Month: December 2009 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3 Month: December 2009 | the Wakefield Doctrine - Part 3

ce qui sont elles jusqu’ici

December 8, 2009 By

Bienvenue à la doctrine de Wakefield (la théorie de clarks, de scotts et de rogers) we’ ; aller re obtenir international dans la maison ce soir. Regardez ainsi votre écran que nous allons établir une fois pour toutes comment totalement universel cette chose à nous est vraiment, yo

Ainsi, cher lecteur vous pourriez se demander ce qui continue, ‘ ; quelles sont ces fripouilles à la doctrine jusqu’ici ‘ ; ? vous n’êtes aucun doute demandant à votre propre individu. La réponse est : ‘ ; essai de la doctrine dans une autre langue, naturellement ! ‘ ; (Donnez-moi que W (la trame, aboient, trame) me donnent un H (la trame, aboient, trame) me donnent Y ! !) (ce qui est ce charme ? !) POURQUOI

(This just in….’according to reliable sources, most Readers and Visitors cannot, I repeat, cannot understand what the hell this Post is trying to accomplish.’) (Over…)

Bear with me, this started as a good idea and most of the time there is a way to make the “Good” “Idea” connect in a manner that does not alienate and piss off the audience.

(“I Know!, I Know!  Provide an easily accessible cultural marker!  oops  I mean…”)  ” ; Laisse la part un marqueur culturel commun et reconnaissable ! y’ ; all.’ ;

Qui doesn’ ; t savent la scène dans Pulp Fiction où Vincent et Jules récupèrent M. Marsailles’ ; cas d’attaché ?

Jetez un coup d’oeil à ceci…
 
 
Est-ce que tout le très d’une manière amusante, mais que ceci indique au sujet des clarks ou des scotts ou rogers que nous n’avons pas déjà su ? (Autre que l’un d’entre eux est le fuckin fou !)
 
En fait cela servira de question, le point, le ‘ ; Parcelle de terrain Device’ ; de ce poteau très impair ; lesquels des trois ancêtres seraient très probablement l’auteur de ce poteau particulier ?
 
(So, take it home Mr Author if you please!) (Is this thing on?)(Shit!)
 
Merci pour venir près. Identifiez correctement l’auteur probable du poteau de ths et gagnez un fichu prix fin ! !1
 
Ainsi jusqu’à la fois prochaine …… Bonne nuit Sloviniaannnnsss ! ! ! !
 
 
1)A damn fine hat is the prize, yo  (English versions only).
Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: ,

Attack of the Quotation Marks

December 6, 2009 By

From the Roger;

     First and Foremost; blatant plugs for stuff I like, only marginally related to the subject at hand. There are apparently several ” subjects at hand”, which we’ll get to momentarily.
1) As to quotation marks: may I blatantly plug the marvelous Lynn Truss, author of the phenomenal ” Eats, Shoots and Leaves”. I will resist the urge to type in the entire ” Panda joke” here; it appears on the back cover of most editions. Suffice to say that I first heard it read over the air by Teri Gross during a ” Fresh Air” interview, and laughed so hard that that much of my Starbucks Venti Dark Roast landed on the inside window of the car. You are hereby instructed to get a copy and read immediately, and do not ask, repeat do not ask, what the book is about. Because then you won’t bother, much to your detriment. ( Damn, that’s a lot of punctuation, and ” we’ve only just begun”.

      Apparently I am channeling Karen Carpenter this morning; who will not rest until I mention that she not only sang the stuff against her will, but actually played drums simultaneously. And, had some decent chops to boot. She is eternally annoyed that they insisted on editing her drum solos from Carpenters tracks. And she means “eternally” literally, apparently.

      And This Just In: A Message for the Clark, from the Great Beyond….Clark…Clark…. this is Jimi….Clark, for God’s sake, will you please change the strings on the Mockingbird, or at least stop trying to play ” Voodoo Chile” without a wah pedal… that’s all for now…. oh yeah, you’ve almost got the ” Foxy Lady” lick down… what’s it been, forty-three #%^&* years??… OK bye…..
Oh wait, one more….from the lovely, lovely Ludwig Van….he says that he really could hear the Ninth all right , he was just hamming it up. Good joke, eh?….Ok bye, really. Dit…
God , I hate when that happens. You should have heard what Mozart told me last week. Now back to “reality”.

