Department Of I Don’t Know What Kind Of A Thing This Is,
But It Is A Thing, For Me
Dateline: Tuesday morning: 7:50 AM: morning walk. I pass under an electric or phone line where two crows are perching, and it makes me happy to see them. For some reason whenever this happens – this being, passing under or near a structure or object where there are a couple of crows hanging out – I feel safe (I do not worry about an onslaught of feces falling from the sky, as I would if there were geese or gulls overhead). Knowing the intelligence of crows and other corvids, I just assume that, somehow, they discern that not only is this biped *not* a threat to them, she’s also A Good Person®, and thus they will either warn me of/protect me from danger.

Yeah; she’s cool.
* * *
Department Of I Can’t Say It Any Better…
And I don’t need to, because a cherished friend of mine did. LS is a veteran of the US’s armed services, and has lived In Europe for many years. A keen cultural observer, he has both an insider’s and outsider’s perspective of life in these United States. His heartfelt (and heartbreaking) eloquence about the current situation (read: #47’s tyranny)…perhaps this should be this post’s coda, and not its opening?
“Some news outlets here are simultaneously laughing at and very woeful of the president and his supporters. How he creates chaos to cover for a lack of meaningful achievement. That he OPENLY & shamelessly campaigns for the Peace prize while opening up a concentration camp, invading his own country, shooting peaceful protesters with pepper bullets…etc.
It’s another awful chapter in the history of the states. I hope that this mess of an administration is soon relieved of its hold on the throats of the populace, that I get my Social security check with interest, and that you and yours remain safe. K [1] is a determined young man to have to pass this shit every day and not let it get to him
Oh, one other thing that is being said over here, is that the U.S. is not yet angry enough to kick him out. That if the people of the U.S. would protest like the French, he would not be as powerful as he is now. Meaning that, the French, when they want change, protest around the clock. No respite. Yes, they do get violent, destructive and sometimes deadly, but then they do get results. It is pointed out that 47 would never visit France. He’s not liked there and instead of being called “Daddy”…he would be met with roadblocks of burning tires to impede his travel here, rocks slung at his cars, (they still use the sling, think David and Goliath) and would use drones to shine lasers into his drivers’ eyes. The Secret Service wouldn’t know how to handle all this at once. Feel free to write about or implement any or all of the French tactics.
In truth, with all kidding aside, even though I’m here, I still hurt for you all over there. I’m watching as the country I once stood for is rapidly falling apart. It just makes me cringe that, the military I once was proud of, now bends to the epitome of fascist idealism. It spreads throughout the ranks and empowers the worst of the nazis in American military uniform. The vow of defense against this exact type of administration seems to mean nothing to those who are walking the streets of American cities hoping that they can open up on their fellow citizens. I hurt, and deeply.”
* * *
Department Of Find Something Nice To Say…Or, Not
Dateline: Monday ~8 am, interesting breakfast conversation over a not-so-interesting movie (read: I cringed to watch it). This movie starred Meg Ryan and David Duchovny, playing supposedly “older” people….well, at least Duchovny has allowed himself to age (if he’s had work done it doesn’t show as much as Ryan’s, whose face and mouth seem permanently frozen in whatever dastardly quicksand she allowed herself to be pulled into).
Moiself started watching said movie, What Happens Later, during my morning elliptical workout Friday, when I often go to Netflix and just see what might be tolerable for 35 minutes in the morning. I attempted to finish it during Monday morning’s session, hoping that it would somehow…change? [2] There’s only a couple of minutes left, but I’m not sure if I wanna know if the ending is as insipidly cliched as the rest of the movie would seem to indicate and that the “the-universe-is-trying-to-tell-us-something-via-the magickal-airport-announcer” stupid cutesy/quirky trajectory is leading up to.
Well, that’s a bit harsh, Roger…
What Happens Later. As in, besides my retching? Really; how did that movie get made? And why wasn’t moiself asked to unmake it, or at least edit the holy clichéd, cloying crap out of it? [3]
Moiself (making my Sour Face) to MH:
“Oh my, that movie is…sadly, embarrassingly bad.”
Moiself (deciding to lighten up and Find The Bright Side®):
“I guess, for an actor, it was impressive in that it’s essentially a two person play, so they each had to learn a lot of dialogue…”
(Yeah, I should have stopped there.)
…”Too bad most of it sucked.”
MH (ever quick to grab his phone and look it up):
“It says that the movie was directed by Ryan.”
