I'm in a funk

....a "Strategic Funk." The details of which I will flesh out in a later post. Maybe today, maybe tomorrow. I hide things and keep my "dark days" mostly to myself. Like I said before, I don't want to be medicated. I thrive off my anger and darkness - prayer and perspective gets me through just fine. Skippy got me to come out of my shell the other day, and here is what I posted over at this place. Read into it what you may. Those in the company know of what I speak.

Skippy,
I share the funk, but am trying to laugh myself out of it. Got back from a series of briefs last week. A couple I just showed up at uninvited for my own SA.

I won't mention anything about the briefs, but on an unrelated subject, let me read a few things to you from Hopkirk's The Great Game, pp. 397:

"On July 22, 1880, at a special durbar to the north of Kabul, the 40 year old Abdur Rahman was publicly proclaimed Emir, making a ceremonial entry into his capital a little later. He was to prove a tough and capable ruler, and a reliable neighbour to the British, though certainly no lackey.

His own position, however, was still far from secure. He only controlled the Kabul region and parts of the north. Much of the rest of Afghanistan was still in turmoil, for his accession to the throne had not gone unchallenged. Moreover, he dared not show himself to be friendly with the British, who had put him on the throne, lest, like Shah Shujah, he be accused of being their puppet and of being kept in power by the force of their bayonets. 'I was unable to show my friendship publicly,' he wrote years later, 'because my people were ignorant and fanatical. If I showed any inclination towards the English, my people would call my and infidel for joining hands with infidels.' His trump card, however, was the fact that the British were going, and he did not hesitate to make it appear to his people as though this was all his doing. In fact, it was with considerable relief that the British handed over control of Kabul to Abdur Rahman. For two things had happened which precipitated the need for a speedy departure.

One was a change of government at home. The Tories had been heavily defeated, largely because of their handling of the Afghan crisis, and Gladstone's Liberals were once again in power after six years in opposition."

Well, where did that lead? pp 415.

"Once again, the Russians (the enemy at that time) were gambling on Gladstone's Liberals not going beyond their customary remonstrances on finding themselves confronted by a fait accompli."

...pp 419

"Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet is notoriously given to making concessions, and Russia, well aware of this, is resorting to every artifice to squeeze it."

...pp 432

"..depending on one's point of view, Gladston'e government had displayed 'consummate statecraft, lamentable vacillation, or abject surrender' as one commentator put it. Many of the British electorate evidently judged it to be the later, ... As a result, in August 1886, the Tories swept back into office...."

Yea, I'm funkish as well. I think you have inspired Monday's first post.