     Another plug, this one for an old friend from re-enacting days; Steve Salisbury, aka ” Big Bear”. ( Bigbeartrading.com) Purveyor of all manner of arcane and sundry historical objects. Should you need an elephant gun, Steve’s your man. Should you need the elephant to match, he can do that, too. Although there might be an additional shipping charge…plus, you’ll have to adopt two Masai tribesmen and their families as part of the deal. I personally refer to Big Bear as ” The Fire God”. Many years ago, Steve was 1st Sergeant for the 21st Mississippi, and I was a lowly corporal. (Lowlier than most corporals…) On one miserably cold and rainy March morning, he and I were preparing the rank and file for yet more endless drill. Steven produced a small metal tin from his haversack which contained a small piece of flint, a candle end, and some flax. In a steady rain, he magically started a good kindling fire, which lead to a roaring campfire, which led to hot coffee, which led to better temperaments, which in turn led to a quite successful drill. ( Actually,  the fire is necessary to provide hot water for field-cleaning muskets.) The entire 21st fell to its knees in worship despite the mud, and he has been the Fire God ever since. Rather a bit embarrassing for all present, truth be told, but this is supposedly how most element-based pagan religions got going.

    
     Anyway, I checked with the Fire God concerning this ” Parson” business fron the Winter Wonderland reference. ( Big Bear is a fountain of knowledge for all things historical). Parsons were Protestant ministers who traveled to rural hamlets to provide any services needed to local residents who had no church at hand. So, the parson would have performed all the local marriage ceremonies, among other things. Hence the lyric reference. As for poor Mr. Smith, he was in a sanitarium at the time of his writing, being treated for “consumption” aka tuberculosis.  The Bear says that sanitariums served as dumping grounds for anything at the time that organized medicine couldn’t handle, which was almost everything. ” Winter Wonderland” indeed.  Originally having nothing whatever to do with Christmas, it was only the ” sleigh bell” reference that cemented the association that we now hold dear.  Ah, the power of American pop culture. Smith likely meant it to be a bit of escapism from the ravages of the Great Depression and Hitler gearing up in Europe.  I’m sure that Time-Warner won’t mention any of this in the liner notes. Actually, when you consider other Christmas classics of the general period, there seems to be a steady undercurrent of disparagement that they were trying to overcompensate for. Check out ” White Christmas”….

     And as for playing in the snow…. wouldn’t the world be a better place if there were a lot more of that.  I for one think we should all regularly drop whatever self- inflated self-important crap we are focusing on and just go play outside. I am reminded of playing baseball in my back yard with my niece Olivia ( on whom the sun apparently really does rise and set).  Olivia is eleven now, and racing towards the dreaded pre-teen phase, but baseball was one of our backyard staples in years past. Played with the pre-requisite Nerf equipment, Olivia’s version of baseball remains my favorite to this day. And stands as a wonderful example of how kids view the adult world around them. Olivia’s version, taken apparently from observing the Red Sox from a five-year old’s perspective, plays as follows; batter and pitcher ( the only two players) begin by standing approximately eight feet apart, and make “really mean” faces at one another. Then the batter walks away a few times, apparently a sign of disrespect to the pitcher. Then insults may be exchanged, and at that point, the ball might actually be pitched; care being taken to deliver the ball to the exact three-inch square of space in which the average five-year old may actually make contact . Should that contact actually occur, then the batter runs all of the bases without stopping; the pitcher must retrieve the ball, and can only get an  out by throwing the ball at the runner. This will continue for approximately one hour, or until the batter is tired and needs a nap. Score, strikes, innings, all immaterial. Not necessary at all. So, at your earliest opportunity, ask any five-year old to play baseball, and I’ll bet you’ll end up with a very similar version to play in your back yard. Especially if the five-year old has access to a TV. And if the ” Winter Wonderland” guy is 27 reverting back to 13, he should try to revert all the way back to 5….he’d be all the better-adjusted for it later in life; especially if there are marriage plans afoot.

     P.S.- I’d like to offer a formal welcome to any and all of our international visitors. We Americans tend to be a bit quirky at times, and may appear to be flat-out insane to those of other cultures. So please bear with us, and please stop back often. Your input would be most intriguing, and a welcome addition.

Share
Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine

Later on, we’ll conspire As we dream by the fire To face unafraid, the plans that we’ve made

December 6, 2009 By

…I’ll bet you thought that ‘Winter Wonderland’ (music by Felix Bernard, and lyrics by Richard Smith) was just some old 40’s, ‘girls like this song’ kind of Xmas carole, now didn’t you?

