How many times have you read stories about ex-sports stars doing something really, really stupid? The answer is, too many times. Once out of their particular sport they seem to think that they are still, at the age of 40, the stars they were at the age of 24. For some reason their famous touchdown, goal, home run, et al is supposed to give them a cache to behave badly when they are middle aged men or women. One thinks of John D. MacDonald's charter, the Arkansas Tiger, who, after a pro sports career, carried on a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week party on his boat at the Bahia Marina in Florida.
Here's a story of an exception, and an exceptional woman:
Former Tennis Player Andrea Jaeger Shows Compassion to Cancer-Stricken Children - washingtonpost.com
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Men in Hats -- Panama Edition
Above we have a photo of Sean Connery wearing a Panama hat.. Connery, in his films, was never known as a hat wearer except for those awful narrow brimmed atrocities he wore in the first two Jame Bond Movies. By the time the above photo was taken the great Scot came to his senses and bought a decent hat with a decent width brim.
For an older and more classic example of the Panama hat we have a still from the old movie Macao starring Robert Mitchum and the ever-breath-taking Jane Russell. Mitchum, coming from a generation of American hat wearers, wears his hat more naturally and casually than does Connery; it's tilted up, it's tilted down. It shades his eyes when needed and acts as an exclamation point when needed. Mitchum, coming from the last of the hat wearing generation, regards the hats as part of him. The hat IS him.Now that Summer is near and the weather is warming it is time to bring out the straw hat, whether Panama, boater or cowboy and coolly pass the time in the shade and put the old fedora or homburg in mothballs.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
You Owe Us and We Own You
As all who are regular readers of this journal are well aware, we at Bloody Nib Manor live pretty simply. Some would say on the edge. We've not managed to come up with the cash to clean out the moat for several years and the results is the growth of all sorts of noxious plants far too close to the house. And we've been forced to use standard-bred horses for our foxhunting instead of lurchers and thoroughbreds. Never mind the dogs. It was difficult to give up our kennel of proper English Foxhounds in favor of Shih-Tzus and mongrels. But, in the current economic climate sacrifices must be made.
The late Baron Nib, a great man in every way, and the still living Baroness Nib, always made it a point to impress upon their scions that to be in debt was to be in a form of slavery. In other words, if you owe a person money you are at their beck and call until you re-pay the debt.
We have, as far as practicable, worked to keep out of debt. Whenever possible we pay cash because we do not want some busybody from American Express or the bank telling us that we are living in a manner that they do not approve. We, the ever lovely Lady Nib and myself, desire freedom more than luxury. We try to be, a much as possible, self-sufficient and self-responsible. We are, in that sense, rather old-fashioned, despite the fact that we just had our Wolsley sedan re-painted with a rather shocking hot pink paint job.
The Baron's comment concerning debt has been proven true recently. Some American banks which had received TARP (in other words, bail-out loans) from the United States government have stated that they have the cash, right now, to pay off their loans. They have told the government that they want to pay off the loans. And the government has told the banks, "Don't bother. We'd rather control you and set your policies and salaries."
There are two things wrong here.
The first is that the government wants to control private institutions. The last time this writer checked, there was no such thing as a national bank outside of the Federal Reserve. Now we find that the federal government wants to run as much of the banking system as it can; not for the protection of the bank customer, but for the idea of controlling the economy because the federal government "knows best." It's a frightening thought and a frightening reality.
The second matter of concern is that the federal government would rather not be repaid a debt in favor of control of the banks. In other words, instead of the money that was loaned to the banks being repaid to the taxpayer and the treasury, the federal government would rather spend your money to control something that really means nothing to you. The idea of control goes beyond the idea of being responsible to the customer (the taxpayer).
He who owns the debt owns he who is in debt. There is something almost Mafia-like about the whole thing.
On a second front, consider this: Michelle paints herself as the queen of arts - Times Online.
We here at the Manor have always been leery about government supported arts programs simply because such programs put the impretuer of official approval on said art. What business does the government have approving one type of art over another or on artist over another? The answer is, in the United States, none. There is no,and should not be, any official art,whether graphic, theatrical, literary or spoken word. The very idea of a national poet laureate is loathsome. The only art that the federal or state governments should even be remotely involved in is the architecture of government buildings and monuments. Consider the fact that even during the age of kings in Europe the said kings used their own money for art projects. Not that of their subjects.
