JACK'S BLOG
|
|
11/29/2012 7 Comments What's in a pen name?WritingI CONSIDERED USING a pen name when I first began writing fiction, but dismissed the idea as pretentious. Who did I think I was, Mark Twain? Did I think that my storytelling was his equal? Of course, not. Did you ever stop to wonder why Mark Twain used one? Most of us of a literary persuasion have heard the story of why he chose Mark Twain. It's a riverman's term for safe waters; that is, where there is sufficient depth in the river to provide safe passage. But, why did he use it? There are several tales connected to this question. I prefer the one mentioned at About.com, wherein Twain felt that he needed a “nom de guerre” to create the illusion that the author was knowledgeable and that his words could be trusted to be true. Basically, this version is the one most consistent with Twain's character. He was, at heart, a newspaper man, an ad man, an author who loaded a case of his own books onto a mule and peddled them door to door. It is entirely reasonable to presume that he would do anything, including the use of a pen name, for a marketing advantage.
There are many good other reasons for publishing under a pseudonym or nom de plume. An excellent article produced by the legal firm of Morse Barnes-Brown Pendleton proposes several good reasons for an author to select, use, and protect a pseudonym. Ultimately, I considered using a pen name to avoid celebrity should my writings become popular. I don't think that it's pretentious to hope for success. I simply wanted, like any good Boy Scout, to be prepared for the unwanted side effects of success. There are some who seek celebrity. They thrive on it. Yes, they may complain about the paparazzi but they would complain even louder if they stayed away. Personally, I don't understand it. Girls swooning at the feet of crooners. Consumers rushing to purchase whatever product a sports hero is hawking. Citizens idolizing politicians, even corrupt ones. I suppose that I am flawed. I have never felt the urge. I sure as hell don't want anyone ever treating me in this way. More importantly, I would never want to subject my family to such treatment. One need only look to the travails of the children of the famous: drug addiction, aimlessness, etc. Ultimately, I decided that a pen name wasn't necessary. I started authoring fiction late in life. I'll be lucky to survive long enough to become any good at it let alone develop any commercial success. My family will be the beneficiaries of any commercial success that may attach to my writings. If such comes to pass, they hopefully will enjoy the income without the notoriety. Well, at least that's the plan.
7 Comments
Oh Dark Thirty IN WRITING REBELS on the Mountain, I had to come to grips with machismo. To be honest, I have always had some difficulty with it. Fundamentally, I came to believe that it is simply descriptive of Latin male behavior, especially when in the presence of women. The lovers in my novel, not only have to overcome racial prejudices to have a relationship – one is a Anglo-American and the other a Cuban mulata – but also, their cultural differences. Nick, the protagonist in Rebels on the Mountain, and his love interest, Lucia, have different methods of expressing romantic interest. She's expecting masculine cues that he does not know, nor does he understand her signals even though he is fluent in her language. The entry for machismo in the Encyclopedia Britannica reveals an Anglo prejudice towards it.“Exaggerated pride in masculinity, perceived as power, often coupled with a minimal sense of responsibility and disregard of consequences. In machismo there is supreme valuation of characteristics culturally associated with the masculine and a denigration of characteristics associated with the feminine.”Well, of course a Brit would describe it that way. Frequently, while I was leading my Sea Scout crew composed of Hispanic youth offenders from the Orange County Juvenile Detention Center at Joplin, I would observe them strutting their stuff for the benefit of girls who happened to be in the area where we were training. They postured and called out to the girls in ways that reminded me of the film Outrageous Fortunestarring Bette Midler and Shelley Long, in which a group of Mexican-American workers attempt to attract the ladies from a passing truck with catcalls and suggestive gestures. Bette's character responds with a challenge: “Did that ever work for you boys?” Well, in my experience with the Latino gang members, it did. The girls they appealed to with catcalls and suggestive gestures responded with smiles and suggestive messages of encouragement. Let's just say, without being judgmental, that cultural behaviors vary. I once lost a job for violating the cultural boundaries of machismo. I was working as the communications expert for a Chicano owned and operated social research organization in Colorado. [Note: Before you jump me for using a pejorative, let me explain that Chicano was not a bad thing among Hispanic-Americans in that part of the country. Indeed, it was the self-descriptor that they used, even in their letterhead.] Another employee, an artist, was supposed to prepare titles and charts for a slide presentation that I was assembling. (Long before personal computers and MS PowerPoint.) I prepared them myself to meet my deadline and thereby diminished his machismo. It served as grounds for discharge. Coincidentally, I had diminished my boss's machismoby failing to support him in a dispute with another supervisor. This occurrence left me with the distinct impression that machismowas not to be toyed with. I suspect that, in another time, violating the strictures of machismomight have led to a duel as in the 18th or 19th centuries when, if you accused an Anglo of lying, you would find yourself on the "field of honor." Ultimately, a street scene I witnessed in Ensenda, Mexico provided me with some insight. A bus stopped nearby while I was walking to a cafe and the driver disembarked to attempt a meeting with an attractive young woman. He flattered her unashamedly and begged her name and address while his passengers egged him on. Although he failed, he returned to his bus as his passengers cheered him for the attempt and the young woman continued walking with a broad smile on her face. Machismoappeared to have served both well in that encounter. An Anglo on the bus might have been annoyed by the delay. An Anglo woman, the object of such an approach on an American street, might have been embarrassed and called for the police. An American bus driver would have been fired. In Mexico, it appears that there was no harm, no foul.
