June 2013 Photographs and Perspectives

• Tweet
• Pin It

<

Why I Don’t Engage in Political Conversations

Yosemite National Park, December 13, 2012, 2:42pm

I recently sent a guy an email with my opinion on a recent event that was closely related to an issue he and I had discussed before.  The email had nothing to do with politics, just the issue itself.  His response was to question how I could have an articulate and well-reasoned (he also used the word “poetic”) opinion on a very vital and immediate issue while not addressing two self-serving political issues that were important to him but had absolutely nothing to do with my original topic.  This exchange is a perfect example of the difference between discussing issues and arguing politics (note the verbs I use).

Niagara Falls from the Canadian side, June 17, 2013 10:00am

One reason I never talk politics is because those conversations are always self-serving.  People who initiate political conversations usually have armed themselves with whatever Rachel Maddow or Bill O’Reilly pounded into their heads the previous night and they’ll explode if they’re not allowed to spew out whatever it is they were told to think and say (sort of like how you cram for a final and can’t wait to just take the thing because you’re bursting at the seams and you’re afraid the knowledge will evaporate if you don’t take the exam immediately).   People who find politics interesting spend a corresponding amount of time reading about politics and they have to do something with this (someone else’s opinion in the guise of) knowledge.   These people think talking politics is smart and makes them appear smart.  They have decreed to themselves they are authorities on politics but their conversations are nothing more than one-sided competitions with self-serving criteria which take place in a parallel dimension where reason doesn’t exist.  (Here’s some perspective for you; you can only say you’re good at something if someone at the very top of that field tells you you’re good at it.  Otherwise, don’t tell people you’re good at it or claim you’re an authority.  Let the people you’re talking to decide whether or not you have credibility with them.)

View from my 25th floor apartment, downtown, Kansas City, MO, November 18, 2011 7:23am

Being smart requires actual thought.  Being able to make that distinction is a dividing line between thinkers and non-thinkers.  When your affiliations – political, religious, sexual orientation and otherwise – dictate what you think, you forfeit real thought and lose the ability to learn, grow and broaden your perspective.  If you’re not a thinker, an independent thinker will confuse and frustrate you.   With people that need – and it’s a need — to discuss politics, even if you agree with them, they fault you for not knowing every minute detail they know.  There’s no winning with them, and these people need to win.  If someone’s not as interested as you are in politics (or any subject), end the conversation or change the topic.  Initiating a conversation where the content may be political for the purpose of engaging in a mutually beneficial, forward-moving, and objective share of information, opinions and ideas is one thing (people who do this understand what I’m talking about).  Using something you read or saw on a news site or news channel to validate yourself by engaging in political arguments is another thing entirely (these people don’t and will never understand what I’m talking about).

Anchovy Tank, Monterey Bay Aquarium, May 21, 2011

Another reason for my aversion to political conversations is that they require you to choose a side.  The type of person who wants to initiate a political conversation has already taken a side, which eliminates the possibility of them being objective and all they really want to do is argue. If both participants in a political conversation share the same political views, all they do is reiterate what they both think to each other.  If people with opposing views discuss politics, each is certain his stance is correct and there’s no give-and-take in the conversation and it generally evolves into increased volume and name-calling.  Chris Christy is a perfect gauge to find out how objective and open-minded people are on the topic of politics because he angers people on the far left and on the far right equally, which is ironic.  I love that guy.  Even if I don’t agree with some with his stances, I understand where he’s coming from.  Look at how honest he is about his take on gay marriage and how he wants the people to decide the issue.  He’ll have to change if he runs for President, which is unfortunate.  Look at John McCain; the presidential candidate bore little resemblance to the senator. If you stick with your convictions while running for President, you’re done.

The Palace of Fine Arts, San Francisco, May 20, 2011 1:37pm

Another reason I don’t talk politics is because, if I want the perspective of someone who likes/needs to talk politics, all I need to do is watch MSNBC or Fox News.  At least then I’d get that slanted opinion from the source.  (I find both channels intolerable to watch and both are blocked on my DVR.  I don’t even like seeing them for the momentary flash during channel surfing.)   It’s like starting a conversation about abortion with a devout Catholic.  You already know their stance.  To infuriate themselves, left-wingers will watch Fox News and vice versa with right-wingers and MSNBC.

