sonora2sonoma

  • Mary

    goat rock, portuguese beach, sonoma coastline

    Once I knew a woman who collected quotes . .

    Wise sayings, ironic observations, humorous refrains,

    Witty reflections, wistful reveries,

    Well-mannered rants,

    An occasional gem that would flood the chakras

    unannounced and effervescent

    with blissful energetic presence,

    then linger in a sweet afterglow.

     

    Now gone

    like so many

    whose paths led them beyond the veil too soon

    Or, so it seems

    to those of us who still have breath

    and can feel the warmth of the sun on our bodies

    on a chilly December morning.

    What became of her quote collection?

    Did Mary hand it down to someone?

    Does it still possess the special significance

    it held for her when she shared her gems with me

    on the telephone?

     

    Words have power,

    of this there is no doubt,

    Does the power remain

    after the voice has departed?

    30 December, 2016

    Tim Konrad

    Petaluma, CA

  • The Great Renewing

    salmon beach shipwreck

    The works of man

    have their day in the sun;

    then they, too

    return from whence they came.

    ***

    The sands care not

    about the intentions

    the hopes

    or the dreams

    of those

    whose works they return to the earth.

    for the great renewing.

    ***

    12 November, 2016

  • Watching a spider spin silk

    like his kind has done for countless millennia

    Not trying to devise a bigger web

    to increase his  bottom line . . .

    just catching enough bugs

    to get by

    to sustain himself

    to carry on his line.

     

    Spiders

    function to maintain

    that little part of the environment

    to which they have been entrusted.

    To keep it clean

    and act as a check on bug proliferation

    while ensuring their continued survival

    and relevance.

     

    What can be said about spiders

    in this regard,

    can also be said of the other animals . . .

    they function to maintain

    that part of the environment

    in which they live;

    to maintain the balance between

    the organisms that provide their food sources

    and the larger environment as a whole.

     

    They don’t seek to meet production quotas,

    they don’t hoard resources for profit;

    some species create surpluses,

    but only to sustain them through the coming winter.

    They don’t fancy themselves to be masters of their domains

    allowing themselves to trash with impunity

    all the other creatures of the earth

    and the habitats that sustain them.

    The only animal who does those things

    is the one we see in the mirror each morning.

     

    Petaluma, CA

    12 October, 2016

    Tim Konrad

     

     

     

     

  •  

    Whose Reality is This, Anyway?

    I recently saw a video clip on the internet in which Newt Gingrich was being interviewed about his support for Donald Trump for president. In this clip, the former Speaker was making a distinction between truth and peoples’ perceptions of the truth, saying that he didn’t care about the truth but he did care about peoples’ perceptions of the truth.

    But Newt hasn’t been the only person in the news lately to spout such nonsense. A senior official with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), when questioned about the accuracy of a report by the ODNI concerning the torture of detainees after 911,  was quoted as saying, “it doesn’t matter what’s in the report. It matters what people think is.”*

    And now it’s been announced that the head of the Commission on Presidential Debates has been quoted as saying she doesn’t think fact-checkers should weigh in on conflicting claims about what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says about the unemployment rate. “If you and I have different sources of information,”  she posited, “does your source about the unemployment rate agree with my source?” **

    This might sound reasonable until you realize that, as the article points out, “there aren’t different sources of information about the unemployment rate;” there’s only one source–the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

    To equate objective truth with individual perceptions of the truth is to imply an arrangement in which the two are accorded equal status, as if to say reality is subject to interpretation. If this were so, then  objective reality, stripped of its defining feature–reality–would no longer have meaning. In the absence of a concept of “objective reality,” my perception of reality would have equal validity to your perception of reality.

    While that might sound very democratic at first blush, when you think about the effect it would have on reaching agreement on matters ranging from lawsuits to disputes between nations, it quickly leads to problems.

    If, having equally valid perceptions of reality, the opponents views are not in harmony with each other, how is one to arbitrate, much less, adjudicate a just and fair outcome?

    If we don’t have a commonly agreed-upon mutual understanding of whatever it is that we call “objective reality,” how are we to have a basis with which to compare, evaluate and understand each other?

