In wilderness again…

…Drift Creek is where I ended up a couple of weeks ago, after looking at the real-time wildfire map and air quality forecast, and road conditions. Not all that far from the coast. Near the trailhead there was a glimpse of the river meeting the ocean.

After gaining that elevation on the drive to the trailhead, the hike was all descent to the creek-side campsites. Listening to birdsong much of the way:

v

I ran into what I thought was a family (I later learned it was a boy scout group). Right/conservative-looking folks. But really, they were just more army surplus than rei aesthetically. Nice folks. A really nice kid in the group pointed me toward some great campsites along the creek when I asked if they knew of more downstream. My glance at his sheathed hunting knife might have looked like I was concerned, but in fact it was just that it was the same one I almost bought.

Kind of related, it’s odd how people on the left and right seem to fall in line and have hostility toward each other. The Right and Republicans should instead be grateful right now to the Democratic Party/DNC: in effort to protect its (Democrats’) wealthy donor-investors from its strong candidate (Sanders), who probably would have beat the Republican in 2016 and 2020, the Democrats/DNC instead knowingly ran its weak candidate — which handed victory to the Republican in 2016. This Democratic Party/DNC incompetence also paved the way for three conservative supreme court justice appointments (two were confirmed a while ago, one soon to be), plus many, many lower federal court conservative judge appointments already in place now. The Right should be delighted with the Democrats/DNC for bringing the USA a far-right White House and a now-heavily conservative supreme court — and for now re-gifting the Right in 2020 by again removing its strong candidate (Sanders) and instead running its weakling. This weakling candidate pick is also a gift to the Right because even if the president loses this November, it may make the loss so narrow that it bolsters his justification to doubt and contest the results with the help of his new, heavily conservative supreme court that the Democrats/DNC precipitated/paved the way for.

And the Left should not be hostile toward the Right/Republicans, but should instead be furious with the Democrats/DNC, who achieved exactly the opposite of what its supporters (the Left) wanted. Even if their weak-pick candidate were to win this time, the damage is done: we’ve already had about 4 years of a White House opposing the Democrats’/DNC’s supporters’ wishes in terms of domestic and foreign policy, and the supreme court has already been transformed into a service provider of conservative and extremist Republicans. (Out of respect for conservatives, it should be acknowledged that the Republican Party/RNC is currently extremist rather than conservative). The Left who voted Democrat in 2016 is still about to vote Democrat in 2020 even though the Dems/DNC are recycling their 2016 failed strategy of running their weak candidate. Anyway, the Left/centrist liberals/further left should be hostile toward the Democrats/DNC, not toward the Right/Republicans.

I don’t think the Democrats/DNC delivered the 2016 Republican victory and three conservative supreme court justice appointments intentionally; it’s just that they have a business to run — the Democratic Party/DNC, which, with intention, secures its wealth largely by legislating its donor-investors’ wealth. S0 the Democrats/DNC must protect their donor-investors from the likes of strong Democratic candidates like Sanders, and won’t have such a candidate interfering with its enterprise. Protecting donor-investors takes priority. The Dems/DNC did all this damage in the name of protecting its donor-investors from its strong candidate. Again, the left should be hostile toward the Democrats/DNC, not the Right and Republicans.

What a bunch of misplaced hostility there is.

There’s a connection between…

…the woods and urban areas: the homeless are generally not allowed. I’ll expand on this further down.

On an errand in town I wonder if the emptiness of the bus strictly reflects unemployment, or also people switching to safer modes of transport.

I still shoot out to the woods of the coastal range partly because it’s only 40 minutes away. With friends this time, enjoying the presence of eagles (or are they hawks?):

Back in town I see homeless encampments being allowed to stay, finally some rest. I find explanation on neither regular news nor homeless press/news. It results in encampments larger than I’ve seen before, and cookfires, which I’ve not seen before. I’m happy for them not being harassed for simply staying in a small spot on public property — for simply being. And I think I’ll bring them some fuelwood for their cookfires; it also would free me of thicker pieces of yard debris that won’t fit in my shredder.

Anyway, the tolerance by city government must be covid-related. Perhaps based on the thought that the routine of squeezing them into smaller, out of sight areas would result in city government being viewed as a failure at slowing the spread of the virus. Or perhaps it reflects social distancing reducing shelter capacity. Anyway, the homeless are usually not allowed to live somewhere; they’re generally pushed from spot to spot by police, chamber of commerce, and other players who have an audience that can push.

