What is, Corruption?

Do you think you know what corruption is?

Someone takes a bribe, they are corrupt. Someone is given a promise of advancement, a better job, if they go against the interests of their job, their promises, their people, then they're corrupt. Yes?

But there are other kinds. I've been watching, "The Wire". Great show. Horrible examples are shown of how government can and probably somewhere, does work. You don't even have to know it happens, its just logical. If you want something, from someone, another department, agency, what do they get for it? Just the knowledge that you owe them? Dream on. They want something up front. Standard operating procedure. They aren't making that much money, their department is hurting for funds in order to do their job, so they make up for it, any way they can.

Maybe they have the best of intentions. Maybe it starts that way. It slips, after a while, to where they wouldn't even recognize themselves, but they justify it with the knowledge that this is how the "real world" really is.

And you know what? Maybe it is.

But you have to keep that child's view of the world or after a while, you lose track of what is right (or what is important) and what is wrong, because you get too close to what is happening. That's why it looks so bad when its exposed because those coming into it, viewing it from afar, see how bad it really is. And without all the caveats, rationalities and exigencies.

The official definitions go something like this, "corrupt": Marked by immorality and perversion; depraved; Venal; dishonest: a corrupt mayor; To destroy or subvert the honesty or integrity of; To ruin morally; pervert; To taint; contaminate.

My favorite example to hate about corruption are what concerns statistical requirements in a job. Seems to harmless. You just have to hit this score, some level, an amount or a degree; to be considered good, to keep your job, your compensation level, your bonus. I've seen this at jobs of my own.

Sometimes even arbitrary numbers are picked to prove things are going well, and bad things happen because of it. We see this in the school system all the time. They don't know how to prove schools are doing well, or how good teachers are, so they give tests to build blase stats to show how well everyone is doing. But then you still have kids graduating who can't read. Or kids get mentally beat up because of tests they have to study to pass the test, rather than study to learn. They end up not learning real lessons about how to move on to higher education, live their life, to get a job, to handle a home, or a relationship.

Why don't we teach kids what they need to know in order to make a living, maintain a home, live happy with someone, to enjoy the quality of their life?

Back to the stats. Everyone wants to look good. So they take their department stats for the past month, or quarter or year, and find a way to make it look good, better; by changing the definitions of things, or moving something from one department to another. All this has to do with people up top, who are disconnected from down below, thinking they can quantify quality. What is needed is good people doing a good job, trust, running a good department and not being so worried about what looks good and dealing with the reality of what is.

People need to worry about doing the job, doing it well, making the mission important, carrying things out in a real situation, not a made up one.

The example they played up in Season four of The Wire had to do with murder stats. Homicide was so concerned about their stats of open murders, that they knew they were leaving a couple dozen bodies hidden in many spread out houses in condemned city housing. Rather than be worried about murdered people, about finding a murderer, be they homeless or drug addicts/dealers or what have you, they buried it. It was subtle, there wasn't proof, but a cop had a good theory that should require they open houses and search, but the officer in charge refused, because it would ruin their stats. All he had to do to prove it, was pull a board off a boarded up house to see if there was indeed bodies in certain marked buildings, but he was ordered not to.

They were so worried about what? Not looking bad?

That, is patently, ridiculous. Ludicrous and I don't mean the rapper.

You should do your job. You should never HAVE to worry about how things look, as long as you are doing what you're supposed to; after all, its not you doing the bad stuff.

In this case, they wanted to turn a blind eye to murder, just because it would ruin their departmental stats? Someone should go to jail over something like that. Yes, this was a TV show. Thank God, it wasn't a Reality TV Show. But you can't tell me, that this kind of thing doesn't really happen.

In a way, I don't blame those doing it so much as I do those in charge forcing them into this kind of behavior. Its systemic.

My point in all this, is that corruption is not always what you expect. Its not the obvious bribe, sometimes its the slight of hand, the ignore, the blank stare, or the redefining of a term, in order to look good, or not look bad, or shift something off to another place. Look around you sometime. Is any of this going on around you? Maybe it happens so much, or its so entrenched, that you, that no one, ever notices it anymore.

Have the eyes of a child. And the determination of an adult, to do what you can, to end this foolishness. The world will be a better place, when you do.

Religion vs Human Rights and Freedom

Why, is there such a backlash against Islam in places around the world, specifically, in Dutchland? Holland, that is. Man, you draw one little cartoon, and half the world wants to kill you. Hmm why would that lead to a backlash?

