The Thurber Brigade's Annual Story of Christmas

A bright star shone above the Earth and three wise men followed it to their destination.  They came a long way because of the knowledge they had of the events.  

They came to meet the Pope, probably around 400 C.E. 

“The pagans are enjoying Saturnalia way too much” the wise men told the Pope.  “They’re dancing, singing, giving gifts to friends, burning trees.  It’s woefully unbecoming a modern society and a threat to entice our followers to imbibe in the joyful celebration.”

“You are right,” the Pope agreed.  “We must do something to ensure that we can maintain our control.”

Pope vs. Pagan Headgear

Therefore, the Pope and his followers came up with a plan.

They began to promote a celebration of Christ (Christ-Mass) during the same time as Saturnalia.  When asked why have a celebration, they explained that it was to celebrate Christ’s birth.

The pagans were skeptical at first.  “Didn’t you say Christ was born in the spring?  Around March?”  one asked.  “I heard the Pope say he was born in August,” another chimed in helpfully.

The Pope said he had made a mistake, due to the change in the calendar system to the more modern Julian one.  Christ was indeed born in December, the Pope assured everyone.

The pagans still didn’t like it.

Join the "Vikings" (on History Channel) as they light the Yule Log

“Saturnalia is fun.  We get gifts, we have this cool tree, there’s dancing and singing,” they said.

“You can still do that,” the Pope professed.  “It’s a birthday party after all, isn’t it?”

So the pagans began to celebrate both holidays, but as more and more were convinced to switch over to Christianity, Saturnalia fell out of favor.  However, those pagans who still celebrated their cherished Saturnalia swore they’d take it back.

It took longer than they expected, but slowly and surely, the pagans have regained control of their celebration.  

The pagans made their biggest push in the 1950s and 60s by adding massive parades and celebrations to the winter festival.  They also brought in more symbols from other pagans’ beliefs, such as a rotund, bearded man giving gifts, and instead of burning logs as in the days of yore, they added colorful lights to the trees they dance around.

Through the 70s and 80s they advocated for more consumerism via bigger and better gifts.  Spellbinding advertisements for big, shiny cars and glittery jewels predominate the airwaves.  “Buy more! It will prove your love,” they proclaim.

So today the pagans have taken back the holiday—but have cleverly decided to keep it under the title “Christmas.” 

The celebration keeps getting expanded too, now beginning on the Friday after Thanksgiving (Pagan Black Friday) and continuing through New Year's.  There are competitions to have the biggest tree and brightest light displays.  Children are taught that the best gifts are the most expensive and the ones hardest to acquire.  In addition, of course, there are large gatherings to sing and perform in celebration of the holiday.

It has been a subtle takeover by the pagans, but they have finally reclaimed what was theirs.  So far, the Pope has not responded.

The Thurber Brigade wishes everyone a Happy Holiday—no matter which one you celebrate!

The Thurber Brigade apologizes for using this rerun once again.  Admit it though, you are already watching a ton of reruns, from "Miracle on 34th Street" to "It's a Wonderful Life" so why not one more?  Besides, The Brigade is busy buying presents and celebrating all the holidays that enjoy drinking and so hasn't had time to come up with some snarky blog about relationships.  We promise that after the New Year (and after all the football games) we'll get back on track.  Until then, enjoy the holidays and your friends. 

 

Erotica, Porn or Smut?

If you listen to the mainstream media, you'd hear that romance is the most popular genre in fiction. However, some are finally beginning to be more honest (and maybe get over their Puritanical leanings) and admit that erotica is more popular. In fact, one publication stated it is 4,000% more popular than regular literature.

Face it, we like sex.

Although some of my books include sex between characters, I don't write erotica. However, in the past I did write some short stories that some would call Porn. The really strait-laced might call some of those stories “smut.” I enjoyed writing these, almost as much as the satirical stories I've written. Hey, I'm a guy and it's sex.

It also didn't hurt that it paid well. The majority of short stories I’ve had published were in literary magazines and they typically only paid in copies of the magazine. Porn paid even for really short stories that they could publish as letters. Yes, I used a pseudonym to author those stories, but getting acclaim wasn't the aim (like the literary ones). For a poor, struggling writer porn meant being able to buy a few more table scraps to survive on for the month.