But I think that if homeless people learned how to forage, shelter and otherwise sustain in the woods instead of in the city among guns, nightsticks, and other elements of government and crime, they would not be allowed there either, technically. There are restrictions there just as there are in town. But the experiment may already be underway for all I know. In town, dumpsters, soup kitchens and shelters are more immediate food sources unless one knows how to forage. But of course there are also street entrepreneurs selling addictive chemical highs to addicts who’d find no such businessmen in the woods. And in a sense, most in civilized communities cannot part, and wouldn’t want to part, with luxuries and services we’ve developed dependency on — which also includes addictive highs like from wine, whisky, craft beers, foodie cafe carbs and coffees. Really, where can one draw the line between culture and addictions? Extremes on a spectrum are easy to spot. But distinctions or lines are nebulous, often fictions based on convenience, and have less utility than dysfunction. Wait, maybe Pirsig’s philosophy of quality helps with some of this confusion; I’ll have to relearn what it is.

I wouldn’t want to live in the woods like my ancestors did. Unless I was stuck in homeless, urban street culture that I see from the train. And on the train. If homelessness were my starting point, then which would have more potential: staying in town, or moving to the woods? The next question is Potential for what? For doing what? For experiencing or accomplishing what? I think creative types and cell phone junkies both need culture that the woods couldn’t provide. If you create with an electric guitar, there is tactile and resonant interaction that just isn’t available as a tool — and can’t be experienced — on acoustic instruments.

The woods are still just a place I like to visit. Kind of like some cities.

It occurred to me on the trail…

…last weekend that the reason progressives are going to cast the fear vote in November (vote for the “lesser of two evils”) is that they are trained to think just in four-year spans or less. And by thinking ahead by only four years at most, they’ve maintained decades of Democrat-Republican office holders taking us to where we are. That is, we’ve had decades of the DRIT (Democrat-Republican Investment Tool) taking turns serving its investors (high-dollar campaign donors). I think progressives need to vote based on candidates’ platforms. Some mislabel this “voting with your heart” instead of your mind. But I think it would be voting with your mind; casting the fear vote is “voting with your heart”. But that labeling is nonsensical party PR to an extent anyway. Voting based on platform would mean progressives vote for Hawkins (or another progressive who is actually running) in November now that the Democrat wing of DRIT spit out Sanders again (i.e., the Democrat wing is knowingly running its weaker, investor-friendly candidate again, just like the last time they spit out Sanders). An effect of progressives voting based on platform could be the collapse of the Democratic wing (“party”). Yes, they’d have another four years of the current Republican presumably, but collapse of the Democratic wing would leave the Republican wing with no un/intentional partner in crime with which to continue more decades of investor rule (return on investment). The Democrat wing is the more insidious of the two; they actually entice progressives with a progressive candidate, withdraw the progressive (DNC tricks just spit out Sanders for the second time in a row), then scare a Democrat vote out of the progressives. We’re seeing it repeated, and even with the same progressive candidate-lure, Sanders. Progressives will cast this fear vote (vote again for the Democrat wing’s weaker candidate), to avoid four years of the darker shade of darkness from the Republican wing (but may fail to again) but maintain decades more of darkness from the DRIT. The Democrats accidentally protected the Republican last time by running their weaker candidate, and they’re protecting him again by running their weaker candidate now. And progressives again go along with this out of fear (instead of switching to a candidate whose platform they agree with/support). The Democrat wing in effect tries (and failed last time) to protect itself with [the fear of] the Republican wing candidate, but ironically instead protects him by running their weaker candidate.

Progressives’ goal in voting right now should be to collapse the Democrat wing (“party”). Progress they want won’t occur until this happens and opens up room for a viable progressive party or candidate. There won’t be a viable progressive party until the Republican wing’s better half (Democrat wing) collapses. This collapse can be initiated by progressives simply voting based on candidate platform rather than on fear. Some darkness (relative to the Democrat lighter shade of darkness) would continue for another four years at least, but progress usually takes sacrifice. Besides, we’ve already had decades of the DRIT tag team serving their donor-investors (the alternating shades of darkness). And decades more of lighter-alternating-with-darker darkness will continue if a short-term darker darkness isn’t tolerated/endured first for another four years. Again, this takes thinking in terms of decades, not in terms of four-year election cycles.

That’s my email signature anyway. I could be wrong.

Anyways, the hike was really nice last weekend. Again, we went to the east side of that mountain in the background:

It was a rainy, warm hike in badger creek wilderness. Birds were singing among the oaks and rocks:

The stream was running background vocals:

We woke to a fog bank sleeping right next to us, floating atop the valley (so, at about 4000 ft.):

undefined

My old pack was running on empty despite being full; the shoulder straps gave out, but after a couple of decades of use.

undefined

My favorite bike shop was with me in spirit:

undefined

I am grateful to my hiking bud for inviting me.