There seem to be so many people that have just about had it with these groups, organizations, and especially, religions, that are so antiquated, backward, repressive, and do not allow its adherents the freedom to dump their beliefs and move on progressively of their own free will. Free will. Wasn't THAT what religion was supposed to be all about. Choice? Making the right choice? Letting God sort that after after they die? Who came up with the bright idea to do this choosing for God?

If a belief system is so great, then why is there so much control exerted and repression put to work to keep people in their place?

Two things have always seemed an apriori in belief systems; for me anyway. One is that you shouldn't have to hide from the world in order to maintain your belief system (christians are renowned for that one, they won't watch this or that, they won't talk about this or that, they can't be around this or that kind of person, on and on ad infinitum). And the second is that your faith, or the ideology of your chosen (or your forced upon) system, should be correct enough, seem right enough, be charming or desirable enough that you don't have to be forced to stay within its ranks by either family, friends, adherents or threats of eternal damnation, hellfire and/OR brimstone.

I'm not saying that your religion should be offering you seventy-two virgins as a reward to keep you in line or anything like that. Its just that if God is God, then he ought to have come up with a pretty damn good system by now. Don't you think? Hey, its just a thought. I like to think, Divinely Inspired, actually (stop that, do NOT look at my dangling participle). I'm only human (lower case H).

Also, a religion shouldn't dumb you down into a blathering idiot, or a beatific zombie. A real religion should turn you into a massively self actualized productive (this isn't to say a Type A personality, either), spiritually (now just a second, who is to say that religion really needs to make you spiritual at all; perhaps God wants people to be Earthy, maybe we're all looking at this all wrong) progressive; Humane (not such a good word after all if you consider what humans have done to this planet and its lifeforms through History, including its own species), individual. Perhaps oriented toward the group. Desirous of community, of bettering the group (good and defective, which isn't to say, into killing the handicapped, or female babies).

Well, its just a thought.

I've always wondered why it took so many religions to make up the world if there is a single God. One thing that could explain this hot mess we're in today, would be that there really is more than one God and they are mostly all pissed off because obviously, we have taken it upon ourselves to choose one of them only as some kind of Rock Star. Think how you'd feel if you were a God and only your brother Mike, was always being praised as Hosanna the Most High, when you know him to be a jerk, not listening to Mom, always picking his nose (except when non family are looking) and trying incessantly to look good in public (and in front of a mirror, no doubt).

Irritating, I'm sure.

So, I think, perhaps we should consider, well, maybe we're looking at this world in the wrong light, with the wrong filter. Or perhaps, God once told us the truth, then died. Or his phone went dead and its charging somewhere and some millennia from now, it will be recharged and he will call us again to explain the rest of what he was trying to say when the phone died and boy, will we be shocked.

My point here is that Religion seems to have subverted Human Rights at times. Too many times. Its allowed too many (EVEN if they ARE few) to subvert its original intent. It has held us back from our God Given Freedoms...to choose.

And if it hasn't, then those followers near to us have. If not physically, then mentally, or socially.

Why is it that someone who leaves a religion, is ostracized?
Not very religious. Is it.

Tips, and how they can fool you

When I was a young child in Tacoma, Washington, once or twice a month we could go for breakfast to a local restaurant called the Flying Boots Cafe. It was a twelve blocks north of our house and a block from what would eventually become my High School. When you entered the front door, there was a long curved counter leading you from the front door, either to the right where there is a door to the kind of sleazy bar area, or to the left along a wall of booths, drawing you back to the rear area full of tables. Each booth used to have those little individual machines where you could drop a coin and select music from a menu for the jukebox.

We loved this place. They had great breakfasts. It was the kind of place that had waitresses in little uniforms you might find in most 1950's greasy spoons. The neighborhood was a mini downtown area along three blocks in one direction down 38th street and nearly none in any other. Across the street was a Christian store that sold everything Christian, Catholic, or the like. This was two or three miles south from the actual downtown Tacoma area.

Imagine my surprise when, having not been there in years, I drove through one day with my son, to show him around my old childhood neighborhood, and the entire area was all Asian signage and language. I LOVE Asian things. I wouldn't have a problem with seeing that kind of thing in a lot more places. BUT, my childhood neighborhood, had disappeared. Worse, it was transformed into something, well, alien. No big deal, just, odd.

So, now in an entirely different way, imagine my surprise to discover, that the Flying Boots Cafe, is still there. The only change as far as I can tell, is now they have karaoke. But, I digress.

