Niggers Ain't So Bad

“A spade, a spic, a kike, and a wop walk into a bar.”

No. Wait. Scratch that. This isn't going to end well. Let me start again and find a different way to introduce my subject. Dysphemisms make for a bad start.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'”ⁱ

That's better.

When we speak (or write) we communicate using words. And that, by itself, is a very complicated process. It involves not only a speaker and a listener, but the words themselves, and their meaning. And their meaning, or at least their planned meaning, derives from the intent of the speaker.

But their understood meaning is determined by the listener.

One way to explain the difference is by a lesson I learned when I was young. It consisted of the idea that when a non-Jew told a Jewish joke it was evidence of anti-semitism. That wasn't always the case, but whatever the intended meaning, it was understood by the (Jewish) listener to be a slur. While that understanding was usually correct, it was not invariably so. When the same joke was related by a Jew, however, it was funny.ⁱⁱ

An analogous truth relates to other words. Nowadays it's “the N word.” Whereas “nigger,” when used by a white, is understood to be evidence of prejudice, when used by a black in a conversation among blacks it may be neutral.ⁱⁱⁱ   "People of color" is acceptable, though never "colored people."

But even that overlooks some of the other misuse of language.

According to Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, "For us, Hamas is not a terror organization; it has never committed any act of terror." But that was not Ankara's first sleight-of-hand for an entity that vows to kill every last Jew on earth. President Erdogan has repeatedly described Hamas militants as "freedom fighters." ^iv

As the saying goes, “One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.” Words mean different things to different people. Or, perhaps, this illustrates a fourth meaning of a word – the one that a listener wants to convey as his understanding, even if it's not. Perhaps PM Davutoglu understands “terror” as most other people do, but he wishes to make a political statement. Notwithstanding our own President's avoidance of the terminology, Muslim extremism exists.^v

Discounting the political, however, where a conscious effort is made to use words to convince the listener of a “truth,” our words are generally an unconscious part of what we say and, for the most part, reflect unconscious ideas, often colored (that's probably a bad choice of words), rather than premeditated slights. I don't mean to suggest that everyone would prefer to be unbiased and sensitive to the feelings of others. That, sadly, is not the case. But more often, ill thought-out comments reflect a lack of thought rather than a plan. We live in an age of speed, of rapid response, of short attention spans. We do not take the time to craft everything carefully. We express our thoughts thoughtlessly – without refining or filtering them. We pay too little attention to meaning – to what is explicit and to what is implicit. And words hurt.^vi  But don't blame them. They're not really the problem. It's us. It's what we do to them.

The common response in the last few decades has been to accept the use of euphemisms and coded speech, and to avoid any word or idea that may be “painful” to the hearer.  In all likelihood, however, it is more painful to the advocate of euphemisms than to the object of his pity. The person who is blind knows he is blind, not “visually impaired.” And to call someone who cannot walk “differently abled,” rather than disabled, is most generously viewed as condescending. The problem is not with the words nor, usually, with the audience. Even when the speaker is “sensitive” and words are carefully chosen – even when politically correct language is used to spare their feelings – people usually understand what is said.^vii

And what is meant.^viii

The problem is not simply what people mean, for all-too-often people haven't even thought about what they mean. The problem is mean people. A limit on free discourse by the prohibition of “hate speech” will not solve the problem. It will only lead to even greater misunderstanding complicated by the restraint of all of our constitutional rights.

The problem with our society is our society. Our moral standards, as reflected in the news media, on television and in the movies, are less restrictive than in the past. We assume that all politicians are crooks and we don't trust our government. We can't anticipate any legislative answer.

And laws cannot end prejudice any more than Prohibition ended alcohol consumption. Perhaps the solution is education or time. More likely it is a problem that will never be solved except by our understanding of it, and our rejection of its practitioners. There will always be prejudice by those who feel inferior or put upon – people looking for an excuse for their own inadequacies. The only answer is the marginalization of those people by the rest of us, rather than efforts to limit their words. Their ideas may be abhorrent, but let them give themselves away.

Next episode: “Nota Bene 4” – Your turn.

I        Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, Lewis Caroll, 1871

ii       Actually, it wasn't always funny. Some of the jokes were just plain bad. But they (usually) weren't anti-semitic.

iii      The Oxford English dictionary describes the term as “usually contemptuous,” “[e]xcept in Black English vernacular, where it remains common.”

iv       Excerpt from Hamas in Turkey: “Humanitarian Activity” by Burack Beckdil, Gatestone Institute, March 6, 2015. Cited in CIJR Isranet Daily Briefing, March 12, 2015.

v        Ignoring reality doesn't make it cease to exist.

vi       Actually that “truism” is false. Words don't hurt, people do. (This is not a Second Amendment argument about guns, but a different point which I'll make shortly.)

vii      Intent usually can be determined by content and context – not by vocabulary.

viii     If anything.

