H2O Man's Journal
Member since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 07:49 PM
Number of posts: 50,394
Number of posts: 50,394
- 2014 (86)
- 2013 (71)
- 2012 (90)
- Older Archives
I’ve read a few O.P.s/threads discussing old white people here over the past few days, with great interest. Some of my best friends are old white folks; there are several living in my neighborhood; and even some of my extended family members have included old white people. So, while I admittedly do not have a Ph.D. in old white people studies, I have studied them closely.
My father was an old white man most of my life. He was a “first generation” Irish-American. His father came here from the Old Sod in the 1870s (white folks from another island stole the land our family had lived upon since at least the 1200s). My father was always older than me while I was growing up, and he rarely wore shorts. Hence, on those few summer days he wore shorts, his legs were painful to look at without sunglasses on.
My father was a very old white man when he died. The curious thing is that my siblings are about that same age today, and they don’t seem so very old to me.
This alone may not convince the skeptic that I know a heck of a lot about old white folks, so I’ll tell two true stories to remove any and all doubt:
Two weeks ago, while in a grocery store, an old white man said, “Hi” to me. I felt a wave of anxiety as I thought, “Who is that old white dude? He looks familiar.” Suddenly, about ten minutes later, I realized that he had been two years behind me in high school. The anxiety was replaced by sheer panic. I did, however, get home safely.
In a closely related true story, in the 1980s, I spent a day with Abbie Hoffman in Oneonta, N.Y. He was speaking at the state university there that evening. I remember that a lot of old white folks seemed disappointed that Abbie wasn’t exactly the same as he had been in 1968. Oh, his values were much the same, but his tactics were different. Some of the college students seemed surprised that he was mellower than the historical character they had read about.
I’m convinced that, by now, all readers except perhaps the most paranoid and/or troubled have concluded that I know about old white people. Now that my credentials have been fully established, I would like to talk about old white folks in the context of the struggle for political, economic, and social justice. Please pay attention while I’m speaking -- there will be a test. But you don’t have to take notes.
The struggle for social justice is on-going. It started well before the American Revolutionary War, and will continue in each decade and in every generation. It is not something that is won and done. Rather, it is a living entity, a living force that we participate in, either as an advocate or an enemy of social justice. Thus, those who attempt to sit upon the sidelines -- who “aren’t interested” and suffer from the delusion that their life isn’t impacted by the problems of the larger society -- add dead weight to the negative force, making it more difficult for good people to make progress. Yet that does not translate into their being “the enemy” in the same manner as a Dick Cheney or a corporation that destroys the natural world.
Every generation has had good and sincere participants in the struggle for social justice. But even within that large group, we can identify competing sub-groups. Let’s consider the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. It was, to be sure, an outgrowth of the same struugle in the 1950s, and the 1940s before that, and on and on. In the ‘60s, there was the NAACP, the SCLC, the Nation of Islam, the Black Panthers, and more. At times, the leadership of these groups didn’t coordinate their efforts. But when they did, they harnessed much more power than the combined totals of each group. Synergism is a very real force in social struggles.
In fact, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover authored an infamous memo in the 1960s, ordering his agency to destroy any and all attempts at uniting the various civil rights groups, preventing such a synergism. Students of that era know that, in late ‘64, there were efforts by Martin Luther King, Jr., and Malcolm X to unite. This would have resulted in the domestic civil rights struggle to evolve into an international human rights movement, where it properly belonged.
The Civil Rights Movement won a lot of important victories. Obviously, that struggle is far from over. The enemy has become more sophisticated and system’s-wise than it was in the 1960s. At the same time, it is no longer defined as exclusively “white vs. black”: there are also brown, red, and yellow peoples involved.
Both leadership and tactics have changed. The young leaders of that past era are now the Elders of today. That doesn’t mean they do not participate in the struggle. Their values are the same. But their tactics -- indeed, their role -- has changed. And that’s a good thing. It’s the right thing. For there are few things as sad as a 60-year old, male or female, attempting to compete with 25-year olds. (I am not, however, opposed to the Rolling Stones going on tour.)
When I was young, I was a student of the Elders. That doesn’t mean I was in total agreement with each and every one. But I could learn something from each one, and a heck of a lot from a few of them.
Today, I am old. My children are convinced that I am the oldest living human in history. Still, they and their circles of friends never hesitate to ask my opinion on current struggles for social justice. I interact with plenty of other young folks at group meetings in the region of upstate New York that I inhabit. And I get to meet quite a few young activists when I speak at high schools and colleges.
Certainly, not all of these young folk agree with me on everything. Nor should they. If, in my current role as -- for lack of better words -- a teaching Elder I found that any one of them agreed with me on everything, I’d have failed in my duty to encourage them to think for themselves.
Tensions within groups, and between sub-groups, is a good thing if it is used to fuel creativity. The opposite potential -- for tensions to be destructive -- is not a good thing. As we all contribute to the potential outcome, by way of our individual beliefs and actions, how we view others, especially those “different” from ourselves, plays an important role.
