Boycott - Girlcut

Norm quotes the reported reaction of a leading boycott campaigner to the defeat they've just suffered:

Sue Blackwell, a member of the union's executive and of the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine, said of the decision: "It is quite ridiculous. It is cowardice. It is outrageous and an attack on academic freedom."

Norm's reaction to Blackwell's reaction: 'chutzpah'. Mine is less polite: malcuntent.

To the President of Columbia University:

Lee C. Bollinger
Office of the President
Columbia University
202 Low Library
Mail Code: 4309
New York, NY 10027
September 25, 2007

Prof. Bollinger:

As an alumnus of Columbia University, and in the interest of repairing the reputation of my alma mater, I urge you to reconsider your role in yesterday's infamous episode in the University's otherwise proud history as a renowned institution of higher learning in the civilized world. I submit to you that your action, in providing to an avowed enemy of Western civilization, the United States and its allies in particular, and by extension our great University itself, a platform from which to broadcast to the world his obscene uncivilized views, was a serious lapse in good judgment, at best, and an instance of abetting genocidal propaganda, at worst.

Norman Geras, Professor Emeritus of Government at the University of Manchester, in response to your disclaimer that, "It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas" wrote as follows (his complete post may be found at this URL):

He's clearly right about this: listening doesn't imply endorsement. On the other hand, there's nothing in the principle of freedom of speech that requires you to help to promote or publicize views that you find deeply objectionable. Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust-denier and Holocaust-denial is one of the most poisonous forms of anti-Semitism, apart from being a brazen historical lie. Must Columbia, in the interests of 'the development of free speech', host avowed racists of every stripe, other genocide-deniers, men who think that women are, by their nature, born to be subservient, and people who think that homosexuality is a sin and should be punishable? Of course not. Would they host such people? I don't know.

My own personal view goes beyond Prof. Geras' thoughtful articulation of the obvious. I believe that your action constitutes depraved indifference to obscene intentions against humanity, arguably the worst possible action I would expect from the President of Columbia University.

If there is something to be learned by all Americans, if not the civilized world at large, from this sorry mess, I can not think of any more pertinent to the very survival of our way of life than the importance of recognizing self-destructive behavior and the willingness to do something about it. In the hope that you have not yet pressed your keyboard's [DELETE] key, I suggest you publicly acknowledge your error in judgment. Better yet, submit your resignation and encourage the rest of the self-destructive habitués at Columbia to do likewise.

--
TheBigHenry
hl98.blogspot.com
3122834351@grandcentral.com

Dude, Where's My Alma Mater?

The once and future great institution, Columbia University, has been hijacked. I have fond memories of CU dating back to the wild and woolly 60's, though, at that time, my agenda comprised mostly serious items, including graduate degrees and bridge. Four decades later, I am saddened to acknowledge that my alma mater has been pillaged by ignorance, antisemitism, political-correctness lunacy, rabid leftism, and depraved indifference to common sense.

One of the oldest institutions of higher learning in the Nation has fallen victim to the scourge of the new millennium: virulent self destruction. This new cancer pandemic must be eradicated before it consumes the rest of the civilized world. Until a cure is found, we must rely on radical excision of the malignant c*nts. Cut to the chase. Invoke the Implicit Commandment. Do it.

Entropy; Timshel; Life

{ « Post #1 in Series » Post #2 in Series }

The rest is the explanation; go and learn. -- Hillel the Elder

Big Al quipped, "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." He also posited that, "One seeks the most general ideas of operation which will bring together in simple, logical and unified form the largest possible circle of formal relationships." These two statements, one jocular one not, both prescribe the guiding attributes of a generalized truth.

In seeking a simple (i.e., concise) general physical description for life, it seems plausible to me that I must ascribe to it a compatibility with basic natural law, as well as some spark of the sublime, so as to differentiate the essence of what is animate from the inanimate. In so doing, I propose to define life such that it does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and also incorporates the concept of free will, in the sense of an innate ability for making willful and, potentially, creative choices. The former aspect of my definition incorporates natural science, acknowledging that life exists within the 4-dimensional fabric of spacetime. The latter introduces the divine or, if you prefer it, sublime ingredient — that which differentiates living from inanimate objects.

The Second Law specifies that entropy, the measure of randomness in a closed physical system, increases with time. Entropy is that physical phenomenon responsible for the inexorable expansion of the universe toward a state of complete dissipation of useful, creative if you will it, energy. This, crucially, does not obviate the possibility of temporary localized reductions in entropy, however.

Consider the possibility of a temporary and localized reduction in entropy. Such a physical possibility is ordinarily designated a physical potential. Thus, let us consider the physical potential that serves to quantify a realizable (but as yet unrealized) reduction in entropy. Bearing in mind that a realized reduction in entropy implies a realized reduction in dissipated or useless energy, it, correspondingly, implies a realized increase in available or useful energy. At this point we have a plausible candidate for a physical description of what we know to be life, when we see it: a potential reduction in entropy. I will now address the need to incorporate a qualification that imputes a certain something, which will give the definition a spark of the sublime.

Timshel is a transliteration of the Hebrew word that means "thou mayest." It is a succinct exposition of the philosophical concept of Free Will. 'Timshel' memorably appears as the last quote in Steinbeck's East of Eden, and is, arguably, the principal theme of that novel. 'Thou mayest' suggests a divine (or from an as yet unknowable source) grant of potential. If we define an adjective "timshel" as a contextual extension to mean 'Thou mayest cause', it gives us the means to express, in local spacetime (i.e., in local 3-dimensional space and also temporarily), that aspect of potential for a reduction in entropy, which offers a possibility for an increase in useful, and conditionally creative, energy.

Thus, entropy and timshel give birth to a definition for life that incorporates both a natural potential and the philosophical concept of Free Will:

Life is timshel entropy reduction.

The rest, as they say, is left as an exercise for the student.

WhatTheFark #2

Article

}L's comment: 3122834351 (2007-09-20 11:30:49 AM)

----------------
Now playing: Neville Marriner; Academy Of St. Martin In The Fields - Bach (JS): The Art Of Fugue, BWV 1080 - 19. Contrapunctus 13, A 3 (Inversus)
via FoxyTunes

You talkin' to me? To debate or not to debate, that is the question

[This is the first in a series of posts labeled "You talkin' to me?" dealing with interpersonal communication. The other posts in this series may be found at the current URL for this blog, identically labeled.]

Before you can answer that question, you must first determine what kind of debate has been initiated and what kind of debate you are willing to engage in. Then you can make a rational decision.

There are basically two kinds of debates, having distinct objectives: resolution or victory. And these two distinct types are orthogonal (i.e., perpendicular). Orthogonality, and its opposite parallelism, are geometric concepts; nevertheless, they can provide graphical insight for understanding some non-mathematical situations.