    Just like bees need honey, eggs need sperm and corrupt congressmen need gullible voters, people need commonly agreed upon norms in order to interact and cooperate toward the achievement of mutually beneficial goals.

    The news medias’ failure to challenge the gross dishonesty inherent in Gingrich’s ( and others of his ilk’s) message is egregious. To quote the Washington Post’s Matt O’Brien, “letting untruths go unchallenged is . . implicitly taking sides against reality.”

    If we’re not very careful, the fundamental disregard for the truth evident in our social discourse today could signal the beginning of the unraveling of our society as we have come to understand it.

    *https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/10/cia-senate-investigation-constitutional-crisis-daniel-jones

    **https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/09/26/the-person-in-charge-of-the-presidential-debates-just-took-sides-against-reality/?wpisrc=nl_wonk&wpmm=1

    Petaluma, CA

    28 September, 2016

    Tim Konrad

     

     

  • strawberry music festival_fall 2016
    strawberry music festival_fall 2016

    “Greed is a state of fear” read the bumper sticker on the back of the van parked at the Strawberry Music Festival: An idea linking two concepts, neither of which it had occurred to me previously were related in such a manner. I had long puzzled on why certain people have such an appetite for wealth, possessions and the like. I like my creature comforts but I don’t need to drive a Beamer or an Lexus in order to haul myself around. It would be nice, but I don’t need a beach house or a mountain house to alternate between. I just need a roof over my head, heat in the winter and the basic necessities plus a few toys to play with and I’m fine.

    It’s long been a gripe of mine that the economics of our society are so tilted toward the wealthy that the poor have to go without. It’s a problem with no easy answers and millennia of history that suggests it’s been that way far back into time. No matter how advanced we become technologically, it seems we’re still in the stone age when it comes to how to treat our fellow human beings. Religions tout charitable behavior but simultaneously offer salvation to sinners and things stay pretty much the same, which is to say when pressed, most folks will look out for their bottom line first.

    So when presented with the idea that greed is fear-based, it set my (thinking) wheels to spinning. Many of us, myself included, had parents who lived through the great Depression. They learned from that experience that it was a good idea to keep your pantry stocked with foods in case there was an interruption in the food supply. My parents had these notions further reinforced during the second World War, when gasoline, milk, butter and other essentials were rationed. They made deals with friends so I had enough baby formula as an infant. These measures were prudent in their context and, rather than being driven by greed, were functional and adaptive given the state of things at that point in time.

    But there’s real need and perceived need, and it’s important to distinguish between the two. While taking steps to insure one doesn’t suffer from outages of essential goods is functional and warranted in situations where interruptions in supply are a real possibility, it does not follow that amassing huge amounts of cash and goods can be justified based on the notion of “saving for a rainy day.”  There comes a point where one must ask, how much is enough?

    The answer to this question will vary widely, I suppose, depending on who it is directed to, but, generally speaking, if you look at resources as a finite quantity, then it follows, as I see it, that if someone over here has amassed sufficient resources to sustain, say, X number of people, then there will be X number of people somewhere over there who will have to go without in order for this person to have their (inflated) share of the pie. Not very democratic, and it flies in the face of charity, but there, in essence, is one way in which greed may be said to be fear-based, since amassing a fortune is a popular means of insuring against loss, need and want. It’s like, to upend the words of JFK, “Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you.”

    This seems to be the mantra of a sizeable portion of the Republican Party these days–at least the ones who see (erroneously, I sincerely hope) some personal gain to be had by supporting Trump for president.

    When viewed in this way, the fear underlying peoples’ greed goes right along with the fear-based agenda of the Trump campaign, Fox News, and the views of all the folks who believe the country’s in terrible shape and only Donald Trump can fix it.

    Ultimately, however, and somewhat ironically at that, when we reach the ends of our lives on this earth, it will be the folks with the most stuff–property, goods, cash, etc.–who will struggle the most with having to leave it all behind! As the saying goes, “you can’t take it with you.”

     

    Petaluma, CA

    14 Semptember, 2016

    Tim Konrad

  • Trump Madness

    I’ve seen many changes in my 70-odd years, but the biggest change I’ve seen in my time here on Earth is a recent one, and it is the most alarming and, actually, frightening change of them all:  I’m speaking here of the change in our political climate.