Moiself (gasping):
“Oh no…really? Duchovny indicates unhappiness and stodginess by acting like a piece of wood; Meg Ryan is her most Meg Ryan-ness – not acting, just *being*. Just playing the same, quintessential Meg Ryan character, adorably ditsy but with a quirky/plucky heart…. At least in her past movies she could blame the director for not requiring more of her.”
MH:
“I’m always wondered, how does that work? When an actor is the movie’s director and also acts in the movie. Director Meg: “Okay, Meg, that was good. Can you give me something more?” Actor Meg: ‘More, as in…? Could you be specific?’ “
Moiself:
“So: I’m wondering, is the self-lawyer warning analogous to movie-making? As in, ‘He who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client.’ ‘She who directs herself ‘e whoanalogous has a fool for a leading lady?’ “
Yet another nit to pick is the dialogue (I realize the actors didn’t write it), particularly one profundity-attempting clunker Ryan’s character spouts near the end of the movie:
“Isn’t that the one question we should be asking ourselves –
“Are we happy?’ “
Feckin’ no, that is *not* the one question we should be asking ourselves. [4]. And for so many feckin’ reasons.
Reason 1: there’s not one question we should be asking ourselves; there are 23. [5]
Reason 2: Because if I ask moiself the question Am I happy? when I’m doing the exact wrong thing for me or for others, it might not be clear, either in the moment or looking back, whether or not I’m happy. I could indeed be happy doing that which is wrong; the answer could be a false positive. Or, because what I’m doing might be the right thing to do – say, standing up for someone else who is being bullied (which can have short or even long term unhappy consequences for me, due to the fact that other people’s – the bully’s – responses and reactions will not make me happy) – doing the right thing very often is difficult and does not make you happy. IMO, if you base your actions on the certitude of your own happiness you’re guaranteed a first class seat on the nonstop flight to selfish-and-shallow-but happy!-ness.
* * *
Department Of Yet Another Contributory, Nit-Picking Reason For
Why We ( “The Good Guys®” ) Lost The Election
#12 (at least) In A Series
Moiself looked forward to this podcast episode, especially as per its intro:
“Whether you call it citizen science, participatory science, or community science, research conducted by everyday people has led to major discoveries across a wide range of fields. This episode, host Dr. Samantha Yammine is joined by Dr. Caren Cooper to discuss the benefits and mechanics when it comes to public participation in science. Dr. Cooper is an expert in the field and the author of Citizen Science: How Ordinary People are Changing the Face of Discovery…”
( intro to Curiosity Weekly podcast, How Everyday People Power Big Science )
And then, the host asks her guest where she “stands” on language? I truly did not anticipate this (although it shouldn’t have surprised me).
CW host Yammine:
“…Looking forward to chatting with you. And the very first question I wanna ask you, because it’s the title of your book, Citizen Science, but there are some debates about whether that’s the right word to use.
Can you tell us a little bit about the thoughts people have around that language, and where you Stand on it?”
Dr. Cooper:
Sure. Yeah, yeah. Okay. Go right to the Can of Worms course on that. Right. Well it’s interesting.
Yeah. So most of the concern around the term Citizen Science arose in the US….
“… kind of around whether it might be excluding people because it conveys like this notion that you have to have some kind of citizenship status. Yeah. You know, where it’s really trying to – the intention I think of the term was to more convey that it’s like a civic opportunity to like contribute to something of importance.
It’s supposed to be Citizen Science. Yes. In the context of citizen of the world person who feels responsibility and obligations to take part in things that help improve society and everything about our planet. So yeah, it’s more to convey like a responsibility more rather than like something that might restrict people. Because really participatory projects, no matter what they end up being called, are open to all that is the main goal. And they’re also meant to benefit all the term, really brought together a very interdisciplinary group of people. Like there were scientists in so many different fields that were using what came to be called Citizen Science but didn’t even connect or know each other….”
Poor Dr. Cooper goes on in defensive mode much longer than she should have to. Guess she didn’t get the memo that, in this country, how you phrase something is more important than the something itself, lest fraught and fragile sensibilities feel offended or excluded or invalidated or….
Because actually saying something precise – we just won’t stand for that.
* * *
Department Of A Blast From The Past
Dateline: January. New Year; new project: taking an excerpt from a past blog, from the same time frame (the second Friday of whatever month). Perhaps moiself will like this enough that it will turn out to be a regular blog feature for 2025. So far it has, but time, and my capacity for reruns, will tell.
