How to be a good poet

AND I ALWAYS THOUGHT

And I always thought: the very simplest words
Must be enough. When I say what things are like
Everyone’s hearts must be torn to shreds.
That you’ll go down if you don’t stand up for yourself—
Surely you see that.

Brecht says, and that’s all you need to know:

and as he also says, and as we may all take note of here:

Everything Changes

Everything changes. You can make
A fresh start with your latest breath.
But what has happened has happened. And the water
You once poured into the wine cannot be
Drained off again.

What has happened has happened. The water
You once poured into the wine cannot be
Drained off again, but
Everything changes. You can make
A fresh start with your latest breath.

WW

Mote and beam

I think in the circumstances it’s useful to have an overview: this from the excellent   http://www.contentious.com/

There’s much in this for us all to take note of: the links are a bit errant: it’s easier to use the search function at the site to find the section you want.

Contrary to popular opinion, the internet is not really about technology. It’s about people, specifically how people communicate.

Despite the best efforts of evolution and civilization, human beings still have a lot of rough edges – individually and collectively. We annoy, denigrate, and dismiss each other all the time. Sometimes this is intentional, often it is not.

The plain text which comprises most online communication makes our rough edges hard to miss. It strips away many of the subtle buffers and safeguards we’ve created to minimize the inherent emotional and psychological risks of communication. Also, online media presents a deeply weird juxtaposition of isolation and connectedness, anonymity and identity, parts and whole. In this baffling environment people can be unbelievably brash and vulnerable at the same time.

In this realm, the vermin of communication thrive. Recognizing them, and choosing to react appropriately, is the key to avoiding their damage…

In my time on the internet, I’ve encountered just about every kind of online vermin. At times, I admit, I’ve even participated in the pestilence. Over the years I’ve learned some useful strategies for handling conflicts with each of the major online pests. In this series, I’ll share these tips.

MAJOR TYPES OF ONLINE VERMIN:

• Porcupines: People who seem unable to write a sentence that lacks a barb. There’s a rude, condescending, dismissive, or insulting edge to nearly everything they say. Often these barbs are thinly disguised as humor, or as hyper-rationality. Believe it or not, most porcupines are not aware of how irritating or hurtful they can be. They believe it’s “just their personality,” or they transfer the problem to you. (”Can’t you take a joke?”) They believe they are concealing their vulnerabilities, when in fact barbs only make underlying insecurities more obvious. (How to handle an online porcupine…)
• Trolls: These vermin want to provoke a reaction. They bait in order to get you to snap back, thus granting them perceived license to attack even more fiercely. They will set out to stir up conflict and push people’s emotional buttons. They enjoy polarizing communities and disrupting discourse. Combative aggressive, polarized TV shows like Crossfire showcase and glorify trolling behavior – even though they claim to offer debate. To a troll any attention is good, and the more intense the better. Negative attention tends to be especially intense online. They think they look insightful and strong when they tear others down, but the effect is more like watching a tantrum. (How to handle a troll…)
• Zealots: These people confuse their opinions and perspectives with “the ultimate truth.” They can’t function well without clearly marked boundaries. They calm their deep fear of uncertainty by sparring with people who disagree with them. To zealots, any disagreement with their chosen truth (even if totally impersonal and unrelated to them) feels like a deeply personal affront which they must avenge and crush. Zealots are more comfortable with crusades than conversation. (How to handle a zealot…)
• Skewers: These people routinely skew the words, actions, perspectives, or opinions of others. They believe that they know you better than you know yourself, so they’re better-equipped to explain who you are and what you’re doing. This misrepresentation usually indicates a lack of understanding. Sometimes that comes from a simple lack of information – but other times it demonstrates a profound inability or unwillingness to listen or understand. Rarely is this motivated by animosity. However, being skewed by a skewer can be exceptionally frustrating – kind of like identity theft. Skewers tend to get rigid, and find it almost impossible to admit they were wrong, even slightly. (How to handle a skewer…)
• Leeches: Online media promotes a culture of sharing. However, some people approach the internet with an exagerrated sense of entitlement. If you share your knowledge or resources by answering one question or helping solve one problem, leeches slither close and expect you to answer every question and help solve every problem. They assume, they wheedle, they nag. They may get angry or resentful when you don’t realign your priorities to match their desires. They drain your energy and offer little or nothing in return. (How to handle a leech…)
• Burns: These people take everything personally, in a negative way. Any contact is risky. Even the slightest touch of communication, the slightest possible hint of an insinuation, causes them to react with pain – anger, shame, guilt, despair, regret, self-pity, etc. And you’ll hear about it – loudly. (How to handle a burn…)

RESPONSIBILITY AND PERSPECTIVE

It’s easy to point fingers at other people who annoy, dismiss, or denigrate you online. However, in my experience nearly everyone has been guilty of these bad online communication practices at some point – usually unintentionally. As you read through this series, assume that you have played the role of each of these vermin at some point. You may or may not be able to recall specific instances. But it’s a safe assumption.