Back to when that neighborhood was all American. And I was a kid. My family would go there frequently for breakfasts on Sundays. My mom knew a couple of these waitresses by name and vice versa. We would all drag ourselves in there after church, order up a group O'food, and have a great relaxing time. If it was after church, my step-father wasn't there, but if it was a little later after we got home from church, then he might go with us. Sometimes, we'd get change to throw in the booth machines to play music. Great fun, pancakes, eggs, sausage, all of it. And the place was just fun to hang out at.

The waitresses treated us like family, even though we would make a bit of noise at times no one ever seemed to notice, it was a great, family kind of restaurant; even with the guys rolling early into the bar, before we even finished with breakfast (okay, to be fair, most of the time more like a brunch), notwithstanding.

When it was time to leave, we would get the tab, my mom would pay the bill, the waitress would take it and return the change. Mom would put the dollars in her purse and leave her change as a tip. Now I don't remember how much she left for a tip, but I assume it was reasonable and appropriate. Breakfasts were inexpensive, two or three dollars for a combo plate, so tips in change weren't unreasonable and my mom said she liked to get rid of her change, and the waitresses didn't mind, they are just happy for the money and can change the coin into bigger denominations because, they can always use chance in the cash register.

But these were things she told me in the years after these young childhood memories of breakfasts at the Flying Boots Cafe.

Skip forward. Since then, I had been in the military. I had earned a University degree, been married, divorced, and was fully an adult. One day, I was sitting at my parent's, and my mother and I were talking. The subject of the Flying Boots came up. We were talking about what it was like and how much fun we had there.

And then I mentioned it.

Back when I was a kid eating at that cafe, I always seemed to be the last to leave the table. I was always messing around with this or that and my mom's attention was free floating and trying to get us all up and off.

But I could never figure out why my mother left change on the table. All these coins. Just...sitting there. It seemed to me, such a waste. And messy. So, I didn't think anyone would care, and my mom didn't seem to want them, so....

I used to steal the tips my mother left for the waitresses. I had no concept that I was stealing, that this was payment for services rendered. I would just scoop up the coins and now I had some shiny coins. You could argue that I knew better, that I was trying not to be seen doing it, that I never told anyone afterward, but really, I just thought they weren't wanted anymore.

And that was what I told my mother that day at her home, some decades later. My mom's jaw dropped open, and a horrified look took over her face.

"So, you're telling me, those waitresses that I was always so friendly with, who gave us such good service week after week, for years, weren't getting their tips and they served us so well anyway? Oh my God." Then she gave a nervous laugh, seeing the sad humor in it. "God bless, them. They must have thought I was a cheap S.O.B. Or, maybe they thought we didn't have the money to leave a tip."

And the horror to her of THAT, of thinking that the waitresses believed we were poor, hit her hard. Now we really didn't have much, but we made due, though my step-father had to work two jobs, and I was the first to get a college degree in my family and I got that, by doing 4+ years in the Air Force. But my mother also saw that we gave our old clothes to a family that had too many kids and far less than we did. That almost got me beat up on several occasions, but but that, is another story altogether.

So, when did I quit taking the tips? What made me stop? Let's flash back to one day, way back when, we were leaving the cafe, still at the table and my mother turned back and looked at the table. She doesn't remember this now, but I do. She said, "Hey, where'd the tip go?" IT was a bunch of coins, spread out, hard to miss. I just looked up at her, being the last one to have been at the table, actually still partly on the chair.

I suspected there was something, awry.

"Who took the tip?" She looked at me. I wonder what the look on my face displayed at that moment? I can imagine, something like, "Oh boy, I did something wrong. Again."

She looked down at me and said the words: "Did you take the tip?"

I said, "I took some coins you left on the table. You didn't seem to want them, so I took them." She looked at me stunned. Then, she chuckled.

"Honey, those coins, you need to put them back. Those were left for the waitresses, its called a tip. The waitresses give us good service, and we pay for the food, but then we leave them a tip to show them that we appreciate how nice and helpful they were. If they don't do a good job, we don't leave a tip, or we give them a tip according to how good their service was."

I said, "Oh. I didn't know, I thought you just didn't want the coins." And I put them back on the table.

And I never did that again. No. Really. HONEST!

Back to the present and my mom having just realized that I had been taking those tips, for who knows how long before I learned my lesson of the tip.

"Well, Mom, uh, gotta go now. Thanks for the chat, take care, have a good day, see ya!"

