Comix

( Pic, my floor, tonight.)

Just a thought. I watched Burn Notice tonight. Second episode with an additional character.

It was a classic recombination of events. If you read comix as a kid. Obivously, I was a fan of Kirby. Destroyer Duck #1? Kirby. Mister Miracle #1? Kirby. The Demon #1? Kirby. Forever People? Kirby. New Gods? Kirby. Howard the Duck #1 (not pictured here)? Gerber. Kull the Conqueror #1? Wally Wood and Ross Andru. And I got through all that without mentioning Ditko.

The point is, when you look at relationships, there is a certain calculus that occurs dealing with the number of people involved in any relationship. The great comic story tellers knew that simply adding a character completely shifted the balance of the story line. Imagine a golf tournament in the 1980's with Peter Jacobsen, without Fred Couples. Tom Watson without Arnold Palmer. Chi Chi Rodriques without Gary Player. Stories are driven by characters. And the context of the characters need only exist tangetially for them to have effect.

But it is that merest connection, perhaps only a single point of tangence, that helps us understand the underlying relationship of characters in the narrative of the story line. Reading stories like War and Peace is difficult simply because the story line is moved forward due to the contact of a character with another only once. That, and the use of "Sasha" when Alexander was used earlier. Russians. Can't live with them. Can't live without them.

Notice, when you think about politics, how often characters are introduced in order to move the narrative thread. And ask yourself, how are you doing, introducing characters that help you flesh out your description of the social narrative you find yourself trying to describe? Too often, we find ourselves fixating on the most egregious characters. But, they aren't really the problem. The problem, too often, is in the characters that hide in the woodwork.

The next time you want to tee off on a guy like our President, ask yourself, are there others, living here, near me, in local or state government, who can help me flesh out the storyline of incompetence? Of corruption?

All politics is local. Unless you're willing to add a few characters into your narrative, you're not going to be able to capture the attention of the listener. Find out more about the corrupt nature of your local state representative or senator. Chances are, the seeds of change are in your hand. Planting them requires you to dig a hole and plant them.

Honda is Japanese for Flop

Started to re-watch the last Japan game.

How many friendlies did Japan play against Mexico.

Left and right, the Japanese have clearly learned how to flop.

Play on.

God Gave You A Pair Of Eyes And A Neck That Swivels

(Pic at OSU.EDU.)

Watching Netherlands v. Denmark.

The problem with "American" football is, it teaches a lot of the wrong skills. Soccer is only played by men or women who learn, early on, that they have been endowed with two eyes, and a neck that swivels.

Denmark is, at early moments, taking the time to do these fundamentals; watch and look.

American football really only requires on player to commit to these game fundamentals, the quarterback. Soccer requires all eleven men to be aware, not just of that which is immediately presented, but to have some recognition that the game swarms around them. If you're playing at back, mid or forward, you simply must have, at all times, an awareness of the space around you.

I know a woman who played Ping-Pong in the Olympics. She is well aware that, after a shot, her positioning against the table helped to predict the return shot of her opponent. Playing the "ball" wasn't enough for a world class player. Knowing the predicted flight of her last shot, given the chance of her opponents ability to return that shot (given her body position to the returned shot) gave her an ability to predict where the ball would be returned...and to position herself to afford her next shot the greatest likelihood of success.

Power wasn't necessarily the next shot. There is more than one shot available in the game.

For American viewers of soccer, the most prevalent criticism is that the game is one where players run around and nobody scores. Which is, I suppose, true at a certain level of absurdest reduction. But this is one of the faults of reducing things to absurdity. Sometimes, the reduction is simply not a reduction, but a mis-understanding of what is apparent. That is, a lack of understanding simply instigates ones sense of what is expected. The expected outcome has greater validity than the actual outcome. This is one of the weaknesses of the human condition. We tend to give greater credibility to the expected outcome than the unexpected. Even if neither occurs.

In those cases we attempt, usually weakly, mitigation between the expected and the unexpected. Rarely do we question the assumptions underlying our inability to predict the future. This is, on the Right, an admission of weakness of our underlying assumptions. Or, our inability to accurately observe what it was that has occurred.

On the Left, it is simply a source of re-affirmation of belief. The expected and the unexpected serve both to support the Left in its thinking and undermine the beliefs of the Right.

(HOLY FUCK ME JESUS HE JUST KICKED A MAN IN THE FACE!)