So what is the difference between erotica, porn and smut. Well, I'd say the main difference is the audience. Here's my overly simplified definition. Erotica is female sex, porn is sex aimed at men, and smut, well, that is male sex that some might say is overly inappropriate. Notice that I did not use the typical word “dirty” in any of those definitions. Be sure and review my “dirty blog” to understand why.

So erotica would be a young woman goes to this rich man's house to interview him for a story and her heart nearly bursts when she meets him, instantly falling for him although she had previously sworn off relationships. He takes her to bed and he worships her body, caressing her gently while exciting her more until he slowly brings her to the most intense orgasm in her life. In porn, when the male takes her to bed he reveals his enormous schlong to her surprise and enjoyment and takes her with wild, savage thrusts until they fall exhausted to sleep. In smut, after the previous wild love session the man falls asleep, so she ties him to the bed and pegs him unmercifully and then rides his face for an hour before calling her lesbian friend to come over and enjoy her new found sex slave.

Well, of course, all of the above examples would have more description to play out each scene and to entice the reader to look for more by said author so they could be stimulated again on the next reading adventure. I also tamed it down so that the censors would not flag my blog and banish me to some sexless environment.

Someplace like writing blurbs for the DMV.

So which of the examples stimulated you the most? Or more likely, which one would you actually read. My guess it's based on the target audience. But who knows? There's always some crossover.

 

Ahhh, James Thurber

The Thurber Brigade apologizes if you found this blog too stimulating and steamy. We decided to go down this slippery road because, well, we like sex. Plus, there may have been some mumblings about too many political blogs and not enough about the core idea of "The War Between Men and Women" (relationships). So we thrust forward and pounded the subject to maybe tie some people back to the blog. We'll calm down next time.

Happy Halloween!

Trick or Treat?

 

I'm the cute one on the right, with the Big Bro.
We were asking for more treats from Mom (who made the costumes I might add)

 

 

 

 

Ahh, James Thurber

 Okay, I admit, I was running late working on the next blog and so instead of finishing it, I decided to just post a pic from looonnnngggg ago. But it's cute, right? I'll do better next month, um, unless I watch too much football, do Thanksgiving stuff, start thinking about Christmas...

 

1776!

Face it, a lot of what NeoCons do and say just doesn't make sense. You know, things like supporting TFG even though the only conservative thing about him is his unbridled quest for more money for himself. Their complaints about border security even though when they controlled all the levers of government they didn’t do anything to resolve the issue. Their mantra of family values even though countless NeoCon pols get caught abusing women and children.

The most baffling to me, admittedly a person who loves reading and studying history, is their vocal embrace of the Revolutionary War motifs. 

It began with the Tea Party and their tri-corner hats, even though they were protesting basically paying less for insurance (affordable care act). Now they even shout out “1776” at their rallies, even though they are protesting an elected officeholder not a king.

The thing they don't seem to understand is that the Revolutionary War was a conflict brought about by liberals who had the radical idea that man should decide who was ruler, not some god-ordained king.

Conservatives, Torries in England parlance, were opposed to the war and longed to remain loyal to the king. They were against democracy.

Thomas Fleming pointed this out in his book “Liberty: The American Revolution.” “The conservatives wanted to form a union between England and America, but the “firebrands” (those for independence) narrowly won a vote tabling the idea and even with conservatives upset, the idea was eventually expunged from the notes about the meeting of the Continental Congress.”

He further elaborated: “…Convened a meeting of the extralegal Virginia assembly, the conservative majority eagerly endorsed a resolution for a “speedy return of those halcyon days when we lived a free and happy people.” Patrick Henry reposted by resolving that “this colony be immediately put into a state of defense.” The conservatives all but denounced the idea. Henry replied with sentiments that his first biographer converted into immortal phrases: “Gentlemen may cry peace, peace—but there is no peace…I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!””

The NeoCons today still have their old desires for a king. That's why they had an insurrection on January 6, 2020 in an attempt to overthrow the government, renounce a fair election and install The Orange One as their king. In effect, their rally was an anti-1776 affair.

Despite not believing in the principles that formed the basis for our country’s founding, things like equality and justice for all, they embrace terms like freedom and patriotism. They’ll ban books in one moment, then name some group they’ve formed with “Liberty” in the title.