Is Music Sacrosanct? Apparently, not.

Recently, I've been looking at reacquiring music I once had before, mostly in the distant past. I have heard about remastering of albums over the years, thought, oh how cool. Because a lot of old music could have sounded better. I'm all for more texture, clarity, resonance where appropriate, etc.

So, I have picked up some of this music. In listening however, I was surprised and a little weird-ed out. Something, didn't sound right. Here is what I discovered.

The original albums I was looking to re-EXPERIENCE, in some cases, where not the same old albums. I wanted to hear and therefore click into those memories I had way back when, but when the album is not the same, then what? Now, maybe its just me, and maybe its because I used to be an audiophile (and videophile, so I'll use some video examples also here) but I used to know where every single pop, hiss and scratch on an album existed. So that when I hear a clean version now, I'm pleased (and slightly saddened, weird, huh?) that these are missing. Saddened, that its not the same recording I once owned, and happy, because it doesn't have those same defects.

We didn't love these defects, but after years of listening to them repeatedly, they become part of the soundscape. But, that notwithstanding....

It really annoys me when I acquire an album I used to have, that its no longer the SAME album I knew from back when. Finding that in some way, its now been changed, for whatever reason, good or otherwise.

Case in point, the David Byrne, Brian Eno collaboration, "My life in the Bush of Ghosts." I've had this tape since it came out, or round about that time period. So I get a new version. I find, something isn't the same. I research it. And I found out what was wrong. You can no longer get the original song on side two, track one, Quar'an.

Why? Because a single Muslim group in England, back when that came out, complained about their putting "Holy words" on the album, as it was singing a part of the Koran. As they didn't want to offend anyone, they pulled it.

You now can not find that song...anywhere.

Give me a break.

I have had a belief, strong, purist though it may be, that when an Artist produces a work of Art, it should be insoluble. Untainted, by commercial interests, or even by the Artists themselves. IF an artist wants to change an original work, they would need to update another product. Which has its own issues. If you can no longer find an original copy, the Artist has changed history. Bastardized their own works. Sometimes, this is brilliant, sometimes, its not.

I would argue for instance, the so called Director's cut of Amadeus, actually detracted from the original film. I hated it. Now, I have relaxed a bit and see it as two different films. I won't bore you with the incidentals.

Some albums, when remastered are excellent. Some, albums, however, they not only re-release, but they add songs, in some cases, replace songs. Now they Artist may have hated a song on there, but for the Fans, they may have loved it exactly as it was and subverting that original set up, is an ugly thing to those Fans, who loved and re listened over the years to that same work. Now, no longer their same loved piece of music.

Another example in the video world, is what George Lucas has done in his Star Wars franchise. I say, franchise and not film series as he has turned it into a commercial entity over that of an artistic entity.

What he has done, is both brilliant, and horrific, depending on the Fan you question on this. But this is fine. IF, both versions continue to be available.

Its like the God Father trilogy. Francis Ford Copolla recut it, to a chronological version. Now there are two versions (at least), one in the original form of the three movies, and another singular long version as one film, cut to have the entire story in order without flashbacks. Both, are gratifying to watch, but now, I wouldn't want to lose, either version.

We are left with a question. Is it OK for an Artist, or the works owner (a studio, corporation, individual, etc.) to be allowed to change a work of art, cinema or music?

I have argued for years, that when a movie is played on TV, that should not, by law, be allowed to be altered. It should by law, be required to show in its entirety, without cuts, alterations, voiceovers (to replace restricted language, etc.). Otherwise, it simply couldn't be shown on TV.

I also think it should be harder for an Artist, once they put their works into the public, that they cannot so easily change it. Again, it elevates it, makes it more than it is now. And we would all have to have more respect. We might have fewer artists (lower case A) who turn out crap. Because, once its out there its there. I thought that the Internet never let things die; but if they came about before the Internet, then its possible.

I've seen movies in the US that were butchered by networks in order to show at a lowered audience level so kids could see it, or to who more commercials. I also noticed that in many cases, these same films, showed in Great Britain, without any of those cuts.

Why the discrepancy? Did the British children get damaged? Are we just whimps?

So my argument for TV is, if you have to change it, you don't get to play it. I have not heard one good argument for showing a movie on TV (or music on the radio), that is a good reason for cutting or altering it. So, put it on, you show it as it is, or not at all. That, would elevate our Artist's works above mere product, above commercial only interest. Perhaps that explains our feelings about cutting Arts programs in the schools so quickly. We don't respect it.

