Maggie's Farm

I'll expand this and point out "Anti-Gouging Laws" are a form of sanctions and not only make strenuous situations more difficult, but they also create their own markets (among people willing to pay, pay cash, and keep their mouth shut).  Lots of government agencies will claim they 'work' and cite a few specific and unusual examples and claim "victory."  Pyrrhic, at best.  The same is true with governments discussing sanctions.

International sanctions rarely work because of the point made in the title - they create 'black' markets.  Russia's oil has sanctions against it?  So what.  Some country that doesn't care about the West will buy it on the cheap, then resell to nations that support the sanctions but are happy to play intermediary, and eventually it gets back to the West one way or the other.  Either as refined product, or by markets elsewhere that undermine the larger market and disrupt supplies.

The communist world had sanctions against many Western goods - but they were always available in communist nations.  My father traveled to Russia with a suitcase carrying a few extra cases of Marlboros (he didn't smoke) and a few pairs of Levis.  Always good to have the local currency (contraband) ready just in case. A friend who travelled to Argentina 8 years ago, where currency controls were in place, was directed to join a "currency club" where they got a "preferred rate of exchange".  The official Argentine rate was so bad, many people set up these "clubs" where they'd exchange at a better rate, knowing they could get the currency out and exchange at better rates outside of Argentina.

There aren't many examples of sanctions working and doing what they're supposed to do.  Usually sophisticated nations can find ways out of, or around, sanctions.

In the modern world, the claim was Russia's removal from the SWIFT payment system would cripple them.  Someone forgot that the decentralized nature of the internet and cryptocurrencies made the hegemonic controls of a SWIFT system problematic.  If you're going to cut someone out of the system - when might YOU be cut out of the system (for any variety of political reasons)?  Russia isn't crushing it, economically, but the claims about how poorly it would be doing by now were clearly overblown and based on a poor understanding of modern economic interactions. 

I posted on Monday about the death of someone I'd gone to high school with and the conversations it sparked, as well as the odd situation it presented due to the poor teen experience I'd had (and since resolved for myself), and the difficulty of finality when a relationship ends poorly.

Part of writing in a forum like this is to just 'get stuff out there'.  Another part is to share ideas or feelings that may help others.  Still another part is seeing what others share back.

Every single comment made is helpful and meaningful.  While I haven't written for quite some time (I really need to fix how I handle time management), this was something I felt was good to share.  I'm glad I did and thank you to everyone who commented.  Maggie's is not just a forum to write, it's a place to share.  One reason I like to post anonymously is because writing can be a way to draw attention to yourself, and that's not what I write to do.  While some readers do know who I am, most don't.  I like seeing what almost all our readers have to say (there is a rare comment I can't abide by...but free speech still rules my life).  In this particular case - all were very useful.

Death and Birth are two things which bind us all.  It's something we're all going to experience.  The stuff in between?  We're all going through stuff.  Just stuff.   My believe is sharing will help develop ways8: for us to bind together in better ways.  So always trying to be open.  

Thank you. 

Mortality is a strange thing.  We're here, then we're not.  Our friends and family are here.  Then they're gone.  We focus a lot on things that impact us while we're alive, as we should, to make our lives more interesting and enjoyable.  Outside of rare conversations on spirituality or religion, many people spend little time thinking about saying good-bye or preparing for what is inevitable, aside from taxes.  It's a strange thing that death is actually one of the more important parts of life, after perhaps birth, and just like birth we have little to no control over when it takes place.  We have some control over ourselves and our lives during the interim period between birth and death, though.  Maybe that's the point?

Two things occurred in the last week which started me thinking about mortality and specifically my own mortality.  They were both events which get most people thinking.  First was a discussion with my in-laws about their end-of-life planning, as they have now both passed their mid-80s.  Second was a notice that a classmate from high school had died, not someone I was extremely close with, though we had a relationship which had recently ended poorly.

I was recently on a webinar about Disinformation and what the media and governments are 'doing' about it.  I found it both interesting and, in and of itself, misleading (in other words, it could have been classified as 'disinformation').