However, they are not patriots. They are nationalists. In other words, they like the accouterments of America but don’t like the ideals. They’ll put an American flag on their pickup truck which they will then use to try to break up a rally for civil rights. They’ll chant “USA, USA!” while breaking windows in the US Capitol.

Their rallies with tons of American and Trump flags don’t resemble the rallies of our Founding Fathers.  They look more like the Nazi rallies in the 1930s or the rallies of the Chinese Communist Party today. They all stir nationalistic pride, but not patriotism.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by this behavior though. After all, NeoCons just don’t get history (nor math, science, etc.). They don’t want kids to know about slavery because it might hurt their feelings. Don’t let the kids know that Native Americans were slaughtered and forced off their land because it could lower their self-esteem. They don’t want children to see a drag queen reading books because it might turn those children gay.

So, the NeoCons need to put away their tri-cornered hats. They need to stash those Revolutionary inspired flags that say “don’t tread on me.”  Most of all, they need to stop chanting “1776!” and instead be more honest and shout “Long live the King!”

 

Ahh, James Thurber

  

Brigade on Leave

 

Hey, it's summer and it's hot here in Texas so The Brigade has taken some time off.  Okay, okay, it's probably just that The Brigade is a bit lazy. We'll get back into the swing of things real soon. Maybe (football season is about to begin after all). 

Ahhh, James Thurber

A Summer Rerun: Police Reform—Part II: Training and Testing

Police in the United States killed over 1,000 people in 2016. More than any industrialized country in the world. The need for police reform has never been more needed than today.

Hit the Brakes! An allegory

A 16-year-old tugs at his dad’s sleeve and begs to be taught to drive the car. Dad believes it is time, so promptly shows his son how to start the car, put it in gear, hit the brakes, etc.  He even takes his son to a nearby parking lot and lets the youngster drive around the empty lot.  After they get back home, dad jumps out of the car and turns to his son.

“Okay, boy, you are ready to drive. Go take it for a spin.”

As you might expect, the son promptly goes out and gets into a horrific traffic accident. For although dad taught him how to physically drive the car, he didn’t teach such concepts as who has the right-of-way, how to merge into traffic, what the various traffic signs represent and more.

The boy knew how to drive a car, but he didn’t know how to drive with other people around him.

From teenage driver to armed police

This is the same scenario that plays out with police in the United States as it relates to guns. They are taught to use a gun, allowed some basic target practice and given a few rules to obey, then get handed a weapon and sent out into the world. They have no experience in having a gun while other people are wandering around them. They have no knowledge about when and when not to utilize said gun.

In fact, if anything, they are encouraged to turn to using the gun any time they encounter trouble.

• This is why we see cops shoot a man who has been pulled over for missing a front license plate .  

• Or when a dog gets a little too unruly . 

•When an unarmed teenager flashes his car lights at an officer 

• Or if someone who the policeman has asked to see his license reaches into his truck to get it.

Watch your temper

When you watch a football game, look at the referee on the sideline. He's being constantly yelled at by fans or coaches, some standing right beside him. Typically, he does not respond at all as he's trained not to react. That's what we need with today's police.

A large number of police in this country do not have the temperament to wield a gun. They are often ex-high school football jocks who got all sorts of respect while in school, but now are shocked and angry when they don't automatically get that same respect today while on the force.

This is why today we see a large number of unarmed people shot and killed by police:

• Father is dragging son away from cop who then shoots the unarmed young man.

• Policeman shoots unarmed robbery suspect in who is lying on the ground wounded from another officer's shots.

• Policeman kills an unarmed teenager who is jumping on cars.

• Police kill unarmed man who has his hands raised up.

• Police officers shoot naked man wielding a stick.

The European Example

In contrast, in Europe the police typically disarm people without shooting or killing them:

• Two police in the UK disarm a man threatening them with a knife.

• Four Swedish policemen vacationing in New York City break up a violent fight without harming anyone.

• German police use broom to disarm man wielding a sword.

In fact, the police in other western countries seldom fire their weapons at all and killing of civilians is almost unheard of in Europe. For example, in 24 years police in Wales and England killed 55 civilians, while in 24 DAYS in 2015 U.S. police killed 59 civilians.

The difference: Training

The reason for this disparity of outcomes is training and mentality.  