IF Art doesn't make a buck, it sucks. Or, is it us who suck?

What, is Art. Who, is an Artist?

Have you ever wondered, "Just what in the Hell is Art?" Maybe after you saw some exhibit, or some new piece of Art installed somewhere. Maybe you didn't like it, maybe you did but didn't understand it. Maybe it is art and you are just ignorant. Or maybe its isn't art, and you are just observant. Have you ever wondered?

Well, I have. Try living with an Artist sometime. You won't have a choice except to wonder. That argument has to come up or they are not, simply put, an Artist. Its one of those facts of life.

I believe there are two schools of thought on what defines Art. One, is that the Artist, being its creator, is the only one capable of defining that the art they produced, is indeed, Art. Sounds pompous. Doesn't it?

The other, is that Art, is in the eye of the beholder. Sounds diffuse.

Wikipedia has this to say: "Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as, 'a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science'. Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions."

Using that definition, I can see that literally ANY thing, could be considered art; whether it be seen that way by you, the Artist, or by anyone else's definition.

But, do we really want that loose of a definition for it?

I have found that it helps when you don't understand something, to come up with a few terms to help break it down. Take any subject, say fear. First understand that there are different kinds of fear, and you beat it. Otherwise, it always appears overwhelming. So there is fear of courage, fear of panic, fear of imminent death, fear you will slip while free climbing a cliff, etc. So knowing, helps you to attenuate your responses and better understand what you are dealing with. Fear of slipping while free climbing, is sane a fear, it can keep you alive. But if you treat it as if it were fear of panic or imminent death, you are probably dead.

So to differentiate my considerations in talking about Art:
-Art vs. art
-Artiste vs Artist vs artist
-High Art vs low art
-Being high when you view art vs not being high (okay, just checking if you're paying attention)

Notice a pattern?

For myself, I refuse to accept that if an artist says its Art, that makes it Art. That is a concept, a theory. Making a theory into practice, can lead to this kind of confusion. Perhaps, this is one of those times. Perhaps.

Of course, Artists are nothing if not Idealistic by nature.

On the other hand, if a true Artist, or "Artiste", says its "Art", it probably is. However, if an artist, or maybe an Artist, says so, then its not necessarily so.

This is all a matter of Quality, really. Expertise, Genius, Craftsmanship (yeah yeah, its not sexist, let's just say that's in the Old World meaning of being highly perfectionist in one's craft).

Here is the problem I've found with just going with the flow of the Zeitgeist and saying that anything is Art. To give any Artist (yes, capital "A", see, I'm being nice and giving them the benefit of the doubt), has license to say that any thing they claim as Art IS Art, then they can get lazy, sloppy, or even lie. It really leaves us at a disadvantage. If I accept that anything an Artist claims to be Art is, then what if they claim something is Art, but they are actually lying and they don't really believe it? Then what?

Mother to my son and a long time ex-wife of mine, was a self professed "artist". She used to claim that anything was art. Drove me a little batty, but she WAS the "artist" so....

But then, she also professed a love of, "the Art of the Ugly" and acted funny that I'd never hard of that before (we both attended the same University). I lived my entire life in a striving for what was beautiful, lovely, perfect, or magical (a classically romantic definition I'll grant you, but still, it made sense to me for most my life up to that point).

To have someone say that Art could be or should be, something ugly, to find beauty in ugliness, was a real mind opener (bender) for me. And for that I do thank her.

Her friends used to glue all kinds of stuff to their cars (Barbie dolls, doll heads, junk, whatever but in some kind of order, usually) and then drive around town with mobile art. Now, it might be "cool" to do that, but that's not saying its Art. I caved on that for years, because I wanted to seem cool, or artist-like, but hey, I finally had to think about it one day and go, wait a minute!

Randomly gluing crap to something, is crafts.

Art, takes skill, thought, depth of levels of meaning, metaphor, expertise. It should be something beyond what just anyone can do; and by definition, I would argue, it should.

Much of what her and her friends did, they called art (okay just about everything). After all, she was an Art Major in college (five years of college, switching her major five times, yet never graduating with a four year degree (or a two year degree, for that matter); hmmm, that might indicate something there...).

Anyway, supposedly, she was an "artist". To be fair, she got into an Art Gallery. And a nice one. She was progressing, selling, gaining fans (or art appreciators) but then dropped it. The Gallery owner told me later, after we had divorced, that she really didn't understand, as people had liked her works. She was making a line of multi-color, cut glass jewelry as well as painting furniture in cool clever ways.