But now we have an administration that seems to hold to the Stalinist theory of art. In other words, the government says what is art and anything outside of that is trash.
Get ready for the new opera, The East is Obama.
The late Baron Nib, a great man in every way, and the still living Baroness Nib, always made it a point to impress upon their scions that to be in debt was to be in a form of slavery. In other words, if you owe a person money you are at their beck and call until you re-pay the debt.
We have, as far as practicable, worked to keep out of debt. Whenever possible we pay cash because we do not want some busybody from American Express or the bank telling us that we are living in a manner that they do not approve. We, the ever lovely Lady Nib and myself, desire freedom more than luxury. We try to be, a much as possible, self-sufficient and self-responsible. We are, in that sense, rather old-fashioned, despite the fact that we just had our Wolsley sedan re-painted with a rather shocking hot pink paint job.
The Baron's comment concerning debt has been proven true recently. Some American banks which had received TARP (in other words, bail-out loans) from the United States government have stated that they have the cash, right now, to pay off their loans. They have told the government that they want to pay off the loans. And the government has told the banks, "Don't bother. We'd rather control you and set your policies and salaries."
There are two things wrong here.
The first is that the government wants to control private institutions. The last time this writer checked, there was no such thing as a national bank outside of the Federal Reserve. Now we find that the federal government wants to run as much of the banking system as it can; not for the protection of the bank customer, but for the idea of controlling the economy because the federal government "knows best." It's a frightening thought and a frightening reality.
The second matter of concern is that the federal government would rather not be repaid a debt in favor of control of the banks. In other words, instead of the money that was loaned to the banks being repaid to the taxpayer and the treasury, the federal government would rather spend your money to control something that really means nothing to you. The idea of control goes beyond the idea of being responsible to the customer (the taxpayer).
He who owns the debt owns he who is in debt. There is something almost Mafia-like about the whole thing.
On a second front, consider this: Michelle paints herself as the queen of arts - Times Online.
We here at the Manor have always been leery about government supported arts programs simply because such programs put the impretuer of official approval on said art. What business does the government have approving one type of art over another or on artist over another? The answer is, in the United States, none. There is no,and should not be, any official art,whether graphic, theatrical, literary or spoken word. The very idea of a national poet laureate is loathsome. The only art that the federal or state governments should even be remotely involved in is the architecture of government buildings and monuments. Consider the fact that even during the age of kings in Europe the said kings used their own money for art projects. Not that of their subjects.
But now we have an administration that seems to hold to the Stalinist theory of art. In other words, the government says what is art and anything outside of that is trash.
Get ready for the new opera, The East is Obama.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Dick Cheney. Private Dick?
Those who may be unfortunate enough to be readers of this blog may be old enough to recall the great age of the Private Detective novel or Private Detective television series. Such names as Mike Hammer, Shell Scott, Lew Archer, Phillip Marlowe, Peter Gunn, Jim Rockford, Richie Brockleman, or Magnum, may tug at one's heart strings in mourning for the days when the P.I. was the example of traditional American enterprise and "get it done-ness".
The P.I. was an example of what America was all about. The P.I. was an entrepenteur, an independent operator, and a man suspicious of the the government. He was a cynical man. He was cynical of the stated mores of society and of the government. He searched for truth and justice; not the niceties of law. Often, during his search for justice he found that the law was inadequate regarding justice. And while he searched, and suffered, during his search for justice and right, he often showed his flaws and sins. His life seemed to be have been made up of nothing more than booze, babes and bullets. His needs were simple. His life was simple. He looked at a world he thought cracked and crazy and saw himself as a normal man; not a man in the throes of angst. His personal life was private except for the occasional fling with a female client, female suspect, or his secretary. His weaknesses were for a shot of rye and a well-turned ankle (actually, more often a heaving full bosom). Introspection and self-flagellation was for the client; not him. He was a man comfortable in his skin. And because he was comfortable in his skin he was able to focus his attention on the problem. He always found the root of the problem despite the fact that his reward was a few hundred bucks, a shot of leg, a shot of bourbon and a Lucky Strike. He got spat upon, beat up, drunk, screwed (in more ways than one). And he worked for himself and his client in the search of justice (not government justice, but real justice).
