The Mission Statement

The Mission Statement

Gentlemen. Ladies. Thank you for coming. If you could all please take your seats, we can get started with today’s business.

In order for an organization to coordinate its actions, the communication of a Mission Statement to everyone, in and out of the organization, has been deemed very important. We need everyone on the same page, sharing expectations and direction. Therefore, at our meeting last week, we set today’s agenda to the creation of the Conundrum’s Mission Statement. We need to state who we are, what we intend to achieve, and the principles which will guide us to our goals.

Mr. Chairman, if I may submit this first draft for discussion:

“Conundrum Rules!”

Yes, thank you, Mr. Latimer. An excellent slogan. Perhaps a bit too terse to convey the full message, but a simple, easily understood summary. Our thanks to you folks in Advertising for getting the ball rolling.

Mr. Chairman, we are a secret organization, n'est pas?  The advertising it is outside our purpose.

Well, perhaps, Mlle Laflame, but much of the power of a secret is in people knowing the secret exists without knowing what the secret is. But you raise a good point in defining who we are and how we prefer to work with undetected but effective subtlety. Can somebody offer some phrasing to capture both Mr. Latimer’s and Mlle Laflame’s ideas?

Perhaps:

“Conundrum controls the economy through subterfuge.”

Thank you, Mr. Tao. More discussion?

Yes. Trickery alone sometimes does not get the job done, Mr. Chairman. We need to include some more strong-armed means in that statement. The Tactics Division suggests “by subterfuge, sabotage, and suppression.”

Ah, if we may also add. While wealth may be largely concerned with the economy, our business has other important dealing in people’s lives. International Affairs Division seeks to exploit the cultural rifts for opportunities to gain power and influence, often long before any actual capitalization of the advantage can be realized.

Ja, and let us not forget the resources in the physical world that we need to possess, develop, and deliver. Logistics and Engineering support the insertion of “environment” amongst the targeted elements.

Yes, thank you all. So we now have:

“Conundrum controls the economy, culture, and environment through subterfuge, sabotage, and suppression.”

Legal here. The word “controls” seems unfocused. Mr. Tkazal in International uses a much stronger word in explaining the process of locating and developing advantages – exploit. The implication of the purpose in whatever manipulations we may undertake is much clearer.

Mr. Chairman, I believe we also have neglected to state what is the underlying purpose and value to be achieved in our action. Who will benefit? What will that benefit be?

Very good point. Anyone?

Well, us, of course. With money and power to do whatever we want. Ba-ha-ha, so to speak.

Lacks specificity, but does provide flexibility for future expansion.

Y’know, youse guys (and gals) at the top of this pile needs to remember us in the ditches too. We ain’t getting all the money and power to do whatever we wants, but we’s part Conundrum’s success too. A little Conundrum applied grease to ease our way through them problem moments makes it worthwhile for us whilst we waits for ours bigger things to come.

Mr. Fingers, thank you for that reminder. An enterprise of our nature does not rest on plans and schemes alone without the staff to execute the necessary actions. Our mission must include the inspiration to recruit, reward, retain, and even advance our deserving minions.

Sir, Human Resources would like to propose the following addition.

“Conundrum strives to maximize its wealth, power, and influence to ensure the comfort and freedom of action of its officers, employees, and friends. All others are either obstacles or resources to be harvested.”

Oh, my, yes, Mrs. Gruber, that will certainly give staff and associates the understanding and incentive to be on the right side of that distinction. Might the Chair suggest we further qualified the “employees” with the term “loyal” to establish a properly elevated expectation of full-hearted participation in order to gain the benefits?

Is there any more discussion? All right then, the Conundrum Mission Statement shall be:

“Conundrum exploits the economy, culture, and environment through subterfuge, sabotage, and suppression. Conundrum strives to maximize its wealth, power, and influence to ensure the comfort and freedom of action of its officers, loyal employees, and friends. All others are either obstacles or resources to be harvested.”

As this statement meets with everyone’s satisfaction, Number Two, will you please see to its publication and distribution? Meeting adjourned. Go find us some more money, power, or whatever, everyone. That is your mission.

Mentally Stalled

I  am caught in other distractions, no thought complete,
So my avid readers (if any) this week are victims of the heat.
Return again next week if you would subject yourself to more,
And we both may see what from my mind does pour.

Conflict in Two Voices

Conflict in Two Voices

##-##

Scene: Advanced to downstage center, a middle-aged couple sit in two armchairs which are angled largely to face audience. There is a small table between them on which there are two empty glasses and a pitcher (of iced tea). When spotlight comes up, the couple is facing towards the audience. The stage is otherwise unlit.

Gloria (facing forward)

“A Poem of Love” by Mrs. Gloria Eversen

Sam (facing forward)

“A Poem of Hate” by Samuel Eversen

Gloria

The sun shone down on the golden field of grain.

Sam

Dark and overcast, the sky was drenched in black.

Gloria

Two persons approached amidst the splendor.

Sam

None trespassed upon this scene of bleakness.

Gloria

On the right walked he, on the left was she.

Sam

Forced together, in the dark inside, he and she sat apart.