As Luck Would Have It

I ache. My hands, arms, and shoulders hurt. My back hurts. I'm slower than I used to be. I wake up a lot during the night and need naps during the day. It's my new normal. I'm getting older. And I'm too old to die young.

I'm lucky. I'm getting older. Not everyone is so fortunate. And I do consider it fortunate. As the saying goes, “Consider the alternative.” Although, admittedly, some people would prefer that alternative, it's not for me. That's probably because for all my complaining I'm basically in good health. When I got up this morning (and, in fact, I did get up this morningⁱ), I began the same daily activities as every other day; but I cannot imagine not doing so. The entire concept of death completely eludes me. And, to be perfectly honest, it frightens me. Not that I anticipate punishment, or Hell, or anything like that, but I'll deal with that issue later.

First let me note that I'm still alive. That didn't have to be the case. I survived an airplane accident a little over forty-six years ago. I was learning how to fly at the time (I later got a private pilot's license) and I had really screwed up.ⁱⁱ Fortunately the plane landed upside down in some trees and it never hit the ground.ⁱⁱⁱ There were some broken bones as well as cuts and bruises, and a very injured ego, but I was alive. All I could conclude – apart from the fact that I still had a lot to learn – was that there was something I had been created to do, even if I didn't know what it was. And I hadn't done it yet.

The same lesson was driven home a couple of years ago when I passed out while driving^iv on an interstate. There was the same result as with the plane – the car was totaled but I came out of the experience with little more than embarrassment. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I guess I haven't yet accomplished what's expected of me, and I hope I don't for at least another fifty years or so.^v Maybe forever.

But that's because I find that being old isn't as bad as I expected. The DNA with which I was born has not inflicted any horrible disability on me, and I've not suffered any noticeable diseases secondary to subsequent mutations. Admittedly, the Golden Years aren't what they used to be. When they were far off in the distance they could be seen clearly as a time to kick up your heels with no responsibilities, only leisure time. Now I find that all the duffers curse them. Not me, though. I'm in reasonably good health and all systems are go. (Well, actually, they're not all always go, but I'll omit further discussion of that point.) I have the UFDs^vi and I need larger print and better light when reading. Indeed. The glass is more than half full.

Clearly, there's a lot to say that's positive about the current period of my life. Since I'm retired every day is a day off,^vii and because my hair (what little I have) is white sometimes people offer me a seat (but usually not – times have changed.). I can catch up on the things I put off until retirement, but retirement makes days off meaningless.^viii I can plead physical weakness to get out of work at home. And if I forget something, or claim I forgot, I have an excuse.^ix

On the other hand, there's a down side to the idea that times change. These are (or will be) the “good old days” for today's youth. That's depressing. To think that some of the “music” we hear now will be revered in the future. And it will be even worse then. Gimme a break.

But I've been dancing around the subject long enough. However I may wish to put it off, death will inevitably come. I loudly proclaim my intent to live forever, but I don't take myself any more seriously than those who hear me. They smile, but I doubt that they think any further on the subject. By and large they're younger than I, and they have other concerns at the moment. They'll get around to it in good time.^x

As I noted, I don't fear any particular retribution I might incur because of the acts I've committed. I've done my best to follow the rules, both the secular and the religious ones. I sometimes fail – we all do – but I try. I even wait for the light to turn green before I cross the street. Still I anticipate and I dread what I consider the ultimate destiny. Let me explain.

Like so many before me I've tried to imagine the possible scenarios I face and evaluate them. I'll mention a few. I'm not so arrogant as to believe that there aren't many more, including whatever will actually happen. Many constructs are based on the various cultures and religions of the world. This, however, is the best I can do – and it's not too promising.

First, of course, is the “Family Circus” model – Grandpa, who interacts happily with all the others who have “passed,” is seen standing on the cloud looking down on those he loves – kvelling^xi over their accomplishments. Everything is divine. “He” (actually all the dead) continues in his awareness of all that's happening to those he knows and loves.^xii,xiii But with family life here in such disarray, it's not clear where his attention will be turned. And if life wasn't so great, it's similarly questionable whether he'll derive any pleasure at all from the experience.

Perhaps we'll be involved in the Heaven/Hell, reward/punishment script. It's somewhat more complex than that of “Family Circus” but sort of related. It may require the listing of our virtues and sins, and review by a heavenly court. In the end, there will be judgment of each of us with a fate based on the balance of our acts. Our focus will be on what happens to us. As we enjoy/endure the world to come, we'll have no interest in the world we left.

