Search This Blog

Sunday, March 26, 2017

CBS Sunday Morning

She-who-must-be-obeyed loves CBS Sunday Morning.
It is pretty good. I listen to it as I sit at the computer.

Today they had a segment with Ted Koppel interviewing Sean Hannity. Mr. Koppel deprecated the fact that ever since the FCC dropped the Fairness Doctrine [ if a broadcast airs a view, it must make time to air the opposing view] in the late 1990s, political radio has become strident and one-sided and divisive.

It's the Internet.
Blame the Internet.

The Internet revolutionized communications.

Just as did the printing press.

They printing press oversaw the era of Martin Luther, yet it also nurtured Thomas Melanchthon and chronicled the Peasants' War.

If the Internet is revolutionary, how do we make sure the revolution does not eat her children?

 The Internet Devouring His Children


My Book Part 3

part 1
part 2

It is time to assess where we are.
A) Belief Precedes Truth, and
B) Science Is Not Inevitable.

What possibly can those mean together? I mean I do not even give anyone time to settle in; I just throw a mosh-mish in front of you and say, ""Eat hearty!"
My friends know the feeling.

What I am looking at are beliefs and the people who hold beliefs, for this is how I try to understand why someone would at heavenly trip narratives - Heaven is For Real and The Boy Who Came Back From Heaven - and either accept them as true or claim that they are false.

Now in our personal belief systems, we tend to believe before we even consider whether something is true or not.
As luck would have it, The Conversation has an article this month which deals directly with this.

The Conversation
How our morals might politically polarize just about anything
March 5, 2017 9.17pm EST


As America is more ideologically divided now than any other point in history, these results illuminate two things about the psychology behind political polarization.

First, people might think they are able to use their reasoning to decide whether, say, a minimum wage increase will have positive or negative consequences. However, moral impulses have likely already nudged people toward disagreeing with their opponents before any deliberative thinking on the issue has begun.

Second, the effects observed here are likely a passive process. Participants did not want to feel urges to make an error in the Stroop task, and they likely did not want to feel urges to contradict their own opinions in my studies. The urges just happen as a result of a morality-driven psychology.

These results suggest that efforts to bring those on the fringe closer to the middle will likely fall on deaf ears. A more optimistic interpretation is that polarization might have its roots in unintentional partisan urges. While there is no shortage of moral issues that lead to polarization, polarization does not necessarily result from the malice of those involved.
So I assert that Belief Precedes Truth.
Truth is always an after-thought in our quests. We usually seek an iconic presence that we "think" must be divine. On seeing the icon, we kneel. Proving truth is forgotten, for what need have we of truth now?

(By the way, I describe how I think things are; I do not prove anything!  To prove something implies that one has a robust verification procedure. That I do not have. Nor do you.)

Now we come to Science not being inevitable.
What does that matter?
It matters because I wish to use Science to demonstrate a complex belief system, capable of adaptations and change, which is vibrant and vigorous. I will claim that the fact that Science has a verification procedure of experiment and reduplication of experiment is what allows Science to make claims about Truth.

One of the reasons for this state of affairs is that most of the thinking and writing done about Truth in the past hundred years has dealt with scientific truth as defined by scientists and logical positivists and philosophers who want to be seen as scientists and mathematicians rather than philosophers. (Thank you, William Barrett.)

When we confront accounts like Heaven Is For Real, we naturally lean to a show-me attitude, being doubting-Thomases who were born at night, but not last night!
But if there is no way to demonstrate truth, how may someone show-me?

We shall contrast Science, as a People-and-their-Beliefs System with a well formed way to determine truth acceptable to people even outside the group of scientists - with Religion and Politics, which do not have a means of proving truth that is acceptable to people outside the group.

The reason behind this being that Truth is usually defined for everyone, whether it be well-defined or not; whether it uses experiment or syllogisms from dogma.

Even scientists do not agree all the time on all matters. There is considerable dispute on Dark Matter, which has not been observed yet, and there is great concern over theoretical constructs which cannot nor seem ever likely to be able to be subject to experiment forming the foundations of modern science.
Many people of science hold beliefs which are no more capable of experimental proof than the statements in Heaven Is For Real.

If we seek not to deny these good people, how shall we evaluate their beliefs?


The Legacy Of The Past

We watched Selma yesterday and were amazed how much we had forgotten, which - I guess - sort of shows me why one should remember the Holocaust and not trivialize it; one should remember all great moral history and not trivialize it.

We thought of the divide between the political groups in the USA, and we remembered how the Solid South, the Democratic South which went solidly for the Democratic party, splintered on Civil Rights in 1948 with the presidential aspirations of the Dixiecrats, and finally fell apart in the 60s when the Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson, was a moving force behind the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The displaced southerners went into the Republican Party in great numbers and southern church groups opened their own schools which did not accept federal monies.