Gloria

The plants filled the air with perfumes of sweetness.

Sam

The crude wood fire before them belched out its choking smoke.

Gloria

He looked at her, she at him, and their eyes sang songs of love,

Sam

Their eyes glared brighter than the fire, repulsing each other away,

Gloria

Clasping hands, their bodies merged into a kindling glow.

Sam

Until able to stand no more, the dark gap grew between them.

Gloria (turns towards Sam)

Good evening, Sam.

Sam (turns towards Gloria)

Good evening, dear.

Gloria

How was the office?

Sam

How was the house?

Gloria

Did business go well?

Sam

Was your bridge club successful?

Gloria

How is the Stock Market?

Sam

Is the washing machine working yet?

Gloria

It is working fine.

Sam

Business is awful.

Gloria (face forward)

“The Sea” by Mrs. Gloria Eversen

Sam (face forward)

“The Boulder” by Samuel Eversen

Gloria

Swiftly swirling sliding surf,

Sam

Steadfast sturdy stationary stone,

Gloria

Continuously sweeping in and out,

Sam

Perpetually standing still,

Gloria

Holding the harmonies of eternity.

Sam

Forming the foundation of forever.

Gloria (addressing Sam)

Care for some iced tea, dear?

Sam (turns to answer)

Thank you.

(Gloria pours and hands him a glass.)

Will you join me?

Gloria (answers, then look s forward)

No, thank you.

Sam (forward)

As a child, I was raised in the streets of the city amongst the cars and the crowds on the sidewalks. We moved to the country when I was ten, but my heart remained in the city, where I was raised as a child.

Gloria

As a child, I was raised in the fields of the country amongst the trees and animals. I remained there all my years, in the country, where I was raised as a child.

Sam

But when I became a teenager in the country, my attention turned from the city to girls, although I could hardly turn their attentions to me. I was never the athlete or the brain, but just a scrawny kid who was always hanging around.

Gloria

When I became a teenager however, I was suddenly confronted with something other than the trees and animals. Boys began to notice me and hang around. I guess I always was somewhat attractive. I could hardly find a moment alone.

Sam

I thought I was destined to the life of a loner, until I met my wife.

Gloria

I thought I would never escape the crowd, until I met Samuel.

Sam

I remember the first day we met. It was a hot summer day and I was mowing the lawn without my shirt on. I was so undeveloped that I hardly ever took my shirt off. Consequentially, I had nearly no tan. But the day was so hot, I had shed the shirt and thus acquired a full sunburn. I saw her coming down the street. She was a beauty, her hair blowing in the slight breeze, her face full of life. And I looked like a melted piece of bright red licorice.

Gloria

The first day we met was a blistery cold winter day. I was just coming down with a cold and I looked terrible. My hair had been tousled by the wind and my face was red from the cold. He was shoveling the driveway, all bundled up with nothing showing but his frozen face. But even then I could tell what a hunk of a man he was.

Sam

I had noticed her for several weeks, and finally I summoned up just enough courage to ask her for a date.

Gloria

He was a total stranger, but he just casually asked me for a date.

Sam

I could see she hesitated, but finally she murmured out a yes.

  

Gloria

I could not contain myself when he asked for some strange reason. Something inside just made me shout out yes.

Sam

I was so surprised. I never did get along with people very well. I was always contradicting them and arguing, until I met my wife.

Gloria

I guess it was just my destiny to go out with him on that first day. I could never disagree with anyone. Everybody claimed that I just could not say no, until I married Sam.

Sam

With my wife, I finally found somebody with whom I could agree. When we were married, we agreed to argue.

Gloria

And we have not had an argument about agreeing ever since we were married.

Sam (to Gloria)

Well, the night is late.

Gloria (to Sam)

Or the morning is early.

Sam

Good night, dear.

(They stand and embrace.)

Gloria

Or good morning.

(They exit opposite sides of stage.)

Guide to Playing with Invisible, Silent, and/or Imaginary Friends

Guide to Playing with Invisible, Silent, and/or Imaginary Friends

Many of us have enough to do in keeping up to the demands of friendships amongst those we encounter each day. Those so socially engaged oft have little understanding for people who would further complicate their lives with interactions with folks who are not there. Nonetheless, there are still those who willingly (even preferably) seek the companionship of our more inconspicuous friends.

A lack of presence does not terminate our relations with the absent. The persons around us who have never engaged with the missing person might readily dismiss that apparent void as unnecessary to the reality of the moment. But our insubstantial friend peers out of our eyes and listens through our ears from his enthronement in our minds. As the fancy takes him, he may added commentary and interpretation that may have otherwise passed unnoticed by us. Perhaps there are some we encounter whose quick mental impressions we can smooth out of the wrinkles of our brains, but once we have allowed a friend to take up residence for any time, we will forever find his footprints scattered throughout our domes. Sometimes we allow our enemies to stomp around under there too.

What should we do with these unevictible absentee lodgers? Some may chose to wall them up behind bricks of neglect and forgetfulness, writing off those rooms as irrecoverable losses; we use so little of our brain capacity that the depletion seems slight. Some learn to double-bunk (and more) our guests into composite memories from which the component entities can rarely be separated again (especially useful for multiple exes, I hear in country music). But I would suggest that the best approach is to be a courteous host and allow your guests to have their fun. You too will benefit if you follow the proper guidelines.