“Vermin” labels apply to behaviors, not to people. It’s an important distinction. When you encounter online vermin, don’t assume that their vermin-like qualities represent who they are. When people act like online vermin, that’s merely how they’re behaving at that time, in that situation. Don’t exaggerate these unpleasant encounters by overpersonalizing them.

We all behave badly sometimes, so leave room for compassion and face-saving. Generally this means not reacting strongly or at all to online vermin.

That said, temper compassion with practicality. Maintain your boundaries, especially with strangers. You are not responsible for correcting or curing online vermin.

RESPOND WITHOUT COUNTERATTACKING

Some vermin take a very long time to improve their online communication style, or they may even prefer to behave badly online (and elsewhere). In these cases, more direct measures are required. The most important principle of responding to vermin is to never try to attack or trap them.

Simplistic countermeasures only attract more vermin, like a swarm of wasps stirred to frenzy by the scent of a swatted member of their hive. Successful countermeasures require pausing to look at the big picture, then choosing actions that negate or undermine the vermin’s impact. This deters vermin by removing the perceived rewards for bad online behavior, or by denying them access to your environment.

In the vast majority of cases, countermeasures are not needed at all. Most online vermin tend to undermine and negate themselves pretty immediately and thoroughly. Most of the time, the best approach is simply to recognize and ignore the vermin. If the vermin persists, a calm, positive, nonpersonal, respectful response which reframes the context of the interaction can quell the vermin. Only if the vermin persists beyond that are specific deterence strategies required.

How to be a bad poet

There is a Bad Poetry Explosion,
and you can be part of it!

Thus begins The Bad Poetry Seminar by Sparrow, which teaches the undeniable truth about today’s Poetry Renaissance: Poetry is on the upswing and much of what is being written is bad — really bad. Now, there are those who will tell you that bad poetry is actually good, and although I wouldn’t go quite that far, bad poetry does have its place. The fact is, at slams and open mikes across the country, actually at just about any poetry reading you go to, you’re bound to hear some doozies and you’ll have to admit, bad poetry makes the good stuff really shine.

So, without further ado, sharpen your wits and pencils and get ready for the Bad Poetry Seminar. With a click of the mouse you’ll:

(a) discover how rapidly the percentage of bad poetry is rising,
(b) explore the history of bad poetry,
(c) learn how to differentiate a good bad poem, a mediocre bad poem and a bad bad poem, &
(d) join in chanting the Bad Poetry Anthem.

Once you feel like you’ve got a handle on things, try your hand at writing a few stinkers yourself. There are a host of resources out there just waiting to critique your work and even some set-up to help you whip up a masterpiece on the fly. Who knows, once you’ve finished your course of study, you may even be ready to start up your own seminar.

You can also visit Very Bad Poetry:

Welcome to the last refuge for the world’s worst poetry.

It’s difficult to understand how, in this age of information, poems that merely miss the mark can be tossed into the cold world to fend for themselves, only to whither and be forgotten.

Well, not quite the last refuge. There’s always the Bad Poetry generator

Mendel’s Serenade

i just wanna make you scream

though his foot dared cross the line, once drawn

which will destroy the seam

he munched on a salad of lettuce, cheese and prawn

or

Mendel’s Serenade

i just wanna make you scream

I wonder what Nietzsche would say about this

winding road of starlaced dreams

I don’t believe people really contribute to this

Bedtime story

Once upon a time there lived a lovely princess and one day she made a journey into the colourful world of blogland. Her visit was rudely interrupted by the unwelcome intrusion of an ugly troll stamping his feet in an ungainly fashion and muttering incoherently about things he knew nothing of. When the princess came home at last and took out her pillowbook, as she did every night, she became thoughtful. She had been lucky enough to have been taught by wise wizards many years ago – should she not share some of that wisdom? So she wrote in her pillowbook some simple explanations of basic critical thinking as passed down by the ancient defenders of reason. Unfortunately, the princess was naive in the ways of the world and used some of the troll’s rantings as her starting-point. And the troll waxed mad when he discovered this. His small pinched brain could not comprehend even the simplest argument and recoiled at making the slightest effort. The poor troll possessed but one fixed idea – that he was entitled to free speech. And, being but a troll, he understand that in only a threadbare way as the right to offend anyone he liked. For why do trolls exist if not to make rude noises like a gibbering monkey or a yapping dog?

