A MARITAL TRAGEDY

A Marital Tragedy

When in the army I met a fellow from Appalachia with one of those slow drawls that can both infuriate and fascinate the northern listener. He explained how the passion of newlyweds superseded almost every other consideration; the sexing was sometimes more frequent than eating. “If you put a pebble in a large jar every time they do it,” he told me, the jar would be filled. At the end of the first year, take a pebble out on every occasion and you won't empty the jar by the end of five years. We laughed. This story is about Clarabelle-Sue Smith.

Born on the family farm to hard working folk, they lived too far away from any town to easily get there. It took a family outing, but her hard working parents never had outings so they never went so did not Clarabelle. Her father in particular, in addition to his devotion to work also was devoted to God, a being whom he believed frowned of human frivolity. There was little laughter in Clara's life and no radio or television. Well, yes a radio, but turned on only for the farm report; Clara had little idea of the outside world.

The school bus picked her up, deposited her at school and later committed the same feat in reverse at the end of the day. The schoolchildren barely knew her and her awareness of her ignorance kept her separate from them. She grew into a comely young woman and in her teens became aware of sensations located in unmentionable parts of her body. While somewhat slow in many ways, she understood that those sensations had something to do with pleasure and in some way had to do with boys. She wandered the hallways and visited classrooms but her hormones affected her brain so it could not bring itself to think clearly. Her few girl friends clearly had solved the problem but too timid, she could not ask.

It so happened that one day the athletic department gave out free tickets to a basketball game. The team was so bad it was the only way they could somewhat fill the arena. Clara waited with dull interest until the team ran onto the court ... and she saw Zeke. Six ft 1 inch tall and muscular and fell instantly in love. The Italians call it The Thunderbolt and it crashed into her brain and blew her mind. He was only a middling player on a mediocre team but he was the man for her and she went after him. Other girls, as was their wont, went after him and the other players, but none with the zeal that Clara poured into getting Zeke for her own.

She never thought about what would happen, what it meant if she got him. What went on between men and women was only a vague blur. She knew about bulls and cows on the farm but had not the capacity to translate such knowledge into a reasonable facsimile of what happened between men and women. But, she wanted him and she could figure it out later.

Though he had been flirted many times, Zeke had never had a girl so enamored of him. Still, he was slow in responding until she removed her bra and he got the idea. It happened, or, more accurately, he made it happen. She liked the two minutes of foreplay but the culmination was a resounding failure as far as pleasure for her, but she became pregnant and got her man. Poor Zeke cursed his fate but in the small town, Drudgeville, where they lived, the young men had to pay the piper and since he had piped her, a wedding ceremony was quickly arranged. Clara's mother consoled her. “Don't worry, dear, you'll probably like it in a few years.”

Her mother need not have worried. They piped away and she became an enthusiast, only reluctantly ceasing such activities because of the birth of their child, a girl. Zeke played basketball at a local community college but quickly was relegated to the bench. A semi-star in high school, he was a dud in tougher competition. They moved back to Drudgeville where he got a job at a body shop scraping rust off damaged cars. He was promised a promotion to real bodywork but that never happened.

So, with the child born and him working, she had nothing to do but care for the child and cajole him into bed. A full time job and sex twice a day, morning and evening and six times over the weekend, began to wear on him and in spite of her eager stimulation, he would fall asleep. This was not Clara's plan for a good life. She had found pleasure, more pleasure that she had imagined and would not give it up without a struggle. But, the struggle failed. Back off,” Zeke growled, “four times a week is enough, I need to rest.

It was then she decided he had to die. She would never break her marriage vows by finding another man to fill the gaps, her vows were sacrosanct. The solution was to kill him, but in such a way that suspicion could never finger her as the perpetrator. She thought of accidents, fake suicide, poison, knives and guns. She even thought of hiring an assassin but all the possibilities had weak points and she panicked at the thought she would have to spend the rest of her suddenly dreary life with only little of that glorious pleasure. But, she found a way. On a visit to the doctor, he was told he had gained too much weight and ate too much fried food. “It's fried food that will kill you in the long run.”

It took a few days for her to understand the significance of that warning. Fried food would kill him. Of course, that was it. He loved fried food and he would now get it, morning noon and night. Fried fish, fried chicken, chicken fried steak, fried zucchini, fried potatoes, hash brown potatoes, cottage fried potatoes, fried onion rings, fried Twinkies, fried shrimp and whatever else she could think to place before him. She understood it would take a few years, but at 21, she had plenty of time after his death for a fulfilled life.

