Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Book Review: "Theodosia and the Pirates", by Aya Katz


Here's another of Aya Katz's remarkable historical novels which use the point-of-view of offbeat characters, with their fitting contemporary quirks and biases, to illuminate odd corners of history.  In this case Katz's protagonist is Theodosia Burr Alston, the miserably neurotic daughter of Aaron Burr, who doesn't just disappear at sea after her son's death but takes up with the privateer ("I am not a pirate!") Jean Lafitte -- and from this viewpoint reveals odd and fascinating details of politics in the southern states during the War of 1812.  I'll bet your high-school history classes never mentioned that America's early navy owed more to pirates -- or privateers, depending on your viewpoint -- than to John Paul Jones. 

Equally fascinating are the political intrigues between the freewheeling settlers of the gulf coast and the woefully inept officials of the new American republic.  The story is studded with examples of actual letters from the historical characters, giving unique insights into the volatile society of early America with its shifting relationships between the sexes, the races, and the influences of the neighboring European empires.  And of course, this being a historical Romance, there's plenty of good rampant sex. 

One could make minor quibbles: there are occasional typographical errors, and the Impressionistic-painting cover would have done better within a solid frame, but none of these distract from the pace and flow of the story.  Altogether, this is a complex and fascinating novel from a unique perspective.  I, for one, can't wait for the sequel.

--Leslie <;)))><              

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Damn, I Won the Prometheus Award!

Wow!  Now all I need is somebody who's going to WorldCon in London to accept the award for me, and get it out to me here in Buckeye, afterwards.  I've had a couple of tentative offers, but I want to have a backup, just in case.

--Leslie <;)))>< 


"For IMMEDIATE RELEASE, July 12, 2014
PROMETHEUS AWARD WINNERS ANNOUNCED: Doctorow, Naam, Bujold and Fish
Vernor Vinge to receive Lifetime Achievement Award

The Libertarian Futurist Society has announced its Prometheus Award winners for 2014 – including a tie for Best Novel, our annual Hall of Fame entry for Best Classic Fiction and a rare Special Award, the first by the LFS’ to a filksinger-storyteller.

Awards for Best Novel, Best Classic Fiction (Hall of Fame) plus a Special Award will be presented at 8 p.m. Aug. 16 during the Special Awards ceremony at Loncon 3, the 72nd annual World Science Fiction Convention, which will be held August 14-18, 2014 in London.

In a separate awards ceremony, four-time-Prometheus-winning author Vernor Vinge will receive a Special Prometheus Lifetime Achievement Award to be presented during Conjecture/ConChord Oct. 10-12, 2014 in San Diego, California.

Doctorow, Naam tie for Best Novel
There was a tie for Best Novel: The winners are Homeland (TOR Books) by Cory Doctorow and Nexus (Angry Robot Books) by Ramez Naam.

Homeland, the sequel to Doctorow’s Prometheus winner Little Brother, follows the continuing adventures of a government-brutalized young leader of a movement of tech-savvy hackers who must decide whether to release an incendiary Wikileaks-style exposé of massive government abuse and corruption as part of a struggle against the invasive national-security state.

Nexus offers a gripping exploration of politics and new extremes of both freedom and tyranny in a near future where emerging technology opens up unprecedented possibilities for mind control or personal liberation and interpersonal connection.

The other Prometheus finalists for best pro-freedom novel of 2013 were Sarah Hoyt’s A Few Good Men (Baen Books); Naam’s Crux, the sequel to Nexus (Angry Robot Books); and Marcus Sakey’s Brilliance (Thomas & Mercer).

Lois McMaster Bujold wins Hall of Fame for Falling Free
The Best Classic Fiction (Hall of Fame) winner is Falling Free, Lois McMaster Bujold ‘s 1988 novel that explores free will and self-ownership by considering the legal and ethical implications of human genetic engineering.

The other 2014 Hall of Fame finalists: "As Easy as A.B.C.," a 1912 short story by Rudyard Kipling; "Sam Hall," a 1953 short story by Poul Anderson; “ 'Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman," a 1965 short story by Harlan Ellison; and Courtship Rite, a 1982 novel by Donald M. Kingsbury.
The Prometheus Hall of Fame award for Best Classic Fiction honors novels, novellas, stories, graphic novels, anthologies, films, TV shows/series, plays, poems, music recordings and other works of fiction first published or broadcast more than five years ago.

