Suicide Isn't Smart Politics

Recently WesternJournalism.com reported that the House of Representatives voted to continue Trey Gowdy's investigation of the Benghazi attacks.

What interested me as much about the article, though, was the reaction of right-wing Republicans who would rather focus on the fact that John Boehner was re-elected to the position of Speaker of the House. Somehow, Boehner's re-election makes Gowdy some kind of traitor.

Disclaimer I'm a Libertarian, so it's probable that Gowdy doesn't like my politics. I'm pretty sure from context that he believes the platitude that "Libertarians are right of Republicans on fiscal issues, and left of Democrats on social issues". It's balderdash. Libertarians are consistently pro-Freedom on all issues. That says nothing about whether they're individually conservative or liberal. For instance, I can be a teetotaler who is vehemently against alcohol while at the same time recognizing that my opinion doesn't rob other people of their right to put what they want in their bodies. As much as I'd like Congress to share my views, they don't. They typically act in the interest of their parties; and those that would like to change their party's policies must do it from within, from a position of strength. So here I'm in the position of defending a politician you can assume disagrees with me on more than a few issues.

Let's point out first that Gowdy's flight was cancelled and he missed the vote entirely. So no, he didn't vote for Boehner.

However, he would have had he been there, and for good reason. With exactly zero alternative candidates nominated in the November conference (count them... zero), no number of last minute nay votes would have ousted Boehner in favor of a more conservative Speaker. This is because the Speaker must be elected by absolute majority of all Representatives. Denied a Republican majority, it would have been thrown into a House-wide election in which the Democrats would have the swing vote.

There are about forty (40) solidly conservative members of the House. It depends a bit on who you ask, but that's the number that Trey Gowdy and Mick Mulvaney claim. There are 435 voting seats in the House. That means there are 355 more non-conservatives (liberals and moderates) than conservatives. Which of those 40 conservatives is going to amass the 218 votes needed for a majority? Some media outlets have made it out to be a big deal that 25 Republicans voted against Boehner, but their votes were all over the map. The most any single candidate got was 12.

Seriously... who here thinks that Boehner's replacement would be more conservative than Boehner? Who actually believes that the Democrats would not first foment a media frenzy over the fact that Republicans given a clear majority can't even elect a leader among themselves? Who thinks they would not then cut a deal to "rescue" the country from the "crisis of leadership" and replace those missing Republican votes in exchange for choice committee memberships and other favors?

There are those who believe that a vote against the Speaker would curtail such deal-making instead of cause it. I heard from one recently who does not seem to recognize that the result for the conservatives who voted against the Speaker would be to lose that same influence and marginalize themselves.

For the record, there is no chance whatsoever that Boehner would not be re-elected. Frosty the Snowman would reign long as the King of Hell before that happened this session.

The only message a vote against the Speaker would convey is that the congressman has no idea how politics works. It would not advance conservatism; it would set it back. That same media frenzy would absolutely certainly be slanted to favor the Democrats as noted above. And quite rightly, it would take conservatives out of positions of influence. People who deliberately screw their own party so royally should be in another party. As much as I personally might love a mass exodus, that's not the kind of transformation the conservative Republicans are aiming for.

In short, for Republicans, a vote against Boehner as Speaker would be the Bad Idea that bad ideas have when they're drunk. It would be bad for all Republicans, but even worse for the conservative broncos.

There might be a news story that actually analyzes the vote rather than just tell you how to think. But those conservative voices I heard didn't bother with rational analysis. Rather, they reflexively parroted some form of "tsk, tsk, now we've seen his true stripes". This silliness would have easily been avoided had they considered consequences. Nevertheless, everyone sang the same song:

"Trey Gowdy Is Not a Conservative Leader" (Redstate.com)

"Gowdy Reveals Who He Would Have Voted for Had He Been in Washington — and It’s Not Who You Might Expect" (TheBlaze.com)

Google more on your own. For reference, GreenvilleOnline.com reports on how the entire South Carolina delegation voted.