Today we often see the Confederate flag in public, which may indeed be seen as an attack upon the memory of my ancestors who fought for the Union in the Civil War.

At this point, you may disagree or you may assent, but take a moment and realize that I have just severely trivialized history.

So let's get serious.

What is our untrivial legacy that still haunts us today? Read the following:

The Tablet
Book Review
Was Nazi Germany Made in America?

A new history argues convincingly that institutionalized racism and common-law pragmatism in the United States inspired Hitler’s policies

Historians have downplayed the connection between Nazi race law and America because America was mainly interested in denying full citizenship rights to blacks rather than Jews. But Whitman’s adroit scholarly detective work has proved that in the mid-’30s Nazi jurists and politicians turned again and again to the way the United States had deprived African-Americans of the right to vote and to marry whites. They were fascinated by the way the United States had turned millions of people into second-class citizens.

Strange as it may seem to us, the Nazis saw America as a beacon for the white race, a Nordic racial empire that had conquered a vast amount of Lebensraum. One German scholar, Wahrhold Drascher, in his book The Supremacy of the White Race (1936), saw the founding of America as a “fateful turning point” in the rise of the Aryans. Without America, Drascher wrote, “a conscious unity of the white race would never have emerged.” Rasse and Raum—race and living space—were for Nazis the keywords behind America’s triumph in the world, according to historian Detlef Junker. Hitler admired the American commitment to racial purity, praising the anti-Indian campaigns that had “gunned down the millions of Redskins to a few hundred thousand.” ...

How Race Questions Arise.’ A map of the 48 states showing ‘Statutory Restrictions on Negro Rights,’ which appeared in the Nazi propaganda magazine Neues Volk in 1936. (Courtesy of University of Michigan Library, appearing in James Q. Whitman’s Hitler’s American Model)

This is still living history. Less than 3 generations ago, fine minds in our country were devoted to keeping the races separate and denying rights to groups of citizens.
There still are today.

And there are still people who feel we need a "conversation" of race relations.


Saturday, March 25, 2017

My Book Part 2

I use this blog as a place to develop ideas. Most of this writing is first draft.
So if it appears "daft", remember it is "first draft daft" and hopefully will emend.

I know I said that film editing and what-not would form the body of this post, but I lied... again. It is about what I am trying to say about "belief-systems".

When we speak of belief-systems, we are actually talking about People-and-their-Beliefs-Systems.
Without the individual people, belief systems are nothing but empty, bloodless creeds - possibly like those data bases one used to call 'expert systems' - which are pretty much lifeless.

Beliefs on their own are inert and inane. They are a collection of propositions or statements that have no behavior of their own, they have no inspiration of their own, they cast no shadow - as it were - nor do they have a reflection within a mirror.

I must remember that I am dealing with People-Belief-Systems, not merely some arcade of propositions.

Now, what invigorates People-Belief-Systems? The people themselves are living, but that does not explain when and why a People-Belief-System ( which I shall call P-B-S from now on for brevity) is alive and vigorous rather than in a dormant state, or - worse - in a moribund state.

Consider Religion. There are P-B-Ss where the practice of religion is humdrum and there are occasions of spiritual awakenings and revivals. There are periods during which Judaism was a tidal wave in parts of the world, and there were times asleep in shtetls scattered across Eastern Europe.  There were times when Islam was a tidal wave of change, and there were times it slumbered - providing sustenance for its children, yes - but it did not thrust itself outside the avergae run of history.

A P-B-S system requires dynamic inputs to rouse itself from somnolence to activity.
The individual people that form the P-B-S may indeed be veritable boiling maelstroms of activity and creativity and - in the case of religion - enormous spiritual journeys and attainments, but the overall P-B-S in which these individuals form the parts may yet be somnolent.

Here we have arrived at a point where we ponder:

Science is not Inevitable

What was the "input" that created modern science? What was the "dynamo" that powered its development? I see no reason to believe that the rise of Science was inevitable. There must have been at least one dynamic input and most probably many more than served to transform society.

I am talking about Science, not the Industrial Revolution, not about the use of technology to build continent spanning railroads, telegraphs, telephones, roadways, etc. I am talking about Science as practiced by scientists.

The invention of a set of verification procedures to prove and to re-test and prove again in order to establish "scientific truth" was the dynamo that drove Science.

It was Galileo's
... eppur si muove!

"Yet, it does move!" which he is reputed to have uttered after certain forces in the Catholic Church forced him to publicly recant his views on the motion of the Earth.
It does not really matter whether he said it or not, for his subsequent life still shows his devotion to experiment and the scientific truth derived therefrom.

