Under the
  Weather

   When the weather is cold and
snowy for days and days, like it
has been for the past week or so,
and you are 'under' it, . . .
Let's just say that I bought and
used cold medicene which I so rarely 
do.
  They make you give an ID.  They make
you sit there while they enter your
name into a database to find out if
you are an habitual buyer of $2.95
cold medicene.
   And I don't mind because I know
what the problem is that they
are trying to solve by doing this.
4 30 mg pills of Psuedophedrine
Chlorhidrate and I'm loopy and
should sequestor myself from
annoyances.  I can't imagine what
it must be for those who have the
meth jones.  It must just be a wild ride.
I am glad that I don't have that
inclination.
  I know that I am not the way that I 
like to be (mentally) when I am blogging
using words like 'capitualist' and
'anti-trust' and 'power elite'.  The
rule of many agenda-mongering activasts
is to try and make people like me, 
ordinary people, feel powerless so we
don't stand in their way while they
'effect change'.  And all of their
'together we can'-isms, and all of their
'come by here' entreats to their causes, 
it makes you wonder how they miss that the
words to the song are 'come by here, Lord'?
  Do we need a new wave of Interantionalism?
We have already tried this so many times in
the past.  Let me see.  We had Hitler.
We had the British.  We had the French.
We had the Catholics (which I am).  We had the
Romans, the jihadists, the Mongols, the
Chinese, the Persians, the Buddhists.
Take your pick.  We have had a whole lot of
organized groups who feel that they have
the message for the whole world and that
their good ideas should cover the whole world
because they are so good.
  And we have seen that some of these groups
were more virtuous than others.  And that
an over-reaching buerocracy with a hint
of fervent belief can be good in some ways
and bad in others.  So we can talk nasty about,
say, Hitler, (you know you hate him, eh?).
But we dare not talk nasty about some other
favored leader of the same time period.
  Is this all just cold pills making me
free-associate?
  In politics the death of Liberty is
Consensus.  So, we have a consensus that
we need to wear a seat-belt and thus
we are no longer free, if we weigh
400 pounds and the seat belt doesn't fit
around us, to not wear it without 'the man'
writing us a ticket.  Our insurance goes up.
  Some times consensus is a good thing.  For
example:  don't use Uranium as a coffee 
sweetener.  I don't know what Uranium tastes
like.  I don't know if it is sweet or not
when you stir it, as a powder, into coffee,
using it as a sugar substitute.  But I know
that the radiation from the Uranium will have
a health-stealing effect.  And so I can
agree with the consensus to not use it.
Plus it is hard to find and very expensive
and controlled by the government.
So don't you use that Yellow-cake as a
coffee-cake.  In this case a consensus,
as silly as it is, works for the common good.
  But can we see where a consensus can be
wrong?  For example a website that purports 
to want to store all human knowledge, an
encyclopedia for the ages, is clearly demonstrated
as a consensus-mongering site when one
goes to any controversial topic and clicks
on the 'discussion' tab.  And in there we see
the flame wars that go on between various
editors.  And thus there is no consensus there.
But they try to put one on the front page.
So the knowledge of the controversy is somehow
forbidden from the main article.  Go to the discussion
and skip the main article for topics of current 
political interest.
  And it is curious at the 'know-it-all-apedia'
that the articles about long dead monopolists
and dead despots and ruthless revolutionaries
are still glommed over by editors and white-washed 
to put scoundrals in a happier light.
Yes we know that famous rich guy put the world into
an economic collapse but 'his ideas were effective'
someone puts in at the end of his article.
  Is this editor a Great Great grand child still 
living on stolen gold?  Who knows.  So I inserted
into that Wiki page the words 'to him' at the end of the
phrase about the money mongering financeer (and cheat)
from the 1870's.  I thus subvert the white-washer
s urge of his progeny (or urge of whoever white-washed the
financeer guy's page) They want to 
make their dead benifactor look more like a 
shining knight.
"he was virtuous because I came from him." perhaps
they think.
  I don't know what they think.  And here is what I
think:  In many cases a consensus is just wrong.  It
is bad for science. It is bad for politics.  It is wrong
in the space of human ideas in so many ways.  It harms
the mind's of impressionable people when someone who
pretends to be a respectful politician (say Howard Dean)
uses phrases like 'everyone agrees' or 'no right thinking 
person believes'.  Hey, Howard, do those talking points
from the Global-warming talking papers really help you
to push through an agenda of pay-to-burn?  Howard, what
'right thinking person' uses the term 'right thinking
person' as part of their discourse?  I can use it here
because I pose it as a question.
  See.  See what cold medicene can do to you?  It makes
me try to make sense out of what Howard Dean says.  Maybe
if he perscribed me some cold pills I might take them.
Probably not.  Because I know what cold pills do to me.  Obviously
I am addled and in an excitable mood.  Blame it on the
cold medication.  Fortunately I am aware of this, and I can
document it here (for your pleasure, readers) in a quick
and spontaneous format that, while it is perhaps poorly
edited, does display my point that psuedophedrine
really is a potent drug and I am glad that it's use is
tracked.  I like this consensus: track the use of this drug.
  The use of oil?  The use of gas?  The burning of wood?
The flatulence of cows?  Should we also use arduous
accounting for those things too?  Howard Dean might not
realize it, being a parrot for the climate-alarmists and
the cap-and-taxi's (cap and trade nazis), that what he
is arguing for with global warming is an expansion of
arduous accounting techniques and government monitoring
of all aspects of our lives.  If accounting principles are
so good, Dr. Dean, then how is it that the global banking
system is in collapse?  How has all of this accounting and
taxing prevented the very real problem of no jobs for all
of us ordinary (and not politically connected) folks?
  OK, enough about all of that.  I will probably only post
this for a little while.  I don't want to scare away
any job prospects.