Macho, an American disambiguation of machismo, tends to infer masculine strength only without any of the sexual connotations that one finds in the Hispanic culture. For example, Macho Man Randy Savage is acclaimed for his skill as a wrestler, not as a lover (however, he may be). [Note: The author is neither implying nor expressing anything that might be construed as impugning Mr. Savage's prowess with the ladies.] My study of machismo has left me wondering how many more young ladies I might have dated when I was a young man had I been raised in that culture. However, in truth, I doubt that I would have been any more machismo than I was whatever it is we substitute in America for catching the lady's eye. Not every muchacho tiene machismo. 11/27/2012 5 Comments Were they ever really my friends?Oh Dark ThirtyI'VE NEVER BEEN to a Tea Party gathering, however I am what passes for a conservative these days. I thought that I should mention that for those of you who have not read any of my previous postings. There was a time when I could say that and trust that you would read on. However, that may not be the case these days. It seems that the divide between conservatism and progressivism left the realm of politics sometime a few years ago, and it now defines a difference in ideology. Once upon a time, both conservatives and progressives in America shared the same goal; to maintain a happy and prosperous republic. They differed mainly in the means to that end. However, we now find progressives advocating social democracy while their former friends strive to conserve the republic. I say former friends because, now that the difference is ideological, progressives appear to have become intolerant of anyone or anything that stands in the way of effecting what they view to be necessary changes. President Obama said it best when he observed that the Constitution is flawed because it prevents him from effecting the changes that he deems must be made. I am not going to rebut the President. I am not concerned in this article with arguing one ideology versus another. What I am concerned with is the fact that revolutions make enemies of friends. We do not yet have brothers shooting at brothers, or fathers and sons engaged in mortal combat as in the Civil War, but the battle lines have been drawn in parlors, dining rooms, classrooms, conference rooms, even bedrooms, and almost every public and private place. The fuses are in place waiting for the matches to be lit. It seems that almost any spark could ignite a conflagration that we would all regret. I am reminded of the musical Hair when I hear progressives complain about the heartlessness of conservatives. They seem to think that they have a monopoly on good intentions and we are left to wonder why they abandon us as when the character in Hair, Act I, Sheila, voices her distress in the song “Easy to be Hard...” “How can people be so heartless,
How can people be so cruel... “...especially people Who care about strangers, Who care about evil, And social injustice... “Do you only Care about the bleeding crowd? How about a needing friend? I need a friend.” Although I am not a Republican, I am tarred with the same brush - I belong to the party of "No" as though "No" is a bad thing. Well, I am grateful that someone in Washington is saying "No" to bigger, more intrusive government, and more spending. Curiously, I haven't seen the Republicans doing much of that in years past and wish they had. Generally, I find that conservatives are willing to listen to progressives while the opposite is not true, although individuals from both sides are guilty of hyperbole and flights of fancy. Is it possible that one side is more confident in their opinions while the other is not? I want my friends back, but they have dismissed me as the enemy. They expect me to listen to their points of view, but refuse to hear mine - indeed, many become uncontrollably enraged if I even whisper an opposing view. I'm sorry that we can't agree on this, but cannot see how this alone should end our relationship. Unfortunately, many have said that they do not care to keep me as a friend if I cannot agree with them, or at least, shut up. Were they ever my friends? 11/26/2012 0 Comments Are ideologies just for idiots?Oh Dark Thirty ULTIMATELY, ALL REVOLUTIONS are rooted in ideological conflicts. The historical record clearly demonstrates that differing goals and expectations, and differing strategies for attaining them simply cannot coexist in close proximity. People are so defensive of their ideologies that they seem intolerant even when these differences are simply differences in perception. Well, that's my humble opinion. “You have your ideology and I have mine.” – Khalil Gibran The Soviet Union was no more communistic than the United States is capitalistic. No, the two nations weren't separated by politics as much as they were by ideology – collectivism versus individualism. Even there, the lines of demarcation are muddy. Generally, both societies prized conformity within accepted rules of collective behavior and both were greatly influenced by the contributions of successful individuals whose behavior did not always conform with collective standards. However, whereas individuals such as Stalin tended to become embedded in positions of power in the Soviet Union for extended periods of time, such individuals were only marginally tolerated in the United States for brief periods. The only person who approached perpetual power in the United States was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the example of his tenure as President