H2O ManH2O Man's Journal
You remember Hustons plan? Implement it, Nixon said. I want it implemented on a thievery basis. Goddamn it, get in and get those files. Blow the safe and get it.
Richard Nixon in June 1971; from Newsweek/ Wasington Post transcript in 1997.
The above quote isn't about Watergate. It is about the Brookings Institution. Nixon, as folks of my generation recall, was worried that Brookings had documentation oh his illegal attempts to sabotage LBJ's efforts to engage in "peace talks" in Vietnam. Nixon wanted Brookings firebombed, allowing people dressed as firemen to enter and blast open the safe to steal the documents. Within months, of course, Nixon replaced firemen with plumbers to make a series of break-ins lnown collectively as Watergate.
There have been numerous comparisons between Nicon's tactics and those if the defendent in the last week. There are many obvious similarities in their behaviors. Both had connections with organized crime long before becoming president. It is interesting to note that documents that became public in more recent years suggest that Nixon believed that a file which Castro sent documenting Dick's connections with the CIA-organized crime attacks on Cuba to Teddy Kennedy. Hence, he thought they were housed at Democratic Headquarters in the Watergate building.
The "plumbers," of course, included fellows who had been involved in attempts to destabilize the Cuban government. The recent HBO series reportedly did not make some of the characters as serious as they actually were -- admittedly, I did not see it. But most were capable, dangerous individuals. The defendent has been charged with hiring what politely could be called a lower class of criminals ...... rather than firemen and plumbers, he had techno-janitors hoping to erase recordings of his crimes.
Other than the quality of criminals, though, the modes of operation are much the same. Now, unlike the defendent, I do not think Nixon was a sociopath. Dick had numerous features from the Cluster B personality disorders, including obviously anti-social ones. For this reason, the two resorted to similat behaviors under pressure. In the legal system, prosecutors do not need to prove "motive," only document "how" crimes were done. Yet a prosecutor who proves motive -- the "why" -- generally makes for a stronger case.
As noted, there is documentation available now that tends to show why Nixon was afvocating a series of crimes that fit the infamous "Huston Plan." If he could have accomplished the same goals legally, he would have. But by their nature, they required crimes. I do not believe the same holds true with the defendent, though I recognize others may disagree. Thus, I think it may be useful to do something akin to a forensic MRI of the decaying grayish-orange matter between the defendent's ears.
By his very nature, the defendent prefers to lie and commit crimes, much more than he likes telling the truth or doing things the legal way. He delights in thinking he has fooled people -- and we see that he has fooled millions of citizens. Add to this that he was schooled by a disgraced mob lawyer, resulting to the defendent behaving much in the manner of a mob boss. But we know this, don't we? My saying it adds nothing new.
What I think is important in understanding the "why" is what a person is afraid of. Nixon obviously feared an accurate history of his connections and activities keeping him from being re-elected. Then he feared getting caught. As odd of a human as Dick was, his fears can be understood, though not his actions.
Now, in ways, this fits the defendent, as well. He fears being caught now, far more than he did when facing legal cases before he was president. Obviously, he considers the White House to be his only "safe space." But in order to return to the safety of the past, as Carlos learned in "Journey to Ixtlan," one most face their greatest fears and insecurities.
I note that we know the defendent has a phobia when it comes to sharks. He gets uncomfortable seeing them on a television screen, although there is absolutely zero chance he will encounter one. What is it that the defendent finds so unsettling about sharls? I will speculate it is their eyes. Interestingly, I've had a few associates say that Jack Smith has that exact same look in his eyes when he is focused on a target.
Severe pressures caused Nixon to get sick during much of his career. That's normal. But Watergate caused him to isolate, to drink heavily, and have episodes of striking out at "enemies" from a safe distance. On the other hand, the defendent attempts to be in public around supporters. He lies with even more intensity than usual, striking out verbally against his "enemies." He will continue to have melt-downs in public -- the type defense lawyers dislike. His goal is to regain the White House, institute authoritarian rule, and create an updated version of "the Troubles" in this country.
Thus, we all must think seriously about both the "why" and the "how" of how we will behave between now and election day.
-- Joseph Bruchac
The drop of water
hangs from the faucet
pu;sing, the heart
of the well still beating.
I never drink water
Harold Elm told me
even from the sink
a prayer of thanks.
The drop of water
the faces of all the worlds.
I had just finished an outline for an upcoming presentation, when I checked my computer for messages. An old friend had asked when I'd be posting another essay here, so blame her for this. For I had finished the outline by noting the message of Handsome Lake in 1798. I will get to that shortly.