 The dynamo of the Indistrial Revolution may have been British coal, the limited size of the island kingdom, the status of the commons or even the Corn Laws. But the dynamo of Science was the invention and establishment of experiment as the accepted verification manner by which we could establish the Truth value of a scientific proposition!

It is not at all inevitable that a group of bricoleurs - people that assemble this and that of worldy thing in various ways and pastiches - will turn into scientists. Not a bit. The group of bricoleurs, collage-makers of gears and clepsydra, need to be galvanized by truth.

note: "bricoleurs" in more or less the sense that Levi-Strauss uses it.

Milo Finds Support

We forgot the great and mighty who supported Milo in the past.
In an alt-time-line history, this could be now instead of more than a month ago.

New York Times
Feb 2, 2017

 In an appearance on “Fox and Friends” on Thursday, Kellyanne Conway, one of Mr. Trump’s top advisers, compared the protest to those that took place at airports across the country over the weekend in opposition to the president’s executive order on immigration.

So what was Plan B when Plan A for Milo fell apart?


Friday, March 24, 2017

The Burden Of Brilliance!

Not mine, other peoples' !

I can barely get through reading the news without stumbling across some officious and loquacious bloody genius-essay written by some guys or dolls high on the grey matter scale. I mean, I am desperately looking to close everything and do some real-life work, but Closure of the Browser escapes me... and the brilliant words tick in my tinnitus like some canine Tell-Tale Heart following me around, barking, and waiting for tickle behind the ears!

So I found this essay about the double standard fascinating. It boils down to:  there are no real problems until they affect white men.
I have lived in this country all my life so I get it in spades.

When Life gives you lemons:

Make lemonade... or

or make sure White Men have to suck on those same lemons! Then the government might do something. Sheesh! 25 cents a glass!

I particularly remember Reagan's ignoring the AIDS epidemic, as if disease followed his political inclinations. Incredible.

So read:

The cruel double standard that could save Obamacare
Story by John Blake, CNN

...  A change in complexion leads to a change in perception...


My Book Part 1

Reportedly I have been working on a book for 6 years or more; a case might be made for 50 years, but that is a figure way too high, I am sure.

I want to set forth some of the basic parts that will be in it.

I became interested in Todd Burpo's book "Heaven is for Real" written about his son Colton's illness and unusual experiences and read it. Then I discovered that there was another book about a young man and his heavenly trip: this one was written by Kevin Malarkey about his son Alex's severe injuries and trip to heaven, "The Boy who Came Back from Heaven".

There is a lot of interesting stuff in these books and their ongoing histories, but I am primarily focused on one thing: how does one deal with claims about extra-normal experiences without being (a) credulous, or (b) intolerant, for it is clear that some people may too easily accept narratives that reflect some (not necessarily all) of their beliefs and other people will treat such stories with scorn.
There is a third way which corresponds to Agnosticism, and Agnosticism itself may run hot or cold, from being neutral in judgement yet totally uninterested to being neutral in judgement yet still wondering about the phenomena.

What is the status of truth in belief systems?
For these books are directed to a certain group with certain similar belief systems, and it is those groups which will most probably believe the book narratives to be true.
Other groups will believe the book narratives to be false.
I cannot embrace the story as "true" and yet I refuse to condemn it as "false".
The stories of good people have some important facets which go beyond true and false. What is it?

I think that to understand the reality of human actions, one must look at what is happening and try to suppress the urge to judge immediately. When confronted with raw evil, of course we must make a quick judgement, but when confronted by the actions of good people, we must make every effort to understand.
In doing so, it may help us understand ourselves, for we are no that much different - if at all! - from the Burpo family and from the Malarkey family. These families have had very different histories and their experiences cover a lot of experiences of all families - good experiences and bad ones.

How does one determine truth for events that do not have an independent way of finding out truth other than appealing to the basic underlying belief system?

That was the goal.

First, what we call belief systems are often otiose and unnecessary. Are religious credos and political creeds necessary for us to orient ourselves in the world? Probably not, for there are many religious dogmas in our faiths that we have probably never heard about and do not understand.
When was the last time the arguments against Pelagianism and its tenets were in your consciousness?

Belief systems have their uses and I would think that it would be in areas where the beliefs are in frequent use. Modern Science would be a good example, for the use of "beliefs" is so vigorous that we have experienced quite a few scientific revolutions within our lives, for with science there are established ways to verify scientific claims.
Not so with religion, and very little with politics.
Religious revolutions are sparsely scattered across history - although there may be more frequent Great Revivals and Bonfires of the Vanities - and Political revolutions are a bit more frequent but still not that frequent.