was largely responsible for the rise of term limits for that office. Despite this evidence, the specter of collectivism incited fear in the United States and the specter of individualism incited fear in the Soviet citizenry. Thus, there seemed to be a cognitive dissonance between people's ideology and their behaviors in both societies. Their fears gave rise to the conflict that existed between them – a conflict that was frequently expressed in armed conflict. However, since the prospect of Mutual Assured Destruction if the two engaged in direct armed conflict was so frightening, they confronted each other using client states. Vietnam and Afghanistan are prime examples. “Once a person has killed other people on behalf of an ideology, he becomes rather devoted to it.” – John McCarthy All peoples have killed on behalf of their ideology, however no side has killed more of their own citizenry than the communists. The collective arms of all communist nations are heavily notched with tallies of the dead. More than twenty million in the Soviet Union under Stalin - even more later. More than fifty million in China just under Chairman Mao - even more later. Almost two million in Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge. To be fair, none of this murder had anything to do with communism, it was for the sake of eliminating any and all who those in power feared. In short, it was the murder of potential non-conformists to preserve the collective and insure the survival of the individuals in charge. Interestingly, the two nations with the lowest body counts when they became communist enclaves were Vietnam and Cuba. The relative ease with which citizens were able to escape these two nations and find sanctuary in the free world is largely responsible for this outcome. (I'm sure that the boat people of both countries will take exception to my statement, but please note that I did qualify it as the “relative ease.”) People such as General Giap and Che Guevara would have been only too happy to have executed them had they stayed. Those in power in the United States have no expectation of remaining in charge. They accept the end of their tenures in office and exit gracefully, leaving the heavy responsibility of making decisions on behalf of the collective on someone else's shoulders. The collective allows them to escape office only because there is always someone foolish enough to voluntarily accept this responsibility. Indeed, many clamor for the position – the fools – and expend great effort and wealth to win it. Lacking such a ready supply of leadership replacements, incumbents might become prisoners of their adoring constituencies. “It did not occur to us that the Marxists' solution was fraudulent or that their vision was distorted, that whatever the wrongs in our society it was not the ideology of theirs that will cure them.” – Barbara Amiel Ultimately, communism failed everybody. The theories of Lenin and Marx might have succeeded given sufficient time for people to evolve to a level of social conscience to labor enthusiastically and contribute using the best of their abilities for equal rewards in a classless society. However, it never took root in its theoretical form. Classes did evolve in communist countries and the greatest rewards went to the most ruthless. Recognizing the futility of their situation, “people pretended to work while their government pretended to pay them” and any chance of “all contributing according to their ability and receiving according to their need” was lost. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the economies they had artificially propped up to create the illusion of success, collapsed. Recently communistic countries such as Vietnam and Cuba suffered the worst because they had not had time to develop any sustainable economic institutions of their own. “To defeat the aggressors is not enough to make peace durable. The main thing is to discard the ideology that generates war.” – Ludwig Von Mises The Cold War ended because people abandoned the politics of communism. Unfortunately, the ideology underpinning it will remain until another generation dies off. Until then, there will always be a large population pining for “the good old days” of heavy-handed authoritarian leadership. Hopefully, more recent members of the communist world such as Vietnam and Cuba will not require so long a delay before fully adopting a more successful ideology. The greatest threats to peace now seem to emanate from theologically based ideologies. Unfortunately, there are theologies that generate war. Historically, almost all theologies have had periods during which they generated war. Certainly, Judaism and Christianity have seen their bellicose eras. God may have given Judea to the Israelites but they had to clean out previous tenants before they could occupy it. The Christians survived persecution in their formative years and then spent several centuries practicing the art on others as it had been practiced on them. Even today, not all swords have been beaten into plowshares and pockets of armed theologians scour the countryside, even their own ranks, for non-believers. However, for generating today's armed conflicts, no group can top Muslim extremists. “No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology.” – Ronald Reagan Ronald Reagan obviously overlooked the fact that many ideologies are rooted in theology or he never met a Muslim mother of the extremist persuasion. Islam is a theology. Muslim extremism is an ideology rooted in a theology. It perceives all non-believers as threats and seeks to