Armchair Afield

Over the Edge of the Razor

2012-01-01T23:43:00.001-05:00

DATELINE, Alter Earth: Okham’s Razor, one of the foundational metaphors of the modern scientific method, is often expressed as “the simplest answer is most often the correct one.” Or: “Don’t look for complicated solutions to a problem when a simple one will do.”

Okham’s Razor is a valuable tool of critical thinking. It is named after William of Ockham, a 14th century Franciscan Friar. Ockham is a village in Surrey, England.

The Razor is used to shave away all that is unobservable, irrational, mystical, or metaphysical. In one sense, this is the separation clause of science and religion. More simply, it cuts away superstition from scientific method. It is a very powerful tool of critical thinking.

In the search to unravel some of physics’ greatest mysteries, there is a very strong prejudice to find solutions to problems which are both elegant and simple. This includes solving the riddles of dark matter, black holes, gravitational force, Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance,” even marrying relativity and it's estranged beloved, quantum theory. Nearly by definition, any theory of the universe that is ungainly, awkward, or unduly complex is naturally suspect.

Aristotle wrote of the beauty of simplicity in philosophical thought. Euclid described the straight line as the shortest distance, eg. simplest, between two points. Sherlock Holmes famously employed a variation of the Razor to describe deductive logic (described elsewhere in this blog). Fox Mulder, a character from the popular 1990’s television sci-fi drama “The X-Files” called it “Ockham’s Theory of limited imagination.” Anyway you cut it, Okham named it.

Of course, there is one more thing. Ockham’s Razor has a dark side. If the simplest, observable answer is most often the correct one, it logically and necessarily implies the existence of extra-observable influences, eg. deception by misdirection. The universe of the observable is one thing. The universe which is not is something completely different. Further discussion of such will appear in “Gamow’s Apple” coming soon!

Meanwhile, HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Yeah, What He Said....

2011-12-17T20:11:00.001-05:00

Messrs Darwin and Spencer

It has often been assumedthat just because “everybody knows” something, it must be true. That’s why it’scalled the “conventional wisdom.”

I would like to point out,however, that the conventional wisdom is often wrong. Look at quotes, forexample. It’s surprising how often the most famous quotes are attributed to thewrong pen.

For example, if I were toask who said this: “God helps those who help themselves,” many people would beinclined to answer Jesus.

Of course, many peoplewould also say that Jesus is the ultimate answer to any pithy or wise quote. Iwould beg to differ. That particular maxim is attributed to Benjamin Franklin from his autobiography.

Likewise, Meyers – andmany others – mistake “survival of the fittest” as a construction given to us byCharles Darwin. Darwin said nothing of the kind, Mr. Meyers. Darwin was allabout natural selection.

When it comes to SocialDarwinism as a cornerstone theory of economic adaptability, the name bestapplied to it is not Darwin, but Herbert Spencer. As Meyers’ hero, John KennethGalbraith wrote in The Affluent Society: “It was Spencer and not Charles Darwinwho gave the world the phrase ‘the survival of the fittest,’ and it was firstapplied not to the lower animals but to mankind.”

“The terms of thestruggle were established by the market. Those who won were rewarded withsurvival and, if they survived brilliantly, with riches.”

Charles Darwin wrote about natural selection. Herbert Spencer describedsocial Darwinism.

The Birth of New Breeds: Phantasms of Ignorance

2011-10-27T14:37:00.002-04:00

DATELINE, Sci Fi: Many people misunderstand thewhole Darwin thing. Even into the middle of the 21th century, people arguedDarwin on the basis of whether or not his ideas about evolution are “correct.”

People didn’t care or weren’t aware that Darwin was merelyforming a hypothesis based on his own meticulous reporting of empiricalobservations. This was remarkable scientific endeavor for its time.

One part of the problem, however, stemmed from the argumentthat “God” appears nowhere in Darwin’s scheme of biological diversity. Thispresented the greatest argument for the trashing of “Species.” With it, rosethe debate between evolution and creation. “Species” was politicallyoverwhelmed by the creation pushers and completely discredited.

But then, a strange thing happened. Perhaps it was the finalnail in Darwin’s coffin; the final thing to completely kill “Species.” That is,people began to perceive biodiversity as a myth. How could there be such avariety of lifeforms on a single planet?

It was a time well past the dominance of the human species.There simply were fewer species left on the planet. Most people never noticedthe death of the last lion or tiger or bear, but suddenly, the only largemammal on Earth was human.

Planetary ecosystems are far moremanageable if fewer species inhabit them.

In retrospect, perhaps it was the single most destructiveidea to ever be presented in planetary discourse: That ecosystems are fareasier to manage if there are fewer species that comprise them. Department ofInterior and Environment managers eventually hit on the well-manicured lawnparadigm for managing "wild" spaces.

Almost immediately, forests everywhere were converted tolittle more than staged theater representations of real forests. Someone’stablet computer mathematics concluded that the optimum number of species in agiven "wild" acre was 652.

At first, that seemed like a lot and not a few peoplewondered if that might be too many. However, once it was explained to them thatthat number included all plants, animals an insects, people reluctantlyaccepted it as a hypothesis.

Eventually, the 652 Species Act was enacted by the AmericanCongress. Other countries soon followed with their own versions. Exoticenclaves were eventually established for a few species which were deemed to besentimental, but too dangerous to safely inhabit areas near humans.

The anti-naturalism movement, it was said, was a push backfrom the draconian “Green Movement” of the early part of the century. And bythen, the Green Movement had been largely discredited as a wayward fantasy; aconspiracy concocted by an American government far too eager to spend thepeople’s money recklessly. Anyway, very few people had even stepped foot in awild, unmanicured forest so it was easy to convince them that they didn’t needit.

It was the next president-elect having run on a neo-Puritanticket who all but publicly burned piles of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”- by then books were anachronistic, anyway - and declared that the few remaining wayward wilderness regions should bedeclared off-limits until they could be burned and razed. They were dangerousplaces, the new president declared. It was suggested that the devil lived inthe deep woods. Or devils. Monsters. And ironically, new breeds of beasts werebirthed: the phantasms of ignorance.

Of course, it was always in the back of the American mindthat the wilderness was a bad place. But the destruction of Darwin createdanother side effect: the disbelief, dismissal of “Species” on account of itsdiscussion of biodiversity presented another side effect: That is the dismissalof human diversity.

Almost over night, suspicions grew like shadows – everythingthat had been considered unique or individual about a person was viewed assuspicious and unlovely. Individuality, creativity and free thought becameequated as genetic anomalies. Conformity and group acquiescence became thederigeur values.

With the downfall of complex thinking, simpleideas filled in the vacuum: With the death of Darwin, John Stuart Mill was nexton the chopping block.

THE SPECIAL RELATIVITY OF DINOSAURS IN A POST-JOBS WORLD

2011-10-16T14:17:00.005-04:00

The world’s most newsworthy obituary this month, of course, was Steve Jobs. Jobs' passing, October 5, due to complications from pancreatic cancer, is something of a watershed moment – for Apple, of course, but for all of us.

I’m sure if I asked, you could probably tell me what device you were using when you first heard about Jobs’ death. Odds are likely it had an Apple logo on it. On the otherhand, I doubt very much that you could tell me what book you were reading when you heard the news.

Let me offer these for your consideration:

Dinosaur n.: A thing of antiquity. Perhaps, one time a giant, but now extinct. A a relic or icon of an age gone by. Something which no longer has value beyond curiosity, fantasy, sentiment, or intellectual exercise in the contemporary world. Something really big; nature’s by-gone experiment in giantess.

Special Relativity n.: A theory by Albert Einstein in the opening years of the 20th century which suggests, simply stated, that time and space are not fixed constants but that one’s experience of them is relative to his own circumstances, such as the speed at which he is traveling or the space he occupies relative to nearby gravitational fields.

Books: n. [buhks] 1. A stack of pages comprised of paper or other material that are decorated or printed in ink and bound together between stiff covers. 2. The detailed development or unfolding of an idea or story or collection of related ideas or stories bound together as a single unit.

And Jobs: The much publicly-reported passing of Apple's visionary CEO is something of a watershed moment in human development. The Apple product line represents a change in the way our world functions and the way we think. Apple represents tremendous advances in technological innovation, engineering, marketing and design. Anything that isn't up-to-date is inadequate. See, IPhone 4s

Time is moving quickly, now. We are even further past the Dinosaurs.

If nothing more, Jobs' death represents a striking moment in time that demarcates the line between cutting edge and last week’s news. It could, however, have come just as easily last year or next year or, as I’m sure many people would have wished, many years from now. We've crossed a line into the posh, post-post-modern, post-Jobs world.

Compared to an IPhone 4s, my copy of John Kenneth Galbraith’s book The Affluent Society, for example, is a dinosaur. Who reads that stuff any more? There is nothing, as the conventional wisdom and the techno-talkingheads would have it, that you could find in that book that is NOT somewhere on the web. What do you need the physical form of that heavy, bulky book for, when you can read it on a slick IPad or IPhone 4s.

IPhone 4s is the latest “show don’t tell,” shiny emblem of The Afluent Society and in at least some respects, it is easier to grasp than Galbraith’s heady ideas.

Of course, the simple fact that you can probably find copies of Galbraith’s book or digests of it on the web somewhere, does not mean that people will seek it out and actually read it. I don't imagine many do.

Still, I suppose you could make the same argument about that mother of all dinosaurs: the public library. Just because you may still have one in your city, doesn’t mean you will go there and search out a copy of what ironically is Gabraith's most well known work (even if it IS free).

But me? I’m a victim of weird special relativity. We all are.

It's weird special relativity that the metaphorical IPhone iteration minus-one-billion is a library book; A dinosaur titled The Affluent Society. If you did happen to read it you might unravel the mysteries of the post-jobs world: pernicious unemployment, Wall Street Occupiers, the Republican Presidential Candidate Circus and the economic deer-in-the-headlights which we lovingly call our government.

Will Space Aliens Be Nice To Us?

2011-10-06T14:30:00.000-04:00

OR: Are thegreat gobblers of human being already here???

Gary Gutting, professor of philosophy at the University ofNotre Dame, says that when and if we ever meet space aliens, we should be onguard because they may want to eat us.... Or worse.

Gutting suggests in his October 5, 2011, Opinionator@TheNew York Times blog post, that any contact with extra terrestrialintelligence, ETI, could result in humanity getting trounced on, tortured,experimented on, annihilated, or even eaten. We should be on guard. Maybe, weshould even get them first.

Really? Gutting must be channeling B-movie space cadets fromthe 1950’s.

Space aliens who may or may not want to eat us is just thelatest in a long line of abstract bogey-men in popular culture that we seem tothrive on. They define our humanity. We really eat it up.

But there is one small problem...

In the pilgrim days, we feared Old Scratch lurking in thewilderness beyond our gates. Then it was those “godless savages” out there.Since then, we’ve invented all kinds of monsters under the bed, brain-suckingzombies, blacks, giant spiders, Catholics, the “yellow hordes” of the 1930’s,Jews, the communiss, Native Americans, illegal aliens, Moslems, Shrek, and ofcourse, space aliens. Nothing could possibly be more horrible than a closeencounter with one of these.

The problem is that it’s downright un-American andanti-Capitalist not to hate and fear SOMEBODY. Heck, Sarah Palin and many otheraspirants to higher office routinely claim that God has called upon them topersonally save us from those godless (fill-in-the-blank). Is that really anydifferent?

I happen to believe that the odds are good that when and ifwe meet these space aliens, we will react the same way we have behaved whenever we have encountered anything/anyone we don’t understand: with arroganceand fear.

"Grab yer torch and pitchfork!"

Ever since we anthropomorphized the Biblical God, someonesomewhere has rationalized rape, pillage, plunder, annihilation, extermination,ethnic cleansing against anyone/thing who isn't like us with the rational thatwe’re allowed to because “God made us better than you.”

