It's said (by marketers?) that Griffith Park is a "popular" spot for hiking, but I'd never done any there in all my life. Last weekend I labored a few hours up and down a thousand feet rise, but I'm not convinced I'd call it hiking.

I'd visited Griffith Park many times in my life, most often to the Observatory. I'd also seen the tiny trains, but never the zoo, and had the occasional picnic in what amounted to large front yards covered in grass and boasting picnic tables and trash cans, but that was about it. I worked with a guy from Philly who claimed to have hiked there once or twice, but I'm not sure where he went.

I used to do a fair amount of hiking, most often on weekends, but I'm such a nature snob that I never considered anything like this

to be a "hiking trail." I know, cheap shot, and not even the throngs of avid Griffith Park hikers consider it to be a "hiking trail," but it's fitting, in an "LA" sort of way. Nothing beats walking up and down a paved street.

But that's not the point.

Not surprisingly, I shared the route with some twenty or thirty other people, including one bicyclist. What was surprising was that nobody I "met" on my journey was particularly friendly. Maybe I appear threatening, but in more than one instance I was actually glowered at, but more commonly ignored. I consider this sad. I'm not sure if the men who gave me dirty looks were afraid I'd strike them down with a single blow and carry their women-folk into the brush or just generally annoyed by my presence. It wasn't as if I was littering, setting fires, or dancing naked in the afternoon sun.

When hiking up north or in Angeles Forest the people I'd run across were all routinely friendly, or at least civil enough to exchange greetings and smiles. There was none of that on the Mt Lee road, and I worry about the future of humanity. Maybe everyone else is eager to avoid their fellow man, but I just don't know.

One thing I do know is that walking up and down a paved road apparently puts most eveyone in a "leave me the fuck alone/ you don't exist" mindset, which, I think, isn't much in keeping with my memories of hiking.

It's said (by marketers?) that Griffith Park is a "popular" spot for hiking, but I'd never done any there in all my life. Last weekend I labored a few hours up and down a thousand feet rise, but I'm not convinced I'd call it hiking.

I'd visited Griffith Park many times in my life, most often to the Observatory. I'd also seen the tiny trains, but never the zoo, and had the occasional picnic in what amounted to large front yards covered in grass and boasting picnic tables and trash cans, but that was about it. I worked with a guy from Philly who claimed to have hiked there once or twice, but I'm not sure where he went.

I used to do a fair amount of hiking, most often on weekends, but I'm such a nature snob that I never considered anything like this

to be a "hiking trail." I know, cheap shot, and not even the throngs of avid Griffith Park hikers consider it to be a "hiking trail," but it's fitting, in an "LA" sort of way. Nothing beats walking up and down a paved street.

But that's not the point.

Not surprisingly, I shared the route with some twenty or thirty other people, including one bicyclist. What was surprising was that nobody I "met" on my journey was particularly friendly. Maybe I appear threatening, but in more than one instance I was actually glowered at, but more commonly ignored. I consider this sad. I'm not sure if the men who gave me dirty looks were afraid I'd strike them down with a single blow and carry their women-folk into the brush or just generally annoyed by my presence. It wasn't as if I was littering, setting fires, or dancing naked in the afternoon sun.

When hiking up north or in Angeles Forest the people I'd run across were all routinely friendly, or at least civil enough to exchange greetings and smiles. There was none of that on the Mt Lee road, and I worry about the future of humanity. Maybe everyone else is eager to avoid their fellow man, but I just don't know.

One thing I do know is that walking up and down a paved road apparently puts most eveyone in a "leave me the fuck alone/ you don't exist" mindset, which, I think, isn't much in keeping with my memories of hiking.

I've been negligent lately, but that's nothing new.

This weekend was a bit frustrating and painful. I had plans to visit the Festival of Books and attend some panels, but there were no tickets available by the time I remembered to go to Ticketmaster. This surprised me, since I hadn't expected *any* literary event to sell out, but I should have known better. The show is always packed.

I went and browsed, but felt I'd missed a lot.

Although not at the book event, I ran across this Saturday:


I remember a similar picture on an album cover from the sixties or seventies, and have no idea how many of these there are, nor what function they perform. They're neat looking, though, and make me very curious.

I've been negligent lately, but that's nothing new.

This weekend was a bit frustrating and painful. I had plans to visit the Festival of Books and attend some panels, but there were no tickets available by the time I remembered to go to Ticketmaster. This surprised me, since I hadn't expected *any* literary event to sell out, but I should have known better. The show is always packed.

I went and browsed, but felt I'd missed a lot.

Although not at the book event, I ran across this Saturday:


I remember a similar picture on an album cover from the sixties or seventies, and have no idea how many of these there are, nor what function they perform. They're neat looking, though, and make me very curious.

I've been bothered by this whenever I see a car commercial on TV. That little legal tag, while sometimes relevant, just bugs the shit out of me: Professional Driver on Closed Course. Do Not Attempt.