The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City, June 17, 2012 9:30pm

Talking politics is also very repetitive and the repetition makes it uninteresting.  The specifics of the issues change but not the way they’re presented and argued.  Political conversations were interesting to me during my 20’s because I was learning about myself and the world around me and I had a lot of energy to expend in that direction.  Like a lot of people that age, my opinion sometimes superseded my knowledge on an issue but, unlike most people who need to talk politics, I learned how to assess issues from as many angles as I could and I liked obtaining various and varying viewpoints.  (I use past tenses in that sentence because op-ed pieces, like movie reviews, lost their usefulness for me years ago.)  I liked watching Bill O’Reilly until I noticed quickly his habit of asking Democrats a question then immediately talking over them when they responded.  A professional interviewer who won’t let his guests respond to his questions should be fired.  Unless he gets high ratings.

Niagara Falls from the Canadian Side, June 17, 2013 10:00am

Finally, talking politics is, by its adversarial and confrontational nature, very negative.  Not only in the ways I mention or imply above but, even if someone’s bill/law passes or their candidate wins – which you think would be a positive thing — the glee is shared between enjoying the victory and also — and maybe even mostly — in the opposition’s crow-eating.  Energy expended in that direction is childish, hateful and unhealthy.

That’s why I don’t like talking politics.  Just give me the specific facts about the issues, I’m objective enough to form my own opinion.  The extent of my interest in politics begins and ends with informed voting.  The best way to do things is almost always the most simple and uncomplicated.  I’m pretty good at knowing how to allocate and expend my energy.  One guy I worked with, while watching me work on a project said, as if a light bulb went off in his head, “You’re brilliant in your simplicity!”  I generally avoid exclamation points but he really was that emphatic, otherwise the comment wouldn’t have stuck because I’ve made an art of deflecting and defusing flattery, which I decided at the age of eight didn’t have value or serve a purpose for me.

But that’s a compliment I’ll take.

DPW

June 29, 2013

(The Niagara Falls pictures were contributed by Jeff Bergmann.  Thanks, Jeff.)

Added July 9, 2013: The headline of this just-posted Huffington Post article is “Rush Limbaugh To Caller: Stop Watching Fox News (AUDIO)” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/09/rush-limbaugh-fox-news-stop-watching_n_3565977.html

Added July 9, 2013:  The headline of this June 12, 2013 column from Ann Coulter’s website is “If The GOP is This Stupid, It Deserves to Die” http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2013-06-12.html

I know it seems conflicting and ironic that I would add these articles to this post but the headlines caught my eye and the articles transcend the normal scope of political conversations.  I’m not going to editorialize on them at all.

View of San Francisco from the Oakland Hills, December 9, 2012 6:39pm

Wrong is Wrong

I just heard Andrew Fastow who, in an interview, said he knew what he was doing with manipulating Enron’s books was wrong but that he thought that was the way things were done.  WHAT???  So you knew what you were doing was wrong but you continued to do it because you lacked convictions.  You deserve life without the possibility of parole and much worse, especially with what happened to all those victims of the Enron scandal.  Basically, it took all this time in jail for this guy to understand what a child knows; committing a crime is wrong.  If you recognize something is a crime, regardless of how you rationalize it (attention: people in the financial services industry), don’t just hope you won’t get caught, don’t do it.

When I was in Silicon Valley, I had a department manager who was completely psychotic and had no business being in a company that prided itself on having a high bar and extremely bright employees.  She bullied and berated subordinates, threw tantrums, and created and maintained unnecessarily adversarial and antagonistic relationships with other department managers.  This behavior was damaging and counterproductive not only within our department but also detrimental to any of the department’s production and functioning that directly correlated to the strength of our relationships with those other departments.  Once I figured out what was going on and gained credibility by simply working hard, being productive, treating other people well and responding to queries from other departments as quickly and accurately as possible, I proceeded to meet with each of the other department heads.  I’d wait until there was another reason to meet with them then, without reducing what I was saying to gossip and without saying too much, I’d explain that my manager in no way reflected of the rest of the department and we were concerned about how we were perceived as a group based on the what everyone thought of our manager.  Every single manager I told that to was instantly relieved and they let down their guard and their interaction with our department improved.

Yankee Stadium, The Bronx, August 18, 2010 7:30pm (Yankees 9-Tigers 5) My buddy Pierre took this picture.

With that momentum, I then requested a meeting with her boss, knowing that, even if you have credibility, it’s always difficult to get a manager to take a side against another manager.  Because it was obvious he was skeptical to the point it seemed we spoke different languages, I asked him to do one thing; arrange for skip-level interviews, very quick and informal, with the members of my department.  After he met with everyone in the department and found the response was so unanimous, resounding and shocking, the manager was fired immediately.  When she was gone and the department was all together in a meeting, I asked them why they let her get away with treating them the way she did – and these were all really bright people, mostly Stanford and Cal grads.  One person spoke for the rest when he responded, “Because we thought that’s the way things worked.”  I told them, “The things you learned were wrong growing up are still wrong in the rest of life.  They still pertain.”  One of them compared me to Don Quixote because I was completely alone in taking on the responsibility of getting rid of a problem that was like a cancer that negatively impacted everyone she came in contact with.  Of all the people that she made miserable, none took the slightest step in correcting the problem.  Their misery was partially self-induced because of their inaction.