Not high Art, but Art. Okay, maybe crafts, but its debatable, you know?

This was the kind of stuff that prompted me to start differentiating between Artists like Van Gogh, Rembrandt, even Pollack, and current day college student "artists" (some not even with a degree, not that one's required, really).

So I learned to call what I consider to be an artist, an "Artiste" (Art Teest accent on the second syllable); and the others, I called simply "artists" (pronounced, "craftsmen", okay, craftspeople if you prefer, but that sounds kind of dumb).

My younger brother, is an Artiste. An incredible Artist, a certified Genius. My son's mother, as I mentioned, is an artist. Most of her friends (that I'd met) were also, artists. Much of what she did were actually craft works, making jewelery, masks, etc. But now at some point, I do believe they can or do turn INTO art. But consider that if we call anything and everything art, 1) it makes the real artists lazy, and 2) it devalues the hard work put into Art by Artistes.

That is sad. And that is unfair.

If I throw paint at a canvas and call it art, is that really as deserving of the name as the creations of incredible form and dimension, color and shading, that gives many levels of meaning, and done by one who studied for years to perfect the Art? Or that of an amazing work sculpted and presented with great and perhaps genius consideration to dimension, form, texture, light, presentation? Now, I'm not talking about Pollack's works either, I'm talking about ME throwing paint, which would in no way, be art. Only for the artistically challenged.

Art therefore, considers All aspects of its presentation. On the other hand, art, really does not. Does it.

From an Artist's (general term now covering all of them) point of view, calling
everything art, certainly gives them an easier go at it. Doesn't it? But from an Art lovers perspective, it devalues not only the monetary side of things, but the cultural side.

In recent times, Art has taken on a more contextual meaning over that of a true craftsmentality (using craft differently here, obviously). I don't know if this was because of the 1960's freer attitude toward everything, or not. And this had been coming that direction through the 1950s post WWII mentality. But I wouldn't take it back as far as to the Surrealists, because, if you've ever seen a Dali, its not something glued to the bonnet of a car. And getting completely off track, this concept of all kids in an event getting to win an award in a sport, or the concept of "all things are good", are really misconceptions. Sounds good, but only healthy in some ways, damaging in others.

I know this is a heated topic for many. But mostly for those who think more highly of themselves in an idealized concept of an artist (and you can figure out which usage I'm going for here), than they probably deserve.

So now we get into the realm of True Art, and that contextual, commercial, or pop type of art. And there may be others, I'm not an Art major. I just know when I look at something, if its art or not. I would argue that most "art" that I see, simply isn't "art". Yet people want to claim that anything titled as a piece of art is art.

Why?

Is THAT to be the definition then? Subjectivity? If someone simply claims its art, is it? Should it be? If another says the same thing isn't art, then is it, not? Perhaps and admittedly, this IS one of the great things about Art.

Its also a part of the Zeitgeist. And of course, what isn't art now, just might be, in 100 years. I'll grant you that, and I suppose we do need to be somewhat open minded.

So I guess, in the end, I find a difference between contextual art as metaphor and
icon; and traditional Art, as hard work, expertise, skill and craftsmanship
(and no, I'm not going to be politically correct there, now stop it, the word just sounds cool using the gender, "man", and I might add, as its intentionally used neutrally here).

So, have I really resolved anything here? Well, no, not really.

I have pointed out a difference in something, though. A difference between those who claim to be artists, and those who really have a miracle of an ability to create something far beyond the norm and into the unfathomable. And then there's those throwing some garbage together, and labeling it "art" and well, that just doesn't make it.

Quality. I believe, Quality may be the key element of concern here. Alas, what IS Quality?

Throwing something together, just to make someone "think", really isn't Art. That's a diorama. Art is that which is elevated beyond the craft, into a different (higher) level of existence, bringing with it many and varied meanings. And the only people that claim that is not true are the ones who do not have the skills to produce such art works. In order to make producing Art more accessible to the masses, they would devalue it to the point of having little meaning.

Comedian Phillis Diller, of all people had this to say about art: "...[in to that] go years of work, experience, and training, or all three. When it looks "easy," you're looking at art." I think she has something there. What you're looking at, obviously has to first BE art, first and foremost of course, with the caveat that if you can do that , AND make it look easy, then you are an Artist, or beyond that, an Artiste. Weird twist that, huh?