So, at the eventual encounter with space aliens, it’s morelikely to be US trying to annihilate THEM because that’s what WE have alwaysdone. Heck, I could even imagine us mistaking them for steak tar-tar (pass theketchup, please).

Afterall, we have this professor of philosophy, Gutting, who tries to sound brave as he imagines UFO's landing on the frontlawn: "...They might even lead us to a paradise of peace, wisdom and joy.But there is no reason to think that such a paradise is more probable than ahell of slavery or extermination...."

Critical thinking apparently means the same thing as conjectureand prejudice. Gutting is already certain that this encounter will end badly.But, let's keep an open mind, shall we?

The point is, we just don't know. We just have to waitand see.

We do know that this: Fear and prejudice are the two great gobblersof critical thought – bogeymen in their own right – and the train wreckers ofmutual peace and understanding.

So, when we meet these ETI’s, instead let's try somethingnew: There's an old story about our pal, Abraham, who welcomes weary travelersto his tent and to his table. As the story goes, these weary travelers werereally angels in disguise – sort of like Biblical space aliens. The point is,when we meet our space aliens, why don’t we do so with humility andgraciousness. At the very least, we can offer to share our Tobassco Sauce....

Shena Tova U’mtucha

Happy and Sweet New Year

This just in....

2011-09-27T10:15:00.013-04:00

Sir Mick

Of course, it’s an unconfirmed story and completely unverifiable:

A backroom plan to rescue Wall Street investment bankers facing Congressional inquiry for losing nearly fifteen billion dollars by over-leveraging home mortgage debt was diverted by the sudden and unannounced appearance, last week, of Rolling Stones face-man, Mick Jagger.

According to Armchair Afield reporter Sylvia Geranium, who first broke the story, the rock star showed up at a rare tete-a-tete of conservative economists, bankers and lawmakers in Washington.

Jagger’s famous, flamboyant personality caused considerable pandemonium when he appeared at the conference, which was held in a building on Washington, D.C.’s, notorious K Street belonging to a political action committee called the Society of Conservative Republican Evangelical White Men Against Liberal Lifestyles.

A spokesman for SCREW ‘M ALL PAC said that Jagger, who appeared in considerable distress, was apparently looking for someone named Lou. He disrupted the conference so much that the important business at hand had to be completely set aside until the mysterious figure could be located. However, despite the best efforts and intentions, the man was never found, and business was not resumed before the end of the day. Jagger, after utilizing the men’s washroom, disappeared without comment as suddenly as he had appeared.

The Jagger story was picked up by the wire services and conservative talking-heads who wasted no time discrediting Geranium as a sloppy and irresponsible reporter and probably a lesbian. Meanwhile, sales of Armchair Afield have skyrocketed. There has even been talk of book deals for Geranium and appearances on National Public Radio.

The Last Sorcerer - The last one?

2011-06-20T18:33:00.002-04:00

If the title of Michael White’s book Isaac Newton, The Last Sorcerer, isn’t intriguing enough, his suggestions that Sir Isaac anticipated the battle between Einstein’s General Relativity and quantum mechanics is positively jaw-dropping. Furthermore, it was Newton’s interest in alchemy that influenced many of his ideas about gravity.

Newton is, of course, famous for describing gravity as a mathematical equation. According to legend, the idea came to him while watching an apple fall from a tree. Gravitational force, Newton said, is both proportional to the product of the masses of two objects and inversely proportional to square of the distance between them.

Maybe. Newton also invented the system of mathematics, calculus that allowed us to describe gravity and the motions of heavenly bodies.

It is all quite plainly written in Newton’s book The Principia Mathematica. Well, plainly written if you know Latin and can decipher calculus. The Principia is widely recognized as a very difficult book to slog through. Nevertheless, it remains a cornerstone of meticulous scientific endevour and is widely recognized as having literally changed the world.

However, Newton didn’t want it to be widely read. White says that Newton never intended The Principia to be accessible to every starry-eyed, society dim-wit who hadn’t done the math, so to speak. Furthermore, at that point in his life, Newton was deeply protective of his work, almost to the point of paranoia.

An older and more seasoned Newton later wrote a series of books meant for a wider audience. Optics was written in English and avoided most of the complicated math. Presumably, Optics found a wider audience and had greater influence on future generations, White says.

Optics, as its title suggests represents Newton’s exploration of light. These were discussions of some of Newton’s early explorations – but not published until much later. Optics contains ideas which were at the time considered controversial and possibly heretical. They were also some of his most astounding ideas.

For example, Newton suggested that light acts in some respects like gravity. That objects act on it at a distance: “Query 1. Do not bodies act upon light at a distance, and by their action bend its rays; and is not this action....strongest at the least distance?” (White, 289). Of course, it was this very idea that catapulted Einstein to world-wide rock-star status almost exactly 200 years later. Einstein’s General Relativity argues that light rays passing near the sun would be bent by its distortion of space-time: (Einstein’s bowling ball on fabric).

White describes Newton’s meteoric rise from shy socially-awkward, young country gentleman to distinguished professor of mathematics to the certain, authoritarian master of the British mint and president of the British Royal Society of Sciences. Newton was a gaunt, obsessive, haunted, ego-driven man.

He could also be determined, petulent and ruthless in the mastering of his enemies. Nevertheless, Newton contributed far more to our understanding of our universe than the axiom that “an apple doesn’t fall far.”

Imaginative though, he was, Newton was also a disciplined, meticulous thinker. He was also willing to pursue his ideas down any avenue which they might take him. And he pursued them down the road of alchemy.

This is the sort of magician/scientist who sought the philosopher’s stone, sought immortality, tried to turn lead into gold, and all that. Whether or not Newton was successful at those things is not completely clear (he did live to see old age and was quite wealthy when he died, however, we are pretty sure he failed to become immortal).

Nevertheless, many of his ideas, White argues, were heavily influenced by his years standing over the alchemist’s crucible and furnace: “We shall see that his fascination with alchemy was a major influence in the development of his ideas about gravity” (White, 106).

“...It is also clear that he was interested in a synthesis of all knowledge and was a devout seeker of some form of unified theory of the principles of the universe” (IBID). If Newton had one regret, White says, it was that he failed to find such a unified theory of knowledge.

That’s alchemy, White says. It is about more than extended life spans and unimaginable riches. Most alchemists, White says, met their ends at regrettably young ages; the results of laboratory mishaps or the dangerous chemicals they of exposed themselves to. Alchemists often also died poor, having spent what ever pences they might have on expensive chemicals or equipment.

White says that alchemy was an intellectual expression of the quest for a universal truth; an unified theory of everything. The same sort of quest – set in different terms - that sets physicists today to sallivating.

Newton, however, remains one of those enigmatic historical figures we only encounter rarely. He possessed a mind and ambition far and away superior to the people of his day. He also seemed to see and understand things about the universe that most of us could only imagine. Fortunately, we have White’s book to open a window into Newton’s world.

"If you thought God is going to send some people to hell on the basis of a lack of response and the lack of response is hardwired in our genes - that would be troubling."

2011-06-17T11:55:00.135-04:00

If you are looking for old-school journalistic inquiry or scientific discussion about the "spooky action at a distance" of human spirituality, take a gander at Barbara Bradley Hagerty's "Fingerprints of God: The Search for the Science of Spirituality."

The book is a search for God in psyche wards, hospitals, churches, scientific laboratories and personal narratives of the people who inhabit those places.

Hagerty, NPR's religion correspondent, was compelled by her own deeply mystifying and mystical personal experiences and by her apparent journalist's curiosity to ask "If God exists, can you prove it?"

She seeks answers to other questions, as well. For example, if some people are genetically predisposed to communicate better with God, does that mean that God is playing favorites?

More dramatically, as one of her experts suggests: "If you thought God is going to send some people to hell on the basis of a lack of response and the lack of response is hardwired in our genes - that would be troubling."

Hagerty interviews a vast cadre of epileptics, survivors of near-death experiences, mystics, pairs of lovers, and the scientists who study all them - hoping to find someone who can point to a chart or scan and conclusively say: "Yep. That's God right there."

Hagerty was raised as a Christian Scientist, a sect which believes that prayer, rather than medicine is the best cure for the imbalances of life; dis-ease, etc. She describes her grandmother as an accomplished faith healer. She reports her very first encounter with Tylenol as an adult - a mystifying account by itself if only for its utterly plebeian nature to non-Christian Scientists.

What I like about the book is the clear language and exhaustive research. It is a scientific exploration of what spiritual people and the faithful have always known: That the cosmos is grander than than our five senses would have us believe and that we are deeply connected to it.

On the other hand, science and faith are two very different disciplines that both seek to understand the mysteries of the cosmos. Both have very different protocols, methodologies and languages. It seems at times that while seeking the hand of God within strands of DNA, Hagerty is seeking validation for faith from a group of people who are in essence professional skeptics. These are not necessarily unbelievers, as she discovers, but people whose job it is to prove or disprove a hypothesis conclusively.

Are we still arguing about gay marriage? STILL?

2009-11-11T11:30:00.010-05:00

In her story on the outcomes of the recent vote in Maine (Making Sense of Maine), for Newsweek.com, Jessie Ellison questions how voters in that "odd little state at the end of the earth that refuses to conform" voted against gay marriage but for other liberal issues. Her blog-story spawned follow-up commentaries and an endless barrage of comment streams - Including some by yours-truly.

Curmudgeonly armchair readers already know or suspect that I say: "Who cares."

I love this country. It amazes me how much time and effort Americans spend trying to peer into the bedrooms and marriages of the guys down the street. Who cares who the guy down the street marries. That's called gossip and my religious tradition tells me that gossip is a bad BAD thing.

I get to care who I marry; who my children marry; and maybe who my ex marries - if it impacts my children. AND you know what? I'm good with that. Why waste my time with anyone else?

As far as I gather, the liberals got it wrong AND the conservatives got it even more wrong. How about Constitution AND common sense for a change?

By the way... if you want to discuss the economic and social implications of marriage then think about this: A good, strong stable marriage between any two people: Reduces promiscuity; Builds healthy economic growth; Is mentally and emotionally healthy; Is financially efficient; Is good for kids.

As far as I can see... the only folks who get hurt by such a union - again between any two people - is a bunch of myopic, so-last-century guys who think that you are incapable of choosing your own spouse (you should let them choose for you) and the divorce lawyers.

What's the problem?

Electronic Book Burning? Not in my country.

2009-10-22T12:49:00.020-04:00

Alan Kaufman's accusation (appearing in the October,2009 online issue of Evergreen) that E-books and other new technologies have been quietly carrying out a final solution against traditional books has generated some buzz on the internet recently. Yes. Kaufman is very specific in his language. He describes "a silent corporate Krystallnacht decimating the world of literacy."

He hits all of the horrifying and expected notes of the apocalypse of the printed page:

1. Corporations control what people read on their Kindles. The New York Times reported July 19, 2009, that Amazon.com remotely removed certain books from Kindles everywhere. Apparently ignorant of the irony, Amazon.com removed copies of George Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm". The Times story reported that Amazon.com indicated there was some conflict of rights that forced them to "recall" those editions and maybe that's true. Nevertheless, the action sent chills across the publishing world straight to defenders of free press and free speech: Corporations can and will control what we read on our electronic book readers.

2. Google wants to digitize and thereby control the world's books. The BBC reported September 3, 2009, on an agreement between the internet giant and the US Author's Guild and The Association of American Publishers to allow Google to scan books - some still under copyright protection - for the stated purpose of creating a searchable database of literature. Many observers fear that allowing this to happen will grant Google an unassailable monopoly on the world's publishing industry and by extension, the Marketplace of Ideas. The story noted the argument by some that Google should be allowed to proceed simply because they can:

"Google deserves to benefit from having taken the risk of digitizing books when the project's legal status was uncertain and that Google, unlike Microsoft and Yahoo!, has invested millions of dollars in the project and is committed to pushing forward."