The point isn’t that I’m a hero at all, it’s that so many people would allow themselves to be victimized in the workplace and do nothing to correct the situation because, like Fastow, they thought that’s just the way things worked.  A workplace mantra I’ve said often and loudly was, “if something is worth complaining about, it’s worth doing something about.”

As I’ve discovered from my 30-plus years in different workplaces in different industries, most people would rather complain.

DPW

June 27, 2013

Woodpecker Courting Ritual in my Back Yard

His display apparently attracted this female woodpecker on the left.  I’ve never seen woodpeckers before but, with almost all birds, the male is a much more showy version of the female.  With males, their displays are usually how mating disputes are settled and how they attract females.  The showier display settles who the better woodpecker is between them and the female chimes in with her choice, which is pretty much always the same as the contest winner.  This female is so muted in color you can barely see her, which is clearly for purposes of camouflage. Notice how he’s still focused on that same pecking spot even though she appeared.  To the eye, he’s ignoring her.

Dover Stone Church, Dutchess County, Hudson Valley March 10 2013
(double-click for full image)

Why Do Same-Sex Couples Want to Marry?

Because the issue of the legalization of same-sex marriage has absolutely no impact on me personally, I really haven’t put much thought into it.  When I’ve come across articles on the topic, they’re about arguments for and against it.   I’ve never come across an article or conversation about the specific reasons gay couples want to get married in the first place.

Social Conditioning

In other words, because marriage is something we’re taught to do.  For me, this is the weakest reason.  Ever take a critical thinking class?  This reason falls under the fallacies (arguments that use poor reasoning) of “”history” (because that’s how it’s always been done) and “popularity” (because everyone else does it).   On its own, this is a bad reason.  For one thing, the divorce rate alone makes the idea of anyone getting married questionable, gay or straight.  Four of my brothers got married, three got divorced and two remarried.  Gay couples should be free of the shackles of how relationships are defined and they have the opportunity to define their own relationship.  The biggest inhibitor to people being allowed to be different  (within reason) is the concern for what other people think, which is massively flawed the but the reason a lot of people do what they do.  They can’t think for themselves.

Empire State Building, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Tower, view from my balcony, New York City, November 1, 2009 6:38pm

I met a retired couple and the husband several times during our conversation said, “We travel because they say that’s what you’re supposed to do when you retire”, looking downward each time with resignation in his voice as though he was obligated to travel because it had been dictated to him.  What??  You travel because you want to travel, not because someone else told you that’s what you’re supposed to do.  This guy clearly was never introduced to the concept of independent thought.  If you don’t get it at an early age, you never will and people who are individual and independent thinkers will confuse and frustrate you.  The fear of being perceived as being different is very constricting and very prevalent.  We’d all be better off not being judgmental about the lives and choices of other people.  One of my ever-growing list of mantras is “I wish everyone well but I don’t need to know anyone else’s business.”  Another is “other people’s personal lives are not a hobby.”  I lived in New York City for eight years and those statements have no meaning there.  A surprising majority of people I worked with and shared an apartment building with really thought it was their right to know everything about me.  I’m not even that interesting.

Westbound, The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, December 8, 2012

An even bigger argument against this reason is that I’ve always thought it was flawed for same-sex couples to pattern themselves after straight, conventional, married families.  Again, I’m trying to come from a positive perspective.  Same-sex couples have the unique opportunity to ignore convention and define their own relationship, which two people do with each other and in complete disregard of what other people think or how they present themselves as a couple to other people.  They shouldn’t pattern themselves after traditional married couples for the simple reason that they aren’t the same.  That’s by definition.  Once you want/try to adopt defining traits of the opposite gender then everything gets confusing and is a whole other topic.  Let’s keep it simple and reasonable.

Validation

I stand corrected and the first reason listed is now relegated to the #2 position in terms of being the worst reason to get married.  Doing anything strictly for the purpose of validation is just weak, despite how often people do things for exactly that reason.  Again, the fallacy of popularity comes into play here as does the issue of insecurity.