Leslie Fish wins Special Award
Author-filksinger Leslie Fish, perhaps the most popular filk song writer of the past three decades and one who often includes pro-freedom themes in her songs, will receive a Special Prometheus Award in 2014 for the combination of her 2013 novella, “Tower of Horses” and her filk song, The Horsetamer’s Daughter.
Fish’s novella (published in the anthology Music of Darkover, edited by Elisabeth Waters) faithfully tells the same story as her Pegasus-winning filk song. The story’s characters (especially the 12-year-old title character of the song) resist control of a wizard-backed government that wants to regulate, tax, and conscript them.

This Darkover story thus sheds new light and fresh libertarian perspective on the world of Darkover by focusing on the peaceful voluntary cooperative lives of farmers and small-town traders struggling to preserve their freedom and independence – rather than the usual Darkover focus on the planet’s leaders or ruling elite, some well-intentioned but some abusing power.

About the awards
The Prometheus Award, sponsored by the Libertarian Futurist Society (LFS), was established in 1979, making it one of the most enduring awards after the Nebula and Hugo awards, and one of the oldest fan-based awards currently in sf. Presented annually since 1982 at the World Science Fiction Convention, the Prometheus Awards include a gold coin and plaque for the winners.

For more than three decades, the Prometheus Awards have recognized outstanding works of science fiction and fantasy that stress the importance of liberty as the foundation for civilization, peace, prosperity, progress and justice.

For a full list of past Prometheus Award winners in all categories, visit www.lfs.org. Membership in the Libertarian Futurist Society is open to any science fiction fan interested in how fiction can promote an appreciation of the value of liberty.

For more information, contact LFS Publicity Chair Chris Hibbert (publicity@lfs.org). To submit 2014 novels for consideration and possible nomination by LFS members, contact Best Novel awards coordinator Michael Grossberg (BestNovel@lfs.org or 614-236-5040). To propose works published more than five years ago for the Hall of Fame, contact William H. Stoddard, Hall of Fame finalist judging committee chair (HallOfFame@lfs.org).

More information is available at http://lfs.org."

Friday, July 4, 2014

The Suspicious Underpinnings of ISIS

You have to be pretty far out in the weeds for Al Qaeda to consider you too "extremist", but the so-called Iraqi Syrian Islamic State rebels have managed to gain that dubious title.  For that matter, Hezbollah doesn't like them either.  Neither does anybody else in the middle-east -- except the Syrian rebels and a lot of assorted Jihadist hotheads, many of whom are flocking into northern Iraq to join them.  They're polarizing the middle-east as fast and thoroughly as Boko Haram did northern Africa.  

In fact, ISIS -- which is now shifting its name to The New Caliphate -- has made so many enemies so quickly that one has to wonder if this was, dare I say, planned?  ISIS was obviously backed by a lot of money, which everyone assumes came from the rich fanatic sheiks of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but where did those rich Jihadist fanatics get the idea that now was the time to start the great war to establish Moslem rule over the world?  Well, certainly the inability of the angered governments of northern Africa to stamp out Boko Haram, and the departure of the American troops from Iraq, and the Palestinian kidnappings and murders in Israel, might have encouraged them, but wouldn't caution have warned them to wait and see if those Africans and Israelis eventually came up with effective reactions?  Wouldn't any sensible military adviser have told them not to assume that, just because Allah was on their side, that all the world would fall before them?  Where did they get the idea that everybody else in the world is a collection of cowards, weaklings and fools who are ripe for the conquering?

Is it possible that somebody who's not a Jihadist carefully sowed that idea in their heads?

Not everybody in the western state departments are fools, and -- much though it might surprise China -- western governments are capable of playing a long, slow game.  It was not by accident that the USSR was encouraged to spend itself into collapse, so that it crumbled without anyone in the west firing a shot.  Nobody who has carefully followed events since then could doubt that the next big threat to western civilization was going to be the Jihadist movement;  after all, the Muslim militants have been building toward this confrontation for the last century, at least.

So, how to deal with it?  How do you fight armies who boast that they love death as westerners love life, who are happy to die if they can just die killing a few more innocent people, who are quite happy to slaughter noncombatants -- including children -- and who boast that they have a potential recruiting pool as big as the population of China?  How do you make war on a political/religious movement which is not tied down to any one location or government, and armies that wear no uniform but hide among civilians?  Genghis Khan managed, centuries ago, by having no compunctions about slaughtering whole populations, but that sort of thing is frowned on these days;  anyone who tried it would find the rest of the world allied against him for pure self-preservation.  So how do you stop them?