destroy them to preserve the purity of not its religion, but rather its interpretation of that religion and its intolerance to all other ideologies. Interestingly, Islam was insulated from outside threats through most of its history because its adherents lived in areas that no one coveted. Isolated from the rest of the world, they preserved their culture as well as their religion. During this period they were among the most tolerant of peoples. The Jews in particular enjoyed their greatest freedom and autonomy when they resided in Muslim-dominated cities during the diaspora. Even when outsiders began drilling in their lands for oil, Muslims remained on the sidelines largely unaffected by the non-believers. However, once modern communications began exposing their women and children to foreign images and ideas, and they began adopting western ways, Muslim clerics recognized that traditional values and mores were under assault and they began to fight back. Unable to lure their people back into the fold through reason or faith, they turned to attacking the outsiders who, in their eyes, had stolen their children. “Learning is always rebellion... Every bit of new truth discovered is revolutionary to what was believed before.” – Margaret Lee Runbeck
Nothing is more fearful to people than their children renouncing their parent's ideology or theology. Both are based solely on belief and thus indefensible through reason. They may only be enforced through blind acceptance. Thankfully for parents, most children accept their parent's ideology and theology with only brief lapses during adolescence. But a few, like me, rebel in depth casting off the mantel their parents have prepared for them and reinventing themselves in a new image. My rebellion was rooted in my education. I did not receive my education in any school. Indeed, I found school to be suffocating, filled with teachers trying their damnedest to prevent me from thinking for myself, and training me to regurgitate predigested meals of knowledge and opinion. I questioned all authority figures. The problem was that my father, a bully and a tyrant, inured me to authority figures. In a sense he did me a favor. Had he been a more reasonable person, I might have simply accepted his prejudices and lived according to them as did my brother. Now, in my later years, I truly appreciate the youthful sense of wonder and adventure that still guides my life. It also taught me the power I had over my father. By rejecting his ideology, I assaulted the security of his belief system. I hope this explains my interest in revolutions, insurrections, and insurgencies. I have always felt more comfortable among the outcasts and misfits such as Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and Washington, as well as Castro, Guevara, Mao, and Ho. Even though I may disagree with the latter three, I still feel a kinship with their spirit Army Life A MEMORANDUM OF RECORD was the military's instrument of choice for covering your ass with paperwork. I learned its power in my last assignment as the Operations Officer in the Strategic Communications Center for USARPAC (United States Army Pacific) Headquarters while we were automating our terminal to interface more efficiently with ARCNET. ARCNET was the forerunner of ARPANET (which led to INTERNET). It was a system of switches built and maintained primarily by the U.S. Navy, but used by all branches of the U.S. military and the State Department. Up until that time – the late 1960s – messages were punched on paper tape, the same tape used in TTY (teletype) transmissions. The tapes were slowly fed into a TTY reader and then translated into binary code, dissembled into data packets, and enciphered for transmission over secure circuits. After racing around the world, the data packets were reassembled into complete messages, deciphered, and slowly printed out on paper tape and printed.
The two instances of the adverb “slowly” in the preceding description may have caught your eye. Yes, we had bracketed a high speed computer system with two instances of an archaic one. The goal then was to replace the TTY technology with an automated system in the strategic communications centers. The Navy, of course, felt they should take the lead in the project to automate the terminals inasmuch as they already “owned” the backbone of the system. The State Department as well as the sister services felt it was their turn to lead the way. The result was a competition. I came to the project in 1969 when it was on the verge of failing. The Army's Automated Communications and Message Processing System (ACAMPS) was failing its tests. So too were the systems built by the Navy and the Air Force. The problem we discovered in our case was that the systems analysts had been cut along with the budget and the separate programs refused to integrate. (For the computer illiterate: the pieces of the system worked but not together.) The new management team (of which I was a member) decided to patch the pieces together rather than starting all over – an effort for which we did not have the budget. Surprisingly, it worked and we put it on line successfully in 1970. Before we launched it, however, I discovered a small glitch – ACAMPS was programmed to send all Flash messages regardless of security classification to a printer in the Tactical Operations Center. Stop! Before your eyes roll up in their sockets and you pass onto another web page, let me define some terms so that you may understand the rest of this story. Precedence: All strategic communications are handled in order of their importance.
