Believe Yourself

 I had recent opportunity to tell someone to BELIEVE YOURSELF. This is not believe IN yourself. This is a very different and (to me) ultimately more important nuance.

Believing IN yourself, to me, connotes that you believe you are capable of something. You believe you can run the distance, complete the work, get on stage, play the music. Perhaps summed up by "perform". You believe you can perform.

Believing yourself, without the little word "in" implies, instead, integrity. This means when you tell yourself "I tried", do you believe yourself? Or are you hedging? It is often said (perhaps to the point of annoying cliché) that all that can be asked is that you gave it your best. 

So. Believe yourself, do not doubt yourself. Tell yourself you tried or did your best - if you believe it, then you did. If you have doubts or come up with excuses, you are doubting yourself, not believing. Perhaps you have not earned "I tried". Perhaps you need to try again, more honestly this time.

If you DO believe yourself, well done! Keep it up. Always put yourself in the position to believe yourself.

Come and see.

Over the course of my life (so far, may I live long and prosper...) I have seen politics go from contentious to violently caustic. I do intend to keep speaking my mind, but one of the things that surprises me is that I believe politics has actually passed religion in its ability to incite reflexive, blind, toxic behavior. 

This does not mean religion does not cause arguments. 

I am not a traditional Christian. I would not be accepted by any of the major sects, my beliefs have actually caused volatile arguments with people who have spoken to me about them. I have little use for religious institutions, but religion itself? I consider myself a very spiritual man. 

That said, this series called The Chosen is smashing all my assumptions, all my fears, and astounds me. I may not be a movie fanatic, or a TV hound, but I have seen my share of masterpieces from Hitchcock to Avengers, Law & Order to M.A.S.H., Spielberg, Abrams, even Cameron. There is an almost unfair magic in the technical ability of a movie - sometimes horrifying stories are made more compelling by their production quality.

The Chosen is so well produced I think it is now my benchmark for the craft of film. It is the story of the disciples of Jesus. While you cannot help but put Jesus at the center of his story, it is the lives of the people around him who were affected, from followers to enemies, from Sanhedrin to Roman - you can really feel what it must have been like to face challenges in that era and what an impact Jesus had. 

The Chosen is free to watch. There is an app for mobile devices and a website (https://watch.angelstudios.com/thechosen) where you can stream everything. It is 100% crowdsourced, with no compulsion to donate. 

I have never needed so many boxes of Kleenex.

22-23 Boston Bruins

 THE BRUINS GOT FREAKING ELIMINATED IN THE FIRST ROUND!!!

Okay. Phew. Got that out of my system. Terribly frustrating (especially for a fan who lives just outside of Miami - tip, the team that eliminated the Bruins is from Miami) but it is what it is. I think I know why they lost, but not going to dwell on that unless asked.

This season the Bruins busted through just about every positive team record on the 99-year NHL books. It was a magical year to be a Bruins' fan. 65 wins. 135 points. Our two goalies had (obviously) spectacular years. The team was a team and heartwarming to watch. 

If you'd asked me, at the start of the season (with two key players out recovering from surgery) if I'd rather have the historic regular season they were going to have, or win the Stanley Cup this year, I would have to admit I'd rather have the historic 65 wins across seven months with record after record smashed. The Stanley Cup is more important in any given season, but not compared to this achievement.

Of course, I wouldn't have wanted it to be an either/or. 

If asked, I suppose I'd kind of like to see the Toronto Maple Leafs take it this year. I like Austin Matthews (possibly because he looks so much like Freddie Mercury) and it would be neat for a Canadian team to win. I also like the Las Vegas Golden Knights, and though I absolutely loathe the Carolina Hurricanes (ironic as I will be moving to their territory) I wouldn't mind them getting the Cup out of their system this year. 

Plenty of other teams to like, though none of them are my Bruins. 

See you next season, boys. 

A Round Dozen

Well here it is. Twelve years later. 

It's certainly not as though there wasn't stuff worthy of blogging. It did seem as though a lot of effort went into a very personally cathartic exercise that almost nobody was going to see (though, thankfully, those that did were important!)

