One year ago today: March 2, 2019, I kept that box.
Five years ago today: March 2, 2015, Moore Haven, nothing-town.
Nine years ago today: March 2, 2011, I’m saying Spokane sucks.
Random years ago today: March 2, 2005, redacted calendar post?
Here’s a picture I snapped for no reason this afternoon, not suspecting it was an omen of things to come. Later tonight an incredible hurricane went through there, barely missing this house by a few miles. The electricity went out instantly. How did these vultures know? Anyway, don’t expect much by way of pictures the next few days. All battery power is being conserved. Now, the blog, but expect mistakes and repeats and seemingly random mentions.
Then, some white people took over. It seems the Indians agreed to let a pipeline go through their turf, but now the whites are protesting the pipeline itself. And they are breaking the law to do so. This is where Elliott and I agree to disagree. He says the press has the right to go up to protesters and demand ID. I say only the police have that right, and even then they should be required to charge and arrest a person first (I know that will never fly, but I say that). The issue is whether protesters have a right to anonymity. I say they do unless they break the law.
This made for lively e-mails all day. The protesters in focus are breaking the law, but the press are not the proper ones to determine that. Thus, I disagree the press have the right to know their identities. I’ve never been able to confirm the source, but I believe O.W. Holmes said (to the effect) that you will never get an honest opinion out of a man if, in the process, he must surrender his identity. Demanding a man’s identity before hearing him out is an old and repressive English custom for putting down rebellion. Nobody is going to protest even the worst injustices if it entails putting his family and property at risk. The authorities and the press know this.
Elliott says the instant they commit a crime they lose their right to anonymity, I say that should only happen on conviction (as is practice in civilized countries). A crime may have been committed for sure, but until the moment of conviction, it is not ascribed to any person and thus his identity is not relevant. This prevents the authorities from using social blackmail. How this began is he suggested watching a video from Rebel News, Canada’s lame answer to Alex Jones. The group is called far right, I find them docle and barely right of center. (Elliott is English by the way.)
My viewpoint on anonymity is that the press does not have any right to anybody’s indentity, but only the other details of the crime. If they name suspects, they should correspondingly be liable for defamation. Fair is fair, we must not legitimize character assassination. They have a right only to record and broadcast anything they collect, maybe even an obligation to do so, but may not buffalo their way around. That only makes sense if you thing about it, but anything else is unfair to the innocent. True, the press often see things being committed, but again, collect. Until there is a conviction, who is to say who committed what crime? Certainly not Jimmy Olsen.
Elliott says I’m soft on crime. Nope, once convicted, throw the book at them, especially hardened criminals. Keep them off the streets, ship them far, far away from the civilization they seek to harm. However, in the event of a wrongful conviction, I would allow damages against the courts and the personalities involved where it can be shown (usually by DNA these days) that there was a little too much horse-trading in the chambers. I suggest the court and police frame more people than all criminals put together.
Fake caronavirus meds (just Vitamin C).
Remember to use BACK ARROW to return to blog.
Many a musician tells you they practice and review, but other than myself, I’ve never seen anyone do it. I record my rehearsals, but I don’t keep the “tapes”. I glance at them once or twice, then delete. These recorrdings are not edited, because I am looking for errors and ideas. During this resurrection of my old act, this means I’m daily pushing into new territory, which makes for many recordings. For no special reason, I made a short video out of one session this morning and sent it off to a few people in the loop.
What makes it work is my lack of talent. You see, I’ve made the mistake before of relying on stage material that is too easy to copycat. I’m not just glomming onto the first sound that works, that is how guitar hacks do things. I’m seeking what is hard to do, knowing full well I won’t get credit because when done right most of the audience can’t tell, and part of the job is making it look easy. Mind you, I always get a chuckle when some bonehead thinks he can do it because “bass is easy”.
That’s my stunt double in the photo, man I had a hard time getting that past the censors. It depicts the final stage of declaring a tune adaptable to harmonies. Sometimes I find both playing bass and singing tricky enough that for now I’m lucky to get through the tune singing melody. Like when I first began singing some ten years ago, I find it easiest to just memorize the starting note. It’s hardly talent, but it works. If this flies, I’m only 50 years too late. Hey, I didn’t think of this before because I couldn’t do it before.