(cont)

Artist of the Day : Kurt Schwitters

Artist: Kurt Schwitters (1887 – 1948)
Nationality: German
Movement: Dadaism
Media: Painting

After studying at the Dresden Academy, Kurt Schwitters worked as a designer, architect, typographer, writer, and publisher while pursuing his painting. Initially curious about Cubism, Schwitters eventually developed more Dadaist style, probably because of the influence from artists such as Arp and Hausmann. He incorporated found objects and junk into his montage pieces in three-dimensional pieces that he called Merzbau, meaning “cast-off construction.” He ran the Dadaist magazine, Merz, named after this term from 1923 to 1932. With the rise of Nazism, Schwitters moved to Norway and then finally to England in 1940, where he died.

Who are the Devil, Satan, God, Jesus and His Father? How do these Characters fit into religion, and do all of them belong there?

You might think this to be a strange question, but is it?
In the past hundred years human science has developed immensely, more than in any century ever before, what happened to religion in the past hundred years? We are taught exactly the same thing our great grand parents were taught! The Christian reader might think why must religion develop, its religion, it’s been this way forever, why change it, what is the point, can religion develop? A question we can ask ourselves is this; is religion still valid?

Why would anyone question that! Is probably the shout that would come from millions of religious people around this globe we call home, and we refer to as having four corners, I would attempt to show you the four corners, if you could give me one reason, one concrete undeniable reason to not question religion.

The Characters in the heading has been part of religion since its conception! Or so we like to think! Satan only entered this concept in the book of Job, nowhere before Job are there any positive reference to him, before Satan people were just disobedient and evil, praying to idols, ignoring God, and for that He punished them. The book of Job is thought to have been written in plus minus six hundred to five hundred B.C, some believe it was written by Moses, there are other scholars who however differ on the matter. The point is; there is no concrete proof on its origin, neither the reason for it.

If the dating is close to accurate then Satan made his appearance three thousand three hundred and eighteen years after creation according to the Bible, in effect we were then without Satan for that number of years.

What is a point of concern in this book is the fact that God appointed Satan to invoke pain in this man Job, by having his children killed to “test” his faith. Also should he pass this test he would be “richly” rewarded, which if you read the book to the end you will find that Job eventually after having admitted his “guilt” is rewarded by becoming even richer than he was before his “fall”. A reward concept initiated by “God”.

Then six hundred years later Jesus was born, three thousand nine hundred and eighteen years after creation according to the Bible. Jesus grew up and started his highly controversial preaching’s. In quite a number of his debates with the church of the time, and to groups of people he spoke to Jesus made some really strange and thought provoking statements. One which is probably the reason for his death is this:

Quote, John chapter 8 verses 42 to 44 “Jesus said to them,” If God really were your Father, you would love me, because I came from God and now I am here. I did not come on my own authority, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to listen to my message. 44 You are the children of your Father, the Devil, and you want to listen to your Father’s desires. From the beginning he was a murderer and has never been on the side of truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he is only doing what is natural to him, because he is a liar and the father of all lies.”

Did Jesus said since Satan, or did he say, “Since the beginning”? His name calling was what eventually got him killed. We are taught in churches that Jesus died for our sins, but did he? What did Caiaphas really meant with these words? I quote; John chapter 11 verse 49 to 52 “One of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said, ‘what fools you are! 50 Don’t you realize that it is better for you to let one man die for the people, instead of having the whole nation destroyed?” then in the next verse; this, 51 “Actually, he did not say that of his own accord; rather, as he was high priest that year, he was prophesying that Jesus was going to die for the Jewish people,” then as if an after thought, 52“and not only for them, but also to bring together into one body all the scattered people of God.”

The manner this was put together is a clear indication that the church was going to make Jesus look like a martyr, re-create him into something he was not, and they did, we all believe today that he actually died for our sins. Jesus did say they want to follow their Father’s desires! Jesus did call their Father/God, the Devil where does that leave Satan, and where does that leave Jesus and his Father?