Well -- and here's where my hard-learned practical political paranoia kicks in -- you make them fight each other, to the death.  This isn't as hard as it might appear.  Religious fanatics have a long track-record of turning on each other for being insufficiently holy, as various Muslim sects have done many times before.  In fact, the only thing that has ever managed to unite fanatic religious sects in the past has been a common enemy -- and even that is no guarantee.  Despite their handy unifying hatred of Israel, for the past 60 years Arabs have merrily fought each other over any good excuse.  The long-standing civil war in Syria has killed more fanatical Muslims than all the western troops in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.

Now considering how fast the Arab Spring came and went in other middle-eastern countries, why has the civil war in Syria dragged on so long?  You might consider the question of where both sides are getting the weapons to keep fighting it.  No country has visibly or officially sold or given weapons to either side in a very long time, yet both sides manage to keep getting them -- always small arms and small artillery: not serious enough to invade any neighboring countries, but enough to keep killing each other (at least 100,000 at last estimate) for year after year.  For all the UN's whaffling about "international arms smugglers", it's clear that a volume of weapons like this could only be supplied by the government of an industrialized country -- or several countries.  And how many governments in the world have good reason to want as many Jihadists as possible dead?  How many countries -- from Britain to Burma -- have had problems with demanding Muslim fanatics inside their own borders?  The not-so-subtle attempts by Jihadists to spread their power in other countries has raised a quiet but sizable backlash all over the world, and I strongly suspect that civil resistance is the least of it.

So why did the Syrian rebels, who haven't even conquered their own country after all this time, suddenly decide to run next door and conquer Iraq?  Did they -- and their Saudi/Qatar backers -- really think they could get away with it, just because the American troops were leaving?  Or were they subtly encouraged -- by people who had observed the effects of the Syrian civil war -- to make their move toward worldwide Jihad too soon?  After all, it should be obvious by now that the one sure effect of the ISIS invasion will be the slaughter of an awful lot of fanatical Muslims.

Here's my prediction about what those "300 military advisers" Obama is sending to Iraq will do.  They'll mainly concern themselves with operating fleets of drones -- some of them these days are small enough to be disguised as small birds or insects -- to spy out exactly who and where the Jihadists are, and provide pinpoint navigation for American smart missiles, and airstrikes by other countries' bombers.  The earlier campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan dragged on so long, and at such expense, because the American troops (and their civilian "reconstruction" teams) bent over backwards to be nice to the natives: being painfully careful not to harm innocent civilians, not to knock down mosques(no matter how often Jihadists fired from them), to provide supplies and medical treatment, to rebuild the infrastructure and economy and government, and generally leave the population a lot better off where they'd passed.  Of course the Jihadists sneered at this behavior as "weakness" (or "cultural warfare" once they realized how effective it was), but the 85% of the natives who aren't fanatics and just want to get on with their lives certainly noticed.  Once the pinpoint bombing begins, the natives will also see just how murderously effective the non-Jihadist troops can be.  That should encourage them, in good historical everybody-love-a-winner fashion, to fall upon the Jihadists -- and their whole New Caliphate movement -- with great enthusiasm.

If the US will also lend a few drone-operating "advisers" to the various angered/embarrassed governments in Africa, Boko Haram will soon be obliterated also -- and so will the other Jihadist organizations in the region.  If Israel chooses to bomb Gaza flat, not much stink will be raised in the UN, either.  In all the noise and flurry, not many people will notice if Burma expels its entire Muslim population.  It will be interesting to see what happens to the Jihadist groups in Indonesia, too.

In brief, the noisy excesses of ISIS actually spell the turning of the tide against the Jihadists, everywhere in the world.  Thus World War Three -- between the Jihadists and everybody else -- may yet be avoided, or at least nipped in the bud, simply by the trick of encouraging the Jihadists to show their hand too soon.  And yes, I suspect the wiser heads of the various state departments of the western governments of having given the Jihadists enough rope to hang themselves.  Well done, boys.  Well done.

--Leslie <;)))>< 



   

  

   

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Politically Correct = Political Club

I was going to continue with my article on Independence and Competence, but it's a long complicated subject and something else snagged my attention -- namely, the flap about the Washington Redskins.