Religious Reasons

In other words, because marriage is one of your religion’s “magical steps to heaven”, which is a phrase that first came to mind when I was about eight.  (I was raised Catholic and this sarcasm occurred to me as I went through the paradoxical hell of Sunday school – specifically CCD or the Confraternity of Catholic Doctrine.  By comparison, mass wasn’t bad.  I didn’t know what CCD stood for until just now.)  If religion has nothing to do with your desire to get married or if your religion is OK with same-sex marriage, ignore this section.

I can block this shot even before it leaves your hands.  When you are part of or join a religion (or any organization), you implicitly abide by its rules and limitations, which are usually why you’re part of or join an organization in the first place.  If you can’t do that, leave or don’t join.  Expecting a religion to change for you is like marrying someone with the intention of changing them.  It’s irrational, unreasonable and selfish.

Central Park, New York City, October 29, 2006 1:38pm

The Ceremony

Female same-sex couples get a pass here.  For most women, their wedding day is a defining moment and one they might plan for and dream about from doll-playing age.  If anything, playing with dolls conditions them to the idea of being a wife and mother from a very early age.  For two women in a relationship to want to get married for this reason makes sense.

I’ve never known a guy to talk about anticipating his wedding day, specifically the ceremony, and that’s often even when his wedding is in the process of happening.  For most men, the ceremony is an unavoidable formality they can’t wait to get over with.  (Bachelor parties and receptions, while related, are another thing entirely.)  You’d think two guys in a relationship would be relieved that they didn’t have to be bothered with the ceremony and its formality and complications, which lie mainly in its expense and coordination.  For me, two men wanting to get married specifically for the ceremony is counter-intuitive and non-thinking and goes back to my points under Social Conditioning.

Spousal Health Benefits

This is the most practical, fair, understandable, and vital reason for getting married.  The health and even lives of people are on the line.  If two people are in a mutually committed, loving relationship, they shouldn’t be penalized for living an honest life and prevented from living a full one, including the security provided by spousal benefits.  Nobody’s looking for special treatment here, just equal treatment.

Pulgas Water Temple, Redwood City, CA, May 19, 2011 12:28pm

Tax Benefits

A more mechanical version of spousal health benefits and legitimate for the same reasons.  It’s at this point I need to point out that all the reasons I’m listing are under the supposition that those involved would still be a committed couple even if the issue of marriage did not come into play.  Marriages of convenience, by virtue of their fraudulent nature, are so intuitively wrong that the only time I’m even acknowledging them is in this sentence.

Surviving Spouse Rights (added June 28, 2013)

I’m adding this reason late to make this piece more complete and, mostly, to point out how it makes no sense for me to omit this reason because it’s the reason I feel most strongly about.  This issue matters to me because I feel terrible when I see news stories where the survivor in an unmarried relationship is robbed of surviving spouse rights by their partner’s family, whose rights are implicit if the couple is not married.  These families can only come across like heartless scavengers, especially since it gives them the last laugh and is almost vindication of their disapproval of the couple’s relationship and lifestyle.  Those stories stick with me long after I see them because it’s tragic to have your life taken from you after the worst thing that could possibly happen occurs.  Luckily, as we now know, DOMA has been repealed.  Now it’s up to the remaining states to decide the legalization issue.

My yard, Dutchess County, Hudson Valley, April 30, 2013 10:29am

Because You Want To

Personally, the only reason I need.  I never implied you had to have a specific reason to want to get married.  The subject just drew my curiosity and there usually is some sort of underlying motivation.  I don’t need a reason.  You have my blessing.  Just honor the commitment and know going in that these relationships require a lot of effort (anything worthwhile takes work), thought, patience and resourcefulness.  You have to pay attention and you have to listen.  Too many people have one eye on the exit when things get rough and things will get rough.   You both will evolve as individuals and your relationship can evolve exponentially as a result.  Marriages and intimate relationships in general will test your problem-solving and negotiating skills like nothing else because, by their nature, they’re so intensely personal.  A good relationship is easily worth the challenge.  Using exercise as a metaphor, the more you put into it and the smarter your efforts are, the more you’ll get out of it.  Actually, that serves as a metaphor for anything you do.

The Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage (not consistent with the rest of this piece but I still want to address it)

Religious – Legitimate by definition.  Rules are rules.  Changing them is another issue.  Or join a religion that allows it.  I don’t know (or care to know) enough about religions to know which, if any, do.

Hate/Bigotry and It’s Resulting Oppression – Never, ever justifiable.  The more formally presented reasons really boil down to these two, no matter how well they’re worded.