First, you should probably learn to distinguish the characteristics of your relation with your cerebral comrade. Friendships start, pause, and even end in many manners, with more variety than can ever be catalogued. I will offer here three simple bins into which to sort your non-apparent guests, but readily admit you may find them too restrictive, non-exclusive, or totally unnecessary. There are:

• Invisible friends - It may not have been so long since you have seen your friend that you no longer know what he looks like. But the people around you nowadays do not share your memory of the invisible friend. This is not somebody they know and, if they accept your avowal for his existence, they do so as faith in you, not in your friend.
• Silent friends – There is little to no fresh exchange with the silent friend. For a deceased friend, there may be scant prospect for any new input. Nonetheless, the wellspring of memories of a silent friend may provide endless re-runs and even revised editions.
• Imaginary friends – A simple lack of reality does not engender an imaginary friend in our minds. Many real people whom we have never met have been subject of enough tales that our imagination has constructed from them a persona for us to know (and befriend). Oh, yes, there are certainly imaginary friends who are totally fictional creations, but it is our ability to animate them in our brains that permitted our friendships to blossom.

Some suggestions to do:

To the degree that you share yourself, share your otherwise hidden friends. They are part of you now.

Listen to your friends. Ask them for assistance and amusement. Remember the good times. Remember the lessons learned and the techniques and thinking employed to learn them. So often you did these things together and you can replay them again (with variation) if you allow it.

Be prepared to hear something new from your friends. They are reacting to your new experiences, even with their old eyes, ears, and words. They will enliven your thoughts and provide new viewpoints when you allow their characters the chance to speak within the brain you share.

Respect your friends, but do not idolize them. It is okay to disagree with them (and they with you) in your thoughts just as you might in person. They are your friends, remember?

Maybe you should not:

Talk aloud to your friends when other persons are present. If you feel it is necessary to do so, please at least introduce them to the people in the room.

Close yourself off to the possibility of their return. Do not become so enraptured with your memories of a friend that you will dismiss an opportunity to extend your memories with fresh contact. Even the long-gone friend (prominent amongst the Silents) may have new material discovered by you or others. Sequels and remakes do occur and sometimes live up to or improve upon the original; if nothing else, they remind you of the original.

Allow them to take over. Hey, this is your psyche and your life. They have their own body (or book, or mythical beast) to inhabit. Let them talk to you, but draw the line when they attempt to possess you entirely. Friendship has its limits, doesn't it?

The friendships that go into making us who we are should be treasured even as they grow old and distant. Give them some attention and they will remain shiny, able to reflect back to you that which you store within. Oh, sure, some will have the warps and distortions of a funhouse mirror, but that is part of the fun of life too.

Under the Powdered Wig

Under the Powdered Wig

Without phone, light bulb, nor power of steam,
Our Founders forged the American dream.
Esteemed and praised, they guide us even now
With their thoughts to the laws they did endow.

We discuss what were the Founders' intents
As we parse our historic documents.
We oft forget they all did not agree,
But would trade one's wishes for all's liberty.

Do our minds today differ much from theirs?
Are ours a new set of worries and cares?
Or did they leave lessons on how to cope

With whatever new ages bring within our scope?

We need not stop thinking at pauses long past
Where they then decided on what then was asked.
They taught us to keep growing our country
With rules to talk and choose now as our key.

Pooka Privacy

Pooka Privacy
I was talking with Harvey yesterday and he made a very good point. People are seldom what they seem, he said, but we seldom seem to need to know who they are. Not that we never might not be safer to identify the deeply hidden lunatic or sociopath lurking amongst us. But the occasions which would make much difference to us personally are so rare that the investment of nervous energy to it will generally be wasted if repeatedly applied to everyone we meet.

Perhaps that is why I pay so little attention to people beyond the demands of courtesy. Courtesy is an important shield for both the wielder and the recipients seeing themselves in its shining surface. Harvey says so too and he is one of the most courteous beings I know. Oh, sure, he likes his little jokes, but he only pranks to help people, not to hurt or humiliate them. A bit of humor does not contradict the unfathomable sincerity of courtesy. It merely serves to bring attention back to the surface of what is seen and said and to remind us only internally of the mysteries and absurdities of what lies unseen and unsaid beneath.

But can we live our lives knowing people by what they publicly show and tell or do we need to know their inner beings? Who has permission to peek behind our (Jungian) character masks to glimpse at the selves even we often do not know? Do we grant this permission or is it the natural right of others to feed their curiosity and suspicion in precaution for their safety and security? Certainly our curiosities and anxiety-driven motivations are natural enough, but is trust not an evolutionary compromise to allow our species to cooperate rather than to skittishly remain frozen, unable to turn our back to our fellow Man?