Somebody has decided that the name of the Washington Redskins is "racist" and offensive to the "Native Americans", and he/she/it/they is hammering the team's owner to change its name (to what?  The "Natives"?).  This somebody has spent a lot of money on this campaign, even televising ads that feature supposedly-real Indians, piously claiming that they never called themselves Redskins -- and never mind the facts.  Go talk to the real Indians, and you'll get a very different story.

First off, my maternal great-grandmother was a Chippewa medicine-singer (probably where the family's musical talent comes from), who was also literate and left tales and letters with her descendants -- which plainly state that, in her day, Indians preferred being called "redskins" to the more vulgar term, which was "red niggers".  The Chippewa themselves had no qualms about calling Whites "white-eyes" or "fish-bellies".

Second, as Indian archeologists and anthropologists (yes, there are some) can tell you, despite the temptation to please guilty-patronizing Whites, no, the term "Native Americans" is not scientifically accurate, and "Indians" is actually a lot closer to the truth.  The first humans to visit the Americas were Neanderthals, soon followed by Java Man.  They didn't stay to settle because, in those days, most of the land was covered with glaciers and the rest was inhabited by very large and unfriendly animals: the mammoth, the mastodon, the giant sloth, the giant deer, the giant humpless camel, the giant short-faced bear, the giant dire-wolf, the rather large saber-toothed tiger, and so on.  The first people to stay and settle the Americas were the Clovis Point people, toward the end of the Ice Age -- and they, thank you, came from Europe: northwestern France, to be precise.  That's right;  the first Americans were White people.  Yes, as the Ice Age receded, another group of people from northern Asia (not actually India, but a little closer) came across the Bering Straits and mingled with the original settlers, producing the Folsom Point people who were the ancestors of the modern Indian tribes -- but they were Johnny-come-latelies as much as the later Whites.  Because the Asians came (and continued to come for centuries) in greater numbers than the original Clovis Point people, their genetics came to dominate the American population;  thus the name "Indians" (which, in Columbus' time, meant "Asian") is the more accurate term.  There's nothing "racist" about it.

Third, the Washington Redskins -- like the Cleveland Indians and the Atlanta Braves -- originally were made up of Indians.  In the late 19th century the old hunting/gathering/fishing/small-farming Indian economies were in shambles, and a lot of the tribesfolk had to come to the Whites' cities for work.  (This was when the Michigan Indian tribes, with their excellent ears and superb sense of balance, came to dominate the high-iron construction trades.)  On their days off, since there wasn't much entertainment they could afford, they organized ball teams and played among themselves.  Eventually they came to play against other amateur urban ball teams, and won respectable numbers of games.  Sports fans in those cities came to respect those "Indian", "Redskin", "Braves" ballplayers.  In time, those teams became serious professionals.  They kept the names they'd started with as a point of pride, even after most of the players were no longer Indians.  It's a classic case of Yankee Doodling.

Side note: the term "Yankee Doodle" was originally British propaganda.  When the American colonies started grumbling toward revolution and British troops were sent in to "maintain order", the British governors launched a propaganda campaign intended to discredit the grumblers. These malcontents, the British claimed, weren't real Britons -- or else they'd never do something so disgraceful as to question and defy the divinely-ordained Crown.  No, these had to be resentful leftover Dutchmen: not John Bull, but John Cheese -- stupid John Cheese.  In the contemporary Dutch language, that was: Jaan Kees dudel -- pronounced: Yan Kees doodle.  The British commanders even made a song about it.  Now, is anybody going to tell the New York Yankees that they should change their name because it's an "offensive" term for a Dutchman?

  Finally, in case the Politically Correct crowd have forgotten this too, people tend to name their sports teams after things they admire: symbols of courage, fortitude, ferocity, beauty, or great skill.  They name teams for noble animals like lions, tigers, bears, bulls, mustangs, eagles or dolphins -- or skilled trades like steel-workers, or brewers, or meat-packers, or globe-trotters -- or not-so-respected but definitely fierce trades, like pirates, or raiders -- or fierce natural phenomena like cyclones, or sun-devils, or hurricanes -- or even respected ethnic groups, like 49ers, or metropolitans, or saints, or Vikings, or...yes, Indians.

The Braves, the Indians and the Redskins earned their names honestly, and are proud of them.  Let them keep those names, thank you.

Frankly, I'm wondering about the connection between this anti-Redskins campaign and the rather famous example of, hmm, a certain ball-team owner who made a few drunken racist remarks in what he thought was private, and the resulting storm of well-orchestrated outrage that forced him to sell his team.  If you researched just who's been paying for those anti-Redskin TV ads, and then see who's funding the group behind them, would you possibly find somebody who's made offers to buy that team?  Just a thought.