Lake Placid, New York, June 4, 2008 6:30pm

My own single experience with same-sex marriage – and it’s a non-experience on several levels – was in 1981 when I was invited to a male same-sex wedding ceremony.  With complete sincerity and naiveté I asked, “Can they do that?”  I was told they couldn’t do it legally and it wasn’t a binding ceremony but the couple wanted to show their commitment to each other in a ceremony in front of their friends.  Even the promise of a wedding cake wasn’t enough and I passed, wished everyone a good time, and told them to let me know how it went.  I was told the ceremony was beautiful and very emotional and everyone cried.  I knew I shouldn’t have asked.  I fought to keep my eyes from rolling to the back of my head and for good reason, as it turned out.  Four months after the beautiful and emotional ceremony, one of the guys that got married booted the other out onto the street.

Harry Shearer and Martin Short

I’m not implying anything here and I realize it’s not the most positive note to end on.  I just wanted to share my one sort-of experience on the subject.  You know the impact of first impressions.  I’ve known gay couples that got legally married but I’ve never been to a ceremony.  When I see news footage of gay wedding ceremonies the concept is still so foreign to me – because, again, I’ve put so little thought into it — that I feel like I’m watching comic satire, almost like the legendary SNL synchronized swimming sketch with Christopher Guest, Harry Shearer and Martin Short.  Unless what I’m writing here is pissing you off, I’ll bet that reference made you smile.

Pacific Ocean and Channel Islands from Highway 101 near Santa Barbara, December 30, 2012 5:32pm

Let’s hope all the barriers to the legitimization and legalization of gay marriage fall and do so in a constructive and forward-moving way.  Let’s hope equally that the right, once attained, is not abused in any way and that the people who take their mutual commitment to the level of marriage do so with the full intention of being responsible for making it not only work but as a guarantee that both people will do everything they can to make the relationship constantly grow in as many ways as a relationship can grow.  Besides, one thing we don’t need more of is divorce lawyers.

Now I’m hungry for butter cream frosting wedding cake.  I still lack enough shame that I’ll spoon up gobs of frosting left on the sheet and put them on my plate.  Wedding cake is a better reason for people to get married than the ceremony itself.

I’m going to find that synchronized swimming sketch on the internet or Netflix streaming.

DPW

June 25, 2013

My back yard, Dutchess County, Hudson Valley, April 24, 2013, 5:25am

The Treasonous and Terrorist NSA Computer Programming Consultant

How self-important and lacking in perspective is this lunatic that he would think it was his duty to compromise our nation’s security by doing what he did?   This otherwise completely inconsequential jerk actually thinks he knows more about NATIONAL SECURITY than our NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY?  This is way past treasonous, this is terrorism.  Anyone that doesn’t think so is as stupid, naive and delusional as this loony.  It absolutely makes sense that he’s a computer programmer.  The reason people go into programming and IT is 1) programming or any IT job isn’t difficult at all, it just takes an interest, a related college education (if that) and training (I started as a Computer Sciences major and found programming too easy and even more uninteresting) and people that are actually talented go into other fields and 2) because computers don’t make them feel bad about themselves like the real world does.  There are obviously exceptions and I’ve met and worked with IT and programming guys that were smart, hard-working, well-rounded and well-adjusted.  Any generalization inherently has exceptions.

Landenberg, Chester County, PA, April 24, 2011 1:19pm

Here are other disappointing and counter-intuitive realities this jerk likely doesn’t know yet:

– Too many politicians are in it to advance their personal agenda, which is ultimately power and money

– Too many doctors are incompetent and apathetic

– Too many teachers, coaches and managers think it’s about them and not about the students, athletes and employees

– The reason police resort to doing things like planting drugs on criminals they can’t catch otherwise is to stop them from committing those other crimes — like murder — that are much harder to prove, make arrests for and prosecute.  The means are questionable but the end is not.

Trout fry in Home Depot pail, April 24, 2013

What this guy did is not the way to show your objection to government-approved privacy invasion, which someone would only question after putting no real thought into why it’s being done.  This guy signed a NDA and didn’t complain when he was getting his paychecks.  Yeah, this jerk has real convictions.  It always bothered me how counterintuitive it is that the most dysfunctional and insecure people within organizations are the same people who had the most access to its vital information.  It’s not uncommon for IT people to sabotage information systems after they get fired or are made unhappy.  If you can’t trust that what the government does is ultimately in the best interest of the country, leave.  Get the fuck out.  If the spying is done in the name of protecting our country and the result is catching terrorists and other criminals, which it is and which it is, then I support it fully.  If anything, I find comfort knowing an effort is made to protect us from terrorists and criminals and they even can raise it up as many notches as they want.  MORE SPYING MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED 9/11.

