Much to my chagrin, my writing lately has been suffering from a few blocks. One of them is a seeming inability to hold on to a single train of thought for any extended period of time. I don’t know what the cause is; it’s probably just an excuse that I’m making to myself to explain away my lack of writing. But I WANT to write, I WANT to get back on the blogging track. So this week I’m posting a prime example of what I’ve been suffering from: four separate thought trains that have been running through my mind at various times, but none of which I’ve been able to develop into something larger (nor has something larger appeared in my brain to take over instead).
(1) I’ve been awash in emails from politicians and organizations that want me to sign petitions or answer survey questions, all of which support the anti-Trump agenda, and I am in total agreement with them – with one exception: MONEY. I do not have a dime of spare money right now to contribute to a candidate or a cause, and that’s always the last page in the survey or the petition request: “Can you donate (a) $5 or (b) more?” (I note there’s never an option for “(c) Sorry, can’t contribute at this time but I’m fully behind you in every OTHER way.”) Which raises the question: All that money that goes to support candidates and lobbying efforts – where does it actually go, and what exactly is it used for? And how does a recipient of all that money account for spending it? Knowing a little bit about how non-profit organizations work, I am aware that even the smallest grant requires reams of periodic reports to explain where every penny was spent (not to mention the detailed measurement metrics of outcomes and line-item budgets that go into a request for such sometimes measly funds). Who keeps track of the campaign contributions and the hundreds of thousands of dollars poured by lobbying behemoths like Big Pharma, for instance, into an organization like the one in Arizona whose sole purpose was evidently to oppose the recreational marijuana initiative? Or do those funds even need to be accounted for? Is it like a blank check? And what actions do these organizations undertake – with or without coffers full of Big Pharma money? Ads, transportation, printing and copying, phone bills — what could possibly cost so much money? I mean, clearly the denizens of Big Pharma have more money than they know what to do with but, of course, rather than lowering drug prices for the needy public, they’d prefer to spend huge sums to fight unnecessary political battles and create even more unnecessary and inane advertising campaigns. Could the blank checks be nothing more than – dare I say it? – bribes to have political influence, to convince politicians and also the public that whatever Big Pharma wants, Big Pharma should get. But who cares about the public interest, really? To Big Pharma, regular people are mostly idiots but are valuable for putting even more money into the pockets of the 1 percent (who don’t already have enough, right?). I’ve always said that I hate money, and this is yet another reason why.
(2) I know I am not alone in thinking that current U.S. administration and Russia were in collusion on the Syrian chemical attack as a way to deflect from the election intrusion / ongoing influence mess. I also know it sounds like a cynical tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, and an unimaginably tragic way to do it, but I wouldn’t put it past them. What’s the cost? The horrific deaths of a couple dozen Syrian children? We’re all just pawns in their global realpolitik game. Those “beautiful babies” were probably going to die anyway in one way or another, whether as a casualty of the interminable war itself or by drowning in the Mediterranean trying to escape.
There was an email from the resistance watchdog group Countable the other day asking “us” (i.e., right-minded people) what advice we would give Trump. They required you to make a video, which I’m not equipped to do, but I did have some advice for the ersatz president:
(b) Divest all of your business holdings or put them in a truly blind trust, run by someone who is not a friend or family member (and especially not your children).
(c) Release your taxes if you’ve got nothing to hide.
I still find it hard to believe that so many people in this country were conned by this bozo (and continue to be – a recent poll said something like 96% of the people who voted for him are still behind him, despite his daily display of idiocy). He is in a position of unimaginable power (especially given his party’s dominance in Congress and now the Supreme Court), and yet he is mind-bogglingly ignorant, incapable of thinking about anything outside of his own self-interested perspective. He is, literally, a danger to democracy and the health and safety of the American people. I saw a powerful post the other day by a guy named John Pavlovitz called “Let the Record Show” [http://johnpavlovitz.com/2017/01/19/let-the-record-show/?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=facebook_page&utm_medium=John+Pavlovitz] that exactly captured my sentiments about him. He is horrible in every way and at least once a day I am sickened by something he or one of his cohort has done.
(3) This has been a very weird hockey season for me. I have barely listened to the Marek v. Wyshynksi podcast and I don’t obsessively read every article I can find on the interwebs, even after a win. The Rangers had moments of real brilliance during the regular season, but especially toward the end they were playing some pretty damn boring hockey. Maybe it’s because they had sewn up their preferred playoff spot quite a while ago (even if not officially, it was a reasonably foregone conclusion), crossing over into the Atlantic Division to play the “weaker” competition. Their malaise on home ice has been pretty embarrassing at times. So now that the playoffs have begun, when I normally would be pumped to the gills and thinking about it every waking minute, it almost became an afterthought. (Well, not exactly, but Rangers hockey hadn’t been generating the enthusiasm in me it once did.)