--Leslie <;)))><

Thursday, May 29, 2014

INDEPENDENCE, SELF-RELIANCE AND COMPETENCE (Part I)

--Leslie Fish  <;)))><


When the Revolution began, Americans already had roughly two centuries' experience with independence under their belts.

As settlers – voluntary or not – they'd been cast on their own resources, in an alien land, with no survival guides but the natives – and all too often they'd made enemies of the natives by trying to steal their land rather than, like Peter Minuit and Roger Williams, having the decency to buy it.  The earliest settlements, like Jamestown and Roanoke, were disastrous failures.  An embarrassingly large percentage of the Pilgrims, and other settlers, died in their first year. 

The survivors were practical, self-reliant, and competent in the extreme.  They'd learned to hunt, trap, and fish, and they'd learned which of the native plants were edible, or even medicinal, all from at least observing the natives.  They knew how to clear land and make good use of the resulting timber and stone.  They could build houses and barns, shops and ships.  They knew how to make pottery, tan and sew leather, mine and work the local metals, make their own clothing from the original fiber to the finished garment, and farm well enough to feed themselves and produce an excess to sell to their neighbors -- or local or even overseas merchants.  A lot of them were also literate.  To Americans of the 18th century, it was perfectly reasonable to strike out into the howling wilderness – in some cases, with nothing but an axe and a tinderbox – choose some amenable land and settle it, and within five years or less have a tidy house and prosperous farm or other business.

In brief, the average community – or even family, or even individual – contained in themselves all the knowledge they needed to survive and succeed.  That competence at self-reliance gave them their real independence.  Breaking away from British rule was only the last step.

That combination of personal competence, self-reliance and independence also caused a peculiarly American attitude toward work, which foreign travelers remarked on – an assumption that work itself contained a rewarding virtue, what was sometimes called The Dignity of Labor.  This was later to make America the richest and most productive nation in the world.  It was rooted in the assumption that personal competence and self-reliance, and working primarily for oneself, would reliably lead to personal success.  This was the basis of the great American dream: that anyone who was competent and worked hard could 'better' himself, start and improve his own business, and thereby end well-off if not rich, no matter how poor he started. 

Competence was the key – that and plenty of available land, physical resources to work on.  Americans had that, and built on it, for another two centuries after the Revolution – almost.

Remember that freedom has always had enemies, both foreign and domestic, and sometimes an unholy alliance of the two.  Well before the Revolution there were wealthy – often aristocrat – settlers who augmented their own competence with massive involuntary labor, first from indentured servants, then from outright chattel slaves;  these had a vested interest in keeping others from becoming competent, or self-reliant, let alone independent.  The old guild system of skilled-trade training had begun to break down;  trade-masters who had grown rich off the underpaid labor of apprentices didn't want to graduate said apprentices into full independent journeyman status, and therefore kept them from learning full competence so as to keep them as permanent 'servants'.  Of course, anyone rich enough to afford servants, for housework or farming or factory work, didn't want to lose them, either. 

The lust for cheap labor is an old, old sin, but it was in America that the relationship of competence and independence become clear.  Ancient and medieval empires certainly institutionalized slavery and serfdom, but they didn't discourage slaves and serfs from gaining skills, knowledge, competence, that would improve their efficiency and value.  Only in the American southern slave-states (admittedly, not all of them) were slaves forbidden by law to be educated.  It's also why, after the Civil War, a lot of previous Abolitionists made a point of creating schools for former slaves.  Americans had figured out the connection between education, competence, self-reliance and independence. 

Ever since then, a secret war has been waged between those who want to strengthen that path to independence and those who want to weaken it. 

Consider: after the Civil War thousands of new ex-slaves went north to the burgeoning industrial cities, where the American Industrial Revolution was taking off, seeking work.  It was quite legal then to pay Blacks lower wages than Whites for the same work, bar them from better jobs, segregate them in poorer neighborhoods and schools.  And of course it was illegal to organize labor unions.  This was a perfect situation for the unrestricted bosses to exploit the newly-freed Blacks. 

So why didn't they do it?  Why did they send agents to southern and eastern Europe to recruit the poor there to "come to America, where the streets are paved with gold"?  That campaign set off the great immigration waves of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which doubled America's population, but it would have been far cheaper to send recruiters into the Black areas of the south, or to Mexico.  Why didn't the bosses recruit there?