The above quote also leave a feeling of disbelief regarding the words “rather, as he was high priest that year he was prophesying”, could you only prophesize being a high priest? And why the ‘rather’, such an amateurish effort to try and make one believe something which is clearly not what they imply it to be.

God’s goal was to enrich his followers, physically! Jesus had a different idea!

Did Jesus came to support religion, or was his purpose perhaps something totally different?

Walter Muller.

For those interested; Jesus the Keeper of the truth, http://www.authorhouse.com/bookstore/itemDetail.aspx?bookid=59758 and Unchaste Deception,

http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/unchaste-deception/2486291 the names of two books published regarding the above.

Good reading No 1

At the moment the bedtime story for my daughter is Dracula (abridged) but a long time favourite was :

which is the story of a brother and sister on a midwest farm who accidentally provoke a troll into invading their farm. One night they went out and in the barn:

A squat, ugsome troll was sitting on a stool, milking a cow. There was a pile of eggs on the floor next to his feet.
The troll had a long nose and a bristling tail. He was wearing bib overalls and a large, gold earring in his ear. When Karl barked, the troll was surprised, so he jumped up on a beam under the rafters and said, “What are you kids doing in my barn.”.
Karin looked up and held out her stick. “It’s not your barn, it’s our barn. Are you a troll, a warthog, or a donkey?”
I’m a troll. I’m not a warthog or a donkey, I’m a troll! Donkeys can’t talk and hogs can’t fly.”
“Well, you better get out of our barn or I’ll hit you with this stick.”
“Ha! Ha! Hah! Ho! Ho! Hoh!, the troll laughed wickedly. “You can’t even reach me with that stick.”

It’s an exciting tale, with a happy ending. Read more here

One of the many reasons for America’s Economic Troubles.

The following is me writing about one of our biggest reasons for our Economic Troubles. Before I say anything I must say this. All of the following are things I DIRECTLY observed and lived for 18 months.

One of the many reasons for America’s Economic Troubles is not the bailouts the government has been giving out to companies. In my opinion one of the biggest and one of the many reasons for this crisis, is the economic hemorrhage that is name Operation Iraqi Freedom. From this moment on I will call it OIF. Which is the acronym the military designated it as. Let’s start at the beginning. If memory serves me correct there was over 144,000 troops in country during 2003-2004. Not all of those troops where in Iraq. The reason for this was that Halliburton and subsidiaries like Kellogg, Brown, and Root. Did a lot of the government contract work dealing with construction. Some oil field work, minimal security teams, and power plant work. Most of this was in Iraq. The reason I have a problem with this is simply, because instead of paying these contractors that got anywhere from $150,000 to 500,000 a year tax free.

For that amount of pay for individuals we could have used our military resources that were trained to build bases and run the electricity of those bases, to do their jobs. The civilian contractors did most of that. The thing is though that we spent more money for civilian security for some of the civilian contract work done in the Theater of Operations. Yet, there was several military police, construction engineering, and other units and battalions without a mission. The unit I was in did Customs for civilian and military personnel. Which I am not complaining because the platoon I was in we also did air convoy security, some ground convoy security, base security, as well as Downed Aircraft Recovery Team (D.A.R.T.) missions. Me as a medic worked both the above jobs as well as worked in the base’s Troop Medical Clinic. The base or camp actually was the first camp into Kuwait that helped stabilize medevac patients that went to the next treatment tier. But come to think of it, if there was more MP units in Iraq at that time. I do not think we would have as many problems as we do.

My unit was one of the lucky ones with a mission. The Customs mission I believed and still do should have been handled by civilians. Which I believe, it was handled by civilians at the end of my 18 month tour. During this tour I spoke to and witnessed many military personnel without a mission because the civilian contractors, whom made much more money individually than the units budgets for operations that the civilians took. Look where that lead us it took the beheading of a few civilian contractors that had no business in country in the first place. It wasn’t until those incidents that military personnel was used to do the jobs the DoD paid them to do. That was twelve months after the invasion ten months after I arrived in country.

The budget was 10 trillion dollars a year or day which most went to civilian contractors. That could have been reduced by cutting most of the civilian contractors in the first place. Now the PX workers, the civilians that was charged with helping stabilize Iraq’s power plants. Those where civilian contractor jobs. But truck drivers, and construction? There were military units that were trained to do that. Even though a few did that some did not. This is all immaterial really because its in the past. But, for the purpose of this article it was something that contributed to our current deficit that led to our current economic problem.