Religion and Politics (which I often lump together for the nature of "truth" in them) are systems in which:

Belief Precedes Truth

It is part of our history. 
We learn a passel of truths when we are kids.
Later we learn to be critical of our beliefs, but many of the beliefs which are fundamental to our personal lives and histories have been canonized as "truthful" due to the fact that we believed them when we were younger; we accepted them from unerring parents whom we thought were perfect...
(then we discovered they weren't... and many years later we discovered again they were!)

 Signe Wilkinson - Washington Post Writers Group and Cartoonist Group
[a cartoon based upon the description given above: "University of ideas I agree with", "Tweets I agree with", "Websites I agree with", and "Publications I agree with" are the captions within from left to right.]

The Truth of Religion and Politics we shall call Belief-Based. (And we shall rather dimly think of Truth in Science as Experiment-Based with more-or-less defined verification procedures.)

I like this sign


My Book  Part 2 will be   an essay on film editing and "coherence"

When I say that belief precedes truth, I guess I do not literally mean "in time", but that in knowledge or belief systems, belief in a statement will precede our finding out whether the statement is true or not.
Belief epistemologically precedes Truth

I think this is quite the norm for Religion and Politics, for it is our "group affiliation", as it were, that sort of wedges all sorts of tsotchkes into our brain pans and we believe them without having any intention of establishing the old truth ourselves.

AND - this does not imply that we necessarily have to verify anything at all!!!
It merely says that we believe before "truthing" and does not really say anything about whether one should believe. There is no imputation of credulity because we do not test truth. It is just the way it is.

The last thing I want to do is set up my view-point as somehow superior to another, for I posses no justification for that judgement, other than my self-infatuation!


Thursday, March 23, 2017

This Rotten Apple Didn't Fall Far From The Tree

The Guardian
Donald Trump Jr called 'a disgrace' for tweet goading London mayor Sadiq Khan
Donald Trump Jr is facing a backlash for criticizing London mayor Sadiq Khan with a scornful tweet sent hours after an attack at the Houses of Parliament left four dead, including a police officer.

The US president’s eldest son tweeted a link to a September 2016 story in the Independent, which quoted Khan saying terror attacks were “part and parcel of living in a big city”, and “I want to be reassured that every single agency and individual involved in protecting our city has the resources and expertise they need to respond in the event that London is attacked.”

“You have to be kidding me?!” Trump Jr tweeted, quoting the headline: “Terror attacks are part of living in big city, says London Mayor Sadiq Khan”.

Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr)

You have to be kidding me?!: Terror attacks are part of living in big city, says London Mayor Sadiq Khan
March 22, 2017

It’s unclear if the president’s son read the article or understood that the quote was from six months ago and not a response to the Wednesday attack, which police are treating as a terrorist incident....

...But later on Wednesday Trump Jr wrote in an email to the New York Times: “I’m not going to comment on every tweet I send.”

Trump Jr's Tweet was a comment, yet when he - like the old man - gets everything mixed up and wrong, he cannot comment !
What is in their DNA that makes them comment only wide of the mark?!?!


Cinéma En Plein Air [03/22/2017 - answer]

Answer to yesterday's clue:

Clue 1

Answer:      Breaking Away

Remember this scene?

Cutters and Bicycles


Wednesday, March 22, 2017

I Explain What I Told Ya

I did a post a few days ago titled Told Ya!
and it was ostensibly about the economy as I saw it in 2013. The post ended by saying that the nonsense worked by the Republicans (meaning lack of financial oversight and the Iraq War... I suppose I should have included the Democrats, too) would come to a horrible fruition in 2016; Yep, 2016 was when the bottom would drop out.

Of course, the economic bottom did not drop out. It was an election year and we had a different outcome, one I referred to early on in 2016 as the abomination of desolation (standing in the holy place, etc.)

I wanted to clarify that the post Told Ya! was about economics, but the reprint a few days ago was about what actually became clear in 2016: not economic catastrophe but the unveiling of our spiritual and moral catastrophes.

Thirty-five years ago, I worked with a guy who had bought into the religion of Armageddon and End-of-Times-Around-the-Corner. He studied the Book of Revelations, carried a small copy with him, and spoke of the coming wrath.
As it turned out, within five years his wife became ill, she then had an incapacitating stroke (at a quite young age!) leaving him to raise the three children, work a full-time job, and to take care of her.

After some years of this, she recovered a good amount, at which time she divorced him and went off with someone else.

So this guy's prophecy was correct in that there was catastrophe in the near future; he just got the details a little wrong, for it was his own personal disaster and it was his own family, not the world.

And this happens an awful lot if you take the time to notice. The intuition of disaster very often takes on religious iconography and we think our own intimations of bane are general to the world.
This is why I like good stories. All the stories of plagues and zombies and future horrors frighten me with their cumulative intuitive burden. Let me see the good stories! Let me see a crowd of stories that redeem us!