Keep an open mind.
Posted by H2O Man | Mon Jun 9, 2014, 11:57 AM (91 replies)
There are certain topics that never seem to go well on DU. The reality of sexist influences in our culture is one of them. Indeed, the ugliness of the 2008 presidential primaries pales in comparison -- at least to the extent that such debates did not include attributing Senator Obama’s victory over Senator Clinton in a male vs. female context.
The recent tragic mass-murder would seem to provide common ground. The killer was a freak. His primary target for his hatred was women. In reading the shit head’s manifesto, the rage that he aimed towards women is the most outstanding feature. Without that hatred towards all women, his rant would simply be a pathetic example of self-pity. In my opinion, but for that hatred of women, it seems unlikely he would have ever killed anyone.
That he had extremely little contact with girls while growing up, and almost none with women as he reached adulthood, did not keep him from defining females into a “one size fits all” group: the enemy. In particular, his perverse and inadequate ideas about sex made him dangerous to women -- for he convinced himself that women owed him sexual gratification. Thus, he was exactly the type of creep who, had he ever dated, would be at high risk to react violently if a woman told him “no.”
The fact that he had some connection to a “men’s rights” group has been mentioned as evidence that he hated women. Indeed, considering that he was never involved in a relation with a women -- except his mother and step-mother -- raises the obvious question: what “right” did he believe he was being denied? One that never existed. He wanted sex. And he wanted to be seen, on the beach or in a college classroom, holding hands with a beautiful woman. So yes, his hatred of women was his sole reason for relating to any men’s right group.
Yet, this in no way provides proof positive that men’s rights groups are bad. The fact that we are a patriarchal society, where maleness provides many advantages, does not mean that all men’s groups are focused on denying women equal rights. Surely, many such groups are not seeking equality, just as some of the members are flaming assholes. However, men do not have a monopoly on being scoundrels, and the number one focus of men’s rights groups is the area in our society where women, as a group, have long held an unfair advantage.
I live in New York, and hence what I have to say here applies to this state. However, it has been the general case in other states, as well. In the context of Family Court, where issues such as separation, child custody, divorce, support, and dividing assets, fathers have not found a level playing field. I’m friends with a number of the lawyers in my region (and a few judges), both male and female. They all say that women have had an advantage in this context.
Adults who are involved in divorces, especially where children are involved, do funny things. That includes men and women. The process sometimes involves two adults who are able to objectively put the well-being of their children first. But such cases do not end up being fought bitterly in court. Even if one parent is capable of putting their children’s needs first, it can end up in ugly court hearings, which tend to continue until the youngest child reaches maturity. And that still leaves many, many cases where both parents, to some degree, view the court as a competition, in which one side “wins” the children, property, income, and other resources.
The main focus that I had was my two little boys, ages three and six. In court, I got custody, and their mother got visitation. However, she also got the house, two of three automobiles, and support -- even though her income was more than mine. I told my attorney that I did not think this was fair. He said it wasn’t fair, but that I had gotten what was most important to me.
After I moved into an apartment, I found that two other guys living there had similar stories -- although neither had custody of their children. At first, we discussed this informally. Soon, we all began inviting other men to our discussions. Thus began a men’s rights group.
It is important to note that it wasn’t simply an organized meeting to trash women. To be fair, there were times when that took place, per an individual woman. But the primary focus was on father’s rights, how to navigate the family court system, and the responsibilities of fatherhood.
New York had changed some of the rules in family court, to make it fairer for men who wanted to be active participants in their children’s lives, back in the early 1970s. I was aware of this, because Governor Rockefeller had pushed the issue, largely at the request of the man who headed his security detail -- one of my uncles.
Our group approached one lawyer in each of the three surrounding counties. These gentlemen, who did not like to be involved in divorce/custody hearings, for the same reasons that many police do not enjoy being called to “domestic disputes,” were open to providing general information to our group. A couple were also willing to reduce their fees, if I prepared all of the paperwork needed for court. I’ve authored the appropriate paperwork in a couple dozen cases in the quarter century since then, and have “won” every case thus far.
Word spreads quickly. Soon, men who had no interest in being responsible parents came to us, seeking assistance. This included men who despised women. A few of them bragged about being able to intimidate the mothers of their children. One was mighty proud that he had hurt his wife, as if that was something to brag about.
In each and every instance, our group moved to kick that type of thug out of our meetings. We would try, as a group, to confront the guys that they were creating problems for themselves, and their children. Very few were willing to recognize the role they played. Instead, they became angry with the group. And, no surprise, one fellow mistakenly believed he could change our minds by threatening the two group leaders (which included me). That was a serious error on his part: he suffered the consequences.
Being pro-fathers’ rights does not translate to being anti-woman. Earlier tonight, I spoke with a woman from across the country, who leads a group of women who had the misfortune to marry psychopaths. I serve as a volunteer for that group. My tasks include assisting these ladies in how to best present the information they have, first to their lawyer, and then in court. I also spend time talking to individual group members, to help them win back the self-respect and dignity that has been stolen from them by ruthless thugs. The woman that leads this group is in the medical profession; she married a doctor, who turned out to be a snake. She and I have been friends since grade school. She knows that I try to help men going through divorce. But that doesn’t impact her trusting me to help the women in her group. The only thing that I ask in return, is that these people try to be the best parents that they can be.
