  

Other times, people make mistakes.  Whether Ms. Huffman's admitted conduct, for instance, warrants a felony conviction is debatable.  The fact is, respectfully, many rich kids will continue to win admission to elite universities where equally (or more) qualified children, less fortunately economically endowed, will attend community colleges and lesser state and private universities.  

Tattoos as a Socially Accepted Form of Self-Mutilation, versus e.g., Cutting (April 11, 2019)  

Many people get tattoos about which they are proud.  Wisdom of application justifiably depends in part, I suppose, on one's view of tattoos.  Separately, one might study the ratio of Sailors in the U.S. Navy who would respond positively to the statement,  "I thought it was a great idea at the time," measured against an affirming vote of their feeling the following morning.  For many, the tattoo is nobly intended as a tribute, honor, aspiration, or expression of a high(er) value, personal cause or love for another.  Many wearers surely daily positively affirm its/ their status on their body or comfortably welcome the ink as a personalization of their physical being.

Other times, many times, I tend to believe, increasingly in modern America, tattoos may represent objective evidence of PTSD or other trauma.  The beautiful young girl with the sleeve tattoo, shoulder to wrist, intense patterns of ink.  She knows, surely, she'll still be wearing that at 55.  Was she molested?  Is she depressed?  (Or both, understandably?)  Or the nineteen year old young male with a spider webbing tattoo creeping from his neck to ears that guarantees the unavailability of professional employment outside the music industry, for life.  What happened to you, in an empathetic way, I tend to feel around people that choose to cover significant portions of skin with ink, as an older participant in Current Western Civilization.  

Bird Feeding and Socialism (April 18, 2019) - ed. 4/19/2019

There is a good case to be made that if you have a bird feeder, you are a Socialist (or at least possess socialistic tendencies).  Song Birds are a fine metaphor.*  They do nothing to advance our common cause, but they are creatures (often beautiful) living in a tough -- gotta absolutely find your own way outside the nest, world.  It feels naturally/ instinctually almost good to help.  In fact, I feel even better about having a birdfeeder during the Spring when it may help sparrow moms with their sparrow nestlings.  An interesting aside is how, once blessed with a full feeder, sparrows splash certain seeds to the ground in favor of their best and highest taste.  Another vein to be later mined entitled Responses to Plenty.

Last week walking Elsa I looked up at a nearby apartment and saw, in a 2nd floor patio a birdcage with three parakeets.  I immediately felt respect for the birds' guardian.  To keep one parakeet in a cage I thought ignores the parakeet's sense of probable loneliness.  If joined with more (especially if more than one), you have a social community in which the parakeets -- in this instance, can acknowledge, presumably, one another and hopefully enjoy the company.

Then, a day or so later, I recalled a home I visited as a child in La Jolla, California, that included an aviary.  It remains the most beautiful home I ever visited.  Huge lot, overlooking the Pacific Ocean, stone built walls rising maybe 20 feet, and a large pool enclosed between the professionally employed secretary's office and the Guest Quarters on the other side of the [ (or ]) wing, with a 100 + yard private driveway, it seemed as a kid. 

The owners -- both really kind and good people as measured by kindness toward the author, divorced over infidelity (as I best understood and know no more than a personal opinion of prior belief) and each moved to less opulent confines, so to speak.  That's a very different subject.  Couples dealing with Infidelity and their intrinsic calculation regarding a Broken Heart, Forgiveness, and Long Term Financial Planning.  A man or woman who divorces over a breach of fundamental trust is most understandable, most natural.  

The aviary was probably 20 feet long, 20 feet high and 10-15 wide.  When I saw it as a kid, I was amazed.  A person has a place with (later viewed as) an adult sized bird cage.  Then I thought back on the guy with the three parakeets trapped in the small cage and felt less generously. 

* An imperfect analogy, however.  Socialism is different from Charity.  Socialism is Charity, enforced by the government, obliging rich people who otherwise wouldn't kick in a buck or too cheap to kick in enough bucks based on how well they've profited under the political system in effect.  

Pouting is, Too Often, Misunderstood (April 23, 2019)

Pouting evinces a core of strong self-worth, perhaps bordering on conceit or unspoken, unshown, even hidden self-confidence.  It may co-exist with gross (medically acute) insecurity.  Pout means:  You don't deserve to know what I'm thinking right now (and maybe never, depending on how forgiving I may come to feel) and/or I no longer have any interest in sharing my thoughts/ beliefs/ responses.  A friend wrote me about a relative pouting, like it was a bad thing.  Wrote back I would have won (multiple (?)) pout awards as a child and, actually, part-time adult awards.  An overlooked Nobel Laureate, until the field of expertise becomes recognized like self-expression through poetry, literature or physics.  Or acting ability, for instance.  Years ago a judge, who impressed me as bright, angry (or bitter) and lonely, offered the line, 'There's Truth in Jest.'  Actually, your Honor, lots of times there isn't (and it's just a joke); sometimes there is.  I was too young to consider, why ever did the Governor pick you to judge?

Back to the important subject of pouting.  In high school, my dad would ask is that SP or GP.  Meaning, based on the regularity of his experience, specific or general pout.  If you know somebody that pouts, it's because they care and their sense of fairness has been, in some way, violated.  You may not care, but they do; so, if you don't care -- and have read this, then you are, respectfully, non-empathetic to inconsiderate to (as pouters are wont to consider) or even perhaps emotionally sadistic, in a passive/aggressive sort of way.  If someone is pouting -- it's code for he/she most definitely has something to say.

Dickens' Great Expectations and Legal Writing, (April 23, 2019, ed. 4/26 & 30/19; 5/02 & 09/19)

The best Story tellers tell tales.  Indulgently or sparingly use language and plot.  Words are the commodity, though some writers assuredly tend toward sparse/ minimalism by virtue of their artistry.  For others, number of words is not, I suspect, considered particularly significant.  Law School changes that.

Be Succint.  Make and get to the point.  It's not Storytelling.  Consider Dickens' Great Expectations.  Among the most romantically appealing books, though subordinate to Pride and Prejudice.  Great Expectations is Romeo and Juliet without the defining violence, in book form.  Pip and Estella were meant to be before child abuse thrown at Estella.  Dickens meandered through the tale, as you're pulled along by the promise of a romantic pay-off.  It doesn't happen, but -- and Joe's wife is grievously injured, yet the story manages to leave you vaguely satisfied and appreciative.  My complaint:  Standard, wanted Pip to end up with Estella.  Maybe that's the theme.  Life is not perfect, except in Pride and Prejudice type fiction.

Another great point about writing comes from Mark Twain.  (A later edit will check, confirm).  If you want to write for a living, try it.  If it doesn't work out in two years, you were meant to chop wood.  As to legal writing, the principal lesson remains the audience, but instead of a self-selected reader (excepting assigned school children and young adults) the audience is the judge, the decision maker.  Many lawyers are bad writers.  Judges must painfully experience this and thus, not particularly want to read the dreck routinely submitted, to say nothing of the less than imaginatively engaging subject matter of many legal disputes.  And many judges are not terribly bright and some are less than hardworking, with the result that good legal writing is often wasted.

Rescue Dogs and Green Tattoos, (April 26, 2019 - ed. 4/27/19)

Why protective love for rescue dogs and obviously similar emotion extends to purchased dogs?  This note involves the former.  In part because the first time you saw her/ him, he/she was in a cage, looking at you.  For anyone who has not met and come to know a Weimaraner, gosh, they are chill, is the best adjective to muster, and also very much possess a dog side that has an intense desire to pursue what its nose suggests.  And they are the Universal Love Donor type, universal acceptors of affection, in a humbly unassuming, O Rh D negative way.

Either way, adopting a dog, whichever ones' preference, gender or breed or size or whatever characteristic appeals:  Save Rescues.  Free dogs from cages.  And, like bob barker said on price is right, Spay or Neuter.  with elsa, i'm saddened she wears the green tattoo.  Otherwise, generally consider the practice to be absolutely necessary to best protect against dog euthanasia.  respect the non-conventionality of e.e. cummings' approach to punctuation.  It's efficient but to adopt suggests mimicry or poor grammar.

On Happiness and Los Angeles, California  (May 1, 2019)

All we have is the moment.  The present.  Except, of course, love is borne (mainly) on the basis of past experience, together with the blissful prospect of the future.  (The future is rarely a product solely of bliss and optimism, but the context of the statement involves love).  Love also, hopefully, includes a healthy dose of the present vis-a-vis its composition.  Motivation, as well, derives -- such as it is, from a combination of past and future expectations, hopes and dreams.  But for the most part, life is about the present.  Necessarily, the present is the only thing we occupy.

The movie Chinatown concerns the gross violation of one California county by another.  Inyo by Los Angeles.  Rape is too strong a word, excepting perhaps as it relates to Roman Polanski.  Wealth contributes toward explaining both.  Rich Los Angeles defrauded Inyo landowners of their water rights, and Roman Polanski's wealth and fame permitted him a life he would never have lived if poor.

Los Angeles' wealth and power stole beauty and life quality from Inyo, and from the Native Americans who live there.  What's the Statute of Limitations for one California County impoverishing another?  Three or four years probably, even as the damage among Inyo residents proves intergenerational.  Chinatown's focus on insider corruption missed the richest target.

LGBTQ v. Fat Political Correctness; Obesity is not a Disease (May 2, 2019 - ed. 5/07/19)

British comedian Rick Gervais has a bit in "Out of England 2" comparing (outcast) fat people with gays.  The feature and piece involve his impressive weight loss and then transitions to the rational observation that weight equals calories consumed minus calories expended.  Gervais talks about how being fat is the product of choice versus, for instance, being born gay or lesbian.  He observes how the term "Lactose Intolerant" probably doesn't exist in Africa.  The piece gives Gervais politically correct cred, gay/ LGBQT is not a choice.

Except he's not deserving.  To correct his mean spirited bit, consider a rural Baptist community where a person born gay or lesbian may functionally be denied the opportunity to choose according to nature.  Or maybe if Gervais, for instance, attended a fat camp to lose his weight.  See e.g., Canyon Ranch, Tucson, Az.  Fat people aren't fat because they prefer the lifestyle and social disapprobation.  They were born that way.  People in Africa that Gervais exploits are thin and starved, in part, because of their personal circumstances.  

Ricky Gervais lost weight because he chose against type, his nature, I suspect.  Just like the South Beach diet (and its ilk) for naturally heavy/ fat people and conversion therapy for gays.  Change your nature.  The commercial appeal of the best diets is they promise weight loss without really requiring you to (or minimizing the need or discomfort) change your nature.  50-200-500,000 thousand (or more) years ago, fat ancestors survived better than their skinny peers during times of famine.  Fat, slow metabolism, a screwed up thyroid, whatever, helped you survive.  Some lucky skinny people survived too (recessive Mendelian genes).

Accordingly, obesity is not a disease.  Obesity exists in large numbers (apparently up to 40% of Americans) because a tendency toward fat provided a powerful evolutionary advantage.  It's now common because 1) of Industrialization and, 2) Corporations effectively market processed food.  Capitalism and marketing are genius drivers for profit, with most unfortunate collateral consequences:  People getting fat, getting cancer, or liver disease.  Processed foods, especially sugar, tobacco and alcohol -- the holy trinity of modern marketing and premature death.  That's not a screed against capitalism.  It's a tribute.  Effectiveness of really smart people working hard to market products that draw on and exploit our nature.

For instance, consider Navajos and other native Americans.  In a coarse exaggeration, they were thin while eating cactus buttons in the desert, grinding out often harsh and stoic -- and free and artistically rich, lives until the Trail of Tears, or thereabouts.  Processed foods later arrived and their evolutionarily acquired ability to survive on the barest necessities revealed itself as obesity, like a lot of us.  Fuck you Ricky Gervais.

