Boring Stories About Pirates, 'Just Drank A Glass of Water' Edition

It shouldn’t be possible to write a boring book about pirates, but I found one.

And maybe it’s me. But to stave off the boredom, I began reading another non-fiction book, and it’s much more compelling.

The book in question is “Under the Black Flag: The Romance and the Reality of Life Among the Pirates,” by David Cordingly, who apparently has a long history with maritime history and has written several books.

I think a lot of the problem is the telling, not the showing. There’s lots of third-person telling in this book, and that removes the reader from the story, or the action, or what have you. When Cordingly does quote from records, things get more vivid, or at least a lot more peppered with the word “ye.” I can imagine a battle going on in the historian’s brain, not wanting to embellish or assume anything. But it is the historians who write more like novelists that capture my interest and bring me closer to the history they love, and I think for the most part they do it with an eye on accuracy.

I’m not disputing that Cordingly’s book has no value – I’m certain it’s quite a valuable bit of research for anyone wanting to know more about pirates, wanting to write about pirates and the like. I do know that for general reading, it’s a bit on the dull side.

Citizenship in Society Merit Badge -- A Few Thoughts

As I read the material the Boy Scouts of America has prepared for would-be counselors of its new Citizenship in Society merit badge, the biggest thing that struck me is that this merit badge above all others encourages the counselors to shut up.

And those calling it the Woke Merit Badge had better shut up and listen as well – unless they believe the tenets of the Scout Oath and Scout Law are “woke” as well.

“The counselor is to serve as a facilitator,” says the second point of the Key Considerations as the Citizenship in the Society Merit Badge Counselor instructions.

The key words are serve and facilitator. This is going to come hard to many in the BSA’s merit badge counseling world, where most are used to teaching, not listening. The instructions go on to say the counselor “draws out from the Scout what they have discovered and learned, and how they plan to put it into action.”

Again, a shift. This implies much learning and introspection on the part of the Scout before meeting with the counselor – thus the BSA’s desire that this merit badge not be taught in large groups or at merit badge events, where there’s little preparation or introspection beforehand.

And more: “The counselor is not to interject their own opinions and beliefs but instead should consider the Scout’s experience and journey into these topics. The role of the counselor is that of a skilled listener and discussion leader.”

Adding to that, from the third point: “The intent is for the true learning to be experienced through the Scout’s own research.” Not from listening to a counselor lecture.

This will be a challenging merit badge, but mostly a challenge for Scout leaders, who are used to the lecture model.

For those who regard the badge as the Woke Merit Badge, another challenge. Contineue din the guidelines, the BSA says it wants to promote “a sense of belonging and [to build] communities where every person feels respected and valued. Leading by example and encouraging each other to live by the values expressed by the Scout Oath and Scout Law.”

So if this is the Woke Merit Badge, which parts of the Scout Oath and Law are woke?

The secret to teaching this one is going to lie in the listening and in preparing the scouts to think and decide for themselves what the concepts in the badge mean to them. It’s probably the most metaphysical badge the BSA offers. Should be an interesting one to watch.

From the Best Books, or at Least from the Mouth of Bob

We all know people who have friends everywhere.

When I was Scoutmaster, for example, my assistant scoutmaster knew all sorts of people. That became cemented in my mind when on two occasions, on hikes out in the middle of nowhere, we met other hikers and he knew them. He's a natural for making friends, though. Has the kind of personality that's always interested in people.

My Dad also knew people from all over the place. But the older I get, the more I suspect that wasn't a skill that came naturally to him. It's something he had to learn to cultivate.

I do not have those skills.

Enter Bob's Burgers.

I recently re-watched the "Driving Big Dummy" episode, and this exchange near the end really hit me:

BONNIE: Oh Teddy, you like asking people about themselves, don’t you?

TEDDY: Well, yeah. People are interesting.

MR. ESTOCK:  Teddy fixed the porch for me. He wasn’t here half the day and he got me talking about my late wife’s cornbread recipe. How was it, by the way?

TEDDY: It was really something.

MR ESTOCK: I ran out of corn. 

TEDDY: That explains it. Well, we better get going. Why are you staring, Bob?

BOB: Hey, Teddy, I . . . I wanna say something. I guess maybe I thought you were lonely. But you’re really not. At all. You make friends wherever you go, and you’re so interested in people. All the time. I, um, am never interested in people. I don’t like people that much. Not you guys; you seem great. But I don’t really like that about myself and I guess I really admire that about you.

TEDDY: Oh, thanks. And hey, don’t beat yourself up, Bob. You are like that, kind of, with the six people you already know. But yeah, maybe you could branch out a bit.

BOB: I’ll try. Thank you again, Connie.

BONNIE: It’s Bonnie.

I'm the Bob in this situation. And I need to branch out a bit. And I need to remember that when I'm around other people who do know a lot of others and spend time with them, I should be learning how to do it. Or at least learn to tolerate it better.

Enema Addendum

So explain me this.

Yesterday, put into Facebook jail for three days for "inciting violence."

Not that I want my friends to get into trouble, but somehow their comments stand. I guess "I wanted to run them over" is more promotional of violence than machine guns or cattle prods. Is there a difference between promoting violence and engineering potential violence?

I don't understand it, Facebook. Not that I want to promote violence, or push boundaries. But there's absolutely no transparency here. Why is what I said pushing violence, but these comments are not? AGAIN, DON'T WANT TO RAT THESE GUYS OUT. Just trying to understand.

This is why people hate your tiny guts.

Facebook Needs an Enema

This time because I posted a comment wherein I expressed the desire to run over two dudebros who stopped in front of an open parking spot where I had hoped to park because they wanted me to pass because they were walking in the middle of the parking lot aisle.

A friend's comment on hood-mounted machine guns still stands, however.

My sinful thought:

I am PROMOTING VIOLENCE, they say.

Or maybe restraint, you know, because while I said I wanted to run them over, I didn't actually do it. And no reasonable person would look at this and think I advocate running over Walmart parking lot morons. At least not yet.

And of course Facebook's filters are known to be humorless.

Meta Company or Meat Planet: Only One Is Real

There's a letter circulating in Facebook purporting to be from a company named "The Meta Company" in which the company founder outlines bullying tactics used by Facebook lawyers to try to buy their [whatever] because [reasons]. With no sale agreed to, Facebook simply bullied its way into a rather boring company name that isn't really all that unique except in its blandness.

It has the appearance of the typical American story of the underdog planning to soldier on despite enormous odds and the oodles of cash the big bully corporation has to make the problem go  away.

It also has another typically American thing about it: It smells like horse doots.

Cursory Internet searches on The Meta Company and Chicago - clues from the widely-circulating letter - and the name of the founder of this "bullied" company, also found in the letter, bring up news stories about the letter, but nothing else.

This is the most thorough story I can find on the controversey.

Equally vague is the company's own website. If there's any livelihood being taken away, it's not clear what that livelihood looks like from the company's own mouth. (Letter presented below in case it disappears.)

I'm not saying Facebook isn't a bully or worse, just that this particular story doesn't really pass the smell test.

Back to the Meat Planet . . .