Reality

Mick Mulvaney appeared with Gowdy on the Bob McLain's Wednesday evening drive-time show on WORD 106.3. Mick was one of those who voted against the Speaker last time, and described the experience as a lesson learned. You cannot effect change by marginalizing yourself. This particular protest vote was poorly planned and poorly executed, and suffered from the worst flaw of poor strategic planning: there was no plan for what to do if it worked. As noted above, the results would have been catastrophic, and the dissenters had exactly nothing planned to mitigate it. Ask Jeff Duncan, who did vote against the Speaker: all he has is some vague idea that "a new Speaker of the House would send the signal to the American people that we’re hearing their concerns while also letting the president know that Congress is committed to upholding the rule of law" without any apparent realization that any such message would be totally lost in the turmoil of choosing that Speaker and dwarfed by the fact that the new Speaker would in no way be one that furthered his agenda.

One of the things that amazed me the most about the callers' comments on Wednesday was the similarity of their attitudes to the love-hate mindset of a jilted lover. Some couldn't believe that things wouldn't have turned out vastly different had Gowdy only run for Speaker himself. Basically a good percentage of those who called in to berate him did so because he didn't act out their unrealistic fantasies.

The reality is that Trey Gowdy is very popular among a segment of the population. This same segment tends to self-select their friends and their news sources such that perhaps their perception of that popularity is inflated due to being the only thing they allow themselves to see. In the process, what they don't notice is that the at-home C-SPAN kibbitzers are not the ones voting for Speaker. And most of those who are voting for Speaker would not vote for Trey Gowdy.

Gowdy, bulldoggin'

They also fail to notice that Gowdy doesn't want the job, and for several good reasons. One that he mentions often is 40+ days on a fund-raising trail in summer, raising money across the country for Congressmen who are not in his district. Gowdy's skillset doesn't recommend him for the party cheerleading and fundraising that form an important part of the Speaker's job. Another reason is that Gowdy isn't ready to let Benghazi go, and he is the best resource Americans have in that position. He has a well-earned reputation as a conservative bulldog. As you can see yourself on television, he cuts straight to the heart of whatever matter he addresses, making the absolute most of his limited time in Congressional hearings. Gowdy gets the conservatives' message in front of the American people far more effectively by example in hearings than he ever would as Speaker, and receives far more television airtime to do so. His trial lawyer skills are his #1 asset, and it's completely wasted in the position of Speaker. The Speaker is a fundraiser, an administrator, and a conciliator. That's not Trey.

Ultra-Right Wing Hypocrisy

Nancy Pelosi's failure to be a conciliator is in large part what lost Pelosi's party the majority and Pelosi the Speakership. I think America has had quite enough of tactics that are alternately underhanded and strongarm. "You have to pass it to see what's in it," anyone? Nobody with any sense wants more of that.

Nevertheless, a sizeable number of ultra-conservatives do. You can hear them calling in on talk radio daily. What they want is an Anti-Pelosi... another "my way or the highway" dictator, only with an 'R' instead of a 'D' after the name. It's completely lost on them how hypocritical it is to demand for themselves the same thing they screamed about at their opposition. Frankly, single-minded totalitarianism isn't welcome from the Right any more than it is from the Left.

Know this: what you call "an eye for an eye" is exactly the same thing you label as "moral equivalency" when done by the other side. It's the juvenile excuse that you can do something wrong because "they did it too!" Hogwash. It's still wrong.

Libertarians know a thing or two about working with others. As I mentioned before, Libertarians are consistently pro-Freedom on issues. Most of the time, that is or should be the conservative agenda as our Founding Fathers were champions of Liberty who lived according to their morals out of free will. As my state has no Libertarians in Congress, we are left to support those are most likely to fight for Liberty on most issues; and more importantly, those who are likely to actually effect change in favor of Liberty over those who would make themselves irrelevant.

So you don't think Trey Gowdy is a conservative leader?
Then as we say in my neck of the woods, "Bless your heart!"

My Calling

America's Moral Code: What Matters

Saw this on Politichicks.com:

The Intentional Dismantling of America’s Moral Code

While in the whole I agree with it, the author grossly mis-states a tenet of Libertarianism. According to her, "My Libertarians friends believe that fiscal conservatism is enough to revive our nation and that social conservatism does not matter."