Privacy has never been a big concern for Harvey, but he respects discretion. If folks have a story to tell, well, he’s all ears, so to speak. But if they prefer friendless silence, he will readily seek the more welcoming company of others. Nobody ever met and parted friends with a more convivial stranger than Harvey. He quietly accepts what others offer with the importance they place upon it. Infrequently, he may reciprocate, but not compete, with his own tales, whether truthful, fancy, or some proper blend thereof. But it is his willingness to listen to any and all who so often found themselves misheard, marginalized, or ignored which quickly endears him to them.

Harvey says it is the simple courtesy of acknowledging that anyone may have a story awaiting an airing, whether to share our human experiences of joy, grief, or inexplicable fortune, good, bad or not yet known. The storyteller has a license to withhold or to embellish his tale beyond simple truth, to don whatever masks his players require to animate their actions, and to set the stage as a frame for our attention. We, in the world surrounding the individual, are best served by our patience to listen from our seats in the theater, not by any desires to storm the stage and shut down the presentation. Wait for the Q&A, he says. A teller in a good mood from a receptive audience may be even more revealing (and entertaining).

Does an invisible Pooka in the room put people off? It only seems to bother some people when they know he is there and many others do not sense any malevolence either knowing of his presence or not. After all, they say, he is not listening to anything we are not saying to others already and who is he going to be able to tell?

But the troubled ones see it differently. The Pooka is uninvited, they say. Our public stories are only semi-public occasions to be relayed to our privately selected audience. Not that we have anything to hide, of course, they say, but we learned in grade school that etiquette requires that nobody in the chain is allowed to read a passed note except the recipient (unless the teacher spots its passage). It simply is not playing by the rules, they say. Nobody likes a tattle-tale. Mind your own business.

Well, Harvey knows who he is and what he does, so it does not upset him when some folks feel him step on their toes. He may be big, but he treads as light as air. His mission is to lend an ear to the neglected. People do not need to fear him. The Bogeymen will cause enough mischief to the deserving without his help.

Fore Father's Day

Fore Father's Day
Nearly all have had one,
Some had two, maybe more.
We grew up as their son
To inherit their chore.

On this day we may think
Of those who tutored us.
Generations to link
Through us to the next thus.

What of the old man came
To grow in the grandchild?
What role ours in the game
So long by the ages styled?

When the Hand is Ready But the Mind is Not

When The Hand Is Ready But The Mind Is Not
When the hand is ready but the mind is not,
Not a word can you write nor a thought can you jot.
And the hand hangs there, paused, ready to jump,
But without the mind's command, the whole body sits like a lump.

But the words don't come and the hand is dumb and still,
Sitting, balanced. On the very summit, but unable to roll down the hill.
Oh, please, send some words, a thought, to relieve this poor hand,
Who is posed hopelessly where the mind's conviction made him stand.

Saddling the Gerrymander

Saddling the Gerrymander

---

We have gone through three consecutive Congressional election cycles (2008, 2010, 2012) with the measures of the public's approval rating for Congress sinking below 20% on Election Day. The opinion is shared by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents; Congress simply is incompetent to do the job for which they were chosen. It seems like a sure sign that it is time to replace these non-performers. And yet, in those three elections, only 8% of the incumbent U.S. House Representatives took the hint to retire (many to seek other offices). And when the other 92% ran for re-election, 90% of the time they won. These results are only slightly different than the three preceding election cycles (2002, 2004, and 2006) when the approval ratings were 47% (2002) to 26% (2006); then 7% retired and 96% were re-elected.

Why, we might ask, if nearly everyone believes the members of Congress cannot do their jobs, do we continue their employment? It is not that there are no other persons in the job-seeker pool eager to fill those positions. While the Gallup poll shows that 65% of adults cannot name their Representative, the approval ratings for those individual members in their home districts averages around 50% or above historically (and is currently about 46%). In the voters' minds, it is not the person they chose who cannot do the job, it is the other 434 Representatives who are interfering with their Representative's ability to “get it done”.

Thus, we enter the voting booth with a dilemma. Despite the urge to purge the country of all the incompetents, we tend to want to keep the one gem from our own district. We have no say in the ousting of the non-cooperative, counter-productive, and simply wrong-headed Representatives who hinder the progress of the person we chose before and whom we wish to choose again.

Well, then let's give ourselves the ability to tell those voters in the foreign districts what we think of their Representatives. I propose that in each U.S. House election we allow a randomly selected extra district to cast their “itinerant votes” to be counted alongside of the local vote. Since every Congressional district is approximately the same size, there will be no inherent imbalance between the local and itinerant votes, but at last our Congressmen will need to consider not just their parochial appeal but also the effects of their behavior on the larger national stage.

In order to not forewarn Congressional candidates (thereby allowing them to tailor their campaigns to the biases of a fully known electorate), the selection of the second voting block should be delayed until after the local primaries are completed. But within one or two days after the last party primary, the Federal Election Commission will oversee the coupling of every District with another in a random process. There will be no votes nor cognitive decision-making, simply the luck of the draw. But there may be some controlling rules to ensure diversity. For example, adjacent districts cannot be coupled nor may any two districts be paired (i.e. each are the itinerant district for the other). With this prompt national process in place, the information can rapidly be exchanged between the agencies administering the local elections and the final ballots prepared for the national Election Day.

