I'm not much of a car guy. To me, they're a utility -- a necessary one, but nothing more. I don't get all googly-eyed when I see vintage cars, or excited when the newest models come out. As I often tell people, I don't know what an alternator is, what it does or even what it looks like. I'm decidedly not one of those guys who would go to a pharmacy parking lot on a Saturday evening and look under the hoods of cars who were brought there by their proud owners to discuss cam shafts and pistons and all things automotive.
I never owned a car until I was forty-three-years-old. I had tried to buy a car in my early thirties, but the price of insurance for a single male living in downtown Chicago was prohibitive. The CTA took care of most of my commuting needs, Metra the rest. Then I got married and my ex-wife had a car. When we got a dog and there were responsibilities that had to be shared, it was time to get a car. This was in 2004.
I looked around, wanting to buy domestic. I first visited Ford, where the salesman boasted that Ford was "up to number twelve in the safety ratings." Piqued by a boast of "we're number 12!" I asked him what Ford had been the year before. "Twenty-five," he said meekly, and combined with the smallish seating in the driver's seat, that put an end to my dalliance with Ford.
I wanted to buy a Saturn, but by the time I got around to it, Saturn's reputation had suffered. I won't buy foreign (more on that anon), so I was at a loss.
Then I ventured into the Volvo dealership in my town. Yeah, I know, Volvo's hardly an American brand, but I wiggled through on a loophole: Ford owned Volvo when I bought my first car, a Volvo XC 90. I got the demo model previously driven by the dealership's owner's wife. It's ash gold. Given Volvo's safety reputation (far removed from number 12...or 25...), and reliability, I was sold.
I got the car with 6,000 miles, more or less, on it. It now has 200,680, give or take. That's over 194,680 miles in nearly thirteen years, or nearly 15,000 miles a year. I didn't drive that many miles a year when I first bought it, but when I met Karen and we decided to move, the mileage started piling up. In 2013, when we moved out of Illinois, I must have made at least twenty-five round-trips of over 600 total miles in that year. In my new state, I've driven all over it, mostly in my car. We've driven down to Kentucky a few times.
The car's been some interesting places. It's been to Toronto, Niagara Falls, Gettysburg, Washington D.C., Mount Vernon, the Outer Banks, Gatlinburg, Cincinnati, Minneapolis, Door County, Michigan, Indiana, Iowa and various parts of Illinois. I doubt it'll last long enough for me to take it out west to see Monument Valley; heck, it had enough to make it up the Smokies in Tennessee. But it won't see the Rockies, or the Northwest. It won't see the South. I'm not even sure we'll keep it.
I'm not attached sentimentally to the car. I appreciate it's ruggedness; it's saved Karen a time or two when cars plowed into her. In one notable instance, a Lexus drove into the back of the car while Karen was stopped at a railroad crossing. Karen was unhurt; the car had scratches on it, but the Lexus's engine was in the front seat. The cop speculated that it was going between 35-40 mph at the time it hit Karen.
We've moved furniture and firewood, boxes of books and bundles of clothes. It's the car I took Sherman in on his final drive. It's been scratched and dinged. Presently it has tree sap on it that I have to remove. It had a transmission overhaul (about the only complaint I have about Volvo is the fact that it didn't issue a recall when it installed the wrong transmission for the wrong engine) and an gas line rebuild. The tires have been replaced several times, as have the brakes -- little wonder with over 200,000 miles on it. It needs a cleaning -- desperately -- but all in all, it's been a solid, reliable car. My first.
Soon I'll have to invest in another car. Beside the monthly car payment there will be a new car with new smells (or less of them), a new feel, new positions for dials and lights and indicators. Perhaps it'll even be gun-metal grey. Whether we decide to keep this car is an open issue. It'd be useful to haul things in an preserve the value of our other cars. But I may need it as a trade-in.
Either way, I'll always remember my first car fondly. I'm proud it lasted over 200,000 miles. It still runs really well, and if I do trade it in someone will get some use out of it. It served me well and protected Karen on a couple of occasions. But time waits for no man, or car.
No matter what happens and what my new car is, however, I still won't know what an alternator is, what it does or what it looks like.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
Antifa and the Public Weal
Not since the 1960's has the country seen such domestic turmoil. Unlike the '60's, however, the reason for the unrest isn't clear. Back then, there was cultural change and opposition to a very unpopular war with high-profile assassinations blended in to create the combustible mix. These days, there was the election of a president with whom many people disagreed on philosophical terms, with nothing else.
Since President Trump's election, his opponents have gone off the deep-end, from benignly predicting the end of the United States to lashing out at anything or anyone conservative to frighteningly violent clashes in cities across the country. Conservative speakers have had to cancel speeches due to the violent protests at college campuses resulting in millions of dollars worth of damage to property, people have been assaulted needlessly simply for having supported or voted for Donald Trump and even conservative politicians have been shot by deranged Leftists.
There are various groups engaged in these nefarious actions, but for the purposes of this blogpost the term Antifas, short for Anti-Fascists, is going to be used. It's a highly ironic sobriquet, given that the actions taken by the antifas more closely resemble fascist tactics from the Third Reich. Alas, to paraphrase Shakespeare, a turd by any other name still smells as bad, and the actions the antifas are taking are very reminiscent of Nazi tactics in pre-war Germany.
