Author: Steve

  RV Parks, resorts, state parks, parking lots.  But this was a first.   We were inside a box (our motorhome), inside a box (a shop).  Kind of like a set of Russian dolls.  We spent the night there.   The air conditioners on our roof had reached the end of their useful life.  (They’ve been used a lot since 2005, and besides, they spent about ten winters parked in the salt air on the beach.  That led to some serious corrosion on the aluminum fins.)  We’re getting new ones on.  They should be good for another fifteen years or so.  

  That being a Globalist would be a bad thing.   I thought that with advances in technology, travel, and communication; and developing understanding of issues that are truly global in nature, that we would naturally gravitate to a broader view, fostering broader understanding and cooperation.  Now I find the term “Globalist” used as an epithet.  In today’s nativist consciousness of “us versus them”, a globalist is a very bad person.   I’m a bad person.  I don’t think our world-view should revolve around winning and preventing other people from doing better.  Not every transaction has to be based on winning.  Sometimes we should give something up or do what we can for someone else, just because it’s the right thing to do and we have the means.   If everyone does better, we all do better.  If all we want is to win, and all the people we’re trying to prevent from winning want is to win, we might push back and forth, but none of us really get anywhere.  

                 

  September 2018 trip map   (But just in South Texas.)  Now we’re in San Antonio.  Took a walk on the Salado Creek Greenway yesterday.   The last time we were here at this campground was in May on our way to Colorado.  Walked the same trail then.  This time felt a lot better than the last time; I was less tired at the end.  Last time was BS (Before Surgery).   The water level goes up and down at Sandpipers, it depends on the amount of rain.  There are still a few more things we want to do here so we’ll stay out a little longer.  

  A case is put before me.  I’m presented only two witnesses.  They tell opposing stories, which are mutually exclusive; only one can be right, the other has to be wrong.  I have to decide.  Each story is compelling and credible.   Witness 1 has nothing to gain and everything to lose by telling their version of the story.  Witness 2 has everything to gain from their version of the story, don’t know if there is any more to lose; it’s already bad.   There is more to the story.  We know it’s out there, but I’m not allowed to know or consider it.  Witness 1 requests further information be allowed.  Witness 2 is evasive about allowing it.   The testimony of Witness 1 is heartfelt and gut-wrenching.  The testimony of Witness 2 is impassioned and expresses outrage, but some of that outrage is expressed while referring to notes, reading rehearsed talking points.   That’s it.  That’s all I have to go on.  Now I have to choose to believe one and not the other.   Witness 2 is not getting my vote.