Central Park, New York City, December 2008

What else is to be gained by spying that concerns people who object to it?  Do you people think the government is going to gossip about your personal habits?  Are you doing something you’re afraid of being caught doing?  Then don’t do it.  This sort of thing has been going on for centuries in one form or another and has been effective if not perfect.  Do you really think the individuals who perform that job do it because it’s enjoyable and they like getting into people’s personal business?  It’s incredibly tedious and these people have to research countless leads that leave them empty-handed more often than not.   It’s a massive amount of work relative to its success rate, but any success in catching terrorists is good.  When they’re successful, they can’t even tell anyone or the media.  If their successes were made public, their positions could be compromised.  They have to keep it to themselves and can only focus on trying to find the next bad guy.  They don’t get the fulfillment of sharing their success and their families don’t get the satisfaction and bond of knowing what they do for a living.  The satisfaction these people get is in their paycheck and knowing they are trying to protect the country.  If their failures were made public, our weaknesses would be revealed and the public would become paranoid and feel vulnerable.   If anyone spies on me they’ll be bored immediately and move on.  To accept things are the way they are isn’t a cop-out, it’s understanding reality and the way things work.  Things are corrupt on every level and in every area.

Lake Tahoe, Nevada, December 10, 2012 4:51pm

Russia, China and the U.S. not only know each spies on the other two but they fully expect it and would think either of the others was stupid if they didn’t.  Likewise with spying on their own people.  It’s a game played on the biggest scale and there are rules they all abide by.  They catch each other and us and we catch them and it’s usually done without making headlines.  The exact same thing happens between the major political parties.  It’s all part of the warped game everyone recognizes is flawed, expensive and time-consuming but it’s also tragically irreversible.

The real hero will be the person that saves the time and tax dollars it will take to find, imprison and try this lunatic by shooting him in the head before the authorities get to him.  We all know he’s guilty; the middle man will just be cut out of the process.  If given the chance, I wouldn’t hesitate to shoot him myself then deal with the consequences later. I grew up hunting so pulling a trigger when it needs to be pulled wouldn’t faze me in the least.  He has to be made an example of to any similar naive lunatics-in-waiting with their finger on the “send” key.

Downtown San Francisco, The Bay Bridge and Berkeley, view from Twin Peaks, December 7, 2012 4:27pm

Even Russia and China think this guy is insane. That whole thing with Russia offering him asylum is posturing and taunting on Russia’s part. Way to play into Putin’s hands, jerk. This guy revealed nothing they (and China) didn’t already know and just proves to Russia, China and even North Korea that the oppressive way they treat their people is superior, effective and necessary because no one in their countries has made a similar such high-profile security breach.  He just made things even worse for the oppressed people in those countries by justifying their methods.  What happened just makes the U.S. and our way of life look weak to the rest of the world.  People who are now serving life prison sentences in those other countries because they thought like he does even think he’s a jerk.  If they could have, knowing what they know now, they’d have advised him otherwise.  They have a lot of time to think.  If you’re going to mount a movement, make sure you have a bigger army than the government.

If this kook thinks what he did was such a good thing why is running like a coward?   Be a man and be accountable for your actions.  He should be tried and convicted as quickly as possible — there should be new laws made for exactly this sort of thing because criminals have too many rights — and publicly executed in the most slow and painful way possible to make him an example to other similar delusional and self-important lunatics.

It’s as wrong to mindlessly accept what’s going on with our government as it is to mindlessly question it and, even worse, sabotage it.  Once you take it upon yourself to sabotage the government and, in essence, the entire country, you become wrong to an extreme because the implications are so far-reaching and the damage is irreversible. What this guy did is absolutely thoughtless and completely indefensible.

DPW

June 25, 2013   (Those last four pictures were taken 5/2/2013 in my neighbors’ yard.)

I Detached Myself from the Internet for Eight Days

Morning walk, Dutchess County, Hudson Valley, June 6, 2013

I wanted to mention this because the first ten or so of these pieces – and the beginnings of more — were written by hand and would have been posted earlier if not for my self-imposed internet exile and would have been more timely.   The one exception is the one on James Gandolfini, the majority of which was written in my head within moments of hearing of his passing.  That one doesn’t flow well but I made the points I wanted to make.  I’m very uncomfortable with the subject of the deaths of others and don’t like spending too much time on it.