Breaking windows, shouting down speakers with opposing viewpoints, tearing down monuments of historical figures the antifas find objectionable, shooting opposition politicians...it has all the hallmarks of the Brownshirts, the paramilitary stormtroopers of the Nazi party. Instead of Jews, conservatives are hunted down. I don't think this country has seen such violent opposition to government since the Confederacy; the hippies in the 1960's are pikers compared to these people.
Another particular trait of the antifas is shouting something loudly and often enough that, despite its falsehood, it's believed by the general public, or at least a large enough segment of the public as to change the perception of the support the Administration truly has. An old saw in the law reads: If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have the law, argue the law. But if you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, shout loudest. This is what antifas are doing. When conservative speakers try to speak, they make it impossible for the speakers to be heard. They denounce President Trump and all who support him as white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Some have even likened us to enablers of rape. If they're confronted with facts, they rationalize them away and reiterate the righteousness of their cause.
The MSM indirectly supports this behavior by not reporting it or, if it does, downplaying it or casting it in a light least favorable to President Trump. When the tables are turned, as happened to Nancy Pelosi when immigration protestors interrupted a recent speech, some outlets, such as ABC, refuse to broadcast the story.
The worst offenders insofar as support is concerned is the political bloc. From encouraging antifas to continue to resist to failing to criticize their tactics, the direct and indirect support from Leftist politicians only worsens the situation, lending a patina of credibility to their efforts. Mr. Obama continues to encourage the antifas to resist while, hypocritically, he rakes in huge fees for speaking engagements on Wall Street. Somehow the antifas, blinded by their fury against Mr. Trump, can't see the monied forest through the gilded trees as their shining light urges them forward.
Protest is fine. But the antifas are asserting their First Amendment rights in ways that are limited by time, place and manner restrictions that have long been upheld to be constitutional. Their bald declarations of First Amendment rights fly in the face of precedent, but they don't care. Again, when one has the facts, argue the facts. When one has the law, argue the law. When one has neither the facts nor the law, shout loudest.
The antifas as presently constituted don't present a threat to the security of the country. They are a domestic terrorist organization, however, and the Left, from the former president to the MSM to hangers-on to President Trump haters should distance themselves from the antifas.
If they don't, they may as well order brown shirts.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Since President Trump's election, his opponents have gone off the deep-end, from benignly predicting the end of the United States to lashing out at anything or anyone conservative to frighteningly violent clashes in cities across the country. Conservative speakers have had to cancel speeches due to the violent protests at college campuses resulting in millions of dollars worth of damage to property, people have been assaulted needlessly simply for having supported or voted for Donald Trump and even conservative politicians have been shot by deranged Leftists.
There are various groups engaged in these nefarious actions, but for the purposes of this blogpost the term Antifas, short for Anti-Fascists, is going to be used. It's a highly ironic sobriquet, given that the actions taken by the antifas more closely resemble fascist tactics from the Third Reich. Alas, to paraphrase Shakespeare, a turd by any other name still smells as bad, and the actions the antifas are taking are very reminiscent of Nazi tactics in pre-war Germany.
Breaking windows, shouting down speakers with opposing viewpoints, tearing down monuments of historical figures the antifas find objectionable, shooting opposition politicians...it has all the hallmarks of the Brownshirts, the paramilitary stormtroopers of the Nazi party. Instead of Jews, conservatives are hunted down. I don't think this country has seen such violent opposition to government since the Confederacy; the hippies in the 1960's are pikers compared to these people.
Another particular trait of the antifas is shouting something loudly and often enough that, despite its falsehood, it's believed by the general public, or at least a large enough segment of the public as to change the perception of the support the Administration truly has. An old saw in the law reads: If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you have the law, argue the law. But if you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, shout loudest. This is what antifas are doing. When conservative speakers try to speak, they make it impossible for the speakers to be heard. They denounce President Trump and all who support him as white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Some have even likened us to enablers of rape. If they're confronted with facts, they rationalize them away and reiterate the righteousness of their cause.
The MSM indirectly supports this behavior by not reporting it or, if it does, downplaying it or casting it in a light least favorable to President Trump. When the tables are turned, as happened to Nancy Pelosi when immigration protestors interrupted a recent speech, some outlets, such as ABC, refuse to broadcast the story.
The worst offenders insofar as support is concerned is the political bloc. From encouraging antifas to continue to resist to failing to criticize their tactics, the direct and indirect support from Leftist politicians only worsens the situation, lending a patina of credibility to their efforts. Mr. Obama continues to encourage the antifas to resist while, hypocritically, he rakes in huge fees for speaking engagements on Wall Street. Somehow the antifas, blinded by their fury against Mr. Trump, can't see the monied forest through the gilded trees as their shining light urges them forward.
Protest is fine. But the antifas are asserting their First Amendment rights in ways that are limited by time, place and manner restrictions that have long been upheld to be constitutional. Their bald declarations of First Amendment rights fly in the face of precedent, but they don't care. Again, when one has the facts, argue the facts. When one has the law, argue the law. When one has neither the facts nor the law, shout loudest.
The antifas as presently constituted don't present a threat to the security of the country. They are a domestic terrorist organization, however, and the Left, from the former president to the MSM to hangers-on to President Trump haters should distance themselves from the antifas.
