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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.