Parts of it were excellent, discussing the manner in which AI is now being deployed and increasing the ability to do "Deep Fakes" and other false narratives.  Several examples showed how easy it is to make these.  I believe there needs to be a way to identify and combat these, without question.  And many companies are creating ways to deal with the threat these represent.  I have no doubt it will be an 'arms race' of sorts, never ending.  But the reality is there's nothing new here.  Fakes have existed for years.  Back when well-known entities weren't as recognizable or identifiable as they are now, many 'fakes' popped up to mislead, distract, and defraud the population.  Lord Gordon Gordon and Princess Caraboo were capable of perpetuating large scale fraud.  "End of the world" cults were incredibly common.  Phlogiston was an accepted part of science, and even Boyle (whose laws I still use when scuba diving) believed in it.  Phrenology was a 'science' well into the early 1900s, and eugenics was utilized widely well in the 1980s (primarily by the Nazis and the Soviet Union).  So you know, follow the science.

Recently, I was sent by my company to a class to learn how to improve my negotiation skills.  I'm actually pretty good at negotiation. In the class (of 8 people) I scored 3rd highest - which I thought was "very good" but was told "those who do best are the ones who do the worst and learn the most."   So maybe I wasn't as successful as I thought.  In fact, I learned afterwards I'm more 'sales' than 'negotiator'.  Useful skills in leading up to a negotiation, but sales can derail a negotiation (as I learned to my surprise).

I will never again confuse sales with negotiation.  Which I have always done.  I did not see them as fully separate skill sets - until now. 

I always felt negotiation is a part of the sale.  I learned the hard way it's not.  Basically, negotiation is about firmness, employing the proper behaviors as called for within the context of the discussion, and doing what is appropriate.

Generally I don't care about this stuff...but at a lunch recently some coworkers spent a good portion of the time talking about Harry and Meghan.  I simply stated I don't generally pay attention to the details of this stuff, all humans are flawed and hero-worship isn't something I go for, generally speaking.

That said, I am a huge Anglophile, which may seem odd as I'm of Irish/German descent.  Of course, the Saxe-Coburgs, or Windsors as they care to be known as now, are German, so maybe it's that part that has my pay any bit of attention.  Standing in front of paintings and statues of William of Orange or Cromwell (as I have many times on my visits) leave me a bit cold, but I can appreciate the history they represent.  Even Churchill, whose relationship with the Irish is tenuous at best, is one of the few politicians I look up to.

Being an Anglophile doesn't mean I'm a royal-watcher or a fan of the monarchy.  I've often joked they are the wealthiest welfare family on the planet.  This is a bit of a stretch, of course.  The family does generate quite a bit of income on their own, with their holdings, and as a result of tourism and fandom.  It would be a significant impact to the UK economy to see the end of the monarchy.  That said, even today children grow up dreaming of being kings, queens, princes and princesses.  As a child, I remember talking of being an astronaut, a fireman, a policeman, etc.  So royalty, as a child's dream, is certainly not as awful as one may think.

About 5 years ago there was a Political QQQ posted.  Today I'll post another by the same person.

 "How can an act done under compulsion have any moral element in it, seeing that what is moral is the free act of an intelligent being?" ~Auberon Herbert

I recently was in a heated debate with someone who called volunteerism a "Republican guilt complex", stating that government directed welfare was better and anything done voluntarily would never live up to overall needs as effectively.

I disagreed.  I believe compelling people to do something doesn't make them good.  Furthermore, it opens the door to corruption, destruction, and destitution.  Politicians view the money collected as 'theirs' and they will do as they please with it.  But you get to feel good.  You 'did' something, right? 

I saw a eulogy that went viral.  I see or hear the thoughts shared regularly because of where I live - not in eulogies, just everyday commentary from time to time.  The eulogy itself was quite unfortunate.

My personal view is, at worst, if I had a parent whose views I truly disliked as much as the speaker did, then I just wouldn't go to the funeral or (at least) show and keep my mouth shut.  Speaking ill of the dead, of someone incapable of defending themselves, is rather disrespectful.  There are moments and situations, rare enough, where it makes sense.  I think we can all speak ill of Hitler and few reasonable people will feel bad about it.  In general, doing this says more about the person speaking than those they speak about.

Still, it's hard to believe her father was really as bad as she paints him.  She speaks of how he raised her.  I'd be proud to raise a child in the fashion she describes.  Strong, questioning things, pushing back on authority.  I doubt he taught her to be vicious and hateful and self-centered.  Yet that's what her eulogy exposes.  Here's the kicker.  People applauded her.  I think I'd have remained silent and confronted her later.