Prior to ACAMPS, FLASH messages were hand-carried to the Tactical Operations Center as soon as they were received. Obviously, is seemed advantageous to have these self-print in the TOC as soon as they arrived. However, this could raise problems if the FLASH messages contained information for which TOC personnel were not cleared. Classification: All strategic communications are handled by authorized personnel only. Thus, all are clearly marked for their level of clearance.
Acronyms such as SIOP-ESI, CRYPTO, SPECAT, NOFORN, etc are not security classifications, but rather special instructions limiting access to persons cleared for them. EYES ONLY is a special example of special handling. Although the personnel manning our Tactical Operations Center all had TOP SECRET clearances, none of them had pre-approved access to documents designated for such special handling. Here is the problem that I identified. ACAMPS was programmed to send all FLASH messages to the Tactical Operations Center without blocking any requiring special handling. When I raised this issue I was asked if I had ever seen a FLASH message so classified and I said “no.” Inasmuch as we were significantly over budget and out of time, my betters decided to ignore the problem. When I persisted with my objection, I was told to write a Memorandum for Record and I did. Now, if you have stayed with me this long, you deserve a reward and here it is. You have reached the interesting part of the story. I was awakened in the middle of the night by a call from my NCOIC at the Communications Center requesting my immediate presence. I dressed and hoped on my bicycle and was there in minutes to find that a FLASH message had arrived, EYES ONLY CINCPAC (Commander-in-Chief, Pacific) – that was Admiral John McCain. Ordinarily, his messages all went through the Navy's Communication Center, but they were off line for repairs. Although the switch held all messages for an off-line terminal for several hours, they forwarded FLASH messages to the alternate – my Communications Center. I immediately went to the Tactical Operations Center and asked for admittance to recover the message and “sanitize” the printer (clear all copies and replace the ribbon). Although I had authority to enter their facility (my clearances were vastly superior to theirs) and I had a need, I was refused. The officer on duty claimed that he had already destroyed the message. When I insisted on retrieving the ashes and sanitizing the printer, he took umbrage. I went back to my office and wrote out a form request which he also denied. He also refused to respond in writing to my formal request. As it was getting close to morning, I decided to wait for my commanding officer and we went through the whole thing again with the same results. I can't divulge the contents of the message, but I was not surprised to learn of a dust up that occurred at Admiral McCain's morning briefing when the Army's representative, a major general, mentioned to the CINCPAC his regrets at hearing the news of his son. Admiral McCain didn't become CINCPAC by being slow-witted. “What news?” he is reported to have asked. Of course, the praetorians went looking for someone to crucify – someone with responsibility for maintaining the security of classified messages and having the lowest rank – me. Unfortunately for the next person up the chain of command, I was armor-plated. I had covered my ass with paperwork. Surprisingly, the general who took the brunt of McCain's displeasure was man enough to admit that he should have listened to me. OpinionTHE DAMAGE IS ALREADY DONE. All we can do is wait and see. Will our health care industry survive Obamacare? Competent authorities argue that it won't. Those who care argue that it will. What's the point in arguing. It is what it is and let us give thanks for all that is about to come. Will our economy turn around? There is plenty of evidence that it won't. Those who fight for what is fair argue that we are already recovering. Again, we can only wait and see. Will the world know peace with the United States relinquishing all leadership? Obama has been reelected and will continue to lead from behind. War and peace are irrelevant. Can the Republican majority in the House of Representatives alter the course of events? Of course not. They can't alter the fact that Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac are doubling down on the same unwise investments that got us into the economic mess that now prevails. Dodd-Frank, the bill that set us on this path, can't be repealed without the agreement of the Democratically dominated Senate. They can't pass a budget. Harry Reid and the Senate have already declared that they will not pass a budget in the coming session.