As readers know by now, unlike our talented but under-producing Progenitor roger, when it comes to writing these Posts I have a certain set of conditions that I find essential in order to get the words to appear.  First and foremost is a subtitle that I ‘get something from’; a vibe, a laugh, could be anything but it (the subtitle) must make me stop and “Yeah, I like that!”. Once I have that, and hopefully the germ of a topic, the rest is grinding out the words.  Write and re-write.
And when it comes to sub-titles, I definitely have a soft spot for song lyrics. (Downspring Glenn and I were discussing this idea just last night.  We both agreed that any song that you remember, has an emotional charge. Good/bad, weak/strong, not mattering, it will always have something that gives you a little kick when you run the song through your head.  Something to do with music itself having  an affinity for emotional content.  Simply put, song lyrics are hard to disregard).
Which brings us to the current Post’s subtitle.
(Now, some of my musical references have been ‘constructively criticized’ as being limited by my age/taste (in music), and to the person who offered this constructive criticism (I channel Samuel Jackson to say) ” I hope you die and burn in Hell”.)
Yesterday morning I heard the Doctrine calling (‘…clark….time for another post…’). OK, not the worse thing to have to do.  At just about this time the weather forecast impinged on my consciousness with something about snow later.  All of a sudden the phrase ‘sleigh bells ring, can’t you (something something) them’ gets in my head.  And the music of course, the damn catchy music.

So, on to google and a quick search turned up the whole story, name of song, lyrics a damn mp3.  I played a brief clip of the song and that starts the mindworm, and its like, ‘goddamn lets write this thing so I can play some music I like and get the tune out of my head’.
So I scan the lyrics for the part about ‘the sleighbells’ and the line “Later on we’ll conspire” jumps out on the screen, and goes for my head, like one of those semi- chimpanzees that they use on TV shows (when the Producer wants ‘cute’ and but doesn’t want the risk that one of the actors might get their faces bitten off by the anthropomorphically bad tempered real chimps.)

(Then I read all of the lyrics. …. What have we here?)

This, (classic, hear it every damn Christmas, included in every Xmas music CD compilation set that Time-Warner or whoever else sells this shit to people on cable TV) song, ‘Winter Wonderland’ has very much got my attention.

The lyrics! Jesus Christ, the lyrics! (I am liking this Richard Smith guy, get weird much, Richard?) (lol)

(And just so you can have the damn song stuck in your head for a week, here is a link to a video of Winter Wonderland ).

Sleigh bells ring, are you listening, 
In the lane, snow is glistening
A beautiful sight,
We’re happy tonight.
Walking in a winter wonderland. (ok nothing strange, it is a fairly attractive image, sort of what we remember about the song.)

Gone away is the bluebird,
Here to stay is a new bird
He sings a love song,
As we go along,
Walking in a winter wonderland. (still safe, expanding the imagery including local fauna in order to stress seasonal climate changes, safe, safe.)

In the meadow we can build a snowman,
Then pretend that he is Parson Brown (?)

He’ll say: Are you married? (Who do you mean and who the fuck is Parson Brown?)
We’ll say: No man, 
But you can do the job
When you’re in town. (!? The ground is beginning to feel decidedly spongy…)

Later on, we’ll conspire,
As we dream by the fire
To face unafraid, 
The plans that we’ve made, (Yes! The plans tell about the Plans George…)
Walking in a winter wonderland.

In the meadow we can build a snowman,
And pretend that he’s a circus clown (No, there is absolutely nothing funny/charming/cute about a circus clown made of snow, standing alone, not moving…yet)
We’ll have lots of fun with mister snowman,
Until the other kids knock him down. (Other kids? How old is this person, I mean he is talking about marriage for Christs sake!)

When it snows, ain’t it thrilling,
Though your nose gets a chilling
We’ll frolic and play, the Eskimo way, (Yeah eat still warm animal flesh, kiss with our noses and give birth on an ice flo. Merry Christmas you weird-ass singing 27 going on 13 year old)
Walking in a winter wonderland.

 

So that you, the Reader doesn’t leave without learning a new thing about the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers), did you know that there were only 3 jobs in the whole world?  Well, there are and they are:

Scientist, Salesman and Machine Operator.

A Scientist is (for our purposes) the one who wants, no, make that needs to discover the unknown and upon discovery wants to share it with others. Clarks, it has been noted elsewhere are the creative one of the three, creative in the purest sense of the word.

A Salesman is the one who wants to change others, to get them to conform to his/her will.  A scott will get others to do things just because if she is the one directing others then no one is directing her.

A Machine Operator is a person who believes that the only tasks worth doing is the one with a defined set of variables, anything from engineer to accountant to musician.  Rogers tend to be the most excellent of musicians from a technical standpoint. (If you had a band comprised of a clark, a scott and a roger, the scott would be the ‘front man/woman’, the roger would play lead and the clark would play rhythm (but also be the main songwriter).

