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.