When I first decided to back off the internet and my computer, I thought it would just be for a day and I didn’t have a specific time frame in mind.  As the time went on, the projected return date kept getting pushed farther back.  After the second day I completely powered down the laptop I work on and the desktop computer that’s part of my a/v setup.  I also only used my smart phone to make/receive calls and take/retrieve messages.  Once I remembered Netflix streaming on my Blu-Ray player – I mindlessly equated it with DVDs — was also internet-dependent, I stopped using it as well.  The only reason I returned, which I did reluctantly and begrudgingly, was because of commitments and to read and respond to emails.  If I don’t respond to emails immediately, the likelihood I’ll respond lessens by the day.  And I didn’t even read any news sites, which is a primary reason I keep my computer on all the time. (I don’t have or desire to have a tablet.  When I’m out, I like focusing on what’s going on around me.)  I just did what I needed to do, which pretty much took up the entire day.  I’ll elaborate on or reference the experience of rendering the internet useless for myself from different angles in later pieces.  I’m still processing what did and didn’t happen during that period.

DPW

June 25, 2013

Empire State Building, New York City, view from my balcony, November 15, 2009

The “F” Word

 I like using the “f” word.  The “f” word is my friend.  Adding the “f” word to a sentence adds emphasis to whatever point I’m making.  A well-placed “f” word makes a sentence funnier.  Without me going into detail and itemizing all its potential uses, think about how versatile the “f” word and it’s variations are (this is the interactive part of this piece).  It’s probably the most versatile word I can think of.  In almost every way we use it, the “f” word adds flourish to a conversation.  I very rarely use the “f” word in its most literal and vulgar form.  In that form, the “f” word has little to no value for me.  One thing that use of the “f” word isn’t is romantic.

Without the “f” word, I wouldn’t be as effective at driving home a point, which I’m pretty good at.  Without the “f” word, things I say would be less funny, and I like making people laugh.  I’m past the point of simply liking the “f” word, I need it.

Because, you see, without the use of that word, I’m fucked.

DPW

June 25, 2013

The Trayvon Martin Murder Trial

View from the Sutro Baths, San Francisco, August 21, 2007

Note the wording of that heading.

If someone approaches you at night and that person is not familiar, not your age or ethnicity (it matters), or is someone you’d otherwise never come in contact with under normal circumstances, you’d have to be stupid and naïve to not immediately think defensively.  Fight or flight.  The defendant in this trial approached the victim and initiated the interaction, which became a confrontation and he did it carrying a loaded gun.  It’s my guess he didn’t approach Martin with the intention of helping him carry the stuff he just purchased at the convenience store.  He killed someone shortly after initiating an interaction that was easily avoidable.   In my mind, this case is over.  It’s not a racial case of black vs. white.  Ironically, it’s a metaphorical case of being very black and white.   Everything else is just stuff — including lies, desperation and the attempted character assassination of someone that’s no longer alive — and yet another terrible tax dollar-wasting, news organization revenue-generating waste of time.    It will all come down to how the prosecution will handle the case since the burden is entirely on them.  Keep in mind O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony and brace yourself for the possibility – the cynic in me wants to say “likelihood” – of a very disappointing verdict.

DPW

June 24, 2013

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company Tower, New York City, view from my balcony, November 1, 2008

The Predictable and Disappointing Death of James Gandolfini

I was already in a bad mood because I was in the middle of watching the directed-by-the-devil “The Dark Knight” when I got a call from a buddy who gets together with me on Sundays to watch “The Sopranos” on DVD.   We’ve both probably seen the entire series ten times.  When he told me he had just heard that James Gandolfini died, my immediate reaction was one of sadness but – especially because the movie was pissing me off – quickly changed to anger.  I feel like I’ve spent a good part of my life trying to coach, beg, coax, guilt, motivate, inspire and trick people I know into losing weight.  When I see overweight people I don’t see anything funny about it, I worry for their health.  Gandolfini gained weight as the series went on and I became progressively more concerned for his health.  The weight clearly helped make Tony Soprano an even more imposing figure as he got bigger and his mass was essential and very effective in the portrayal of physical confrontations.  (I’d love to learn and try that arm bar he repeatedly used.   That thing was really effective.)   I understood how the weight worked for the character and hoped, for his sake, he’d do everything he could to drop it once the series was over.   Maybe he saw himself as a character actor and the weight was a part of it.   So much for a “The Sopranos” movie.  I don’t mean that as flippantly as it sounds.  I wanted it to happen.  An irony that came to mind almost immediately upon hearing the news was that, in the episode “Members Only”, one of Tony’s captains, Eugene Pontecorvo, as a result of receiving a substantial inheritance, tries to convince Tony to let him out out of the business so Gene and his family can move to Florida.  One of the reasons he gave was “I’m 48 years old.  My father died when he was 53.”, implying he might be predisposed to not live a long life.  Gandolfini died at 51.

