cowboy bob as "Robert Duvall"

The above graphic shows a reader's letter of mine that was published in the regional newspaper of record. After some thought, I began conjecturing I should refresh my credentials as an adamantly adiaphoristic observer, through whose veins course sang froid.

As for the following graphic, it's adduced to clue you, dear Reader and, I hope, devoted fan, in on the unfortunate consequences, stemming from the lack of a well formulated and prudent plan B.

. . . oh, yeah, in the event better legibility is required, one needs only click on the graphic with text.



PRINCIPLE INSPIRES ======>
<== PRACTICALITY REQUIRES

The following, I think, does resonate well with the above reader's letter. Anyway, here's text I left in the comment section of another blog, and I quote myself this way:

"Unlike Americans with their Bible-thumping jackasses, we bar our Qu'ran-thumping jackasses from dragging us into ill-advised war. Had we known before about the abductions, we would've forwarded the appropriate authorities. Even though they may be a minority in their own country, everything should be done to spare those Palestinians and Lebanese, who seek only to purse a decent life,the horrors of ill-advised war."

For no particular reason, I appended the above graphics and text to this post. However, there is a darn good reason for appending "sefton's easter egg" at the end of this post. I reckon it's only fair-minded of me to adduce an APOLOGIA for why I asked such a question of Professors Bix and Petras and Quataeret.

. . . oh, yeah, I would still appreciate the visitor's perusing the text that precedes the easter egg.

. . . oh, alright (!) already, maybe, I shouldn't pick on such an engaging and impressive actor. Nonetheless, I believe my purposes for the following essay are best served by presenting the visitor a dollop of alluring metaphor. Rather recently, Robert Duvall has become noted for being the mainstay in several western movies

. . . oh, yes, at one time, the three major television networks, when they truly were major, ladled out generous portions of "ride, rape and revenge". I was enthralled by PALADIN . . . "swear by the vultures" . . . oh, br'dah, "oat burners", "horse operas".

. . . ya'know, about the only Western I can recall as being set in the then present day was SKY KING . . . at the time, I considered his niece Kelly as nice eye-candy, but the why for my doing so eluded my comprehension . . .

So far as I can recall, all the other teevee westerns were set in times, people got about on horseback, or in horse-drawn vehicles. Mr Duvall's latest remarkable western BROKEN TRAIL is set around the 1890s. In this instance, the "mcguffin" for the piece is a herd of 500 horses, which is to be driven from Oregon to Wyoming.

I'm not sure, but I think the "chuck wagon" was drawn by a pair of horses. For no particular reason, I recall them as being well working draft animals. Now, let's suppose one of those animals were sickly. In that case, the cook, who drove the chuck wagon, would become increasingly frustrated, as the distance between himself and the herd grew.

And that means that both of those draft animals are required to be good shape, if the pair are to prove well working.

The topic of horses reminds of a clip, which gets shown every often on TURNER CLASSIC MOVIES. In the clip, director Sydney Pollack elucidates the difference between "letter box" and "pan and scan". With letter-box, the teevee screen shows all the elements in the scene that the movie director wants the viewer to see, even though some of the top and bottoms portions of the screen are blacked out.

With pan-and-scan, the whole teevee screen is filled, but the side portions of the original screen are reduced.

In the movie BEN HUR, the title character played by Charlton Heston is driving a chariot that is drawn by four horses. And he's racing several other chariot drivers. Anyway, in illustrating the difference between the ways of presenting the movie on the teevee screen, Mr Pollack has the viewer see four horses with letter box, and only three horses with pan-and-scan.

Okay, here's where this post jumps off into some deep water.

Now, let's take the chariot as representing our national economy. And each of the three horses is meant to meant to represent an influence on that economy.

One horse can be meant to represent the Federal Reserve, the board of directors of which sets the interest rates, at which banks lend money.

The other horse can be meant to represent the federal government, which can significantly influence the economy by such means as prompt disaster relief.

And then, the last horse that can consigned to representing the tax code. In this instance, one must remember that "the power to tax is the power to destroy".

And that means that all three horses, providing they're pulling in tandem, can pull the economy forward.

. . . yeah and yeah again, it would be pretty easy to insert all kinds of other considerations into the metaphor. For now, however, let's stick with getting the economy forward. . . .

At this point, let's recapitulate. The chariot stands for the economy, and the three horses stand for influences on the economy. aaaay! What about the charioteer? I mean the person driving the rig.

As an answer to my own rhetorical question, I propose that the charioteer can represent economic theory.

. . . okay, my little chick-a-dees, get ready for another leap into even deeper water. Click on this hyperlink ========> bubba da prez.

toodles

. . . sefton's easter egg . . .

Blame it all on my admiration for Lenny Bruce as an audacious cultural pioneer, along with my distaste for his wrong-headed notion that his pioneering required self-destruction.

Yes, I asked that question, and I'm quoting,

. . . "Is (?) there any Muslim in the world capable of introspection!" . . .

oh, yeah, I suppose I should describe the cause for, depending on one's point of view, my either torpedoing that presentation or ruining same with a stink bomb, ah, speaking metaphorically.

Somehow, I feel that a higher priority is, rather, my noting just how upset were three Muslims I know of. From what I can tell the implicit point of the presentation was a stinging critique of the Jewish state. And those particular Muslims were there to savor that critique. Likely enough, those three professors had been taken to be knights in shining armour, ready and able and eager to slay the dragon.

Imagine their shock, as they watched those knights get unhorsed by a stable boy with one sweep of a muck rake.

Here's what gets me. The re-action that I as the figurative stable boy could be summarized in the catcall "despicable". Putting that stable boy in his place required just one of those professors to reel off the name of just one Muslim, whom he knew was capable of introspection.

And not one of them did so.

. . . gotta' admit . . . I do feel a little sympathy for the aforementioned Muslims . . . one of them was concerned enough to request a talk with that stable boy at the conclusiion of the presentation . . . and I did so . . . heck, I even gave him my business card

. . . gotta' admit . . . the conversation was enlightening . . . well, for me it was . . . I can't say so for the other guy . . .

. . . ya'know, here's the irony . . . had that question been tossed in my face, I would've been able to produce the name of one Muslim, who proved worthy of being known for introspection.

. . . I guess I don't known when I'm well off, the visitor is hereby directed to click on the following hyperlink ====> sweetest nookie.