I really doubt her father was racist or misogynistic, based on several facts I've learned about this woman since - but I suppose it's enough that he supported Trump for her to apply the broad brush.  I know this happens because I didn't support Trump, ever, and often been painted with the same brush.  Here's the video so you can have your own POV.

I have more or less stopped watching Saturday Night Live, but it is intriguing to read that Dave Chappelle, who I find to be very funny, is hosting. What is more intriguing is that a large part of the writing staff has said they will boycott the episode.  This is a benefit of youth, and one I'm interested in because I have my own story in this regard.

One of my majors in college (I had 2) was Television Production.  I wrote, produced, directed and filled various roles in the studios at the university for both class and the university television network.  Top-tier stuff, mind you.  The kind of stuff you watch at 1am in the dorm lobby when you're half in the bag or snogging with your latest love interest.  Nevertheless, it's what you did to learn the ropes.  Back then, I was hoping to make documentaries.

One day I had to prepare a news piece for the 1984 election.  It was a talk show with some local luminaries talking about various topics like nuclear war (it was right around the time that ABC ran The Day After, which some of you may remember), feeding the poor/welfare, deficits, etc.  Standard fodder for any political news program.  One fellow who showed up hung flyers on the set showing elephants dropping nuclear bombs on poor people of the world.  I took them down.  He put them back up, I took them down.  My job was set design and management.  The producer that day, a fellow student, came by and asked what I was doing.  I told him the set was my responsibility and I felt the flyers would imply a bias of the programming, and that they personally offended my own sensibilities.  The producer told me to honor the guests' wishes and put them up.  I told him "since this is my set, then I'm asking to be relieved of my responsibility, I'd rather sit this one out."

Recently, I've had a number of bad events occur.  Supposedly, these things happen in threes, and I'm hoping that's how it goes.  I won't share the first two event details.  Needless to say they are both very upsetting and expensive events.  The third event was VERY expensive.  And very avoidable.

What made it particularly galling was how it happened to me, someone who is ridiculously careful online because among the roles of previous jobs I've held, one has been the management of online privacy and data.  Compelling partner companies to take extra effort, steps or other precautions to protect user data and information.   

If your company is like mine, you take tests each year to identify several different forms of potential identity capture.  Phishing, Spearphishing, downloading Trojan horses, etc.  There are many ways to do it, and I'm familiar with all of them.  I've always passed these tests with flying colors, and I've even caught several transgressors over the years.

Before I tell my own, very humbling, story, let me say this kind of event is not just an issue of being online.  My stepmother is not as adept online as I am, so does not engage the internet to nearly the degree I do.  Yet several years ago she was scammed out of several thousand dollars in attempting to do something good for her grandchild - so she thought.  Unfortunately, she (much like I am about to detail) missed one or two key details in her situation, and fell victim to a con over the phone.  Anyone can be a victim.

I am an avowed Anglophile.  I spent 2 semesters studying there, visited 6 times, and am now listening to the British History Podcast.  Britain and its history is just something with which I'm fascinated.  I've never been a fan of the monarchy.  The Queen, over time, I've come to respect.  I'm not trying to say the monarchy is 'good' or that any monarch is special and should be deified or otherwise held in high regard.  As Americans, it's hard to square how we could hold the British (or any) monarchy with any good feeling - we cast them off for plenty of reasons.

On the other hand, there are people who dislike the monarchy, and the Queen in particular.  Mostly their reasons that aren't very good, because they don't understand the monarchy.  The dislike I've seen is related more toward envy or general distrust of the institution.  These people usually don't understand the role, the history, the value, etc.  Few people know the Royal Family brings in far more than it receives from taxpayers.  It's estimated, that the Sovereign Grant costs roughly $1.30 per citizen annually.  Of course, this doesn't account for the amount of tax revenue the Royal Family itself generates from the taxes it pays, the revenue generated from tourism to see 'their' holdings, or just money spent marketing them as a 'brand'.  They are as much a draw and benefit as it is a glorified 'welfare family' (a joke I used to make when I was younger and spent time there) - they actually pay for themselves when all is said and done.    The monarchy's history is messy, ugly and sometimes difficult to fathom based on modern ethical standards.  That has more to do with the differences in eras than ethics, though. 