That could only be very slightly further from the truth. The classical definition of 'liberal' has been so corrupted in modern times that neither the Left nor the Right qualify. Classical Liberalism -- what we call 'Libertarianism' today -- simply demands that the government stay out of your business. That is certainly not the case with regard to moral issues for the Left today. They're all about regulating your morality, as the article itself notes through example. They're also about controlling your finances through Big Government and heavy taxation, fines and regulations. That's not liberal. They only use the word as lip-service to mean 'compliant', as in 'votes for me'.

On the other hand, laissez-fair capitalism doesn't have anything to do with being 'conservative', either. Allowing maximum personal choice, a free-market economy, and economic regulation though the natural processes of supply and demand is about as liberal a policy, in the classical sense, as it's possible to adopt. But since modern progressives have successfully hijacked the term 'Liberal' (with a capital "L"), neither side knows what the word actually means anymore. So new a new label is adopted, and the meaning further skewed. Hence, in the minds of some, the modern 'Conservative' label has become almost as far removed from common sense as that of 'Liberals'.

For instance, since when has intolerance been a conservative principle? It certainly has never been so historically. The Republican President Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. The Ku Klux Klan was fostered by Democrats, not Republicans. I know... Democrats hate being reminded of it, but it's factual history.

Tolerance is not a 'conservative' stance, as it is about being liberal in the choices you allow others to make for themselves. It is, however, also not a 'Liberal' stance by today's definition. The Left has long-since eschewed tolerance for that very same 'compliance'. Under modern progressive liberalism, nearly anything can be tolerated of anyone who votes Democratic. Conversely, intolerance is actively encourage against those who don't. Thus, blacks need be tolerant only of blacks and can advocate killing white cops with impunity. Atheists need only tolerate other atheists, freely shaming Christians for their 'crazy' beliefs (while carefully avoiding New Age Democrat voters).  Feminists need tolerate only other feminists regardless of gender, so that the hypocrisy of wearing a T-shirt celebrating misandry while shouting down misogyny is completely invisible to their senses.  All 'right-wingers' can be safely labeled idiots, white people from the South can be lampooned as being inbred, etc.

'Liberals' aren't liberal: they haven't been for decades. Their claim to the title is patently absurd. Likewise, for 'Conservatives' to claim to uphold traditional values while excluding tolerance as one of those values is likewise absurd.

Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower reminded us of this in his state of the Union address in 1959,

"One of the fundamental concepts of our constitutional system is that it guarantees to every individual, regardless of race, religion, or national origin, the equal protection of the laws. Those of us who are privileged to hold public office have a solemn obligation to make meaningful this inspiring objective."

We Libertarians recognize that we don't need laws stating what we can do. We need fewer laws because we are constitutionally recognized as free. Read for yourself the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. The Ninth Amendment reminds us that we are not limited to the rights that the Government bestows on us. The Tenth reminds us that we are not limited to the powers that the Government allots us.

To the point at hand ('social conservatism' in the context of morality): in matters of morality and religion, the Federal government is constitutionally prohibited by the First Amendment from taking a stand. That is what 'wall of separation' means. What it does not mean is government validation of your intolerance toward seeing other people exercise their religious freedom.

I can't tell you not to pray; but I can't force you to do it, either. It's sauce for the goose and gander; completely fair and impartial. We need fewer laws because a law that tells you what you can do is constitutionally unnecessary in a free society. The extent to which you desire such laws is a measure of your belief that you are not, in fact, free. The very concept that you need a law to prohibit someone from making a moral choice is the complete opposite of Liberty. Our system has been so perverted for so long that few people on either side have even the slightest clue about how it's supposed to work.

Libertarians are Libertarians because they do know. And though apologists for the Big Two Parties have made feeble attempts to 'define' Libertarianism for the Libertarians, we don't need the assistance, thankyouverymuch. As a rule of thumb, a Libertarian will tell you that the use of force is justified only in response to someone else who imposes their will by force. Laws themselves are a form of force. Why else do you think the police are called Law Enforcement, hmm? Pretty self-explanatory. That single justification... defense... is how a Libertarian views the totality of the law. As such it's not anarchist. Murder, robbery, rape... all manner of violent crimes... are the imposition of force, so we believe in laws against them. The military prevents the use of force against our populace. The Second Amendment recognizes our individual right to exercise force in defense of ourselves and our country. But many of our laws have nothing to do with crime, or force, or justice, or defense. Rather, they're nothing more than the deliberate imposition of one group's will on another merely because the second group is making some choice the first group wouldn't. That's despotism, and it's immoral.