3. Ray Bradbury's grim noir, "Fahrenheit 451", depicts a world in which books are burned and life is cheap (see my comments elsewhere in this blog). In Bradbury's dark world, the job of a fireman is to find and burn houses where contraband books are found; there is an endless, abstract war being fought somewhere; and people seek escape through drugs and devices that resemble our own flat screen TVs and IPods.

4. Heinrich Heine's prophetic words: "Where they burn books, they will, in the end, burn human beings too." Heine, a German Jewish poet (1797-1856), wrote those words, according to Wikipedia, in a poem about the buring of the Koran during the Spanish Inquisition.

These points have horrifying implications. Corporations DO want to control what we read; what we think; what we buy. AND they will if we let them.

However, I find Kaufman's rhetoric deeply troubling: "The book is fast becoming the despised Jew of our culture. Der Jude is now Der Book." Equating the Holocaust with capitalist advantage and progress of technology is demeaning to Jews and a disingenuous analogy. I should say here that Kaufman is a Jew. So am I, by the way. Corporations don't seek out and burn books because they are books. Not in my country they don't - not while I live.

Yes. I do agree with him that for the giant corporations that publishing now represents, books ARE little more than a vehicle to generate capital. Corporations burn books because they are inconvenient; because they may lose money; because they may cause people to think for themselves. Corporations, as any good stock holder will tell you, have only one moral imperative: To generate capital by any reasonable or legal means as spelled out in their corporate charter; to serve the interests of the stock holders. By that definition, a book is no more than the proverbial pound of paper - and it burns at exactly 451 degrees Fahrenheit.

Or pound of flesh, as Heine would have it. In my country, we live and die by the Bill of Rights - Freedom of religion, free expression, free press, free association, etc. We viscerally defend these protections against government infringement. Indeed, perhaps it is time to extend these protections against corporate infringement as well.

I suspect that Kaufman missed the key message in Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451". It is the same mistake that I suspect many of my students made when I taught that book as a high school English teacher - and in that mistake lies a kernel of hope.

That is this: Heine's quote is NOT an accurate representation of the theme of Bradbury's book.

The accurate theme in Bradbury's book is this: Governments or corporations burn will books - and by extension, people - because people let them. If people are indifferent or apathetic to what happens around them, governments and corporations will do as they please. You want to save a book? Pick up a pen - write to someone with your complaints. Buy a book. OR dare I even suggest it: READ a book?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Maybe we should rename the :"Bill of Rights". Let's call it "The Bill of Responsibilities." Because if we don't defend the vision of the world that we want to live in, someone else will impose THEIR version of the world on us.

"When you have eliminated the impossible...

2009-05-20T09:32:00.010-04:00

...Whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth."

That little paean to Okham's Razor was given to us by Mr. Sherlock Holmes, Consulting Detective - whose creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was born 150 years ago today - May 22.

The very first Sherlock Holmes novel "A Study In Scarlet" opens with the introduction in a chemistry lab of Dr. John Watson to Holmes.

"You have been in Afghanistan, I perceive," Holmes immediately concludes.

Of course the Afghanistan to which Holmes refers is the 1878 campaign of the British Empire to secure its colonies in South Asia - notably India. Watson had served briefly as a medical doctor and was discharged after taking a bullet to the shoulder.

But exactly how Holmes deduces Watson's history as he shakes his hand for the first time is the very first mystery.

It's a mystery that we've had 122 years to puzzle out.

At the same time, in the opening pages of "A Study In Scarlet," we meet Holmes having just perfected a chemical test that detects the presence of blood.

Forensic science actually does have a test like that - You can see it used all the time on CSI. It's a presumptive test for blood called the Kastle-Meyer test. It can determine that a substance is either 1. Not blood or 2. Probably blood.

Of interest, the Kastle-Meyer test works in a manner very nearly described by Holmes in "A Study In Scarlet" published in 1887. According to Wikipedia, Kastle-Meyer was first described in 1903.

This tells us two things: First, by the time Kastle-Meyer came in to general use by police labs, the mystery-reading public had already seen its like in the pages of detective fiction.

Second: Conan Doyle had somehow encountered the idea at least 16 years before. And though he had himself been a medical doctor by training, it seems rather far fetched to suppose that he dreamed up the idea of the test - else we would remember him today for something other than his greatest creation.

More likely, Conan Doyle had encountered the idea for the test during his research for his novel at a time when the test was unproven. Likely he prodded along its acceptance in forensic science labs, though.

Of course, we really don't need a discussion here about the contributions to crime fiction that Conan Doyle made. Deductive reasoning prompts us at a murder scene to ask about motive and opportunity. Inductive reasoning allows us to put assemble the clues and form a hypothesis about whodunit.

And by the way, Sherlock Holmes never speculated that master of crime fiction cliches: "The butler did it...."

Happy Birthday, Arthur Conan Doyle!!

American Minhag

2009-04-22T13:35:00.003-04:00

Edmund Bletchley glanced at the clock on the table next to his bed as he rifled through the dwindling number of socks spaghettied in his sock drawer. He was going to be late (again) if he didn’t hurry. He found two socks that appeared to match, sniffed them to make sure they were clean, and deciding that they were, offered thanks to the Creator of the Universe for helping him make shiddock – a match – of two socks: Baruch Hashem.

Bletchley pulled the black, woolen fabric over his feet and wondered - as he did everyday - whether it was appropriate to involve the most Supreme to help him find his footwear. “Of course,” he further mused, “if it were that big of a deal, maybe next time, the Author of Everything would grant him the care to match his socks when he got them out of the dryer to begin with.” . . . But that seemed far less likely.

Why I hate Freak Season

2008-12-19T12:35:00.005-05:00

Freak Season in Cincinnati: From my office window, I look out over the bleak grey street running between the bleak grey buildings, underneath the bleak grey sky. Think Frank Miller graphic novel turned film noir with all the drama of stale bread. You get a monochromatic backdrop - Cincinnati is grey from late November to mid-February - inhabited by bleak people shuffling along like zombies that have been disposessed of all their caffeine. I hate this time of year.

Its supposed to be the holiday season: Christmas tree lights blur in the drizzling rain and wreaths that don't really smell like pine. Lights that are cold-lit white and fuzzy. Sort of like little blobs of day-glo cotton candy.

Christmas carols blurt from all the stores - like commercial jingles inviting people to come spend money that - especially this year - they don't have. I especially like the remakes of old classics - the ones that have an upbeat, pop-tempo. The ones that remind us how little time there is to shop and how much there is to do before year's end. Every one seems to be freaked out.

Stress is high this time of year. Who really finishes all the things on their wish list of noisome tasks in time to enjoy the holiday? Relationships end.

Gawd, this is depressing. Sounds like a Chris Isaak song - the soundtrak for that Frank Miller movie/stale bread drama thing.

I wanna go buy presents for all the people I don't talk to anymore - and all the ones I do. I wanna go buy toys for my daughter - watch her smile warm entire rooms. I wanna go light some candles of my own - the kind with bright orange flames that are warm and certain - the kind that promise there is gonna be another one tomorrow night to brighten the dark.

The 700 Billion Clue

2008-09-25T11:06:00.010-04:00

Dear Senator:

I would like to applaud the concerns that various Senators have about this great transfer of wealth from Main Street to Wall Street, but I am mad as hell about enslaving my children to Bush debt – the current “Wall Street 9/11” - plus the Iraq War - plus the Bush tax cuts.

No one has discussed the additional - additional burden on tax payers that inflation would bring if the Treasury printed up $700 billion more and threw it around.

Unemployment has been rampant AND real wages have NOT increased. But money will continue to be cheap to borrow. That just means that real people will be tempted to borrow more to pay for their ever-more-expensive, basic needs.

This stinks: Bush Republicans asked us to throw pallets stacked with cash at the Iraqis and now Iraqis won't take responsibility for their own country. Now, Bush Republicans want us to throw pallets stacked with cash at Wall Street, and "hope" they take responsibility for their actions?

Why can't we use pallets stacked with cash to rebuild this Great Nation of our very own? Oh yea. Because conservative Republicans HATE non-rich people.

Respectfully,

Brian L. Meyers.

Aware.... but not afraid

2008-04-10T14:22:00.010-04:00

I let my daughter - she's 7 - go for her first hike by herself in the woods behind Grandma's house. I used to play in those woods when I was a kid. Now, it's her turn.

Ok, so you are thinking "what sort of weirdo lets his little daughter go play in the woods? Didn't you ever read Red Riding Hood?" Or, what if she got lost?

Well, I did arm her with a compass and an emergency whistle and taught her how to use both. I packed her a snack and made sure she wore a hat. Hey, she's a girl scout and needs to learn to be prepared. If she gets lost in the woods for a couple of hours, big deal, right? Anyway, a kid needs to learn to be aware but not afraid.

Oh pooh. We've been so inundated by cheesey television dramas like CSI and Criminal Minds that we' actually believe there must be psycho killers behind every dammed tree. Or maybe our fear is a leftover from our humble protestant-pilgrim heritage - you know the one that gave us Arthur Miller's "The Crucible"? Taught us to fear the forest because therein lurks Ole' Scratch or the big bad wolf?

Anyway, did I mention, that I tracked her the whole way? That she was never more than 100 yards away from me - even though I couldn't see her the whole time. Well, eventually, she doubled back and caught me watching her. Her disappointment of "Daddy! Why did you follow me? I wanted to be by myself." Was replaced by fascination: "How did you find me?"

"Well, babygirl," says I. "Remember when I taught you about following deer tracks? or dog tracks? or raccoons? Well, it also works for tracking little kids." The trails were indeed muddy that day from all the rain we've had recently. Made my job that much easier - it was kind of a game.

She insisted I show her the tracks she had made. "Lift your foot," I replied.

Anyway, the scariest thing in the woods is her daddy. And I've told her that. But remember, that's no comment about my own delusions of grandeur - I'm not a soldier, stalker or psycho. I'm simply a fiercely determined parent. I know those woods. There is really very little in the suburban greenbelt to be afraid of except maybe poison ivy, a few non-poisonous snakes, and the neighbor's dog.

Although, come to think of it, I did hear a howl that was vaguely canine. It sounded improbably like a coyote or wolf. But it was midday, and the call wasn't repeated or answered. I wasn't concerned. My daughter didn't hear it. Maybe it really was the BBW to come huffin' and puffin' . . .

It's regrettable that kids don't get to play in the woods much anymore. That parents are too frightened to let them. I am proud that my daughter is fascinated by the natural world. It's a hallmark of a curious, creative mind.

Heisenberg is coming to Passover

2008-04-07T10:34:00.034-04:00

Passover is upon us once again. This year, Heisenberg is coming to Passover and he has changed my thinking on the Jewish holiday.

In years past, I thought that the Passover Seder, the ritual meal, was mystical. The Seder is comprised of fourteen mini-rituals which, if assembled well, comprise a mystical experience.

The mini-rituals of the Passover Seder include matzo, the famous four questions, four glasses of wine and the telling of the Exodus story - best remembered by the movie starring Charlton Heston as Moses. Heston, by the way, died yesterday at his home in Beverly Hills. He was 84.

The word Seder in Hebrew means order. The mini-rituals come in a particular order: Number 1, bless the wine. Number 2, ritual washing of the hands. Number 3, dip the parsley in salt water. Etc. The word Seder also means order in the sense of making order from chaos.

After all, doesn't the very idea of "ritual" suggest some sort of order imposed?

If your family is like mine, order from chaos is a Herculean task (oops, did I just make a reference to something Greek?) If your family is anything like mine, there are children squirming in their seats; Uncle Bob always gets impatient to get on with it (when is it time to eat?); the last glass of wine never gets finished because peoples' attentions wane after all the eating and drinking; and by the way, "who has the Afikomen? - Can't finish the Seder without it."