The Eternal poking up its head to ask the Meaning of Life Question (that principally befits those with the luxury to consider it)  (June 13, 2018)

In the seventh or eighth grade, I wrote my own (prose -- since it didn't rhyme).   Within it, my contribution:  Do we live to work, or work to live?  aroused a compliment from my teacher that stirred in a sort of way that a small fire sometimes gets stoked, which was fairly promptly later extinguished when I submitted further adolescent drivel to my ninth grade teacher --  who, incidentally was brilliant, Mr. Vogt.

Two quick stories about Mr. Vogt.  First, he went to Yale.  As a practical joke, he shared he and a bunch of his buddies drove to Manhattan, donned construction garb, blocked off, via cones, a section of street and utilized Catepillar type machinery to dig a trench, and then departed.  The second story involves his (subsequent) time as a fighter pilot (in Korea maybe?)  He shared that when one of his squadron was shot down and lost, in addition to the requisite sorrow, he and his buddies felt a secret measure of relief/ glee/ happiness, that it wasn't them (himself) shot down and lost.  Mr. Vogt was a great teacher, a honest human being, who -- at the time, greatly frustrated me by owning a "Who's the Author" lesson plan.  At the time, I thought, who gives a shit who the author is?  Struck me as about as unimportant as my rebellion involving fraternity joining projects requiring memorization of the founders.   Still, could give a shit about fraternity founders, though have gained substantial appreciation for Who's the Author point.

Over page 900 now in The Infinite Jest and approaching a sense of uneasiness over it ending -- to wit, it's companionship with me ending.   Among DFW's literary burst of fireworks:  "It now lately sometimes seemed like a kind of black miracle to me that people could actually care deeply about a subject or pursuit, and could go on caring this way for years on end.  Could dedicate their entire lives to it.  It seemed admirable and at the same time pathetic.  We are all dying to give our lives away to something, maybe.  God or Satan, politics or grammar, topology or philately -- the object seemed incidental to this will to give one-self away, utterly.  To games or needles, to some other person.  Something pathetic about it.  A flight-from in the form of a plunging-into.  Flight from exactly what?"

Tohono O'odham Reservation, Arizona (May 9, 2019)

Further Praise of David Foster Wallace  (May 4, 2019)

So sad that DFW committed suicide.  "Committed" a terrible word.  Chose perhaps and undeniably tragic.  As much as any fawning audience member ever, adore/ admire DFW.  Like a kid writing a Hollywood star, I would love to meet you.  I'd have paid to have lunch with DFW, just to be close to his brilliance and to listen to him.  But maybe that's part of what DFW feared, the prospect of over time being a celebrity and paid to have lunch with strangers.

Happiness and Positivity (May 7, 2019 - ed. 5/08/19)

A friend wrote me, 'I need to be more positive.'  That is the best advice and goal affirmation imaginable.  Kim is the most positive person I've ever met.  And yet, she takes classes on being happy.  (The Just Be series).  Personal view concerns the Set Point Theory, though self-improvement always represents a worthy goal.  Positive Mental Attitude always wins.

Personal best story involves Federal Taxation professor at SDSU.  He was a retired partner from a (then) Big Eight accounting firm.  I was a piss ant asked to take Federal Taxes before starting an accounting job.  He wore a suit to class.  The first day he stood up and wrote "PMA" on the chalkboard.  For the next five or ten minutes he talked about the importance of a Positive Mental Attitude.  On and on about the importance of a Positive Mental Attitude. My thought, at the time, was come on old man, I'm here to learn about Federal Taxation.

He taught me well, and after decades what I remember and treasure is his majestic wisdom.  Remember preciously few professors and wish I knew his name to honor.*  Choose a Positive Mental Attitude.  (Still, personally, Believe in Set Point.  Also believe in PMA).  The professor was/ is smarter.  A non-apology: Thought about harsh, expletive statement regarding Ricky Gervais use of fat people to make a joke.  Fuck you.  That's really harsh.  On reflection, gosh it is.  So, Fuck you Ricky Gervais.

* A high school teacher, Mr. Vogt assigned us a project (or something like that, it was an assignment or test material based on our readings): Who is the Author?  I thought who cares who the author was, what does that matter.  I have zero interest in crediting that assignment.  Forty plus years later, yes, salute that fine gentleman and Mr. Vogt, also a fine gentleman.

Little Kid Fanscinated with Water and Wake (Mid-Late 1960's) 

Young Kid doing the Chicken Dance (Early 2000's)  (May 9, 2019)

The Shelters (Dec. 1, 2017)- An Incredible Band, pictured with lucky fans (May 9, 2019)  

Conversion Therapy & Dieting (May 10, 2019)

Suddenly, I find it very important to advocate for fat* people, even as I suffer from the same seemingly instinctive biases.  If I see a really heavy person, I sometimes will think:  That person should go on a diet, or depending upon the thought process think, you should go on a diet.  The thought is, of course, terribly judgmental and objectionable, even as it may represent a subjectively neutral sense of personal advice or opinion.  Helpful even, if the unspoken opinion/ judgment were adopted.  Uncouth?  100%, but a lot of people probably think that way.  

Now consider a person who looks at a gay person and thinks, You should go to conversion therapy.  

Finally consider a person who tends toward fat.  If that persons chooses to go on a diet, isn't he/ she just like a gay person who chooses to attend Conversion Therapy.  Both are choosing against type.  The former's decision is perhaps appauded, while the latter's is viewed either with (mindbogglingly) Evangelical exhiliration, or a belief that the person is tragically and manipulatingly betraying their nature and/or so shamed or brain washed to believe that being gay is not okay. 

The heart likes who the heart likes.  There is no problem with the gender of romantic (or sexual affection) attractions.  A difference is the long overdue and marvelously welcomed embrace of LBGQT being.  But, respectuflly, fat people were standing in line a hell of a lot longer being horribly mocked and derided and targets of bias as well.  Indeed, how many people believe it's more legitimate (and less impolite) to say or think, 'You need to go on a diet, or you should go on a diet, or you might want to think about going on a diet' to a fat person, than to recommend Conversion Therapy to a member of the LBGQT community?  

*Could use euphemisms like heavy, overweight (slightly overweight (?)) or large, though I'm unsure how euphemistic anyone ever called any of those names ever felt the words rang.  Also, I am a community member by nature.  #FatRights.

West Side Mt. Whitney Trail

Cultural Anthropology - There is No such thing as a Disease, 0nly Genetic Mutations or Conditions Previously or Currently Providing an Evolutionary Advantage (May 13, 2019)

To paraphrase David Foster Wallace, alcoholism is perhaps the only disease that can be cured by praying, or devotion to one's Higher Power.  If one accepts that a disease can not really be cured by praying, while simultaneously accepting Alcoholism is generally accepted as a disease by the medical and scientific communities, it affords the opportunity to more generally question disease nomenclature.

Accepting Darwinism, a similarly and even more generally accepted medical and scientific belief, man evolved.  Traits reflect the product of an evolutionary advantage at least until we stopped beating one another on top of the head to secure a mating advantage.  Cancer, of course, holds no evolutionary advantage.  But cancer, uncontrolled cell growth, results from a genetic mutation.  A tendency toward obesity, to wit, a superior ability to store fat -- a so called disease, held an evolutionary advantage at least until the Industrial Revolution.  Perhaps alcoholics, male and female, experienced increased rates of procreation.  Alcohol reduces inhibitions, reduced when speaking of our ancestors.  With more offspring perhaps the associated gene held its own against later identified developmental problems.

It follows then that the term disease is superflous.  Cancer -- like other preferably avoided statuses, e.g., Down's syndrome, result from a genetic mutation.  Sometimes, as with some cancers, the mutation may occur as a result of environmental factors.  A gap in the hypothesis involves mental illness.  Presumably mental illness held no evolutionary advantage, except maybe it did.  Perhaps over tens and hundreds of thousands of years, persons (principally males) with mental illness tending toward violent behavior or poor impulse control (the same thing (?)) held a marginal (or greater) evolutionary advantage over more social males.* Some with what we now consider mental illness were perhaps more likely to hit and/or otherwise violently incapacitate their more socialized competitors for access to females.  Provided mental illness, like a tendency to store fat, provided an evolutionary advantage neither warrants the 'disease' designation.  Both deserve sympathy and accommodation, and for many, empathy.

* Coincidentally, with the arrival of Social (Economic) Darwinism, socially well heeled and bright, high achieving males who now occupy many/ most of high posts in medicine,law, politics, business, etc., for instance, probably have a hard time comprehending that the kids that regularly pummeled them as children at one point proved out hundreds of generations ago as more successful, from a mating standpoint.  Or maybe they do and take satisfaction.  See Broadcast News, co-starring Albert Brooks.  

Genetically Afflicted and Free Will (May 15, 2019 - ed. 5/16 & 17/19)

Heather Locklear is reportedly back in rehab.  For a generation, she was an American Hearthrob.  After Farrah Fawcett and years before Jennifer Lopez.  Imagine one of her parents may possesses a measure of guilt or harbor resentment toward their partner.  DNA blame; an alcoholic gene.  It was in your family not mine, though most likely blame is a distant afterthought to the pain of watching your child suffer.  More important, what can be done now?  Seeing, a person perhaps waste their life away following (or more aggressively chasing) a substance that affects their brain chemistry.(fn. 1).  What's so wrong with your life that motivates you to drink, at least more than most responsible citizens might periodically choose?  Conventional, social, AA wisdom provide whatever the problems or dark outlooks or negative perspectives -- if alcohol or drugs are in the mix, sobriety is a critical first step in the path toward a solution.  The Medical community is split with some strongly siding with sobriety and others as devotedly committed to prescription drugs as a suitable and/or perhaps necessary alternative.  

But what if, though for instance, Ms. Locklear does not find her present existence so X'ing fantastic that she rationally chooses to drink (sometimes or not with varying frequency), fully appreciating it may cost her longetivity and other shorter term negative outcomes?  Self-medicating with a generationally acknowledged Over-the-Counter Medication.  Alcohol. 

Can alcoholism ever represent a reasoned cynic's judgment toward life?  Success stories mostly (?) come from long term AA survivors.  There are no reports from those who decided that alcohol in liberal qualities afforded emotional relief to justify its overuse as an OTC Drug.  There are too many variables in persons' lives to run a controlled study, except to suggest that maybe sometimes some adddicts lives were marginally less crummy than they would have been if lived soberly.  Only Heather, in this example, knows the demons she fights or circumstances she endures.  

fn. 1.  Ms. Locklear may have absolutely no substance abuse problem or DNA combination that may contribute to any condition that may remotely (or not) resemble an affiction or disease.  Either way, Good luck Ms. Locklear.

Abortion is an Economic Issue  (May 19, 2019)

Best outcome for Evangelical conservatives is that the U.S. Supreme Court rules the Constitution does not guarantee a right to privacy protecting a woman's right to control her body.  The matter then becomes one of state rights.  California and others will always be pro-choice.  The consequence, obviously, is that those with an unwanted pregnancy will find access to abortion, except the poor.  Alabama prospectively prohibits abortions without regard to rape or incest.  The only women obliged to carry a zygote to term are those too poor to travel out-of-state.

Popularly Accepted Conversion Therapy for the Lbs. Afflicted (May 20, 2019)

Imagine Time magazine featuring a special issue:  'The Science of Losing LGBTQ:  Queerness and Biology; PTSD is Stress and How it Contributes to your Situation; Secrets to practicing not Gay in Public; and Praying vs. Therapy (spoiler alert! the key  is they're really positive partners).'