It comes back to knowledge and competence.  Unions were not unknown in America;  carpenters, cordwainers, printers and furniture-makers maintained the old Guild system, and had gone on strike for better working conditions as early as 1794.  The growing steam-and-water-powered factory system encouraged the growth of local unions and federations thereof.  The Knights of Labor was founded in 1869, the American Federation of Labor in 1886, and the Industrial Workers of the World in 1905.  Blacks (who were often cut out of skilled-trade unions, being mostly unskilled labor themselves) were aware of this, as were Mexicans who often crossed the border to work in America – even if they would usually take their money and go back to Mexico to spend it.  That knowledge the bosses found dangerous.  What's more, Blacks and most of the itinerant Mexicans spoke English, enough to understand the message of union organizers.  Peasants from eastern and southern Europe, the bosses assumed, would never have heard of labor unions, and in any case all spoke different languages and thus couldn't organize or otherwise plot with each other.

Well, that assumption backfired.  Those immigrants were no fools, and often not ignorant either. They were certainly aware of the power of Guilds (where do you think those had originated?), and knew about the progress of the new labor movement.  They also worked hard to learn English, learn American law and history, and become citizens as fast as they could.  This gave them the vote, as well as access to various – corrupt or not – political machines.  They grabbed the American Dream with both hands, and began the long course of class-climbing. 

So much for that tactic.  What, then, could the wealthy, powerful, and tyrannical do to suppress that troublesome independence?

(Tune in next week for the next exciting -- and outrageous -- installment.) 

            

Thursday, May 15, 2014

The Lady of the Unicorns




Sad news, sad news.  On May 13th Morning Glory Zell died, losing a final battle with cancer.  With her passes an era in the history of Paganism in America. 

I saw her last at Pantheacon two years ago, where she and Otter-Ravenheart graciously sold my albums from their table.  I wish I'd had more time to talk to her then.

I met her first in Berkeley, more than 25 years ago, when I was singing for a Church of All Worlds celebration.  Coincidentally, that was when I first met my husband, Rasty-Bob Ralston, who was handling the sound system.  Again, I wish I'd spent more time talking to her then.

The longest time I spent talking to her was during the winter that I went up to the tree-planting ceremony at Forever Forests.  Rasty was filming the event, and I got to carry the battery-pack. 

That was also when I got to meet the two resident unicorns, Bedevere and Percival.  Bedevere was a very large wooly white goat, as big as a mule deer, with a cream-colored horn as long as my arm.  Percival was likewise big, with a short golden coat, black-and-white markings on his face that made me wonder if he wasn't really some breed of large antelope, and a black horn that crooked into a hook at the end.  I was understandably impressed, and later wrote a song about the visit. 

After sundown I sat at the fire with Rasty and Otter and Morning Glory, and finally had time to talk to her at length.  I asked her about the unicorns, and she told me an interesting tale about Percival.

The 'unicorning' process involves taking the kid within an hour of its birth, pushing the horn-buds (which aren't yet attached to the skull) together under the scalp, cutting the scalp open to expose the buds, cutting their facing sides flat and stitching them together with dissolving suture, then cleaning and stitching up the scalp.  The joined horn-buds grow together into a single horn, located right over the pineal body.  The weight of the growing horn, instead of pressing down on the temporal lobes, instead presses on the pineal body;  this not only leaves the temporal lobes free to expand but stimulates the pineal body, causing some interesting effects.  The animal's intelligence increases – and the goat is a smart animal to begin with – and so does the creature's size.  For some reason, it also develops an arched neck, like a horse, more than the camel-like neck more common to goats.  Also, having a manipulable tool where both eyes can focus on it, encourages the unicorn's intelligence.  The result is a large and very clever animal that doesn't look exactly like a goat.

The only problem is that you can't predict exactly how the joined horn is going to grow.  In Percival's case, the buds somehow turned to one side so that his horn grew straight for the first two feet, but hooked to the right at the tip. 

Undaunted, Percival learned to use this natural billhook as a formidable weapon – and tool.  Because he wasn't pretty enough to be a show unicorn, he had to take up practical work.  The Zells already had a chief stud-goat for their own flock, so they loaned him out to some neighbors who also raised goats but had been plagued by coyotes and feral dogs.  Percival took up the job with a will, quickly made himself king of the flock, and chased off the dogs and coyotes.  The couple who had borrowed him proudly showed Morning Glory pictures of a dead coyote that had been killed by a side-swiping blow from Percival's billhook horn.  He also happily impregnated all the does, who produced handsome kids and respectable amounts of milk.