I've been thinking about water lately. Also soil and what grows in it, as well as air. But a bit more on water. More, I've read a number of OP/threads regarding the environment on this forum in recent weeks. So I thought I'd write a few ideas about water, based largely upon my having served as Onondaga Chief Paul Waterman's top aide for decades.
Scientists agree that all life on earth came from the great oceans long, long ago. Note that I am not including those who are invested in "creationism/ intelligent design," but am focusing on real scientists. It all started in water.
Thus, when scientists look for potential evidence of life on distant planets, they look to see if there might have been water on them. This is not a coincidence. It is science.
Life on earth depends upon some degree of contact with water. For most life forms that ave evolved on this living planet including human beings, water is necessary on a frequent basis. All fresh water has living beings in it, and all being on land require contact with water.
The only water that does not contain life is that which has been polluted with toxic industrial wastes. Life that comes in contact with this polluted water will become sick and die. In the case of human beings, science has documented that the damage from such poisons can affect the next generation.
This is because the toxins that humans pour into water flow downstream and continue to do harm. This is in both the context of geography and time.
I will end this with the story of an Iroquois man named Handsome Lake. (His brother Corn Planter may be better known to those who have studied the "border wars" of the Revolutionary War.) Handsome Lake was a drunk, the type of man you would cross the street to avoid. In 1798, he drank himself into a coma.
After three days, his daughters believed he was dead, and they dressed him for burial. But he came to, and would tell of a journey into the future that four spirit entities took him on. They showed him that human beings would severely damage the environment, and that people would suffer. This included a vision of the destruction of soil, and the poisoning of the air.
However, for this essay, I will focus on his saying that, due to human activity, water would heat up, become oily, and unfit for human consumption. I remember when Bill Moyers was interviewing Onondaga Faith Keeper Oren Lyons at Oren's cabin, and Oren told him about the Code of Handsome Lake. How did he know this in 1798, Oren asked?
I remember when my boys were little, sitting in that same cabin. Oren said that while this vision of environmental devastation would come to be, it was up to every generation to act in a manner that said "not on my turn." I would often visit Handsome Lake's grave, and be determined to do all Icould. Today, as an old man, I think of thee things, and look at my children and my grandson. Surely my generation has failed them. I understand why young people say we need to try something far beyond what my generation accomplished.
"Kill the pig. Cut her throat. Spill her blood."
-- William Golding; Lord of the Flies; 1954; chapter 4, page 58.
I had a novel idea while watching the morning news. Imagine, if you will, a shipload of mainly republicans being stranded on an island. Recognizing that the opportunity exists for them to create a self-government based upon a mutated form of christian nationalism that worships the bloated pre-corpse of a sociopathis swine, they seek to inflict their fears and hatreds upon all inhabitants of the island.
Leadership is based upon three things: who has the biggest mouth, who tells the biggest lies, and who has a tiny, mushroom-shaped penis. The last qualification is required for leadership among this tribe of women-hating males, although their ranks will accept applications from women-hating women.
This is the classic setting for "crowd psychology" versus individuality with a twist of crowd psychopathy. The struggle between emotional urges and rational thinking. Immoral group passions versus individual morality. Scenes of sacrificing massive quantities of McDonald's french fries -- let's call them "freedom fries" -- to the orange blob. Heinz ketchup dripping from the walls.
I haven't gotten to where adults, led by Jack Smith, arrive to give these boys a damned good spanking. But I'm working on it. I'm thinking that the best outcome would be if the good people of the United States stand up and "kill" the maga swine in the 2024 election. Indeed, the 2024 election will not be a Hollyweird flick based upon my novel. It is real life, not reel life. We are facing a threat to our democracy that is more dangerous than any we have faced inhistory. And we have the opportunity to crush it. Let's roll.
July 29: Las Vegas (Showtime PPV)
Title fight: Errol Spence Jr. vs. Terence Crawford, 12 rounds, for Spence's WBC, IBF and WBA welterweight titles and Crawford's WBO welterweight title.
The boxing community is eagerly anticipating what -- at least on paper -- promises to be this era's supreme "Super Fight." It ranks with the 9-16-81 showdown between Sugar Ray Leonard and Thomas "the Hitman" Hearns for the undisputed welterweight title. Ray's record of 30-1 (21 KOs) included his avenging his lone loss to Roberto Duran, while Tommy was 32-0 (30 KOs) at the time.
In this fight, both title-holders are undefeated: Spence is 28-0 (22 KOs), and Crawford is 39-0 (30 KOs). Each man appears to be in his prime. Both are 100% confident in their ability to not only defeat the other, but to knock him out. And there is mighty good reason for that.