And now, we have to delve deeply into one final concept. That of the ending. Yes. That is really all I have to say about this topic. Though I think I've made my point clear. I thank you for this ride and opportunity to consider all this, and I hope you had a moment or two yourself. Of, consideration, a different thought, a new angle. I hope I've not offended anyone to the point of needing psychiatric help. And if I have, please, get it. No, really. Get it now.

I hope I may have sparked some interest in thinking about just what Art is, and who it is exactly, that is an Artist. Or an Artiste.

And so, I wish you well with that....

Tomorrow's Blog: Is Music Sacrosanct? Apparently, Not.

U.S. 'secret war' expands globally?

The Washington Post had a June 4, 2010 article titled: "U.S. 'secret war' expands globally as Special Operations forces take larger role". It would seem that the Obama Administration is using more and more secret teams to go in and take out dangerous radical groups.

Is this bad?

I had been proposing this since 9/11. I brought this up again and again, at least to family and friends, back when we entered Iraq under the pretenses of having information leading to Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction and there being a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda; a contention I never bought, nor understood. Even when the Bush White House said they had intelligence indicating this to be true I didn't believe it. I thought, well I suppose its possible, but I found it hard to believe for obvious reasons. Why did Congress?

My contention then, as it is now, is that we should not send in mass amounts of troops. What we needed, were smaller, specialists hit squads. Yes, this sounds scary. Yes, these have been misused the world over by dictators, terrorists, War Lords, Crime bosses. But which makes more sense, sending in many American Troops to lose their lives on blanket, shotgun-like approaches to taking out the bad guys? Or sending in special small teams, with proper intelligence, to only mark and remove those individuals that would best server our goals and save the most lives?

You can argue all kinds of things about this. It could go over limits. How to do you control it? Are there moral or ethical implications? On and on.

But look at what we have now. How many have been killed on both sides? How many innocents? Wouldn't it have been better to send in the smaller teams, targeting specifics, than using bombs, war theater tactics, shooting missiles from afar and using drones? Even if specialist squads killed a few innocents (which I'm thoroughly against, but that's yet another topic), how many have we killed now, using our current tactics? I doubt we could even approach the current numbers.

This is not political assassination. This is targeting specific individuals or groups, to strategically and surgically, take out those who are actively supporting the killing of people out side the intent of their goals. My point in that statement is, when a group wants the US out of their country, killing US citizens, or their own, and typically innocent people, is out side the intent of their goals.

Terrorists justify their murderous actions because they are too small, too poor, too powerless, etc., and so they use larger than life actions to draw attention to their group, their goals or their issues in order to get their way, or bring popular or media attention to their cause to help achieve their goal(s).

But this has gotten out of hand. Frequently, their original goals change over time, or they lose track of their intention, or to maintaining their core beliefs and begin to rationalize. Since they do NOT have a centralized government to support and guide them, it is easy for them to lose their way. Yes, it can be easy for a state governed group to lose site of their origins; but far easier for those run by a small rag tag committee, or war lord, or a rich deluded ex national businessman.

Mostly these people are lost, missing something in their lives, and want to subvert process to attain goals through ANY means possible. That might be understandable. But it is just as understandable that someone would want to stop them. Which is just as reasonable and has just as much weight. Once a terrorist organization kills innocent people, they lose the right to be justified and righteous.

The same is true of a nation state. And they should be called to task by the world stage, the UN, and their allies. But for terrorists, they have none of this. And so they need to be put down like rabid dogs as swiftly as possible by any means possible, just as they do. But care needs to be used in not harming innocents.

Not harming innocents, is the core concern in all of this. For some Muslim extremists to say that the killing of some Muslim innocents is okay and they will receive their reward in Heaven, is ludicrous. And those terrorists will burn in a special Muslim Hell of their own making.

So, let's start bringing back the Troops, and go silent on these killings. Less talk, more action. Release the dogs of war. Let loose the Delta Force. Let's just see things get cleaned up. The terrorists should simply start to disappear in their sleep, wake up dead or gone, and no more attacks be done.

Those in charge of these teams, need to be conscious of the need to do right, to execute with need and justice, and avoid at nearly all costs, the loss of innocent life. Because once they start killing innocents, they are out on the same limb for which they are out there removing those rotted and diseased souls who have lost their way themselves.

Tomorrow's Blog: What is Art? Who is an Artist?

Big Gov? Or, Appropriate Gov?

Should we have big government?

That is the bone of contention between the Republicans and Democrats.

So, should we?