The author of the Politichicks.com piece notes:

"The Christian right understands that God will not enlighten, protect, comfort or restore a nation that defies His moral code."

Think about what that means, and more importantly what it doesn't mean. Is it possible for a nation to be a moral nation if that morality is forced upon them? Is compliance with law on a par with willful submission to God's will? Do you think God might be able to tell the difference? How would you respond to the Muslims in Syria who persecute Christians for the sake of creating a nation that does not defy God's moral code. Can you simultaneously hold your position as righteous and theirs as not? Perhaps God gave us free will in order to allow us to make those choices as individuals. Perhaps a righteous nation is that which chooses to follow Him of their own volition, out of love; and not because they were driven to follow Him by force, out of fear.

As important as it is for us to make the right choices, it is important for us to make the right choices.

It's time for people to screw their heads on right and realize that 'Land of the Free' does not mean that you're 'free to do what they allow you to do'. I hold myself to traditional morality because I choose to. Prominent in that list of things that are traditionally considered moral, I see the rights of others to make their own choices and not be fettered by those that I or others force upon them. That's a far cry from saying that 'social conservatism doesn't matter'. Rather, it's a position that's codified in our Constitution, in the Federalist papers, and in every other source regarding the founding of this country that you care to examine. It is the very essence of Freedom. It is, in fact, THE conservative principle. It is also THE liberal principle. Neither "side" gets it right. It's time to join a new side.

Computer Security Made Simple for Not-So-Dummies

Ars Technica reports that the NSA can uncloak practically all VPN traffic. What they don't mention is that it ain't just the NSA. There's very little that can keep a determined cracker out of an accessible computer system.

OK, here's the skinny on network security, and it's no joke.

If it's really, really important that you keep something secret, do not put it anywhere near the Internet. It can be on a COMPUTER if the computer is not connected to the Internet. Encryption will not make anything secure: it will only make it harder to read. This is not new with the advent of computing. If it's vitally important that no one else shares something, then don't you share it in the first place, and don't you leave it lying around unsecured (which is what putting it in an internet-connected location amounts to).

This is a principle of security that has been known for thousands of years. In prior times it was stated in a number of ways:

• "Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead." -- Benjamin Franklin
• "Dead men tell no tales." -- Hundreds of pirates
• "Cash transactions ONLY" -- Every drug dealer who's never been caught

If it's necessary that your work be shared among a team, then your data can be on a NETWORK. It can even be in a WORKGROUP, but that network and that workgroup must be self contained and not connected to the outside world. That means no Internet. No wireless routers and hubs. No computers whatsoever in unsecured locations (as in, not behind a locked door).

Simple, right?

In every other case you must assume that a dedicated, knowledgeable computer expert can access your data. That's honestly not a new question for you, either. You make the same kinds of decisions when you choose what types of locks to buy (if any), or whether you're going to put bars on your windows or an alarm in a house or business. We all know we're not fundamentally secure against any sort of intruder. We temper our decisions with common sense and expectations. The big questions for you are simply these: Is what you have worth stealing? Does the value outweigh the bother that they'd have to go through? Use the appropriate level of security, and don't get too discouraged by the realization that it really isn't enough to prevent a breach, nor can it be.

Finally, what's its value to you? In computing, this is your measure of the value of a backup.

You can get mired down in details of what kind of firewall to implement, what kind of antivirus software, should you encrypt your drives, etc. Know that these are the same decisions you make when buying fences and locks. You can get information on all of that from anywhere. But what you're less likely to hear is that, as with physical alarms and locks, there is no system that will prevent a determined thief from gaining access if he wants it. Locks don't exist to prevent theft: they exist to discourage thieves. That is the very best they can do, be they physical or digital.