If they don't, they may as well order brown shirts.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Phrases I Hate
Language is something I keenly watch, and I enjoy wordsmiths who can use language playfully. There are people who write majestically using few words, and I admire them beyond compare. At the same time, there are writers who are atrocious, either because of their circumlocution or their inability to speak evenly and with a good flow.
Still, in ordinary speech, it's difficult to find people who are gifted enough to lift the level of language at the drop of a hat. Writers can always edit their words, or have people who help them edit their prose. Speakers, especially when they speak extemporaneously, aren't always possessed of articulate elegance. When they are, it's pure music. But when they aren't, it can become hackneyed and hard to listen.
At the conversational level, we all -- myself included -- fall into certain staples that we either favor or use as common defaults. Karen likes to tease me that there are certain phrases that I use so often as to gain admission into the Redundancy School of Redundancy. She's right; I do. And some of the ones I use may be off-putting to other people, because there are certain phrases or usages that others use that drive me nuts. I'm wrong on these, I realize, but still...I cringe whenever I hear these words or phrases used in the contexts in which they're used.
I married my best friend: Yes, Karen is my best friend. But to describe what I did when I married her as having married my best friend doesn't even begin to describe the magnitude of what I did. I married the best person I'll ever know, the love of my life, the woman who makes me go weak in the knees and whose voice and touch I crave above all others. I realize that when the adjective best is used, it necessarily separates that person from the rest of one's friends. Still, there are other nouns that I'd use -- lover, for example -- that rarely get used. It's as if we're trying to equate friendship with love, and although there may be elements of each in both, I think love (and lover) is superior to friendship (and friend). But what do I know?
Fellowship: This one is fingernails on a blackboard to me. When used in the religious context, it drives me nuts. It shouldn't, I know, but the only proper usage of fellowship for me involves hobbits, golden rings and authors with three initials. Again, I'm wrong, but I can't stand this one.
Daddy: Being a carpetbagging Northerner, this objection may be regional. I have no problem with children using this for their fathers. Heck, I did it...for awhile. My objection to the usage of this word is when adults -- thirty-year-olds, forty-year-olds and older -- refer to their fathers as daddy. Karen, who has deep roots south of the Mason-Dixon line, has argued with me that it's a normal usage in Dixie, and I'll stipulate to that. I might even be persuaded that women can still use this to refer to their fathers well into their dotage. But men? Seriously? Men who themselves are fathers? I don't know. I can't imagine using the term at that age. Then again, my relationship with my own father was distant at best, so what do I know?
Journey: It's de rigueur to describe romantic relationships as a journey. Perhaps the first five hundred times the word was used this way it was evocative. Now it's lame and lazy. Besides -- where is this relationship going? A journey usually as an end point in mind. Does anyone know where a relationship is headed when it begins?
Chemistry: This is another overworked word used in relationships. And journey is too narrow, chemistry doesn't adequately describe a relationship if for no other reason that it's too broad. What kind of chemistry? Some kind is combustible. Other kinds make things foam up. Still other kinds burn. Saying that a couple has great chemistry is fine, and at one time it was novel, but now it's like journey and it's become trite. Not to mention broadly inaccurate.
Iconic: This is one that gained traction and has since taken off into oblivion. There are certainly icons in music, sports, entertainment and other fields. But the use of this term is so watered down now that anyone who has been able to extend his fifteen minutes of fame to a full hour is now called iconic by the media. It's overused to the point of dilution now. I'm not sure it can ever retain its original meaning such that the likes of Michael Jordan won't be lumped into the same category as Demi Lovato.
Baby: Ugh. My wife is no baby. I guarantee that. She's my sweetheart, my love, my bride, my beloved, the center of my universe...but she's no baby. Women can use it, I guess, as an affectionate term for their beloved, but it sounds bad to me when a man uses it for his woman.
That's a good/great question: So someone's being interviewed and she feels it's acceptable to rate the questions being asked? It's probably a schmooze tactic that's taught by handlers to politicians and celebrities, and it could be used to buy time to formulate a question. In a casual interview, when someone is taken aback by the question and has to think about the answer for a second, saying that may actually be honest. But the way some high profile people use it (and repeatedly use it during an interview) it comes off as practiced and insincere.
Thank you for asking me/I'm glad you asked that question: This one usually comes up in interviews with politicians, athletes or celebrities who have been involved in a scandal. They say it so seem forthright. It's unctuous. The problem is that ones that use it are usually ones that have done something embarrassing or heinous and don't really want to have to answer something, so they want to sound as if they do want to be there answering questions. Again, it could simply be practiced, something that a handler told them to say to make them seem more likeable. To me it rings false.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Still, in ordinary speech, it's difficult to find people who are gifted enough to lift the level of language at the drop of a hat. Writers can always edit their words, or have people who help them edit their prose. Speakers, especially when they speak extemporaneously, aren't always possessed of articulate elegance. When they are, it's pure music. But when they aren't, it can become hackneyed and hard to listen.
At the conversational level, we all -- myself included -- fall into certain staples that we either favor or use as common defaults. Karen likes to tease me that there are certain phrases that I use so often as to gain admission into the Redundancy School of Redundancy. She's right; I do. And some of the ones I use may be off-putting to other people, because there are certain phrases or usages that others use that drive me nuts. I'm wrong on these, I realize, but still...I cringe whenever I hear these words or phrases used in the contexts in which they're used.