But in the first round, against the Montreal Canadians, they managed to regroup to play some impressive hockey after a real stinker of a Game 3, their first game in the Garden, which scared all of us fans into thinking that maybe the MSG curse was real. In fact, I would describe their last three games in the series – all wins – as “mature.” It probably has something to do with the reams of playoff experience this team (led by their coach) has, so they know what to expect. That is just one of what I believe are their four keys to their success, which have been ignored by seemingly every professional pundit (and even the amateurs), even considering that I’ve been reading and listening to less commentary than usual. When I do read and listen, no one ever gives the Rangers credit for these things:
(a) The aforementioned playoff experience – according to The Hockey News, in the past five years, New York has played in 13 playoff series, better than Pittsburgh (11) and Los Angeles (12) and tied with Chicago. [Ryan Kennedy, “Rangers Mix of Depth, Youth and Experience Makes Them A Playoff Darkhorse,” The Hockey News, 3/13/17, http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/rangers-mix-of-depth-youth-and-experience-makes-them-a-playoff-darkhorse%5D.
(b) The fact that, all season long, their play has improved as the game has gone on. Look at their scoring this season by period: first period, 62 goals; second period, 85 goals; third period, 101 goals, which led the NHL pretty much all season, only overtaken at the end by Pittsburgh with 103. And yes, you’d like to see a better start out of them, especially at home, but a solid second and third period will overcome a less-than-stellar first period almost every time.
(c) They were the best road team in the NHL, at 27-12-2, which really helps when you have your struggles at home.
(d) They have incredible scoring depth. I admit that I have heard this from some folks lately, particularly since AV inserted the Russian rookie Pavel Buchnevich into the lineup and now is able to roll four lines that can all generate offense. They can match up against anyone, because if their first, second and third lines get nullified by the opposition, up comes the fourth line – with the two dependable Swedes, Oscar Lindbergh and Jasper Fast, and speedster and free-agent bargain Michael Grabner, who gets at least one breakaway a game – to chip in a goal or two.
So even though no one gave the Rangers much of a chance to be the ultimate champs this year, and while I am unabashedly biased, I think they’re in a great position to go all the way this year (finally!) 1994 was a long time ago, and King Henrik isn’t getting any younger. It’s the last diamond he needs for his crown.
As a purist, I appreciate that the best hockey is made up of equal parts excitement and frustration in crazy momentum swings, but I also enjoy dominant performances, where a team is firing on all cylinders, making the opposition look like minor leaguers, in total control in every area of the ice. During the playoffs, you don’t see too many of those types of games because the teams are so evenly matched – these are the best of the best, the last teams standing after a grueling 82-game season. Of course the competition is going to be more fierce, the skill levels more balanced. There’s also got to be some adversity at certain points in a playoff season, where you think your team is done but then they rise from the ashes, or the ultimate prize wouldn’t have such great value in the end. It’s just one series of excellent hockey after another, four series in all, until you finally get to raise the Cup. Man, I love playoff hockey!
(4) I have recently been revisiting (in my mind) the “why” of this blog, now that my second anniversary has passed. It was a creative outlet, to be sure, and a promise to myself to “get my writing out into the world,” even if no one in the world (or very few people) actually read it. Apart from a few posts of a link on Facebook, I’ve never really publicized it; in fact, I’m still a little afraid to, even though I think some of the stuff I’ve written in this blog over the past two years is decent enough. But is it decent enough to actually convince someone to publish it more widely? Is there anyone outside of my small circle of friends and family (and a few loyal WordPress compatriots) that would pay money to read it? This is highly doubtful. So there my aspirations lie (or die, as the case may be).
But it got me thinking about why people do things in life, and I’ve come to the conclusion that people do things for two reasons: (a) they enjoy it or (b) it’s a means to an end, which is usually enjoyment. I certainly have enjoyed writing my blog, although sometimes I feel self-imposed pressure to PRODUCE SOMETHING WEEKLY. On the one hand, it’s good for me to push myself; on the other, there are no rules here! This is a safe place, a free and easy space, meant to be enjoyable – and it truly IS. I love to write my blog posts. Sometimes they flow like water; sometimes they’re more work, especially if I don’t have a particular topic in mind (all the more reason to have a “stockpile” of blog posts that don’t necessarily need to be topical or timely).
I also started my blog because I presume that some of the things that I have to say are important. I believe I have a positive, progressive world view that I hope/wish more people on this planet would share. In other words, if more people thought like me, the world would be a much better place for more people. And if I could change one mind, get one mind to think differently about something important (or even not so important, but at least important to that one mind), then I would feel as if I had accomplished something good on the karmic scale. It’s a little frustrating knowing that I’m always preaching to the choir, but maybe, someday, someone will read something I’ve written and, as Urge Overkill once famously sang in “Sister Havana”, “come around to my way of thinking.”