    President Eisenhower was in office for most of my formative years. He was a president children could look up to as a role model and be the better for it because he represented values that were good and decent and admirable. The majority of the presidents who have held that office since “Ike” have also been good role models for kids to aspire to emulate. The notion of politics doesn’t fit in the calculus of a child’s mind.

    The Republican nominee this political cycle is, based on his behavior, both past and present, not that kind of person. He tramples peoples’ values with impunity. His utterances fly in the face of reason, propriety and decency. The reality he inhabits bears little resemblance to the one most of us live in. He promotes division, bigotry, hatred and fear while displaying an alarming absence of understanding of or compassion toward anyone who disagrees with him. He lacks empathy.

    In the words of New York Times columnist Frank Bruni, Trump is “a repository of almost every character trait that we reprimand children for.”  And Richard Hanna, Republican Congressman from New York’s 22nd Congressional District, in announcing why he is voting for Hillary Clinton for president, said “at a minimum the president needs to consistently display those qualities I have preached to my two children: kindness, honesty, dignity, compassion and respect.”

    To anyone who is either a Trump supporter or is considering becoming one, I have a question. Do you want your children to look up to a bully? A liar? A person who devalues women, minorities, disabled people, Muslims? A person who encourages violence? Do you want your child to grow up to be a person who breaks agreements as easily as he makes them? A person who preys on the fears of others and seeks to divide people to further his or her ambitions? A person who scorns science and calls climate change a hoax? A person who would invite a foreign power, and an adversary as well, to commit espionage against our country for personal gain?  In short, do you want your children to grow up to be narcissists and sociopaths?

    And how can you justify giving the nuclear codes to a person of Mr. Trump’s temperament. As you can see by his Twitter feed, Mr. Trump is easily baited and routinely demonstrates his impulsivity and lack of good judgment. If the man is incapable of exercising restraint when confronted with information critical of him, how do you expect him to react in a national emergency? Do you expect him to maintain his cool and gather information and manage the situation like a normal person, or do you expect him to say or do things that are inappropriate or dangerous? And if you expect the former, Why?

    August 3, 2016

    Tim Konrad

     

  • Perspective

    “Are you locals?” she inquired.

    “You look just like Rhonda’s parents,” she said.

    “No, we’re just passers-by,” my wife replied.

     

    Small town, miles from ourwhere.

    Maybe she was diminutive, wore glasses,

    or had long hair.

    While he sported a long beard.

     

    That’s all it takes.

    Shows how much folks pay attention

    Or, perhaps more accurately,

    how little.

     

    A reminder

    of our place

    in the scheme of things.

     

    21 May, 2016

    Tim Konrad

  • thomashenrycartwright

    In Standish town in Lancashire,

    whose roots go back to 1206,

    my grandma’s grandpa took a wife

    one fine and sunny day.

     

    The year was 1836;

    Autumn was but four days old.

    None but Sarah had the charm

    to take his breath away.

     

    The young groom took up blacksmithing

    to subsidize their growing needs,

    his family grown to five by now

    and all but squared away.

     

    Then Thomas got acquainted with

    an elder from the church one day

    and baptized he soon came to be

    as is the Mormon way.

     

    But Thomas didn’t tell his wife

    about his newly minted self

    and Sarah’s ire was plain to see

    when news came ’round her way.

     

    She threw a fit, with curses vile.

    Her friends, non Mormon, urged restraint,

    lest she should come to eat her words

    and join the church one day.

     

    Sarah gave this little mind.

    “If I’m ever such a fool,” she said,

    “I hope to God I’m drowned instead.”

    And that’s all she would say.

     

    A short while hence, as fate would be,

    with Bible truths explained to her,

    The lass agreed that she should be

    baptized without delay.

     

    (possible refrain)

    The creek was high on the chosen day

    but the christening went on anyway;

    Elder Pugmire had thought it safe

    until the bank gave way.

     

    In leapt Thom to save his wife;

    he grasped her petticoat, held on tight.

    The garment remained but she did not,

    carried off by the waters that day.

     

    Pugmire was rescued; Thom nearly drowned,

    the waters were swifter than they had allowed.