I married my best friend: Yes, Karen is my best friend. But to describe what I did when I married her as having married my best friend doesn't even begin to describe the magnitude of what I did. I married the best person I'll ever know, the love of my life, the woman who makes me go weak in the knees and whose voice and touch I crave above all others. I realize that when the adjective best is used, it necessarily separates that person from the rest of one's friends. Still, there are other nouns that I'd use -- lover, for example -- that rarely get used. It's as if we're trying to equate friendship with love, and although there may be elements of each in both, I think love (and lover) is superior to friendship (and friend). But what do I know?
Fellowship: This one is fingernails on a blackboard to me. When used in the religious context, it drives me nuts. It shouldn't, I know, but the only proper usage of fellowship for me involves hobbits, golden rings and authors with three initials. Again, I'm wrong, but I can't stand this one.
Daddy: Being a carpetbagging Northerner, this objection may be regional. I have no problem with children using this for their fathers. Heck, I did it...for awhile. My objection to the usage of this word is when adults -- thirty-year-olds, forty-year-olds and older -- refer to their fathers as daddy. Karen, who has deep roots south of the Mason-Dixon line, has argued with me that it's a normal usage in Dixie, and I'll stipulate to that. I might even be persuaded that women can still use this to refer to their fathers well into their dotage. But men? Seriously? Men who themselves are fathers? I don't know. I can't imagine using the term at that age. Then again, my relationship with my own father was distant at best, so what do I know?
Journey: It's de rigueur to describe romantic relationships as a journey. Perhaps the first five hundred times the word was used this way it was evocative. Now it's lame and lazy. Besides -- where is this relationship going? A journey usually as an end point in mind. Does anyone know where a relationship is headed when it begins?
Chemistry: This is another overworked word used in relationships. And journey is too narrow, chemistry doesn't adequately describe a relationship if for no other reason that it's too broad. What kind of chemistry? Some kind is combustible. Other kinds make things foam up. Still other kinds burn. Saying that a couple has great chemistry is fine, and at one time it was novel, but now it's like journey and it's become trite. Not to mention broadly inaccurate.
Iconic: This is one that gained traction and has since taken off into oblivion. There are certainly icons in music, sports, entertainment and other fields. But the use of this term is so watered down now that anyone who has been able to extend his fifteen minutes of fame to a full hour is now called iconic by the media. It's overused to the point of dilution now. I'm not sure it can ever retain its original meaning such that the likes of Michael Jordan won't be lumped into the same category as Demi Lovato.
Baby: Ugh. My wife is no baby. I guarantee that. She's my sweetheart, my love, my bride, my beloved, the center of my universe...but she's no baby. Women can use it, I guess, as an affectionate term for their beloved, but it sounds bad to me when a man uses it for his woman.
That's a good/great question: So someone's being interviewed and she feels it's acceptable to rate the questions being asked? It's probably a schmooze tactic that's taught by handlers to politicians and celebrities, and it could be used to buy time to formulate a question. In a casual interview, when someone is taken aback by the question and has to think about the answer for a second, saying that may actually be honest. But the way some high profile people use it (and repeatedly use it during an interview) it comes off as practiced and insincere.
Thank you for asking me/I'm glad you asked that question: This one usually comes up in interviews with politicians, athletes or celebrities who have been involved in a scandal. They say it so seem forthright. It's unctuous. The problem is that ones that use it are usually ones that have done something embarrassing or heinous and don't really want to have to answer something, so they want to sound as if they do want to be there answering questions. Again, it could simply be practiced, something that a handler told them to say to make them seem more likeable. To me it rings false.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Monday, August 21, 2017
My Beautiful Wife Karen
My blogpost stats page informed me that this post would be my 512th post. Given that my favorite date of the year is May 12, and that a significant and eerily coincidental events have taken place on that date, I think it's only fitting that I use this blogpost for my favorite subject.
Advice given to would-be authors is to write about what one knows. Taking that advice for this blogpost, I'll write about the woman I know and, moreover, the person I like the best. My wife is the best person I'll ever know. No saint is she, and she'd be the first to admit that she's not perfect, but she's the perfect woman for me.
There are myriad adjectives that can aptly describe her: Intelligent, witty, gorgeous, creative, strong, loyal, passionate, snarky, playful, religious, musical, caring, fun, nurturing, patient, courteous, kind, caring, supportive, considerate...I could spend all day listing the wonderful attributes my wife has. I suppose any husband in love with his wife would do the same, but I'm right about mine. That I'm so fortunate in life is because my wife is all the wonderful things I describe, and then some.
We met in an...unconventional way. That's a story for another time, perhaps. But if one were to know the story of our courtship and engagement, one would realize what a resolute woman Karen is. She defied society and tradition, not to mention her family, to be with me. She put up with our dire circumstances, not to mention my shenanigans, to stay with me and eventually marry me. She put up with my family's neuroses, never fearful that the lunatic strain would manifest itself in me. Well, at least I don't think she's fearful of that happening.
With Karen I've seen more of this country in nine years than I'd seen in the previous forty-seven. I've been exposed to new traditions, old communities, different lifestyles and exciting novelties. She's a fearless liver of life who always wants to experience as much as she can.