Debunking Life Begins at Conception, (May 21, 2019): 

Mathematically, Q.E.D.(subject to fn. 1).  Disappointed I didn't grasp/ figure out until pointed out.  From today's LA Times.

fn. 1:  "No laws prohibiting abortion" is a bridge too far.  (See fn. 2).  My father mentioned Logic of the Extremes.  Set out an extreme example and test the hypothesis.  Take ten minutes before birth, after the woman's water broke and she's dialating.  That would be a fair prohibition against abortion, obviously.  Along those lines, do not presume to know the 'answer'.  Figure the subset of justices on Roe voting in favor represent got it pretty darn as neat and clean as possible.(fn. 3).  Do not believe any particular precise date qualifies which is ethically consistent with choosing against conception as the marker. 

fn. 2:  The letter writer has, by definition, limited space to make the point.  Not suggesting that Ms. Chamberlin literally means "no" abortion laws.  Interpret her point as biological.  Against abortion?  The horror of masturbation.  Sperm are applicants for life deserving of protection too.

fn. 3:  As horrible as Korematsu v. U.S. was a Constitutional embarrassment, Roe v. Wade depicts the majesty of the Court's best dealing.

DFW, Big Bang Theory, Religion, AA and Drugs  (May 10, 2018)

Is it any wonder that in a nation where The Big Bang Theory is the most watched television program that Donald J. Trump should be elected president?  

Reading The Infinity Jest represents an epiphany, an illectual and artistic awakening.  The book represents a literary marvel akin to the  beautific majesty of Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel's ceiling, for those that are awed by painted art.   Separately, it's puzzling that Ceiling Art is not more envogue.  Years ago I check and found the CeilingArt.com domain name taken.  Yes, of course, there is gravity to contend with but it's a simple enough obstacle to overcome this day in age.  How much time, for example, do we lay awake, lie in bed, or stare up at blank canvases of ceiling.  And no, ceiling popcorn does not qualify, though it's demise -- heralding as it did, flat ceilings is unremarkable.

AA, religion and drugs (and alcohol) all are, it seems to me, part of the same patchwork of solutions people look to find meaning and escape and psychological comfort in the world.  Drugs certainly can, to draw on DFW, put you in a cage from which AA may free you.  Religion and AA both draw on the same human need for answers, for meaning.  

Correction:  to May 5-6, 2018 post.  The Infinite Jest is not to be compared to Catcher in the Rye.  Catcher in the Rye was a nicely orchestrated novel about regarding adolescence.  The Infinite Jest is an artwork that denies the existence of conventional boundaries, e.g., a tennis player that wins all his matches because he places a Glock 17 to his temple during play and promises to end his "map" if he loses.  Well, wouldn't authorities intervene?   Or a incompentent president, oddly prescient of Donald J. Trump, who proposes making a significant section of the Northeast (which not coincidentally is noted as not having contributed to his election victory) a toxic waste dump and then off-loading it to Canada, whose leader in turn complains that it already has more land mass than it knows what to do with.  The bursts in The Infinite Jest remind me of watching Fourth of July fireworks and ahh'ing and ooh'ing over and over, except the ahh'ing and ooh'ing (for the most part) stops when you're about six or seven.   

The Infinite Jest represents visiting a metaphorical adult Lego Land, but better.  If single, I would only wish to date women who identified with the book's brilliance, but not those ones so bright that they dismiss its significance vis-a-vis other works of art.  Or, stated in the words of those who watch the Big Bang Theory, I would give The Infinite Jest five stars on Yelp, with a glowing review.  In fact, if I were to get a tattoo (I don't presently have and presently do not plan to get one), I would debate between The Inifinite Jest and David Foster Wallace (or maybe DFW if I really wanted to get subculture or perhaps sought to hedge my tattoo bet by less ink or placing it at ankle or metatarsol level -- the true tattoo cowards, I guess, get tattoos on their undersoles).  I would put the tattoo on my forearm thinking that's the place it would most likely be seen and likely to provoke a fellow member of the DFW to feel comfortable, indeed compelled, to strike up contact.  

Inconsolable Range (May 6, 2018)  

The Sierra Nevada mountain wilderness is cosmically majestic.  Once out there, one may feel completely alone.  The beauty, the isolation, confrontation with our own, essential, ultimate aloneness.   The trail from South Lake to Bishop Pass is beautiful.  From Bishop Pass to LeConte Canyon, the beauty is incommunicatively beautiful.  The mountains running through it are called the Inconsolable Range.  The men and women that discovered their beauty, no doubt tough as nails, were human beings with the humility to be overwhelmed by cosmically majestic beauty.

1984  (May 3-4, 2018)

Hypothetically, if one sets up a web-site and mentions the word Trump, do you get a FBI file?  What if there were civilian awards, akin to those worn by generals.  Order of the First: FBI File on Me badge.  No, it's not a challenge to the respect owed to the office of the president, an office that Trump has done much to diminish.  (Democrats are not much better, preferring to feign indignancy over the actions of a pig.  Anyone who voted for Trump presumably doesn't care what a scoundrel he is.  He connected, even as fabulously false as the connection is.  

According to Thomas Frank, "In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt set down his vision of American political history, in which two 'schools of political belief,' liberals and conservatives fought endlessly for primacy. ...  He wrote, the liberal party, believed in the wisdom and efficacy of the will of the great majority of the people, as distinguished from the judgment of a small minority of either education or wealth."  

Frank then goes off and categorizes the current choice as between enlightened technocrats and resentful billionaires.  I think he and Roosevelt got it wrong.  Roosevelt by equating education with wealth (there often is a difference), and Frank by reducing Democrats to technocrats.  That's too kind to Democrats.  Democrats, it seems to me, suffer the twin plight of 1) caring more about current social fads than the middle class, and 2) caring more about the poor than the middle class.  Indeed, government needs to protect the poor from the viciousness of unregulated capitalism.  However, the protection in the first instance -- involving political survival, the core component of power, must be turned to consideration for the interests of the middle class (versus the Republican Rich).  

Apple recently announced a massive stock buyback, based on the fact that the Trump tax act permitted it to 're-patriate' profits.  The term sounds patriotic doesn't it?  Apple's actions benefit shareholders (sound famaliar?).  Meanwhile the Oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffett, buys a boatload more of Apple stock.  Watching CNBC, I heard an analyst talk about positively about the ability to 'redeploy' capital, as if investing suddenly assumed the significance of wartimes tactics.  Newsflash:  If you redeploy capital, you are a rich person.  God Bless you.  Get a bumper sticker that reads:  "He who dies with the most toys wins. "  Except that the American fascination for extraordinary wealth traces to something deeper than greed.

Greed is the symptom.  It's not the dis-ease (spelling courtesy of David Foster Wallace -- go to AA or read about it, if not immediately understandable).  Accumulation of wealth was socialized into so many of us via the Protestant Work Ethic; see also Puritanism and Calvanism.  Pre-determination:  the thought that only some of us are destined to get into Heaven and thus the search for signs, wealth.    Who knows though what ought then, objectively speaking to be the best purpose?  A life of poverty and chastity is an awfully tough sell, given the unknowable backside of life's bet.

But back to the FBI file business and prospect of deserving a civilian award.  If the government opens a file on the basis of threat considerations, totally legitimate.  Guns -- the subject of a separate future comment, are, by design deadly.  For all his many, many faults, Trump was elected.  Rather, if FBI files are opened because a writer holds fundamentally protected political viewpoints (re: First Amendment), then the creation of a file is both a frightening prospect and paradoxically pride worthy thing.  

A New Beginning  (May 3, 2018)

Among our dogs, we have a deer Chihuahua, Berkeley.  Kim, a talented artist, came up with a cast of dogs for a child's picture book, casting Berkeley as "Reva, a Deer Chi."  There are others in the cast.  So here's my script for the book.  Illustration needed.

Reva's Story

Chapter 1 - My name is Reva.  I am a dog.  A good dog, even as I suspect there are no bad dogs.  Still, this is my book.

Chapter 2 - Cherry-Oh's the Name, Bones are the Game.  It may be Reva's book, but they're my bones, and hey, bones are what really matter.

Chapter 3 - My friends call me Arf Veedersein.  I don't like work, but I do like bones.  Cherry-Oh can kiss his bones Arf-Veerdersein.

Chapter 4 - Reva works hard for her daily bone.  I love my Mom.  After I do my chores, she gives me a bone.  Yum!

Chapter 5 - Cheery-Oh saves up to meet his hero, Reva.  I love Reva.  I do my chores and save my bones, so I can buy a ticket to Italy to meet her.

Chapter 6 - Arf is lazy.  Why do chores for bones, if you can steal and eat them?

Chapter 7 - Working and Stealing are different.  Reva and Cheery-Oh know there is right and wrong.  Work is good; stealing is bad.

Chapter 8 - Arf steals Reva's bones.  Arf takes and eats Cheery-Oh's saved bones.  Do stolen bones taste as good as earned bones?

Chapter9 - Arf gets sick on stolen bones.  The doctor told me I became ill because my moral values are weak.

Chapter 10 - Arf is in trouble and gets taken to the pound.  Arf won't steal anymore bones so long as he's in a steel cage.

Chapter 11 - Reva wants to forgive Arf.  Dogs make mistakes.  Let Arf have another chance to learn the importance of honesty.

Chapter 12 - Pound directore Madam Von Mienster says Arf must stay alone in the doghouse.

Chapter13 - Cheery-Oh and Reva paw-tition Ms. Von Mienster.

Chapter 14 - Their paw-tition argues that all dogs sometimes make mistakes.

Chapter 15 - Arf says he's Sorry.  Arf promises to respect bone owners.

Chapter 16 - Ms. Von Mienster denies the paw-tition.  Arf must stay caged.

Chapter 17 - Arf cries.  He's scared and feels alone in the doghouse.

Chapter 18 - Cheery-Oh keeps saving his bones, but feels sad for Arf.

Chapter 19 - Reva doesn't want to eat her bones.  She is worried about Arf.

Chapter 20 - Reva and Cheery-Oh's bones build up.  What to do with them all?

Chapter 21 - Arf is lonely.  He is getting skinny.  Madam Von Mienster doesn't care.

Chapter 22 - Madam Von Mienster's boss, Madam Phorgiveness, wants to talk to her.  Why is Arf still in the doghouse?

Chapter 23 - Arf is set free!  The doghouse is closed.

Chapter 24 - Reva and Cheery-Oh welcome Arf back.

Chapter 25 - Arf promises never to steal another bone.

Chapter 26 - Cheery-Oh and Reva each bring Arf a bone.

Chapter 27 - Arf starts doing chores for his guardian, and gets bones!

Chapter 28 - Arf takes his bones to Reva and Cheery-Oh.

Chapter 29 - Reva, Cheery-Oh and Arf have a Bone Meal!

Comment on Catholicism and Immigration or a Product of Religion and Economics, (May 31, 2019); (edited June 1, 2019 - The Protestant Work Ethic and Props to Portugal)

As far back as the late-1980's (dating the experience) an Asian American friend (RD) asked me, paraphrased, you know why Central and Southern Americans are by and large poor?  Catholicism and its byproducts, via the centuries old imperial invasion by Spain (and Portugal - re: Brazil).  America was, alternatively, imperialized by Puritans -- Calvanists/ Protestants -- if you believe the myth, rejects/ criminals.  It's interesting to consider that some of England's worst, if that's who it was, later inherited dignified poise.  Nonetheless, America's Caucasian invading settlors were by and large Protestant -- Church of England.  Want a divorce in a world where it's not available.  We can do that, sure.

Those brought up to believe in pre-determination and afterwards continued to buy into it.  Accumulation of Wealth. The Means to Prove YOU are Special; Pre-Destined.  That's Protestantism.  In the Beginning, it bought a Divorce.  Over time, many of the devout became wealthy.  Some became 1%'s and many of those characters inexorably seeped to immoral excesses.  Greed, after all, will only sustain motivation so far, until the conquerer looks for another (moutain) high.  Or maybe, for men, successful pursuit of greed provides abundant personal profits, sufficient to drive pursuit independent of religious theology.

Meanwhile Catholics (writ large, not every Catholic of course) believe it's all about life.  No condoms, no abortion (a ridiculous comparison, except as practially applied).  Protestants (and obviously many of all religions) want to use condoms, for example, to consolidate wealth, and/or avoid financial or familial association.   Wealth ... it's Capitalism's ideal.  Accumulation of wealth as the Prime Directive is more economically successful than pretty much any other philosophy.  When poverty happens, those in need are drawn toward those that have, without regard to the moral degeneracy of many of those who pursue and with decreasing frequency find the Capitalistic Promised Land.

fn. - just a thought.  always important to remember, I could be wrong.

fn. 2 - if you believe the myth and America was colonized by criminals thrown out by England, it gives new meaning to America's Blue Blooded families.

fn. 3 - a great motto:  I could be wrong.