By adoption of this vote-sharing process, we will double our individual influence in the democratic mechanism while indulging our national proclivity to tell others what they ought to think.  While there may be Constitutional and State regulation wrinkles yet to be worked out, moving forward with this idea offers greater accountability for Congressional results in governing our entire nation, not just the local pork barrel projects that endear our Representatives to their current constituents.

Aesop Visits America

Aesop Visits America

(Can you guess which one is the (almost) real two millennium old fable?)

Donkey in the Lion's Skin

Donkey wished to be seen as the leader of the herd. He therefore found and donned a lion's pelt. When the other animals saw him, they respectfully stepped back or fearfully hid. But when he brayed out his orders for them, they recognized his voice and told him he was even more of an ass than he was before. The elephants said they did not notice the difference and asked for the return of the lion's skin.

Elephant at the Watering Hole

Elephant approached the watering hole where many animals were gathered. As they drank, the pool  noticeably shrank and some of the smaller animals could no longer reach from the edge of the depression down to the surface of the water.  Elephant flourished his trunk and remarked he could fetch the water and deliver it closer to them. The animals stepped aside and Elephant took a huge draining gulp. Then he pissed out a voluminous puddle at his rear feet.

The Sheep Rebel

The Sheep were finally fed up with their lowly station and poor treatment. They were fleeced of their warm coats and slaughtered for stew. They were not even invited to the afternoon tea party. But they did not know how to mount an effective campaign to demand changes. So they hired the Foxes to advise them. The Foxes brought in the Wolves as known problem solvers and soon the (remaining) Sheep had no further complaints.

Dogs and Wolves

Dogs had served as guardians and keepers of the peace for many years. But some animals insinuated that it was hard to tell them apart from Wolves, both in appearance and manner. The more often these comments were repeated, the more truth they seemed to breed, for the Dogs became more irritated. The meek dogs cowed by the criticism quit the force and the aggressive dogs joined the wolfpack. The chattering Monkeys replaced the Dogs as investigators and reporters of real and imagined infractions. Hard to say if anybody noticed. Wasn't it the monkeys who started the dog-wolf rumors?

The Octopus

The animals selected Octopus to be the arbitrator of their disputes. The sessions wherein they would meet with Octopus were both dramatic and confusing as his writhing tentacles seemed to wave independently in unpredictable directions while the unblinking eyes in his head offered little insight to his thoughts. But, by whatever method Octopus employed, when he tallied up the consensus of his appendages and his head and inked his decisions, that was what all the animals lived by. Many still thought his opinions were wrong or strange, but they would live by them until the next time they had an opportunity to argue with (or in front of) the Octopus.

The Chameleon

Chameleon decided to run for office and campaigned actively amongst all the animals. He blanched his skin when he talked to the sheep and darkened to meet with the crows. He donned stripes and spots with each such change of audience. His popularity soared in the polls. The week before the voting, his opponent and he appeared on a televised debate. Unfortunately, with the diversity of the broadcast audience, Chameleon did not know which suit to wear. Nobody recognized him at the debate and thought he had dropped out of the race. His opponent won in a landslide.

  Beaver and the Stone Dam

Beaver had served as the Water Commissioner for many years. His dams and weirs were sturdy, integrated, and dependable in controlling the flow of the river and the rain through drought and storm. But one day, a flock of migrating geese arrived with tales of an immense dam built of stone that they had seen. Man, they told the animals, built such dams which were stronger and larger than any Beaver had ever attempted. The monkeys repeated the geese's tale, even after they had left to continue their migration. The animals felt that they could surely do anything Man could and even remarked upon the similarity of Man and Monkey. They fired Beaver and tore up his works to make room for a new stone dam. But, in fact, they did not know Man's secret of concrete and they could not build a Man dam. The rains washed them out of the valley the next spring.

Bears and Bulls

Bears and Bulls would trade anything. Most of the items which they swapped never had any useful function either to the bears or the bulls, although many other animals were eager to possess and use them. For their trading, the things were merely token – the more worthless, the faster the trades were made. In their eagerness to make the biggest and most elaborate deals, the traders gathered to themselves more and more items, depriving the other animals of their actual value. When the animals asked for some to use, the prices increased exorbitantly. Eventually the Bears and Bulls had almost everything for which they had no use and the rest had not enough to meet their needs.

Things to Do

Things to Do (circa 1970)
“Make a list,” I said to me,
  “Of things to be done immediately,”
And having so said I made a note
  To find some paper on which I wrote.

I labeled the paper, “Things to Do”
  And then I thought of one thing, then of two,
Then seven, ten, and twenty-three and more,
  Faster than I could write down the score.

I scribbled across the page into the borders;
  I made notes in the margins and all of the corners.
And then I looked down at this mess of words
  And strolling to bed, I decided, “Work is for the birds.”

---

Office Ruba'iyat

Office Ruba'iyat

(verses I-XXI)

I

Boot! For the coffee to drive sleep away

Brews in ritual to prepare the day;

‘Tis time to resume the suspended tasks,

Ne’er finished from the piles of yesterday.