Much like our Mother, Karen will thoughtfully remember something someone told her and present the person with what it was that person was seeking. Oftentimes, she'll focus her attention on a thing that is viewed by society at large as less than beautiful -- bonsai trees, English bulldogs, me -- and fall head-over-heels in love with it. She champions the unfortunate.
Despite this, she bristles at compliments. If I tell her "You're beautiful," her immediate rejoinder is a hearty "You're beautiful," which I decidedly am not. If I remark that I'm strong, she dismisses the judgment as being silly. Yet, if anyone knew what she went through with her auto-immune diseases, he'd be amazed that the cheerful, pleasant woman before him was up all night with sick headaches, belly issues and sundry other symptoms. The number of pills she has to take is overwhelming; that she hates to take pills only adds to the indignity.
It is trite to say that I'm a better person because of her, not because it's untrue but because anyone says that about his love. But it's true. Make no mistake: I'm hardly a changed person; I'm better than I would have been had I never met my wife. I'm calmer, more patient, less prone to act out -- although Karen would debate me on that last one. I'm more interested in doing things that I'd never done before, if for no other reason that it makes Karen happy. For one, she says that she has oodles of fun when we dance, when the fact of the matter is that as far as dancing goes, I'm barely more mobile than a statue. I think it's the risibility of my efforts that provokes the glee in her, but she'd say otherwise. No matter. That she enjoys it encourages me to try, my surgically-repaired hips notwithstanding.
She is the love of my life, the center of my being. I will love her beyond the end of time, not just forever.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Advice given to would-be authors is to write about what one knows. Taking that advice for this blogpost, I'll write about the woman I know and, moreover, the person I like the best. My wife is the best person I'll ever know. No saint is she, and she'd be the first to admit that she's not perfect, but she's the perfect woman for me.
There are myriad adjectives that can aptly describe her: Intelligent, witty, gorgeous, creative, strong, loyal, passionate, snarky, playful, religious, musical, caring, fun, nurturing, patient, courteous, kind, caring, supportive, considerate...I could spend all day listing the wonderful attributes my wife has. I suppose any husband in love with his wife would do the same, but I'm right about mine. That I'm so fortunate in life is because my wife is all the wonderful things I describe, and then some.
We met in an...unconventional way. That's a story for another time, perhaps. But if one were to know the story of our courtship and engagement, one would realize what a resolute woman Karen is. She defied society and tradition, not to mention her family, to be with me. She put up with our dire circumstances, not to mention my shenanigans, to stay with me and eventually marry me. She put up with my family's neuroses, never fearful that the lunatic strain would manifest itself in me. Well, at least I don't think she's fearful of that happening.
With Karen I've seen more of this country in nine years than I'd seen in the previous forty-seven. I've been exposed to new traditions, old communities, different lifestyles and exciting novelties. She's a fearless liver of life who always wants to experience as much as she can.
Much like our Mother, Karen will thoughtfully remember something someone told her and present the person with what it was that person was seeking. Oftentimes, she'll focus her attention on a thing that is viewed by society at large as less than beautiful -- bonsai trees, English bulldogs, me -- and fall head-over-heels in love with it. She champions the unfortunate.
Despite this, she bristles at compliments. If I tell her "You're beautiful," her immediate rejoinder is a hearty "You're beautiful," which I decidedly am not. If I remark that I'm strong, she dismisses the judgment as being silly. Yet, if anyone knew what she went through with her auto-immune diseases, he'd be amazed that the cheerful, pleasant woman before him was up all night with sick headaches, belly issues and sundry other symptoms. The number of pills she has to take is overwhelming; that she hates to take pills only adds to the indignity.
It is trite to say that I'm a better person because of her, not because it's untrue but because anyone says that about his love. But it's true. Make no mistake: I'm hardly a changed person; I'm better than I would have been had I never met my wife. I'm calmer, more patient, less prone to act out -- although Karen would debate me on that last one. I'm more interested in doing things that I'd never done before, if for no other reason that it makes Karen happy. For one, she says that she has oodles of fun when we dance, when the fact of the matter is that as far as dancing goes, I'm barely more mobile than a statue. I think it's the risibility of my efforts that provokes the glee in her, but she'd say otherwise. No matter. That she enjoys it encourages me to try, my surgically-repaired hips notwithstanding.
She is the love of my life, the center of my being. I will love her beyond the end of time, not just forever.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
North Korea
I've read a fair amount about the Korean War. I wouldn't say I know as much about it as I do World War II, but I'm probably beyond novice status when it comes to knowledge about the conflict. I know less of the history of the peninsula, shamefully, so I can't claim to understand all the motivations behind the weird behavior being exhibited by Kim Jong Un these days.
Many are wringing their hands with all the missile test launches that are going on. Apparently, North Korea was assisted by Pakistan and Iran with its ballistic missiles. North Korea is happy to play the role of annoying younger brother looking to gain attention which, once it does, brings it economic relief for illusory promises to behave. In a vacuum, North Korea poses a threat, although that threat is mostly felt by people nearby, chiefly Japan. Considering what Japan's done historically to North Korea, I'd say that the threat was well-earned.
Still, it's unnerving to have a certified lunatic who kills people with whom he has a problem with rabid dogs, anti-aircraft guns and flamethrowers to have control of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads. Although I'm dubious of his ability to successfully strike the continental United States, he could wreak havoc on neighboring countries, mainly South Korea and Japan. What his endgame is is anyone's guess, but it may boil down to something so simple as getting attention from world powers to elevate himself in his people's eyes.