We are at the edge of chaos.

Health Care Now

A good article on the present rush-to-legislate debate on health care that takes place in the hospital in which I was born!

The Guardian
24 hours in a Detroit ER: on the frontline of America's healthcare debate
Henry Ford hospital is one of the busiest in Michigan, and with many patients on Medicare and Medicaid it stands to be impacted greatly by an Obamacare repeal. As the debate rages, one doctor remains the calm at the center of the storm


Cinéma En Plein Air [03/22/2017 - clue]

I show you a picture of something very much germane and involved in a movie and you guess the movie. Got it?


Night And Silence, Who Is Here?

Oberon in A Midsummer's Night's Dream; One of the Chatty Gods

We wrote on God and Silence vs. Chit-Chat on a previous post:
and we continue here.

I believe the following to be an excellent example of talking to God or intuiting the mind of God; i.e., knowing what is going on in God's mind:

The Guardian
Rex Tillerson: 'I didn't want this job … my wife told me I'm supposed to do this'
Secretary of state said he had not met Donald Trump before he was summoned to Trump Tower to discuss ‘the world’ and was offered the role
... “I didn’t want this job. I didn’t seek this job,” Tillerson told the Independent Journal Review (IJR), in an interview conducted on his official plane during the three-nation Asia trip. “My wife told me I’m supposed to do this.”

He said he had not met Donald Trump before being summoned to Trump Tower after the surprise election victory, ostensibly to talk to the president-elect “about the world” and his experiences as an oil company CEO.

“When he asked me at the end of that conversation to be secretary of state, I was stunned,” he said, adding that at 65 years old, at the end of a four-decade career at ExxonMobil, he had expected to retire: “I was going to go to the ranch to be with my grandkids.”

However, he said that when he returned to his Texas home after meeting Trump in New York, his wife, Renda St Clair, shook her finger in his face and said: “I told you God’s not through with you.”

He said he now feels his wife had been right: “I’m supposed to do this.”

The Tillersons know the mind of God.

They know the mind of that god who talks, gossips, and lets his covert meanings be known to the faithful by his body language and gestures.
The poor and the suffering wonder why that god is so silent.

Make up your minds: is God silent or chatty? How easy is it to engage Him in conversation? It is how you define the spiritual aspects of the world, so it may indeed be an important question.


Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Told Ya!

Cassandra, the Prophetess whom no one Believed

While looking for my photos of my date with Katerina Witt, the Olympic ice skater, in the New York Public Library (no details, please!) I came across the following post, which I re-print without editing.
All the emphases were there in the original.
I was spot on, but missed the fine, fine details, and we know who is in the details.

I thought it was Economics 101, but it was Introduction to Politics in the Trump Era, who was not on my presidential radar in 2013.

The following re-print is reproduced exactly as it appeared in 2013.

Published  October 14, 2013
My Goofy Economics

My Favorite Economist, Katerina Wittgenstein

If you have ever read my posts about my "intuitive" view of this economic structure, I had been aware of a reverse Fibonacci series of economic disasters... or mini-disasters.

A Fibonacci series is  {1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34..., } where the nth term = (n-1)th term + (n-2)th term.

A reverse Fibonacci just flips it:  { ...., 34, 21, 13, 8, 5, 3, 2, 1}

If all is clear - and it should be, for we are at the very end of this series and we need only pay attention to  8, 5, 3, 2, 1 - we come to the present day.

I maintained that the Great Recession of 2008 was part of the series, and the previous part was the Dot Com Meltdown in the time period 1999-2001.

So, 2000 (average) + 8 (Fibinacci term) = 2008, which indeed was the year of the next disaster, the Great Recession.

Over the last few years, I had lost a great deal of confidence in this "intuition" of mine, because the timing seemed out of whack.

However, today I look and I see a looming USA default.

2008 + 5 = 2013 !!

or, the year of the Great Recession plus the next term in the Fibonacci series is year 2008 + 5 = year 2013
The years we are dealing with are:    2000, 2008, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2019
(the bold print years are past, the underlined is now, and the rest are in the future.)

The only good thing one could say about my goofy economics is that is has worked so far.
Personally, I feel 2016 will be........... the interesting year. I won't go into details, other than 2016 will be the culminating year when the Republican-created crises of 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 itself will come to fruition

That is why I wish to create a sanctuary. Can you blame me?
I have had this type of premonition for an extremely long time, and I would rather be thought goofy and daft than be proven correct, but I am merely a messenger, and not a very good one.


I take back that bit in the last sentence, " I am merely a messenger".
I am myself and speak for only myself.