Pursuing the mystical satisfaction of that perfect Seder requires zealous devotion - a fiery passion best given to younger people than I. When my daughter was born, that mystical pursuit was subordinated to thinking about how I would teach her - of not forgetting that kids being kids necessarily brings us back to the world from ritual meditation.

Heisenberg? Oh yea. Almost forgot. Enter Heisenberg. The traditional heroes of the Passover story are Moses, his brother Aaron, sister Miriam and the prophet Elijah- for whom we open our doors and pour a fifth glass of wine.

This year, I would like to also pour a glass for Werner Heisenberg. He wasn't, by the way, a Jew. He did win a Nobel Prize for physics in 1932 for his work in quantum physics. In 1926 he published a paper which introduced his Uncertainty Principle.

The Uncertainty Principle states, very simply, that the act of observation (of an electron for example) might change the behavior of that which is being observed. In other words, because of the interplay between the light needed to see an electron and the electron itself, the course of the electron might change. Heisenberg concluded that the location, speed and direction of an electron at any point can be described accurately by a matrix of possibilities rather than a single certainty. Hence, electrons orbit in "clouds". Hence, the Uncertainty Principle.

Heisenberg's theory wrecked empirical science - even if he did clarify the confusion of parents (just exchange the word "children" for "electron" in that last paragraph and it will make sense). Heisenberg, after all, had seven of them (kids, not electrons).

That is, despite all of our intent to impose order on the universe by describing it through experiment and observation, there are mysteries we still must fudge. That sometimes we simply cannot make order out of that which we observe.

I might add that my friend Charles Darwin was likely trying to impose order on his observations about the immense diversity of life when he developed his theories of evolution.

Anyway, the pursuit of the perfect Seder - imposing perfect order on the universe is at best, uncertain.

I don't mean to diminish the majesty of Passover or the meticulousness of Darwin's thinking when I say that I find it comforting that despite our best efforts, there is only so much we can do to impose order on our world. Heisenberg gave us scientific permission to be awed by the mysteries in our universe, despite our best efforts to solve them. We must still try to solve them. That is our nature. And they must still continue to elude us. That is just nature.

Happy Passover.

The parable of the traveling rock

2008-04-01T14:35:00.006-04:00

I walked into the Divey Diner in downtown Moody. I gotta latte and sat down uninvited across from a girl who was reading a travel guide for Sophia, Bulgaria.

She looked up, startled by my forwardness. "Just a minute," I said. "If you are about to set off on your travels, take this with you." She was really cute and apparently preparing to see the world.

"I would like to give you this. This rock. To take on your journeys." It was a pebble - polished agate, like they used to make marbles out of.

She accepted it reluctantly with a raised eyebrow - clearly expecting explanation. My explanation was this:

This rock has two meanings. Carry it with you always.

First, let it symbolize kindness. Always be willing to accept kindness in the manner it was intended. As you travel through this world, you will meet people who are able and willing and perhaps even eager to show you kindness and hospitality. Sometimes, the help they offer is something you really need. Sometimes, a weird piece is the last piece you need for the puzzle. Never be afraid to accept it with gratitude and grace.

I traveled in Japan for 10 months. That was near on 15 years ago. I met a fellow on the train in Tokyo - an American. From California. He was on some sort of exchange to volunteer with the Japanese Diet (congress). Not only did he offer to let me sleep on his couch for two weeks, but he eventually put me in touch with the guy I roomed with until it was time to leave Japan.

The girl and the pebble: The pebble has a second meaning. Maybe it comes with a hidden obligation. Like an anchor that has a cable attached. Like kharma. It may become a heavy burden. After all, why would anyone wanna carry around some old rock that some guy in a coffee shop is willing to unload for nothing?

If that becomes the case, recycle it. If the pebble is a burden, do not set it down. Do not throw it away. Instead, give it away: Offer it as a gift to someone else. Maybe it's the last weird piece of their puzzle.

Offer them what ever help or wisdom you might have - and the rock along with it. For it is a traveling rock and if it is offered in kindness, perhaps one day it may find its way back to you.

[ED: Yea, just watch out it don't come back to you by way of a fast pitch.]

Forty is the new 15

2008-03-27T11:17:00.002-04:00

I dreampt last night that I visited Disneyworld. In my dream, I met a woman and her college-aged daughter who was hoarding those mini-bottles of alcohol - the kind they serve on airline flights. The girl was going to take her stash back to school.

"Gosh," I said. "I haven't done that in... uhm... 20 years. (Has it been that long?)"

I don't think I ever really hoarded mini-bottles of alcohol, but it was my dream. But it was nearly twenty years ago when I was at college; when I was fascinated by alcohol.

Forty is the new fifteen. I've been pressing that argument for the past three months. It usually results in a smile - followed by a look of incredulous incomprehension - followed by a smirk.

But saying that being 40 of today is like being a kid again is not only missing the point, but it's feeding into the cult of youth. You know the one that says you gotta be young to be fresh and cool.

Packaged luncheon meat is still fresh and cool when it's in its 20s.

But I"m not luncheon meat. Older guys have wisdom and it's no good to pretend to be a kid. And anyway, who would wanna be?

Instead, let me suggest that 40 is the new 40. Doesn't have to mean I'm an old fart, just that I've aged - well as is the case.

Here lies one whose name was writ in water

2008-03-07T10:45:00.011-05:00

It has been brought to my attention that John Keats might object to my indictment of his masculinity in the previous post.

I would just like to make clear that my comment was made in the purest sense of crotchetiness and cynicism based on my own condition of having been recently diagnosed as chronologically challenged.

Of course, such was not a condition the great poet himself ever reached. Keats died young of the great twin wasters of poets and thinkers throughout history: Poverty and tuberculosis. I have already surpassed him in age but not in achievement.

Furthermore I, of all people, being one of very few individuals who has had his name writ on the rosters of both boy scouts and girl scouts, as well as the roster of un-reformed English majors, is in no position to comment on Keats except in jest. Something the man might appreciate. In the final tally, my own masculinity is in no danger from my circumstances, nor is Keats from my comments.

Of course, you don't need my opinion of Keat's poetry, for I have nothing of merit to note. Except for this: Let me state for the record that not enough people read Keats anymore and the world is made plainer and sorrier for it.

In the meanwhile, dear reader, if you recognized the obvious spoof on Keats "Ode on a Grecian Urn," thank an English teacher.

I would just like to take a moment to say....

2008-03-05T14:49:00.003-05:00

Rapsberries to Keats "Ode on a Grecian Turn": "Beauty is youth, youth is beauty. That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." Hubris to be sure, but the youth of today would have us believe it.

Raspberries I say!

I wrote the above on the occasion of my older brother's birthday. Now that I've joined the legion of Over 40's, I would like to say for the record that Keats is a pansy.

I wish I knew everything now that I knew then.

Being 40 is gonna be an awesome time. I am older to be sure, but wiser and still able - still full of spit and vinegar - ok, so I hafta watch the heartburn now. And only one box of girl scout cookies in a sitting - ok. ok. ok. cholesterol, yea I know - two cookies then. One? Exercise?

Forty is gonna be awesome. You get to do things you've never done before - I'm not quite sure what those things are - but I get to do them.

The little green faery

2008-03-05T14:03:00.008-05:00

"The little green faery" It's a common moniker for Absinthe, a distillate potion flavored with a variety of spices including wormwood, which kinda rolls off the tongue like "graveyard dust".

Absinthe is also commonly shunned in many places because it has a reputation for taking consumers down very dark roads indeed. Van Gogh, Oscar Wilde, and Hemmingway were well known Absinthe drinkers and, well, look what happened to them.

I have a little green faery and it's NOT Absinthe. It's Better. Safer. It is, however, hypnotic and absorbs my attention. In some respects, it tames my attention from the need to wander. It's called IPod nano - Green (of course). I recently acquired it (thanks, mom and dad) and I love it.

Finally, I can think and work - concentrate, even - with out all the petty intrusions and distractions from the environment. AND there is nothing like wearing an IPod that says to people "Go away and don't bug me - I'm tryin' to get something done here."

That includes a certain annoying, little, internal editor who bugs me about the propriety of every single written word. He is now drowned out by the dulcet guitar riffs of the Cure or the Rolling Stones and the steady rap-tap-tap of the drum trap saying get back on task.

My little green faery now lives in my shirt pocket. You should get one. An IPod. They are hip. Hoppin'. And very cool.

Your guide book to the spirit worlds?

2008-02-12T13:37:00.003-05:00

Graham Hancock's latest book, SUPERNATURAL, requires a very open mind - open like a barn door - to entertain the central premise: That plant derived psychedelic drugs might have provided the vehicle for ancient shamans - and modern joes - to travel to other planes of existence and have encounters with cosmic personalities.

Furthermore, he explores a thread common to stories of UFO abductions, encounters with fairies and other small folk, and shamans of ancient cultures who could travel to the spirit world in search of medical knowledge.

Remember Washington Irving's story of Rip Van Winkle? The lazy man who went hiking in the Catskills and encountered the little people? He drank with them and ended up sleeping for twenty years. When he finally awoke and returned home, his wife was dead and his children grown.

If Hancock is to be believed, Irving's story is similar to a phenomenon which has been plaguing humanity for more than 40,000 years and which may be responsible for the origins of modern religions and for other bizarre or mystical happenings.

However, you can enjoy Hancock's work without necessarily buying into his findings. He is a former reporter for The Economist and brings to his work all of the healthy habits of traditional journalism: curiosity, careful reporting and some measure of healthy skepticism.

It just so happens that he chooses really weird subjects to write about. He has written a number of controversial titles including THE SIGN AND THE SEAL, a search for the Ark of the Covenant - which by the way, he did not find; and FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS, which explores the mysteries of the ancient pyramids.

I like Hancock's books. They remind us that there ARE indeed mysteries left in the world. Furthermore, they provide a counterpoint to the equally fantastic, orthodox fairy tales too often spoon-fed us. It may well be that we don't want to believe Hancock only because his fairy tales are different from the ones we've heard before.

on the eve of four decades....

2008-02-12T11:41:00.000-05:00

Ok, just one moment for blushing sentimentality. It is the eve of my birthday, after all. Forty. Believe it! In honor of the occasion, I have one reservation (well, two if you count dinner). I promise renewed vigor on the blog front. So tune in here, folks, for commentary on all things great and small. Cheers!

THE PLANET TILTING SWIFTLY

2007-09-07T17:48:00.001-04:00

Madeleine L'engle, 88, author of the Newberry Award winning book "A Wrinkle In Time", died Thursday in Connecticut.

L'Engle whose work is an inspiration because it bends the imagination as much as it bends time and space, wrote more than 60 books.

"A Wrinkle in Time" is the first of a series of four books in which Meg Murray and her telepathic little brother, Charles Wallace, must learn to tesseract - warp the fabric of space and time - to rescue their missing father.

I'm older now. It's been several years since I've read "A Wrinkle in Time". My imagination is more fleeting than fleet anymore; more mired than nimble; more interested in stretching a paycheck than stretching time and space.

Summer has gone as well. Gone also are the old fashioned summer days when you could lay in the cool grass, stare up at the clouds in the sky and make an ant crawl the distance of a blade of grass stretched between your hands.

If the grass is stretched out straight, the ant has a longer way to go. If you bring your hands together, making a wrinkle, a ripple in the grass blade, the ant has not so far to go.

This is how L'Engle described a "tesseract" - bending space and time to make a long journey short.

The passage of time is a long journey made short, and we never notice - Not until something is taken from us.

Then all we can do is wonder.
L'Shenah Tova Tikatevu - Be inscribed in the Book of Life for a good year.

On to the BOOK EXPO!

2007-05-10T22:39:00.000-04:00

So, the blog sort of fell off during the school year. I spent my time writing detention slips instead of blog bits. No longer. It's blogging season.

It's about time to bid adieu to the old school. Summer vacation is right around the corner. This is the time of year when teachers really like being a teacher.

Well, teachers except for me - Sadly, I won't be returning next year (I think some kid googled me and told their parents about my picture of Che Gueverra).