But since I'm an attorney, and since most military men also deal with worst case scenarios, let's say that North Korea finds the wherewithal to launch successfully a nuclear ICBM at the homeland. Pick the target; it really doesn't matter. If that were to happen, the gloves come off.
North Korea is a terrible land. Its mountainous landscape lends itself to defense. If history teaches us anything, war there is a zero-sum game. With the tripwire of the DMZ, any incursion from the North would provide us ample time to rush forces there and attack the vulnerable flanks of the peninsula. The North has an intimidating military, but it's finite. Unlike the Chinese behemoth, the North doesn't possess an endless stream of personnel. Eventually, attrition would take its toll.
Sure, people are worried about the Chinese getting involved and, given their belligerence, that's a concern. But if the North were to launch an unprovoked strike against the West, and the West retaliated, I doubt the Chinese would intervene unless they felt threatened, as they did when Dugout Doug vowed to cross the Yalu.
But if the North Koreans were to successfully launch an ICBM at the homeland, I wouldn't mess around. I'd turn that country into a parking lot. Normally, I don't suggest such flagrant responses, but in this case there are plenty of benefits. First, there's no point in using ground troops. It would be a slaughterhouse. Second, we don't need another protracted war. We're stretched too thin as it is.
No, we simply nuke the place. Turn it into a parking lot. I know lots of people suggest this for the Middle East, but I'd rather use North Korea as the proving ground to show the Islamofascists what's in store for them if they continue their jihad. Besides, it'll give the Chinese pause and render North Korea uninhabitable for years. It's not like their people are living now.
It's a harsh answer, I know. And usually I'm not this bloodthirsty. But enough is enough. How long must we have our nose tweaked for no good reason before we hit back? And not just hit back; hit them so hard that they never come back. It sends a message to other enemies that if they persist in their attacks against our country, a horrible death awaits them.
It's an unpopular decision.
Tough.
War isn't based on popularity.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Many are wringing their hands with all the missile test launches that are going on. Apparently, North Korea was assisted by Pakistan and Iran with its ballistic missiles. North Korea is happy to play the role of annoying younger brother looking to gain attention which, once it does, brings it economic relief for illusory promises to behave. In a vacuum, North Korea poses a threat, although that threat is mostly felt by people nearby, chiefly Japan. Considering what Japan's done historically to North Korea, I'd say that the threat was well-earned.
Still, it's unnerving to have a certified lunatic who kills people with whom he has a problem with rabid dogs, anti-aircraft guns and flamethrowers to have control of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear payloads. Although I'm dubious of his ability to successfully strike the continental United States, he could wreak havoc on neighboring countries, mainly South Korea and Japan. What his endgame is is anyone's guess, but it may boil down to something so simple as getting attention from world powers to elevate himself in his people's eyes.
But since I'm an attorney, and since most military men also deal with worst case scenarios, let's say that North Korea finds the wherewithal to launch successfully a nuclear ICBM at the homeland. Pick the target; it really doesn't matter. If that were to happen, the gloves come off.
North Korea is a terrible land. Its mountainous landscape lends itself to defense. If history teaches us anything, war there is a zero-sum game. With the tripwire of the DMZ, any incursion from the North would provide us ample time to rush forces there and attack the vulnerable flanks of the peninsula. The North has an intimidating military, but it's finite. Unlike the Chinese behemoth, the North doesn't possess an endless stream of personnel. Eventually, attrition would take its toll.
Sure, people are worried about the Chinese getting involved and, given their belligerence, that's a concern. But if the North were to launch an unprovoked strike against the West, and the West retaliated, I doubt the Chinese would intervene unless they felt threatened, as they did when Dugout Doug vowed to cross the Yalu.
But if the North Koreans were to successfully launch an ICBM at the homeland, I wouldn't mess around. I'd turn that country into a parking lot. Normally, I don't suggest such flagrant responses, but in this case there are plenty of benefits. First, there's no point in using ground troops. It would be a slaughterhouse. Second, we don't need another protracted war. We're stretched too thin as it is.
No, we simply nuke the place. Turn it into a parking lot. I know lots of people suggest this for the Middle East, but I'd rather use North Korea as the proving ground to show the Islamofascists what's in store for them if they continue their jihad. Besides, it'll give the Chinese pause and render North Korea uninhabitable for years. It's not like their people are living now.
It's a harsh answer, I know. And usually I'm not this bloodthirsty. But enough is enough. How long must we have our nose tweaked for no good reason before we hit back? And not just hit back; hit them so hard that they never come back. It sends a message to other enemies that if they persist in their attacks against our country, a horrible death awaits them.
It's an unpopular decision.
Tough.
War isn't based on popularity.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
From Russia, Not With Love
Has our victory in the Cold War come to this?
I have never seen such useless handwringing, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments and hair-pulling over such an inconsequential issue in my life. Sure, if it were proven that the Russians aided or abetted voter fraud to throw a presidential election, it would be troubling. Any American who participated in that would go to jail for a very long time. But for all the noise we've heard about this, we've seen precious little evidence of any wrongdoing.