The P.I. was, in fiction, the knight errant. He was a man looking for a cause despite his own flaws and sins. And he did so despite rotten pay and a lot of beatings. His cause was justice. And when the law conflicted with justice he chose justice.
Things have changed.
Now look at modern crime fiction and crime related television. Almost every one features a cop working for a government of some sort: CSI: Whatever, NCIS, Law and Order: Whatever, Without a Trace. Each television program shares a common thing: they all represent government agencies. They, along with all too many current crime novels, appeal to the government for justice and righteousness. In other words, the government says what is right and wrong instead of the moral right and wrong. The idea behind the programs and novels is that the government knows what is best, and that one should rely on the government to right legal wrongs. Forget about moral justice. The government knows all and if your adult sister is missing, and there is no legally found evidence that she is working in a Nevada brothel against her will , there is nothing the government sanctioned cops will do about it to rescue her. The law trumps all. The law is codified. It's a blueprint and it gives the CSI, Law and Order crowd indications of what to do and takes the burden of defining justice off their shoulders. And despite not having the burden of defining justice, the characters in current cop novels and series are so psychologically screwed up that it's a wonder that they can function. They drink too much occasionally and feel guilty about it. They bed a co-worker and feel guilty about it. They don't spend enough time with their wife and kids and feel guilty about it. They do the jobs for which the state has hired them and they feel conflicted about it. And when they perform acts of justice in favor of acts of law they do not only not celebrate the triumph of right over wrong, they crawl under the covers of their beds and fight through depression.
How times have changed. The great fictional French police detective, Jules Maigret, was a simple man with simple tastes (a good beer and a good meal), who sought justice and right and wrong and never lost a wink of sleep over it. Even the Swedish police detective, Martin Beck, probably the first of the depressed detectives and the precursor of what we have now, was more interested in justice than his own problems or the niceties of the law. Both detectives occasionally worked outside the system and felt no guilt about it. The only suffering that either character experienced from drinking too much were hangovers. Most of their suffering, in the trade, was based on dealing with the governments the worked for.
What we have come to is the dearth of the P.I. or cowboy in favor of the government paid salary man. Every damn thing is based on what the government says is right instead of what is right. The search for justice has become a slogan among government officials. The searchers for "truth" are expected to have more empathy for the perpetrator than the victim. One's inner demons are things to be embraced in the name of being "genuine." Instead of listening to jazz and watching the ponies run at the track, today's crime fighter watches Oprah and drinks Evian water. Perhaps that's the problem. The modern government sanctioned crime fighter drinks so much water that he or she has become diluted in every way.
The only characters in modern fiction approaching the classic private detective are historical detectives such as Ellis Peters' Brother Cadfael, Elizabeth Peters' Victorian Egyptologist mysteries and Lindsey Davis' Marcus Dido Falco series of detective novels. The P.I. has become passe', a museum piece.
It's enough to gag a maggot. And this maggot is gagging. Hard.
So we come to Dick Cheney versus Barack Obama.
Dick Cheney is the P.I. Dick Cheney is a hard man in search of justice and he is willing to twist an arm to get it. Dick Cheney sees the world as a cracked and crazy place and the survival of the American experiment depends on seeing those you would do us harm as the Other; the dangerous Other. He regards those who would attack the U.S. as rabid dogs to be put down. Mr.Cheney is close to the old Patriots -- suspicious of those values and traditions that are not American. And in this way he is like the P.I. who saw a black and white and called things black and white.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is the Without a Trace government guy. Mr. Obama is conflicted about his identity. Is he a citizen of the United States or is he a citizen of the world? Do the laws of the United States trump those of the World Court? Is there such a thing as justice? Is the idea of buying the world a Coke imperialist? Mr. Obama seems to think that naivete in the matters of dealing with those who would do us harm a good thing. The excuse, when something bad happens will probably be something like, "They (the perpetrators) were true to their values, which are not our values, but are still valid nonetheless." One wonders if a crime were perpetrated against him or his family if his empathy would be the same. Mr. Obama seems to take Stalin's view: One death is a tragedy; a thousand deaths are a statistic.