II

Before the workday alarm sounded again,

While drowsing in bed where I still was lain,

I thought of why to rise from comfort there

And to commute to earn my daily grain.

III

And, as that electronic Cock did crow,

By worn habit, I made ready to go

In routines honed by the repetition

That mindless muscles and creaking joints know.

IV

Now the New Day begins same as the last,

Indistinctly from all those which have passed;

Years and decades trodden on this known path

To where my career deeds have been amassed.

V

Some indeed have gone, not to return there,

With new ones to fill the desks they left bare.

Their duties remain and reports are due,

Now the jobs for the next promoted heir.

VI

And, old and new, arrives each employee

Piping out their cries of “Coffee! Coffee!

Hot coffee!” – black, sweet, creamy and/or both –

They yearn for the roasted fruit of the tree.

VII

Come, fill the Cup, and let the labor start.

Delve for that data and fill up that chart.

The timeclock is ticking once I punch in

And there are hours to go ere I depart.

VIII

Whether a mocha or a hazelnut treat,

With creamer for white and crystals for sweet,

The elixir soon does its morning trick

And today’s monotony I can meet.

IX

Each Morn a thousand chores brings, they say;

Nine hundred three done by the end of day

With more atop my backlog to ignore

Until the next thousand add to the fray.

X

Well, let them lay there! What more can I do?

This darn computer is as slow as glue

And soon ad hoc requests will be forgot

To pass unanswered from the turmoil’s view.

XI

With me nestled in cubicle alone

Armed with a steaming mugful of my own,

I build the tome to tell each year’s tale

From what data is recorded and known.

XII

A Book of Facts and Figures should suffice

To get the answers and support advice

As we through the Wilderness forge our way;

Authorized truth, if not Paradise!

XIII

Some work for the now in this World; and some

Await promised Retirement to come;

Ah, but to take my paycheck, less the tax,

And worry not of a future too glum.

XIV

Look to cycling Nature upon her wheel,

Pedaling against Time’s persistent peal.

Nothing started but that it pauses and stops,

To restart from leftovers of the last meal.

XV

And those who composed the latest report,

That, if read, has a useful life so short,

Must soon return to the traveled treadmill

To produce the update of the same sort.

XVI

The dreams of careers from our bygone youth

Wither away – or not; that is the truth.

Whatever we do as our lives grow longer

Has power to disappoint or to soothe.

XVII

Think, in these environs repetitious

Whose clockwork ever grinds so pernicious,

How the lowest and the highest both pass

With no regards to how much ambitious.

XVIII

They say the State Library there still keeps

The copies of old reports in their heaps.

And those archives will chronicle forever

Our works long after our eternal sleeps.

XIX

I sometimes think nothing arises so fresh

That beneath it we could not find some flesh

Of another who planted seed long ago

Whose work then with that now did so enmesh.

XX

And for this not-so-novel, there is due

More credit to the past than to the new.

So though you gather acclaim for it all,

Expect the next author will forget you.

XXI

Ah, fill my Cup again and back to work.

No eternity not reason to shirk

That which I can do here and now despite

Wherever it goes in tomorrow’s murk

The Tree Frog

The Tree Frog (circa 1968, editted)

The tree frog perched in the tree outside my window,
Chirping about treasure at the end of the rainbow.
“Silly tree frog, what do you know about gold and riches?
“Silly man, what do you know about angels and witches?”

“Maybe there is gold under rainbows and you're right;
And maybe 'it is always darkest before the light'.
But maybe, silly frog, you're just can't see the reality,
An optimist who won't see the world's growing mortality.”

“No, conceited man, you pessimist, are living in unreality,
Who can't see through the deaths the increasing natality.
Each baby born may be the saviour of your world;
The one to see the international peace flag unfurled.”

“No, ridiculous frog, man knows love but not mankind!”
“No, blind man, all mankind wants peace, you will find!”
“No, ignoramus frog, I want peace, but I am the only one!”
But he started to argue back, so I shot him with my gun.

---

Tom McGee

Tom McGee(08/18/1969)

There was a man named Tom McGee
  Who lived up in a tree.
Children gathered from all around
  To hear his wonderful sound.

      CHORUS:
          For he tweedled and he deedled
          And he tweedle-deedle-deed
          He would tweedle-deedle-dee
          As he sat in his tree.

The children loved him, yes, they did,
  As if he were a kid,
But he was a silly old man,
  Who heard thunder and ran.

      CHORUS
          Yet he tweedled...

Children asked, “Tell us if you will
  Why rocks won't roll uphill?”
And he said, “I will sing a song
  Of why bells go ding dong.”

      CHORUS
          But he just tweedled...

And the children looked quite confused,
  What language had he used?
They all said, “Silly Tom McGee,
  How crazy can you be?”

      CHORUS
          For he just tweedled ...

Fun & Games in Times of Famine

Fun & Games in Times of Famine

American politics is as engaging of a spectator sports as any other on the market. We often find ourselves watching our paid professionals performing their competitive tasks with no greater display of ability than we can muster in our imagination as our own sitting on the sidelines. But reality may impose on us its harsh reminders of our frailty and unwillingness to subject ourselves to the battering and frustration of the political arena. Most of us prefer the simplicity and modest investment involved in choosing our “home team” for whom to cheer (and groan) versus the actual bruising of body and soul our elected professional endure to entertain us.