In the issue under discussion, if we represent these two types of debate by a pair of normalized vectors (i.e., two directed lines of unit length each) then resolution would be perpendicular to victory, because these goals are completely at odds with one another, in the sense that neither participant can derive any value from a debate in which they have different objectives. The mathematical expression for such a condition is: the cross product of orthogonal unit vectors is another unit vector orthogonal to both original vectors (graphically demonstrating that the originals are completely at odds to one another), and their dot product is zero (demonstrating that the measure of their efficiency is nil).

On the other hand, if both participants have the same objectives (either both victory or both resolution), the analogous mathematical situation is a pair of parallel unit vectors. Here we have a cross product of zero (the participants' objectives are not at odds but, rather, in complete harmony), and the dot product is magnitude one (the debate will be 100% efficient, since each participant will derive the maximum value for their efforts, either resolution for both, or the thrill of confrontational competition for both).

It is my sense that the vast majority of debates are confrontational, and such a debate online is known as a flame war. Both participants seek to be victorious in the eyes of their audience, those witnessing the flamers hurling taunts and insults at each other. It's win-win because everyone derives value for their efforts. Those few debates in which both participants are prepared to accept their opponent's view if his argument is sufficiently convincing, are win-win too, which is intuitively obvious. It is also intuitively obvious that when the potential debaters have different objectives it is a lose-lose proposition. Hence, the general answer that makes sense to me is: decline to participate in an orthogonal debate, but go for it if you and your opponent have parallel objectives.

WhatTheFark #1

Re: Comment by 0Icky0 timestamped 2007-09-18 12:41:54 PM

Pertains to the photo that appears in the main article.

ROTFLMAO

----------------
Now playing: Leila Josefowicz - Paganini - Intro. & var. on "Nel cor piu non mi sento' (Paisiello)
via FoxyTunes

Have Mic --- Will Pontificate

What is it with these Holyshitwood paladin pinheads? As soon as they get a microphone into their grubby little paws their grubby little minds morph into "enlightenment" mode for their moronic fans. Newsflash: Michael Moore is in the business of selling sh*t to those who eat it.

The latest in the list of usurper pontificators, who got enraptured reception, blessed her audience at the Emmy Awards show. I'm not an expert, but doesn't the Pontiff have exclusive authority to pontificate? And only on Church matters? These Holyshitheads are actors for Christ's sake. They shoot actors, don't they?

Extra Napkins

Get a life. Strive for more. What else is there? Whether you envision a bowl of cherries, a bowl of Cheerios™, or just a toothpick, the festival of life is process, and more process is its raison d'etre.

If you accept the above premise, it behooves you to implement an optimization strategy. But first you must ascertain your preferences, which comprise a personal profile for a life worth living. There are two overarching disciplines available for guidance: natural science and philosophy. The former concerns the four dimensional framework of reality as we know it. The latter concerns the fifth dimension, the spiritual, the wholly other, that which can only be approximated by the real component of its fully unknowable complexity.

Through the millennia of intellectual discourse, a few general guidelines for a worthy fifth dimension have been distilled. These include the Decalogue of Moses and Hillel's Golden Rule. A further distillation provides the quintessential fifth dimension for a quality life: the Golden Rule and the preeminent social imperative of the Decalogue.

As for the four dimensional spacetime of perceived reality, centuries of scientific research have produced the ultimate survival guideline: natural selection. The concept of fitness is central to natural selection. And, although modern evolutionary theory defines fitness in terms of individual reproduction, fitness is sometimes colloquially understood as a quality that promotes survival of a particular individual, as illustrated in the well-known phrase survival of the fittest.

So, one's optimization strategy reduces to an appropriate fitness plan, of which there are many. But, again, there are two overarching schools of thought, which I will anthropomorphize as the School of Hearts and the School of Minds. The former subsumes all the fitness plans that stress the importance of physical and emotional fitness. The latter acknowledges the importance of intellectual strength, which is arguably the fitness edge responsible for human preeminence among the species.

I submit that most of the proven fitness plans from the School of Hearts will provide an adequate fitness base for survival. Choose components from every food group, including a sampling from food for thought.

But for crisis management, you must arm yourself with a carefully chosen regimen from the School of Minds. This then is where extra napkins come in. It is my whimsical characterization for a backup plan, a so-called Plan B for any occasion having significant downside consequences.

I was a Boy Scout for only several weeks of my childhood, but I managed to come away from the experience with an important insight: be prepared. My parents, survivors extraordinaire both, taught me many lessons, not the least of which was to have a rainy-day fund. And so, for a litany of good advice, we have: drink milk; begin planning for retirement when you begin your career; remember the cornerstones of investing (asset allocation, diversification, cost averaging, and rebalancing); don't gamble the rent money, and that goes for the health and liability insurance premiums too; backup your hard drive; don't drink and drive; etc.; etc.; etc. You've heard the drill many times. You need a backup plan just in case winging it doesn't work out. Are you listening?

There are those who relish the liberating thrill of living on the edge. I have known some, and that is a legitimate modus for life. Greater risk but a chance for perceived reward. Quality versus quantity. But every choice involves a risk/reward trade off, and 'strive for more' suggests greater weight be assigned to quantity (i.e., time) for there is no recovering from the point of no return, by definition. Moreover, risk without expectation of reward is analogous to 'hitting yourself on the head with a hammer because it feels so good when you stop'.

Even Big Al got one wrong, because the Omnipotent One does roll the dice of quantum fluctuations. To the best of our knowledge it's all about process and probability. That is why I choose extra napkins.

The Implicit Commandment

Hillel's "Golden Rule", the passive statement of the ethic of reciprocity, anticipated it:

'What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.'

Tolstoy's Epigraph for Anna Karenina alluded to it:

'Vengeance is mine; I will repay.'

Little Boy and Fat Man were its metaphoric expression. It is the Implicit Commandment:

'Thou shalt not f*ck with America.'

Housekeeping

There is no reasoning with children. There is no reasoning with bluffers. There is no reasoning with morons. Give them what they say they want; within an inch of total anarchy. Then, when the stench of Holyshitwood has permeated the Land, declare martial law until National elections can clean the slate.

By virtue of the Twenty-Second Amendment a "lame duck" President of the United States is ideally positioned to accomplish a much needed housekeeping task for the Nation. Since its ratification in 1951, roughly half the Presidents (6 of 11) have been lame ducks, providing 20 years (Truman's, as well as Nixon's, "lameness" lasted only 2 years) out of 58 years (through 2008) for National housekeeping.

The process is straightforward. Today, for example, President Bush should be guided by polls that reflect the collective wisdom of Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Barbra Streisand, George Clooney, Sean Penn, the Daily Kos, etc., and implement by Executive Order whatever these worthies advocate for the Nation's well being. Pull all American troops out of Iraq. Raise taxes. Open all borders to all comers. Fix gasoline prices at 99 cents/gallon. Free health care for everyone. Not one but two cars in every garage, a chicken in every pot (make it turkey for a more festive atmosphere). Then, when all such actions have been implemented, check with Noam Chomsky to make sure nothing of importance has been overlooked. Perhaps we could have Hugo Chávez address a joint session of Congress.

