News & Articles

Catching an updraft the other day I circled the pit, not for carrion. I simply needed perspective, to look around. Wind in my face reminded me of earlier days working my laden canoe against the wind.
There was no sense of immediate progress, but eyes fixed on a forward route a mile of choppy lake was crossed one paddle stroke at a time.
A canoe isn’t about being in a hurry. Canoe racing always seemed silly to me, like forming teams to see which could furthest throw a snail. (Snails do not like this but are not considered when the canoe mags report exciting events.)
The perspective of a pit buzzard is on a plane with that of a papers-to-prove-it bastard like me. It is not about beauty or appeal. Looking around the buzzard sees dead and dying along with the living.
Sometimes the distinction is narrow. Some lively things are infected with as much deathly stink as a skunk chained to a corpse.
Even the ugly buzzard knows better than tangle with some stinkers, but on occasion (sometimes too frequently) a carrion eater confronts an unappetizing menu (a sexist word?) like it or not.
This ugly old bird is not adverse to discussion, whether agreeable of contentious. Like you, this bird senses early on which morsel of carrion wants to talk and which is there to raise a stink of yodel and posture.
I might enjoy talking with one such if they were willing, which is clearly not the case when accusation and outrage fly over what stinks worse. There are those (among them numbers, I suspect, of gentle readers) who think I stink. They detect fart smells on a page, a talent denied me.
Sometimes that’s all they come up with, a harvest of wrinkled nose over the delectable (they make it so) horror of the smell (they make worse). Given little to respond to other than condemnation by stench what, then, to do?
Circling ‘round per-spectively reflecting I reviewed two main tactics for dealing with non-content accusers. The otherwise empty denunciation, cursing-out, railing lecture, or personal attack earns my appreciation in these sincere words. “Thank you for telling me.”
Yup, that’s my reply, and why not when there’s really not much to be said about a hollow decry? Don’t for God’s sake say “Good rant” because you’ll only get more. Demonstrating sincere appreciation for what a critic believed they said is best. Believe me, this is so.
The buzzard knows, however, from unrewarding experience, some dead arguments refuse to admit defeat and will arise like Redemption from ashes or the grave to trumpet (fits the resurrection theme) their final (it is to be hoped) stab at life ever after, the secula seculorum of politic.
In that last big breath of oration the question wheedles out “Well, what are you going to do about it?”
There’s one answer for that which is to say “Thank You for asking” as a hasty departure is arranged.
It’s near impossible, you see, to answer essentially empty challenges with content placing the burden on the defender. In general I’ve had better things to do than explain an accuser’s argument for them. Aside from resenting the attempt they’ll usually stand their ground in denial land a stone’s throw from dizzy land.

The other buzzardly tactic aside from the two mentioned is careful avoidance of the sticky trap of being drawn into hollow argument. There is a lot of that out there.
Not getting tangled up is a thing to value. Ways to get unstuck are to recognize questionable assumptions and not then not accept them.
Take the modernly viable stance that Pius XII was complicit in the Holocaust by not having done more to end it.
Appealing to some minds, the argument hangs on holding “others” accountable for things outside their control. If that is the position then you can be held to account for a drug death in Ontario because you did nothing to intervene.
Those who make impossible argu-ments don’t want to talk do they? The goal is to entrap and coercively sway.
There are so many forms of false argument there’s little to guide a person, but consider this. A position that begins by giving conclusions and answers is a good one to doubt because it begins “I’ve figured this out for you.”
Nice to know a reader is thought too stupid to figure things out for themselves.
Rather than the grand and glorious conclusions I like to see the foundation that holds up the design. Too often grand designers won’t give that because they’re occupied praising the value of sizzle without steak.
Circling the pit I’ve seen many positions or arguments posed so you or I can’t win. It’s common practice to pose false premises to push you or me to prove a negative, difficult as trying to prove you’re not a spy.
As example, asserting possible fraudulent use dear Facebook requires me to prove who I am with a complete photo id. I use FB only in reply to others and have never posted or reposted.
In FB “think” I have to prove who I am in order to show I didn’t do something I hadn’t done.
Now there, gentle and genteel readers is a trap to admire for its deviousness and to avoid with equal fervor. Because their premise is essentially illegitimate (I knows about that don’t I) the FB brainiacs see no issue asking me to resolve a problem they claim by providing a certain quality photo image of a photo id from a driver’s license or passport, information they are not entitled to. You or I have little choice. Do what FB says or stay hidden.

Since I can’t prove I didn’t unauthor-izedly use my account and won’t share documents FB doesn’t need I’ll stay hidden and thereby deprive them of personal info to sell (they say they don’t, a pledge solid as my affirming I know Howard Hughes. The old buzzard knows false flag crows and stealth ravens when he sees them. Perspective and caution helps buzzards avoid poisonous prey posing as a delightful social morsel.