Should have been a red card. You play a high ball with your head. Moron official. Or, he didn't see it.

Which serves to support the basic argument I've tried to share with you in this post: there are two types of thinkers, those who take responsibility for what they know, or don't know; and those who will use any trick of language or mis-understanding to "prove" their point. The official in question, re high kick, obviously didn't see it. Any fair official would have called the kick, and would have, at the least, rewarded the offending player with a Yellow. You can't know what you haven't apprehended.

I think that's fair.

When it comes to understanding the politics that are occurring around you, I would simply caution you that you have two eyes and a neck that swivels. I've played and coached enough basketball that I know--or strongly believe--that these two rules would serve you well, too, if observed. Hockey, too. Not so much golf, volleyball and bowling.

In politics, you are well served if you look not just Left, not just Right. You have two eyes, and a neck that swivels. Rather than fixating on a goal, take the time to pause and think. Don't fall into the trap where you make the perfect the enemy of the good. Realize that perfection is either imaginary (Plato) or elusive (Sartre). Or, as Bishop Berkeley posited, only possible with the intervention of God. In balance, we can know, but most of what we profess to know is based upon belief.

Bailing out irresponsible state governments isn't dealing with the problem. It does have to do with teaching habits.

What I'm Reading Now

Prompted by Gordo's post at Zeta Woof.

It's Berny Malmud's second novel, "The Assistant." His impact was profound at my alma mater, even though he had left a decade before my arrival there. My favorite profs were guys who remained in touch with with this amazing author. These were guys who taught writing and reading, as inseparable to the task of understanding the meaning of those things we go through life experiencing. It's akin to taking calculus from an instructor who requires you to purchase a graphing calculator, rather than graph paper and a french curve.

Summer is a great time to read. Much preferred to the mowing.

Oh, and if you're aware of Malmud, take the test and let me know how you scored. No peeking at Wiki.

Being Unbothered

Wielding power is a good thing. It allows us to benefit ourselves, while protecting those who might be unaware of the dangers surrounding them. Wielding power for the good of others has no costs and great benefits. At the end of the day, we can settle our heads upon pillows, satisfied that we have saved others from injuring themselves.

The existential question of Sartre has been overwhelmed by the experience of our elite. We are no longer required to think for ourselves, therefore, there can no longer be an existential threat. The idea that we are motivated by our own perceptions of right and wrong can be be crossed off the list of concerns that our next generation will have. We have taught them that issues of right or wrong are simply obsolete concerns. The issue today is about community. About sharing. About being a part of the solution.

A full generation or more of teaching our children that they not need bother with excellence has taken its toll. We now have, more or less, the current generation of youngsters that are being unleashed upon our society; without morals or convictions.

They are heavy on beliefs. They have the belief that corporations and greedy capitalists are working toward their destruction. They have the belief that they are as worthy to accede to the wealth and riches of the wealthiest and richest around them, without hard work. They have the belief that anyone who tells them that they are unworthy are guilty of bullying. They have a belief that there are no hard answers, and questions that require hard answers aren't worthy of consideration.

We have created a generation of monsters, and aren't even aware of it.

These are the "millennials."

"According to Pew, almost two-fifths of 18- to 29-year-olds (37 percent) are unemployed or out of the labor force, “the highest share . . . in more than three decades.” (Notorious Rob.)

"Hmm… so 2 out of 5 of the Millenials are unemployed, 13% are living with Mom and Dad, and 6 out of 10 don’t have full time jobs. And that gap is going to follow them through their entire life." (ibid.)

The knife point of indifference. Bringing a gummy bear to a gunfight. This is what our "education system" has done to our children. Who is the culprit?

You are.

You are the culprit, the unthinking accessory to the crime.

When you think about the problems you see around you, your thought is, "there oughta be a law." There are people who stand in line with you, who shop at your local grocery store, who fill the highways in front of you, who don't have a clue what's going on in your mind. Whatever it is that is filling your mind at the moment is the most important thing in the world; to you. The problem that is filling space within your consciousness is the most important thing in the world; to you. Your viewpoint on taxes, the oil spill, your golf game, your husband's inability to get the tasks you outlined completed in a reasonable time period, these are all important; to you.