I have faith in America. When all else fails, and the hand basket has descended to the gates of hell, the Benevolent Giant awakens from its temporary insanity and Americans get busy. The drunks hit the bottle. The imbeciles go back to making movies. And the holier-than-thous talk to the hand. The rest go to the polls and elect the likes of Lincoln, Washington, FDR, Truman, and George W. Bush. Then all becomes well in the Land, until it's time for another round of housekeeping.

Survival; Indifference; Postponement

If I am not for myself, who will be? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? -- Hillel

This sage tripartite principle, together with the Golden Rule, comprises the essence of ethical living. And the first part of this essential tripleton may be redacted to a colloquial version of the Patriarch's allegorical precept for survival: 'Get a life. Strive for more.'

In a recent post I referenced the foremost among the human-relationship moral imperatives of the Decalogue, as I believe it to be a reliable prescription for living a good life. What I termed, facetiously, to be a modest prescription is only modest by virtue of its brevity. It is at least as consequential as the ethic of reciprocity. My purpose in this post is to elaborate what I believe to be some implications of such a prescription.

If one takes the Commandment to 'Honor your father and your mother' to its natural finality, it implies compassion for a dying parent. Sometimes, however, a parent dies suddenly, and one might think that such compassion can not be universally experienced. Certainly not if, perish the thought, a child predeceases a parent? But everyone is dying. Having compassion for a dying parent, therefore, is an appropriate expression of honor, always.

If a parent has a fatal illness, the subordination of one's compassionate feelings to common self absorption is the province of narcissism. And taken to its limit, such subordination constitutes indifference. To my mind, indifference to a loved one is the ultimate prescription for an unhappy life, for everyone but a sociopath; though even Stalin understood this, as he famously remarked, "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."

Finally then, 'if not now, when?' For as sure as God made little green apples, postponement is a one-way street to the house of regrets, with incomplete refuge through Atonement.

Do Not Miss This! I mean it!

Explore life through time.

Frans Lanting "LIFE: A Journey Through Time"

Skip the intro if you're in a hurry, but do not miss the slideshow! It is a Web of Art. By comparison, the stuff on YouTube comprises a Web oF arts.

Mistakes; not what they used to be

Back in the day, people made mistakes now and then. Remember 'To err is human'? But these days people make mistakes all the time. That's the bad news. The good news is, no one commits crimes anymore, there is no rudeness, and nobody is a babbling idiot. There are only people who make mistakes.

When even the best legal minds that money can buy are not up to the task of extricating someone against whom there is overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing or mindlessness, the last resort is the inevitable plaint: "I just made a mistake, man. What is your problem?"

My problem is etymological in nature. I seem to have missed the memo that defined a new catchall "mistake" that subsumed the definitions for acts of criminality, stupidity, ignorance, and all manner of bad behavior. Don't get me wrong, however; I like what such creative euphemism has accomplished. It has broadened the scope of socially acceptable behavior, bringing in from the cold the formerly sociopathic, narcissistic, and perpetually perplexed. Nobody has to suffer the humiliation of wrongdoing anymore, and that is a good thing.

Before "making mistakes" became de rigueur, people had to make an effort to maintain a semblance of good citizenship. Mistakes were held to a strict constructionist view by the community, and that made felonious behavior (including criminality, ignorance, and stupidity) something to be avoided. Some people would resort to gallows humor so as to appear infallible (i.e., "I was wrong once. Back in '76 I thought I had made a mistake.") But now, who cares anymore? No need to get worked up about anything. 'Mistakes are where it's at, dude', to use a mixed decade expression.

But, I could be wrong. I was once.

MSM: Not only moronic, but also oxymoronic

As neatly summarized by Oliver Kamm,

[L]iberalism as a modern political movement - in which I include parties of the social democratic left, which long ago acknowledged the failure of socialism - has certain consistent traits. Its central principle is that, while we may belong to groups, our primary identity is as citizens who are equal under law. Many characteristics of the liberal outlook, as we now understand it, follow from a common citizenship: the rule of law exercised disinterestedly; the promotion of human rights internationally; separation of civil and religious authority; rights to freedom of expression and association; a measure of economic redistribution that enables citizens to exercise autonomous choices; sexual equality; reproductive freedom; the right of same-sex couples to marry and inherit.

But the liberalism of today's mainstream media (MSM) is a perversion of its traditional traits. Instead of championing the rule of law exercised disinterestedly, the MSM revels in the circus antics of mob mentality. Instead of championing the promotion of human rights internationally, the MSM seeks justification for the homicidal destruction of civilians. Instead of championing the separation of civil and religious authority, the MSM formulates apologia for theocratic fanaticism. Instead of championing the rights to freedom of expression and association, the MSM now champions the consensus of vociferous crowds.

In effect traditional, that is "mainstream liberalism" is not the "liberalism of the mainstream media". The latter is an oxymoron.

ipso facto rotflmao: Do not confuse these products

Caution advisable for concurrent use of these products:

Urinozinc formula capsules and Uranus Inc hemorrhoid suppositories.

Unpleasant side effects if carelessly administered. You've been warned.

If your mind makes no sense, change it

That's what Big Al would have done. That is in fact what he did do when Newton's theory of gravity, a product of one of the greatest minds of all time, did not quite compute for him. Which led to a product of another one of the greatest minds of all time, Einstein's general relativity. It makes sense to me that one can do worse than be guided by great minds in our mortal everyday efforts to make sense of the mostly irrational world around us.

In reading today's normblog profile of Peter Ryley, I was particularly gratified by his response to the standard question 'Can you name a major moral, political or intellectual issue on which you've ever changed your mind?'

I have changed my mind on most things, but the most important one is on international affairs. I used to have a fairly orthodox, anti-American, leftist viewpoint. To my horror, I used to read Chomsky approvingly. However, I had doubts that I kept pushing to the back of my mind. I came to a slow realization that the reason for my misgivings was a simple one. The position I held was wrong. Reading Nick Cohen's journalism was important in confirming my revised views, as were the books he recommended in his columns. Then I discovered the blogosphere when Steve Davies, my PhD supervisor, recommended normblog after I had commented adversely on 19th Century anarchists' apologist attitudes to terrorism. It was with huge relief that I found solidarity in blogs.

I used to subscribe to the liberal viewpoint that was fashionable at Columbia University in the 1960's. Then, gradually, a pernicious form of insanity characterized by self loathing invaded this view, spearheaded by the likes of that besotted disgrace to the great liberal family tradition of Jack and Bobby. By now this onetime great liberal view has devolved to full-blown insanity, with celebrity status galore in HolySh*tWood, the current majority in Congress, and among many adherents of a philosophical stance that has become a self inflicted paraplegic.