Being the best parents we can be should be the focus of both men and women who are dealing with the family court system. And that’s not pro- or anti- either sex. If our society could come to terms with that aspect, we might be better equipped to deal with the numerous other problems that are caused by sexism in America.
Today, I am pretty good friends with my ex-wife. She is the mother of our two boys. And neither of us is the same person we were when we split. We enjoy each other’s company at family events. My daughters both are good friends with their brothers’ mom.
Life is a process.
Posted by H2O Man | Thu May 29, 2014, 10:40 AM (110 replies)
“Intolerance betrays a want of faith in one’s cause.” -- Gandhi
Discussions about “-ism” have frequently been acrimonious on this forum. Issues that involve racism and sexism tend to be the most divisive and emotional here. In a very real sense, this is expected: American society has never come to grips with the cultural pathologies that infect most communities across the nation.
No infant is born hateful. It is learned behavior. If you watch itty-bitty children interacting with others, you find that they are aware of differences among people, including a person being male or female, and with different shades of skin color. I remember my older daughter, at age three, rubbing my brother-in-law’s arm, and saying, “Oh, Uncle Keith, you’re black. That’s so pretty!”
At our extended family events/ reunions, she saw people who were black, brown, red, yellow, and white. As a young adult, although she is aware that some people have hang-ups about what is incorrectly referred to as “race,” she knows that the racists own the problem. Obviously, the systematic racism also causes problems for too many people who do not own the problem. For racism in the United States is real, and contaminates the fabric of our society with ignorance, fear, and hatred. An obvious example of this is found in the hatred for President Obama; this is not to say that everyone who disagrees with his actions is racist, of course, but racists -- especially white racists -- continue to refuse to accept that he was twice elected to the highest office in the land.
The other major “-ism” -- sexism -- has more entrenched roots in our society. It is a sibling to racism, so entangled that it can be difficult to separate the two completely. And while like with racism, there have been advances in our cultural attitudes, we are still a long way from the Promised Land. While my daughter’s generation is intellectually and ethically advanced compared to my own, when it comes to issues involving marriage equality and the like, some of the ignorance, fear, and hatred between the sexes remains.
Hence, it seems worthwhile to consider how positive changes are accomplished …..more so, for goodness sakes, than the arguing, accusing, and finger-pointing that too often takes place on this forum. For we must do more than simply define the problem. We have to identify how change is made, and then use this information to decide upon the most meaningful approach that we can take -- as individuals and groups.
Martin Luther King, Jr., noted that it is a myth that it takes “time” to make meaningful change. “Time is neutral,” King said in the last Sunday sermon he was to deliver. “It can be used either constructively or destructively. ….Somewhere we must come to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through tireless efforts and the persistent work of individuals …. Without this hard work, time itself becomes an ally of the primitive forces of social stagnation …”
Thus, when I have the opportunity to talk with my daughter and her friends, I am aware that the changes I see reflected in their view of the world, is largely the result of the environment that they were raised in. Obviously, this starts with the family unit in which they were raised. Yet it also includes the schools they attend, and the communities they inhabit. More, it includes all of the negative aspects of the child’s upbringing, as well.
The second avenue to change is the individual. People can and do change -- often, for the better. In fact, those people who do not change over the years they spend on earth, tend to stand out more than those who do evolve in their thinking. We all know people who channel the social stagnation King spoke of.
It seems to me that one of the greatest stumbling blocks that prevents meaningful discussions on this forum is a failure to recognize -- and respect -- that people change. It would seem unlikely that a person who was raised in a household where females are not valued, is going to be at the same location on the path, as one who was raised respecting both male and females.
We need to be patient with individuals, and equally impatient with “the system.” You can’t curb anger with more anger, or hostility with more hostility, when dealing with individuals. You can’t force a person to see things differently by insulting them. Rather, people are more likely to be open to viewing things differently, when you approach them civilly, and use logic, facts, and rational thinking. Likewise, by creating tension in a larger social setting, one can open minds to different ways of thinking.
The potential good that can come from helping a person to think differently -- to understand and appreciate that there are other, better ways to relate to both male and female human beings, and to put the old, toxic “-isms” in the past -- should not be underestimated. For a person must think differently, before they will act differently. And our culture needs to be transformed, in thoughts and actions, in order that we can confront the other serious issues that confront humanity today.
Posted by H2O Man | Tue May 27, 2014, 07:18 PM (36 replies)
“The killer awoke before dawn,
He put his boots on.
He took a face from the ancient gallery
And he walked on down the hal ….”