Judging by results, we might easily be lead to conclude that our politicians perform for the love of the game more than the satisfaction of achievement. With only a hope (but no certain expectation) for a temporary naming as this year's (or biennial) champion, they do not hang their motivation on easily crushed dreams of a dynastic string of victories. But the simpler goal of “giving it a good fight” with smaller incremental successes and setbacks (and the steady paycheck) can draw many a hope-filled candidate to make a bid for the professional ranks.

Now, wait, you skeptics say. Government is serious business, not some frivolous sport.  Oh, really. For a week of practice and competition, 92 professional golfers divvy up $8 million at the Masters tournament; that is an average of $87,000 pay per player. With that same money, we pay 92 U.S. Senators for 26 weeks. Government service is definitely “minor league” amongst the sports for which the American public willingly opens its wallet.

But despite their minor status as professional entertainers, politicians know how to put on a show. Whether following the party script or ad-libbing, their powers of melodramatic hyperbole are always at the ready. Told that the opposition says we are doing well, the well-trained politician knows to explain all the ways we are on the verge of failure. While admitting their culpability for any failure to act to solve a problem, they can remember to describe the dozen more ways that it is somebody else's fault really.

The politically negotiated sequester of federal funds is a prime example of their collaborative mastery of the arts of suspense, tradegy, and comedy. While clearly both parties love our nation (the somewhat bewildered innocent in their shared drama), they clash over who is best for her future. Perhaps our biases in the audience might allow us to choose hero and villain, but the story often relies heavily on the narrator to make that distinction clear. Their epic battles define the action, but not the resolution. Nobody wins, but nobody truly loses either - they merely escape to return in the next sequel. And so it is with the debt-ceiling crisis turned sequester crisis. By mutual consent, the combatants scheduled the time and place for their next match and retreated in the belief that the other party would take the blame for the destruction left behind by their building-toppling struggle for cleanup by the stagehands.

There is seemingly no issue too trivial or too important to not be the object kicked about in their game. Their steadfast beliefs in the ubitious opportunity to perform and the possible reversal of any setback (or progress) are the signs of the heart of a true professional. We may sometimes become disheartened as we watch the Sisyphic lack of success, but we should applaud their dedication to the process over the product. The long-term entertainment is in the enjoyment of the game (or the job for those of us in the more mundane workaday world), not the momentary and infrequent hanging of the banner in the rafters. Banners and trophies feed our pride, the foremost of the deadly sins. Politics and politicians teach us how to find satisfaction in the patient flow of events without the elusive closure too often sought by the idealist. If it did not happen today, we learn, do not think its possibility is gone forever. Think now and see the small performances independent of their cumulative contribution to a future outcome. Admire the skill and artistry of the players around you, whether for comedy relief or vicarious sharing of the moment.

The Writer's Block

It was a dark and stormy night when the wannabe author sat down to his task.  Let's see, Setting – Character – Conflict - ... - Action.

Yeah, right – Action.  Push that writer's block to the side and jump on the golden brick road to the adventure ahead.  He had been here before and probably has a much chance of success (not any) as the last hundred times he roosted here to hatch any idea.  More likely to lay another rotten egg.

Where was his story to tell?  On the other side of that big, old block obviously.  When life hands you a boulder, make rubble.  Chip away at the block and find its weak point.  Insert dynamite, add a spark, and stand back to admire the fireworks of destruction.

What a disappointment it will be if he does not find a story on the other side of that block. Perhaps the block is his story.

Who built this obstacle anyway?  Who set it in his path to fame, glory, or at least a story?

You did, you idiot, he tells himself.  You have not been chipping away at it; you have layered on to it.  Doodled graffiti on its surface and tossed more refuse atop to fuse it evermore firmly in place.

Now that you consider it, there is a certain majesty to its annoying ugliness. Maybe even some beautiful splatters in irritating juxtaposition to its scars of torturous mazes you have explored, never finding a way through.

The author marvels at his lifetime's creation, that inexpressible pile of crud that is his alone. It is not enough, but it is mine.

A Marriage Proposal

MARRYING IGNORANCE AND BLISS

The world possesses many more problems than I personally suffer.  That detachment provides an atmosphere for both a dispassionate reflection and a regrettable disinterest (for these are real problems for many real people to whom I harbor no ill will).  When I might be affected by a problem directly, my judgment will likely be impaired by my emotional biases.  Such problems may not be the proper topics for my reasoned advice.  But when urged to overcome my disinterest, I might be expected to produce a balanced analysis of a problem and its fair resolution or, at least, amelioration.

Recently, I was asked to undertake just such an evaluation.  The issue is currently under US Supreme Court consideration: Same-gender marriage, or more specifically the banning or legal denial of them.  While the deliberations of those learned jurists on the specific matters of the cases under review will surely be both intensive and historic, I wish to examine the issues more broadly.