Emerald Bay, Lake Tahoe, California, December 10, 2012 3:10pm

I think (I usually don’t like to preface what I’m saying with “I think” because it’s implied but this is such a strong statement it comes across more like a proclamation than an opinion without the preface) James Gandolfini playing Tony Soprano is the all-time best convergence of actor and role in any acting medium.  To compare, Paul Giamatti – the fact that he’s also an overweight Italian-American actor didn’t occur to me until I typed his name and is completely coincidental – was exceptional in the should-be-required-watching mini-series “John Adams” but, by comparison, his casting is comical.

I never really thought about the actor/role thing that much but I think I always considered Vivien Leigh as Scarlet O’Hara and Clark Gable as Rhett Butler, who just happen to be in the same movie,  as among the best in that category.  Bette Davis as Margot Channing and Gloria Swanson as Norma Desmond (I will forever link the two) are also very high on the list.  I wish this was an interactive conversation so you could throw out more names but I don’t need to make an all-inclusive list.  Jennifer Holliday as Effie in the original run of “Dreamgirls” is another one.  Al Pacino and Brando in “The Godfather”,  Robert DeNiro (Man, I’m really dropping a lot of Italian names here) in “Raging Bull”, Yul Brynner in “The King and I.”  One of the things that separates Gandolfini’s Tony Soprano from these other actors/roles is that he didn’t play the role one time.  He played it for seven seasons and nailed it from the very beginning, although there was a subtle evolution in the tone of his voice and delivery.  The role was an incredible one for him to get and he had to know it.   Also, he was more of a regular and accessible person than the characters I mentioned.  Another difference is how layered both the role and portrayal were.  All the other roles I just mentioned are, by comparison, pretty one-dimensional, which is not a way you’d otherwise think of them.

Oakland HIlls view of the San Francisco Bay, December 9, 2012 6:13pm

The most fascinating thing about the role and portrayal is that, in Tony Soprano, you saw the entire range of human emotion, from his child-like wonder when even just the topic of the ducks in his pool came up all the way to the brutal animal he became when he killed people with his bare hands.   Or how, when he was being the disciplinarian both at home and in his work, without explicitly saying so, he would convey his disappointment at having to be the bad guy and resentment at being put in that position.   Those performances were really layered.  And I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an actor so effectively use their face and do it as many ways as Gandolfini did as Tony Soprano.  Think of how different his entire presence was when he displayed that child-like and gleeful smile when he was happy in the way that would produce such a smile and how he looked when he’d glare and say nothing.  He was so imposing I wanted to throw my wallet and checkbook at the TV just to make that glare go away.  These two pictures come close to the glare I’m talking about, which is a deadly one. I might have to find a still when I come across it when I go back to watching the show.  In the meantime, these pictures get the point across.

The thing I love the most about the show and about Gandolfini’s performance/delivery as Tony Soprano were the humerous lines, made even more funny in the serious context of the show.  I exploded laughing when, in talking about his sister, he referred to her life as “Whatever Happened to Baby Janice?”   I’ve made numerous references to that same movie but none that good.

El Capitan, Yosemite National Park, December 13, 2012 6:10pm

I have no opinion of Gandolfini’s personal life, him as a person or his other acting performances (I remember him in “True Romance” and saw him recently in “Killing Them Softly”) because, in owning Tony Soprano the way he owned him, the rest of his roles and performances could only be watered-down by comparison.  In the few interviews I watched of him — and each only for a few minutes — he was very subdued and didn’t hold my attention.  That’s OK, I always say I’m not interested in the personal lives of celebrities (or anyone, for that matter) and I’m only concerned with whatever it is they do that made them a celebrity.

James Gandolfini’s death was predictable because he didn’t lose the weight and disappointing (I was originally going to use the word “tragic” and it may still hold) because it was avoidable.  I really do feel at a loss even though I only know Gandolfini from that one role but it was clearly enough to inspire me to produce some sort of response.  My buddy spoke for both of us when he said it will be a while before he’ll want to watch episodes of “The Sopranos” again.

Riposa en Pace, James Gandolfini.

DPW

June 24, 2013

Related Posts

• The Treasonous and Terrorist NSA Computer Programming Consultant
  The Treasonous and Terrorist NSA Computer Programming Consultant
• Why Do Same-Sex Couples Want to Marry?
  Why Do Same-Sex Couples Want to Marry?
• July 2013 Photographs and Perspectives
  July 2013 Photographs and Perspectives
• High Noon in Florida
  High Noon in Florida

Leave a Reply Cancel reply