-- Jim Morrison; The End
I try not to learn the names of the ever-growing list of shit-heads that, for one reason or another, decide it’s time for them to go murder a group of people, in order to express themselves. That it has happened again, at this time of year, reminds me that no matter who you are, there is a chance -- small, but highly disturbing -- that the lives of you, your family and friends, neighbors and co-workers, can be altered, or ended, by some freak that wants to make a statement of hatred. This type of violence damages the social fabric, at a time when we can least afford it.
The media and internet discussion sites have had a wide range of information on this terrible event. Some of the coverage and attention has been of high quality, educational, and insightful. And, of course, some has been from the gutters of human potential.
Who is to blame? Let’s keep it this simple: the killer was 100% responsible for his actions. Not his parents, the police, social workers, school, or anyone else. He, and he alone, owns all of the blame. That he wanted -- no, demanded -- recognition for what he mistook for “power,” yet was cowardly enough to assign all blame to others, makes him repulsive to even consider. No one failed him, except himself.
I’ve read some interesting thoughts on what specific diagnosis he may carry. This includes here, on DU, by some folks who have the background required to build a foundation for their beliefs. There are also a splattering of uninformed guesses, that have no basis in the reality of mental illnesses. But that’s to be expected, when people attempt to understand and make sense of such a tragic, violent outburst.
Perhaps equally important, I believe, are the attempts to identify this within the context of sociological explanations, rather than the psychology of an individual. For this jackass, who was convinced that he was superior to mere humans, placed himself smack-dab in the middle of a cluster of societies’ worst losers. A few of these have been people suffering from the axis one mental illness most closely associated with violence -- paranoid schizophrenia. But far, far more are people, usually white males, who have personality disorders.
I tend to believe statistics that indicate that, nation-wide, violence crime is on the decrease. But it is evident that more unstable people are acting out in this type of very public hate crime. The fact that they will get their 15 minutes of fame may be one factor, yet for all of its weaknesses, I do not blame the media.
The smug, bratty manifesto this turd left behind separates him, to an extent, from the others who kill to be heard. Although extreme, his whiney rant probably reminds most folks of other toxic people we have met in life. It is semi-well organized, when compared to the few similar records left by his ilk. From early childhood on, he was as innocent as the lamb of Christianity, he needs to assure the audience. But society as a whole began to crucify him by the time he became aware of sexual passions. Indeed, vaginas seem to scare this poor child.
At the same time, his resentment that females did not find him irresistible grew into a rage against all women, especially blond-haired college students. His writings reveal an extreme case of the divide that Erich Fromm discusses in his 1976 classic, “To Have or To Be?” His entire sense of entitlement is rooted in what he has: the financial wealth of his family, along with what he wrongly assumes is a superior intellect -- which again is defined as a possession. His intelligence is a marketing tool, good for determining what employment opportunities and women he is entitled to.
Of greater importance, in the larger sense, would be Fromm’s 1955 classic, “The Sane Society,” which details why certain cultures produce higher numbers of social illnesses, such as mass-murderers. And, of course, Fromm’s 1973 “The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness,” which addresses the issues involved when people enjoy torturing others. And while this dick-dripping shot his victims, he made sure that their families and friends would be tortured by his actions.
None of us is likely to have the opportunity to step in and stop someone with moral rabies from killing an innocent victim. But the way we live our lives can have an impact. In part, it can be by who we elect to office; this influences the socio-economic policies of our day. And the way we elect to live our lives, and how we interact with others -- family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and “strangers” -- can play a role in defining the society we live in. Even though we can’t prevent every act of hate and violence, we can reduce the frequency of them. And that’s worth our best efforts,
Posted by H2O Man | Sun May 25, 2014, 05:00 PM (9 replies)
"We have the opportunity to move not only toward the rich society and the powerful society, but upward to the Great Society." -- LBJ; May 22, 1964
It was fifty years ago today, Rachel Maddow has reminded us, that President Lyndon Johnson spoke of his dream -- of the Great Society. It was a beautiful dream, though US involvment in Vietnam turned it into a nightmare. Ever since, the corporate media has done everything possible to convince the American public -- you and me -- that the very concept of the Great Society is impossible at best, disastrous in practice.
Indeed, one need only look at American society today to see that it is divided even more between the masses, or the 99%, and the economic elite, or 1%.
It is, in my opinion, a situation that can only be confronted at the grass roots up. All politics are local, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan said. A foundation for a true constitutional democracy -- capable of bringing about social justice -- needs the grass roots foundation to be built upon.
Yesterday, an old friend running for a seat in Congress and I had an interesting conversation. Although he lives in another state, today's technology easily allows me to assist him from a distance. I'm volunteering as a speech writer.
The night before, I won re-election on the local school board. Today, I spoke with some leading democrats in our region, about my running for state office this fall. I also spoke with leaders from the Democratic Left, so that I can run on more than one slate this fall. While computers will play a role, a lot of this can only be accomplished by an investment in shoe leather.
I also met with a teacher from a NYC art college. He is publishing a book on the need to protect the environment. I added a list of quotes by Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman, specifically about the power of clean water.