What made sense to me in the 1960's still makes sense: democratic government is the best form this world has ever produced. Alas, the best of the liberal viewpoint has vanished from the earth.

Pardon my ignorance, but ...

A sampling of some of the reactions to President Bush's VFW speech today includes the following:

"Invoking the tragedy of Vietnam to defend the failed policy in Iraq is as irresponsible as it is ignorant of the realities of both of those wars," Senator Kerry said.

With all due respect to this United States Senator, which is much more than he seems willing to extend to the President and Commander in Chief of the United States, his remark has the odor of halitosis emanating from a mouth full of sour grapes chewed by someone greatly invested in the concept of losing.

Confessions of a Bladdict: #2

I can quit any time I want (as if you've never heard that one before). I hasten to add that there is a 48% probability that I really can. You see, according to the same bladdiction test that Norm took, I am only 52% addicted to blogging, whereas Norm is much more addicted at 75%.

If you take the ratio of Norm's degree of bladdiction to mine, you can see that Norm's exceeds mine by 44%. So if Norm can relax about his condition ("With plenty to spare"), surely I have nothing to worry about. That is why I have chosen to display proudly on this page my bladdiction badge (a "bladge" perhaps?), along with a couple of other bladges at the bottom of the sidebar.

A Modest Prescription For A Life That Is Good

As the saying goes, 'Life is just a bowl of cherries.' But what about those pits?

In any case, I want to discuss a prescription that is available to everyone, and sadly not everyone can have a bowl of cherries. Which immediately also eliminates from consideration fame, fortune, beauty, health, etc., which everyone may hope and wish for, but none of which is entirely within every person's control or reach.

How about a heroic death? That certainly qualifies for a death that is good, but not necessarily a life that is good.

What then would qualify for life that is good? A life of pleasure? Comfort? All such relative and variable conditions? Must one have access to them always? Clearly none of these are available to all. Not in this world.

Perhaps the qualification comprises an absence of a negative condition? Something everyone has a chance to avoid? At least a fighting chance? There are lots of things people can try to avoid, but can not always succeed in doing. Can't always avoid making a bad choice without hindsight.

Well then, what about regrets? Can one always avoid them? I suppose not. Sometimes, like bad choices, they are not avoidable, except in hindsight. But, I believe regrets can serve as guidance for the avoidance of bad choices and lamentable behavior. We can strive to avoid having regrets when all is said and done. And the ideal to strive for is to have no regrets at the end of a life that is good.

Which brings me to the prescription, presented to humanity by the great prophet Moses: Honor your father and your mother.

If you do not, you will have regrets.

Soft response; hard response to follow

OK Norm, now you've done it. You have managed to respond with equanimity to obnoxious irrationality. Bravo. But how do you do it so gracefully?

Perhaps I may be permitted to paraphrase, as best as I am able:

America is the land of the free, the home of the brave, and it beats the sh*t out of every other society on earth, in any category you may want to compare. Bar none.

If you (yes you) disagree with my assessment, what the f*ck is preventing you from festering where you are? And why the f*ck do you keep trying to convince yourself that you are sane? And why the f*ck do you call America for help every time the Hun comes crawling up your mass? And why the f*ck don't you just go f*ck yourself?

Strong letter to follow.

Have a nice day, y'all.

Let's cut to the chase ...

It pains me to pun about such an issue, but in a dispute about circumcision, a cutting remark may not be the unkindest cut of all. Once again, I refer to a post, with which I am in basic agreement, at my favorite normblog.

The legal dispute concerns a 12-year-old boy whose parents are divorced, and who are contesting the issue of circumcising their son, all the way to the state supreme court. If I am not mistaken, the tradition is to circumcise a healthy infant boy on his eighth day. Since this boy is 12 years old, he is way past the point of being not conscious of what such a procedure might entail in terms of physical and psychological effects.

If the boy is not legally mature enough to be the arbiter of this dispute between his parents, he is certainly the person who must endure a preponderance of the consequences of its resolution. The only reasonable resolution, as is abundantly obvious to me, is to postpone the issue until such time that the boy is legally of age to make this decision without interference by either parent.

To the best of my knowledge, circumcision is an irreversible procedure. The father, who is in favor of the procedure for his son, is a convert. Many converts are highly susceptible to holier-than-thou syndrome. I say, if the father can't wait for his son to make this very personal and painful decision without any coercion from him or the courts, let the father undergo the procedure as proxy for his son, even if, nay especially if, he has undergone the procedure before. F*ck him if he can't take a joke.

ipso facto rotflmao: If it's sausage, you must be ...

A customer comes into a store, walks up to the counter, and orders a Polish sausage.

The man behind the counter says, "You must be Polish."

The customer becomes incensed. "This is an outrage! Just because I order a Polish sausage, you assume I'm Polish? If I had ordered an Italian sausage, would you assume I was Italian?"

The counter man responds, "Mister, this is a hardware store."

ipso facto brofo: It don't compute. Or does it?

Over at my favorite blog, Norm references an anomaly in sexual surveys: men report having many more sexual partners than women. According to the so-called High-School Prom Theorem, the totals of sexual partners for men and for women should be the same, with the implicit assumptions that any given survey population includes all of the putative sexual partners in that survey, all of whom are truthful. So why is the stud-to-slut ratio greater than 1.0 for most, if not all, surveys?

The most likely explanation is that: for men, stud is an honorific, whereas for women, slut is a reputation. The other explanation often suggested, that survey populations do not normally include all participants (such as prostitutes), is not likely to be a significant factor for large enough survey populations.

But there is another possibility, which is not mentioned in the referenced article. The Theorem does not apply to same-sex partners. There may be more of those among men, some of whom are likely to be bi-sexual, than among women, some of whom are also bi-sexual. Some of those surveyed, men and women, who have had partners of both sexes, may be reporting all their partners. Do the math, brofo.

ipso facto mofo: No muss; no fuss; no brains

We live in a modern apartment complex, with many conveniences and amenities. One such is the garbage disposal chute, conveniently located just a few steps down the corridor from the apartment. You open the chute door and the 21st century gravity-powered amenity disposes of your garbage. No muss; no fuss.

Unless some moron forces something, like a cardboard packing box, into the chute, thereby disabling it. Such stupidity will necessitate the use of the 20th century alternative convenience, namely taking your garbage via the elevator to the basement, and dropping it directly into the compactor. No muss; just a little fuss.

Unless the prescient management posts signs next to the chutes, requesting that residents refrain from using the chutes until the blockage has been rectified, so to speak. The posted signs state the obvious, but, seemingly, not obvious enough, because they omit mentioning what the imbecile residents are to do with their garbage in the interim.