I saw a commentary on the Queen's passing. "Despite the colonial injustices perpetrated by the British Monarchy against Indigenous people, I would still like to wish her majesty Queen Elizabeth II — a blessed journey."  Since I saw this particular one, I've seen several that are far, far worse (one from a linguistics professor at Carnegie Mellon, which was horrendous and had Sunny Hostin of The View defending.  I will skip that one.  It was so bad I'm amazed anyone with half a brain defended it.  Some people are just truly awful and hateful.  So I'll stick to this one comment, because it is more a backhanded compliment than outright hate.  Even so, it's still misplaced.

As a kid, I was most definitely not a fan of The Rolling Stones.  They were scary hippies making loud music.  Eventually, I became a follower of Led Zeppelin, then a punk rock fan by the time I was midway through high school.  Devo's version of Satisfaction appealed more to me than Mick's.  Sometime around my senior year of high school, I started to gain an appreciation for them, and by beginning of sophomore year of college I attended a concert at Rich Stadium on September 27, 1981.  At this point, they were already 19 years into their campaign for great rock and roll.  Little did I know at the time I was as old as the band itself.  Mick Jagger was 38, which meant he was likely to retire for good within 2 years.  After all, he already made it clear he didn't want to be singing Satisfaction when he was 40.  I felt lucky to have seen them when I did, on perhaps one of their last tours.

Of course, they played for many years afterward.  Bill Wyman retired in 1993.  Charlie Watts died in 2021.  Brian Jones, the founder, died of a drug overdose shortly after leaving the band in 1969.  Despite all this, The Rolling Stones have continued.  This was their 60th year, playing concerts delayed by Covid.  

Imagine my surprise, as I walked the dog one morning in April, to get a text from Mrs. Bulldog asking "Rolling Stones in Stockholm this summer?"  She wanted to see them in Paris, but we didn't have time to do a mid-week trip.  Also, Stockholm was supposed to be the last stop on the tour - why not go to possibly their last show ever?  How could I say no?  Of course you go see The Rolling Stones in Stockholm.  Is that even worthy of consideration?

Perhaps it is.  Upon hearing our plans, my father said "I'll take a pass."  But he'll be 87 soon.  My stepmother was impressed, as were most of my friends, that I was willing to travel so far to see a concert.  Why not?  What's so weird about that?  I get to see Stockholm and The Rolling Stones.

Stockholm is one of the best hiking cities I've yet visited.  Part of this easy walking was the centrality of my hotel (on Benny Fredrikssons Torg next to the Riksbank).  That said, even the Grand Hotel, over by the ferries, is within walking distance of most things.

It's important to know Stockholm is an archipelago made up of 14 islands, so ferries and bridges are common.  Size-wise, just shy of 10% of the Swedish population lives in Stockholm.  California and Sweden are roughly the same size, but Sweden has 1/10th of the population.    

Stockholm has a lake which provides its fresh water.  Lake Malaren used to be part of the Baltic Sea, and it separated about 1000 years ago.  Prior to that event, Vikings could use it to sail deeper into Sweden. Today, Malaren is a fine lake to walk along.  There are boats lining the north (Norr Malarstrand) and south (Soder Malarstrand) sides and many have become nightclubs, bars or restaurants.  Mrs. Bulldog and I walked along the lake the night we arrived, and stopped for a drink on one boat.  Beautiful place to stop at sundown, and the view we had was of a hill on the south side where people flock to watch sundown over Stockholm.  We wanted to do that, but time was short and we missed it.  Apparently, it's the place to be at sundown.  After our drink, we crossed over to the south side for some tapas, then continued along the southern shore and crossed back into Gamla Stan (the old city) and then back up to our hotel.  As we arrived later than we'd planned (airlines are a mess), we thought a long walk would be a good way to get a feel for the city.

And coordination is what took place between Democrats and social media companies during the election (election tampering), and then the Biden Administration.
As more of this information comes out, it will become more and more apparent that we have less to fear from "Russia" than our own elitist leaders.  Of course, they are doing this to "keep us safe" from "misinformation" because you simply don't know how to think for yourself.

In reality, I'm sure most of Maggie's readers aren't on social media.  So technically it's brainwashing the younger folks.  

It's why I spend a lot of time debunking the "debunkers" with my kids.  They and their friends all get the 'approved memo' and fail to think about it much. 

Recent reports show there are 2X jobs for every unemployed person.  When I saw a comment on Linked In (which I use for business, so I won't comment or post there anything except that which is business), I couldn't stomach what I read.  The comment said "I don't understand how so many jobs are available and I can't find one that matches my degree and pays a living wage."  