Make no mistake: The Russians love to meddle. Since the days of Peter the Great, Russia has longed to keep its outsiders at arms' length. By destabilizing one of its biggest competitors, Russia stood not only to secure its existence (did I mention Russians are paranoid...?) but also to elevate itself in the eyes of the rest of the world. Given its size, its military and its oil reserves, Russia is in a position to dominate other countries and thereby preserve its hegemony over them. Unless, of course, the United States with our myriad assets exists to nullify the Russians' advantages and overtake them.
But is it really in Russia's best interests to weaken the US? A growing and aggressive Chinese military threatens to shut down the Pacific to the Russians. Its population is some eight times the Russian population, outstripping it by a factor of ten in the Far East. With the United States as a counterbalance, the Russians can breathe a little bit easier, although they'd still have to be wary of a belligerent China.
Still, even assuming Russia interfered in the 2016 general elections, where's the proof? Wouldn't the intelligence agencies be releasing information to Congress or the White House showing that the results were rigged? Why is Congress wasting its time chasing these non-starters about how Jr. met with this operative or Kushner talked with this lawyer or Ivanka shared a drink with this Russian? For virtually every alleged sin committed by the Trump campaign and administration there's at least one story debunking the allegation. Meanwhile, judicial positions remain unfilled, Obamacare remains unrepealed, tax reform is stalled and we look like a laughingstock to the rest of the world.
I can't say categorically that nothing happened. But unless and until someone proves otherwise, enough is enough. Especially when one considers the relative yawn coming from the MSM regarding the misdeeds of the Clintons when it came to selling assets of the country for personal profit. Again, there are two sets of standards: One for liberals and another for everyone else.
What the Russia adventure proves is the fecklessness of our MSM. There is no one willing to look beyond this Potemkin village (sorry, had to use it) and go after the Clintons, or take the Democrats to task for obstructionism, or report on the ills of sanctuary cities. Instead, the MSM has appointed itself President Trump's Javert and will dog his every step until it ousts him from the Oval Office.
Only partially sardonically, if the Russians in fact meddled in our election, they might have done us an invaluable service. If they hadn't, Cankles might have won.
What would the MSM have to do were she president...?
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
I have never seen such useless handwringing, gnashing of teeth, rending of garments and hair-pulling over such an inconsequential issue in my life. Sure, if it were proven that the Russians aided or abetted voter fraud to throw a presidential election, it would be troubling. Any American who participated in that would go to jail for a very long time. But for all the noise we've heard about this, we've seen precious little evidence of any wrongdoing.
Make no mistake: The Russians love to meddle. Since the days of Peter the Great, Russia has longed to keep its outsiders at arms' length. By destabilizing one of its biggest competitors, Russia stood not only to secure its existence (did I mention Russians are paranoid...?) but also to elevate itself in the eyes of the rest of the world. Given its size, its military and its oil reserves, Russia is in a position to dominate other countries and thereby preserve its hegemony over them. Unless, of course, the United States with our myriad assets exists to nullify the Russians' advantages and overtake them.
But is it really in Russia's best interests to weaken the US? A growing and aggressive Chinese military threatens to shut down the Pacific to the Russians. Its population is some eight times the Russian population, outstripping it by a factor of ten in the Far East. With the United States as a counterbalance, the Russians can breathe a little bit easier, although they'd still have to be wary of a belligerent China.
Still, even assuming Russia interfered in the 2016 general elections, where's the proof? Wouldn't the intelligence agencies be releasing information to Congress or the White House showing that the results were rigged? Why is Congress wasting its time chasing these non-starters about how Jr. met with this operative or Kushner talked with this lawyer or Ivanka shared a drink with this Russian? For virtually every alleged sin committed by the Trump campaign and administration there's at least one story debunking the allegation. Meanwhile, judicial positions remain unfilled, Obamacare remains unrepealed, tax reform is stalled and we look like a laughingstock to the rest of the world.
I can't say categorically that nothing happened. But unless and until someone proves otherwise, enough is enough. Especially when one considers the relative yawn coming from the MSM regarding the misdeeds of the Clintons when it came to selling assets of the country for personal profit. Again, there are two sets of standards: One for liberals and another for everyone else.
What the Russia adventure proves is the fecklessness of our MSM. There is no one willing to look beyond this Potemkin village (sorry, had to use it) and go after the Clintons, or take the Democrats to task for obstructionism, or report on the ills of sanctuary cities. Instead, the MSM has appointed itself President Trump's Javert and will dog his every step until it ousts him from the Oval Office.
Only partially sardonically, if the Russians in fact meddled in our election, they might have done us an invaluable service. If they hadn't, Cankles might have won.
What would the MSM have to do were she president...?
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Hot For Teacher
Growing up, virtually any male going through puberty had fantasies of hooking up with the hot teacher in his school. Not that there was much chance of it happening; the 60's and 70's might have been the era of free love, but it hadn't yet found its way to the classrooms of middle schools and high schools.
Times have changed...mightily.
Nowadays, hardly a month goes by without there being a report about some teacher preying on a teenaged male student or students. Guys my age derisively and only half-jokingly ask where these women were when we were growing up, but in truth this is becoming a huge problem. One of the most recent stories involved a married woman with children who adopted a fifteen-year-old boy solely so he would be in her home for the purposes of sex. In perhaps the most disgusting of the reports, an older woman had sex with a mentally disabled youth.
And people say men are oversexed...