He loved her newfound enthusiasm for cooking and he loved fried food. Every year the doctor warned him about weight, blood sugar cholesterol and heart attacks, but when Zeke expressed some concern she would place before him deep fried cantaloupe slices and he was doomed.

At twenty-three, she could see that he had only a few more years to live and rejoiced. His increased dehabilitation made sex almost impossible for him and his belly fat repulsed her but OK, she could wait. She made up for her loss with fantasies and self-gratification. All was well; the plan was working and she could wait.

Until he came home one day. He explained that he had spoken with twelve-year-old Tommy Jones, the youngest preacher in the county. The pre-adolescent had told him that eating meat and fish was a sin and that starting that day, they were vegetarians. She smashed in his skull with the frying pan.

She could not enjoy life without sexing

Its absence in life was perplexing

To her it was balm

Without it no calm

No sex was simply quite vexing

PISSING ON THE ENEMY

PISSING ON THE ENEMY

There are some people who are convinced that world wide violence is gradually diminishing and they provide data to support that idea. I am not convinced even though the data appear solid. Their idea is that warfare is an aberration, something left over from ancient times when killing others meant survival, just a bad habit, thus expungible.

While it is a hopeful plausibility, it ignores how evolution shaped us. Fear and anger are built in, run like hell or fight like hell and survive until the next encounter. Pretty early on, bands of people, probably kin groups, realized that uncontrolled running or fighting easily disrupted the group and established rules of conduct. The kids, human kids, had to learn how not to run and not to fight when things went wrong; it makes little sense to kill someone who scowled at you though, alas that happens. After all, it could be caused by a distressed stomach. Still, the impulses are still there; civilization and religion have worked hard to tame the beast but outbursts abound. Another attack on a school, I forget where, occupied the news this morning. It's too early to know why, but you can be sure it has nothing to do with survival. It is most likely a version of: “Things should not be the way they are.” Most people feel irritated when caught behind a slow driver, but how many people wonder at that? Why the irritation? “He/she should not act that way.”

I remember discussing things with men who faced bitter guerrilla warfare. These were young American men who were trained by our society to treat people with respect, not to hurt others and to get along with the world. Alas, put them into combat and they are transformed into killers and often cruel killers. Desensitized to human anguish and pain, they participated in abominations and loved it. You may remember that some soldiers cut off the ears of the enemy dead and made necklaces of them. One of them, an old soldier of many campaigns could not believe that he acted that way. He and his buddies wore their necklaces and danced around blazing fires. Or, if an officer was disliked he might be “fragged.” Roll a fragmentation grenade into his tent and blow the sucker up.

All acted that way? Certainly not all, but such happened and became the liet motif of the Viet Nam war. Guerrilla war is sneaky, dirty and frightening.

We won the set-piece battles but dealing with the no-good, rotten MFs was personal. You see the cruelty of what they did to a friend's body and all you can think of is murderous revenge. A soldier had married a Viet Namese woman and had a child, both of whom were slaughtered by the Viet Cong. He dropped all the rules and became a fiendish killer. And, years after the events, he justified his response.

It may surprise you to learn that these are issues of personal freedom. Civilization restrains us. We know not to assault drivers who don't obey our rules of conduct, at least most of us know that. But, we have the urge. How many times have you said: “I'd like to . . .,” describing some form of cruel mayhem, but typically we don't. Rarely do we say: “I'd like to treat that person with respect” because he/she must have problems. I remember, in a novel, someone musing about his lack of freedom. If someone knocked off his hat, he would have to knock him down. His society would have contempt for him otherwise.

So, the marines pissed on some enemy dead. Hell, staying alive in a fire fight is a triumph that leaves one with surging adrenalin. Sometimes whooping and hollering, sometimes boasting and yes, sometimes desecrating enemy bodies is is a result. Guerrilla warfare leads to such.

All such behavior is motivated by fear and rage for which we should thank evolution and accept the reality that war is nasty and brutish; we better accept that guerrilla warfare is the future and men, and now women, will act accordingly. Think of what persistent fear and rage do to our psyches; an American soldier apparently slaughtered a number of Afghani citizens. He was in his fourth tour of duty; shall we execute him?