Naturally, I had many problems with this.  I did not respond there, however.  I didn't feel it would 'help' me to have business cohorts seeing my views which are clearly unacceptable to so many these days.  Not interested in being canceled (or possibly have my company restrict me in some way), I am sharing some thoughts here.

1. There is no such thing as a "living wage". What you can live on and what I can live on are vastly different things. When anyone is saying they need a "living wage" what they want is "a wage that lets me get everything I feel I want or need". These are incompatible ideas. Technically, a living wage would be a wage that gets you started and allows you to have an apartment and buy food. Beyond that, it's nothing. It shouldn't pay for your iPhone bills, or your gaming, or your travel or anything like that. I know that's what the person meant (it was implied in follow up comments).

Mrs. Bulldog and I got back a month ago from Stockholm.  As cities go, it is by far the crunchiest I've ever seen, and where we stayed (Downtown Camper, part of the Skandia chain) really focuses on this kind of crunchy experience.  The rooms are excellent, the location perfect (right in the middle near everything) and they offer many amenities which make it a great hotel experience, and then some.  Rooms are well-appointed, they have a rooftop bar and spa (which we utilized and I was shocked to see Stockholm has very few rooftop bars of any kind), they offer bikes, skateboards, yoga, tours and a movie night.   There is an excellent breakfast, which was a tad on the expensive side, but worth every penny.  Staff, much like the Swedes themselves, was happy, helpful and willing to go out of their way to assist with our several issues (such as printing tickets to events or museums which we'd forgotten to print).

Stockholm is also a cashless society (Sweden as a whole is supposed to be, but Stockholm sticks to it with a passion) which is a good and bad thing.  Good because it's easy to get around, pay and do what you want.  No need to carry cash.  One of the justifications for cashless societies is to reduce crime - yet pickpockets are still a huge problem in Stockholm, as they are in any other major tourist city.  Crime, in general, is not really in decline but crimes related to cash have fallen.

Took Mrs. Bulldog to see Billy Joel as part of his Madison Square Garden residency.  He announced how many shows he'd done there, I think it was 182.  Not bad.  He called himself "the house band."  I have a feeling he is.

I had an opportunity to see him when I was 15.  1977, just after The Stranger was released. Some family dynamics prevented me attending and after that, I guess I just never cared enough to go see him, or didn't have the money.  Billy Joel, today, is a NYC/NY State cultural icon.  He may well be the MSG "house band" and that showed during the concert.  The crowd was engaged, active and enjoyed every minute.  I found myself singing along to songs I didn't even realize I remembered, and most weren't even singles, just album tracks.

It was a great show and I'm glad I finally saw him, even if his voice isn't what it once was (he admitted to missing the higher notes).

I had a conversation recently with a new member of my team.  She was explaining to me why her dog (I'd name the breed, but don't want to put anyone on the spot - suffice to say it's a little yippy dog) was very "anxious".  My immediate thought was of two items.  The first was the breed is of a nature that has a naturally anxious demeanor.  I had several friends who owned these, and they are definitely "anxious" dogs.  The second was that she was anxious and transferred her anxiety to the dog.  It's probable both points are applicable.

However, as I discussed this conversation with Mrs. Bulldog, she stated "anxious times make anxious people" and we discussed how for the last 2 1/2 years we were basically bombarded with frightening scenarios of Covid and, more or less, given 'permission' to be anxious.  As a result, she stated, many people who were naturally anxious got it ramped up a degree or ten, while others on the borderline of being anxious were probably pushed over the edge.   "No doubt," was my response.

I would like to say I'm sorry for disappearing for so long.  Not that I'm essential to the inner workings of Maggie's, but I've seen a few people (specifically Doc Mercury, who pulled me in) simply vanish.  I'd prefer to not just disappear.  But it's been a strange time for me the past 7 months.  I'll share more on that at another time.  I am writing specifically because I finished the podcast "Revolutions" which, frankly, is worth the time and effort if you have it.  I listened on the train every morning and evening - and then at the gym when there was no train.  As it turns out the most interesting revolutions were the French and Russian.  Which were also the longest portions, by far.  

There was a lot to consume, but it did leave me with many thoughts.  Not the least of which is that the U.S. is bordering on its own French Revolution, of sorts.  The Woke/Cancel/BLM/CRT crowd are aligned in one thing.  Eliminating what they view as injustice and privilege - which is, in essence, the elimination of liberty.