Elton John Bio-Pic: Rocketman (June 8, 2019 - ed. 6/10/19)

Hugely Talented New Yorker film critic Anthony Lane missed it. (fn. 1).  What about Elton's Fat.  Referred to, briefly, with initial mention of Bulimia.  Except for orphaned shots of Elton ordering a big dessert and driving a porcelain bus, overlooked.  Robert DeNiro reportedly gained, what, 40 pounds for Raging Bull.  Gay Elton?  Can deal.  Drug addicted Elton? Check again. Fat Elvis?  A bridge too far.  Instead Boheminian Rhapsody meets La La Land.  

Ok to show Gay, Insecure, a Shitty Family Home life, the isolation of a star, the fact that Stars are human beings, just like us (a friend observed Elton John is credited as Executive Producer) with all our insecurities no matter how we appear when we go onto our respective stages, whether arenas or taking a customer's order at McDonald's steel counter.  Yes, for many of us, our parents x'd us up, didn't love us, criticized us, whatever.  EJ really has it in for his mum and dad, but loves his Grandmother, deservedly, we understand.  Mostly, believe parents are well intentioned and mostly over-compensate for the weaknesses (perceived or true) of their own parents, as their parents did before them.  I'll never do this to my kid kind of stuff.

The actor who played Sir Elton was highly talented, though agree with Mr. Lane that not altogether charismatic.  Kevin Spacey would have been my favorite pick.  Spacey is allegely homosexually libidinous?  Ok, like Hollywood writ large, except in a more discrete hetrosexual manner, even embracing #MeToo.  More significant to me, impossible to capture a human's being life, depth, nature in a two hour piece.  Very few of us are ever particulary well known and even then it's with people who've lived with us for years.

Another thing, the end credits show Elton's been sober the last 28 years.  None of it featured in the movie.  Sobriety too boring.  Or young Reggie Dwight's creativity had drawn out like a candle wick.  

fn. 1 - Mr. Lane definitely caught the detail that a song featured in the movie was two years from being birthed.  Great, critically correct. But akin to noting that Brad Pitt wore the wrong San Diego Padres cap in Spy Game.  If we're casting for slight historical inaccuracies, missing the bigger picture.  Reginald Dwight/ Elton John are Legends; the movie didn't help me much understand him so much as to reasonably legitimize rumors, with sorry to see he had such a crummy upbringing, except as to his Grandmother (maternal or fraternal not specified).

Universities the Malls of Tomorrow?  (Jan 11, 2018 - ed. 6/11/19)

Reportedly an increasing number of high school graduates, principally males, are deciding the specter of enormous debt doesn't justify going to college.  The reason? The biggest hurdle to higher education is higher education in its current form. The beautiful grounds, awesome and history filled architecture of our nation's colleges underscores the truth of their abiding flaw: Increasingly impossible costs for countless youth.

UC Berkeley, UCLA and their brethren may laudably commit to admit a more diverse student body, with a special appreciation for those with economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Unfortunately, however exciting receipt of an offer of admission may be, the prospect of paying $25,000 a year or more to move to and attend Berkeley in the Bay Area or UCLA in Westwood amounts to fantasy.  Annual cost of attending Berkeley Law is reportedly $85,000.  Tough to thereafter chart a public service path, unless wealthy to start.

Of course for those of us who experienced undergraduate education at a great school, the experience is often remembered and treasured as precious.  At Boalt Hall in 1989-1990 (estimate), a student encapsulated the cultural advantage observing, the beauty of is you might run into another who shares, 'the sunset here reminds me of Helsinki.' Where else can you experience that level of culturally refined experience, including me as a token rube?

When I went to UC Berkeley as a freshman in 1980, I was amazed to meet others that had read Time magazine's review of the Kinks. The writer suggested that The Who had gone for the Throat, the Rolling Stones for the crotch, and the Kinksfor the funny bone. The metaphor effectively captured our collective and shared middle class mentality. Undergraduate education at UC Berkeley allowed us to connect and think and discuss ideas in a vibrant environment. In 1980, first quarter fees were under $200. The state has changed.

Now, the average cost to attend a UC school approaches $30,000. Is the advantage of meeting others who've witnessed Helsinki sunrises or who have kept abreast of cultural media worth the cost needed to attend a four year college?  The answer is no. Despite the affection or whatever value I experienced, frankly most of my learning involved privately working through accounting problems in a studio apartment or reading assigned books in the university's library, if I wanted company.

The modern day equivalent involves Amazon and the mall. It's socially engaging, interesting and exciting to shop with others, but the experience is more efficiently and often more affordably achieved on-line. The same goes for education. Except perhaps for the nation's Yales and Harvards, where connections may matter as much, or more, than education, all the historic architecture and instruction amidst wealthy or middle class classmates may not justify the cost of paying to learn in ivy covered buildings.

Fragging and War-time Success: Warning Controversial Content, Not Appropriate for All Viewers (Jan. 15, 2018 - ed. 6/11/19)

Interviewing for a ROTC college scholarship in 1979, I was asked a hypothetical question:  What would you do, if during war you were assigned to lead a group of men on a dangerous mission and one of the men announced that the others had spoken and decided against going?  The obvious answer, to impress a group of interviewing officials (retired officers), was to announce a determination to move forward, and -- if necessary, go alone.  Yet, the thought never occurred to my seventeen year old brain.   

Instead, in years to come, I reflected on my lack of situational awareness to seize the answer.   Without remembering my precise answer, I imagine I offered a lame discussion regarding the merits of rhetorical persuasion.  Meanwhile, my unspeakable instinct was to answer, well, I guess I might just have to shoot one of them to persuade the others.  Of course, I likewise instantly recognized the profound moral wrongfulness of the thought and fortunately, it remained unspoken.

While the moral analysis remains unchanged, consider -- if ordered to under take a war-time mission, and achievement of its goal is the highest directive, shooting one to persuade the other to go along may best promote the goal's achievement.   War involves killing and soldiers are not permitted to engage in reflection regarding the wisdom of group-think, particularly where its consensus vetoes a direct order.  Otherwise, one would seemingly and understandably ascribe to the judgment that survival and self-preservation and/or subjective consideration of the merits of the mission prevail over or at least are appropriately weighed against the suitability of absolute commitment to executing the order.  On the other hand, what duty is higher than an officer's to his troops?  Loyalty is job number one, but what if loyalty to the unquestioning wisdom of superior decision making is betrayed?

Teasing it out, the question then becomes during war is the greatest goal to deliver the mission, or to demonstrate loyalty to one's buddies when thrust into a life threatening situation -- presumably involving a high risk of one's own death?  Or perhaps the question is better phrased as involving selection of the highest good?   Maybe the answer is that the demonstration of a willingness to self-sacrifice -- even in the context of effectively suicidal action represents preferred conduct (presupposing efforts at persuasion or non-lethal threats proved ineffective).  

An accepted tenant of courage involves the willingness to embrace the boldly go it alone strategy, if necessary, and personal consequences be damned.  No other answer is more patriotic and thus perhaps more enthusiastically socially endorsed.

But how wise -- irrespective of moral considerations during war is it?  For instance, if ending one life, one that is here assume to have refused a direct battlefield order, materially advances the chances of saving a hundred or a thousand; is it worth it, especially when achievement of the goal is identified as worthy of undertaking the risk of losing the participating soldiers' lives?  Certainly, in innumerable (movie) westerns, leading Bad Guy actors proved, if six guys don't want to go along with your plan, shoot one and the other five will follow.  If there empirically proved data regarding morally appropriate repudiation of the Bad Guy approach, or does military training and strategy in the most life-threatening situations reduce to and rely upon accepted standards of idealism?  Life imititates art, sometimes.

The simplest rejoinder is that killing one's own is antithetical to the trust reposed in leadership.  Better and more noble is that suicidal is preferred over homicidal, even if the mission's ultimate success is irreparably prejudiced.  Besides, under the shoot one to get the rest to go along -- if the mission is successful, word will get out, then what?  Or would word get out.  

Incidents of "fragging" -- reported killing of an officer by his men rarely resulted in any actionable reports, including documented prosecutions.  Indeed, many morally objectionable acts committed in war-time go unreported and unpunished.  Further, consider the implications of the accepted defintion:  Enlisted men might frag an officer, the the converse would, could, never happen.  The statement is fraught with obscene class judgments, to wit, no one bred with patrician values of an officer would act like an enlisted person might. 

Separately, can the experience of man -- with its withering cruelties against one another, withstand the noble ideals that no officer ever fragged a man under his command?  Do officers -- American and otherwise, while engulfed by the otherworldly circumstances of war and its reliance on the kill or be killed principle, invariably, without exception and across the vagaries of time and circumstance, always act socially principled and disciplined?  Maybe just sometimes the desire to beat the bad ass, uncivilized other side provokes uncivilized conduct.   What social sciences proves that historically praised anecdotes represents the most effective manner to persuade soldiers who articulate a determation to stand for their own self-survival, especially when the circumstances are re,moved from formal oversight?  

The reality is that wars are fought to win, otherwise the natural sacrifices (lives) cannot be justified.   Few Americans, excepting emigrants from some African, Central American, Asian and Axis countries, have experienced the ravaging traumas loss of a war inflicts on the associated civilian populations.  Rape is common.  We want our warriors to win and to do it nobly.  Unfortunately, sometimes noble heroism and pragmatic success are mutually exclusive. 

Addendum:  Experience occurred at age 17.  Author decades later acknowledges the highest Patriotism and Courage demands solidarity, with the hypothetical ideally never occuring.  

OB Sunset (Nov. 24, 2018)  

Inter-generational Wisdom, June 19, 2019 (ed. 6/20/19)

Parents* say a million things a million times (not really but from a kid's perspective)/ alliteratively loose literary license), mostly -- i suspect, variations of no.  What are the expressions most repeated?  As in, if their efforts were statistically successfully calculated to instill important lessons beyond the lower axis of don't play with fire.  (Great Psychology/ Sociology study, what are the Best pieces** of life advice impartable by parents, if answerable***).  My Dad's (presumably learned):  Keep your options open.  Second most:  (paraphrased) Education is critically important and the best thing a parent can provide for his/ her child.  My Mom's (likewise presumably learned):  Listen to Your Body.  Runner-up for Mom: Get a profession. 

What if I like History?  Economic and expectational issues may precipitate life decisions as private and personal as sexuality.  Mom:  I want to come out as a person that's into Western European History -- and the story of religion ruling politics, and English Literature/ or Comparative Literature -- and the people who study it.   Dad, thank you, without the education that you and mom provided, I probably would not have come to appreciate that money is not, respectfully, everything.****  Mom and Dad, Public Defenders do the best and most important work.  Will see how worthy my two cents prove.  Kinda split the expectational baby, so to speak, thankfully.

* If raised in a single parent (or step parent where the partner didn't seem/ act/ genuinely assume the obligations of a parent), you are deserving of complete respect,***** without more.  Kids do best when raised by two parents, LGBTQ inclusive.  

** or tropes, but in a rememberingly fond sort of way (i.e., non-pejorative adjectives only need apply).

*** Editor's Note:  [Explain.  Do you mean in a financially/ career silo sort of way, or family togetherness -- children first type theme, or general happiness, or something else?  Who the x knows what parents self-learned lessons principally entailed and why assume uniformity across a generation?  If significant, detail, develop or open up a couple more paragraphs.  In fact, why don't you already know this stuff?  Present your priority argument, at least, subtly.  Readers can then contemplate and, depending, protest or more rarely compliment.]****** 

**** It's a lot though and important, to be honest with, at least, the Aleutian Isander crew.

*****  Yes, 'get' respect is an absolute, thus usage of "complete" represents improper syntax.  Respectfully, there are degrees within respect.