Though I try to do what is right.

How would I react in a fight?

Would I be staunch and quite brave?

Surely my morals I would save

Or be nasty and vicious … yes I might.

PISSING ON THE ENEMY

2-27-12

There are some people who are convinced that world wide violence is gradually diminishing and they provide data to support that idea. I am not convinced even though the data appear solid. Their idea is that warfare is an aberration, something left over from ancient times when killing others meant survival, just a bad habit, thus expungible.

While it is a hopeful plausibility, it ignores how evolution shaped us. Fear and anger are built in, run like hell or fight like hell and survive until the next encounter. Pretty early on, bands of people, probably kin groups, realized that uncontrolled running or fighting easily disrupted the group and established rules of conduct. The kids, human kids, had to learn how not to run and not to fight when things went wrong; it makes little sense to kill someone who scowled at you though, alas that happens. After all, it could be caused by a distressed stomach. Still, the impulses are still there; civilization and religion have worked hard to tame the beast but outbursts abound. Another attack on a school, I forget where, occupied the news this morning. It's too early to know why, but you can be sure it has nothing to do with survival. It is most likely a version of: “Things should not be the way they are.” Most people feel irritated when caught behind a slow driver, but how many people wonder at that? Why the irritation? “He/she should not act that way.”

I remember discussing things with men who faced bitter guerrilla warfare. These were young American men who were trained by our society to treat people with respect, not to hurt others and to get along with the world. Alas, put them into combat and they are transformed into killers and often cruel killers. Desensitized to human anguish and pain, they participated in abominations and loved it. You may remember that some soldiers cut off the ears of the enemy dead and made necklaces of them. One of them, an old soldier of many campaigns could not believe that he acted that way. He and his buddies wore their necklaces and danced around blazing fires. Or, if an officer was disliked he might be “fragged.” Roll a fragmentation grenade into his tent and blow the sucker up.

All acted that way? Certainly not all, but such happened and became the liet motif of the Viet Nam war. Guerrilla war is sneaky, dirty and frightening. We won the set-piece battles but dealing with the no-good, rotten MFs was personal. You see the cruelty of what they did to a friend's body and all you can think of is murderous revenge. A soldier had married a Viet Namese woman and had a child, both of whom were slaughtered by the Viet Cong. He dropped all the rules and became a fiendish killer. And, years after the events, he justified his response.

It may surprise you to learn that these are issues of personal freedom. Civilization restrains us. We know not to assault drivers who don't obey our rules of conduct, at least most of us know that. But, we have the urge. How many times have you said: “I'd like to . . .,” describing some form of cruel mayhem, but typically we don't. Rarely do we say: “I'd like to treat that person with respect” because he/she must have problems. I remember, in a novel, someone musing about his lack of freedom. If someone knocked off his hat, he would have to knock him down. His society would have contempt for him otherwise.

So, the marines pissed on some enemy dead. Hell, staying alive in a fire fight is a triumph that leaves one with surging adrenalin. Sometimes whooping and hollering, sometimes boasting and yes, sometimes desecrating enemy bodies is is a result. Guerrilla warfare leads to such.

All such behavior is motivated by fear and rage for which we should thank evolution and accept the reality that war is nasty and brutish; we better accept that guerrilla warfare is the future and men, and now women, will act accordingly. Think of what persistent fear and rage do to our psyches; an American soldier apparently slaughtered a number of Afghani citizens. He was in his fourth tour of duty; shall we execute him?

Though I try to do what is right.

How would I react in a fight?

Would I be staunch and quite brave?

Surely my morals I would save

Or be nasty and vicious … yes I might.

CRUSHING PAIN: A Way of Life

CRUSHING PAIN: A Way of Life

There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.

High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?

Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.

Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.

The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.

What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?

Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.

While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible

If they merely wear shoes that are sensible

They put up with the pain

For sexual gain

And argue that such is defensible.

CRUSHING PAIN: An Way of Life

 There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.

High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?

Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.

Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.

The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.

What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?

Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.

While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible

If they merely wear shoes that are sensible

They put up with the pain

For sexual gain

And argue that such is defensible.

CRUSHING PAIN: An Way of Life

 There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.

High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?

Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.

Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.

The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.

What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?

Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.

While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible

If they merely wear shoes that are sensible

They put up with the pain

For sexual gain

And argue that such is defensible.