Naturally, if imbeciles are required to engage brains they don't have, they will simply leave their garbage right in front of the chutes, piling up to the ceiling. No muss; no fuss; no brains. Do the math.

F*cking idiots!

Result of test poll "America's Top Priority?" is "Not perish from the earth"

Recently, Blogger in draft enabled the Create a poll Page Element. I decided to test this new Blogger function by embedding my America's Top Priority? test poll in the sidebar of my blog's main page. The results are in.

After an avalanche of voting over a few days' interval, I am satisfied that the Blogger poll functions as expected. As a side benefit, the results of my test poll also match my expectations.

The overwhelming majority (6/7 voters) selected the logical response, the precondition for all other priorities. Furthermore, I am pleased to discover that nobody chose to admit don't know, and that nobody chose don't care, which I euphemistically labeled not American. And, as I expected, nobody knowingly acknowledged don't think.

Nevertheless, as also anticipated, there was an outlier, a vote that unknowingly acknowledged don't think, which I euphemistically labeled other. This vote was cast by the Summa Cum Laude graduate of The School for the Perpetually Perplexed.

What the World Needs Now

Wikipedia attributes this observation to Robert Kennedy, 'This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the love of ease.' I am quite confident Bobby was right when he said it. It may even be an apt observation today. I believe, however, other "demands" may be more apropos, including a reassessment of Bobby's premise concerning the qualities he attributed to youth.

Today's youth is roughly two generations removed from the youth familiar to the rather youthful Bobby Kennedy and his clan. Having been a youth during Bobby's campaign for President (and enthusiastically planning to vote for him) I have the experience to make a comparison, albeit not an infallible one, between the youth of the '60s and today's youth. I readily admit that my memory is not as good as it used to be, however. And I am obliged to limit my unscientific and very broad-stroke comparison to middle class American youth.

I will, moreover, impose further limitation on the scope of my comparison, befitting a blog post analysis such as this, by acknowledging that 'a predominance of courage over timidity' and 'the appetite for adventure over the love of ease' remain enduring qualities of youth. Furthermore, the quality Bobby referred to as 'a temper of the will' is much too difficult to assess because it lends itself to a wide spectrum of interpretations. Thus, only 'a quality of imagination' remains, and that is where I do observe a noticeable difference.

I have the sense that in my day, we relied much more on our imaginations in dealings with the world around us. This was undoubtedly true in entertainment, from childhood to adulthood. Toys, games, sports, in fact all manner of play had imagination as its primary ingredient. Today's toys, games, sports, and all manner of play require first and foremost a goodly supply of extra batteries. And it is not much of a stretch to conclude that besides the so-called brain drain, there has been a significant concentration of the finite supply of human imagination into the electronics and computer technology industries.

Today's youth, it seems to me, requires imagination as much as any preceding generation did. The difference, as I see it, is that our generation's supply was largely self generated. Today's youth shops for theirs.

The Ace of Procrastination

A clever essay on procrastination by a Cornell blogger reminded me of my 4th year roommate at Cornell (mine was a 5-year undergraduate curriculum in Engineering Physics). My roommate John was a procrastinator extraordinaire. He was also the only personal acquaintance I have ever had with a math genius.

John's routine was to attend the first class of every lecture course, which for him was every course, since he had switched majors from physics to math to avoid having to register for lab courses. His sole purpose in attending the first class was to find a classmate who would inform him of an upcoming prelim (Cornell speak for "major exam"). I don't know if any money changed hands, but John's classmate also would agree to let John borrow his class notes when he had finished studying them. This usually happened past midnight the night before a prelim.

On one such occasion, the prelim was a midterm exam in one of John's math courses. He confidently returned home from his classmate's with the notebook he needed. As usual it was after midnight, but the prelim was scheduled for the morning. There simply wasn't enough time to wade through all the notes for half the semester.

Nevertheless, John aced the exam. In particular, he was the only one who managed a correct proof for one of the questions. The professor was impressed, but also somewhat perplexed. According to the professor's annotation in John's graded prelim booklet, John had used a proof the professor had never seen before. But the professor was confused why John avoided using the traditional proof they had covered in the course.

I am not sure if John ever revealed his reason for using his original proof, but he did assist the professor grading exams for the remainder of this course as well as for the other courses taught by this professor. John's monetary compensation was nominal. The real payoff for John was that his attendance in class was not required.

Re: Daily Dose of Wisdom #1

In reading one of Norm's posts today, concerning views on liberty, it occurred to me that liberty may be one of those concepts that lends itself to adjudication.

As a natural scientist by training, I favor adjudicating the laws of natural origin using the scientific method. If philosophical theories are to be adjudicated, however, alternative means must be employed. As a scholarly discipline, philosophy, in my layman's view, is more akin to jurisprudence than to physics. Perhaps liberty can be adjudicated as per the most famous opinion from Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), decided by the United States Supreme Court.

Liberty. I knew it when I saw it.

Only One Issue Matters

It is not surprising that the forest is obscured by the trees. The mediacrity, fueled by a blizzard of smoke, mirrors, and sundry bullsh*t emanating from every Tom, Dick, and Harry (mostly Dicks), diverts attention from the only issue that matters in national elections.

Health care? It's a tree, albeit a Redwood. Immigration? Tree. Crime? Tree. Education? Weeping Willow. Taxes? Money tree. Social Security and Medicare? Ditto. Iraq? Woodshed. Separation of Church and State? Burning bush. Supreme Court nominees? Tree of knowledge. Congress? Dogwood.

The name of the forest is Survival. And the only questions that need be answered by the electorate are, 'Which candidate for President of the United States understands that America must be protected from those determined to set the forest ablaze? And which candidate is capable of preventing such a forest fire?'

If the integrity of the forest is assured, the trees comprise the agenda, to be dealt with using all the wood chippers in place at the T[h]ree Branches. The Forest Ranger in Chief has a [wood] Cabinet to do the heavy lifting for the Executive wood chippers. Congress does whatever. And the Supreme Court resolves the hopelessly deadlocked issues. But nothing matters if Job One fails.

The greatest Ranger of all said it for all time: '[T]hat government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.' In national election campaigns, it's the forest, stupid.

They Did Survive

They were newlyweds when driven from their home by the plague. For two and a half years they struggled for more life. Their struggle bore fruit in an unexpected way, and became more difficult after their son was born. Youthful naiveté, nature's gift of optimism, gave them the will to follow the example of their ancient Patriarch. They struggled for more life.

Their struggle lasted a decade. Though the plague had been eradicated four years before, the last weeks of their struggle were particularly harsh. And now they knew their personal Diaspora would last forever. They were heading for a new home.

At last, a miraculous pill, a gift from one of the American ship's officers, lifted their queasiness. And as the morning mist lifted in empathy, their miraculous day continued. The ship steamed into the harbor, welcomed by the grandest lady of all. It was the first of fifty celebrations of their personal Day of Liberty: October 24, 1949.