Will citizens rise up in anger at the Senate's refusal to perform their most basic duty? Of course not. The majority of those who vote have no appreciation for the importance of fiscal controls. They have been taught to believe that the government can print just as much money as it spends. Who cares if the Republicans in the House object. They are, after all, just the party of “no”. There are some now arguing that the Republicans in the House should simply vote “present” for the next two years. Allow the Democrats to have their way. Since nothing can be done to avoid the fiscal cliff over which we are about to plunge, let the Democrats take responsibility for it. Unfortunately, the voting public won't see it that way. Regardless of how the Republicans act, they will be blamed. Isn't the current economy the fault of George Bush and the Republicans? If Obama and the Democrats fail, it can still be blamed on them. If the Republicans attempt to alter our path and we fail, it will be their fault. Yes, the Republicans can't win for losing. There's only one way in which the Republican's can succeed. They can prevent Obama from being elected to a third term by preventing a Constitution Amendment that would allow it. Does all this mean that the Republican Party is finished? Maybe not. Surprisingly, the Republican party remains dominant in the majority of states. The Tea Party movement is succeeding at spreading conservative ideas at the local level. Now, if only the Republican Party can come to embrace conservatism and field a conservative candidate for President in the next election, they might break the cycle of electing celebrities to that office. If not, the conservative majority in this country will continue to stay away from the polls, and the future will continue to be in the hands of the progressives. Oh Dark ThirtyA FEW WEEKS AGO I recommended MyFitnessPal.com for anyone who needed to lose a few pounds (or, as in my case, more than a few). I described how I had only lost weight in previous attempts by either resorting to a quack doctor dispensing suspect medications, or by following the Army's Diabetic Exchange diet or some variation thereof such as Weight Watchers. The redeeming feature of MyFitnessPal.com was the ease of its food and exercise diary, as well as the fact that it's free. Remember, free? (See Will You Be My Ally In The Battle Of The Bulge?) How have I been doing so far? Well, after approximately 90 days, I've lost seventeen pounds. More importantly, my blood pressure and resting heart rate have lowered significantly.
A food and exercise diary isn't going to help very much if you continue to eat too much and avoid physical activity. You'll only have a record of your failure. The real benefit of keeping a diary is to make your successes and failures visible, not only to yourself, but also to your support community. Remember, MyFitnessPal.com notifies your weight loss buddies of your progress. Keep in mind that a diet shouldn't be what you eat temporarily until you achieve a goal. Everybody is on a diet. Some are good and some are bad. Temporary diets fail because they're based on denial, and a body can't usually keep that up for more than a few days or weeks. I haven't denied myself anything during the past 90 days that I've been losing weight. Honestly. I've continued to eat my favorite foods, every one of them, including peanut butter. The difference is portion control. Thanks to the fact that MyFitnessPal.com has a very complete data base of most popular foods, I can see at a glance what portion of any food I want that I can have without exceeding my caloric intake goals. The trick is to complete the diary entry for a meal before you eat it, and then eat only what you've recorded in the diary. Pre-planning a meal is especially important when you're eating out. Fortunately, MyFitnessPal.com includes nutritional information (calories, carbs, fat, and protein) for the meals you eat at popular restaurants and fast food outlets, from a slice of pizza at Costco to a full meal at Lucille's. If your favorite restaurant isn't listed, check its website. Many now have nutritional information so that you can better plan your menu choices when you're there. Be honest. There's no cheating in dieting. Your diet is whatever you eat. Go ahead and record it, everything you put into your mouth and swallow. If you lose weight, you'll know what works. If you don't, then you'll know what doesn't and you can do better the next time. It's that simple. Come on and join me in the battle of the bulge. Don't worry. I won't abandon you anytime soon. I still have at least eighty more pounds to lose. That should keep me on the plan for at least another year. Oh Dark ThirtyI'M A JINX. Seriously, it's true. I've carried this burden all of my life. It's a heavy one. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. Come to think of it, my worst enemies probably became my worst enemies because they fell under the pall of my jinx. Maybe I could have redeemed myself had I wished my jinx on them so they could jinx me. Does that even make sense? I didn't become aware of my jinx until I joined the Army. My trail of devastation wasn't apparent until viewed from a distance. In any event, it was October, 1966, and I asked my buddies if anyone had heard who was playing in the World Series of baseball. We had been at Infantry School since March, first Basic Combat Training, then Advanced Infantry Training. We were now studying at Infantry Officer Candidate School and outside news was a luxury that we couldn't well afford. We didn't have time for it.