And that's the single most important thing you need to know about security.

Dealing with Cuba isn't a great deal for Cubans (and it's terrible for us)

This from Breitbart:

CASTRO TO POCKET 92% OF WORKER 

SALARIES FROM FOREIGN COMPANIES

Before someone reflexively shouts "Breitbart", yes, the story appears to be accurate as reported by the Cuban government in Granma.cu. Of course, the Cuban government describe it thusly:

"Everything is convenient as the worker will receive his salary doubled in national currency, with 9.09% deducted for holiday pay." 

(My translation. Somebody please check me.) 

By simply doubling the number without regard to the actual exchange rate they are attempting to spin 90% confiscation as a good thing. And of course, along with this draconian confiscation is the realization that workers have to pay for their vacation time out of what remains.

Raul Castro
The only winner

In the comments on Granma.cu there is some mention of the exchange rate. Originally the workers expected to receive 10 Cuban pesos, and someone complains that at two they're losing 8 pesos; with the government responding that this is fair because the exchange rate is actually two pesos (which it's not... the rest of the world knows the exchange rate to be 1:26.5). The government's answering comment is tricky, so again another translator would be welcome, but it appears to me that they're concerned with inflation: if they don't artificially hold down the wages, then higher prices will result in the future.

So instead they choose to withhold that money from the people so it may not be injected into the economy and may not raise the standard of living for all Cubans.

Of course, they could have simply capped salaries, but why do that when you can suck currency for free out of American companies who are willing to pay competitive wages to the workers? Again, this leaves out an important "exchange rate". While American companies are willing to pay fair wages to the workers, I hope that they're far less willing (read "not at all") to pay those same wages to the Cuban government for the privilege of oppressing workers. If Cuba wants to keep their workers down, I don't think they need our help.

Zamira Marín Triana

Cuba has responded in advance to these criticisms. Granma reports that Vice-minister of Labor and Social Security, Zamira Marín Triana claims that the 1:2 exchange rate they're enforcing represents a "significant increase". This in itself is not particularly impressive. As the Havana Times reports, "It is the custom in Cuba that if a foreign firm wants its employees to be productive they must pay them an additional amount of hard currency under the table, since the amount they officially receive after the government takes the lion’s share is not a living wage."

In addition to the lion's share of the workers wages, the Castro government will receive a 20% "negotiator's fee". for providing the labor.

America, just because something is profitable it doesn't follow that we must do it. Communists have learned to bait a hook in such a way that idiot Americans fall for it repeatedly. We have been presented with the illusion that we are benefitting oppressed Communist workers before, in China. The billions that we pour into our economy has made little difference because it's diverted into a foreign regime where it simply stops. Yes, the labor is cheaper, even though they get about 10% of the lower wage you pay them. So companies export the jobs, and with it the tech and the equipment. Then we wind up depending on relatively cheap foreign labor to the point where many U.S. companies could not be self-reliant if they had to. They become American in name only. I live in what was a textile mill town. I've seen it happen. We don't have to do that again.

References:

• As reported in Breitbart: http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/12/19/castro-to-pocket-92-of-worker-salaries-from-foreign-companies/
• As reported in Granma.cu: http://www.granma.cu/cuba/2014-12-15/nuevas-disposiciones-sobre-pago-a-trabajadores-vinculados-con-la-inversion-extranjera
• Havana Times: http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=107948
• Exchange rate, CUC:CUP: http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?Amount=1&From=CUC&To=CUP

One more reason to stay out of jail.

From the Boston Globe:

Court denies inmate’s sex-change surgery

Reverses ruling in 2012 Kosilek case; Sex-change surgery funding is at issue

Robert Kosilek murdered his wife and is serving a life sentence. Now 65 years old and known as "Michelle", she wants the millions of citizens who did NOT murder their spouses to foot the bill for sex-change surgery.

“It’s a tragic decision on a personal level for Michelle Kosilek,” her lawyer said. “But on a more global level, it’s a horrendous decision for many reasons. . . . It invites the Department of Correction to hire outside experts [to testify against an inmate] whenever they want to deny a prisoner medical treatment.”