There has been so much going on, that I wasn't able to travel to Cooperstown today. President Obama was scheduled to vist the Baseball Hall of Fame. He was supposed to talk about tourism -- which was ironic, as the Hall of Fame was closed to the public today. Groups from across the state were prepared to show up, to rally against hydrofracking.
I believe that these public demonstrations are important. It;s an activity that is protected by Amendment 1. But, if we are to move towards becoming that Great Society, we have to do more than demonstrate. We need to begin to Occupy Public Office.
Posted by H2O Man | Fri May 23, 2014, 12:40 AM (12 replies)
“I’m the man you think you are. ….If you want to know what I’ll do, figure out what you’ll do. I’ll do the same thing -- only more of it.” -- Malcolm X
Malcolm X was born on this day, in 1925. His life had a significant impact on our country in the 1960s, and it should provide lessons for those of us who want America to live up to its promise and potential.
Hopefully, most DU members have read “The Autobiography of Malcolm X.” Carl Sagan said that he believed it was the most important work of American literature. There are numerous other solid books on his life, and books of transcripts of his speeches. Spike Lee produced a powerful movie about Malcolm’s life, which is definitely worth watching.
I first learned of Malcolm some fifty years ago, in the days following Muhammad Ali’s winning the heavyweight championship in a huge upset, when he TKOed Sonny Liston. In 1965, my oldest brother left a TIME magazine open to the page reporting Malcolm’s death; somewhere, I still have that magazine, and the brief note my brother left with it.
I didn’t think much about Malcolm over the next few years, until one day when a high school English teacher recommended that I read his autobiography. I was a “homeless” teen at the time, heading straight for the troubles that homeless teenaged males frequently find. Besides bringing some much appreciated bags of food to class for me, this wonderful teacher wanted to expand my mind.
A few years back, I posted an essay on this forum, using Joseph Campbell’s studies of “the hero’s journey” to describe Malcolm’s life. I believe that he was one of our nation’s most important prophets. I remember back in the late 1970s, when Americans were being held hostage in Iran, when Dick Gregory said that America couldn’t understand Islam, because it had failed to understand Malcolm X.
Later today, I’ll get out my collection of old records of some of Malcolm’s speeches. I have six albums of his speeches; while they make powerful reading, one gets a clearer picture of what a gifted communicator he was by listening to him speak.
Happy birthday, Malcolm X. And thank you for your contribution to the struggle for social justice.
Posted by H2O Man | Mon May 19, 2014, 01:01 PM (10 replies)
“.I go to nature to be soothed and healed, and to have my senses put in order.” -- John Burroughs
One of the nice things about spring-time in the northeast is going for walks. At my extreme age, I don’t get around as well in the snow and ice, and so I’ve been making up for being inside too much during the long winter months. My favorite places to walk tend to be around my own property, and along three trails in particular: one is a long-abandoned turnpike; the second is the bed of a railroad that closed in 1957; and, third, a beautiful creek that crossed each of the first two.
This week, I’ve left the “comfort zone” of my own neck of the woods a couple of times. A bank, a doctor’s office, a drug store, a library, a garage, the Post Office, a grocery store, and then, last, to a school to give a presentation. Add to that a trip to the Canadian border, to pick up my daughter from college.
Although I am prone to enjoying solitude, I do enjoy people. In the bank, a pleasant woman approached me and said that, with my long hair and beard, I reminded her of the Founding Fathers. I thanked her, though I can’t recall any of those fellows having long hair nor beards. Another woman, who I went to school with, saw me and said, “Ah, our eccentric hermit; what brings you to civilization?” I explained that I had actually left civilization to come to a community of human beings.
I’ve also had a virtual flood of phone calls and e-mails this week. Extended family and friends, several with news about people I know who are ill; a couple of invitations to speak here and there this summer; a few asking advice on political matters; and a close friend who is feeling detached and burned out. She has stopped by the house a couple of times this week to see my daughter, who is back from college. They are in an acoustic group together.
The library where this friend works part-time -- she’s a full-time teacher -- has asked me to do a display of artifacts that document local Native American history there. I’ll be presenting a program to the public there in June, then in another city in July. In coming up with a mental outline, I found it worthwhile to take a walk along the banks of the Susquehanna and Unadilla Rivers, visiting ancient occupation sites, as well as an expansive camp where Mohawk leader Joseph Brant had warriors during the Revolutionary War. Letters to General George Washington from that time tell of a significant number of “rascally escaped slaves” who had joined the Indians there.
This is the land where I spent my childhood. Across the river is the old house where the grandson of Seneca historian David Cusick lived; we remained friends over the decades, after we had both moved away from that rural neighborhood. I end up stopping to see my childhood “best friend,” who recently bought his grandfather’s farm. We talk about the various people who lived on this rural road, and influenced our childhood. They are all long gone now. My buddy says, “How did we end up as Elders so quickly?”
When I get home, I decide to cook the evening meal out at the fire pit out at my pond. As always, I start by feeding the fish, and refilling the bird-feeders. My daughter and friend come out, and we enjoy watching the birds, and listening to their songs. One of my favorite things is when these two play guitars and sing. I know that human beings have sat around a fire, and sang, for thousands and thousands of years. It’s as much a part of “nature” as the birds’ singing their songs.