****** Even with attention to above said requested corrections, not sure we will be able to publish this submission.

Plastic Social Dissonance and NPR Madonna Interview, June 16, 2019

First world concerns include plastic.  Its destructive impact on our planet.  Yet, when I walk Elsa I'm rightfully (or socially (?)) expected to pick up her poop.  And dutifully do; thereby voluntarily, intentionally contributing to plastic waste.  What's more are those that scoop up dog poop in plastic bags and later drop/ dump the baggies.  Their psychology is something else.

Lulu Garcia-Navarro interviewed Madonna on/ for NPR.  The interview played this morning.  Madonna asked to be called, Madame X.  Fair enough, except when Ms. Garcia-Navarro asked, why would you like to be called that, Madonna asked, why do you want to be called Lulu?  Ms. Garcia-Navarro  handled the confrontation with grace.  Later Madame X said she wanted Ms. Garcia-Navarro to repeat the phrase, Your wish is my command.  Ms. Garcia-Navarro again obliged.  Emerged from reflecting on the interview to think, how amazingly gracious Lulu was and how irrelevant Madonna has become.  

Vanity and/or Realism & Tonight's Assignment, June 16, 2019 (2ed.); ed. 6/17/19

If I don't write this down, it's lost to history.  Listen to No Doubt Just a Girl (best maybe ever gender anthem); the Clash, Clampdown (giving up our best years to industry/ capitalism, accompanied by the most infectous beat imagineable -- miss you Joe*); the O'Jays For the Love of Money (brilliantly eloquent musical statement of money's supremacy), and Bruce Springsteen's Rosalita.  Rosalita's build-up amounts to about the best romantic sex song ever (not like listen to during sex song, no presumption what that would be, unless maybe Roxy Music's Avalon), Rosalita combines romantic fantasy lyrical story with an orchestral-like development, driving toward climax and exquisitely sloped and constructed denouement.  Honey, you picked well, the record company just gave me a big advance.  And the Boss mentions San Diego.  Extra Credit: 10th Avenue Freeze-out, and by Dramarama Anything, Anything.

*  Joe Strummer was to the 1980's as Jim Morrison was to the 60's or 70's, or decade thereabouts combination, musicially/ artistically/ charismatically/ socially aware, in different ways (Morrison: Honestly Critical Introspection;  Strummer: Social Injustice).  

fn. - Blur Girls And Boys is deserving of serious consideration for all-time 100.

Estate Taxes, et. al (and California Legislature)  (June 23, 2019 - 6/25/19)

What about a law that sets an age limit for bequests?  Consider the 83 year old guy, with a daughter and two sons, that sets out all he owns should go to the 23 year female (or male) he met fifteen or a hundred months before his death (because he/ she understood him, for example -- or, better yet, reminded him of his youth like he never thought might again happen and/or had the body she'd waited her life to share).  Discussion Thought:  How current feelings influence wills, so long as the person can tell you today is Saturday and the President is Trump (which in, an aside, ought to disqualify one as to any sanity test).  What about past feelings, solid commitment decisions if they'd been requested as stated at the moment, and/or represented as a previously strong position paper.  

Maybe an answer is to make sure there always remains an estate tax.  Amid the craziness of experienced love, on the one hand, and capriciousness, on the other (or worse), why shouldn't the gov't get its cut?  Like an uninterested Card Hall dealer.  The House takes a cut, if only to better take care of the poor who, probably, devote not one solitary second their whole life concerned with the subject or competency of bequests or those who make them, excepting envy and, most probably less commonly, resentment.

When do we make our best considered decisions about wealth, and/or our should the conspicuous tendency to buy the moment control expressions of 'free will' post-death?  Just asking. (fn.1).  Or like Solomon, is splitting the baby between offspring most appropriate.  Want to pick favorites, at what age?  At what age, and then why not the baby dog or trophy wife?  Neither the fantastic dog or loving young lady is to blame.  If today is all that really matters, yesterday love amounts to newspaper fish-wrap.  Or, when does life matter most, raising kids ... fighting to achieve something.  What happens if/ when the lottery is hit (or if it isn't).  How many of us choose to walk away.

Kim takes a class "Just Be."  The present as the only meaningful moment, as I understand. 

fn. 1 - (editor's note 1:  really, you think you're the first person who ever thought of this?  Or maybe you have something against opportunistic twenty year old (or young) females or male who, presumably, have no ulterior motive other than love.  Or, are you saying, kids as beneficiaries grow secondary to those who pay attention to you when you get old (and/or occupy the less physically attractive sphere of older age)).

Read in the LA Times today that the State Legislature is considering barring, by way of legislation, any party registering using the word Independent, on the basis that it would/ might confuse persons intending to register as Independents.  Why should the Legislature worry about protecting the ignorant or inattentive, unless the Legislature concludes/ assumes a significant percentage of persons interested in registering to vote are so dumb or inattentive that society will benefit from a protective law.  Is that level of patronization to expect from our elected officials?   LA Times, 6/23/19, p. B-1, "Bill would bar 'independent' from name of political party."

Editor's Note, 2nd:  The part about the LA Times reads best.  Don't bury the lead.  Learn from your mistakes, kid. {Not a kid, but waiving costs/ edit(s) as because understood as meant figuratively).  Just keep an eye on it, as friendly advice.

Ed. note #3:  Publishing - get your convention together, please, now!!   A High School Paper in rural New York City wouldn't tolerate this level of stylistic inconsistency.  Can't win on substance, work on fashion.  How many times does the Emperor's New Clothes win.  Save that for a later column.

Elsa, Dog Beach*(June 26, 2019)

*  Guardians to four so playing favorites?  No, even though she is the favorite.  Two are barracks rats wish to stay at home versus anything to do with going out.  Agoraphobic dogs, essentially.  The other, an awesome male ward, who would wander off in search of true love, in a moment.  

Political Thoughts - More Plutocracy than Democracy is Probably Not New (Or, Revealing the B-side How America Got Rich; Hint it's the Not the Protestant Work Ethic), June 30, 2019 (ed. 7/01 - 02/19)

When does a democracy turn into a plutocracy?  The learned answer per non-binary theory is there is no switch.  In fact, democracy, I'm thinking, is perhaps the rich's historical Plan B.  Rich people can control government in a democracy, but it's more hazardous and frankly time consuming. (fn. 1).

Heard a program on NPR that addressed why America is so Awesomely Dominant.  What it is?  Our natural intellect, our stubborn spirit, our Christian ethics/ religion; our gosh darn it nationally inherited genetic disposition to just buckle down and work hard, in fear of God and in furtherance of our everlasting life?  No.  The program posited (truthfully, believed here) America's economic dominance emerged from its longer than most all elsewhere exploitation of slavery.  We are, as a nation, not better than any other, just a helluva lot more prejudiced and worked that bully angle to spectacular advantage. (fn. 2).  

No doubt there are so many good Americans.  But, to be honest with another here, it was built by a plutocracy built on and which continues to exploit its cover as democracy, in the exact same sort of way (or fairly similar -- exact same is a bit much admitted) the plutocracy wraps/ packages its commercial delivery system (party platform (?)) in social terms.  Conservative Christian Values; Pro-life; small government (because we are suspicious by nature and believe taxation is best kept to an absolute minimum because, if for no other reason, we hardly have enough to support ourselves), our right to be left alone except to the absolute minimum necessary, for instance to pay for national security, and mostly anti-union (capitalism takes best care of itself).  

The Republican Plutrocracy (joined mostly by its Democratic colleague) brilliantly cobbles together a social theme of conservatism, where progressives are cast as black leather jacketed or high school dopers.  Real men drink Coors.  Or more accurately, real, 1%'ers, employ men who drink Coors. (fn. 5 - out of order, I know, but important).

(fn. 1).  The rich care only about the poor, criminally mostly, and then only when the poors' behavior begins to interfere with the richs' quality of life, even if only genuinely positive reactions gleaned from reading news.  Mostly though because of a belief that their own quality of life is threatened however remotely, like swimming in the ocean at risk of being attacked by a shark.  If suddenly, a trip to the mall or NYC or Los Angeles starts to look sketchy, then there are problems to be solved.  Otherwise, "those people" could just solve their problems by buckling down and getting a job. (fn. 3).

(fn. 2). Explicity, Americans are not genetically superior.  We became The World Power, Because We Enslaved Better than Anywhere Else.  (Heaven forbid the most important sentence you ever wrote assumed the form of a second footnote on June 30, 2019). That's your burden to carry.  Fortunately, you may take comfort that your mis-deed shall be known only to the Aleutian Islander crew, and as they pass away, will remain safe, unknown.

(fn. 3).  Editor's Note:  Totally false and you know it.  Crucially important to credibility to avoid hyperbole.  It doesn't read well.  Very hard to communicate satire in writing which is not intended as an insult.  Just that, it's worth acknowledging that many of the rich can probably afford to spend their time concerned about the poor, as it dilutes their guilt.  (Staff intervention:  Guys, this is exactly what we were talking about before, right?).  ...  Give me the mic.  There are definitely well intentitioned genuinely charitably inclined rich people.  My point is their parents (or grandparents) were not.  Not Blaming anyone in the current group, absolutely not.  Just their forefathers -- c'mon stop, now.  ... No really, nothing controversial.  America can choose to own it or not, and frankly everyday problems concerns do not, respectfully, permit the ordinary present day family the ability to support.  The rich might.  The rich should, and give the poor a break which isn't really a break because your riches were built from their sweat and brow.  The poor are God Bless generous, much more so than the rich.  Personal belief.

Here's your mic.   ... Out.  (fn. 4).

(fn. 4).  As always, maybe I'm wrong.

(fn. 5).  Per NPR this morning, 7/01/19, the top 1% (1 %'ers) own 31% of the nations wealth and as much as the bottom 50%.

When Loss of Order Has Broken Out (fn. 1), as Per Above on 7/01/19, in San Diego, Pacific Beach Neighborhood (July 2, 2019 - ed. 7/03/19)

Kim in Tucson and Elsa on the kitchen table. 

Fn. 1:  From a 1st world perspective.  Keep in mind, mister, whales in seas around Japan are being slaughtered. (fn. 2).

Fn. 2: I'm not going to feel guilty about my dog and the privilege admiring her being represents.

Music Notes, transitioning (rationally -- or at least conversationally) to excessive wealth:  

1) Not casting stones but Let it Rain (by Eric Clapton) and It Don't Come Easy (Beatles) are close to copies.  Someone cheated, my opinion, lest one of the AIeutian Crew is a copyright/ libel expert.  (It's just opinion, calm down, okay?).  We're among friends.

2) My least favorite band from the 1960's suddenly became Ten Years After, after finally considering -- for once in my life the lyrics to I'd Love to Change the World.  It's a Fake, in capital letters (which looks ridiculous when typed).  See, "Tax the rich to feed the poor, until there are no rich no more."  If conservatives didn't hate rock in the 1960's it might have been the decade's Conservative Anthem.  Maybe a millennial conservative may resurrect?  (fn. 3 & fn. 4).

Fn. 3 - Editor's Note:  That's unfair to millennials.

Fn. 4 - Actually, the lyric should be, tax the rich until they own something less than their present (approx.) 31% of the nation's wealth, which reportedly equals (approx.) the bottom 50% percent collective claim to wealth.  (Fn. 5 & 6). 

Fn. 5 - Not against Capitalistic Greed per se.  Let people get rich -- an important incentive, sure, but not like, hypothetically, owning 20,000 acres in Wyoming that you visit maybe one time a year (because you can).  If you are that rich, there are innumerable poor who by almost any objective standard might better enjoy an equal measure of capital in order to sustain their lives. 