This journey down memory lane is related to the most convincing reason a YOU-of-all-people-should-write-a-blog-why-aren’t-you-writing-a-blog?!?!?! [6] friend gave me, all those years ago, [7] as to why I should be writing a blog: a blog would serve as a journal of sorts for my life. Journal/diary-resistant moiself would have some sort of a record, or at least a random sampling, of what was on my mind – and possibly what was on the nation’s mind – during a certain period of time.
Now I can, for example, look back to the second Friday of a years-ago October, to see what I was thinking. (or as MH put it, WHAT was I thinking!?!? )
Here is an excerpt from my blog of 10-11-2013 ( The Ring I’m Not Wearing ):
I never wore an engagement ring, for a variety of reasons, including this one. I just didn’t get the point of it – excuse the senior moment. Yeah, right. Make that, I damn well got the point of it, and what I got about it made me ill.
Would you wear an engagement ring? I asked MH, a long long time ago in a dating world far, far away, when we were discussing Our Future ®. If a woman and a man are both engaged to be married, what’s the point – other than that point which is analogous to dog pissing around a certain spot to mark its territory [8] – for the woman and not the man to wear such a signifier?
MH, knowing me well, [9] didn’t bother with The Ring when he proposed marriage. We later chose simple gold wedding bands with a double weave design (and had the date of our wedding engraved on the inside of the band, for those pesky moments when you need a memory prompt.)
As of this writing, neither MH nor I are wearing our wedding rings. A couple of weeks ago MH said he wanted to tell me, in case I’d noticed and had wondered [10] his ring was “missing,” that he’d been experiencing painful arthritis-like symptoms in his finger joints and had removed the ring in order to massage the joint. He feared he would be unable to remove the ring later if his joints continued to swell.
The next day I took off my wedding ring. Since then, I’ve discovered (after looking and asking) that quite a few married couples do not wear wedding rings, usually for medical or similar reasons. [11] My motivation for ring-doffing was similar to my not-wanting-an-engagement-ring reason. There was no spite or snit fit involved; just pure and practical (to me) relationship logic: I’m not going to wear my ring if MH isn’t wearing his.
I notice my ring’s absence several times a day, when instinctively performing what has become my après-hand washing ritual for the past twenty-five years (twisting the ring and blowing on my ring finger to dry underneath the ring). I’m aware that it’s not there, but I don’t exactly miss wearing it. I was never a ring-bling person, and other than the two months in high school when I wore the class ring my parents insisted I purchase, [12] I’d never worn a ring prior to getting married (not counting the groovy Man From U.N.C.L.E. spy ring I got in a box of Cracker Jacks).
If you want us to wear wedding rings, I said to MH, perhaps we could have new ones designed, with some kind of custom feature (a latch of sorts, that would not pinch the skin) to make removal easy and allow for future, uh, joint expansion. Belle seems rather pleased with the solution she proposed for our ring dilemma: finally, a legitimate excuse reason to urge her parents to get “tatted.” [13]
* * *
* * *
Freethinkers’ Thought Of The Week [14]
The Question We *Should* Be Asking Ourselves:
Is It True, Or Merely Familiar?
Wait – I think I’ve seen this before… It must be true.
* * *
May you appreciate our corvid protectors;
May you be able to distinguish truth from familiarity;
May whatever happens later in your life not lead to retching;
…and may the hijinks ensue.
Thanks for stopping by. Au Vendredi!
* * *
[1] My son, referred to as “K” in this blog, lives near the ICE center in Portland.
[2] Like, its tone, plot, dialog…just get “better”?
[3] Maybe – just perhaps – not being in the movie business has something to do with it.
[4] Or anyone else.
[5] Because 23 is a prime number, that’s why.
[6] I was adamant about not writing a blog…thus, the title of the blog I eventually decided to write.
[7] Was it really over twelve years ago?
[8] I’m a hardcore romantic, what can I say?
[9] And yet still wanting to marry me, imagine that.
[10] I hadn’t noticed, and therefore hadn’t wondered.
[11] Typically weight gain, or joint swelling during pregnancy or as a side effect of medications, etc.
[12] They didn’t want me to miss having that classic high school insignia…which I lost while bodysurfing at Newport Beach.
[13] Nice try, Belle. We never did the tats; both MH & moiself both wear stretchy, silicon rings (which come in a variety of colors and only cost ~ $20 each so you don’t feel bad when you lose them).
[14] “free-think-er n. A person who forms opinions about religion on the basis of reason, independently of tradition, authority, or established belief. Freethinkers include atheists, agnostics and rationalists. No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.” Definition courtesy of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, ffrf.org