We all get a turn here on Earth. People tend to measure their turn in terms of how many times this living planet goes around the sun. For some, it’s quite a few circles around that life-giving sun; for others, it’s a shorter ride.
Before I know it, I’m alone at the pond. The sun has gone down, and the fire is giving off the only light. Most of the birds have called it a day, and now it’s the frogs’ turn to sing their songs. As it grows dark, I can see the reflection of the fire on the pond’s surface. In time, the fire burns out, and I begin my walk back to my house.
It’s a busy time in our society. The combination of a larger population and technological advances has created a new speed of daily life for most people. While the planet continues to move at its own pace, the world is spinning faster and faster. Everyone should be taking time to “turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream,” as John Lennon sang. Especially those who are feeling frazzled by all the pressures of everyday life.
Spending time in nature is what I do. How about you? What helps put your senses in order?
Posted by H2O Man | Sun May 18, 2014, 10:15 PM (5 replies)
At Los Angeles (ESPN): Bermane Stiverne vs. Chris Arreola, rematch, 12 rounds, for vacant WBC heavyweight title.
ESPN boxing continues to provide fans with bouts that are often as interesting as those on HBO or Showtime, including most PPVs. Saturday night's bout, for the heavyweight title vacated by Vitali Klitschko, is certainly one of them.
In April of 2013, Steverne beat Arreola by decision in twelve rounds. He broke Chris's nose in the third round, and won almost every round on all three judges' cards. This earned him at shot at Klitschko, but Vitali postponed the bout once, then retired. Thus, Steverne has been out of action for a full year, although not by choice.
Steverne, 34, is 6' 2" tall, has an 80" reach, and packs knockout power in his right hand. Most people would have difficulty recognizing many of his opponent's names -- other than Arreola, and perhaps a faded Ray Austin -- but he is the #1 ranked contender in a division long dominated by the Klitschko brothers. Although he did not have the luxury of solid backing early in his career, he has a record of 23-1-1 (20 KO wins; 1 KO lose). His lone defeat came early in his career.
Arreola is the more familiar of the two, as his fights have frequently been televised. At age 33, he is an inch taller than Steverne, but has 4" less in reach. His record is 36-3 (30 KO wins; 1 KO loss). In 2009, Vitali Klitschko stopped Arreola in 10 rounds. Since that first defeat, Arreola has been inconsistent in the ring; when he trains, he has impressed, but too often, he does not show the self-discipline needed to compete at the highest level.
About a month ago, Chris spoke with Teddy Atlas from ringside at an ESPN Friday Night Fights. Chris is a very likable, outgoing young man, who rarely seems serious. Teddy put the good humor in check quickly, and pointed out Chris's lack of discipline. (For example, Chris was proud he was doing 2 miles of roadwork.) I know that since then, Teddy has been visiting Chris's training camp -- and Teddy is not a funny guy in the gym!
So, Chris should be in good shape. And I know Teddy focused a lot on his jab. Everything behind the jab. At the same time, Steverne -- a quiet, thoughtful man -- has put himself through hell in his training camp. So it should be what people want to see: a tough, hard fight between two highly-trained warriors. May the better man win!
Posted by H2O Man | Fri May 9, 2014, 11:56 AM (5 replies)
I took my loved one out to dinner,
So we could get a bite to eat ….
We sat and talked of revolution,
Just like two liberals in the sun …..
I took my loved one to a big field,
So we could watch the English sky ….
-- John Lennon; Well, Well, Well
Three events from recent days stand out in my mind. The other day, while taking a walk with a friend, I found a projectile point from the Adena cultural phase. Those that come from the Ohio River Valley region tend to be larger, made of material not found in upstate New York, and are older; those made here are smaller, made of local flint, and are newer. This particular one likely dates to about 450-550 ad. It is as sharp and crisp as the day it was made, without so much as a chip missing.
Last night, I attended the local school board meeting. An audience of about 30 came for the open meeting. There were teachers, students, and interested community members, there to express a variety of interests and concerns. Although our district was just ranked rather high among small schools (in the state and nationally), none of the audience was there to either thank us, or give us a pat on our backs.
Today, on the drive home from a grocery store, and while passing a small lake at the outskirts of our town, I saw an eagle. After checking in my rearview mirror, I pulled over to the side of the highway. It’s not uncommon to see eagles in these parts, but I still find myself in awe of their beauty and power.
I did purchase, among other things, 40 lbs of bird food today. Soon, I’ll go out to my pond and fill the numerous bird-feeders. Later this evening, after dinner, my best buddy and I plan to sit out by the pond, build a small fire, and discuss our plans for upcoming social-political events. I am hoping that we see some fire-flies, as we listen to the peeper-frogs sing.
One of the things that I was focused on last night was how various people “do” tension. I know, I know: it’s difficult verging upon impossible to believe that there could be tension at a school board meeting. Yet, it happens. And there is a wide span of ways people behave in a public setting where there is tension.