I don't wanna talk about it, though.

Instead: The Book Expo of America is almost here! This year it's in fabulous New York City and I am going.

So, mes chers amis, return to this spot often and forthwith. Look for exciting details, Recounting tales! Counting titles! Courting opportunity! And all manner of lexicogriphal mischief!

The last refuge for out of work intellectuals...

2007-02-06T09:23:00.000-05:00

The stock market.

It it's a throw-away line from a book my students might have read last week. Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is fast becoming one of my favorites. It's a grim noir, sci-fi parable about a world in which firemen start fires and books are burned. They are burned, not just because the government made them illegal, but because people couldn't be bothered reading them anymore.

The resulting culture in the book is made up of self absorbed people who tune the world out through technological distractions that resemble flat-screen TVs and IPODs and who casually make habits out of abortion and overdosing on sleeping pills. Life is cheap: "disposable tissue" With good reason, I suppose. They are engaged in a never-ending war against some nefarious, indeterminate foe.

Let me say right now that this little grimmoir was written in the intercession of Nazi book burning in the 30s and 40s and the heyday of censorship during the Cold War. So, while it's doubtful George Bush read it either, all the book needs is an update on the USA PATRIOT Act and our journey to the dark side is complete.

Apparently, many of the students in my class didn't get that irony: Many of them didn't bother to read the assignment.

In Fahrenheit, a character named Faber, a retired English professor, was turned out of his job because students stopped signing up for his classes and university English departments were closed.

The last refuge comment is one I didn't bother to point out to the kids. As I said, it's a throw away line - you either get it or you don't. It's not funny enough to bother with explaining.

Anyway, it's also a line I may follow.

Bush has only one answer for every question

2007-02-04T12:08:00.000-05:00

DATELINE IDIOTSVILLE: King George. He now wants another $250 million for Iraq because the Halliburton contractors are running out of graft and may be forced to retreat from their five-star digs.

Bush wants more troops to be sent (Finally. But it's a day late and too many dollars) -- Yes, the man who consistantly refused to put enough troops on the ground before -- now wants more. He thinks we should escalate.

The American people went to the polls and gave him a clear mandate: Get out. (I think they meant Iraq, but they could have meant get out of the White House, too.)

In his most recent State of the Union address, Bush persisted in speaking at length about the war in Iraq. I think that is meant to indicate that he thinks Iraq is part of the Union. Afterall, the mess in New Orleans was not even mentioned, suggesting that he thinks they aren't part of the Union - or maybe doesn't want them to be.

Polar bears are falling through the arctic ice, and Bush is the last man in America to think that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by Zippo weilding liberals. Well, no. Zippo weilding realists really just want to return decency and sanity to the White House.

It's one thing to be stupid. But it's something else to be stupid and recalcitrant.

We do know that Bush has remarkably few tools in his intellectual arsenal. After six years of the Bush Error, the American people have seen enough and have said so.

Even so, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. That about hits the nail on the head.

On September 11 at school

2006-09-11T21:56:00.000-04:00

The kids I teach were mostly 10 or 11 on September 11, 2001. Mostly the accounts they gave today in class recollected the news accounts of "an airplane that flew into the World Trade Center." Some saw the events unfold on televisions in classrooms. Others apparently didn't find out until they got home later that day.

One young lady was very concerned for a family member currently serving in Iraq. Another Still believes strongly that George W. Bush has done good things for the country, though she couldn't say exactly what those were.

Look, politics aside - you know what I think about Mr. Bush - none of these kids had any point of reference for understanding how exactly that tragedy changed their world.

They don't have a reference or awareness yet of the USA PATRIOT ACT. They also don't have any understanding of the ferocity of the people who want to kill Americans.

These kids don't know who their true enemies are. They don't yet understand that billions of people around the world would like to have what they have. They sit in a classroom in suburban Ohio not realizing what's in store for them.

Get out of Iraq and sucker the mullahs all at once

2006-09-04T20:16:00.000-04:00

The late John Kenneth Galbraith, economist to presidents, published his most famous book "The Affluent Society" forty five years before Prince George's (Bush) misguided, 2003 adventure in Iraq. Galbraith was obviously no stranger to the nuances of the dismal science (economics), but he also had something to say about common sense, or atleast the conventional wisdom. What he said still holds true today:

Conventional wisdom, Galbraith writes, is a view of the world served up by pols and pundits according to what their constituent audiences already believe. It confirms their preconceived notions and opinions. In other words, tell the people what they want to hear, and they will believe you.

But conventional wisdom is finally made obsolete, Galbraith finds, by "the march of events." In otherwords, facts on the ground eventually overwhelm people's self congratulatory delusions. However, it often takes quite some time for this to happen. Possibly, far after the fact.

Anyway, it's time for the conventional wisdom about Iraq to go away. People need to stop believing that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are doing a smashing job leading the troops in Iraq; That we could still win! That we dare not allow Iraq to sink into civil war.

You heard me: bugger that. The march of events has now made the conventional wisdom on Iraq foolish.

We have lost big. We have now lost more servicemen in Iraq than civilians in 9-11. This on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the tragedy, according to a CNN report.

We need to pack it up and ship out. But before we leave, let's make sure someone else loses bigger. Let's pass the buck.

Iraq is already a civil war. It is a civil war between Shia Sneetches who have bellies with stars and Sunni Sneetches who have none upon thars.

We need a Sylvester McMonkey McBean - the Fix-it-up Chappie (ala Dr. Seuss) - to sucker the mullahs and the terrorists into stepping into that quagmire.

So, let's get our brave men and women out of Iraq. And, let's let the Iranians, the Saudis and the Syrians have a go at filling the power vacuum by sending in their brave soldiers. We could slow Iranian nuclear ambitions, drain their national coffers and clean up the bugsquat that is Al Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah all at once. Oh, and we could wipe that smug look off of Old King Saud's face. The ungrateful bum.

If we play both sides against the middle, we never worry about terrorism again. Let's have the terrorists fight the war on terror for once - the only people they hate more than us is themselves. Let's let them kill themselves. Then we can mop up whatever is left.

Conventional wisdom. Bugger that.

Elbow connected to the brain bone

2006-08-24T22:03:00.000-04:00

You may know that I began the school year. Today was my second day as a high school English teacher at Finneytown High School.

Already, one young man was in-school-suspension'd from my classroom. Hey, it was his choice. Otherwise, most of the kids I see seem to be great kids. Overall, I think I'm really going to enjoy working there.

We began organizing journals right away. I'm going to emphasize journal writing ala Peter Elbow. In case you didn't know, Elbow wrote "Writing without teachers" and "Writing with power." Ironically, Elbow is somebody I first encountered not in one of two graduate degree programs, nor even in undergrad. I first read Elbow in high school - thanks in fact to my high school English teacher.

Oddly enough, It could be one thing like that book that could be enough to inspire a kid. Keep that in mind. Anyway, I recommend Elbow highly.

The Last Refuge of the Incompetent

2006-08-15T00:51:00.000-04:00

"The Empire will vanish and all its good with it. Its accumulated knowledge will decay and the order it has imposed will vanish. Interstellar wars will be endless; intersellar trade will decay population will decline; worlds will lose touch with the main body of the Galaxy..."

So rests the fate of the Galactic Empire, according to Isaac Azimov's "prophet", Hari Seldon in FOUNDATION.

And in the face of microcosmic decay (the house is definately in need of being cleaned), mounting deadlines and midnight chorus of crickets, I have just finished reading it (again). I love that book.

Asimov's novel about the death and hope of the Galactic Empire is considered a foundational work (if you'll pardon the pun) of science fiction. But the book is compelling for a number of reasons. The titular Foundation is a small colony located on a fringe planet of the galaxy called Terminus. Its mission is to preserve knowledge and technology through the dark ages of the empire's decline and to use them eventually to usher in a new era of united galactic government. Small and unarmed, it must solve and survive a number of episodic crises involving its greedy, beligerent neighbors if it is to end the interregnum.

The Foundation is forced to use technological, economical and sociological forces to bring to heel its would-be conquerors because it simply lacks a military option. The characters are clever, cunning and compelling politically as they puzzle out solutions to the crises.

A recurring theme of the book comes from Foundation Mayor Salvor Hardin's motto: "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Of course, it would be easy to dismiss the Hardin character as some weak-willed pacifist. Indeed, each episodic leader of the Foundation faces the temptation to press an obvious technological advantage in battle - none of the other planets, for example, remember how to harness and maintain nuclear power. Instead, however, they choose solutions which, not only avoid armed conflict, but also solidify the political power of the Foundation among the planets of the fringes.

Every time I read this book, I am struck by the idea that military adventurism is the last refuge of the incompetent; that "every blaster can be pointed both ways". This is the curse of countries with superior militaries: they feel compelled to rely on them. It is, however, a simple truism: Ground wars are not winnable.

No conventional army has subdued a hostile guerrilla force through military supremacy without paying a price disproportionate to the gain. Not in Viet Nam. Not in Chechnya. Not in Afghanistan. Not in Gaza or South Lebanon. Not in India. Or Ethiopia. Not in the American Colonies. Not in the Roman war in 90 C.E. against the Jews described by Josephus.

The war in Iraq is wrong because better solutions could have/should have been found. Israel's war with Hezbollah is wrong because it has weakened global perception that Israel's military is unbeatable and won them essentially nothing. (There will be no long term peace there. The IDF will return to Southern Lebanon before my daughter goes to high school.) The coming war between the United States and Iran is wrong because the United States can not afford it - and, furthermore, we should not have to.

We should send a copy of Azimov's book to every member of Congress and Israel's Knesset. Send one to George Bush? Why - He doesn't read anyway.

The Pirates' Code

2006-08-03T22:16:00.000-04:00

Anti-evolution, hardline conservatives lost control of the Kansas State Board of Education in a primary election there last week (please hold all applause until I'm finished).

I smell a change in the wind, says I.

Maybe this is the bellweather for wrenching free from the clutch the Christian Right has on chesnuts of this country.

Kansas: incumbent Connie Morris, who had once been a school teacher, lost her bid for re-election. She had described evolution as "an age-old fairy tale" and "a nice bedtime story."

She believes that "intelligent design," on the other hand, is true, faith-based, scientific method.

These people have argued for years that "intelligent design" is as legitimate a scientific theory as that posed by Old Man Darwin; That "intelligent design" belongs in a science classroom along side of or better yet, in place of evolution.

By playing the equivalence card, these people have pirated scientific inquiry by dressing up a faith-based idea as science. In essence, they have robbed the marketplace of ideas by selling faked Guccis.

Darwin's ideas might be a little provincial for contemporary genetic wonderkinds, but you can't fault the man for advancing our understanding of empirical science as well as biology and evolution. For his time, his thinking was meticulous and methodical.

Its fundamentalist ideologues like Morris who are the ones setting scientific inquiry back to the age of fable. It is horrific to think these people have been teaching our children.

Seriously though, I'm wondering what exactly these people - the Pat Robertsons, the Billy Grahams, the Ralph Reeds, and well, Morris have done for anyone anyway. Have they done anything to actually help people? Of course not. They are only interested in stuffing their recalcitrant dogma down everyone's throat.

"Intelligent design" is the truth, they say. Any dissent or disagreement is nothing less than mutiny. Godless liberals are made to walk the plank. Then rise up, ye scallawags - just like they did in Kansas.

The prevailing metaphor for free speech in this country was established by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in 1919. In a dissenting opinion in Abrams V. US, Holmes wrote: "...the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market..."

Well, guess what: The marketplace of ideas has once again dumped these people on a spit of land shrinking in the distance while the ship of state sails off and they are left with nothing but a call on the wind: "Ha Ha!"

Never fear, though. These loonies will be back. Somewhere, they will sail in and strike under the cover of the full moon - when we least expect it. Like the sequel to a bad movie, they follow the pirates' code: "Take what you can. Give nothing back!"