CRUSHING PAIN: An Way of Life

 There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.

High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?

Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.

Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.

The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.

What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?

Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.

While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible

If they merely wear shoes that are sensible

They put up with the pain

For sexual gain

And argue that such is defensible.

CRUSHING PAIN: An Way of Life

 There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.

High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?

Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.

Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.

The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.

What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?

Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.

While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible

If they merely wear shoes that are sensible

They put up with the pain

For sexual gain

And argue that such is defensible.

CRUSHING PAIN: An Way of Life

 There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.

High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?

Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.

Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.

The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.

What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?

Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.

While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible

If they merely wear shoes that are sensible

They put up with the pain

For sexual gain

And argue that such is defensible.

CRUSHING PAIN: An Way of Life

 There is a device, used by hordes of people, which crunches muscles, leads to back aches and headaches, sometimes causes fractures, bunions, shortened Achilles tendons and reduced mobility in dangerous situations that is foisted on girls rather early in life. If you haven't caught on, I'm talking about high heels. Yes, high heels without which the vast number of women does not feel properly dressed. Because of the discomfort, sometimes extreme, women carry “sensible” (more about this below) shoes with them to wear at every opportunity or, if none is handy, heels are kicked off at the first opportunity.

High heels are essentially torture devices so why, with women represented as the sensible sex, do they foist such pain and distress for themselves?

Starting in ancient Greece, the history of heels follows two paths. Sandals were, are perfectly reasonable ways to protect feet from unpaved surfaces. But, muck and mud made life difficult. Aeschylus, that great Greek playwright, inadvertently provided a solution. He insisted that actors who played exalted roles make themselves taller and heels did the trick. For dramatic purposes, he wanted gods and kings to tower over humans and heels provided the message that the role played was noteworthy. It became obvious that heels could raise the person above the muck of the streets so they gradually became somewhat popular. Women continued with heels; aristocratic women wore what were essentially stilts to demonstrate their superior social position. Sometimes these were as much as thirty inches tall and required that servants keep the woman from falling. And, what better way so show superiority than being kept erect by non-entities.

Madame Pompadour started the high heel vogue, it was known as the French heel. Other courtesans followed suit; some women in the oldest of professions noticed that men were a bit more interested in them if they wore heels. This reality became formalized in an American brothel when a heel wearing, French lady of the night got most of the business  Something about a semi-clad woman prancing around in heels prompted men's sexual enthusiasm, and men are always willing to pay for such fun. The Madam then insisted that her other sporting ladies also wear heels. I suppose that put the French lady back into the pack, but you can bet that brothel did superior business.

The men, the beneficiaries of such displays of pulchritude then demanded that their wives also wear heels; if you can have it at home, why pay for it? I assume the wives were enthusiastic about their increased allure; heels became essential to a come-hither style.

What, the perpetually curious person might ask, is so sexually compelling about high heels? Well, they make the foot seem smaller, plump out the calves, make the buttocks protrude and thrust the breasts forward. Further, the high heel walk with its gentle sway adds to the enchantment. What's pain and suffering compared to that?

Okay, but things have changed. Now that all women can get such footwear, they no longer are a symbol of social superiority. Women no longer need protection from muck on the ground; they no longer wear clothes that drag and now have boots for walking in mud. Of course, once at their destination, off come the mud shoes and on go the heels. Heels surely present a sexually assertive message and additionally, because they raise the woman's height they seem more equal with men. No wonder men were afraid to have women break the glass ceiling.

While the power message is still there, it is attractiveness that drives the behavior. Women will do almost anything to make themselves attractive to men. Bustles, which made it impossible for them to sit, were required in good company. Corsets made it impossible for them to breath and fantastic amounts of money have been spent since ancient Egypt started the practice of alluring disguise: cosmetics. Billions are spent on cosmetic augmentations. Women paint their faces coif their hair, shave their legs and douse themselves with pleasant aromas to send the message. Without a clue about how it all started, they are simply modern versions of Madame Pompadour who surely knew how to attract men. And, huzzah for that. And sensible shoes, the kind that don't cause pain or twist feet; hell, one would think they would exemplify the ideal and the heels described as nonsensical. And now, women are wearing heels with 3-inch soles. I bet ERs will become busier with twisted ankles, scratches and bumps. Not so. Hells, whoops, heels are here to stay.