Mikhail Bakunin:
"Liberty, without socialism, is privilege and injustice. But socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."

The founders of Marxist revolutions were acutely aware that Socialism/Marxism was unworkable. Even Bakunin knew it - though he couched his 'reality' by saying it "might" work with liberty.
The problem is, of course, socialism cannot work with liberty. It's unworkable. Once people can do as they please, the system reverts to a mad form of crony capitalism - basically fascism. If you're not doing what the government wants, what's the point? In a weird way, fascism IS socialism "with" liberty...

And there's the rub. While I do not believe liberty is privilege and injustice (far from it, I do believe liberty is whatever you want it to be and if you fall into the realm of permanent victimhood, then so be it. Don't blame the system, blame your world view and yourself), I understand the nature and value of how a system of liberty makes things better for everyone. Even if some privilege and some injustice sneak in. Because the alternatives are, frankly, far, far worse.

So it's always fun to hear someone say "I'm a trained Marxist."  Because Marx left no blueprints.  Unlike most other economic systems, which follow some basic laws or guidelines, Marxism has none and never did.  It was just an ideal propped up by bland sayings which pulled at heartstrings, morality, and a general feeling of what is "fair" and "just".  I like to say that "fair" means different things to different people.  There is no "fair".  "Fair" is what a 5 year old says when it wants what it wants.  "It's not fair." 

The sad part is, even as Leftists push for "fair" they are the first to invoke "life isn't fair" as they destroy people along the way.

Ironic, and sad.  But Eric Hoffer was wise to all that... 

I recently took a poll about whether the American Dream is a myth or fact, and whether it's more achievable or less so today.  

I know my views aren't the same as most, but I think my take on the American Dream makes it more attainable than ever.  The American Dream is whatever you want it to be, and ultimately it's whether or not you're happy with yourself and your life.  It's not money, it's not home ownership, it's not success or fame.  It may be, if those are things you believe will make you happy.  However, if you're happy and you like yourself and your life, then you've achieved the American Dream.  In many nations, just surviving is a problem, and in many advanced nations, living your life with limited intereference from elites, politicians, cranks and other non-essentials is impossible.  In the US, it's not impossible to go through life while limiting external interference, and focus on your own happiness.  (Allow me to clarify - there is always external interference, but how you deal with it and react to it is what enables you to limit its impact on your life.)

So why do a fairly large number of people believe the Dream is no longer achievable, or that it is/was a myth?  Why are there so many people who currently feel the Dream is unachievable, or less achievable than when their parents were younger?

I've had to come into my NYC offices this week for executive presentations.  Catching a train each morning at 7am, the usual pre-covid commuter grind.  Hopefully going back to that in some format.  Two days ago, however, it wasn't the usual grind.  As I reached the platform and waited for the train, I noticed a young man with one eye in uniform, with his battle gear in bags next to him, and the Ukrainian flag on his shoulder.  

I asked him the obvious question, "Are you headed over?"  He smiled and said "I have a choice.  But my friends and family do not.  So, I have no choice.  I have to go."

I wished him good luck and a safe return, and he replied "I am Ukrainian, but born in Russia.  I had to fight my way out of Russia to get to Kyiv in 2002.  I joined my extended family there, got my citizenship, and came to the US in 2008.  I am very happy to be here, but I can't ignore what I left behind."

We chatted a bit, and he told me a few stories his friends and family were sharing from the war zone.  He followed that up with a brief "I don't trust the news here any more than the news the Russians tell.  It's not telling us everything, just one side."  Then he showed me his coffee container, which had an "Occupy Mars" sticker on it.  He smiled and said "this would be better."   

I smiled wistfully, shook his hand and told him to come home safe.  He replied "There is no other choice."

This morning, as I rode in, I thought about where he was at that moment.  I have no doubt he is in Ukraine.   I wonder how close to the front lines he is, and I wondered at how different circumstances lead us to different situations - that luck is a huge part of life.  I'm doing executive presentations, and he's hoofing to the front lines.  I couldn't fathom the vast differences in our priorities. 

Unfortunately, this isn't a war that was inevitable.  It was avoidable.  I don't believe Putin is a madman, and I don't believe he was right to invade.  Sadly, in today's world many people feel these two viewpoints are contradictory and saying it means you're pro-Putin, pro-Russia.  I'm not.  I'm just realistic.  There were paths to avoiding conflict, and we chose to not follow them.  This costs young men like my train platform friend dearly. 