On various internet boxing forums, as expected, there are those who are fully convinced that their fighter will devastate the opponent. In my opinion, if one is unable to make a solid case for each guy winning, you are not able to view it objectively. They are both so good that it is hard to see either losing at this point -- until it happens.
At 5' 9" Spence is an inch taller than Bud, but Crawford has a two inch reach advantage. I do not think these will come into play in a manner that determines the outcome. What could be much more important, in my opinion, is who serves as referee, followed by who judges the fight. This could be significant if, in a worst case scenario, a foul -- accidental or otherwise -- causes an injury. The obvious one would be a head butt causing a cut. Let's hope such a thing doesn't happen.
Both men were outstanding amateurs, winning national titles and competing at the higher levels of international competition. Spence fought in the 2012 Olympics, and had a 135-12 record before entering the professional ranks. Crawford had competed in the 2008 Olympic trials, losing to the eventual winner (who went on to be disqualified for using cold medication at the Olympics). In his 58-12 amateur career, Bud beat future pro champions Mikey Garcia and Danny Garcia.
The making of this fight was difficult because each man belonged to a different promotional stable. Spence's promoter demanded a larger pay day, because he held more belts, and they claimed had fought a higher level of competition at welterweight. Bud had held titles at lower weights, and moved up to welterweight when Spence was already dominating the class. The truth is that, despite the welterweight division having serious depth, these two are levels above the other top ten contenders.
A common opponent was former champion Shawn Porter, one of the toughest guys of his era. Spence won a split-decision over Shawn in 2019. Porter beat an undefeated top contender in his next fight. Then Crawford TKOed him in a brutal fight. It is, of course, important to recognize that neither Errol of Bud fight like Porter, so make of their results against Shawn what you will.
I may not be fully objective here, but I think that the smartest members of the boxing community that I interact with all say this fight could go either way. This includes a range of old fighters, including ex-champions, and trainers that I respect. By no coincidence, that is exactly the way that my son and I see this upcoming Super Fight. Depending upon the day of the week, my son and I make strong cases for each fighter.
In the end, the thing that stands out to me is something Teddy Atlas recently said. He noted that both are elite fighters in their primes, making for an even fight on paper. But, he noted, Bud has something extra, distinct from any other fighter in recent times, and Teddy favors him for that reason.
If you get one PPV fight this year -- pitch in with a few people if necessary -- this is the one to get. If you love the art of body-punching, you are in for a special treat.
"Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished." -- Lao Tzu
The air quality in upstate New York has been poor the last few days, and so I have spent more hours inside than I normally would. Being old, I find if I spend much time in the garden, I get a headache. Not that it is healthy for young folks to breathe this. So, in between short periods in the garden, feeding the animals domestic and wild, and going out to enjoy the fire flies at night, I've stayed inside.
This gave me a chance to spend more time in the last 24 hours to read and think about OP/threads on DU:GD. One in particular that I found interesting had to do with the defendent's vile hatred of Barack Obama. Now, the defendent does not believe that non-white human beings are as intelligent or capable as white men. Thus, his earlier focus on trying to prove Obama was not born in the United States, and had not earned his university degrees.
The defendent is jealous not only of President Obama being significantly better educated, but of his speaking abilities, be it in an interview or major speech. Add to this that the defendent's favorite tactic against opponents is to humiliate them one stage. Think of Jeb Bush or any of a number of "nasty" women. Then watch this:
For the twelve years since, the defendent's hatred of President Obama has only grown. His lack of understanding of how the federal government works convinced him that President Obama "tapped" his phone -- a paranoid, hold-over fear from his relationship with Roy Cohn. He still believes this today.
Indeed, the defendent is convinced that the two people who, from behind the curtains, are in control of his legal problems are Obama and Clinton. Now, keep in mind that the defendent is a sociopath, and as such, will have longer and more frequent episodes in his melt-down this summer. I will suggest that evidence of his delusions of being persecuted by President Obama will find expression in the coming moths will be how often he attempt's a dog whistle to his most unhinged followers by using Barack's middle name.
The greater the pressure becomes, the larger the defendent will view it as a conspiracy against him. For he lacks the capacity to grasp that he does not have the "right" to break the law. He will continue to believe he is being betrayed by "rats" ..... consider, for example, how his brain processes Rudy Giuliani and Michael Roman, upon advice from lawyers, making proffers to Jack Smith's team investigating attempts to overthrow the 2020 election.