If only she were half as uncomfy in prison as she is in her skin. There is an assumption that it is the body and not the mind of the murderer that needs to be changed. Either might be the case. Or in the interests of "fairness" should we extend this principle to other inmates who are uncomfortable with their appearance? Tax-funded surgery for those who are born in bodies shorter or taller than appropriate for "who they really are"; or those in need of nose jobs, liposuction, and tummy-tucks to match their self-image; or facelifts for those who are distressed by their striking resemblance to their own photos on a post-office wall; or skin-bleaching for Blacks who wish they were born Caucasian? Should we blame "the State" (which is in reality the aggregate of citizens like you and me) for the chromosomes a person carries, foisting upon the citizenry some hitherto unrecognized "responsibility" for natural genetic recombination?

If Michelle Kosilek experiences "cruel and unusual punishment" due to gender dysphoria, it is not at the hands of the State; rather, it is at the hands of Providence, which has seen fit to equip her with exactly the body dictated by the genetic blueprint she carries in her DNA. And it is at the hands of herself. Since the question proposed by her legal team is one of "who she is", the answer is "a convicted killer", who could readily have financed this surgery herself had she not committed the murder that landed her in jail. Being in prison is no one's fault but Kosilek's alone. There are a great many goals in life that a conviction for murder will prevent you from realizing; this is just one.

No matter how earnestly you WISH you were born white, or black, or male, or female, or Koozebainian, there is nothing medically wrong with being what you are. The court, I think, made the right call.

---===//oOo\\===---

I have some experience now with those who read what they want to instead of what's written, so for them, here's what I'm not saying: I'm not saying that people with gender dysphoria are predisposed to be killers. I'm not saying that it's not okay for them to seek gender reassignment surgery should they care to. I'm not saying that all gender dysphoria should be treated with psychiatry, though in some cases this is probably true. I'm not making any judgement call whatsoever as to the morality of gender dysphoria. I'm not even sure that "morality" applies: morality is not about what a person is. It deals with behavior, and I have no interest or business in how others behave toward toward themselves or other consenting adults.

• I am making a judgement call on the morality of murder. It is wrong, and you give up a ton of rights when you commit it.
• I am saying that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being who you are, as you are. I learned this from Mr. Rogers.
• I am saying that I am not morally, ethically, or financially liable for your dissatisfaction with who you are. That's your problem to deal with. I have my own, as does everyone else.
• I am saying that if you want the freedom to go where you want, be who you want, or become who you want, then you need to keep your ass out of prison. Once you've put yourself there you will be denied a great many opportunities for self-actualization. Poor you.

Meandertory Fun

When I was a kid, here's how we took a family vacation:  we'd pile into my stepfather's station wagon, pick a direction, and start driving. We'd stay off the Interstate highways, would eat at locally owned restaurants, talk to people, and go pretty much any place they told us was interesting. The "plan" was simply to see what we could see until the money ran out save for enough to see us home.

One such vacation landed us at Disneyworld in Florida; but also took us to Silver Springs and to numerous roadside museums and attractions... the kind of "see the two-headed snake" tourist draws that haven't survived the decades. Another such vacation ultimately took us to Mammoth Cave. Along the way we lingered in the Blue Ridge mountains and Gatlinburg Tennessee; we visited the Oak Ridge facility where the atomic bomb was conceived; and made our way through the bluegrass hills of Kentucky.

Years later, when I lived in England, my parents came to visit. As was our habit, we piled into the car (in this case my Ford Grenada) and drove in a generally northwest direction from my home in Oxfordshire. Our path wound through the Rollright Stones; Banbury Cross; Stratford-upon-Avon; Ironbridge Gorge;  Kenilworth and Warwick castles; and the Roman city Viroconium Cornoviorum (now known as Wroxeter). As usual we made no reservations. We never had a schedule. If something struck our fancy we went there. If, when talking to a barman in a pub we heard of something interesting, we went there. I had a membership in English Heritage, so a lot of it was free or reduced entry. (English Heritage was fairly new at the time, so I'm pleased to see the improvements made at many of these sites in the intervening years.)