Choice of language may play an important role emotionally in how people react on this matter.  The phrase “same-gender” implies much less about the shared activities and roles of the partners than the term “homosexual” which subtly emphasizes “sex” as their primary binding force.

Similarly, “marriage” has connotations from many realms of human affairs: religion, culture, history, law, and even science.  In the USA, while we share history and law (and sometimes science), we have made the deliberate Constitutional decision to allow Americans to live bound only by their own choices of religion and culture and not those of others, even if the others are a majority.  Thus, “marriage” in the context of this debate here should be restricted to what marriage conveys legally and historically.

As far as I have heard, there has not been a single challenge against the anti-marriage legislation for the denial of sexual conjugal rights.  Sexual relationships between consenting adults are often still subject to the moral teachings of religions and cultures, but, both historically and legally, this aspect of humanity has not been limited to (or from) the state of matrimony.  In prohibiting same-gender couples to marry, governments do not seek to ban or restrict sexual activities, extramarital or not.  Any religiously or culturally based discomfort with such relations between homosexually coupled Americans is not provided any relief by legislation such as the Defense of Marriage Act and its kindred State legislation.

The effect of these anti-marriage actions is to deny the advantages (and obligations) of marriage “under the law”.  Why are there legally granted and required conditions related to marriage?  If the society is not seeking to promote sex, what is society attempting to favor in the differential treatment of “married” couples versus “unmarried” couples?  The answer is: FAMILY.

The family is considered the basic unit of society.  While individuals may exist alone or congregate into populations, once they gather to form societies, the need to develop rules for interactions amongst individuals leads to identifying “more than one” entities within the larger group and to defining the rights and expectations for these units.  The word family derives from the Latin word for household (including the servants (famulus)).  The household members are ultimately responsible for the care and behavior of all those who live within their walls.

When one looks up “marry” in the dictionary, it is quickly discovered that we use the verb with a variety of subjective and objective nouns.  The bride’s father will marry his daughter to her husband.  The bride and groom will marry their spouses.  The justice of peace will marry the couple.  This is not just sloppy use of language – this is a formation of a new family from the old structures, with parents “giving” the bride (and groom) into the marriage, the spouses “pledging” themselves to the marriage, and the community “witnessing” the exchange as a new binding contract under law and custom.

Traditionally, we as a society have sanctioned a lot of privacy to what happens within the walls of that family household.  Sex is one cultural and religious taboo that receives a blind eye within the sanctioning of marriage.  It is this carefree license to copulate that some anti-gay advocates wish to refrain from granting.  They do not wish to be seen as approving this behavior that violates their sense of propriety.  This is most commonly stated as the biblical “Adam-and-Eve-not-Adam-and-Steve”/”it’s not natural” argument.  

In this biblical tale, Eve was created from Adam’s rib (the world’s first clone) which would “naturally” endow her with his XY composition as a male amongst believers in modern biology. Her “supernatural” origin as Adam’s only option for companionship defeats the “natural” part of this viewpoint.

Further, overlooked by the quick readers of this tale, is that after God decides “it is not good that man should be alone,” He takes on the task to make him a helpmate and starts by creating “every beast of the field and every fowl of the air” as possible candidates for Adam to meet (and name). When Adam finds no helpmate amongst them, only then (three verses later) does the God of Moses created Eve as his helpmate.  If sex was God's purpose in creating a "helpmate,” it is a strange biblical endorsement of the consideration of bestiality.  Something more innocent (unashamed in their nakedness, as were all other creatures) was the original intent of this first marriage. Only in skipping ahead in the story to the “sinful parts” about the serpent, the apple, and the casting out does Adam finally get to "know" his wife two chapters later. Sex would appear to be as “natural” to Adam and Eve as clothing became – e.g. not some God-intended attribute, but a habit (habiliment) they picked up on their own.

But the biology of intercourse is not the purpose of families.  If it was, society might not sanction two octogenarians either getting or remaining married.  Families are about the psychology of joining with and caring for others, be they children or spouses.  Families, for society, are about sharing responsibility for finances and, more importantly, behavior both within the private family household walls and on the streets of the community.  Early response and adjustment within strong and stable families lessens the necessity of the community to “fix the problem”.

How then does the stigmatization of same-gender couples who wish to commit to a family contract help society?  Sadly, the anti-marriage argument is often a condemnation of the societal advantages given to married couples and their families.  Some advocates of denial point to the expense of granting spousal benefits to the additional “other half” of the proposed newly allowed couples.  By the same logic, those benefit-reducing advocates should be encouraging programs to promote divorce and lifelong decisions to remain single.  In advocating based on economics instead of humanity, they attack their own opposite-gender marriages in a terrible contradiction to the title of their keystone piece of legislation, the Defense of Marriage Act.

But, in this argument lays the common pathway to a solution.  If sincere about the burdensome impact of marriage on our government and legal system, then these advocates should work to remove the 1,138 (2003 estimates) federal statutory provisions in the United States Code in which benefits, rights, and privileges are contingent on marital status.  They might still decide to remain married themselves devoid of these advantages if the sex is good enough.  Or they too may recognize the other reasons that couples cleave together through better or worse, richer or poorer, under the power of their marriage vows.