One might think that the women involved in these accounts are the type who can't find a man on their own so they resort to younger boys who are more pliable. From the mug shots that are put online, that isn't the case. Sure, there are some women who are probably not finding a mate of their own age, but a lot of these women are not only married, but they're attractive to varying degrees. Here's one compilation of women who engage in sex with teenagers:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/slideshow/2017/06/29/female-teachers-charged-or-convicted-having-sex-with-students.html#/slide/loryn-Barclay
And here's yet another:
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/notorious-teacher-sex-scandals/?ftag=ACQb72972c&vndid=00474a66c55d0c6edfd2589c64ab95a565
There doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason as to the motivation of these women. It's almost a given that older men prey on young girls, sick as that is. Perhaps there's something primal in it, but civilization has not only frowned on that, it's passed laws against it. What civilization and the law seem to have overlooked is that no matter how badly men act, women can act just as poorly.
The fact that women are now making cringe-worthy movies to imitate the likes of The Hangover proves that women can't claim moral superiority as a gender. But it shocks the conscience, at first, when acts such as these are aired. As a civilization, we're not used to women acting with this level of depravity; we almost expect it of men.
The element in this that shocks me isn't that women do it but that married women do it. Perhaps there's something wrong in the marriage, something missing. But some of these women are not only married but have young children. These aren't dowagers with grown children; these are (in some cases good-looking) women in their twenties and thirties who are getting involved with teenagers, boys just years older than the women's oldest children. And in some cases, the woman are getting pregnant by their post-pubescent lovers.
Yes, there are some women in their forties who are also doing this. But the majority, shockingly, are as I described them.
Why not just have an affair with an older man, or a man around their age? Why add statutory rape to the misdeeds of which they'll be accused. I find it hard to believe there are on men of majority age attractive enough to turn the heads of these women.
Or is it just the taboo aspect of it? If that's it, the thrill of the forbidden, why not stick to older men and have an affair?
Most guys would scoff at the notion that these young boys will be scarred by the experience. If that were me, they'd say, I'd be smiling 'til my dying day. And perhaps some are. But for as parental as the laws may be, there's good reason to prohibit sex between adults and minors, one of which is the traumatic effect that such experiences may have on the minors, effects, which, may not manifest themselves for years.
As with cellphones that take pictures, trains that travel nearly 200 mph and cable television that offers thousands of channels, we're in a brave new world, one that Aldous Huxley may not have foreseen.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Times have changed...mightily.
Nowadays, hardly a month goes by without there being a report about some teacher preying on a teenaged male student or students. Guys my age derisively and only half-jokingly ask where these women were when we were growing up, but in truth this is becoming a huge problem. One of the most recent stories involved a married woman with children who adopted a fifteen-year-old boy solely so he would be in her home for the purposes of sex. In perhaps the most disgusting of the reports, an older woman had sex with a mentally disabled youth.
And people say men are oversexed...
One might think that the women involved in these accounts are the type who can't find a man on their own so they resort to younger boys who are more pliable. From the mug shots that are put online, that isn't the case. Sure, there are some women who are probably not finding a mate of their own age, but a lot of these women are not only married, but they're attractive to varying degrees. Here's one compilation of women who engage in sex with teenagers:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/slideshow/2017/06/29/female-teachers-charged-or-convicted-having-sex-with-students.html#/slide/loryn-Barclay
And here's yet another:
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/notorious-teacher-sex-scandals/?ftag=ACQb72972c&vndid=00474a66c55d0c6edfd2589c64ab95a565
There doesn't appear to be any rhyme or reason as to the motivation of these women. It's almost a given that older men prey on young girls, sick as that is. Perhaps there's something primal in it, but civilization has not only frowned on that, it's passed laws against it. What civilization and the law seem to have overlooked is that no matter how badly men act, women can act just as poorly.
The fact that women are now making cringe-worthy movies to imitate the likes of The Hangover proves that women can't claim moral superiority as a gender. But it shocks the conscience, at first, when acts such as these are aired. As a civilization, we're not used to women acting with this level of depravity; we almost expect it of men.
The element in this that shocks me isn't that women do it but that married women do it. Perhaps there's something wrong in the marriage, something missing. But some of these women are not only married but have young children. These aren't dowagers with grown children; these are (in some cases good-looking) women in their twenties and thirties who are getting involved with teenagers, boys just years older than the women's oldest children. And in some cases, the woman are getting pregnant by their post-pubescent lovers.
Yes, there are some women in their forties who are also doing this. But the majority, shockingly, are as I described them.
Why not just have an affair with an older man, or a man around their age? Why add statutory rape to the misdeeds of which they'll be accused. I find it hard to believe there are on men of majority age attractive enough to turn the heads of these women.
Or is it just the taboo aspect of it? If that's it, the thrill of the forbidden, why not stick to older men and have an affair?
Most guys would scoff at the notion that these young boys will be scarred by the experience. If that were me, they'd say, I'd be smiling 'til my dying day. And perhaps some are. But for as parental as the laws may be, there's good reason to prohibit sex between adults and minors, one of which is the traumatic effect that such experiences may have on the minors, effects, which, may not manifest themselves for years.
As with cellphones that take pictures, trains that travel nearly 200 mph and cable television that offers thousands of channels, we're in a brave new world, one that Aldous Huxley may not have foreseen.
(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)