I say: "Argghh! And good riddance to them!"

Happy birthday, big brother.

2006-07-16T23:20:00.000-04:00

Facing 40 and miffed because you haven't made your mark on the world? Maybe you're older - you're over the hill and you think that genius is synonymous with youth? You've missed your chance? My brother turned 40, Friday. I'm not too far behind.

Rapsberries to Keats "Ode on a Grecian Turn": "Beauty is youth, youth is beauty. That is all ye know on earth and all ye need to know." Hubris to be sure, but the youth of today would have us believe it.

No. There is still hope for us old farts according to Daniel H. Pink. His story, "What Kind of Genius are You?" in the July edition of Wired Magazine declares that genius comes in two varieties: The guys who bloom early - the prodigies - like Mozart, Picasso and F. Scott Fitzgerald. And there are the guys who bloom later: Mark Twain, Beethoven, Alfred Hitchcock, me - and, well you, too.

Ok, that was just to see if you were paying attention. Of course, I'm a late bloomer. No one, except you has heard of me yet. Ergo, I must be a late bloomer. You must be too.

Well, really the point of Pink's story, is that genius is not just a game for the young. But then, I would be skeptical that there are only the two kinds of intelligent people. Isaac Asimov wrote well into his nineties. John Kenneth Galbraith did as well. Both men are from vastly different disciplines.

As I said, Keats be dammed.

Why Orwell Matters

2006-07-14T17:48:00.000-04:00

On the occassion of the belated birthday of George Orwell, June 24, I picked up Christopher Hitchens 2002 book, "Why Orwell Matters". Given the current political climate in this country: a vaguely sinister, perpetual war in far away places; government suspicion; distrust; fear; spying on Americans; imperial presidency - one might imagine that the father of doublespeak would make every one's short list of favorite google subjects.

It's not that Orwell admired oral political mire. Rather, from a writer's point of view, it seemed he was more interested in playing with language. Perhaps. He was a writer's writer - Almost like a British Hemmingway - A Rudyard Kipling antidote. (A who? A what?)

Note: Hemmingway, the archetypal American writer, lived in Cuba and associated with Castro (There are SOME idiosyncracies). Hemmingway also had five wives and cats with extra toes, by the way. Idiosyncracies, as there are with Orwell. Hitchens writes: "Thus, the Orwell who is regarded by some as being as English as roast beef and warm beer is born in Bengal and published his first articles in French."

From Hitchens' point of view, Orwell was a counter-colonialist Brit who allowed himself to be claimed by neither wholely the left or the right. In that respect, he was a true Hitchens' style hero. Hitchens' own political leanings are as vague as the sexual appetites of a certain pirate captain who is making waves these days.

Anyway, it's clear, then, without a book why Orwell (should) matter today. We've read "Animal Farm" and "1984". Just because those are SO last century, doesn't mean they aren't prescient today (where's my dammed dictionary). What's not clear is why Hitchens' book matters. Even for us literary geeks - the book is full of names that don't even make this schoolboy's list of household names. It's all so Kafka-esque.

Anyway, happy birthday, George.

Daddy's gone a gardenin'

2006-06-24T22:42:00.000-04:00

This is my house.
You can see it had a lovely garden.
The garden was quite attractive to buggers and thieves.

This is my favorite gardening tool.
I got it from my neighbor.
He lets me use it if I promise not to chop off my extremities.

You can tell that my roses will be lovely this year.

It's about scionic MBAs who syllababble

2006-06-23T15:01:00.000-04:00

MBA may not be all THAT. Of course, if you had invested time and effort into acheiving an MBA, perhaps you would have people believe YOU are the sine quai non of decision making efficiency.

Perhaps, you may be, but not because of your degree.

In a story published in the June, 2006, The Atlantic Monthly titled "The Management Myth," author and management consultant Matthew Stewart argues that a study of philosophy would be more profitable.

Stewart's claim is in essence that study of philosophy leads to better understanding of ethics, morality and decision making than the case history style of inquiry that models management education. Let us say, for the record, that Stewart has a doctorate in philosophy.

He writes: "The impression I formed of the M.B.A. experience was that it involved taking two years out of your life and going deeply into debt, all for the sake of learning how to keep a straight face while using phrases like 'out-of-the-box thinking,' 'win-win situation,' and 'core competencies.'"

Stewart's arguments are dead on that professional degrees institutionalize self aggrandizing jargon. (Let's not exclude advanced education degrees from that, by the way.)

Furthermore, he has "plowed" through the shiny tomes of management theory and his comment on them was this: he'd rather be reading Heidigger.

Interesting ideas. As a teacher, I would love to make every kid read Plato or some of those dreadfully obtuse German thinkers that Stewart says he is so fond of. AND, I would love to see political parties guided by enlightened thinkers - of whatever stripe - not governed by scionic MBAs who can barely string together two multisyllabical words, much less consider complex ideas.

On the other hand, reading management theory books after finishing a doctorate in philosophy is sort of like flying paper airplanes after you've worked at NASA for twenty years. It sounds like fun, but it's a little slow. At the same time, you can't underestimate the value that us less-enlightened mortals get from reading anything.

In anycase, a philosophy doctorate is no guarrantee either that the man can keep his thoughts straight.

The headlines on the June Atlantic Monthly half-jacket tout "Get Rich By Reading Plato (and blow off that MBA)," but I must say, frankly, that Plato is barely mentioned through out the article. Stewart spends more time bashing Scientific Management father Frederick Winslow Taylor than he does extolling the quiet virtues of critical thinking.

It might have been nice to see Stewart explain in more detail exactly what it is that he finds so compelling about Plato or Heidigger.

Still, in case you haven't looked around lately, more critical thinking and less institutionalized self-aggrandizement is what we need these days.

The New English Teacher at my school....

2006-06-15T22:49:00.000-04:00

I think I'm gonna take this blog on a literary left turn. I think I would like to be a Russian poet for a day. See, I've gotten this job as an English teacher - they don't know me well there yet, and I hadda drop a few names to get the job: Philip Roth, Toni Morrison, Thomas Pynchon, John Updike - All people from that conveniently timed, New York Times survey of the most influential novel since 1965 that came out last month.

Well, my neighbor is now my boss and now he has this impression that I'm a sharp-as-similes English teacher who can teach his students how to speak like a David Sedaris novel. Like I said, they don't know me well over there yet.

SO, now's the time to change the ole' self image (see photo).

For starters, I'm gonna grow a goatee and wear a beret with a star on it. AND: I think I'll change my drink and my brand of humor to something as dry and cold as a Russian winter. I'm gonna tell nostalgic fictions about the union days, working on Sevastopol docks. I'm gonna swill distilled potato shavings from throw-away coffee cups and teach heroic couplets with a nasaly voice and a fake Russian accent.

Forget about Roth and Updike and their stories about has-been crack-ups who peddle cars, bikes and literature on swanky New England college campuses. In my classroom, I'm gonna hang photos of Checkov, Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy (The Russian winter of my students' discontent?).

I'm gonna dismiss with a sneer all the BMW-SUV driving parents of my students and I'm gonna preach the godspells of the working class in study hall.

Just for a day.

When I've done all that, I'm gonna pray to G that my students have absorbed enough grammar to pass their Ohio Graduation Tests and that the administration isn't too pissed off to renew my contract at the end of the year.

Breaking down the Wall between Church and Security

2006-03-14T12:31:00.000-05:00

According to a Washington Post story, March 8, our president has commissioned the Department of Homeland Security to "create a center for faith-based and community initiatives within 45 days to eliminate regulatory, contracting and programmatic barriers to providing federal funds to religious groups to deliver social services."

What use has the Department for Homeland Security for eliminating these regulations? Why should DHS be concerned with religion anyway?

Bush save us from our god! Or something like that.

Uhm.

2006-03-12T00:29:00.000-05:00

I could never date somebody who goes to my Starbucks. I'm not the only one thinking about this. I was talking to an acquaintance the other day (well, of course, at Starbucks). She said the same thing. Of course, at that moment an ex-boyfriend of hers was walking out the door. She was the one to introduce him to that particular store, so she said. Now, he's a regular. How awkward.

When a relationship ends, it is painful, to be sure. Sometimes, assets need to be divided. These may include fuzzy assets like friendships, photographs and hangouts. But how does one decide who gets visitation rights to the cool Starbucks?

Can you imagine how awkward it could be to have the safety and security of your cafe latte interupted by the intrusion of an ex? Or imagine, flirting with that cute barrista only to have an ex show up in line behind you and ruin the punchline of your best joke? How morbidly embarrassing.

One of the benefits of having a completely dismal romantic life, of course, is that these things never happen to me. I can sip my coffee in peace, thank you.

(Stay tuned for the dating secrets of Sherpas, ascetics and other hill-top-hermits. For high altitude romance, we'll be bringing the mountain of it all to you. Coming soon.)

It's beyond having begun

2006-03-11T23:30:00.000-05:00

Do you know where your First Amendment Rights are?

Last fall, it was leaked to the press that the president had been spying on Americans without any regard to due process. It was to stop terrorists, he said.

We have known since the 2004 presidential campaign that Bush and Cheney do not like people who disagree with them. We have seen people be arrested by the Secret Service or forcibly ejected from public places for wearing political buttons and t-shirts.

We know that the PATRIOT ACT allows federal agents to search our homes, medical records, and even library records. And that no one is allowed by law (now) to to tell us it's been done.

We know that political activists have been blacklisted from flying on commercial airlines. They were called a security risk.

We know that members of political activists have been spied on and bullied by federal agents.

We have a Congress that doesn't have the huevos to stand up to a president and protect the rule of law.

Guess what: We are told to be afraid of terrorists. No. you should be afraid of your government.

The following quote is from Hope Marston, speaking at the Lane County Bill of Rights Defense Committee, as reported by Truthout.org:

In November we learned about the Pentagon spying on activists. We learned the government has been spying on activists: groups like PETA, Greenpeace, even the Quakers ... and we have this quote, from John Miller, FBI assistant director of public affairs. "You end up in FBI files, with your name and your group's name, because you're doing stuff."
(You really need to see this entire report)

What is that old proverb? First they came for the environmentalist whackos, but I did not stand up for them because I am not an environmentalist whacko. Then they came for the liberals, but I did not stand up for them because I am not a liberal. Then they came for the political dissenters, but I did not stand up for them because I am not a political dissenter . . . When they came for me, there was no one left.

What?

2006-03-07T23:12:00.000-05:00

There's a hole in the living room wall. I know it's there. I drilled it. It's a black spot like a squashed bug at the top of the wall. Behind it, there is the cinder block wall. Behind that, the garage.

Who, I would like to know, builds a house by puttting an unfaced cinderblock wall facing a living room? What were THEY thinking?

I was going to mount bookshelves there. I have a couple of books, you know. But now, there is only the hole. By the way, who reads anymore?

Daddy, what's a liberal?

2006-03-07T11:31:00.000-05:00

The media tells us liberals are vaguely sinister, possibly unpatriotic, maybe even now, undermining the social fabric of all we hold dear. Are they? If we didn't have al Quaida, would liberals be our badboys?

Does anyone really know? I mean does anyone actually know what "liberal" (or for that matter, what "conservative") really means?

We have a tax(cut)-and-spend, wartime president (like that makes any kind of economic sense to any thinking person, whatsoever). His fiscal responsibility plan is to shovel money at Halliburton and rich people, and let the poor people shovel their own dammed dykes into the sea (not that he likes gay men, poor people or Democrats that much either).

Bush has taken our national government expenditures from a modest surplus in 2001 to a deficit so large that only theoretical mathematicians can figure that many zeroes. (They do this by counting neo-cons in the administration.)

Good thing the president is a conservative. He's a compassionate conservative. What does that mean? What exactly does he conserve? Natural resources? The environment? The national treasury? America's standing in the world? It's reputation? His own reputation? The absolute purchasing power of his own private bank account? Somebody tell me: What?