Contrast all this with the Muslim ideal for woman and to some degree for Orthodox Jewish women and some Christian sects. The idea is that woman's sexual attraction is so powerful that they must not come into contact with men and with the strict Muslims, the only parts of a woman a man may see are her eyes and hands. Orthodox Jewish men may not shake hands with a woman, or worship with them; the distraction would be too much for him. In such societies, women’s sexuality is considered incredibly potent and in Western Civilization women, like the Red Queen have to run hard just to stay in place in the sexual game.

For most women it is surely apprehensible

If they merely wear shoes that are sensible

They put up with the pain

For sexual gain

And argue that such is defensible.

Suppressing voters

VOTING FRAUD: A Disastrous Scourge

We are on the brink of national catastrophe, a scourge that could devastate our democracy. We are faced with the specter of voter fraud that hordes, a veritable multitude of non-Americans will descend on voting booths and, gasp, sully the core of our republic. Or at least, so a large segment of politicians and the public agree. In order to defend against this mockery of America, they have proposed a variety of preventive measures to ensure the purity of our ballot.

You may remember, or at least know about the south which devoted much of its energy to keeping black people in their place. Share-cropping, a system of bondage labor with a plantation store to reap further profits, efficiently kept black citizens from rising out of poverty. But, you will argue, they could vote and change things for themselves; could they not organize for political purposes? Well, ignorance and the Klan put quietus to such organization, but they could still vote . . . except for the poll tax and literacy tests which essentially eliminated the black American from the polls. Poor people could not afford the poll tax and with education for blacks essentially non-existent passing a literacy test became a hurdle over which they could not leap. Ugly stuff but it surely is done with, eliminated by an enlightened society. Alas not. The reality of what is now called “voter suppression,” is very much a part of our political environment. The whole point is to eliminate particular classes of voters; sometimes it is done legally and sometimes not so with concern for ethicality totally defenestrated. (See, you failed the test.)

Still, it seems reasonable to require a picture ID in order to vote. Is that not that requirement within the pale? Should we not be sure of whom it is who casts a vote? After all, who doesn't have such a document? Who? The poor. It costs money to own a car and costs money to have a license; the poor and disabled are less likely to have such financial encumbrances and whom do they vote for? Well, usually Democrats, as if that's a crime. Of course, such demands are not a poll tax, surely not, we no longer tolerate such things, do we?

Is that it? Sorry, there is more. In the recent recall election in Wisconsin, the Republicans knew they would lose so they put up a bogus slate of Democrats to lure unwary voters into voting for them, thus splitting the Democratic vote, ensuring a loss. It didn't work, most Democrats figured it out. Another trick was to call those likely to vote for recall and give them bogus deadlines to get their votes in. The idea was that the victims would think they had more time to cast their ballot until, horrors, they were too late. To some degree, such tricks worked but three state legislators were recalled in a partial Democratic victory.

How about getting people off the list of eligible voters? Here, I mean in Colorado, the Secretary of State has moved to get rid of “inactive” voters. Even though the word inactive is not defined by law, he asserted that missing one vote proved your inactivity so off you went. And, who are those who are more likely to miss a vote? You'd have to be a poor guesser not to have chosen the poor and the disabled. Never mind that they poor have a harder time taking off from work and that if they do they lose money, or that the disabled, well, they are disabled and voting is more problematic for them. Fortunately, saner heads have taken this matter to court and we might anticipate that such obvious voter suppression would be rejected. But, what if the judge is not of the saner sort?

Keep in mind that all of this is in service of keeping the multitude of the non-citizens from voting as if they are poised to do so. Are there examples of such? Of course, the system is not perfect, but aside from the few who sneak a ballot, our system works. In order for there to be a real, not fanciful problem, the non-citizens would have to organize, develop leaders and a cadre around which such a massive effort would gain coherence. Alas for the vote-suppressors, there is no such effort; if there were it would be legally flattened, turned into inconsequential mush. No, there is no voting disaster heading our way unless . . . unless it is that proposed by the suppressors. A pox on them.