One of my fellow officer candidates had received a newspaper from home and found a minute now and then to peruse it. He turned to the sports page and announced that New York and Baltimore were playing. I didn't laugh. It was a cruel joke. I had been born and raised in Baltimore and never seen the Orioles win even one game. They had won a few on occasion, but never with me as a witness in person, on the radio, or on television. In fact, they had never so much as climbed out of the basement. (They were always last in the league standings ever since the team moved to Baltimore.) But there it was. The Orioles sprang from last to first place in their league and went on to win the World Series in the very year that I left Baltimore. Coincidence? I think not. Let me provide a few other examples. I moved to Los Angeles in 1975, and inherited a nephew when I married my current wife. His name was Garth and he was (and is) a true sports fan. He played in virtually every youth league and was rising in the ranks of collegiate basketball players until his knees gave out. Inasmuch as his father was absent during his youth, I volunteered to stand in as a surrogate. This necessitated a few excursions to ball games, hockey games, etc. to accompany him. Whatever team we rooted for lost in my presence. Garth was bewildered at first. The Los Angeles Dodgers played championship baseball in those days. The Lakers dominated the National Basketball Association. The Kings hadn't yet risen to dominate hockey, but they could be expected to win more often than not. None of it mattered. They all lost when I was in the house, or following the game on radio television. Garth began to suspect. We were at a Dodgers game, sitting in the Loge section along the first base side. Dodger players were not only losing, but also making inexplicable errors. Bill Russell, a great short stop, fielded a ground ball and overthrew Steve Garvey at first base. He threw high enough that the ball landed among the spectators. Someone sitting a few rows behind us shouted, “What's wrong with you guys?” My nephew stood up, turned to face those behind us, pointed to me and announced, “It's him. It's all his fault.” I couldn't argue. One more example, just in case you're not convinced. Garth and I arrived late to a Lakers' game one evening. I had him find our seats while I grabbed hot dogs and a beer for me, a Coke for him. When I entered the arena, the Lakers were ahead 18 to 2. The opponents were not having a good season and it was expected that the Lakers could beat them wearing their street clothes and shoes. I smiled. This was my chance to root for the winning team. I found our row and began sliding sideways past the other spectators who already occupied their seats. I faced the rear of the arena so that I wouldn't stick my bum in their faces. As I approached Garth, I found him watching me rather than the game. When I arrived next to him, I placed the paper tray with our food and drinks on the seat while I hung my jacket on the back of it. Garth continued to stare at me. When I finally retrieved the tray and turned to face the court, my eyes went to the scoreboard hanging over the center. St Louis 20. Los Angeles 18. Yes, from the time I entered the arena until I reached my seat, St Louis had scored 18 unanswered points. I don't have to tell you who ultimately won the game. Thereafter, Garth's mother was under strict orders. Not only wasn't I allowed to attend one of his games, but also wasn't allowed to even know when he was playing. Garth knew. Now, you know. I chose to make this confession today because last night I decided to watch the Baltimore Ravens. Living in a part of the nation bereft of a professional football team to root for, I decided to see how the old hometown team was doing. They were winning handily when I tuned in. I watched as the Pittsburgh Steelers slowly closed the gap, until only three points separated them. That's when I turned off the television. I looked this morning to discover that the Ravens went on to win. Need I say more? ANS: Joe Btfsplk from Li'l Abner by Al Capp Good ReadI WAS TOLD that a man with one foot embedded in a block of ice and the other in the furnace is, on average, comfortable. (Stop! Don't do it. That's not the challenge.) Then I studied statistics. Thank God, I learned better before I attempted to test that theory. The truth is that people, especially politicians and other shysters, love to use averages to sell something. In the final analysis, averages are nothing more than curiosities. Take, for example, the fact that the average lifespan of an American male is 78.6 years. Of course, by the time you attain that age, the average may have changed. I know. You don't have to remind me. There are random acts that result in violent death long before a person attains their full span of years. I've known many of those. Two close acquaintances have been murdered. Several died in Vietnam. A neighborhood girl drowned in the Chesapeake Bay when we were about ten or eleven. I've been lucky. I've survived boating and automobile accidents, Vietnam, and other assorted perils. I am now just shy of seventy. Does that mean that I have less than a decade to survive on the bright side of the grass? Probably not. Members of my family tend to live well into their eighties, some longer. Please ignore my mother. She died at age fifty-two. I remember well the mourners commenting how sad it was that she died so young. Young? She was fifty-two. That looked old to me until I passed fifty-two. It was cancer that took her. How random is that? Was it in her genetic coding or was it just a toss of the dice? In any event, I'm putting her early death aside as a statistical artifact and looking forward to another two decades. Maybe more. Doctors are working miracles these days, aren't they? Have I depressed you yet? Okay, let's get to the challenge. Are you prepared to defend yourself? Your right to continue living? I'm guessing that you are sitting alone in a room somewhere, planted in front of a computer. You're probably alone in the room. It's okay if someone else is there with you. Actually, that will make the challenge more interesting. A small aircraft carrying the pilot and three passengers has plummeted and crashed through the roof. Everyone on board is injured as are you and anyone with you. The Grim Reaper arrives and announces that he has a quota to fill. He must take three lives. It's immaterial to him as to which three he will reap. He gives each of you an opportunity to defend yourselves, to explain why your live is more worthy of continuing. What will you say? Quickly now. He's a busy reaper. Gary Kay envisioned this scenario in his novel, Don't Fear The Reaper. In Gary's tale a tourist-filled bus crashes on a Greek island and balances atop a cliff. The Grim Reaper arrives with a quota of just 16 to fill. Who will he take? Why does he choose one person over another? How will the potential survivors defend themselves? How will they react if the Reaper offers them a choice: their life or that of a loved one?