Public speaking creates discomfort for many people. Even if it involves a relative small group of friendly, good-natured folks, some of us get nervous. If it is a moderate-sized group of angry people, it can be difficult for many people to speak their mind. Obviously, that increases if one is addressing workplace concerns where supervision is there. Likewise, there is the potential for board members, who serve voluntarily, without pay, to feel like they are on the old “hot seat” when the public questions their insight, their values, and/or their integrity. That potential seems to increase, when the person attacking them has their facts way wrong. (On the other hand, if that person knows exactly what they are addressing, that can create tension, too!)
Other factors can include money, be it in the context of taxes or salaries. Another is how parents view the quality of the education their children get, and even issues involving school sports. It happens.
What I noticed -- and surely not for the first time -- is that certain individuals, on both sides, follow a fairly predictable path: they become defensive; they have a compulsive need to speak (often mistaking volume and quantity for quality); they accuse the target of their anger of things that simply have not been said; and they close their minds, making it impossible to hear, much less process, “new” incoming information.
One of the most shallow things President George W. Bush ever said was the “you’re either with us, or against us” bit of nonsense. That obviously tends to limit one’s perception. And, at times, that’s not really a huge deal, in and of itself. We can all be “wrong” sometimes, and even in situations where issues cannot be simply “right vs. wrong,” we are all human, and suffer from errors in thinking from time to time.
It certainly can be a very real problem in some circumstances, though. For example, there is a certain tipping point, where if enough people become angry, a group discussion loses the ability to be productive. That handcuffs efforts to engage in conflict resolution. It reduces the art of negotiation, into something that crudely resembles a sporting competition, where some participants will do anything to “win.”
Somehow, some way, human beings need to rise above the “us versus them” dynamic. It’s a luxury that we cannot afford. That doesn’t mean that we are all going to hold hands, and be best buds. Or even friends. It does mean that we have reached a point in the life cycle of our species, where we have a common interest -- one that not everyone recognizes -- in taking steps that increase our ability to maintain human life on Earth, on a meaningful scale. We are already in a growing environmental crisis. There are consequences that are to be paid for the ignorance and greed that has damaged the air, land, and water.
In order to be able to deal with those larger and more complex issues, people need to be able to deal with the smaller things that arise in our daily lives.
Posted by H2O Man | Fri May 2, 2014, 04:54 PM (29 replies)
At Las Vegas (Showtime PPV): Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Marcos Maidana, 12 rounds, WBC/WBA welterweight unification; Luis Collazo vs. Amir Khan, 12 rounds, welterweights; Adrien Broner vs. Carlos Molina, 10 rounds, junior welterweights; J'Leon Love vs. Marco Antonio Periban, 10 rounds, super middleweights; Anthony Ogogo vs. Jonuel Tapia, 8 rounds, middleweights; Andrew Tabiti vs. John Shipman, 6 rounds, cruiserweights; Ronald Gavril vs. Tyrell Hendrix, 8 rounds, super middleweights; Ashley Theophane vs. Angino Perez, 8 rounds, welterweights; Lanell Bellows vs. Thomas Gifford, 6 rounds, super middleweights; Ladarius Miller vs. Richard Colas, 4 rounds, welterweights
The "tale of the tape" for this Saturday night's fight between Mayweather and Maidana reveals little about the welterweight unification title bout. The biggest differences between the two are their ages and records. Floyd is 37; Marcos is 30. Floyd enters with an undefeated record of 45-0, with 26 knockouts; Maidana is 35-3, with 31 knockouts.
Both are expected to weigh in at 147 pounds on Friday afternoon. Mayweather will enter the ring at about that weight, though he may be up to 150 lbs. Maidana could be up to 155 lbs by fight time. Mayweather stands at 5' 8", compared to 5' 7" for Maidana. Floyd's reach is 72 inches, three more than his opponent's.
Based upon those numbers, it appears to be a fairly even match-up. However, most if not all "experts" are predicting a one-sided fight, in which Mayweather will win a 12-round decision. Indeed, in Floyd's last fight, against the much larger Saul Alvarez, an undefeated young champion, Mayweather dominated in a manner that made his victory appear easy.
Floyd Mayweather's status as one of the sport's elite, all-time greats is the reason he is so heavily favored. It is interesting to consider how four groups of people view him. Among the "experts," which includes journalists, he is recognized as the pound-for-pound best fighter today. Most fighters give him the respect he is due; this includes the retired fighters who now train the young lions. A couple of promoters -- Bob Arum and Oscar de la Hoya -- cannot speak of Mayweather without hostility. And boxing fans are divided between those who admire him, and those who despise him.
Maidana is respected by the boxing community, as a tough, hard-punching warrior. He turned pro in 2004, fighting in Argentina and Germany, and won his first 24 bouts. He was then given a shot at a minor title, and lost a close decision. It was then that an American promoter brought him to LA to get beat by Victor Ortiz in June of 2009. Ortiz was a good prospect at the time, being promoted as "the next Oscar de la Hoya" -- by Oscar, who was promoting his career.