To become a police officer in any of the other western industrial nations (Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) it requires from two to three years to get certified to join the force. For example, in the UK it takes a minimum of two years of training to become a police officer.  In Northern Ireland, the training requires those two years plus candidates must complete a 25 hour online course before that training even begins. In Norway, police must earn a degree from a three-year college before becoming officers.

Likewise, In Germany the training and education last three years, and it includes training in using a weapon—stressing NOT TO SHOOT.  A quote from this article explains this concept: “In every head of every policeman, there is the aim not to shoot,” says Col. Uwe Thieme, the four-star senior police director at the state’s office for education, training, and human resources.

Meanwhile in the U.S. the average amount of training is 15 weeks. Each city can be different, for example, Sacremento requires 23 weeks, while in North Carolina it’s 15 weeks. It actually requires more training to become a barber or hair dresser than to become a policeman in the U.S.  The training for cosmetologists ranges from 25 to 40 weeks.

Another difference: Attitude

Besides training, the other major factor for why police in the U.S. use their weapons more than other industrialized police forces, is due to mentality and attitude. By this I mean here in the U.S. police are trained to think that the best alternative in a dangerous situation is to use deadly force.

As mentioned above, police are given training in how to use a weapon and practice using it. Some get up to 60 hours of training like this. Often this training includes a computer simulation, a form of a gauntlet scenario. They must wander down a street filled with miscreants and a few innocent bystanders. The police must wisely shoot the bad guys but not the innocent civilians.

Yes, this training can help a person to learn to respond quickly to a situation. And admittedly, police are often in situations where they must make split-second decisions. However, this type of training also begins to plant a seed in the officers head that whenever he walks down the street, he’s in a battle zone. That just around the corner is some evil guy waiting to shoot him. 

As noted above, this is different overseas. Sure, they are taught how and when to use a weapon, but more importantly, their training stresses how to avoid that situation ever happening. They realize that once you get in your head that you must react a certain way in stressful situations (pull your gun, shoot the evil guy) you are likely to fall back on that instead of trying some alternative.

How to correct the problem

The United States must change how police officers are trained. As noted above, too often police departments rely on the easiest and cheapest way to train officers: they require less time for training.  The best way to have a more efficient and less violent police force is to implement this:

• Each state must have a standard for training of police officers to be licensed within the state. It cannot be left up to individual cities/counties. In other words, the training for a police officer in Austin would be the same as one in Dallas.

• Training would be for a minimum of two years at a state sanctioned academy. At least 1/4^th of the training should be actual fieldwork. A large portion of this should include training to interact with the community—without the use of a weapon.

• Increase training in self-defense without use of a weapon.

• Increase training in how to diffuse a dangerous situation.

Step 2: Mandatory test to use a weapon

In the movie “Blade Runner” people were given the “Voight-Kampff test”  to see if they were human or android. In one scene, a person taking the test gets so angry at the question, he kills the man giving the test. Yes, he was an android. (for fun, take the test here to see if you are a replicant).

Although we don’t need to test people to see if they are human or not, we do need to test a person who wants to become a police officer to determine suitability for carrying a weapon. So besides improving training of police officers we need to ensure that the person we allow to join a police department isn’t a hothead who will use a weapon on someone else because his wife yelled at him before he left home that day.

The test would be some form of psychological evaluation to determine attitude as well as likelihood that a person might be unsuitable to carry a weapon.

Failing this test should not necessarily keep a person from joining the police force. It should only prevent the person from carrying a weapon. If the person passed the above academy but failed this test he/she could still be employed.

With this in mind, half of today's police force should be disarmed. Not just because they are not mentally stable enough to use it wisely, but also because the majority of encounters with civilians does not require a weapon. If the person wanted to carry a weapon, the person could be eligible for a retest after six months if he/she performed without incident in the field. Also, although current police officers should be "grandfathered in" so they don't need to go through the new training standards--they should be required to pass the psychological assessment in order to continue to carry a gun. If they don't pass they are not dismissed, just reassigned to a non-weapon division.