Who do you want to help you when things get tough? A guy interested in justice or a guy interested in the niceties of law?
There is a right and a wrong, and the codified law of the United States has nothing to do with it.
If, during a Thanksgiving supper, would you rely on the cranky uncle (Dick Cheney) or the smart-assed nephew (Obama) as to what action to take against your asshole neighbor? Who would you rather try to find your missing sister? Mike Hammer? Or the CSI crew?
The P.I. was an example of what America was all about. The P.I. was an entrepenteur, an independent operator, and a man suspicious of the the government. He was a cynical man. He was cynical of the stated mores of society and of the government. He searched for truth and justice; not the niceties of law. Often, during his search for justice he found that the law was inadequate regarding justice. And while he searched, and suffered, during his search for justice and right, he often showed his flaws and sins. His life seemed to be have been made up of nothing more than booze, babes and bullets. His needs were simple. His life was simple. He looked at a world he thought cracked and crazy and saw himself as a normal man; not a man in the throes of angst. His personal life was private except for the occasional fling with a female client, female suspect, or his secretary. His weaknesses were for a shot of rye and a well-turned ankle (actually, more often a heaving full bosom). Introspection and self-flagellation was for the client; not him. He was a man comfortable in his skin. And because he was comfortable in his skin he was able to focus his attention on the problem. He always found the root of the problem despite the fact that his reward was a few hundred bucks, a shot of leg, a shot of bourbon and a Lucky Strike. He got spat upon, beat up, drunk, screwed (in more ways than one). And he worked for himself and his client in the search of justice (not government justice, but real justice).
The P.I. was, in fiction, the knight errant. He was a man looking for a cause despite his own flaws and sins. And he did so despite rotten pay and a lot of beatings. His cause was justice. And when the law conflicted with justice he chose justice.
Things have changed.
Now look at modern crime fiction and crime related television. Almost every one features a cop working for a government of some sort: CSI: Whatever, NCIS, Law and Order: Whatever, Without a Trace. Each television program shares a common thing: they all represent government agencies. They, along with all too many current crime novels, appeal to the government for justice and righteousness. In other words, the government says what is right and wrong instead of the moral right and wrong. The idea behind the programs and novels is that the government knows what is best, and that one should rely on the government to right legal wrongs. Forget about moral justice. The government knows all and if your adult sister is missing, and there is no legally found evidence that she is working in a Nevada brothel against her will , there is nothing the government sanctioned cops will do about it to rescue her. The law trumps all. The law is codified. It's a blueprint and it gives the CSI, Law and Order crowd indications of what to do and takes the burden of defining justice off their shoulders. And despite not having the burden of defining justice, the characters in current cop novels and series are so psychologically screwed up that it's a wonder that they can function. They drink too much occasionally and feel guilty about it. They bed a co-worker and feel guilty about it. They don't spend enough time with their wife and kids and feel guilty about it. They do the jobs for which the state has hired them and they feel conflicted about it. And when they perform acts of justice in favor of acts of law they do not only not celebrate the triumph of right over wrong, they crawl under the covers of their beds and fight through depression.
How times have changed. The great fictional French police detective, Jules Maigret, was a simple man with simple tastes (a good beer and a good meal), who sought justice and right and wrong and never lost a wink of sleep over it. Even the Swedish police detective, Martin Beck, probably the first of the depressed detectives and the precursor of what we have now, was more interested in justice than his own problems or the niceties of the law. Both detectives occasionally worked outside the system and felt no guilt about it. The only suffering that either character experienced from drinking too much were hangovers. Most of their suffering, in the trade, was based on dealing with the governments the worked for.
What we have come to is the dearth of the P.I. or cowboy in favor of the government paid salary man. Every damn thing is based on what the government says is right instead of what is right. The search for justice has become a slogan among government officials. The searchers for "truth" are expected to have more empathy for the perpetrator than the victim. One's inner demons are things to be embraced in the name of being "genuine." Instead of listening to jazz and watching the ponies run at the track, today's crime fighter watches Oprah and drinks Evian water. Perhaps that's the problem. The modern government sanctioned crime fighter drinks so much water that he or she has become diluted in every way.