     Of course, keep the Manhattan Upper West Side co-opt, the beachfront Malibu house, Lake Tahoe (Incline Village, NV - no state income tax palatial estate) and the Four Bedroom condo on Waikiki, and the winter trips to ski the Alps and snorkle in the Mediterranian, before boarding the yacht to enjoy locally sourced and caught herbs and fish, respectively.  

Fn. 6 - Doesn't rhyme; get with the program, or just keep your piece and let others step up to share their opinion.

Clarification of Aleutian Islander Crew & Cancellation of Search Efforts (for Immediate Release), July 10, 2019

The Aleutian Islander crew is a literary construct.  Sorry for the confusion and any sense of alarm (unreasonably) created. (fn. 1).  There is not (apparently) a group of individuals stranded in the Aleutian Islands with Internet access only to this site.

Fn. 1 - The lawyers insisted on inclusion of 'unreasonably' to douse potential tort claims of unjustifiable infliction of emotional distress, re: legal 'admissions' and consciousness of wrongdoing apparently.  

Editor's note:  Don't pretend like you're taking counsel's advice when you then go ahead and qualify it with parenthesis.  Fish or cut bait, stop with the passive aggressive qualification which, really accomplishes nothing.

Author's Reply:  Maybe not to you, but consider if just perhaps the AI crew is up there, awaiting rescue.  Forcing a claim of fictionally stranded Aleutian Islanders burdened with the glory of technical access to internet, only to be wrecked by limited access to an (actually highly artistic) site popularly dismissed as 'nonsense,' would prove -- by extension, inhumane to abandon. (fn 2 ; Ed. note 2).

Fn. 2 - Alright, there's no AI crew.  Happy now?  All 'Rescue the AI Crew' Go Fund Me contributions will be refunded, minus only US Coast Guard assessed S&R restitution costs.

Ed. note 2:  What do you mean popularly?

What to Make of All We Have is the Present? (July 13, 2019 - ed. 7/14/19)

The past matters more than purely as nostalgia.  When young learned it's incredibly important to plan for/ consider/ be guided by the future.  Goals, hopes, dreams, etc., -- and ambition.  Yet all we have (really) is today, this moment, our shared/ collective present.  (fn. 1).  Why is it so hard to better appreciate the time we now have when, regardless of past memories, we'll never have this second, moment, hour, day again.  Romanticization (sp?).  That's probably it.  

At the Y yesterday, I asked the person who checked me in how she was.  To her credit, she answered honestly, at least as I interpreted it.  Said she'd just eaten some chips and wasn't feeling good about herself.  Totally understandable.  How many variations of "I Feel Gross" define our lives in the present.  Many, for me.  Nostalgia mostly absolves the present trivial unhappiness, maybe that's it.  When we reflect back on past memories, to wit, "better days," the memories are mostly unaffected by how I was bothered by a work worry, something mean someone said, a headache or the weather, or how my weight was up (e.g.) two pounds -- which ruined/ ruins many days, as a for instance.  (fn. 2). 

What I'd really like to know is whether I'm depressive or whether, for most, life is generally dis-satisfying.  Are we really a spieces of happy beings or do we just go around for the most part appearing so, excepting those clinically diagnosed as deserving chemical intervention, for instance?  I don't know the answer and personally subscribe to the Set-Point theory of Happiness, akin to Set-Point Weight theory.  We are born as we are as to happiness, as to the particular factor.  (fn. 3).

Fn. 1 - I think.  Fairly sure, but insecure by nature.  A better person would venture a more definitive opinion, but hold off on assigning too definite an opinion. (fn. 4).

Fn. 2 - Less so now than when was younger.

Fn. 3 - Just a hypothesis.

Fn. 4 - Personally value humility/ modesty.  Way often, I may be wrong.  Today saw the Wimbledon final and the winner bending down to eat grass, in a non-humble appearing act.  God Bless his presence of mind and confidence.  Not me, appropriately modest/ humble I guess because as far from winning Wimbledon as a human might get.  So maybe the defining level of physical and intellectual superiority demands an associated level of conceit.  (fn. 5).

Fn. 5 - Certainly the two Tennis Players that paired off at Wimbledon are superior males, (fn. 6) just statement of a fact.  

Fn. 6 - To me, author's perspective (only).

Do We Mature or Just Get Jaded? (fn. 1) (July 15, 2019)

Bothered less by a 2 lb. weight gain from one day to the next because I've aged and grown more mature or because I've seen it enough times that the level of distress is lessened.  (fn. 2). Like sex, for instance.  How wild the concept when we first understand it, as an act of intimacy.  Do we get jaded or just mature?  Maybe, obviously, not binary.

Fn. 1- Editor's note:  What's with all the questions all of a sudden?  No irony intended, get serious just for a second.  At this age, you're supposed to have figured this stuff out or at least hold a definitive position on the more common issues, assuming one even has time to think about such things.  Maybe you need to see a therapist.  (fn. 3)

Fn. 2 - Editor's note 2nd:  Scary admittance of Gluttony.  Sure you want to keep this in, or at least maybe bury it in a discussion of something else, just (politely) asking?

Fn. 3 - Author's reply:  We frankly could all probably afford to see a therapist you included which creates a kind of Hall of Mirrors endorsement.  (fn. 4).  But that's not my point.  It's too easy to assume a position of security and knowledge.  Much scarier to consider we do not know the answer to some of life's most basic questions/ thoughts no matter the time lived or thought devoted.  (fn. 5).

Fn. 4 - Emotionally, not financially, re: afford.  Seeing a therapist is a defining First World Problem, aka, "Let me get this straight, you have the money to pay to talk to someone about your problems?  By definition, you have no problems."

Fn. 5 - Editor's Reply: People who actually have to work for a living don't have the time to consider your nonsense thoughts. (fn. 6).

Fn. 6 - Supervising Editor's Reply Revision:  Delete word "thoughts."  I'm worried about you guys.

p.s. - Saw Midsommer - A really artistically disturbing film.  Re-inforces any Barrack's Rat Instincts.  (Guilted into acknowledging watching movies is a First World privilege).  It is, frankly.

Stress and Attitudinal Health (July 30, 2019)

A person, I think, has a pre-determined number of stress moments (or bank) -- physical or emotional (fn. 1), available in his/ her lifetime before permanently suffering adverse health effects.

How many people fatally wounded, while remaining conscious, nonetheless believed they would recover?  Necessarily, since positing a fatal injury, a positive attitude (fn. 2) has no dispositive affect (fn. 3) on the outcome.  The answer, of course, is unknowable as we don't know how many fatally injured people genuinely believed they would live.  Suspect most people believe a positive attitude is highly significant, even as armies of people battling cancer with great attitudes are wiped out, for example. (fn. 4). 

Fn. 1 - The number varies from person to person, as some beings are constitutionally better equipped (fn. 5) to combat/ deal with stress.

Fn. 2 - Contextually a belief in survival.

Fn. 3 - Effect or Affect, never could get it straight.

Fn. 4 - Editor's Note:  Think you're missing the point/ importance of a positive attitude.  You need to ask how many people suffering a traumatic injury would have died but for possessing a positive attitude.  The cancer comparison, to wit, effect of a good attitude on uncontrolled cell growth is inapposite, respectfully.  (fn. 6).

Fn. 5 - Genetically, I think, though maybe meditation, exercise, wealth, or prescribed FDA approved medications (or other mind altering substances) may sustain the bank longer, or presumably may alternatively more quickly deplete it.  

Fn. 6 - Author's Response:  If you parse the effect of a positive attitude to exclude certain physical conditions in order to support the argument that a positive attitude is significant, then you necessarily concede the existence of circumstances where it is irrelevant.  And, if irrelevant, then the argument amounts to -- it may be helpful sometimes to stay positive, which actually reads as wishy-washy.  Like maybe it would have been helpful to eat a healthy breakfast the morning of the traumatic event.  (fn. 7).  Plus, the initial question was not does a positive attitude help.  Yes, generally, of course.  Rather, asked (essentially) what percentage of time does a good attitude prove worthless in the context of the aftermath of a traumatic injury where the person remains conscious and alert for some period of time prior to dying. 

Fn. 7 - Indeed, how might having eaten a healthy breakfast the morning of suffering a potentially fatal traumatic injury statistically compare with possessing a positive attitude in terms of a scientifically preferable virtue (or it's medical equivalent).  (fn. 8).  Both (increased physical sustenance and positive spiritual energy) boost the odds of survival, but what if it really came down to food in belly versus positive mind set, in this particular construct.

Fn. 8 - Term meaning benefits survivability in a manner that is worth documenting.  (fn. 9).

Fn. 9 - Too scary to consider that neither may clinically benefit the odds of surviving an otherwise fatal traumatic injury; but if had to guess me and the Aleutian Crew are throwing in with a good attitude.  (fn. 10 & 11).

Fn. 10 - Guys, if I'm wrong hit me up.  p.s. - help Is on the Way.  Stay positive.

Fn. 11 - Editor's Note 2:  That's way too corny, frightentingly embarrassing, in fact.  (fn. 12).

Fn. 12 - Author's Reply 2:  Great, you ruined everything.  Could have just let it go and ended on a positive note.

Homeless People Simply Need to Yoke Up (Aug. 5, 2019, ed. 8/09/2019)

A common impulse (fn. 1) is the homeless are that way -- homeless, because of their own doing.  Some folks just refuse to buckle down.  The mentally ill as homeless?  Sure most people identify with the judgment there are those too, poor souls -- definitely a minority though.  Further, the thinking goes, the mentally ill homeless are generally self-selected outliers since there are ample community services for the mentally ill.  Government can't make people live in an apartment.  In fact, some lazy people might prefer to be labeled crazy seeing all the benefits available to the mentally disadvantaged.  (fn. 2 & 3).

Raised poor or in an unstable household (or even more probably in multiple unstable households) and never really had a chance?  Well of course not with an attitude like that.  Sorry to be coarse, but the world needs people to clean toilets too.  Learn your American History.  That's how generations of (now generally accepted as assimilated foreign cultures) succeeded.   Maybe join the military and learn some self-discipline and patriotism for good measure.  Homeless Veteran?  There's no helping some people. 

So if you're homeless in America, keep faith that many people and governmental agencies publically preen (self-consciously, the best of them) with anxiety over your plight (fn. 4), and rest easier that sheltered Americans don't lose much sleep.

Homeless and anxious about falling asleep in the open tonight, especially as a female or bullied male?  The moral majority courageously offers you Tough Love, only because it consolingly recognizes the principal cause as your natural or inculcated slothfulness.  Take ownership of your life.  Get a Job and Off the Streets.  (fn. 5).  Good folk have enough stress without the psychological affront of homelessness.

Fn. 1 - New Term = Implicit Bias.

Fn. 2 - Politely sensitive nomenclature, e.g., "mentally disadvantaged," is intended to legitimize the credibility of the associated substantive text.

Fn. 3 - President Ronald Reagan would have never, as California's Governor, presided over the shuttering of State Mental Hospitals, if other adequate governmental safety nets were not openly available. (fn. 6).

Fn. 4 - The words "survival" and "your daily existence" read emotionally upsetting; plight lands and comes to rest more comfortably on the conscience.

Fn. 5 - Get a Job and Off the Streets.  Maybe start with a test run order of a 5,000 ball caps.  Red, but not red in color if you know what I mean.  Brand differentiation in the space may become more important.

Fn. 6 - Editor's Note:  Reagan was proved right, if one includes prisons as adequate alternative public resources.

Wicked Bench Designs: Treating Homeless Like Pigeons to be Discouraged (Aug. 6, 2019)

Dalits and Petroglyphs (Aug. 8, 2019)

Just because it survived doesn't mean it's art.  What if, for example, only agoraphobics drew on cave walls while everyone else was out earning a living (or the pre-historic equivalent of earning a living, pre- Social Darwinism), and/or the most highly accomplished artistic brethren were altogether disinterested in the longevity of their work.  (fn. 1 -3).  Certainly as in any era there were undoubtedly brilliant artists, but we have no idea what mediums/ media the best (collectively - only as it results in upping the probability that a representative sample might survive) preferred five hundred thousand (or however many) years ago.  It would be an absolute coincidence (is there any other kind?) if the best artists happened to choose to draw on walls or canyon rocks.  What if we celebrate -- anthropologically, the equivalent of modern day graffiti just because it survived?  It's really old but perhaps amounts to juvenile scrawlings, for example, while mom and dad (or whatever the functional family or clan unit looked like back then) were survivally occupied and artistically inclined elders were creating and committing historically important art onto matted dried birch leaves, for instance.