The fight was outstanding. Neither Ortiz or Maidana relied upon defensive skills, in an explosive brawl. Both fighters were floored in the first round; Maidana was decked twice in the second; and Victor was dropped before quitting in round six. Journalists such as HBO's Max Kellerman focused more attention on Ortiz's quitting -- especially when he told a reporter that he "didn't get paid" to get hurt in the ring -- and overlooked Maidana. (So much for Max's "concern" about fighters' safety, health, and well-being!)
Promoters recognized that Maidana was the type of fighter that could sell tickets, however. Although he returned to Argentina for two of his next three bouts, he was soon matched with welterweight champion Amir Khan. Although he was dropped in the first round by a body shot, Maidana was able to make it an exciting fight. His reckless, hard-punching offense had Khan running in the championship rounds. That loss would actually increase Maidana's standing among fans.
Maidana won two more fights, then lost to Devon Alexander. In that bout, his lack of ring skills was exposed. Khan would lose two fights in a row around this time, which resulted in people giving Maidana less credit for that performance. They questioned if Maidana could compete against the top-level boxers.
After the loss, Maidana sought out Robert Garcia, one of the best trainers in the sport. Garcia worked to refine Maidana's style: he taught him the proper stance, adequate foot-work, defensive skills, and a surprising good jab. Maidana won his next three fights -- each by knockout -- before being matched against another top prospect, Adrien Broner, for a welterweight title.
Broner, who was undefeated going into the bout, was engaging in self-promotion that he was "the next Floyd Mayweather." He certainly has talent, and had generally been impressive in his fights below the welterweight division. In his last fight, however, Paulie Malignaggi had exposed some vulnerabilities. Broner won a split-decision that could easily have gone the other way.
There have been few, if any, professional athletes who could compete with Broner in being obnoxious. Adrien engaged in a cheap imitation of a young Muhammad Ali and Floyd Mayweather, Jr., and appeared offended when the boxing community noted his total lack of orginality. He opted to fight Maidana, to showcase his talents in a manner that would elevate him to a pay-per-view star.
On 12-14-13, Maidana gave Broner a 12-round thumping, which included knocking Adrien down in both the 2nd and 8th rounds. This was made possible, as a result of Garcia's teaching Maidana the skills necessary to deliver his powerful punches. In particular, this ability is based upon the jab; when Maidana showed the ability to out-jab Broner -- by coming up, under Broner's jab -- it translated into his actually being able to outbox his opponent. (Jabbing up, under the other man's jab, allows you to land your punch on either his chest, or to lift his chin. As Broner tends to defend by pulling back to the side, Maidana's jab pushed him off-balance. Even if Broner is only slightly off-balance, it does two things: it prevents him from returning punches, and more importantly, creates that split-second required for Maidana to land his follow-up blows.)
That victory put Maidana in position to challenge Mayweather. It's not surprising that this fight is not creating as much interest as Floyd's last bout: the pro-Mayweather crowd assumes Floyd will easily outbox Maidana, while the anti-Mayweather folks claim he hand-picks "easy" fights. While I think Floyd will win, I actually think this will be one of his toughest fights in his professional career.
Why? Three reasons, really. Styles make fights. Maidana will pressure Floyd, making him work hard for three minutes of every round. The last two fighters who did this were Hatton and Cotto, and these were both exciting, competitive bouts. Second, Maidana has more concusive power than Hatton or Cotto. And his trainer has provided him with the ability to deliver that power. Third, temperment plays a significant role. This includes the fact that Maidana is a pleasant man outside the ring, who has always been respectful of Mayweather. Thus, Floyd doesn't have the edge in terms of disliking Maidana, in the manner he did Oscar, for example. While Floyd's intense self-discipline in training is one of the most important factors in separating him from the "merely" great champions he has defeated, it can be difficult to be up for someone like Maidana.
Yet it is Maidana's temperment that promises to make this a tough fight. He is a throw-back to the great fighters of old, who were willing to take their opponents' best shots, in order to land their own. Khan dropped him with a vicious left hook to the liver, which is surely the most painful punch in boxing. In over 50 years of watching the sport, I had never seen anyone beat the count after taking a perfect shot to the liver, largely because one's legs do not work for at least 10 seconds. But Marcos got up, and fought back.
Temperment is what allowed Carmen Basilio to beat Sugar Ray Robinson for the middleweight championship. No one would argue that Basilio was anywhere close to Ray in terms of talent. Robinson was bigger, faster, and hit harder than Basilio. But Carmen was willing to take Ray's best shots, in order to get close to him, and force Robinson to fight on the inside.
I expect this weekend's fight to be far better than the boxing "experts" and Vegas odds-makers are predicting. Obviously, Floyd has to be favored to win. But he won't have an easy time. And anyone who says that Maidana has no chance of winning simply does not understand the sport.
Enjoy the fight!
Posted by H2O Man | Wed Apr 30, 2014, 11:11 AM (5 replies)