I wuz gonna title it "prophecy", but "told ya!: - or "I'm tellin' ya!" - mean the same thing and are not so annoying.

Monday, March 20, 2017


Katerina Witt

 (I could not find a suitable picture of Ludwig Wittgenstein so I got one from my date with Katerina Witt.)

Although we have all grown up idolizing Wittgenstein, his assumption of a world of facts is a metaphysicsal construct that sort of assumes what it was to prove, at least in the dim-light-bulb factory of my head.

Propositional logic applies to propositions. Period. A true proposition corresponds to a Fact in the world, at least we hope so.
However, there are no "true" facts in the world - "true" in the same sense as propositions are true.
Wittgenstein wants a Fact to stand for what-is-the-case, which is the surrogate for "true" in the logic of non-propositional worlds.

OK. But how does one finds these happy, happy facts?

We have religion and politics. Consider them. In politics, in a political party, we may have millions of adherents, each of whose belief system varies from that of their fellows in small degree or in large degree; they may contain contradictions.
Indeed, our own beliefs may contain contradictions, for as Christians we believe in love and peace, but as political Christians , we believe in force and compulsion... and that is the way of all flesh.

How does one describe these belief systems? Obviously if they contain contradictions, they cannot correspond to a Fact of the world in the Wittgenstein sense. Even if they differ in varying degrees, it is difficult how to see they correspond to any Fact.

Any reality may have a logic. Propositions have propositional logic. Then there are facts of the world and Wittgenstein tried to speak of what was almost unspeakable: the underlying Facts of the world. These Facts have their own logic, and their "truth value" is defined as "what-is-the-case"

It really does not work.
I also think Wittgenstein's Logical Atomism is responsible for his ability to envisage a clean and pure Fact - sort of like Descartes' clear and distinct ideas - which stands in Being as a tangible and non-volatile What-Is-The-Case.


Why Do Bad Things Happen To Good People?

The painting is part of a mural by Thomas Hart Benton and depicts the movie industry in America. The film industry has absolutely nothing - Nothing! - to do with this post. However, yesterday I was thinking about something my friend in the film industry said and I had a sudden enlightenment of the Sunset-Boulevard-type  { "Lights! Camera!.... All right, Mr. DeMille. I'm ready for my enlightenment!"}, and this is how I remember things as they all come together like rushes from weeks and months of shooting film and trying now to edit it into something coherent.

There were a lot of important words in that paragraph, but I won't talk about them now. Now I have to talk about things that occurred to me while I was running this morning.

The question posed in the title, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" is but another form of the question whether God is silent or loquacious.
When things are going our way, I notice that people tend to believe God is loquacious: He is telling us the right road to take, the right course to major in, the right investments for our money, and we frequently find ourselves in the end-zone and dropping to one knee with hosannas on our lips.

When we suffer, God seems silent, on holiday, like your lawyer who won't return your calls while the lawyers of the enemy have nothing else to do but badger you.

In Martin Scorsese's film Silence there is long meditation on divine silence.
Yet is everyday chatter, when we are bubbly and happy, all we have to do is turn on the cable TV and get a few doses of God's advice to everyone from the lovelorn to the politically inept.

So which one is it?

(I believe it is both; it is a superposition of states.)


Saturday, March 18, 2017


Well, it's a Fake President, isn't it?


A Private Hudson Moment

Private Hudson in Aliens

makes the following observation:

"How do I get outta this chicken-shit outfit?!"


I Read...

That's what I read.


click on logo to go there

Friday, March 17, 2017

I Read....

That's what I read.


click on logo to go there

A Palmer Moment

Named after the character Palmer (David Clennon)
in John Carpenter's The Thing:

“Ya gotta be _____ kidding !!”
...In his Fox News interview, Trump said, "We will be submitting certain things and I will be perhaps speaking about this next week. But it's right now before the committee ... I have a lot of confidence in the committee."

Trump told Carlson he based his accusations on various news reports (as opposed to intelligence agencies).

In defending his expanded definition of the term wiretapping, Trump said he put term "in quotes" during his March 4 tweetstorm, and "that's a very important thing."

Trump did use the terms "'wires tapped'" and "'wire tapping'" in quotation marks, but also accused Obama of "tapping my phones" without using quotes...

He probably did the air-quote thing when he said it.

If he were to say it in the war room, it would be very Dr. Strangelove, like  "We could {air-quote} go nuclear {air-unquote} on North Korea!"


Billy Bush's Next Interview

Billy Bush
"Mr. Trump, is it true that you feel uncomfortable being close to strong women? Women that will slap down your advances? Is it true that you are too afraid even to shake hands with them?"


The Incredible Range Of Women's Day

International Women's Day was celebrated last week and showed the vast spectrum of the image of woman in our world.