Anyway, instead of "catching up" here is a summary:

I'm now 54. I live in South Florida (Boca Raton) though that is going to change shortly.

I own a boat. I guess I did during this blog - I'll have to check the posts to see if that boat showed up anywhere. I bought her only a few days ago and I intend to live aboard by September of this year (2023).

My profile is still applicable, I still like all those things.

I hope to change my format to shorter, observational posts. Some may still be directly political, but I'm hopeful most of my posts will be about living aboard a boat, the games and friends I have (I'll keep it ambiguous so as not to give away personal information), family (I am a grandfather now! Though not for a full year yet), and my favorite team, the Boston Bruins. 

I don't know who is still monitoring this blog 12 years later. I certainly haven't been following anyone personal, though I do like Bill Whittle and subscribe to his website. Maybe I'll meet him some day.

I'm not even sure the name will still work. I am Chameleon on here (my brother was kind enough to suggest that is my spirit animal or guide or both, and I've liked it - maybe I'll have one on the boat!) but the login account seems to have changed - was blogger.com always a Google property or did they get bought while I was gone?

Let's see how this goes and put a few more posts up.

Easy Rider, Easy Assumptions?

Wow it's been a long time since I blogged.

I just watched the movie "Easy Rider". For those who know me, yeah - it's amazing that I even watched a movie and I'm sure you're cringing that I chose THIS one to watch, out of all the good cinema and television you've tried to get me to check out.

Well, I love motorcycling and I wanted to see a motorcycle movie. After watching Wild Hogs, which was certainly okay (had its ups and downs) I grew curious because of one of the end scenes with Peter Fonda "the original Easy Rider". It only took me about 18 months to finally watch Easy Rider (as mentioned, I just don't think of movies or television when I think of entertainment, so it wasn't high on my to-do).

I wasn't really "prepared" for it, I only knew that it was a motorcycle movie, and I didn't know a good list of others (I have since started to compile some, but honestly if anyone reads this and can suggest a really good motorcycle movie, please do so in comment!)

So. Easy Rider. I thought there was a great portrayal of motorcycling, and that was what I was really looking for. Several great shots of the road, of riders just enjoying time with each other, that was what I hoped for. I had no idea how much the sixties drug scene was mixed into the movie, but honestly that didn't bother me that much. The portrayal, I would hope, is accurate and interesting as a period piece. I liked the "lead hippie", and like to think a hippie colony and a hippie leader would be much like that was portrayed (though honestly I wouldn't know). I thought the interplay between the two main characters was really good - could have been any two friends who are riders (though obviously riders are all unique and finding *exactly* these two isn't the point). I thought Peter Fonda's laid back easy going nature was wonderfully balanced against Dennis Hopper's more concerned, stressed, occasionally high strung character. Jack Nicholson (predictably) stole the show for all the scenes he was in. I had not expected to see him (really didn't do my research, just watched the film on a whim) and it was a treat. Wow he was young. His character got to say all the intricate, interesting stuff. Some of it absolutely wild and bizarre, but some of it keenly insightful.

What bothered me is the stereotypical portrayal of Southern small towns. Well, I guess not all of them - the two scenes that basically wreck this movie are both supposed to be in Louisiana. I can't speak for small-town Louisiana in the early 70s, late 60s, but I can speak to it now and for the past 10 or so years and it's so different from what was portrayed. I have ridden through small towns like those, stopped at diners and cafes like the ones portrayed, and driven past pickups that look exactly like the final truck in the movie. I had long hair, a scruffy beard, and clothing that could have been in any biker shot for Easy Rider. I didn't know anyone, I was just on a bike. I have done this "more than twice". I have never met friendlier, more outgoing, helpful people. In fact, the *only* problem I have had with them is they want to talk *forever*. You'd better have a lot of time if you stop in a small southern town. They love to visit. Build in time to learn all kinds of trivia. And eat lots of good food. Again, I will admit I am talking about post 2000, not pre-1975, so perhaps that's where my problem lies, but a lot of people today left comments on the movie (at you-tube) that suggested they hate red-neck hicks. Hollywood is providing them with a false impression and image.

