Sunday Sonnet! Re-blogged from Autumn Ambles

Thanks to friend Bushka for including the “re-blog” button. This poem is appropriate and timely now, and it is my honor to post it here on SOMETIMES for my readers!

Autumn Ambles



Freedom of thought let no one disallow,
The stuff of progress, true, thereof is made;
No wholesome fruit is borne on broken bough,
Nor truth survive if censure speech forbade;
Thought with impunity precedes the word,
Utterance of which to ownership commits;
Denial, then, must surely be absurd,
Lest to hypocrisy a fool admits;
Inebriated hauteur can seduce,
A shallow-bottomed mind, to verbalise
Unconscious reservoir of vile abuse,
Which, in the end, leads to his own demise.
Uncultivated, barren, rocky field ‚Äď
Much to be done afore it fruit can yield!

©Meanderings 2017


View original post

Historiography at work

Historiography is the study of History.    It was one of my favorite mandatory seminars as a grad student at the University of Akron.

One of my friends and cohorts here in Blog Land,¬†raised a very interesting point in¬† a comment on how the Historians of 100 years from now would treat the scenario in rage now of the Great Republican Plan to Obliterate the Obama Presidency.¬†¬†¬† Obviously all of us reading this will have no interaction whatsoever in the future century.¬†¬† Who knows how the History of our age will be preserved, or how it will be reported to future generations.¬†¬†¬† The History of the Present hasn’t happened yet.

The Trump-Obama¬†factionalism is too multi-faceted to tackle here.¬†¬† However, the question is a good one, and leads me to ponder the basic differences between Now and Then…meaning past and future coverage of historical events.¬†¬†¬†¬† There can be two designations here:¬†Paper and Digital.

The most glaring difference is that what was written, published, in real books is that they were permanent.¬†¬† Not necessarily the absolute authoritative sources on a given subject, but through a sort of consensus of opinions and research, and yes credentials.¬†¬† In order to reach a¬†thesis statement for a given publication, the writer¬†presented his or her own ideas….something new, an alternate position.¬†¬† There are always at least two sides to any proposition.

Here is a proposal that when it comes to Digital History, that which is presented over the internet by countless diverse sources, the¬†information comes across only as permanent as the print-out a student or proponent, or indeed, opposition commentator, understands—or prefers to present as Truth or Falsehood—to their respective readership at any given time.

Digital History is much easier to alter, re-write, or¬†inadvertently¬†¬†distort¬†¬†because of its fluidity…never permanent, always subject to a myriad of changes.¬†¬†¬† We see reports on the internet news channels… a statement made by an anchor person on CNN or Fox, MSNBC, BBC…at a given hour—that never airs again.

No one in their right mind for long will be able to watch Cable News constantly to keep up absolutely on the stream of information.¬†¬†¬† Remember when the internet was actually referred to as the Information Highway?¬†¬† That was back in the 1980s, when major newspapers made the change from individual typewriters to the chaotic stream of News-all-the-Time.¬†¬† Up-to-date means “constantly changing,” which isn’t necessarily a good thing.


FYI about the Khan Sheikoun affair for open-minders, from the Huffington Post

Even for readers who already have their minds made up owe it to themselves to read this detailed Huffington Post article by Scott Ritter, and to add it to all available sources of information.¬†¬†¬†¬† Here is a great example of “Alternate Facts,” in a logical sense of being mixed information from different sources, that as a whole may lead to knowledge of what really happened in Khan Sheikoun.

There is a creditable “trail of misinformation” under the smug expressions of media reporters.¬†¬† We can’t believe selectively here…this situation is important enough for followers to be informed and alert…research, research, research!

It really makes me wonder why many of the same pundits who daily attack Donald Trump as a liar and self-advantage seeker suddenly hail him as a hero—are we really a people who judge our presidents by their bully-characteristics?¬†¬† Are we understanding the “America First” thing to mean “America As Boss of the World…Richer and Stronger and Meaner than any other nation?”