The only characters in modern fiction approaching the classic private detective are historical detectives such as Ellis Peters' Brother Cadfael, Elizabeth Peters' Victorian Egyptologist mysteries and Lindsey Davis' Marcus Dido Falco series of detective novels. The P.I. has become passe', a museum piece.
It's enough to gag a maggot. And this maggot is gagging. Hard.
So we come to Dick Cheney versus Barack Obama.
Dick Cheney is the P.I. Dick Cheney is a hard man in search of justice and he is willing to twist an arm to get it. Dick Cheney sees the world as a cracked and crazy place and the survival of the American experiment depends on seeing those you would do us harm as the Other; the dangerous Other. He regards those who would attack the U.S. as rabid dogs to be put down. Mr.Cheney is close to the old Patriots -- suspicious of those values and traditions that are not American. And in this way he is like the P.I. who saw a black and white and called things black and white.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, is the Without a Trace government guy. Mr. Obama is conflicted about his identity. Is he a citizen of the United States or is he a citizen of the world? Do the laws of the United States trump those of the World Court? Is there such a thing as justice? Is the idea of buying the world a Coke imperialist? Mr. Obama seems to think that naivete in the matters of dealing with those who would do us harm a good thing. The excuse, when something bad happens will probably be something like, "They (the perpetrators) were true to their values, which are not our values, but are still valid nonetheless." One wonders if a crime were perpetrated against him or his family if his empathy would be the same. Mr. Obama seems to take Stalin's view: One death is a tragedy; a thousand deaths are a statistic.
Who do you want to help you when things get tough? A guy interested in justice or a guy interested in the niceties of law?
There is a right and a wrong, and the codified law of the United States has nothing to do with it.
If, during a Thanksgiving supper, would you rely on the cranky uncle (Dick Cheney) or the smart-assed nephew (Obama) as to what action to take against your asshole neighbor? Who would you rather try to find your missing sister? Mike Hammer? Or the CSI crew?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
It's For the Children!
How many times in your life have you heard the cry by a politician, union official, or general busybody that the passage of a certain law (usually involving a tax raise) or spending measure (usually involving a tax raise) that the bill or measure was, "for the children." The issues that "are for the children" range from free medical care, government paid pre-school, midnight basketball, computers for schools and on and on and on ad infinitum.
The current administrations of both the United States and the State of California are pulling out the "for the children" card in a big way. And if one were to look closely at the matter, what both those entities are creating for the children is a big. big debt. Some one has to pay for these programs and there is just not enough money flowing now to pay for them. The result is that the payments for programs "for the children" will be paid for by the children and their children and perhaps their children.
In California, because of the budget deficit, there is a movement afoot to raise taxes to pay for educational programs and give teachers (California teachers are the highest paid in the nation) a pay raise. They seem to get a pay raise every year while people in the private sector are now lucky to get one every two or three years. In Los Angeles a number of teachers mounted a demonstration protesting projected lay-offs by the school district crying that the demonstrations were "for the children." It should be noted that the demonstration was organized by the Los Angeles teachers' union (United Teachers of Los Angeles). In other words, the action as a union action and not a grassroots action.
Years ago the president of the Associated Federation of Teachers (a nation-wide umbrella union for teacher), Albert Shanker, said that everything he did and every action he organized was not for the children. It was for union members. He said, "I'll start representing the concerns of students when students start paying union dues."
Remember that. Remember it well and expand the thought. Most of the cries of programs and concerns "for the children" are really actions benefiting those who work with children.
In Japan the cost of educating students is much less than it is in the lowest spending district in the US, but the Japanese educational system produces a better product than the average American school district. If the rulers of this nation had any damn sense at all they would outsource education to Japan instead of putting up with the nonsense that the airy-fairy pedagogues that determine educational policy here.
When you hear the cry, "It's for the children!" just reply, "Who cares? It's not my kid. I take care of my kid and don't expect the stated to do it."