{A personal remembrance dedicated to Mary}

Cocktail in a Styrofoam Cup

Over at my favorite normblog, Norm offers up a political cocktail with an irony twist. If, however, I had served Norm's cocktail in a Styrofoam cup, which Norm would never do, the not so subliminal message would have been: p*ssy sells.

My second favorite piece of political wisdom (the first is Lincoln's Gettysburg Address) is Churchill's famous dictum: 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.' Lincoln and Churchill were speaking about a form of government, and democratic government of the people, by the people, for the people beats the crap out of all the others, to put it less elegantly than those two of my favorite political heroes.

But elections, most especially American elections, are not a form of government. They are the quintessential form of selling. Each candidate for the Presidency will require about a 9-figure advertising budget! And all those candidates' debates are nothing more than a precisely orchestrated dog and pony shootout. If you really think anyone is ever saying anything other than what their campaign management team has determined will win, rather than lose potential votes, then I invite you to call me about some very reasonably priced beach front property in Arizona.

Ultimately, a thinking (as opposed to a shopping) American voter needs to divine what the principal (careful, NOT principled) candidates would do in a crisis. Would they act as Lincoln, Washington, Churchill, Truman, and George W. Bush had? Or do some other, lesser "leaders" come to mind? Good luck shopping for an answer to that question.

Confessions of a Bladdict: #1

Before you dismiss as a throwaway my 'Get a wife' response to Norm's 'What would be your main blogging advice to a novice blogger?' let me elaborate. Blogging is a self-feeding addiction. Without a caring wife to intervene, a bladdict will lose his sense of space and time; and everything else, including bladder contents, will fall through the cracks, so to speak.

A wife, if you are lucky, will drag you from your bit-induced stupor into the real world of atomic delights: eating, drinking, and merrymaking. Of course, sooner or later, the lesser delights of laundry, garbage disposal, and shopping will remind you of your other existence, which, as luck would have it, is but a desk chair away. Dude, man, it doesn't get much better.

ipso facto mofo: Lame ducks? Stupid f*cks? I'll take the former ...

Term limits are a good idea. Why? Because elected officials have just two items on their todo list:

1. get reelected
2. get the people's work done

Guess which one has top priority. The only effective means for getting the people's work done is to eliminate the top priority item from the todo list. The only way to do that, short of enduring a national catastrophe that gets the attention of even our Self-serving Branch of Government, is to impose term limits. That way, the people's servants can finally attend to the people's business when they have become lame ducks. Sort of like that very funny character in those TV ads, who comes to the rescue when disaster strikes.

While the President is not trying to get reelected so he can serve his people as Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, our Congress is serving itself by doing everything it can to check and balance sanity with its opposite. Meanwhile, the nation is threatened by mortal enemies, the infrastructure is falling apart, and the people are dying.

Time to amend the Constitution? Do the math.

ipso facto mofo: New Left Insanity

The New Left (Chumpsky et al.) has wrapped around the political spectrum to the threshold of old fashioned Fascism. Support for mortal enemies constitutes insanity by definition (mine). Do the math.

De Flower Generation's Deflowered

That is to say, the hippies are thoroughly f*cked, man. I'm talkin' about those who are rapidly approaching the real 60's. Their own. How can I say this? Let me count the ways.

Who are some of their political favorites? Teddy the K comes to mind; Nan the P; Babs the Box. Just about anyone who's lost their frickin' mind. Like, I'm not into sanity, man.

Sexual morés? Like, I'm not into morés, man; I'm into amoré, dig? And the moré the merrier, man.

Drugs? Like, how much, man? Like, my price range is free, man, cuz I ain't got a pit to poss in, dig?

Religious and cultural tendencies? I'm into reincarnation, man, cuz next time I'm gonna be Shirley MacLaine or Tom Cruise, man.

Role models? Besides the aforementioned Macster and Cruister, there's Babs the Strident. She's got a good voice, man, so she must know what she's talkin' about, dig? Clooney is cool, man. The babes dig 'im, so he must know sumpin' sumpin'. Just about anybody in HolyShitWood, man, cuz they're all rich, so that means they know stuff, like poetry an' sh*t, dig? Some of them have read books.

You catchin' my drift, man? It's not just the hippies, though. There is a sizable group that no longer understands which end is up, man. People who just don't get that Kurzweil's Singularity is fast (very fast) approaching, let alone what a singularity actually is. Read the CliffsNotes, man. There is more to life than what's on YouTube, dude. Remember what frequently follows the 60's, man. It's later than you think, man. Oh yea, I forgot, you're not into time.

People (and Other Work): If It Don't Compute, Reexamine the Premise

I recall a conversation I had with my Dad when I was about 11 or 12. The topic of the conversation has long been forgotten, but what I remember clearly is the remark I made in response to my father's, "I don't know why couples fight so much." I think the reason I still remember what I said is the look on my father's face when I responded, "Maybe they like it." My Dad was astounded to hear this from his young son.

Prowess and perversity are not mutually exclusive human traits, and that most certainly extends to intellectual pursuits. Though I do relate to the aphorism, "Never attribute to malice what adequately can be explained by ignorance," I have more faith in, "Never say never." Especially in intellectual discourse, where it might not be inappropriate to discount the predominance of ignorance, the latter aphorism may be more applicable than the former.

I am frequently frustrated to encounter "intellectual" positions adhered to by those I know to be intelligent (at least there is much evidence to support it), but who fail to be moved by what, to me, seems overwhelming logical reasoning to the contrary. I must try to remember, in such circumstances, that which occurred to me more than half a century before.

Good life is just a bowl of Cheerios.™ People are work.

People (and Other Work): Nice Guys Finish ...

"Nice guys finish last." It's an oft repeated aphorism, a euphemistic version, perhaps, of the adage, "There's a sucker born every minute." However it is viewed, it reflects conventional wisdom concerning the intrinsic value of honesty. So much for the ethical standards of the me first society.

Does honesty confer value to a member of society? I honestly don't know for sure. It really depends, as do so many other things, on one's personal set of values. "What does it buy you?" is a common criterion for value. Honesty buys you disdain from enemies and, perhaps, good will from family and friends. The latter is a possibility. The former is a certainty that, to be honest, may have positive value for one's self esteem.

So do nice guys finish? Ultimately it devolves to one's personal meaning of life. My own choice is to have a loving monogamous relationship in life on Earth, and strive for heavenly rewards within the fond memories of family and friends. So far so good, knock on wood.

Good life is just a bowl of Cheerios.™ People are work.

People (and Other Work): As Much As Possible, But Not Too Much!

I knew a person once whom I will refer to as the Trapster. Her social strategy was to ensnare someone into a comfort zone, based on accepted norms of social interactions. Trapster took her time to establish various parameters and boundaries so that there was no mistaking the sociological topology, the so-called rules of social engagement for the acquaintance. Then, after a lengthy period of interaction within the established zone, Trapster would precipitate a confrontation by disclaiming some well established norm of the acquaintance. Fool me once ... .