More's the pity because my understanding is that the theme of the deaths in the movie is tied to social unrest and the Vietnam War. The idea was to suggest that "typical sixties men" were going about the business of living their lives (chemically augmented or not) and were suddenly and for no apparent reason dying due to "the establishment". Instead of choosing an actual parallel, the film depicts hicks and rednecks as having an automatic grudge against scruffy bikers and for senseless reasons beating or shooting them to death. If you were to pick a segment of society "also likely" to be in rebellion against the establishment, I think you'd not go far wrong to choose the South (then or now). Rebellion. Reb. Rebel. What flag do they often use? I'm not trying to say Rebs or the Confederacy were right, but I would submit the more likely place to find violence against freedom loving riders would be northward than southward. Where is Kent State? Not Louisiana, I'll tell you that much. Not in a small town either. Now, I'm not trying to say Kent, Ohio is like that now, or that I support or don't support any region more than another, but I have to shake my head at the actual victims of this film. Victims of the FILM not the plot. After watching it, are you incensed at the bikers or the aggressors? Another thing that is somewhat out of place is that the whole reason Louisiana comes up is Mardi Gras. So suddenly the state that bring us Mardi Gras is the one that also senselessly beats and shoots the kinds of people who go to Mardi Gras.

I think the bottom line is that I'm bothered by the influence a movie like this might have over people who can't see the inconsistencies, see beyond the selected antagonists to the themes behind it, and try to keep alive a scapegoat that doesn't exist (if it ever existed, again I wouldn't know).

I think this movie would have been better with a barroom brawl and injuries. The biking, the hippies, the culture, even the drugs and sex, and most certainly the rock and roll were in their own way awesome. They did a great job of portraying their own culture in a positive light. Portraying the antagonists (and I'm not sure there even had to be any in this film) was a total bomb.

Of course, the bottom line at this point is: who really cares? I mean, much as I liked the vast majority of this movie and am strangely drawn to watch it again (perhaps even to edit parts and make my own endings) it's not exactly mainstream, it's not what you'd call a mega-movie, it's more in the nature of a (very small) cult classic seen mostly by people who probably don't vote, don't have much voice outside a small circle of already convinced friends, or those who (hopefully) are also bothered by the awkward bits and realize which areas of the country are actually freedom loving and bike friendly (which, honestly, is MOST of the country).

Political Manifesto

If I were elected to the highest office of the land, this would be my agenda:

o Enact a flat-rate tax system at 15%

o Reduce the size of government by half:

-- Eliminate most Federal social programs, allowing appropriate programs to be privatized.

-- Federal workforce: complete and total hiring freeze (military exempted) until the reduction in government size is realized. Openings in the Federal government may only be filled by existing employees. Due to bullet above, there should be a spectacular pool of employees to pick from. However, we will continue to keep employees on ½ pay while we work through next bullet.

-- Private sector needs to buy in that it will take time to filter Federal employees into gainful employment, develop (yes one) a new agency tasked with outplacing Federal employees (including, eventually, themselves).

o The government shall henceforth be prohibited to acquire any new monetary debt of any kind. Funding of our national defense shall take priority over all other considerations, followed by appropriate infrastructure.

o Atone to the Constitution: a blanket "lawsuit" brought before the Supreme Court to review all Federal laws, policies, and procedures for their constitutionality. Elimination of anything found not to be constitutional.

o Senators restricted to no more than 15 years in office, two terms plus the possibility of serving out 3 years of a term by appointment.

o House Representatives restricted to no more than 15 years in office, seven terms plus the possibility of serving out 1 year of a term by appointment.

o Energy: Aggressively pursue domestic oil, particularly in contested areas (such as offshore) before international entities such as China acquire and utilize it. The Federal Government shall no longer purchase any foreign sources of energy. All Federal restrictions on nuclear energy shall be removed.

o No bill voted on by either house of the Legislature may exceed the word count of the original, non-amended United States Constitution.

o Healthcare: tort reform, medical savings accounts, interstate insurance competition, income-adjusted disaster assistance program.

o Social Security: Phase out, replaced with matching funds, tax-incentive retirement programs. Income-adjusted disaster assistance program.