    Despite his best efforts, his wife slipped away;

    not found ’til the following day.

     

    An inquest was set to determine the reason

    that Sarah’s immersion became her undoing.

    Six weeks and three days Thom and Pugmire were held

    awaiting their judgment day.

     

    When the day of atonement finally came nigh

    The tone of the hearing was set by the judge:

    In cases where God’s law and mans’ overlap,

    Religion, said he, should hold sway.

     

    The judge said “baptism was part of Gods plan”

    as are random events we may not understand.

    Proceed with great caution, the jury was told

    lest the Devil should come for his pay.

     

    At that very moment, a thunderclap struck

    that shook all in attendance right down to their cores

    and removed any odds of a finding of guilt

    that might have been lurking that day.

     

    The men, thus acquitted, were allowed to go home

    and admonished and scolded, exhorted and warned

    to drown no one else in the course of their dunkings

    forever and a day.

     

    Not eight years later, in Liverpool

    Thomas made Jane his second wife

    and my grandmother’s grandma was set on the path

    upon which I tread today!

     

    I would be naught, had Sarah Yates lived

    For Thom and Jane Allen would never have wed

    And the children they bore would have never been born,

    nor theirs, nor theirs ’til this day

    And that would not be okay.

     

    So say what you want about ors and if-onlys,

    ’bout possible outcomes, cheerful or grim

    what could have been wasn’t, or else it would be so;

    just ask those who lived in Pompeii.

     

    Facts are elusive and fleeting at best

    the angle of view can obscure or reveal

    Did Sarah get religion or did it get her?

    let the chips fall where they may . .

    For my part, I just want to say

    I’m happy to be here today!

     

     

    3 May 2016

    Tim Konrad

  • I just saw a sex act between two birds.

    Right outside my office window.

    Thank God the children weren’t present!

     

    A lovers’ tryst it was not;

    there was no post-coital smoking of cigarettes,

    no afterglow reverie,

    and no particular display of prowess on the boy bird’s part,

    just a quick, wham bam thank you ma’m

    minus the bam, brevity being the hallmark word.

    Ok, there was a bit of a chase afterward;

    for the guy, apparently, once wasn’t enough–

    but for her, it was plenty–

    expressed by the deft manner in which she gave him the slip.

     

    Since there are no bird lawyers, as far as I can tell,

    I hope paternity won’t be an issue.

     

    10 April, 2016

    Tim Konrad

  • kate wolf festival_2010-0145-Edit copy

    Don’t be thinking that you can ride this one out!

    Don’t go saying it doesn’t matter,

    that you’re only one vote anyway

    that the system is rigged

    that all the candidates are just crooks

    or just plain crazy!

     

    Don’t allow yourself the comfort

    of saying that, because you’re in California,

    the vote will be decided before your polls close.

     

    That’s what they want you to think.

    The same “they” who are introducing

    voter suppression laws in some states

    and bogus “id to vote” regulations in others.

    The folks who depend on your not exercising your right to vote

    so that they can continue to press their same old, tired agenda

    of repressive and regressive policies

    that benefit the more fortunate at the expense of all the rest of us,

    the same agenda

    that has kept this country

    from taking care of it’s sick and downtrodden masses

    like it claims it does in its fairy tales

    that it feeds to the young, the naive and the misinformed.

     

    This election

    may  well be called, for the importance it holds at this time and place

    in the history of our republic

    the mother of all elections.

     

    The future of our democracy, such as it is,

    depends on the disenfranchisement

    of the vested interests in Congress–

    the elected officials who, having succumbed to the temptations of power and influence,

    labor to benefit their own interests

    to the exclusion of the interests of their constituents,

    whose welfare they have entrusted

    to these shameless

    (and for the likes of Mitch McConnell, shameless doesn’t begin to describe it)

    hooligans, assholes and short-sighted imbeciles

    who trade away their trust  with impunity

    while lining their nests with their ill-gotten gains.

     

    We find rodents contemptable for fouling their nests

    yet these people favor policies that, for the sake of profit,

    are fouling our planet in much the same manner.

     

    Since these people have eschewed compromise

    defeat is the only way to deal with them.

    And the only way to do that

    is to vote!

     

     

    11 April 2016

    Tim Konrad