The current administrations of both the United States and the State of California are pulling out the "for the children" card in a big way. And if one were to look closely at the matter, what both those entities are creating for the children is a big. big debt. Some one has to pay for these programs and there is just not enough money flowing now to pay for them. The result is that the payments for programs "for the children" will be paid for by the children and their children and perhaps their children.
In California, because of the budget deficit, there is a movement afoot to raise taxes to pay for educational programs and give teachers (California teachers are the highest paid in the nation) a pay raise. They seem to get a pay raise every year while people in the private sector are now lucky to get one every two or three years. In Los Angeles a number of teachers mounted a demonstration protesting projected lay-offs by the school district crying that the demonstrations were "for the children." It should be noted that the demonstration was organized by the Los Angeles teachers' union (United Teachers of Los Angeles). In other words, the action as a union action and not a grassroots action.
Years ago the president of the Associated Federation of Teachers (a nation-wide umbrella union for teacher), Albert Shanker, said that everything he did and every action he organized was not for the children. It was for union members. He said, "I'll start representing the concerns of students when students start paying union dues."
Remember that. Remember it well and expand the thought. Most of the cries of programs and concerns "for the children" are really actions benefiting those who work with children.
In Japan the cost of educating students is much less than it is in the lowest spending district in the US, but the Japanese educational system produces a better product than the average American school district. If the rulers of this nation had any damn sense at all they would outsource education to Japan instead of putting up with the nonsense that the airy-fairy pedagogues that determine educational policy here.
When you hear the cry, "It's for the children!" just reply, "Who cares? It's not my kid. I take care of my kid and don't expect the stated to do it."
Men in Hats
It's been a while since this writer has offered a new edition of the Men in Hats feature. To make up for the neglect of this feature, he offers two photos of men from the Old West wearing hats.
The first image is of Wild Bill Hickcock -- scout, Indian fighter, lawman, gun fighter, gambler and some one you really wouldn't want your daughter to marry. He was killed by being shot in the back while playing poker. The poker hand he held at the time he was shot was Aces and eights; since known at the Deadman's Hand. The hat he wears in the photo is of the old sombrero type cowboy hat with a flat crown and very broad brim; a good hat to wear in the sun, though of questionable value in high winds.
The second photo is of the great William F. Cody i.e., Buffalo Bill Cody. Cody was an Indian fighter, buffalo hunter, scout and showman. With his Wild West shows he brought the Wild West to the East and Europe complete with Indians, cattle stampedes and shooting exhibitions. He, unlike Hickcock, died well-off and peacefully. The hat he wears in this photo is more of a dress/dude type of hat with the right side of the brim tilted up like an Aussie digger hat. It's not a bad hat, but the tilted brim makes it not much good for being in the sun. It does give clearance for the carrying of a rifle at shoulder arms, though.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Your Tax Dollars at Work
Your faithful correspondent takes no back seat to anyone in his love and desire for Asian women. After all, the every lovely Lady Nib was born and partially raise in Yokohama.
But this is really going too far: CNSNews.com - U.S. Will Pay $2.6 Million to Train Chinese Prostitutes to Drink Responsibly on the Job
But this is really going too far: CNSNews.com - U.S. Will Pay $2.6 Million to Train Chinese Prostitutes to Drink Responsibly on the Job
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Just links. No Comments
Consider this:
It's time lily-livered Europe stood up to Muslim bigots | Opinion | The First Post
And this:
The Spectator
And finally, this:
Cheney: Obama endangers the nation - Washington Times
It's time lily-livered Europe stood up to Muslim bigots | Opinion | The First Post
And this:
The Spectator
And finally, this:
Cheney: Obama endangers the nation - Washington Times
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Men in Hats
It's been a while since your faithful correspondent has offered a Men in Hats post. So please consider the following. the above is of the popular Buffalo Bill (the lower photo). Note the rakish tilt of the brim. And if anyone should make a denigration of Mr. Cody, please remember that Mr. Cody was not only a buffalo hunter, but also an Indian fighter.
The top photo is Wild Bill Hickock. A killer, to be sure, but a killer of the right sort. He wears a broad brimmed sombrero proudly as a man should wear his hat. It's just too bad that he didn't die in bed instead of on a bar room floor.
Life just isn't fair sometimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)