o Aviation: Individual airlines will no longer be restricted on security measures regarding who boards their airplanes or with what. They will, however, be held directly and exclusively responsible for damage to any property, private or public, done by one of their airplanes no matter what happened to cause said damage. Damage costs are immune to bankruptcy protection. Airlines based in other countries must have an in-country sponsor who will assume 75% responsibility for their partner's damage. International companies without these partners may have their planes escorted away from our airspace or shot down.

o Return to the gold standard with a new currency (the Bradbury?) Valuation of previous U.S. Dollars will be made and creditors will be issued the appropriate Bradburies instead. It may be necessary to negotiate an appropriate issuance with major creditors, should they wish to participate.

o Any country deemed to be a hotbed for our enemies, be they terrorist training grounds or outright enemies themselves, will be given six months written warning that unless that circumstance convincingly change, their territories will assume 2000+ degrees.

o Withdraw from the United Nations. Terminate their lease on any properties within the United States. Purchase, for fair market value, any properties within the United States owned by the United Nations. Seize any properties not sold to the United States after three years.

o Applications to become a state of the United States can be found on our state department website. Designers of the application will have five pages, front and back (I am generous) 8.5 x 11 inch paper restricted to 12 point font. Only serious applicants will be considered.

o Henceforth, after the completion of this reorganization and realignment, everything signed into law and/or ratified by the Congress must be reviewed 10 years to the day and voted upon for renewal or will expire. This includes all agencies, spending bills, laws, policies, motions, treaties, or any other business transacted by the Congress.

Punks at the Bus Stop.

I have seen several boys reach the point in their lives where they want to be young men. There are many virtues in this time of life, many things to celebrate, and a great deal of life to look forward to.

Unfortunately, there seems to be a propensity to emulate those parts of manhood that they are discouraged or outright forbidden to express.

The reasons certain behavior are discouraged or forbidden are obvious. They are generally disrespectful, rude, or even dangerous to others (and to the man himself). We (most of us) tell our children not to drink, smoke, or do drugs. We tell them not to cuss, get ahead of themselves physically (whether by athletic or intimate standards), or to dress stupidly.

We do tell them to behave, strive, challenge themselves, be good at school (their pale imitation of work that is later to come), be smart with money, choose friends wisely, and to slow down and enjoy life instead of rushing to the expected climaxes.

Yet they are not treated as adults. For one simple, clear, reasonable, logical, and terribly frustrating (for youth) reason. They're not adults. They're going to be, and we have precious little time to teach them before they go out on their own and assume legal responsibility for themselves.

So while they try (with varying degrees of effort and success) to strive, be good, and all whatever else their nagging parents said (skating carefully past the more important things on the do and don't lists), they figure the missing link, the way to be a man (or an adult, for the "ladies" growing up now show more bold and shocking behavior than would have been expected before, and are losing their chance at blanket distinction) is to do those things we reserve for ourselves. That if they can master those things, they are adult.

Where in here do I condemn the behavior of adults? I don't. We're adults. It's tough to be an adult all the time, to work hard whether at a remote location or within the home we have. It's draining, effort-packed, often dreary work. There are few compensations. Many of which fall on the "adult" list. Adults need to cut loose once in a while in order to avoid being homicidal maniacs (and even then we don't always succeed, for details see the abysmal coverage on your news outlet of choice).

What youth refuses to understand (and adults must continue to strive to relate this point) is that those things on the "adult list" are earned, and that pursuing those things on the discouraged/forbidden list is much like any other indulgence: it must be paid for. We adults pay for those indulgences with our hard work, effort, and behavior.

Side note: this is one of the reasons we detest those adults who do not pay for their indulgences. Another post for another time.

We parents are not infallible. We often do under-reward youth. We must walk a careful line between protection and oppression and we often stomp confidently across it. We also cuss, drink, stay up late, eat the wrong foods, and watch or listen to the wrong entertainment. This is not good behavior and it does not mean we are adults, nor does it mean we are going to be treated like adults or considered adult by others. This is not the part to emulate. We also have money to spend on our toys, time to choose what we want to do, and partners with which to be intimate (hopefully). These are things we have earned and continue to pay for with our "blood, sweat, and tears".