Conclusion

In many cases in which police shoot civilians, those police officers state that they "feared for their lives." Since a large percentage of those shot are unarmed, it means that police training is embedding in the recruit's minds that they will be constantly under attack; that they are going out into a war zone; every encounter could be dangerous. They are taught to be fearful. On the other hand, the training in other countries teaches recruits how to be prepared for dangerous situations, but also how to face common day-to-day encounters that are not dangerous and how to better interact with the civilian population.

What all of this boils down to is that police departments need to change the structure of how they carry out some of their duties. In Police Reform—Part 1 I talked about removing traffic duties from the police department and giving them to an unarmed city department. Part 3 of police reform will include suggestions on how a police department should be structured. For example, half of the department should be unarmed; there should be a rapid-deployment division that includes armed officers (not a SWAT team), etc. Current police forces have detectives, swat teams, police in uniform and other groups/divisions. Maybe there should be a different way to organize police forces.

Ahh, James Thurber

 

Well, I had Part I, so it makes sense that sooner or later I'd include Part II.  This article originally was written as a HUB page.  However, they removed one of my other pages so to ensure this article is still floating around the internet, I thought I'd include it here at The Thurber Brigade. I'll get back to The War Between Men and Women (relationships) real soon. Really.

 

Additional note for this rerun.

There are people out there who think (even after reading this essay and its links) that there are just a few "bad apples" out there. No, there are a ton of bad apples out there. I'd predict a majority. Just recently we had a cop unleash a dog on a man who had already surrendered. A cop who beat up a man who gave him the finger after seeing said cop use force on a woman. These cases just keep happening. If we're lucky, they are filmed by a civilian so that the public learns about them. Sadly, most go unnoticed unless there is a leak from an employee disgusted by the act. It's not going to change until we have major reform of the police. All of them. The above blog lists a few simple things to do, but there's a lot more that needs to be done. With luck, maybe enough people will be angry enough to bring this change about. I'm not holding my breath.

(This essay originally ran in The Brigade in July 2019 and as a HUB story in 2015)

 

 

 

The Swift Years

In colonial times, a popular way to spread the news and your opinion was through pamphlets. One of the most famous American pamphleteers was Thomas Paine and his renowned “Common Sense” pamphlets. He was instrumental in informing the public about why they should resist the British and embrace a new way. That radical liberal idea was that they could be a country not ruled by a god-ordained king, but by free thinking men.

In the 80s I decided to embrace this form of writing. I started publishing “Swift's Eye.” Named after Jonathan Swift, an English satirist who probably did a few pamphlets himself besides writing clever books like “Gulliver's Travels.”

So while I scribbled witty satirical short stories and labored on numerous blockbuster books, I took time to pen some clever and biting political rhetoric and put them in a handy, user-friendly form. A paper pamphlet.

As a side note, I thought I was really clever because part of their charm was that I tried different folding techniques for the pamphlet. Most were fold in half, then in half again, but I once tried a tri-fold, often set a page up that required it be completely unfolded and often ran typed across folds. Okay, it might not have been that clever.

I created them on a typewriter so I always had to have a mock up in order to know how far to type and whether I needed to turn the page upside down to type the next page (because of the fold). There were some pages I used what is called “press type” as you have to press it down with a special tool. It's a real slow process and you had to use something to make sure it was level. So this pamphlet was pretty labor intensive. Nowadays it would be so easy with the use of a computer, but back then about the only people with those were engineers, computer programmers and a few rich people.

Like the colonial time pamphleteers, Swift Eye was political. I mainly attacked Reagan, but often had something about the environment or other hot topics of the time. Of course, as a satirical short story writer, most of the time it was funny or humorous. My favorite one was the one that made fun of Reagan's wife penchant to turn to astrology for answers.

In total, I think I only had five to six issues of Swift’s Eye. I liked doing them, but because they were so labor intensive and I never thought they made as big of an impact as I desired, I lost interest in the mode. Instead, I just hunkered down and put more energy in putting the same ideas and concepts in my short stories. Many of those got published and to keep them alive I included them on my web site so they’ll live on in the electronic world for years.

James Thurber would have approved of my pamphlets because not only were there clever articles and statements, but many interesting images. Maybe not as good as his cartoons, but still fun for the reader.  Yes, you guessed it. This blog not only acts as a way for me to put my pamphlets in the electronic universe, but it’s also a way to look fondly back at the 80s. Ahhhh, the 80s.

Ahh, James Thurber