It is unpleasant to be ridiculed, but especially by subterfuge, so it is difficult, for me, to understand what motivates someone to dispense this form of social "candor." For a social personality it pays to be trusting in the presumed good will of a new acquaintance. The obvious risk, of course, is that the presumption is unwarranted. Another case of social ordering ensues. As anything else in life, one must find a suitable balance between one's tolerance for risk and one's desire for potential benefit. In this example of a risk/reward situation, however, the risk is difficult to quantify.

Good life is just a bowl of Cheerios.™ People are work.

iPhone™ Envy? Not!

This is not another opinion piece on the iPhone™. I am merely capitalizing on the buzz, even as I write, concerning the newest product to be marketed as the latest and greatest personal technology must have. The latest? Indeed. But it only aspires to being the greatest. The latest seldom is. This is why I must not have it. At least not now.

I was recently astounded to discover that a software system for Monte Carlo simulation, which I had co-authored in a multi-man-year R&D effort and personally installed at a well known research institute, was still being used by that institute. This is sophisticated simulation software, functioning three decades after installation and a quarter century after all technical support for the system had ceased! Perhaps I may be permitted a modest claim: dat some robust technology, bro.

Now, where was I before I so rudely interrupted myself? Oh yes, why not get the latest? Because it is buggy. It is very buggy. Those who get the latest are purchasing, at a significant premium mind you, the privilege of de-bugging the system for the manufacturer. The best way to make your tech foolproof is to foist it on a mob of drooling fools who will beat the crap out of it and in the process identify most of the bugs. Then the revised version will be launched, and the same droolers will camp out to be among the first to engage in Phase II of the de-bugging cycle.

I know what you're thinking: so when do you avail yourself of new technology? My simple rule of thumb is: when it's been leap frogged. Today, for example, is a good time to get a robust version of Windows XP™, now that Vista™ is on the scene.

If you must have an iPhone™, wait until Google™ Phone is launched. Avoid the ultimate technology. The penultimate is best.

Remembrance in Spacetime: Awakening

On January 13, 1986 I woke up in my new apartment in Los Alamos, New Mexico. It was a new day, in a new town, in a new part of this great big country of ours. The next day I was to begin my new position as Staff Physicist in the Applied Theoretical Physics Division at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. On this day my plan was to take stock. Of my life.

In a little over a month I would be 44 years old; definitely middle aged. From age seven on, I had been a New Yorker. I had a Bachelor's degree from Cornell, and a Master's and Doctorate from Columbia. I had been married and divorced. I had two young sons back in New York who, along with their mother, relied on my alimony and child support. The alimony would continue until my ex wife remarried. The child support would be required until both sons finished college. That was our separation agreement and that was my personal obligation to my sons as I viewed it.

My first job out of graduate school was like a post doc position. Although I had been a staff scientist at a private corporation in New York, the salary lagged that of my colleagues' who had accepted positions at national labs or similarly established organizations. But what concerned me most at this stage of my career (and life) was that that first significant position of my professional career had provided no retirement benefits. And, that I had a 4-figure net worth.

Although I had been a full-time student for a quarter century, I now realized that my student days were not over yet. I was sorely lacking in personal financial savvy, and, unbeknownst to me, had previously been enrolled in the school of hard knocks. On this particular first day of the rest of my life, I decided on a long-term personal mission: I would educate myself in the basics of personal finance and investing; I would continue to make good on all my financial obligations to others; and I would begin addressing my personal financial obligation to myself, namely, preparing for retirement. Clearly, there were lots of pizzas and peanut butter sandwiches in my future. In effect, I had enrolled in The Peanut Butter School of Life University.

F*ck 'em if they can't take a joke

I might have been a baseball fanatic at age 13. Today, I just give a cursory glance to some of the MLB records, whenever a current major leaguer is poised to reset one. Barry Bonds is poised to break Hammerin' Hank's career home run mark, which is arguably one of the top 3 MLB records, the other two being Joltin' Joe's 56-game hitting streak, and Barry's own single-season home run record.

In reminiscing about the excitement of having a hallowed MLB record approached, I am constantly jolted from my reverie by the ad nauseous mediacrity (media mediocrity) concerning his alleged use of steroids. Alright already, so maybe he used steroids. If that is of major concern to you, ignore his approach to the record, and hold his eventual reset of it in contempt, if you feel you must.

In my opinion, any person living in a free society such as ours has the right to engage in self abuse, however it may be defined, with the important proviso that s/he not impose on the individual rights of others. Americans are governed by the rule of law, both legally constituted and implicit in the ordering principle of society. The latter comprises the inherent rules of our free market system. If Bonds' new record is deemed a heinous blemish on our national pastime, capitalism will remedy that.

How so? The reason lies within the core of the "pastime" --- money. The fans who are contemptuous of Bonds will presumably lose some of their inclination to support financially their passion for the game. If this becomes a significant impact, the owners will be less willing to support financially another such contender for any record. And a large number of players will be influenced to forsake such "tainted" assaults on any record, knowing that the accomplishment will be less generously rewarded and less highly regarded by the fans.

If, however, the loss of fan interest is not significant, the game will proceed as before, and the hue and cry of the mediacrity will have been a false alarm. But for those of us who simply can't get worked up about someone else's self abuse, it's just a pain in the mass.

Remembrance in Spacetime: Like a New Birth of Freedom

Oddly enough, one of the most important events of my life occurred on a day that I don't remember, just as no one remembers their own birth. I do remember that my parents had been studying, with my help, for their citizenship examination. The examination turned out to be very easy (with questions such as, "Who is the President of the United States," President Eisenhower having been the correct answer then). My parents had no trouble satisfying the requirements, and they became naturalized American citizens.

Being 13 years old at the time, however, I was more interested in the fortunes of my beloved Brooklyn Dodgers, who, as luck would have it, won the World Series later that year for the very first and, sadly, only time. As I recall, the Dodgers won the first two games against their arch rival New York Yankees, then lost the next three. But, incredibly, they managed to come back from the 3-2 deficit (never before accomplished in a World Series) to win the last two games of the seven game series. The New York Daily News hailed their accomplishment on their front page with a full-page cartoon of a bum and the headline, "WHO'S A BUM!" My full year of happiness, however, was terminated the very next year, when the Yankees took their revenge on the Dodgers in only the second time that a series was decided by a team winning the first two games; losing the next three; and winning the final two.

I became a naturalized citizen of the United States by derivation from my parents' own naturalization on May 13, 1955. Being a minor, American Citizenship was granted to me through the action of my parents --- like "a new birth of freedom."

What's it all about?