Now, there have been numerous discussions on the pace of the DOJ investigation, with a wide range of opinions expressed. Everyone has exactly the same right to their opinion, as I have to mine. But I will note that I recently disagreed with a community member who said that approaching the investigation in the classic pyramid model was an error. Rudy and Roman are, by definition, level two. This, despite Roman being relatively unknown to the public.
While we all want to see some better known ass-clowns such as Roger Stone and Steve Bannon prosecuted, they are level three. Rudy and Roman are able to identify the criminal behaviors of other level two participants -- including Meadows and a cluster of lawyers -- as well as the specific behaviors of the defendent that influenced them.
As citizens, this leaves us two options. The first is to be upset that the investigations and indictments have not, and are not, going in the way that we wish the would. The second is to relax and enjoy how this is unfolding. And to keep in mind that as the defendent experiences his melt down, and sees a growing number of people "betraying" him in a "massive conspiracy," he will always believe that Barack Obama is at the nucleus, calling all the shots. For President Obama is the man that the defendent wishes he could be.
Have a happy and safe 4th of July!
Earlier this week, 1988 Olympic and IBF heavyweight champion was coming to a town not far from me. My son and I had planned to go meet with him, but our schedule was a bit delayed as it includes his wife and their ten month old son. When they picked me up, I said I hoped that Ray Mercer hadn't left. But my daughter-in-law said she had called, and Ray would be there.
It's not every day that one gets to sit down for a meal with one of the toughest heavyweight fighters of the 1990s. Now Ray, who only took up the sport at the age of 23 while in the military, did turn pro in 1989, and fought until 2008, but his best years were in the '90s. We had a blast talking about his career, and his opinion of other fighters. I'm thinking a couple of these might be of interest to members of this DU sports forum.
I found his fight against Tommy Morrison to be extremely impressive. Around that time in 1991, I became good friends with a new employee at the mental health clinic. Over the years, we became the best community crises response team in the region, many times being called outside of our county. Mt friend aso liked the great sport, and favored the 27 - 0 Morrison, while I favored the 17 - 0 Mercer.
This wasn't only because Ray had decisioned Tommy in the amateurs. It had more to do with each one's performances and quality of opposition. While Tommy had some big names on his record, they were both way past their primes and on losing streaks when he beat them. Ray had fought high quality opposition, including some not long after their primes, and in his previous bout, an undefeated (27 - 0) contender for the WBO heavyweight title/
I told Ray that each year, I post film of his devastating knockout of Morrison on my buddy's facebook page. He laughed and asked, "Really?" My son assured him that it is a tradition I enjoy. So Ray autographed a photo of him landing the most brutal punch on Tommy for my friend. He explained that he knew the type of steroid Tommy had been using, and that Tommy would be gassed by the 5th or 6th round. He also said that Morrison's punches were painful to take, especially the body shots.
My son asked him about his fight against former UFC heavyweight champion Tony Sylvia in 2009. At first, it was supposed to be a boxing match, but Tony could not get licensed to box a former heavyweight champion in his debut. There was some back and forth about if there would be a MMA fight. But nothing was settled on fight night. Ray was upset he wasn't getting a fight and thus paid, and he started drinking as he watched the undercard. By the time the bout was agreed upon, he told us he was very intoxicated. He won by a one-punch KO in 9 seconds.
Ray was impressed by my son's accomplishments in the amateurs, and asked why he hadn't turned pro? Despite my saying that his primary responsibilities were now to his wife and son -- who remained quiet at this point -- I was outnumbered. Ray had questions about my ring experience, and also my "record" as a trainer. He was curious why I passed on an offer a couple years ago to be a co-trainer for the national (amateur) team?
After I explained the three reasons I'm not interested in participating these days -- the damage it does to fighters, the terrible corruption, and because of my 10-month old grandson -- Ray pulled me aside. He said, "You are a good trainer. You build fighters, preparing them physically and mentally. Boxing needs people like you." He said that now he is thinking of moving up near us, and we talked about the lack of boxing gyms. I noted that my main focus these days is my grandson.
"Yeah, but look," Ray said. "Your grandson is wearing the boxing trunks here that your son said you bought for him. And we both know that little boy is going to be the world champion when he grows up!" We then shared a laugh as more people in the restaurant were coming to see my beautiful grandson than an ex-heavyweight champion.
Profile InformationMember since: Mon Dec 29, 2003, 07:49 PM
Number of posts: 72,682
- 2023 (68)
- 2022 (101)
- 2021 (54)
- 2020 (102)
- 2019 (93)
- 2018 (95)
- 2017 (92)
- 2016 (102)
- 2015 (143)
- 2014 (134)
- 2013 (71)
- 2012 (90)