Don't Fear the Reaper is a good story well told. The manuscript is free of typos and grammatical errors. There are heroes to cheer and villains to jeer. The Grim Reaper himself, and his family, are a delightful crew of mystery and mayhem. Yes, I recommend this book highly. OpinionMY TURKEY IS better than yours. There, I've said it. It's true unless you roast yours the way I roast mine. I know. It's your opinion versus mine. This is, after all, an opinion piece. (Aren't you glad the election is over? We can all give thanks for that.) Do you brine your turkey? You can't begin to compare yours with mine if you don't brine it. How can you infuse the meat with the wonderful scents and flavors of spices and herbs if you don't brine it?
Basting? A waste of time. You can stand there all day with a ladle, pouring juices over the bird. What happens to them? They run off carrying whatever spices and herbs you used with them. Buttering? Another waste of time. You slip a knife between the skin and meat and fill the cavity with butter infused with herbs and spices and the same thing happens. The butter melts and carries the flavorings into the pan below. Brining? The only way to go. It works through the process of osmosis. The brining fluid, saltier than the water in the cells of the meat, is infused throughout the entire bird carrying the essential oils from your herbs and spices into the meat. Brining has the secondary benefit of dissolving and washing away blood clots that remain inside the bird. I used to purchase Kosher turkeys for the holidays. I gave up the practice when I retired and couldn't afford the luxury any longer. Kosher turkeys cost around $100 depending upon their weight. I now purchase any cheap bird I find at Costco and brine it myself. The result is even better since I can add the flavors that the family prefers. A good brining solution must contain three elements: Salt, acid, and sugar. Google recipes for brining turkeys and you'll find countless suggestions. Just remember to keep your brining container in the refrigerator or add and replenish ice to maintain a proper temperature to prevent spoilage. A great turkey only begins with brining. You must roast it properly as well. Deep fried turkeys have become very popular recently. Unfortunately, my wife won't let me play with fire any more, and I've heard of far too many incidents of houses being destroyed while the family feasts on the charred remains of an overdone bird. Also, deep frying seems counter-intuitive to me. If the bird isn't naturally tender, you'll end up with a tough meat. Thus, I wouldn't try deep frying a large Tom. I slow roast our turkey. Maintaining an average temperature of 180º requires a good thermometer and an intimate knowledge of your oven, but the results are worth the effort. Am I crazy? That's what my mother-in-law thought. She was convinced that I was going to murder the family roasting the turkey at that temperature. Don't worry. Bacteria cannot survive temperatures above 140º. You just have to make sure that your oven doesn't cycle below that temperature during the time you're roasting your turkey. (That's why you need a good thermometer.) It takes about 12 to 18 hours to slow roast a turkey. Come on. It's not like you have to stand there stoking the oven all that time. So, what's the advantage? Actually, there are several.
When the internal temperature of the turkey reaches 180º, crank the oven up to 375º until the skin is the desired shade of brown. Then remove the turkey from the oven and tent it with aluminum foil. Allow one hour to pass before carving. There you have it. Follow my advice and you'll not only enjoy the best turkey you ever had, but also scare the hell out of your mother-in-law. Or, you can simply eat an inferior turkey. |
More than 500 postings have accumulated since 2011. Some categories (listed below) are self explanatory, others require some explanation (see below):
CategoriesAll America Army Life Blogging Cuba Election 2012 Election 2014 Election 2016 Entrepreneurs Food Good Reads History Humor Infantry School In The News Korea Middle East Oh Dark Thirty Opinion Sea Scouts Short Story Sponsored Survey Technology Television Terrorism Today's Chuckle Veterans Vietnam Writing Explanations |
Copyright © 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022 Jack Durish All rights reserved
|
Web Hosting by iPage
|