America, a so-called classless society, has its own caste system.  Dalits, called and/or historically considered Untouchables on the Indian subcontinent functionally compare to homeless people here.  The difference is the American caste system, with the 1%'ers at the top, is economic, not religious.  (fn. 4).  The upshot is the gasping indignation of how Hindu (Indian) culture historically permitted religious ostracization is not so different from America's treatment of the homeless.

Fn. 1 - Recently saw spray painted graffiti on a sandstone canyon wall which is not, per se, a condemnation of the excitement archaeologists experience upon discovering ancient pictures of stick men and women, mastodons, fire or buffalo hunts, etc.  However, it suggests that writing on rocks and walls and caves does not necessarily represent a marker of historically important art anymore than drawings of roman numerals, initials or other tagger abbreviations on road signs, wooden fences, concrete lined river beds or train cars, respectfully.  (fn. 1a).

Fn. 1a - Maybe modern day graffiti is socially significant in a historical perspective; art is different.  Or maybe, just, historians disagree over Petroglyphs and some have decided to devote their career to old fashion graffiti.

Fn. 2 - There may be some confluence between agoraphobia and artistry, though there is no obvious basis to conclude history's most talented artists shielded themselves from the natural world by virtue of a pathological fear of the outdoors.  From an evoluntionary perspective since venturing out probably increased the risk of being attacked and eaten there may have been some benefit from preferring the inside.  However, the benefit was probably more than offset by the fact that it was likely harder to attract a mate in a cave without the benefit of venturing out and returning with food.  

Fn. 3 - Cave persons (gender neutral) probably didn't so much earn a living as spent a considerable portion of day light hours outside in order to hunt and gather.  Thus, it might be inferred, art (such as it was) was probably produced by the young (too young to hunt or gather), infirm, or elderly (too old to effectively hunt or gather), and only after (some) of human kind outgrew a nearly purely subsistence based existence did art begin to flourish. (fn. 5).

Fn. 4 - And to some -- especially White Supremacists (or more politely popularly described, White Nationalists) America features a racial caste system.  Slavery operated, obviously, as a de facto racial caste system and, to some, the legal effects post-emancipation have been perpetuated (definitely in the Criminal Justice arena).  Further, socially at least, President Louse has, arguably, endeavored to socially expand the American Dalit community to Muslims, Mexicans, Central Americans and other darker skinned people (including those from his self-described $hit-hole countries).  (fn. 6).

Fn. 5 - Editor's Note:  Why not just say that art, generally speaking, requires the benefit of leisure time, rather than undertaking to insult pre-historic art and the academics who study it?  

Fn. 6 - Editor's Note 2:  Layoff Trump, (fn. 7) a lot of people really seem to like him and you do not need to circle back to criticize him, especially since your point -- it seemed was that America has a caste system, it's just that it's economic.  (fn. 8).

Fn. 7 - Author's Reply:  How can any person, especially an American President refer to another country from which fellow creatures hail, as a $hit-hole?  That's why, I guess, as an example why President Louse fits.  Maybe if he had immediately apologized and it were out of character, I'd better respect the editorial criticism.

Fn. 8 - Author's Sur-Rebuttal (Last Word):  Fair point, except as I was writing about the homeless, it occurred to me that it would be remiss and myopic to ignore the historically outcaste status of African Americans (whose enslavement, for starters, was also tethered to economic considerations -- forced labor; and separately incomprehenibly bigoted racial beliefs involving skin color).  The path to Trump from there was as inevitable as snow melt tricking down a stream bed.  President Louse has, repectfully, cultivated and embarrassingly re-popularized the most base racial instincts among some whites. 

Dad and Daughter - Whitney, July 26, 2019 (Aug. 9, 2019)

Agoraphobia Explained (and/or Defended) (Aug. 10, 2019 - ed. 8/13/19)

Cave men (fn. 1) who adventurously ventured and returned home with slabs of meat were probably prodigiously rewarded in mating opportunities.  The same metaphor might be said to still apply.  Social Darwinism operates economically and some who take the biggest swings and wind up the most wealthy frequently court beautiful young women.  Let's put it that way.  But, statistically, a batch of the guys that enthusiastically rushed out to hit the biggest waves and secure the slabs of meat amidst an environment that included lions and tigers -- things that could kill you, did not come back.  

Meanwhile those that preferred -- not insisted, on maximizing Cave Time, were hit and miss procreatively.  Don't take too many risks?  You're probably unlikely to have much to share (with spouse and offspring), unless you were previously miserly which recommends little by way of companionship promise.

Imagine there were those whose preference flexibility allowed successful adaptation.  Today -- just as in pre-historic times (had Economics or Finance been recognized as a science and its terminology developed) those tending toward agoraphobia economically represent those to whom Conservation of Capital is most important.  To wit, it can only get worse going out.  That's, I think, the basic perspective of Agoraphobics.  I'm okay (to a relative degree in here).  If I go out, it's dicey.  

Many agoraphobic leaners in pre-historic times (and now) chose (and choose) or were otherwise obliged to remain single and thus -- like the too bold and unfortunate adventurers, their seed was and is not further scattered.  (fn. 2 & 3).  Still, enough Conservation of Capital motivated persons, including their female offspring, proved successful enough to sustainably procreate the risk aversion gene.  (fn. 4).

Fn. 1 - Shorthand for pre-historic people.

Fn. 2 - Just switching up references to genes, no anti-religious meaning is remotely implied/ intended.  (Question:  Is intentionally implied a tautology?). 

Fn. 3 - The scope of Dead Beat Dads Syndrome (DBDS) is outside this note, obviously.

Fn. 4 - A statistical breakdown regarding the comparative prevalence of the risk aversion/ risk tolerant gene which necessarily must include more than a single binary source code -- recognizing differences in risk tolerance among  individuals involving distinct areas, e.g., financial, moral, artistic, etc., is not estimated here.  

Editor's Comment:  (Slapping Forehead).  Reads like something from a first year liberal arts undergrad's Sociology or Psych paper, assuming the kid never bothered to take either Intro class before writing it.  (fn. 5).

Fn. 5 - Author's Reply:  [Redacted].

Supervisor's Response:  Get off of it, both of you.  It's got nothing to do with personality or emotions.  We're all on the same team.  And frankly it makes sense.  (fn. 6).

Fn. 6 - Author's Sur-reply:  Thank you.  (fn. 7).

Fn. 7 - Editor's Reply:  That's not what he meant.

Existential Angst and Smiling for the Camera (Aug. 19, 2019)

Venturing out onto an ice floe, metaphorically risky.  Most of us come from families that are X'd up, and, in most instances, most of us are X'd up.  (Fn. 1).  The observation is not intended as a screed against our parents, most of whom were probably -- within a couple of generations the product of their own screwed up families.  And, of course, a good many who grew up in non-screwed up households still managed to grow up screwed up, together with the converse, to wit, those who grew up in dysfunctional families who are not screwed up.  The larger question, of course, is the overall happiness quotient most people experience.  Further, it's necessary to acknowledge the non-binary nature of happiness.  Even the happiest people are not, I think, perpetually bound in a state of dumb glee.  (fn. 2).

Happy social media posts, for example, I'll theorize (fn. 3) probably are unrepresentative of most persons' overall happiness quotient.  Rather, tend to believe many, many people fake it, frequently.  Are they faking it on social media posts?  I'm not sure.  Maybe many of the social media posts accurately reflect happy times, though why then I suppose are people frequently reminded to smile.  (fn. 4).  Other explanations include the fact that social media posts are almost certainly non-representative as most people (I suspect) do not tend toward postings irrespective of mood.  They post 'happy.'

Beside  the reason (or reality) of faking happiness -- such as it is, is the why?  For the most part (again an assertion) people walk around all day appearing much happier than we really are because we are normalized against displaying emotional vulnerability.  (Happiness represents an acceptable and indeed welcome exception, for the most part -- contextually sometimes it's obviously inappropriate).  So, while needing/ deserving further edit, let me acknowledge/ bemoan our collective reluctance to be (emotionally) honest/ self-revealing with one another (as a species) as it relates to existential angst.  (fn. 5).  Curiously, those who most vividly, impulsively and reliably display their true state of mind are commonly divided into two groups:  1) Young children (e.g., the screaming toddler in the supermarket), and 2) the mentally ill adult (screaming wherever).  Most others manage their days with expressions ranging from mostly stoic (inspiring perhaps others' whispers the person must not be happy) to public pronouncements of positivity, mostly welcomed and admired, if not envied.

How often are the expressions of positivity accurate and legitimate?  Tough to estimate.  Many are probably accurate, even if amounting to temporary (but genuine) manic displays.  Others, no doubt, are consistently contrived, maybe as a learned habit/ social response.  And, it goes nearly without saying that even the happy are maybe (only) 70-80% that way.  (It's axiomatic that unless one knows its corollary, one cannot know happiness). 

Effect of an Interior Life:  Whether, or to the extent that the existence or absence of an interior life (fn. 6) contributes to or detracts from a normalized heightened level of happiness, I'm not certain, though I tend to believe (generally speaking) many brighter individuals are probably more tormented, see e.g., Hemingway, F Scott Fitzgerald, David Foster Wallace, John Kennedy Toole.  Or maybe, torment (or existential angst, or being x'd up) is more frequently a product of having successfully scaled Maslow's hierarchy.  Maybe Maslow got it all wrong and if you reach the mountaintop of self-actualization, one comes to understand (to mix metaphors) the $64k and top pyramid includes, uh-oh, the potential find of an abysss of regrets and self-doubts (together, of course, with positive discoveries -- depending on one's good fortune and social/ psychic composition).  

Fn. 1 - X'd up is intended as shorthand for those experienced with anxiety, depression, nostalgia, fear and worry (to the extent either or both differ from anxiety), insecurity (financial or personal) which collectively or individually materially interfere with an overall (or predominant (?)) state of happiness.

Fn. 2 - The term dumb glee is unfairly biased.  I apologize.

Fn. 3 - More accurately hypothesize, though I feel fairly confident regarding the belief, so indulged the more self-congratulatory and empirically undeserved term.  I apologize.

Fn. 4 - Another historical hurdle involves looking back on the happy/ smiley social media posts and potentially mistakenly intuiting their status as reflections of happiness, at the time.  After all, we were smiling (corroborative evidence of happiness) as we stood at some, for example, scenic National Park overlook, or at a Holiday Family meal, or before an iconic Disneyland/ World scene, where there is manifestly something wrong with us if you're not happy there.

Fn. 5 - Maybe existential angst is a better catch all for those conditions that detract from a more frequent state/ enjoyment of what might be similarly generally referred to as happiness.

Fn. 6 - A mental state that lends itself to contemplation.  (Not contemplation like meditation (fn. 7), to wit, focusing on breathing and the present but historical or future based contemplation, including -- for example, a replay of the day's events).  

Fn. 7 - Meditation (and/or the ability to practice it) represents separate convincing evidence of a distinct and complete interior life.  People capable of meditation, I'll confidently predict, possess an Interior Life.  

The Crash Test Dummies are Beyond Great and Your Dog (Aug. 29, 2019, ed. 8/30-31/19)

With better management, my opinion, the next Grateful Dead.  Same idea about The Shelters.  Had Tom Petty lived, you'd be buying arena tiks.  Talent and kismit (?) seldom converge.  Life is Haphazard and most species spend most of each day working toward surviving.  Regarding music, Crash Test Dummies deserve Cleveland (Your River is Burning) Hall of Fame enshrinement.  The Shelters.  Those guys are highly talented.