Conservative. But for liberals? The message is this: We're taught to despise and disdain the name of Liberal, but who really knows what it means? Let me suggest the following:

Conservatives measure everything in terms of ECONOMIC advantage. That's why in Neocon society, everything is measured in dollars that we can get. For Neocons, not only is Social Darwinism the coin of the realm, but they prefer Social Darwinism augmented by political advantage. If these people were Musketeers they'd say this: "One for all, and more for me." Or, as they say, money is the root of all capitalism.

See, free market economists suppose that markets will always correct themselves if one player gets too big or too monopolistic. BUT the economics textbooks never imagined monopolies would have political protection (ie., lobbyists) to help maintain their monopolies. Of course, one might argue that our American economy leads the world precisely because we protect our own businesses, corporations, monopolies, etc. (YEAH, ENRON!)

Perhaps. But we also protect Pride, Envy, Gluttony, Lust, Anger, Greed and Sloth. (Hey, Stuntmother, how's that for a seven meme?)

So, liberals, on the other hand, see things slightly differently. For liberals, American capitalism is less important than American democracy. Liberals measure things in terms of SOCIAL development. They ask quesions like these: How many people will be fed/housed/cared for by a given project? How can we move people out of the New Orleans Disaster Dome, for example, and into safe and efficient, effective housing? How can we care for our neighbors better so we'll have better neighborhoods?

The President's plan for New Orleans, by the way, is to ask this: How can we get rid of these pesky people altogether to make way for strip malls or McMansions? How many trailors does it cost so that "We" can Air-Force-One to Jackson Square to declare: "Mission Accomplished!"?? When it comes to New Orleans, George Bush really was a day late and a dollar short. Guess what: That's ok with him.

Just in case you still aren't convinced, let me suggest this: At no time in the history of the world has capitalism been so successeful; have so few people controlled so much wealth, while so many people are so hungry.

Chances are very great that YOU are not one of the super wealthy, nor will you ever be. What this means is this: If you lost every thing; If circumstances forced you from a middle class life to poverty, here is what people would tell you:

The NeoCons would say, "It's your own dammed fault."
The Religious Right would tell you, "It's because God hates you."
A liberal would say, "Here, have a bowl of soup and a cup of coffee."

ATTENTION, DEMOCRATS, READ THIS: In order to move the American people to support a more sensible way of life and vote Republicans out of office, we need to remind US that the world isn't powered by corporate asses. I mean bottom lines. We are powered by people. We have a big tent and room for everybody. We need to remember that the American people really are generous, gracious and kind. We are. That's how Dems will win elections.

3 Rules of the Car

2006-02-27T01:07:00.000-05:00

Ok, departing from politics for a moment, here's one from pop-culture: The movie Transporter 2 is a cheesey action flick with everything: lots of kicks, fast cars and atleast one demented lingerie model. I like it.

I don't typically base my worldview on kung-fu action heroes (well, not since I was in high school), however, the protagonist of Transporter 2, played by Jason Stratham, lives by three rules of the car. I find them particularly helpful. Not only have I adopted them, but I've taught them to my daughter and her friend who frequently travels with us. Of course, I have never been chased by drug dealers or spies (I was, however, flipped off by an angry trucker once). I have never flown my car from one building to another. In the movie, Stratham's character drives an audi. I drive a Honda Civic (Not exactly the car of an action hero). Nevertheless, the premise is the same.

The three rules are these:
1. Always greet the driver upon entering the car. Message: Be polite and respectful.
2. Respect the car. Message: Behave when in the car and be mindful of cars when in the parking lot or crossing the street.
3. Always wear your seat belt. Message: Isn't it obvious?

Where for art thou, Prometheus

2006-02-27T00:42:00.000-05:00

We all know about that guy Prometheus. He got busted by the gods for bringing the secret of fire to mankind. As punishment, he was chained to a rock and was made to suffer an eagle plucking out his liver everyday. Of course, being a Titan (a kind of Greek guy who didn’t have to worry about sagging, bagging, balding, wrinkles or any kind of aging) his liver would, of course, grow back everynight so that when the eagle came again, there would be something for it to eat.

The problem with Prometheus, as I’m sure we all know, is that he deliberately upset the moral order that the gods had constructed and imposed on mankind. The gods were seriously pissed off about this.

When man got fire, (it’s an expression: I do not mean to exclude women) man began a quest that would eventually lead to Jeffersonian Democracy in which each man, woman and god – everybeing would get only one vote (Except of course, corporations – they get to have something called a lobbyist which is more powerful than a vote).

It’s not such a stretch to suggest that Prometheus’ fire is a metaphor for wisdom, education, etc. As a-God-willing-soon-to-be-educator, I have to say, I’ve thought some and read some about education. Here’s what I’ve discovered: Education is not just about knowledge and wisdom. It’s about socialization. The idea of education, as it has evolved by the dawn of the 21rst century, is about teaching people to fit in.

Post graduate, professional degrees teach students not only how to do which ever profession (stockbroker, teacher, clergy, lawyer, whatever), or how to think like someone from that profession, but how to fit into the particular professional pecking system.

On the other hand, even kindergarteners learn how to be proper kindergarteners what ever that means (according to the dictates of the culture).

If you don’t believe me, just look at NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND. Every kid is taught that they can not get past high school – they can’t have a chance at a real life - unless they pass a graduation test. That is, unless they learn to match the proper response to the proper question in the proper fashion.

More, the sense of political independence or self reliance that seemed so important to the Founding Fathers during the struggle for national identity has given way to political correctness – the “curtesy” of regulating or monitoring one’s own tongue in order to fit in. Political dissidents, indeed political discussions of any kind, are discredited or discouraged.

According to John Taylor Gatto, author of The Underground History of American Education, we teach our kids not to be independent thinkers, but to be managable thinkers.

Gatto writes: “The Civil War demonstrated to industrialists and financiers how a standardized population trained to follow orders could be made to function as a reliable money tree; even more, how the common population could be stripped of its power to cause political trouble.”

He suggests that the economic, political, and technological strength of the United States comes from teaching our kids docility: “If we educated better, we could not sustain the corporate national wealth by tearing down personal sovereignty, morality, and family life. It’s a trade off.”

Of course, it would be easy to argue that morality and family life, for example, are to be prized components of American strength, not traded ones. Of course. But I have to finish the book to get that far.

In the meanwhile, look at how the Christian right has twisted the message of the Gospels from social generosity and brotherly love to championing political advantage and social Darwinism.

Hackett packs it up.

2006-02-23T22:06:00.000-05:00

To the editor (The Cincinnati Enquirer ran this on their op-ed page, 2/25):

I was sorry to hear that local Democratic contender, Marine and Iraq veteran Paul Hackett has packed his bags and left politics.

Mr. Hackett narrowly lost the race for Ohio 2nd district in 2004. More recently, he was dissed by the Dems for the 2006 US Senate primaries in favor of someone named Sherrod Brown. Who? Apparently Mr. Hackett has had enough and Southwest Ohio Dems are sorrier for it.

I am sorry to see him go. I would have expected Mr. Hackett to have a bright future in politics. And, frankly, I am disapointed that the Dems didn't watch his six.

Mr. Hackett, a neighbor, represented a momentary breath of fresh air in national politics. He's a veteran - something you do not often see in Washington. He's clearly not just another Beltway Insider. Did I mention he's a Marine?

I could easily imagine him pairing up with Illinois Senator Barak Obama for a future campaign for higher office.

Oh well. We lose.
Brian L. Meyers

The Bush Style Manual

2006-02-21T14:52:00.000-05:00

An editorial by Michael Janofsky in the Sunday, February 19, New York Times appeared as such:

Washington - One of the perquisites of being president is the ability to have the author of a book you enjoyed pop into the White House for a chat.

Over the years, a number of writers have visited President Bush, including Natan Sharansky, Bernard Lewis and John Lewis Gaddis. And while the meetings are usually private, they rarely ruffle feathers.

Now, one has.

In his new book about Mr. Bush, "Rebel in Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush," Fred Barnes recalls a visit to the White House last year by Michael Crichton, whose 2004 best-selling novel, "State of Fear," suggests that global warming is an unproven theory and an overstated threat.

It's good to see that the New York Times has adopted the Bush Style Manual: When you don't know a word, make one up (and G'tmo anyone who argues). Sorry, but the BS Manual does not make one look intellexical. Janofsky needs either a better copy editor or a better pair of glasses.

As far as the sentiment goes, however, I suppose Janofsky gets one thing right: Crichton joins Bush as the last two men in America who both doubt global warming and are more interested in fiction than fact.

The president on drugs (again).

2006-02-21T13:07:00.000-05:00

Ok. Let me get this straight: George Bush believes that the security of American ports can be safetly handled by a company owned by the United Arab Emirates.

The security of American ports has been handled by the London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., Britain's largest port operator. That company is on the block to be sold to DP World, a company from the United Arab Emirates, according to a February 18 story in Bloomberg News.

Bush et al. have this to say: "It's ok to have a foreign country look after our security because any country which does so would have to abide by US Law." Aside from the fact that Bush himself doesn't care about US law - the logic is completely wrong.

Bush apparently believes that the FISA statutes don't apply to HIM. He can spy on anybody who disagrees with him. Dick Cheney apparently thinks that it's ok to re-write the National Security Secrets Act in 2006 so it would NOT be illegal for someone in HIS office to out Valerie Plame as a CIA operative to the press in the summer of 2003.

Nevertheless, Bush says that any honest, law abiding company operating in our country would obey the law of the United States - even if they are more closely allied to countries who hate US and want to do us harm. Ok.

But the main point is this: Forget about the Arab countries for a moment (many of them have reason to hate us - thank you, Mr. President). Why is the security of our ports handled by ANY foreign country? Even the UK? If you are going to buy that, then let's just have Mexico patrolling our borders to keep illegal Mexicans out. Let's have inmates from Lucasville Prison be in charge of the prison gates. Let's just have a coke addict conduct the war on drugs. Oh, and let's have Al Qaida run the war on terror.

Dip dunk president. Get the bell out of Washington and go back to your little white lines.

Screw FISA. Screw US.

2006-02-17T15:03:00.000-05:00

FEBRUARY 17, 2006 - The US Senate decided yesterday that there will apparently be no probe into the president's extra-legal spying on American citizens. Instead, Sen. Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has unilaterally chosed to squelch any inquiry by his committee into Bush's actions.

The issue here is really not about spying. It's about an American president clearly ignoring the rule of law.

According to a New York Times editorial, today, Roberts said instead of an inquiry into the president's actions, he is now working with the president to change the very laws the president is accused of breaking.

Huh. That WOULD be a great excuse for a crook - get caught breaking the law, then change the law so that your actions (retroactively) are legal.

Does nobody in the HOUSE have the balls to call the president to account? Is Bush to be allowed to circumvent the rule of law when it pleases him?

I've said it before: SAVE THE REICHSTAG - Impeach the bastard.

God love me, I missed Valentines Day again

2006-02-14T23:30:00.000-05:00

Technically, I still have another twenty minutes to express my undying fealty to eros.

I still have a few minutes to run out and find a new romance. It's not too late. There's still time to be all gushy and lovely chocolates and blushing giggles and all that. Sure there is, if you can find someone who is cute enough at midnight and vomity drunk enough to buy it.

One of my friends, a real pal, suggested that tonight is the best night of the year to "hunt" romance - better, even, than New Years - because any young lady out alone tonight is likely to be desperately receptive to attention. Of course, what the hell does my friend know, he's at home with his wife (perhaps, where he should be).

Instead, today I delivered an emotionally ambiguous note of thanks to my ex-wife and a freakishly goofy, hand-drawn, be-my-valentine to my little girl.

That was good. As for that eros thing: Wait for it... WAIT for it... Damn. Missed it.

To Ceaser, his coins and all that crap.