But then Percival grew ambitious.  He used his billhook to pull down a fence, and led his flock to freedom in the forest at the top of the mountain.  There they couldn't be milked, and they happily ate the tree-seedlings that the Zells had planted in previous years.  Worse, Percival hooked down fences into neighbors orchards, where his flock gobbled up the fruit.  Worst of all, he took to raiding other neighbors' goat-farms and stealing away the does to add to his own flock, usually leaving the bucks who challenged him in bad shape. 

Now this was too much;  Percival had made himself a serious menace to the other farmers, and they had to stop him.  They organized a hunting-party, but took care to warn Otter and Morning Glory first, in the hopes that they could rein him in.

So Morning Glory took a short lasso, a saddlebag full of apples, and her most nimble-footed horse, and rode up the mountain to where Percival had last been seen.  Sure enough, in a lush mountain meadow, there she found the expanded flock and Percival in the midst of them, nibbling meadow-grass.  She got off her horse and left him ground-tied, took an apple in one hand and the lasso in the other, and walked out into the meadow.  Percival raised his head as she came near, and gave her a suspicious look, as if he knew why she'd come.

Morning Glory looped the lasso around her arm, held out the apple and talked to Percival, projecting psychically as hard as she could.  "Percival, this is it," she told him.  "The legend has come to life. You are the unicorn, I am your lady, and the hunters are coming to kill you.  If you want to live, you must come with me."

And Percival understood.  He stood quietly and let her walk up to him, then lowered his head to take the apple, and let her slide the rope up over his horn, over his head and around his neck.  Then he let her lead him back to her horse (where she petted him and fed him another apple), waited while she mounted, and then followed tamely as she rode back to the Zells' farm.  Fortunately, the rest of the goats followed too.  She brought them all into the pasture, handed out the rest of the apples, and closed the gate. 

Of course Morning Glory brought them a fresh bale of hay before she went in the house to phone the neighbors and call off the hunt.  Of course the Zells had reinforced the fence since Percival took off, but he could have pulled down the new one if he'd really wanted to.  He had the sense not to want to.  He stayed in that pasture, placidly munching grass and hay, while the neighbors came to sort out the goats and take theirs home.  The neighbors – fellow hippies, eco-freaks and Pagans – attributed the peaceful outcome to Morning Glory's magickal communion with Percival, but Morning Glory herself modestly insisted that Percival had the intelligence – and the psychic ability – to understand her and choose the wise course.

I never doubted her story at all.

A true Witch and a great lady has passed from our world.   


--Leslie <;)))><   )O(

Monday, May 5, 2014

Follow-Up on the Cliven Bundy Caper



Granted that Cliven Bundy is an ignorant old fool.  Ignorant: nobody has used the term "Negro" in nearly 50 years, and nobody has picked cotton by hand in the US in more that 20 years.  Fool: he should have seen the writing on the wall 20 years ago, and sold out like all the other ranchers in Clark County, Nevada.

It just so happens that my husband Rasty knows an ex-rancher in Clark County, right down near the Utah border, near Bundy's land.  This old buddy, who shall remain nameless, saw what was happening in Clark County a good long time ago -- and took much smarter steps.  He made a deal with the local Paiute Indians, got a grant from the US government, and turned a big chunk of his land into a "resort" -- complete with casino, run by the Paiutes.  From the rents thereof, he made enough money to afford full-time irrigation (a serious consideration, out here in the Great Southwestern Desert) so he could turn the rest of his land to farming.  He now farms (you guessed it!) melons, just like Cliven Bundy.  The melon really is a desert plant, but it needs a certain amount of water.  This clever ex-rancher found a way to pay for the water to raise the melons, so as to keep him on his family's land.

Bundy is an old fool who tried to keep on raising cattle, on land that the government wanted.  Yes, there's good evidence for that.  Consider:

( http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2014/05/reid-bunkerville-llc-exposed-is-this-why-bundy-ranch-was-targeted-2618310.html)

By Susan Duclos

"(Before It’s News Exclusive) Public land records obtained by Before It’s News show a corporate entity partially owned by Senator Harry Reid is the owner of over 93 acres of undeveloped land within several miles of the Clliven Bundy ranch. Reid Bunkerville, LLC is listed as the current owner of four parcels of land on the west side of Bunkerville are within several miles of the Bundy ranch. This area appears to be slated for development in the future. 