ALTE PISHER

ALTE PISHER

12-5-11

One of the great Jewish sneers is to call an aging gentleman an Alte Kocker. In strict translation, it means a man of distinguished years who shits all the time. Well, obviously, unless diarrhea is involved that doesn't happen very much. The subtle meaning of the phrase is to denigrate the person, to imply that he is not to be taken seriously. As I write this I realize that women, at least in my experience are never called AKs, short hand for the term; no point in wasting energy saying the entire line. No, I don't know why women are not included but a reasonable guess is that no one in the good old days expected women to do anything except marry and have children so there is nothing much to denigrate.

But, much more prevalent among men who reaching their glory years is the reality that they pee more than is seemly. In other words, the aging process turns us into Alte Pishers. The problem in medical terms or among the too snooty to speak of bodily functions is BPH, benign prostate hypertrophy; whatever you call it, it means that we poor souls become considerably more familiar with pissoirs, French for bathrooms. The prostate becomes big and squeezes the tube (What the hell do you call it?) running from bladder to exit device hence the problem. Suffering from AP syndrome means a) that you pee a lot and b) not much comes out. It also means interrupted sleep, getting up three or four times a night to reduce the pressure. Parenthetically, in the old days your doc would stick his properly protected finger up your behind to check its size, but of late that seems no longer medical vogue. Well, I don't mind.

Calling someone an AP in my vast experience is reasonably rare. When I was young I'd refer to some elderly folk as AKs, but the aging process reduces the number of those who deserve the term. Only an exceptionally clever person would call a younger man an AK; the older one becomes, the smaller the population of older folks thus reducing the opportunity. Still, as I write this I think the term fits for Newt Gingrich whose outrageous, mindless pronouncements , I.E. get rid of child labor laws, tell me his gravitas is simply non-existent.

Back to AP. What compounds my problem is that in a miserly way I tend to retain fluids so I am given a medicine that, you guessed it makes me pish. So, wherever I go, my pishdar locates the nearest restrooms so that when the urge appears, as is now common I know exactly where to hasten for bladder relief.So, reaching AP status is another marker along the road to being old. White hair, a bit of macular degeneration, difficulty in getting off the floor after repairing the sink, a low level of persistent arthritic pain, creaky muscles, and a brain that doesn't quite function as in the past are other markers promising that if I survive I'll truly be an old man. I know that some aged people past ninety never seem to age; I fondly hope, with little expectation of fulfilled hope that I well be in that group.

Byron wrote, in Rabbi Ben Ezra (not sure of the title) “grow old with me, the best is yet to be. Bullshit.

If you think about life I'm an ingrate

Consider my crappy old prostate

It demands that I pee

Often two times or three

If there is god that's who I'll berate.

FATE

FATE

7-13-09

There is no such thing. Things happen without our control and we invent things about them. Asians call fate Kismet, meaning when bad things happen the only thing to do is shrug and live your life. Fate implies that there is some mysterious force that operates in the universe that controls our destiny. It was Charlie's fate never to meet a decent woman is what people say about Charlie, meaning that it was somehow ordained by the universe..

Humans have huge egos. We easily develop the notion that the universe takes an interest in us or ignores us when it should not. So many things happen of which we do not approve and we bizarrely become upset, either bemoaning our fate (there's that word again) or becoming angry when things go wrong. We miss the obvious: there is no rational reason that the universe should pay attention to our desires. We do not as separate entities exist in the universe, we are part of the universe as much as the earth we walk on or the stars in the sky.

How did we get here? Religionists insist that there is a determining part of existence that created the universe, i.e. god, that created us. The thought seems to make some people happy, but at the same time left many people uncertain. Instead of accepting received wisdom, they raised questions. That God created us did and does not satisfy. Human beings just a few hundred years ago began to understand the process of how we became . . . us: Evolution. Paying attention to that process makes it evident our transformations over time were natural events, a function of the state of the universe's interaction with protoplasm. No one knows how protoplasm got started. Some thing it was in primordial oceans hit by lightening that made things that lived. Others think that spores of life, floating through space, landed on earth and survived. Some think that aliens seeded earth with life for whatever purpose they had. Did God do it? The trouble with God explanations is that they stop inquiry and godly institutions, jelouse of their perquisites, sometimes killed people who wanted more knowledge.