Young Indian women wear traditional Punjabi dress as they perform the 'Giddha' dance during celebrations on the occasion of an International Women's Day function in Amritsar.─AFP

Bangladeshi acid attack survivors walk down the catwalk during the event 'Beauty Redefined' in Dhaka, Bangladesh.─AP


Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Effect And Cause

Watching Birds, Trees near Your Home is Good for Mental Health, Study Shows
According to a study led by University of Exeter researcher Daniel Cox, people living in neighborhoods with more birds, shrubs and trees are less likely to suffer from depression, anxiety and stress.
Feb 27, 2017 by News Staff / Source
Dr. Cox and his colleagues from the University of Maryland, the University of Queensland in Australia, the British Trust for Ornithology and the University of Exeter in the UK, surveyed mental health in 263 people from different ages, incomes and ethnicities...

They found benefits for mental health of being able to see birds, shrubs and trees around the home, whether people lived in urban or more leafy suburban neighborhoods. They also found that those who spent less time out of doors than usual in the previous week were more likely to report they were anxious or depressed.

“Experiences of nature provide many mental-health benefits, particularly for people living in urban areas. The natural characteristics of city residents’ neighborhoods are likely to be crucial determinants of the daily nature dose that they receive,” the scientists said...

 Think of this and think of the use of pets for the elderly, for the lonely, for the sick. There is a lot of testimony that shows pets and animals and trees - and stopping to smell the roses - is good for mental health.

I think it is important to keep in mind that we are not necessarily talking about a situation where a health problem precedes a "nature cure"; i.e., immersion in nature, taking a pet, looking at woodland creatures, etc.

I believe that it is a lack of meaningful and intimate relationship with other animals which is a major causation of depression.
And not merely animals, but with Nature itself: the mountains, the prairies, the rivers, and the sea. If we do not have some sort of functioning "I-and-Thou" relationship with people, with animals, and with the world as a whole, we are pointless beings and we drift into sickness.

This is what this report is saying. However, we usually think of Nature as a curative for mental problems, but a remoteness from Nature is also the cause of mental problems, and those problems naturally respond to a course of Nature.
This is part of what Heidegger is trying to tell us.


Milo Self-Destructs 3rd part of 3

Milo Self-Destructs
Milo Self-Destructs 2nd part of 3

Second,  although both right-wing and left-wing political people can be intolerant and abusive and offensive, it seems to me that Right-Wing Radio is a phenomenon that is all on its own, and has a cherished tradition of a generation or more of intemperance and scurrility which far exceeds that of the left-wing.
We often ask whether violent games (like HALO, which I love!) nurture violence behavior in children.
Did it ever dawn on us that intemperate discourse day after day, week after week, might engender some disgusting baneful behavior within those who listen to that discourse?
We don't know the answers, and the questions are vastly important questions, and we decided to run the experiment to see exactly what happens......!  Only we cannot pull the plug on these experiments; we are left to deal with the results which extend in time for years.
Milo was a paradigm of radical right-wing media. The righties embraced him because, although he was a "fag" in their view, he was "their fag!" 
And this was perfectly all right with Milo, because he had his eye set on the pay-off.
Milo is a minor sub-plot in the story of a generation of intemperate and hateful vituperation, and the depths to which the hustlers of hate on the right and left will sink to secure what they perceive their goals to be.

I realized this evil had borne forbidden fruit when a Republican, Joe Wilson, yelled out "You lie!" at the President during a State of the Union Speech. All civility had disappeared in the brew of hateful discourse combined with the monster racism from the inner soul.

Joe Wilson

That was an event that would not have been comprehensible to The Greatest Generation, much less to me who was taught to respect others. Yet was it not my generation, the Boomers, who have brought this scourge upon us?
Are we not that Generation of Vipers which slices and dices evil into what is "good for us" and what is "bad for us", thus dividing evil into the licit and illicit? The good is left to a few religious who are yet following God and not Caesar.
(When I look at the above photo I can not get over how awful the Politics Suit and Politics Tie look in their clonelike sameness over and over again. Right down to the lapel pins, all the same, all in the same place: homogenized yet most definitely not pasteurized.)

The story of Milo Yiannopoulos is a story of a generation of vipers.
Everything is connected. Nothing stands apart. The only difference in the way I think from the way most of my friends think is the fact that I have always insisted that every thread of act or thought must be viewed as being part of an entire fabric, not as separate pieces torn off. Everything we do is a part of a general and a personal history. Everything we do in one area had impacts in every area of our lives.

We have allowed ourselves to be blind to the effects of what we do, what we say, and what we allow. We have sown the wind and now reap the storm.

