I am off on another journey with my wife, this time to Patagonia and Torres del Paine, to hike the “W.” We’ll be “glamping,” or glamour camping, each night having a bed and a meal awaiting. We just are not that tough – those sleeping-on-the-ground carrying a backpack days are behind us.
From there we go to Buenes Aires and further up north to view Iguazu Falls, which I like to think of as Niagara Falls times seven. Of course we’ll have Internet in various places, but I don’t like using the blog as a travelogue, so will not be writing about where we are that day or what we had for lunch.
I have two things to cover in this post:
The interview I did with Faye. Anyone who has listened to it finds that it is extremely annoying in that I continually cut out, have to repeat myself. My first thought was that technology has simply not caught up yet. Ab suggested he and I do an interview when I get better equipment. But what is my equipment? I have a $30 headset that I use for everything from transcription to conversations. It has worked for everything but that interview. I have a computer that seems to work properly, as right now. Can you read this?
Prior to the interview Faye and I probably had an hour of conversation on Discord to lay out the groundwork and discuss the technology, as I was concerned that the one other time I used that program, it took me a long time and numerous reboots to finally be heard. She agreed to call me well ahead of time. In every conversation with Faye, after finally achieving voice contact, my “equipment” worked fine. She could hear me and I could hear her.
Then came time for the formal interview, and of course, I could not reach her by voice. It took like five minutes of “can you hear me?” before we finally hooked up. Why that five minutes was not edited out of the finished product I cannot say. Then came the cutout problems, consistent throughout, and basically spoiling the entire show. That happened only on that day.
I am slow to advance in technology, but not a moron. Something happened in that two-hour time frame that happened at no other time.
Faye, if you are reading this, I am more than happy to do another interview with you covering the same ground and more. If the cutout problem happens again, we quit. We could schedule it to broadcast on April 19, the true 25th anniversary of the Waco “Massacre.” Your call. I love that kind of thing. I would like to do it again and do it right.
Iconoclasts: During my absence I am scheduling four posts to appear, a series I have to write today and which I am calling “Iconoclasts.” The idea is to keep the blog lively to allow a place for our excellent commenters to chime in. I will follow it while on our journey when possible.
Note to the other writers: Anytime you have something to publish, simply go into “Posts” that are “Scheduled” and reschedule mine. If you publish something and my pieces rudely pushes you aside, just change the date on mine to give yourselves headline time.
Iconoclasts, or “icon busters,” are as the name says, people who break up statues. They don’t think like everyone around them. They are not subject to “peer review,” that oppressive system of thought control that guarantees mediocrity in human pursuits. They are often looked down on, even chastised and ridiculed by people “in the know,” that is, those who go with the flow.
Such people are hard to find. As Ward Churchill learned (though that whole affair has the earmarks of a psyop used to warn people everywhere, including those with tenure, to STFU), people who go against the grain are not protected by any system. The vast majority of people in the professions worry more about livelihood than pursuit of truth or excellence. Doing otherwise usually means doing something else for a living.
Here are the four I have chosen:
Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979), author of Worlds In Collision (1950) and Earth in Upheaval (1955).
Eric Berne (1910-1970), author of Games People Play: The Basic Handbook of Transactional Analysis.
Joseph Kinsey Howard (1906-1951), author of Montana, High, Wide and Handsome.
Miles W. Mathis, who we all know. I emphasize here a point that I made at Fakeologist in the comments behind that failed interview that even though I have met Mr. Mathis and like and admire him, we are not friends, and he is not a patron of this blog. Much of the interview with Faye dealt with skepticism about Miles, so maybe we can hash it out here.
I will not be able to write much about each of these four men, perhaps for the best. I don’t have time, but hope that everyone else will bring the topic home.
As always, this blog is a synergistic enterprise. I happen to have time and fluid fingers, where others are constrained by those stinking jobs and the ongoing need to make money. However, I appreciate every writer, every guest writer, and every commenter here (except Skink, who floats on a dark cloud).