Some religionists argue that everything in the universe is exquisitely balanced so as to make life possible. If the earth were too hot, or too cold, we could not survive. Too much or too little radiation, if Planck's constant were was a fraction different it would have forestalled our existence. Thus, they argue, that the universe must have been created so we would have a place to live. Idiotic! They miss the point that however life started it would have gone no further had it not fit in. There is no knowing how many times some form of life appeared but could not live in the environment as it was. All sorts of changes happened to the protoplasm and most died out; only our strain survived. When the environment changed we adapted. But, sometimes adaption was not possible and huge species died. The dinosaurs could not make it after the giant meteor hit the earth. Our forebears did. Of course they changed to meet the new conditions and over eons we changed and changed and changed to meet new environments. Nothing about the universe was designed for us; adapt or disappear. The fossil record attests to that.

We all face the problem of how to live an acceptable life in the face of an intractable universe. By far, the great bulk of humanity react with emotions that have no relation to the problem. A patient described how, once, he shook a fist at the sky in outrage for something or other that had gone wrong. What's the point? Yes, he said he felt better after doing so, but it had never occurred to him that he could feel better by accepting loss as part of life and to continue to strive to enjoy his life. “I can't be happy unless the universe does such and so,” is the lament. Humbug, sheer, unadulterated humbug. But prayers are made urging God to change the rules and most prefer not to notice when he, she or it doesn't pull it off. After all, at least there is somebody there listening and making decisions on a master plan which we cannot comprehend.

Yeah. To quote that great song, “It ain’t necessarily so.

WHY READ?

WHAT DOES A GOOD BOOK GIVE ME?  BLOG

Browsing in the Tattered Cover is a situation in which books leap into my arms. It is a strange phenomenon because I'm not aware of how that process works. What happens at the check-out counter is that I am startled at what I am purchasing. “How the hell did I choose that one?” Of course, I never not buy a book that has intruded itself into my life and, the books, all filled with promise, never fail to disappoint.

Example: I went home with a book entitled “1858,” about precursors to the civil war. I had no clue as to why I purchased it; it sat on the floor next to my chair for about 3 months when somewhat bored I started to read it. Wow! It entranced me, I dove into it and learned and learned about the state of the country leading up to the civil war.

Another: “A History of the Reformation,” by Diarmaid McCullough decided to leave the shop with me. A thick thing, ungainly and weighing, it seemed ten pounds, it somehow forced itself upon me. I rationalized that I ought to know something about that major part of history, but the truth is that I wouldn't give a centavo for the topic, but there it was. The book is so convoluted and so requires knowledge of Christianity that I read the damned thing three times, each accompanied by gees, wows and can that be real? I was so impressed by the scholarship and wisdom of the author that I now am going through his History of Christianity. And again, there are gasps of pleasure, excitements, and murmurs of “I never knew that” that accompany the page turnings. Parenthetically, I suspect that I now know more about Christianity than most Christians and many priests, reverends, ministers.

I like war books but when I finish one about the WWII Italian campaign I will start Mark Twain's autobiography. Why? Why do I care about him? It’s the pleasure of knowing him, his life and times.

OK, what do I get from all this reading? Except for the Civil War I have no specific focus; almost anything is grist for my intellectual mill. I even read a history of salt. Obviously, learning outside of socially defined knowledge gives me great pleasure. It thrilled me to learn how Oberlin College students lead a revolt against the fugitive slave law, defying slave catchers who were operating legally with the support of local law enforcement. When I learned about Luther's demands and how the church sold indulgences so dead people could get out of purgatory and into heaven faster than expected I could hardly believe that people killed each other over such disputes. The Reformation lead to sermons and strict rules about sexual behavior and how to manage forgiveness almost split the burgeoning Catholic church. Wow, gee whiz!

I failed, and had to repeat, high school history. None of it, not a bit of it interested me. But, in manhood I became hooked on military history in the army, not because of any army influence but because the Red Cross had a book called “Makers of Modern Strategy,” and I was bored. It taught about the WWI Schliefen plan and Von Moltke's failure to carry it out. I learned how the Japanese naval philosophy lead to Pearl Harbor. I learned why the line of battle in shield war always shifted to the right, and so many other things. It's as if I live in a shadow world in which the reality is obscured by social mythology; but reading lets me know something about the reality which is so different from so called knowledge.

What do I give books? Nothing, but I give the authors my brain not only while the reading goes on but afterwards in thinking about things; ultimately the consequence is a transformation into a different person.

What does a book do for me?

Why it helps me to become quite free

Of the myths and the lies

I have learned to despise

Anything better? Hmph! You tell me.