I could say, No. But that would be an easy answer to a stupid question. What we should have, is "appropriate" government. It should always have been this way. I find it pretty annoying when people get the wrong question, because that fundamentally screws up the entire process of discussion.

Big government, for the people, isn't good. Small government involvement in people's day to day, PERSONAL lives, is good.

But is the world so solvent that one government is good for All? What about, Big Government being there to stand up to say, oh, I don't know..."Big Oil"?

Do I want the government in my daily life? Hell, No.

If I want to smoke a joint (spliff, bong, pipe), a cigar, or a CIGARETTE, for God's sake, that's MY business. I want the government to mind its OWN business. Its really NOT anyone else's business. If there is crime behind it? Remove it, remove the desires, the actual need for crime, legalize it.

If I want to commit suicide, for a good reason, because I'm in pain, at the end of my life, and want to leave before it gets any worse, or drags on any longer, THAT, my friend, is MY BUSINESS. Not the government's. As for Doctors? They have been big pussies about this issue for like, for EVER. They need to stand up FOR it. They took an oath to end suffering, not perpetuate it, to do no harm. Killing someone, sometimes, is not doing harm. Its the Humane thing to do! Can it be abused? Yes, should it be made available nonetheless? Yes.

So, Big Government is proved to be bad, in people's day to day life, in those ways.

But, when it comes to long term, big issues outside our daily proximate lives, that is what the Government IS for. To Be our Big Brother. Not in the 1984 George Orwell way, but in the original way. To protect, care for, guide, sustain. I WANT big Government to go kick some ass on the Big Oil bullies. To make the good decisions. What the Hell happened to that?!

Sometimes, we need a good shock. Sometimes, a brother has to even break the rules (beat up the bully on the block, which protects the little brother, and the other kids in the neighborhood). If he gets caught, he gets in trouble, but done properly, the bully is too scared to speak up. No one gets into trouble. Is the big brother in danger of becoming a bully? Yes. But is doing it wrong when its right? No.

Like I taught my kids. Sometimes, in life, you will find, you do what is right, and you get punished for it. Life, isn't fair. And we've become unAmericans. Out of fear for our jobs. We are too concerned about our welfare. Is that wrong? No. But, if you take a job that is there to protect others as your expense, well? If you are Secret Service, you may die protecting your protectorate. Part and parcel of the job. If you're found to be lacking in your job, you no longer do that job. Fired. Out of that industry, career, job field.

People shrink back from that. Its called, Responsibility. Public Service. We shouldn't break the law and yes, that is bad for a government, it sets bad precedents. But in reality, sometimes it is necessary. But in the right orientation. We shouldn't pass laws about it, but people in those positions, should do what is right.

Jack Bauer, as president? Perhaps not, but maybe a little. Jack is wrong in his execution at times but his goal is correct. His intent is. What's the difference? Its that in the end, he gets the job done. He skirts around the issues, he's even wrong at times, but in the end, everyone is happy. Except, the bad guys. At times, he's even suffered for doing what no one wants to be exposed doing, in order to correct wrongs.

I am just too tired of hearing about people in positions of power, protecting their jobs, rather than their constituents. WE the People, are their most important guide for them, not their job, career, not their next election. Something, is wrong there. Something is broken. We have issues of lobbies, cronyism, such things perpetuated by long term and old boy networks. These can be good, but they have also long term, proven to be a problem.

Am I offering suggestions here? No, admittedly, not really. But just to talk about it, think about it, complain, make it known, does something. Thinking about it, and saying nothing, does nothing.

Tell someone. I'm not even asking for you to do something, because most of you won't; but if Everyone talks about it, grassroots change begins. Its not so much our laws, our government, our people in office, that are the problem.

Its a mindset, a culture of foolishness, sometimes even stupidity. Greed.

Its putting up with the bullies in the world: North Korea, Israel, screwed up countries run by religion, lame dictators, idiots whose only genius is getting into and staying in, power, Big corporations, big oil, people and governments who think they are untouchable.

Remember. No one is untouchable. Not from the righteous. Righteous, that has gotten a bad name because, like Islamic terrorists, some few have hijacked the main for the masses. And that is wrong, but that is media, isn't it. Its not actuality; its perceived reality.

Where does this leave us? For those who say stop complaining, who say, shut up or do something, I say to them, No, YOU shut up.

Because if everyone complains, Even IF no one does anything BUT complain, then something... WILL...Happen.

Tomorrow's Blog: U.S. "Secret War" Expands Globally?