So get out there and look around.  What do you like to do for work or for fun? I guarantee that whatever it is, it will fit into one of these three jobs and more than likely it will correspond to whatever it is you are (clark or scott or roger).

(I have to go now, there is a circus clown with coal for eyes and a carrot for a nose on my front lawn and I think he is upset.)

Share
Filed Under: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,

sun don’t shine, the gods look down in anger

December 3, 2009 By

(Well, oh kay… interesting note to start a Post on… but stranger things have happened in and about the Wakefield Doctrine)

(…”this just in”…’clark…the seventies…were…thirty…plus…years ago’…stop…’please, stop’…)

Hey Reader! Yeah you!
Do you believe that your (personal) history defines and (pre)determines your future or what? Is there such a thing as the momentum of habit. (The ‘momentum of habit’  is the notion that what we are is simply a more elaborate form of what we have always been.) (Cheery thought, no?)

Well? Do you think it does?  (Don’t you dare touch that “Back” button.)
(in a fairly creepy, sudden shift to a calm tone…)Do me a favor, (After all, you know something about us here at the Doctrine because of the information we are throwing out into the world by way of this blog.)…

…Look back on your life. Try and recollect the things you have done, the places you have lived, the people you have known, since as far back as you can.
Now, erase the names of the people, delete the addresses of the locations and take off the labels of the things you have done (job title, education, religious designations). You can still remember your life, can’t you?
Even with names and labels removed/deleted/eliminated, you know that you have been alive, with a life that is yours and yours alone. You know, even without the names, you lived in one place (or many different places), you knew some people (or a lot of people) and you spent your waking time doing this (or doing that).
Your ‘life story’ runs from the first (and often sketchy) times you remember as a child through and right up to now.

Pretty goddamn ‘straight’ line isn’t it?
(Come on roger, stop protesting. You what I mean. You are capable of this.)
Look at your life in terms of how many different interests and activities and ways of investing your time is evidenced. How different was your life when you were 7 years old compared to when you were 17 years old?(…or 27 or 77…)
(Yeah, yeah scott, I get the, ‘I gots the girlfriends/boyfriends, thing’ Does not matter. Lose the names, and they (still) are people you shared yourself and your time with, no different than a best friend in second grade or a spouse in middle age or the person in the bed next to yours in the nursing home.)
What I am trying to get across here is that the important thing  is not the names of the people, places and activities that comprise(s) your life.
Rather, I am asking you to consider the question, what did they (seem) to add to your life, why did you give them your time!?

I want the Reader to consider their lives without the qualification/rationalization/justification that we all impose when we reflect on our lives.

… ‘he was a great friend, even though he was an asshole’… ‘I really liked spending time with her, but I had to because she was family’ … “of course we are happy together! We have beautiful children and a nice home’… ‘I know this is a boring job, but I will stick with it, because otherwise, what will I do?…’maybe I can still pray and maybe its not too late for me…”who will take care of me if I get sick?’…

(These little quotes barely  hint at the myriad of ways that we employ to make the fact that what constitutes ‘our lives’, the essential nature and character, if you will,  is the same today(as you read this blog) as it was on your very first day at school.)

So?
So what, what is wrong with that, at least I have a life that I can look at and say, ‘hey I’m not doing so bad’!

(You are correct, scott. roger you can come back in the room, we have stopped talking about life as if it were totally unpredictable and un-certain. We won’t talk about interchangeability any more.)

Well, that was fun, wasn’t it?  (Yes, I am seriously getting ready to close out this Post for today.) (No, I actually don’t have a more satisfying denouement for todays Post)

(writer leaves, house lights stay off…)

Alright, alright. Seeing that we have some new visitors (from Italy and Sweden and Ghana to name a few) and, of course, Sloveniaaa  is in da house!! I will try to impart or at least ‘duct tape’ some kind of coherent point to this Post.

If pressed, I would have to say the point of this (Post) is that our essential natures, (clarks, scotts and rogers), will determine how our lives are experienced and will force a consistency throughout the years (of our lives).
Having said that, I will remind everyone that the Wakefield Doctrine is predicated (yeah! he said predicated, he must be back from wherever…) on the idea that we all have the full range of potential, we are all (potentially) clarks and scotts and rogers.
And, despite how this Post reads, we always have the potential to feel, act, or think in the manner of the other two personality types. In fact, that really is the purpose of the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers).

So, if this Post doesn’t get the Progenitor roger to write another comfortable and enjoyable reading Post, I don’t know what will.

For now….goodnight Slovinaaannssss!!!!!!!!!

(And a virtual shoutout to jen and kino and our other new friends from sl y’all come back now, hear?)

Share
Filed Under: the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: , ,
Newer Posts »