It's one thing to remind people not to drive like assholes, but they stick it on every car commercial. My guess is ninety percent of the manuevers shown should be able to be done by anyone, and actually demonstrate why you'd want a car in the first place. Yes, sometimes it's someone doing some fancy stunt driving, but it looks to me mostly like speeded up camera work (20fps?).

If I were interested in an off road 4X4 pickup I think I'd want it to splash through a stream. I would not want it to fail at that simple task, nor would I be happy spending all the extra money just to drive it on the road. Also, I think it would be beneficial for any car I owned to, say, turn both left and right, especially considering these cars look so good on mountain roads.

What are they telling me? That I shouldn't drive the damn thing? I could understand it if the commercials showed people dodging through traffic or pulling those speedy backups I see in action movies, but most of the driving done in commercials looks like something I'd expect of a car.

Speaking of white smoke, I call "enhancement." Although it isn't stated here, in what looks pretty official to me, this guy claims water is added to the paper ballots to achieve the black smoke. I saw both some black and white smoke, and it sure looked to me as if more smoke was coming out of that chimney than would be expected from 115 paper ballots.

Maybe they're really big ballots, like for the Iraqui election, and not the tiny slips of paper I expected.

I've been bothered by this whenever I see a car commercial on TV. That little legal tag, while sometimes relevant, just bugs the shit out of me: Professional Driver on Closed Course. Do Not Attempt.

It's one thing to remind people not to drive like assholes, but they stick it on every car commercial. My guess is ninety percent of the manuevers shown should be able to be done by anyone, and actually demonstrate why you'd want a car in the first place. Yes, sometimes it's someone doing some fancy stunt driving, but it looks to me mostly like speeded up camera work (20fps?).

If I were interested in an off road 4X4 pickup I think I'd want it to splash through a stream. I would not want it to fail at that simple task, nor would I be happy spending all the extra money just to drive it on the road. Also, I think it would be beneficial for any car I owned to, say, turn both left and right, especially considering these cars look so good on mountain roads.

What are they telling me? That I shouldn't drive the damn thing? I could understand it if the commercials showed people dodging through traffic or pulling those speedy backups I see in action movies, but most of the driving done in commercials looks like something I'd expect of a car.

Speaking of white smoke, I call "enhancement." Although it isn't stated here, in what looks pretty official to me, this guy claims water is added to the paper ballots to achieve the black smoke. I saw both some black and white smoke, and it sure looked to me as if more smoke was coming out of that chimney than would be expected from 115 paper ballots.

Maybe they're really big ballots, like for the Iraqui election, and not the tiny slips of paper I expected.

I've done a couple hours of yard work, which I understand makes things worse.

I didn't hack off any further limbs this weekend, just pulled some weeds that were about a foot high and trimmed last week's branches to fit more in the bin. While yanking and cutting the weeds I realized I was reducing the total of plant life on this planet, furthering global warming.

If I remember my high school biology, these living green plants take in carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen. What happens to the carbon is a mystery to me, but I guess it stays with the plant for a spell, eventually being consumed in a fire by man and released back into the atmosphere. Or, consumed by ants, which may fart a lot, but I think that affects the ozone, not global warming. In any case, carbon dioxide is pretty good for fire extinguishers, but not so good for the animal life.

While engaged in this limited destruction of earth's ability to sustain animals, I realized that my efforts to be environmentally good are often subsistent to some lesser good, such as my home's appearance. That's when I started thinking about how many "truths" or "rules" I had exceptions for, and I think we all do.

I tried to think of any non-tautological, meaningful truth that all humans subscribed to and ended up empty. I don't think we all believe in *anything.* We certainly don't all believe killing is wrong, and I wonder how much longer it will take for us to reach a consensus on anything. We've had several thousand years already, with little to show for it.

I was thinking maybe the developed countries were on a path ahead of the undeveloped ones, but then I got confused trying to distinguish between the two. The developed countries, I guess, are the ones where people can mostly read, can surf the Internet and look for boobies or oiled, hairless men chests, and where we work for others in exchange for commonly agreed upon means of trade and barter. The undeveloped ones are those where people directly struggle for food, shelter, and water, where they farm using natural methods, and die by the millions through starvation and disease.

This is what I think about when I do yardwork. Also, before I quit, I began wondering about which I find more distasteful: descriptive laws or proscriptive ones. Is it more restricting to be told I must wear a bathing cap or to be told I can't bring a bottle of beer to the pool? Society is a very weird concept. We group because being a hermit is horrifying, but we spend a lot of energy telling each other how to live and think. What we each, individually, hold dear is what we want others to agree is the proper way to live. We argue, not to learn, but to foist our beliefs on others, and end up with millions of laws telling each other how to live.

I just wonder if this was a necessary result of civilizing.