Do you give your dog equal respect?  Specifically what's your effort level as it involves earning your dog's love?  (fn. 1). If you do, congratulations.  Most people, I don't think, fully appreciate dogs.  (An obvious metaphor, but mean it as to dogs, without extraneous intended messaging).  Saw a three legged dog at OB's Dog Beach today.  He/ her had a beautifully multi-colored tail.  I complimented his/ her guardian.  if i were of a (sic) (fn. 2) person, i would have complimented her on the beauty of her three legged beauty.  Instead I complimented the creature's guardian on the creative look and asked whether she did it.  no, the groomer.  Delicious.  A three legged dog visits a groomer and gets extra luxurious treatment, her tail  dyed.  Absolutely beautiful and, (karmically) deserved.

Fn. 1 - Grace is given, not earned.  So maybe it is with a dog's love.  Few of us probably earn it at least as it involves the grace of their love.

Fn. 2 - Better?  More honest?  One of those I guess.  Most people, frankly, I think would not choose to adopt a three legged dog.  And decent people, I guess, don't comment on the fact that, hey, one of your dog's legs is missing.  Just an observation, like (innocently) what happened?  No doubt there is a great story (most probably involving an element of tragedy), and the guardian is among the best you might ever meet.

Companionship, Prison, Porn, Social Bias and Youth, (Sept. 1, 2019 - ed. 9/02 & 04/19)  

The essence of prison is deprivation of Hetrosexual Compansionship.  Otherwise, candidly, the experience compares favorably to homelessness.  In prison, you can probably still buy alcohol and drugs (at higher prices), get primitive accommodations, access to a toilet and, at least, some food.  Both conditions involve association with troubled individuals and often (sadly) abusively oriented law enforcement professionals.  

Regarding pornography, it's bothersome the attached stigma and the irony of particular persons successfully able to avoid it.  Consider, for instance, the Kardashians.  Are they possibly as vapid as they appear on television (or are they simply performing in a manner approximating professional wrestling?)  If yes -- i.e., they're not just performing they are simply unbelievably shallow, the reality reflects society's insatiable passion/ commercial appetite for sex, or perhaps more acceptably purient entertainment.  Moral Majority America rejects porn stars (see e.g., sports talk radio's (Colin Cowherd, my opinion) outrage when SF 49'ers QB Jimmy Garappolo took up with/ dated a 'porn star.'  Who gives a shit, really?  She's a human being, and as likely as anyone else interesting and reasonably bright.  Yet, her porn background reportedly affected the quarterback's (or others) judgment and consideration of her as a socially suitable and/or non-scandalous partner and potential spouse).  Meanwhile, ironically Kim Kardashian's fame traces -- in part, to an (alleged) sex video. 

Maybe the difference is that the video was allegedly made in connection with a personal relationship (versus purely (?) for pecuniary gain). (fn. 1).  And who, really, cares if someone (a) makes a sex tape, and/or (b) makes a sex tape for money or any other reason.  Motive matters?  Really?  In fact, vanity would seemingly rank higher on a list of objections than money.  For instance, yes, you had sex, so do a lot of couples.  Are you going to watch it later as kind of a family movie, or is the eroticness, such as it is, found in we have a camera on us.  Either way, no basis to socially exile a porn actress.

A further (and equally sad) male dominated sexist irony involves age.  For thirty or forty years, the most physically striking women's beauty is more than secretly and publically admired.  It's sometimes purchased (prostitution and/or trophy marriages), fawned over, adored, and fashionably celebrated.  In personal experience, routine to project onto attractive women equally positive personal qualities they surely possess.

Then, maybe akin to the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills (or NFL training camps) former stars/ starlets/ stunning beauties are unceremoniously dumped.  Not invited back is the commercial euphemism in television reality casting; waived is the NFL term.  Regarding Real Housewives, the narrative commonly goes, her personality after all wasn't that great (0r detiorated,  as a result of fame -- which destroys modesty and humility of many). (fn. 2).  As unbelievably beautiful in youth, no need ever existed to develop/ work on personality.  Men swooned.  

The difference, over years, is the incremental diminishment of attractiveness (looks) accrues and eventually fades (fn. 3) sometimes traumatically for the most beautiful, mostly/ many times.  The comestically enhanced lips move from subjectively sexy to sad to sometimes cartoonish and the drama with other rich wives moves from idiosyncratic to petty and mean appearing.  When, in actuality, these beautiful women remain who they mostly always were.  

Fn. 1 - Don't mean to inadvertently insult the Kardashian spin-off sisters.  As far as I understand, only one allegedly made a sex tape. (fn. 4).  

Fn. 2 - Attributing a loss of public appeal to personality represents, seemingly, a defense to age/ bias discrimination charges.  And, really, how can you prove otherwise.  Most of the Real Housewives appear intolerably conceited, which logically might support a charge their termination was age related, e.g., she kind of was not the kindest/ nicest person from the start.  

Fn. 3 - Time Overwhelms and Steals physical beauty.

Fn. 4 - There is an excellent South Park episode involving Photo-Shop.  It's called, I think, The Hobbit. 

Subarus, LGBTQ, The Wilderness, Chasing Image via Wealth & Stereotyping (Sept. 7, 2019 - ed. 9/08 & 09/19)  

Preliminary disclosure:  Love Subarus because of their back packing/ outdoor association, and appearance and associated quality reputation (very important).  Mostly though, among quality sporty cars, Subaru qualifies (perhaps uniquely) as backpacker hip, i think.  (Obviously all opinions are personal).  Subaru is also/ frequently identified (apparently) as an LGBTQ emblem of sexuality.  The coalescence seems spiritly harmonious and the question is whether the co-identification is/was coincidental or logically natural.  

Lots of people drive cars that reflect who they are and/or would like to project themselves as legitimately or ideally representing; think men and women who buy bright red cars (i.e., look at me -- respectfully, i'll suggest -- though sometimes people just really like red as a color -- it just coincidentally stands out) or older men purchasing Corvettes (perhaps too old/ dated reference).  Or the many who otherwise buy/ lease cars to project wealth.  (Sure, there are bunches of old car afficiandos and plenty of people who can afford and want the safest cars, irrespective of cost).  (fn. 1).  There are as many, I suggest, who choose and pay for their cars as a matter of desiring to project a measure of wealth (defined as deserving of some reasonable part plus 1-2 upward standard deviations of their monthly discretionary budgeted income).  Wealth is, it seems clear to me, many times closely associated with attractiveness and like attracts like.  (fn. 2).  Maybe an existentially sensed pheramone or just a shade (non-binary small sliced pie representation) of one's desired self-esteem, to wit, I'd like to be with an attractive person, if only as matter of self-vadidation which is, who to say, legitimate or not?

Back to the backpacker/ LGBTQ advertising effect was/ is coincidental.  Maybe it's too much to say if one loves nature, she accepts its seemingly bountifully random breath taking variety.  Or backpackers are (mostly) hippie types -- sometimes humbly/ necessarily inviting self-directed charity (e.g., a ride to town).  Thus less likely to be judgmental, maybe -- or over time less conditioned toward judgment.  Filthy dressed in dirty sweaty clothes, socks and boots from days out and you give me a ride.  The internal message = acceptance.  

Or maybe just LBGTQ and backpackers (writ large) are generally more constitutionally relaxed and less likely to reflexively invoke moral judgments. (fn. 3).  Not that anything of about Subarus would provoke a negative judgment; rather that the car/ vehicle/ SUV's proved hip -- to those who, ok -- maybe this is the point, understand hip.  Of course, conceit sometimes overspills into otherwise modest tending people.  Must acknowledge the possibility that Subaru Advertising Execs just happened to design (fn. 4) a car that in a statistically significant measure disproportionately appealed to the LGBTQ community with similar interest to wilderness fans.

Fn.1 - There are also lots of folks who drive and choose their cars entirely without consideration to how the colloquially described ride may reflect on their social status or present morning/ afternoon drive interaction with other drivers and pedestrians may be perceived.  For many, it's just about getting from point A to point B.

Fn. 2 - Paying to drive a high end car to attract (or appear more attractive to a rich person).  Rich persons are probably more suspicious about people liking them because of their wealth, so perhaps feel more reasssured by persons appearing to already possess wealth; thus incentivizing purchased (or leased) symbols traditionally associated with wealth.  (Not totally dishonest perhaps, e.g., intent to reveal debt and personal finance problems after the (wealthier person) gets to know (and appreciate) the true 'me', which is substantially deeper and morally better in ways that don't involve (lesser social considerations of) money despite the fact that expenditures all but prove its presumed importance.  Or maybe it's simpler:  Takes money to make money; in business or love.

Fn. 3 - Acknowledge that positive stereotyping of LGBTQ community, re: association with positive qualities, nonetheless involves stereotyping.  But, perhaps some stereotypes hold some merit, especially maybe those that do not rely on majority/ socially dominant (and often majority prejudiced) values.  Are stereotypes, irrespective of favor/ dis-favor, inherently objectionable?

Fn. 4 - Editor's Note:  Selling you idiot, not designing.  The advertisers just got lucky selling a beautifully designed car.  Or, however the credit may best be approportioned, the ad agency did not 'design' the model.  Sort of, candidly, embarrassing failure of diction, actually.

Editor's note, 2nd:  Two spaces should properly and grammatically follow a period in a sentence which is followed by another sentence without a paragraph break.  Just a matter of trained manners.  Forgive the author, in otherwords when the observance is ignored.  He knows better.  But is that really a legitimate defense against, for example, inattentiveness in matters one believes another may benefit from reading?  Not sure can defend inattentiveness, thus the explanation of, perhaps, the even more troublesome thought of poor grammar.

Minnesota Pig Farmer - Source SD Union, 9/15/2019, page A-5; article on China holding off on some higher tariffs.  (Guy's business perfectly legal and legitimate, as far as I know).

God Bless the Pope,  Ill-Royalty, Throne, and, if time, Subject of Abortion and Title IX's Application to Planned Parenthood (May 18, 2018)

The Vatican released a memo (holy memo in the formal vernacular) that essentially endorsed application of the fiduciary rule as it involves investment advice.  First, mitre's off for the spot on advice.  The Catholic Church, it must be said, does a pretty darn good job picking popes.   Would be great but he's probably way too busy to run the CFPB.  ...  Corresponded recently with a friend originally from Iran.  Both our current Top Executive and the Supreme Leader are pretty darn (insert appropriate pejorative adjective), I most humbly offered, except that -- I sought an acknowlegment, you can't have the country going around carrying placards that say "Death to (The Other Country)."

The thoughtful response was that our Most Respected Leader is worse because he possesses (as President of America, destructive authority of the World's Foremost Super Power).  Interesting.  So, my reply question is does the size of the throne matter in assessing whether a person is competent or (as reportedly alleged by Rex Tillerson) an idiot? 

Read that Meghan Markle can never be a Princess (as the word is understood in British culture) because she was not "born a Royal."  That sounds like nonsense, unless the theory seeks to elevate mostly ridiculed caricaturizations of Appalachia.   An interesting thought in itself.  Who are more inbred, historically speaking.  Until one considers the question of why do we even permit consideration of some human beings as Royals, think about it.   Respectfully, if you believe in honoring the Royals, you ought to own admiring the willingness of other societies to consider other fellow beings social outcasts, solely because of their parentage.

Big Throned Donald J. apparently invoked his Executive Authority to hurt Planned Parenthood today.   President Clinton said it best in the words of abortion should be rare and legal.   The Law -- natural law, should, in my view, protect and ensure a woman's right to decide, to wit, the government shall not be permitted to command:  You Will Carry that Zygot to Term.  The narrower (Trump critical) point here is give me a president governor from Utah and I'll buy that as leadership.  But please Mr. Trump don't do anything other than acknowledge the action represents a bent knee to many craven persons who would deny women control over their bodies, in furtherance of your 2nd term and popular aspirations.