Cindy Sheehan, who celebritized the demonization of President Bush, has called it quits. She had insinuated herself into a celebrity niche by appealing to the cum laude graduates of the school for the perpetually perplexed. So what is my excuse for wasting time on a one-trick celebrity whose 15 minutes of blame have expired? It contributes to my daily quota of disdain for inanity.

It's a free country, contrary to Ms. Sheehan's bizarre claim that our country " ... is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think." If that were really so, then we must conclude that Ms. Sheehan is a spokeswoman for that very same war machine. The computational analog of such circuitous logic is an infinite loop. A typical example of such a loop is the labeled FORTRAN statement, viz.

100 go to 100

Notice the following attributes: brevity; symmetry; uselessness. But the most powerful computer on earth will succumb to its relentless grip. Only a sensible human operator can abort such senseless waste of resources.

The Sheehans of this world are the enablers of an enormous waste of creative potential. They celebritize, and thereby leverage, the universal antagonism of entropy's chaotic destruction of resources to gravity's evolutionary creation of life worth living.

Though creative use of resources has its thoughtful adherents, the sheer number of inanity's devotees renders the ultimate outcome of civilization's agon problematic. Creativity is rare and therefore brief; inanity is useless and enduring. Indications are that the universal agon will be a symmetric draw. Perhaps that's what it's all about.

Remembrance in Spacetime: Liberty

The displaced persons had boarded the General J. H. McRae (AP-149), an American Army transport, in early October 1949 at Bremerhaven on the north coast of General Eisenhower's American Occupation Zone. The North Atlantic was stormy that October, and its crossing took about two weeks. It was a nightmare.

At the end of the second week of the hellish crossing, the mother scored a jackpot. Though she was a seasick, kerchief-wearing refugee she was, nevertheless, a pretty young woman, and she charmed a ship's officer into giving her a single tablet of Dramamine. She shared it with her son on the deck of the General McRae. The father, as usual, bore his misery stoically. After swallowing the half-tablet, the child's queasiness lifted, as did the morning haze.

And there she was. With torch held high, she beckoned to the ship's human cargo as the General McRae steamed into New York Harbor. She was beautiful, just as they had imagined she would be.

It was United Nations Day in America: October 24, 1949. But it might as well have been the Fourth of July. For the immigrant survivors, it was, as we continued to celebrate it annually, our Day of Liberty.

Remembrance in Spacetime: Vanquished

It was a typical winter day --- safe but very cold. Temperatures occasionally reached the point at which Fahrenheit and Celsius become indistinguishable. On the other side of the mountains, the invincible horde had been met by an indomitable will. At the end of the monumental battle, a quarter million invincibles surrendered. It marked the end of the pathogenic explosion. Its implosive eradication had begun.

A mother was rushing, with toddler in tow, to the wartime mall, the black market, where the people bartered for necessities. She had dressed her son warmly: long woolly underwear; pants; shirt and sweater; an overcoat with mittens; a hat with ear flaps; and little boots made of felt. The felt was effective because it was too cold for snow to melt and wet it. His father had recently demonstrated the fascinating way in which saliva turned to ice before it reached the ground with a clink.

The little boy stopped walking to complain about some minor discomfort. The mother's hasty effort in dressing him for her important errand had been less than his fastidiousness required. In her agitation, she started spanking him, an unusual response from her. But suddenly she stopped.

Advancing towards them was a disorganized column of misery guarded by army troops. The prisoners-of-war were shivering in the remnants of their warm-weather uniforms. Their heads down, icicles hung from the nostrils of the vanquished invaders. Mother stared at the despised detritus shuffling past.

"That nation of swine" she exclaimed, as frozen spit punctuated the ground.

Strike while the irony's hot

On Saturday April 28 a vocal minority marched past the house at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in Durham, where the Duke Lacrosse Team was falsely accused of rape. The marchers in support of some "National Day of Truth-telling" chose to decry sexual violence rather than false accusations of sexual violence! The irony is striking.

Vocal minorities are not known for subtlety. Rather, their tactics tend to the raucous and the blatant. Hence, my intuition leads me to conclude the irony of this particular exercise in freely spoken moral outrage was unintended. I hasten to emphasize my own opposition to any form of sexual violence and my fervent support of free speech. My objection to this public demonstration, however, is based on an aversion to confused thinking. The victims in this scandal of emotional violence and potential sexual violence in prison were the falsely accused and demonstrably unethically prosecuted Duke Lacrosse players, not the false accuser of rape.

No special interest group holds a monopoly on confused thinking. Most seem to subscribe to the misapprehension that a representative form of government is beholden in any legal procedural sense to the wishes of a raucous demonstration of any dimension, state of conviction, or position in the governing hierarchy. Ours is that government of the people, by the people, for the people, but it is constrained by the legal and procedural framework of the Constitution, most especially the sublime checks and balances of our three Branches of Government. An example of (possibly politically motivated) confused thinking is the outraged posturing in the Legislative Branch whenever the President exercises his prerogatives as Chief Executive not in accordance with the collective wisdom of the Members of Congress.

... Justice for all

The Pledge of Allegiance, which American schoolchildren learn to recite by rote, has been the focus of much controversy, especially the "under God" emendation. The controversial aspects stem from the nationalistic sentiments and the religious connotations, which are far from universally accepted in our politically correct society. But the closing tripleton of words, arguably the heart of the Pledge, can withstand the most politically correct scrutiny. And the soul of that tripleton is the singleton Justice.

In the past year there have been countless instances of perceived injustice, reflecting almost as many points of view as there are viewers of points. One that has captured virtually universal infamy is the so-called Duke Lacrosse Scandal. This case study for the seductiveness of public indignation and outrage, a reflection of the vehemence with which seemingly all points of view are held today by their devotees, offered a perfect storm of circumstances for a lynching: racial slurs and counter slurs; political and idealogical motivations; the reputation of a great university, and that of its faculty, students, and governing body; the privileges of the wealthy; the disadvantages of the poor; the perceived arrogance of the privileged class; the perceived outrage of the downtrodden; the outspoken pomposity of the self-righteous; the fabrications and exaggerations of the muckrakers; and the mad dash by everyone perceived to be at risk to cover their collective mass.

Many organizations behaved as badly as those individuals who should have known better. At the heart of this personal ordeal for the three students whose lives had been placed in mortal jeopardy, as everyone who is not comatose realizes is the common fate of those incarcerated in the jungle that is our prison system, was the guiding principle of our great American system of justice: the presumption of innocence. The correct public demeanor in this, as in all such cases is one in accordance with these students' presumed innocence until, and only if they are proven guilty in a court of law.

Many fell short of that ideal. If there is something to be learned by all Americans, if not the civilized world at large, from this sorry mess having many villains, I can not think of any more pertinent to the very survival of our way of life than the sacredness of the presumption of innocence. There has been a significant lapse in the public pledge of allegiance to this golden rule of justice. This is the time to begin the healing process by publicly acknowledging that lapse.