We have reached a point close to that existing in our country before the Civil War, when the differences which divide us no longer are able to be submitted to reasonable argument and compromise.
Although our differences may not seem to be over as important a moral issue as Slavery, we still stand apart like fire eaters, such as John  Brown

and Edmond Ruffin


A country achieves greatness without thinking about it. People do what they must to live and exert their creativity and genius.
When a country begins to fail, then it reflects upon its "glory" and yearns to be great again, for its genius has become jaded and boring, and there are no "industrial revolutions" nor are there "great revivals": there are but little upgrades, a few new bells and whistles, a new preacher on cable TV, a new and exciting TED talk, and a new thing that "goes viral".

Immigration is the documentary of our disease: from the genius and creativity of the influx of immigrants from all over the world creating a vibrant and diverse culture we have now declined to building a Great Wall to protect ourselves from the immigrant hordes and their wretched newness...

Sic transit, eh?

We are on a very bad road.


Milo Self-Destructs 2nd part of 3

Previous  Milo Self-Destructs :

Milo self-destructs.... and so does the country....
more at 11:00!

Milo Yiannopoulos
As has already been pointed out, it was not intolerance nor intemperate speech nor racism nor the seductive desire of anarchy disguised as politics that did Mr. Y in; no, it was pederasty disguised as pedophilia.
In our political discourse, racism is acceptable apparently, as long as it comes from someone in the right-wing or left-wing media with a college degree.
If you are an outsider with a high school education, you may as well look up the local chapter of the KKK, for your views are not high tone enough yet to secure a book deal from Simon & Schuster.
First, we see the absolute horror of the joining of the concepts of children and sexuality. The horror of racism and intolerance is pretty awful, but not nearly so absolute. For example, Ann Coulter can utter the most outrageous threats and it does not disturb us all that much.
Even the president can type unsubstantiated tirades and we brush it off after a bit of brow furrowing.
Yet we do respond to children.
I have previously said that we do so partially because we are guilt-ridden.
In our superposition of states of Good and Evil - being both at the same time, not falling into sin now and then, and returning to the path of goodness but combining good and evil into our one nature - we are unaware on an unspoken and barely imaged level that we all, all, each and every one of us thought Jon Benet Ramsey was the cutest little lady... until, that is, until someone crossed the line and killed her.... and even then...
(We keep going back to this murder, but we only allow ourselves to see it as a "cold case", police work, a detective story, something to be considered "rationally"... in this we are like the Krell of the film Forbidden Planet, in that we cannot face the monsters from the Id.)
I speak from experience, for I was sexually used as a child by someone in whose charge I was temporarily. I am not clear on the exact age, but it was well before my sixth birthday.
I think of it now like a Harry Potter story:  there are young persons - let's call them Wizards for the sake of brevity - who suddenly stumble upon a powerful secret which at their tender ages sets them apart from just about all of the rest of society. For the rest of the children of their age are Muggles - not in on the powerful secret at all.
The rest of society, those who are older, when they discover this "wizardry", they act like the family of Harry Potter's Uncle Vernon Dursley, and are not only horrified at the perpetrator of the offense, but also shove the victim away to live under the stairs and treat them like pariahs possessed of a shameful magic.
(If you think this is a flippant approach to a serious subject, I can only say that I have thought about it for over 60 years.)
This ends this first section. We have looked at how our horror of pedophilia is greater than our other horrors, yet we still dress up children like sexy adults. We also in our rush to clean ourselves and society punish both the actors and those acted upon. (Although at present we are more intelligent about it than we were 60+ years ago.)
So we have dealt with part 1 of the Milo story, children and sexuality.
The next part of this series will appear in Milo Self-Destructs 3rd part of 3.

Monday, March 13, 2017

Free Scotland!

The St. Andrew's cross of Scotland; let it be free again!

Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland has demanded a new referendum on Scotland's independence as her country faces the prospect of the UK leaving the European Union.

Nicola Sturgeon

The Theresa May crowd is incensed by this display of independent spirit and lashes out against this brave-hearted display

Theresa May

and states that in the last referendum the vote was 55% in favor of remaining in the UK. This is a bit of Trump-like logic that neglects the fact that 68% of the Scots voted to remain in the EU.

If the Brexit peoples do not want union with Europe, then the Scots are fully justified in not wanting union with Great Britain. Let us put an end to this monstrous hermaphroditic excrescence of the United Kingdom that was founded upon the backs of the poor of Scotland and Ireland!

As George Orwell prophesied in his novel 1984, it is the fate of Britain to be a permanent outlier from Europe, to be known as Airstrip One, a mere "appendix" to a Western Hemisphere empire called Oceania.
The great peoples who founded the EU shall inherit the future while Britain will hold their tiffin boxes.