While this will be explained, parcels numbers provided along with ownership proof, it is encouraged for everyone reading to go through the information, the documents provided, visit the links and come to their own conclusions, because this is just the data from public records. 


It tells a story of a man, Cliven Bundy, seemingly in the way of some lucrative business deals. 


Below are the parcel numbers of land which the Clark County Assessors Office lists as owned by Reid Bunkerville, LLC, who coincidentally updated their company records on April 17, 2014. The parcel map with ownership data will be shown for the three parcels Reid Bunkerville, LLC owns,  below the linked parcel numbers. 


REID BUNKERVILLE L L C DST-901 #002-26-301-002

REID BUNKERVILLE L L C DST-800 #002-26-301-004

REID BUNKERVILLE L L C DST-800 #002-26-301-005

REID BUNKERVILLE L L C DST-800 #002-26-701-001

 

While this will be explained, parcels numbers provided along with ownership proof, it is encouraged for everyone reading to go through the information, the documents provided, visit the links and come to their own conclusions, because this is just the data from public records.

 

To put some of this into context and to provide readers a starting point on why parcels and ownership listings are not only important but should be researched extensively, please note that three of those four parcel numbers above are listed as Bunkerville jurisdiction, where Mr. Cliven Bundy’s ranch is located. 


Parcels above and below are listed as owned by USA, jurisdiction listed as Mesquite, two examples of that shown below.


USA #002-26-202-001

USA #002-26-301-001

 

The last one listed above for Reid Bunkerville, LLC, (REID BUNKERVILLE L L C DST-800 #002-26-701-001) directly borders another parcel in Bunkerville, and shows the “owner” as Bureau of Land Management (BLM), not the USA as the examples above are.


REID BUNKERVILLE L L C DST-800 #002-26-701-001

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT #002-26-601-002

 

According to descriptions of the BLM, their job is to “administer” or “manage” public lands, yet they are listed as “owners” of the parcel directly connected to the Reid Bunkerville parcel."

     

There's more information at the website.  This is besides the attempted deal, which fell through, that Reid brokered with the Chinese solar-electric company.

 

It gets more interesting still.  Over the past few days a lot of Bundy's supporters, fearing a sneak attack on his ranch, took to patrolling the nearby roads to stop passing drivers and ask where they were going.  They didn't stop drivers from continuing on their way, but only asked who they were and where they headed.  The Nevada governor trumpeted loudly, with Harry Reid enthusiastically backing him up, that only police have the right to stop drivers on the road and ask them for ID, and that these "outsiders" (he stopped just short of calling them "outside agitators"!) -- who came mostly from other towns and neighboring counties -- were "intimidating" the local folk by wearing "guns!" openly on their belts (and of course nobody, including cowboys, wears guns on their belts in Nevada).  One telling comment he made was that the town of Bunkerville, just outside the Bundy ranch, has "only 1200 residents".  Hmmm.  Yet a week earlier Reid's supporters were claiming that Bundy's cows were actually a menace because they ranged "onto private property, onto the golf course".

 

Wait a minute.  A "golf course", in a town of "1200 residents"?  

 

A little more internet searching revealed that the town also includes a "resort", which has a golf course.  Oh, that explains it.  

 

It explains quite a bit, actually.  The BLM was supposed to "manage" the public lands "in trust" for the American people.  Instead, it's been "developing" the land for the use of, and for the benefit of, rich investors and politicians.  Very few ranchers -- or farmers, for that matter -- qualify in that category.  Here in the Great Southwestern Desert, ranchers need to rotate their herds on the public lands because they can't afford enough water (which costs a lot more than grazing rights) to plant their own land with pasture-grass that can feed their herds on their own lands.  This gives the BLM all the power it needs to force out farmers and ranchers so as sell or rent those public lands to the big rich -- unless those farmers and ranchers have the money or pull to "develop" their own lands and make the big money themselves.  

 

This has, in fact, been going on for many years.  I can tell you about how a rancher named Dobson was clever enough to turn his land into the town of Mesa, Arizona (where I used to live), for example.  Dumb old Cliven Bundy just wasn't smart enough to see which way the wind was blowing.  Maybe he should have consulted an investment broker instead of trying to keep on raising cattle.