Combine this inward thinking with your wish to be thought of as intelligent, insightful, kindly and compash. It is going to be your narcissism that kills our country. Not mine. Mine doesn't extend to the tips of my fingers or to the end of my nose. I know about my own strengths and weaknesses, and I won't blame my failure upon yours. All I'm suggesting is, that the paradigm by which you judge yourself and others stands for a good re-calibration. You need to take a few moments of quiet time, not to quell your anger, but for a new sense of self-assessment. You are not the coolest parent in the world, nor will you ever be. You will not be your child's best friend, ever. Your voice will never be heard. It wasn't heard when you were uncool, it won't be heard when you adopt your new coolness.

What you are is a fascist. You are part of your worst example of what you never wanted to be. You have become an addict to slogans that mean nothing, require nothing, and reward you with the sense of making a difference. You, having no trust in your own decisions, have decided that you can't trust anyone else's decisions. Teaching your children that they can't trust anyone else is currently the vogue. And, it's your vogue. You don't trust your sister, brother, mom or dad. You don't trust your children. Your neighbor. So you fall into an open conspiracy to control those who you view as controlling you. This is the path to fascism.

Fascism isn't a fluke. Societies adopt fascism as a way to court the devil. Men are weak. (No sarcasm.) Men are faulty. (No sarcasm.)

Men are capable of making horrible mistakes.

The beauty of mankind is in the temper of their mistakes. There are, as I can see, two kinds of mistakes. Individual mistakes, and group mistakes. Group mistakes can be seen as when a significant number of any society views their views as necessary in order to prevent mistakes they view as being made by individuals. There are plenty of examples of the first type. You've seen your neighbor plant corn too close together. You've seen your neighbor build a fence without proper posts. You've seen your brother or sister sign an agreement that you knew was a bad contract.

You weren't able to alter the outcomes in any of these events. So, in order to protect those whom didn't wish your protection, you've come to rely upon our political process to right wrongs not otherwise defined.

The common thread in the types of mistakes we view on a day-to-day basis is, they are generally the fault of the person committing the mistake. Whether it's about planting corn, building a fence, or signing a contract; there is a very good chance that the person committing the error had the opportunity to do a better job at educating himself about the outcome of his actions...and he simply failed to do so. This is the kind of thinking that has given us laws about seat belts, smoking in bars, requiring helmets for bikers, and any number of other useless meddling in the human condition. It isn't really whether or not the law is required for you. In the main my experience is, that we require these things not of ourselves, but for others. We can see, in advance, the outcomes of any activity. And it is our caring for others that requires us to meddle in the lives of those around us.

It is for their own good.

We have settled the question.

"Let us clarify the dialectic of good faith by asking what is its position and function in human reality? Admittedly, good faith is the "good" antithesis of bad faith. It manifests itself as sincerity which is regarded as a kind of human ideal. From all sides we hear calls to be honest and candid with ourselves and others. We also have the same expectation from others and in general we regard sincerity as a praiseworthy virtue. The more so as it seems to be always in short supply."

The good is the enemy of the bad. It must be so, since we use such words to delimit the differences between good and bad. What we fail to perceive is those who choose to describe themselves as good, may be bad people. What we fail to perceive is that those things we are taught to believe are good, may have bad consequences. That is, we allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." Being a community organizer is tough work. Learning how to manufacture cement stepping stones is easily as tough. Being responsible for poorly manufactured cement stepping stones? Priceless.

If we believe that "pollution" is bad, then how do we move forward? The perfect is defined as no pollution. And any activity, whether manmade or the product of nature, results in what the critic may choose to decide as producing a pollutant. It's easy pickin's to point out volcanic activity and forest fires. What's difficult is to denote pollen bursts from fields of clover, or the dust from an herd of 10,000 buffalo. For the purist, we must destroy the pollen of the flora, or the footprints of the fauna. This is the price of their purist view. And it is ridiculous. But such is the enemy we face.

For the Left, that cars and cigarettes and fireplaces create pollution is enough for them to render a political decision that it is time for us to end cars and cigarettes and fireplaces. The process of living creates a certain pollution. Thankfully, the world was ready for us long before we came into existence. We were meant to be in accord with the earth, just as the earth is in accordance with us. We are its creation. We were meant to be. Even with our concommitant pollution.

It turns out that the pollution that we create is a benefit to other organisms that we find sharing this small, blue marble. That the carbon dioxide we produce helps to feed trees and plants more efficiently, enabling these plants to produce more oxygen with less water.