Message to youth (though you may not be capable of comprehending it, I will continue to try): if you want the things we have, you must do the work we do. If you are not capable of doing the work, there is good reason you cannot have the things. Trying to take them out of turn will earn you the same kind of treatment we reserve for each other when things are taken out of turn. Also, don't emulate the worst in us and expect to be treated like the best of us.

Processed Pork Product

The bottom line is that we don't like spam because of its unsolicited intrusiveness. It has neither explicit nor implicit permission to be thrust before us, forcing us to determine whether it is indeed spam or not.

Here are some examples of explicit and implicit permission.

If we sign up for a newsletter, particularly from a store or outlet we enjoy, that has products we want, we have given explicit information for them to send us their advertising. We want it. We've asked for it.

Most of us (the vast, thinking majority) recognize that value must be given in return for effort. We want something from someone else, we must pay for it one way or another. Sometimes we perform work in return, sometimes we barter for something of value we have to offer, sometimes we pay in a representative currency. There are undercurrents here that explain the absence of a free lunch even when someone else is paying for it, and the disparity of our current tax system, but I shall draw myself back to the topic at hand:

We recognize advertising pays for something we don't want to pay for directly, such as a website with information we might not have paid for directly. News is important, or game clues, or clever sayings, whatever. However most websites and their information are not things we would sacrifice our money for directly perhaps by joining the site and paying for the information.

So, the website allows advertisers, hopefully people whose products we do think are worth paying for, spending our hard earned currency on, to use some of their space. This is implicit permission. We are actively going out and looking for something we recognize as "for free" with the understanding that what makes it free is the fact that someone else is paying for our potential attention. It may not be so much voluntary (though that is debatable, perhaps another time) because we are unlikely to find what we want without some sort of advertising attached, but it is implicit permission nonetheless.

Spam acquires neither of these permissions, but by aggressive tactics finds where it can thrust itself in front of us without our consent.

Why we elect executives (and avoid legislators)

One of the regular comments about this election is that we will, for the third time in our history, elect a Senator to be President of the United States. This is remarkable when you consider that we have elected 43 Presidents, and many of them were re-elected (one of them multiple times). It isn't for lack of Senators running for the office, for many have.

But this year, of course, we have no choice: both candidates are Senators. In fact, one of them has chosen another Senator as his Vice Presidential running mate.

It is not surprising to me that quite a lot of the "debate" (such as it is) about this election is centered around experience. One side opened that can of worms by attacking the other on what was perceived as a glaring lack of experience. The other side had no chance to hit back until the Vice Presidents were both picked, and then (with disappointing predictability) tried to out-volume the first by claiming the Vice President pick had even less experience.

Nuances abound about types of experience, whether experience as a State legislator counts the same as a State governor, whether a mayor is as important as a community organizer, or whether a simple count of years can be used for comparison. Whatever your stance, it does not surprise me that experience is at the center of the debate.

The fact is, put as succinctly as I can (I will doubtless expound out of all reasonable proportion), what we really want is not experience, but accomplishments. That's why we elect (in overwhelming percentage) executives. Executive jobs lend themselves towards accomplishments, while legislative jobs by the very way we have set up our government, actually work against them. It takes a heck of a lot more effort and risk to accomplish something in a committee. Most legislative accomplishment is (ironically) achieved by simply building up tenure and being put in a pseudo-executive position (a committee chair).

Two of the three Senators in the race must keep the debate focused on experience and not on accomplishments, for the only executive in the race has, in a very short time, accomplished more than they have - whether they're new or 'seasoned' in the Senate.

Naturally, I wish more focus would be put on accomplishments. This is not merely voting or acting upon someone else's agenda, but having a goal or agenda and getting it accomplished or passed.

Experience is impressive in its own way, in the ability to pontificate on a topic and to know (if one has been paying attention the experience the way one must pay attention to history) what might happen as a result of current events, but accomplishments show what a person will do, not just what they will say. For all the 'talk' about 'walking the walk', legislators afford themselves very little runway. It's not who they are.