Cure for lagging respect and trust—bomb somebody.


they can do better than that

Day 13, 2017

As a long-time fan of spy fiction
I like to keep an open mind
and far be it from me to take a poke
at intelligence dossiers and spy reports
but it all seems to me a very bad joke!

Normally reading the details of a carefully-
teased expose…dragged across our nose…
gives fuel to the fire and facts to the tale
but when details sound to be suspicious
they usually are just as they seem.

The truth is sometimes hidden, for lack
of sufficiently shocking details (better presented
in a colorfully embellished story-form)
with salacious stories of sex and smut,
to present a more spicy distraction.

© Sometimes, 2017

dreams of day

Days go by in dreams…
more complicated, it seems,
day-dreams pass away…
are replaced by dreams of day.

Not intended to be obtuse,
or in any way clever, or to abuse,
by flippant tries to make a verse,
or to neglect decorum in place of subterfuge.

Dream places are often familiar,
if not in actual points of reference,
at least recurrent and commonplace
locales to retreat for reassurance.

© Sometimes, 2016

the trouble with time limits

Every election, and whenever the subject comes up in between elections, there is a big
“thing” about term limits.

“Throw ’em all out…ALL of them.”¬†¬†¬†¬†¬† This seems like a good idea…on the face of it…except that it would almost always be a disaster.¬†¬†¬†¬† This point of view is often described as “clear the swamp.”¬†¬†¬†¬†¬† I like my clich√©s to have literal meaning, so when someone says that I picture a real swamp, with hanging moss, fragrant jungle flowers, glass-bottomed tour boats, and alligators sunning themselves in mis-leading innocence.¬†¬†¬† Yeah, this is all very picturesque.¬†¬†¬† The thing to “clear out” of the actual swamp/jungle, presumeably is the alligators, and other creatures¬†that will eat you if they get a chance.¬†¬† In the metaphorical¬†¬†swamp, to which the plotters and pundits refer,… is of course Washington D.C.¬†¬† The best allusions may be to the alligators, standing in for elected members of Congress.¬†¬†¬†¬† (No aspersions cast on the alligators.)

Depending on the speaker, there is usually no consensus of exactly WHOM to throw out.¬†¬†¬†¬† The “commenters” are not very specific either….they mostly just advocate getting rid of “ALL of them,” and starting over with an all-new brand-spanking lot of Congress people and their respective entourages.

“Don’t throw out MY Congresspeople though!”¬†¬†¬† Ah-ha, therein lies the rub…the Dems want their own representatives, and Republicans back theirs (most of the time…moreorless.)¬†¬†¬†¬† That could be called the “Your Rep is a crook…Mine isn’t” theory of political adequacy.

Yes, I DO have an allegorical illustration for my point…which is that it is basically impossible to start over completely, from scratch, at a grass-roots level.¬†¬†¬†¬† Once…back in the proverbial day…a would-be entrepreneur presented to our City Council a plan to open a new restaurant.¬†¬†¬† He said he intended to hire ALL NEW staff—new cooks, new waitresses/waiters, now known as “Servers.”¬†¬†¬†¬†¬† New hostesses, new managers, new bartender…even new dishwasher/busboys.¬†¬† ¬† By “new” was meant workers who had NO experience in any of the positions.¬†¬† They would be trained “to order” by the owner, in his own expectations for how to do their jobs.¬†¬†¬† In other words, no one would have even a clue of what they were supposed to do.¬†¬†¬† Needless to say, if the restaurant ever had materialized as planned it could have been named “The Fiasco Diner.”

That’s what would happen in Washington if there was a law that all new politicians had to be completely inexperienced.¬†¬†¬† Wow!¬†¬†¬†¬† As if the atmosphere there is not already terrifying!¬†¬†¬†¬† Actually the current experiment in Foggy Bottom threatens to loom menacingly as The PEOTUS seems to be introducing a concept of “let’s just see what happens!”¬†¬†¬†¬† Maybe its a principle of “…keeping one’s friends close and enemies closer.”

Here’s a scary one: “let’s call up all our enemies and suggest we all play nice.”