  This is your world, the world that the Lord made for
you.  Lord, teach us how to pray correctly and to ask
for the things that will be good for us to put us more
in line with your ways.  The newness of every moment is
a wonder of creation.  The eye blinks how many blinks that
no one needs to count.  And with each blink, or time of a
blink, a whole new universe of possibility.  I make my world
such that people like Dr. Dean are able to replay the tape
of themselves being a parrot for the consensus-mongers.  And
the the doctor hears himself say 'what right-thinking person',
or similar phrase and then, with one of those 'oh-ya' knock
yourself lightly on the side of the head moments says, out
loud, for the world to hear "what right-thinking person uses
the phrase 'right-thinking person' when discussing issues
of important public concern?"
  Yes, there are things about which there can be group 
consensus.  But the group needs to be well-formed.  It shouldn't
include everyone in the whole world.  We can't put our
zeolotry up as being the end-all heal-all of all
things, no one can ever disagree.  When we do that we
put Gallelo in prison.  When we do that we plot to have
religous leaders (natural leaders) killed as enemies of the
state.  When we do that we prohibit the advancment of 
science and the creation of new and viable theories of
how things work in the real world.
  And a politician who speaks to the consensus really speaks
to no one.  Because real people expect others to disagree.
It is only when they are in an adled state of mind, and
dealing with the 'you all must agree with me' consensus-mongering
aspect, that they must be shouted down from the podium.
Take the microphone away from them.  We have heard enough.
We need no more of their prattle.  This would, of course, only
be in a public forom where they are monopolizing the discourse.
To quote Robert Hunter:
  "Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got 
        nothing new to say."
I am not saying that Howard and other consensus-mongers
can't have their say when they want to, put up their own
ranty blog-spots like I do here.  Print out your phamplets.
Write your congressman.  But don't expect us all, who disagree,
to shut-up and be considered not 'right thinking', whatever
that means.

  How did I get here?  And this is not well written because
it is a spontaneous rant.  I will post this but then take it
away.  I really just wanted to post some pictures of the
blizzard, but it must be the cold medication.  
  Oh, stop it, Bill.  You wanted to get this whole
consensus-mo thing out there.  And now you have.  Some consensus's
are good, some bad.  And it is the job of political people
to put the discourse out there on the issues and listen to
the various points of view and try to come up  with a solution that
becomes law.  And when the laws are made wrong they must be
changed.  But then we have the snarky and playful powerful who use
vauge terms such as 'is effective' without a pronoun as to
for who it is effective.  And then it looks as 
in-sincere as the know-it-all-apedia article on the famous 19th 
century panic creator financieer.
  Really, I shouldn't post these ranty blogs while I am
job hunting.  Some internationalist financeer will see this
and put me in the column of un-employable for being too much of
a free-thinker.  And we all know that they rule the world.
They can get alledged free-thinkers and ex-governors to
read from their sheet of talking points and phrase discourse
including the term 'no right-thinking person'.  Or is it
that I am not in my right mind?  Have these 4 cold pills over
18 hours made me indescrete in my blog-postings?

Jan 5, 2010


ice on the various utility wires, 
Beaver Dam Road
Natick, Dec 2009

Rock Island, 
Colechester, VT,
Thanksgiving, 2009


If you don't get Art
You don't get Art.
Sculpture by John Barents, 
objects arrainged on 
a wooden cutting board.

At the end of the day the beach is almost empty.

  Marc must have been here
     but he's not here now.

  When the light is right you just need
  to know how to set up the camera
  and be in the right location
  and pointed in the right
  direction . . .

Jan 5, 2009