We may sit here and comment on how the war hurts us because of price and supply chain disruptions.  People will remind you that your home isn't being bombed, your family isn't at risk, so consider yourself lucky.  I disagree.  While our problems are first-world problems, they are important.  If we don't worry about them, and we don't deal with them effectively, our first-world problems will become very big problems just like the one he headed off to.  His reality can become ours, sometimes when we least expect.    

Most of you remember our Urban Hike as a springtime event.  With Covid shutting down the 2020 expedition (tentatively The Bronx), we went with an autumnal perambulation in 2021 through Greenwich Village.

BD and I have communicated and feel we can get back on a vernal schedule and we're thinking the Upper East Side and Roosevelt Island.

If you're like me, you've probably never taken the tramway.  And Roosevelt Island has a subway stop now, so it can be easy-on/easy-off.  The Upper East Side has many good locations, and The Met may even be a great starting point.  Lots to see up there and I'll start mapping it out.

For me, late April and early May are out, due to vacation.  But early April can work, as well as the second week of May (3rd week is the Preakness, where I meet friends every year, so that's out for me, too).  BD and I will find a date and get back to you soon. 

We had a great turnout in the fall, so I hope we can have another good one this spring!   

Was talking to a client yesterday and our conversation revolved around their mobile phone number, which indicated a South Jersey area code.  They are in California.  Another client is moving to California and has an NYC area code.  Yet another is in Florida and has a North Jersey area code.  I'm in NJ and have an NYC area code.

I imagine we're reaching a moment when location will be less discernible via area codes.  This is an issue which began developing as people have switched from letter writing (street address/town/zip) to email (ISP provider, which can be anywhere).

The nature of my work allows me to find out a lot of online information easily, if I choose to.  I'm not particularly nosy, so I don't.  I have, on occasion, when the spirit drives me (I remember one of my jobs, at lunch, listening to people talk about ex-boyfriends or ex-girlfriends they did searches on.  Creeped me out a bit, then I went and looked up one that afternoon, so who am I to judge?).  To be honest, it's not that hard for anyone who puts their mind to it (or has the money to buy the data).  

In some ways, the "anonymization" of life was one of the original draws of the internet.  The classic New Yorker cartoon "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog" was accurate, if not precise, at the time.  It's absolutely NOT true today.  It is this fact that keeps me working.  In a panel discussion, I once pointed out to a college student, who said my company had "sold her data" (we do not, ever, sell data), I pointed out to her that many corporations do sell the data of their site visitors, but good corporations recognize the problems inherent in that behavor, so there are roles in my industry which exist precisely to keep that data safe - or as safe as it can be.

Maintaining a level of anonymity is important for the best parts of the internet to work as they were intended.  Anonymity is often important to make meaningful commentary and points (Silence Dogood would approve).  The fact the blockchain exists today is, in part, to solve some of these issues (the internet was not meant to be driven by advertising, but the lack of a good payments and anonymity system led to its development as one).

The days of knowing a location based on an area code may be coming to an end.  In a lot of ways, that may be a good thing.  Hopefully, the days of online anonymity will soon be back, though with some major revisions.  It's hard to go back from where we are today.  (Personal note - the EU's GPRA and California's CCPA do NOT provide you the protection you think they do, or that politicians have promoted)

As I wrote my piece on Wokism, I stumbled on a quote from Algernon Sidney.  Few know that Jefferson mentioned Sidney as a source and/or inspiration for the Declaration of Independence.  Here is the quote which resonated with me: "We live in an age that makes truth pass for treason, and as I dare not say anything against it, so the ears of those that are about me will probably be found too tender to hear it. This my trial and condemnation do sufficiently evidence."  It can hardly be more true today, as "credible" news sources spread lies masquerading as truth based on nothing other than these sources own claim that they, themselves, are "credible."  Credibility is in the information, not the source - and we have precious few truly credible sources of news today.  

Sidney was a supporter of the Roundheads during the English Civil War, and a member of the Long Parliament.  Despite his opposition to the king and support for the forces opposing him, Cromwell found it necessary to have Sidney removed, as Sidney had become critical of Cromwell's authoritarian nature.  His refusal to leave his seat led to Cromwell ordering the parliamentarians removal and Sidney fled England.