2006-02-14T23:08:00.000-05:00

I was going to write some screed about the Danish cartoons depicting the Moslem prophet, however, it's too depressing to contemplate. It begins to appear to me that this is just another case of politics hyjacking the sensibilities of honest, religious people - in a similar vein as Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed, whose documented manipulation of Christian conservatives to sucker Indian tribes is beyond reprehensible.

Of course, the Mullahs aren't that innocent either. Iran, for example, always seems so ready and eager to declare their fatwas and condemn authors and others who offend their sensibilities, yet they never seem to refrain making the most heinous remarks about Israel or Jews. Nor do they ever seem to feel too guilty about inciting and recruiting Palestinian homicide bombers. Quid pro quo: They just don't get the concept.

In anycase, I remain a big fan of First Amendment Freedoms (yes, how American-centric of me, I know). I remain quite comfortable with the boundaries, as I understand them, of dangerous langauge and incitement.

Nevertheless, I am lead to believe that perhaps anywhere religious observance meets politics, the result is ugly according to anyone's sacred texts. To Ceasar his coins and all that crap.

Help a mom in the Mini Marathon

2006-02-11T11:21:00.000-05:00

My friend, Carrie, sent me the following email. She's needs help raising some money for a really good cause. I would like to pass it along to all my faithful, loyal, fellow caffeine fiends. I'm gonna help out. You should too:

Hi Everyone!

I will be walking in the Humana Heart Mini-Marathan (March 26) with Good Samaritan Hospital's team. These are the great nurses from the labor and delivery ward who helped to deliver all three of my boys. This particular time they helped me through a difficult postpartum period that could have resulted in a stroke. As many of you know my father died from fluid filling the sack around his heart. So, it is to honor him and help the great people at Good Samaritan that I will be walking. (One of the nurses has a little girl who was born at Good Sam who had issues with her heart. You can click on my team information on the website to read more.)

You can help me reach my goal by making a donation online. Click on the link below and you will be taken to my personal donation page where you can make a secure online credit card donation. The American Heart Association's online fundraising website has a minimum donation amount of $25.00. If you prefer to donate less, you can do so by sending a check directly to me. We would also love to have you come walk with us! If anyone is interested let me know and I will send you information on how to sign up for our team!

Your donation will help fight our nation’s No. 1 and No. 3 killers—heart disease and stroke. You are making a difference. Thank you for your support. Feel free to pass this on to anyone you think might be interested in donating or want to walk with us!

Follow Follow This Link to visit my personal web page and help me in my efforts to support AHA - OVA Cincinnati, OH Heart Mini-Marathon"

Funny question?

2006-02-08T22:08:00.000-05:00

To the editor:

My little one came home from kindergarten today and asked me this: "Is George Bush still the president?"

I said, "Yes, Sweety, but you know daddy doesn't like him much." That was all it took. I knew what was coming next. I didn't know how to answer it: "Why?"

Well, how do you explain George Bush to a five-year-old kid? How do you explain a man who likes to be known as “the wartime president”? There may have been no WMDs in Iraq, but Bush didn't care about that. Instead, he declared: "Damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead!"

How do you explain to a kid that an American president publicly advocates and defends disapearing people without due process, torture and spying on American citizens all in the name of state security?

How do you explain that the president expects to be above the law?

How do you explain that the president seems to get most excited about spending hundreds of billions of dollars killing people in a far away land but apparently couldn't care less about the suffering of his own citizens at home? Come on, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Don't patronize our intelligence (Your intelligence may be faulty, but ours is just fine, thanks).

How do you explain Bush's habit of signing new appointments and new legislation into law after hours and on holiday weekends when nobody is around, apparently in hopes that no one will notice?

How do you explain that despite his happy rhetoric, Bush's actions suggest that he is more interested in turning our great nation into a police state beyond the paranoia of George Orwell or Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451"?

How do you explain to a little kid about the overtures of meglomania or suggestions of paranoia inflamed by apparent chronic depression?

"The president just makes bad choices, Sweety."
"Was he a bad person when he was little?"
"He's trying to do the right thing. He's just not very smart." (God, I hope that's the truth.)

Shennanigans

2006-02-06T02:36:00.000-05:00

SO, VEEP Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr. has been hung out to dry. The Reeps have sacrificed their gambit in the Wilson-Plame scandal and seem to be hoping that their man in the orange jumpsuit doesn't nix November for them.

That's right. We do have mid-term elections coming this year. That explains a curious little item I saw in the news: Buried in a story in the New York Times, by David Johnston, from Saturday, February 4, 2006, lies notice that Libby's trial, set originally for later this fall, was delayed by Libby's own lawyer. Apparently, Chief Council Theodore V. Wells Jr. will not be available at that time. According to the story, he apparently has a more pressing engagement. More pressing than a trial of national significance? Libby is therefore required to wait (hopefully in jail) until January, 2007, for trial to start.

Of course, upon reading this, I said to myself, "Self, what sane reason could a big-shot defense attorney possibly give his client for delaying trial for four months?"

Maybe, he's trying to keep his client out of the slammer for as long as possible - That makes some sense considering, the Reeps most likely posted bail - from the Texas Reeps Bail-Posting Pac.

But another reason could likely be this: It's the election, stupid. Of course. The election. The story didn't say that. But what self-aggrandizing Reep would want to have the elections marred by a dumb trial, when it all they have to do is delay justice for their man for four months. Oh.

It's to be justice delayed, then, is it.

Of course, the point of the story was this: Libby implicated his former boss, the Reeper-Veep, himself, who apparently has yet to be indicted for crimes against the empire.

Speaking of the Reaper-Veep, some people were pushing the president to enact illegal wiretaps some 30 years ago. According to a story published by the AP on Friday, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush, sr., who was CIA chief at the time, were pushing then President Ford to enact the wire taps against Americans.

The story, written by Margaret Ebrahim, indicated that they lost that round: "Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978, Congress decisively resolved this debate."

Apparently, the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush Cabal had thought that no one remembers the past. Let's hope THEY are doomed to repeat it.

For these and other stories that don't always make the news, checkout Truthout.org.

First Amendment Left

2006-02-01T23:14:00.000-05:00

During the president's SOTU address last night, Cindy Sheehan was arrested and removed from the PEOPLE's House of Representatives. Sheehan, who made news last year as a protestor against the war in Iraq and whose son is both a casualty of that war and a Gold Star recipient, was at the speech as a personal guest of California Representative Lynn Woolsey (D- Petaluma).

In a statement released today, Woolsey said, "Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the President? Cindy Sheehan, who gave her own flesh and blood for this disastrous war, did not violate any rules of the House of Representatives. She merely wore a shirt that highlighted the human cost of the Iraq war and expressed a view different than that of the President. Free speech and the First Amendment exist to protect dissenting statements like Ms. Sheehan's last night." This according to truthout.org.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney made reputations for themselves during the campaign, 2004, for frequently ejecting protestors or people presenting views they felt were disagreeable. That apparently did not cause much of a stir. However, it wholely reprehensible for a woman, indeed, any American to be denied their Civil Rights, or to be denied access to the House of Representatives - the people's house - based on dissenting political views. There is no excuse for it.

The Bush is destroying the Constitution Article by Article. Yes, the one that he swore to uphold. That one. Congress needs to call him to justice. It needs to happen now.

Commodities - you and I

2006-02-01T14:30:00.000-05:00

The age of programable TV means that BIG CORP will soon be able to tailor its advertising to reach specific, intended demographics. In otherwords, the advertisements people see on their televisions, IPods, cell phones, Playstations, whatever, will soon be customized to meet their individual specific interests. This according to a story "The Medium of the Century" appearing in a special year-end issue of ADBUSTERS.

So, let's get this straight: 35-year-old white men will see beer and sports car commercials while their female counterparts will see ads for zinfandel and minivans. Recognized conservatives will only see ads for Hummers and Fords. While outed liberals will only see ads for hybrids and Hondas.

We already live in a world where much of what we know about our world comes from what we see on the idiot box. For example, all of the good-guy secret agents already look like Keiffer Sutherland and Jennifer Garner. While people who are concerned about the environment and global warming are depicted looking like Gary Oldman on crack, Alan Rickman sneering, or Peter Lorre pandering. Of course, Keiffer Sutherland would never be dashing depicted as driving a Honda. Economic image dissonance.

But imagine watching prime time and seeing commercials for only things that you happen to have on your Christmas list. Sounds pretty convenient to me. All we would have to do then is go and pick the items up at the store. That way, BIG CORP could buy and sell information about us that is much more exacting than it already is. And much more devastating.

Information about each of us will include not only social security numbers and credit rating, but income level and expected future income level: purchasing power we might be likely to have in the future. Each of us could be bought and sold like so much debt - based on our statistically perceived ability to buy in the future - the future value of each individual. Hence, you are reduced to the disposable dollar amount that you might be able to spend in the future.

Much more devastating would be this: Imagine Fox News started tailoring its political commercials to each home based on the voting records of its inhabitants? We could get Tom Delay-style gerrymandering livingroom by livingroom. Worse yet, what if Fox News or CNN began airing different broadcasts according to the demographic in each living room of people watching? Liberals would only see newsstories of political activists being compared to criminals and reprobates. And conservatives would only see newsstories of political activists being compared to criminals and reprobates. Oh.

Boy, was that close.

Ambivalence

2006-01-31T22:14:00.000-05:00

Stuntmother, an inspirational bloggedy blogger who happens to be a philosopher and a friend of mine, posted recently about ambivalence. Some things, she writes, one can be ambivalent about. Then again, "there are heaps of things I am far far from ambivalent about." That we need no more Bush is just one example.

Indeed, the Cincinnati Enquirer, in its Sunday edition (Jan. 29) ran a collection of brief columns explaining what each commentator thought Bush might say in tonight's SOTU Address. And though I can't say how those people were chosen as commentators, one thing I will point out is that regardless of where they stand with regards to Bush, not one of those contributors was ambivalent.

Each commentator was alloted 100 words to express what their hopes of what Bush would say. Personally, I would have needed two short little words. I hope Bush would say this: "I resign." See, I'm not ambivalent either.

Well, it's one thing to claim ambivalence or apathy. That's reasonable. With regards to Bush, insane. Blind, perhaps. Moronic. But that's reasonable. It's something else to say one dislikes him. And, whether we feel that he is incompetent or plainly evil is a discussion for another day - as is the discussion, Article by Article, of his dismantling of the Bill of Rights.

It's one thing to say that we oppose Bush, for whatever reason - and there are many. But, it's not enough. One must be willing to support such sentiments with political action. Write stuff, agitate. Send letters. VOTE. We must work harder to force the Beltway insiders to listen to us. Ironically - they do listen to us, just that domestic spying isn't what I mean. By the way, I have to sign off now. There's a knock at my door. I'm sure I will be reporting from Gitmo next week. . .

In the meanwhile, ask yourself just one simple question: Why is it that whenever the president is in serious trouble with poll results or scandals that Osama Bin Laden surfaces with yet another tape? Ask yourself this: Why is it that we always know where the "militant librarians" check their books; Why is it that "CSI" star William Peterson can always find a fingerprint; Why Tom Delay could always find another Texas Republican to jerrymander but we can not find Bin Laden - despite five years and two elections? (Ambivalence)

Ok, let's get one thing straight...

2006-01-30T13:23:00.000-05:00

In view of the present president's prediliction for promoting paranoia; peeking into people's privates through a proctoscope; and publicly pilloring perfectly patriotic people as panderers to perverts, reprobates and political parties of left-handed standing, we should save ourselves and revive the now forgotten art of low-tech, below the radar snailmail.

That, and I'm sure there is a perfectly lovely lettercarrier in your neighborhood who is in need of job security. May YOU always receive mail that has not been steamed open. This blog spot is just a diversion.

If you, too, would like to be a liscensed liberal or a Hamilton County Democrat, and receive a personally written, hand typed letter of acceptance as such, please send an SASE and one dollar (or a tree). All inquiries may be recorded by the federal government.