A Serendipitous Event

We took it into our heads on this trip that since we were so close to Wales anyway, we should go and visit Offa's Dyke. But it was late in the day, and the hills of Wales to the west brought the sunset a little sooner than we'd anticipated. Also, we weren't prepared for how utterly bereft was this portion of England of amenities like pubs, petrol stations, and restaurants. We found ourselves on a long section of the A4110 with nothing on it but hedgerows and silence. And overcast night gave us pitch blackness save for the twin pools of light cast by the headlamps of the Grenada. Grateful for a small sign that read "Farmhouse B&B", we coasted to a stop, hoping we'd have enough fuel to get us to a town the next day.

The B&B was run by a former London clockmaker and his wife who had retired to the country. The farmhouse was huge, with a fireplace in which you could easily roast a pig. Upstairs were overstuffed feather beds, of which we thankfully availed ourselves after a quick bite graciously prepared on short notice by the lady of the house.

Wigmore Castle

Stronghold of the Mortimers, now a romantic ruin. 

A truly inspired restoration a few years ago 

left the site looking exactly as it did before the work began.

  © Copyright Philip Pankhurst and licensed for reuse 

under this Creative Commons Licence.

The next morning when my wife and I awoke, the fog was just beginning to lift; another 10 feet and you could begin to call it clouds. As it was, it actually formed a perfectly flat misty ceiling just even with the top of our bedroom's southern-facing window. Below that ceiling the air was perfectly clear and evenly lit by the diffuse morning light. And below that window was a gorgeous garden of roses. To our left this gave way to truck garden that provided the vegetables for our evening and morning meal. As we were admiring this view, the clouds continued to ascend, and we could see the Welsh hills rising to our right; and as the clouds cleared them, they unveiled the ruins of a castle atop the hill.

You could not have planned this. You could not have properly appreciated it if you had planned it. It's the kind of delightful surprise that you can only achieve through sheer dumb luck. The castle, we learned, was Wigmore Castle, once besieged by Henry II. At the time of our visit it was for sale and unimproved. All that remained a few free-standing wall fragments among debris and sediment and a bit of dungeon. From the English Heritage site I see that it's much the same today as it was then. We clambered up the hill and took some photos, one of which framed the B&B through one of the few remaining windows. When it was developed, my stepfather sent it to the owner of the place in the form of a postcard. I'd post a copy of it here for you if I had it.

A Contrast of Style

That's what I grew up appreciating: unplanned, spontaneous fun. And once you have had a taste of real freedom, there's really no suitable substitute.

I've been on other vacations of the sort that I'm told that normal people take. The kind where plans are made, reservations are booked, and schedules are kept. The kind where a checklist of events is kept and meticulously attended; where a time-boxed quota of fun is allotted for each event, and if you miss a checkbox you are not only off-schedule, but you've lost fun. The kind where you can measure and precisely describe the amount of fun you will have missed out on should you not keep to the schedule. The kind where you can't just go where whim and curiosity would take you. The kind where the allotment of fun must be adjusted by a factor representing the stress induced by keeping to that damnable schedule. The kind with no genuine wonder and no genuine surprises.

The kind that feels a lot like a job.

It's not just holidays and vacations that can be like that, you know. It's parties, too. My idea of an ideal gathering is one where there might be a purpose and some general idea of getting together, and maybe even a few planned events; but the bulk of which is largely unstructured so as to allow people to mingle and converse and do and go where they will. The kind with a buffet and few rules.

I'm not nearly so fond of those where there is a schedule that says you must arrive at such-and-such a time sharp and finish your meal, ordered well in advance, mind you, at just this time so that you can take part in this specific set of activities with this particular group so that we will all have carefully constructed and managed fun. "Mandatory fun" (a phrase we first used in the military, but which has since spilled into business). I know that a lot of people like it, and that I am probably quite atypical and anti-social. I'm sure I must have some deep-seated psychological disorder that gets me focused on my dislike of the format and keeps me disengaged. Basically, it's a lot like work to me. As you might surmise, when it comes to my entertainment I'm more into meandering than traveling with purpose... "Meandertory fun", if you will.

And that's why I'm writing this instead of attending the company Christmas party.