In the reward/punishment scheme, my religion, Judaism, posits that the worthy ones will sit in paradise and learn with the sages of the past. Learning is the ultimate reward, and it brings us closer to G-d. Still, this model has problems. Learning is an occupation of men, and I don't know what would represent paradise for women. Or for those who died in infancy or childhood before establishing enough of a record on which to be judged. Perhaps they contain “recycled” souls, and they'll be judged on actions during one or more of their previous incarnations.^xiv Who knows?

The most frightening of all the ideas is the most straightforward. Death is the end. “That's all there is. There isn't any more.”^xv It's eternal nothingness. When you say “goodbye” to everyone it's really goodbye.^xvi That's the scientific answer. It's all over and you never know it.

With that in mind, I think I'll go back to my plan to live forever. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to achieve it. I think there's still something I have to do. I just don't know what it is.

Next episode: “Niggers Ain't So Bad" -- There's got to be a better way to say it.

I       At least that's the case at the time of this writing.

ii       The silver lining was that I was alone, so no one witnessed my fall from grace and no one was injured by my incompetence.

iii      Nonetheless it was totaled, even if I wasn't.

iv       Extensive medical tests afterward demonstrated no problem. I can only conclude that I fell asleep while driving, even though I wasn't tired. In any event, I have driven a lot since with no incident.

v        Even though I don't know what that is.

vi      Usual Fogey Diseases. When I was young all us kids had the “usual childhood diseases” – measles, mumps, chicken pox, etc. (in truth, I didn't have chicken pox until my early twenties). They were, simply, what was expected. Indeed, parents intentionally had their children exposed to them in order to take the guesswork out of illness.

vii       Of course that means that I don't get vacations, but I have plenty of time to nap.

viii      But I can shoot my mouth off. No consequences and no fear. No one can fire me and, thank G-d, my wife loves me.

ix       And, when it serves my purposes, I can plead poverty and a speak of the limitations of a fixed income.

x        Or, perhaps, as Sir Humphrey Appleby in “Yes, Minister” put it, “In the fullness of time.” That was his way of saying “Never.”

xi        I'm not sure the word is ethnically appropriate, but it's the most descriptive I can imagine.

xii     An extended version would have him aware of everything happening everywhere. The media in paradise would be much more complete and objective than the ones we have here.

xiii     There's a problem, however, with this view and some of the others. Tradition teaches us that we won't know each other. So we won't know our friends and family – whether they're alive or dead. We won't be looking down on them, and we'll be unaware of when they're looking up at us. How we'll recognize the sages with whom we learn I'm not certain (v.i.).

xiv    The concept of multiple incarnations of individual souls brings added complexity to the “Family Circus” idea. If the souls have been around several times, in whom will they be interested as they watch from their cloud? And with whom will they cavort up there?

xv       That was a line in the play “Sunday” (1904-1905), said by Ethel Barrymore. She also used it to end curtain calls.

xvi      Of course that's true with some of the other models as well.

Repairing The Breach

No question about it. PM Netanyahu and Israel's voters have painted themselves into a corner. They may have felt that they had no choice – that they had to go it alone – but the result is that they have thrown down the gauntlet in front of their oldest and most influential ally. In the face of a world that favors the Palestinians, the Israeli electorate has chosen to demonstrate its lack of confidence both in the world, and in its American ally.

It is a basic rule of argument that, even when all “right” is on your side, you do not paint your opponent into a corner if you ever hope to achieve some agreement in the future. There has to be a way out that does not involve a total loss of face. And you certainly don't allow him to corner you.

But the worst possible result is when you do the job for him.ⁱ “Right” and “wrong” are irrelevant issues if an ultimate reconciliation is desirable. If that reconciliation is to be achieved, one side will then have to blink. It will have to back down on an action or a principle that it had theretofore observed or announced – a “red line.” Absent some kind of condition in the original position,ⁱⁱ such a backing down will be an admission of error, and it will trigger a loss of confidence by those who had supported that position until then.

Sadly, however, that is where we are now. A nation that appeared to be weak and adrift when facing terrorism around the world; one that had been signaling its wish to be “evenhanded” in negotiations for a two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine impasse – a nation which initially pledged that Iran would not be permitted to have nuclear weapons, but is now willing to accept them while somewhat delaying their assembly – is seen by Israel as abandoning it. Whether or not the premises and the conclusion were correct, it was foolhardy for the Prime Minister not to take a patriotic stance that was so inflexible rather than one that still had some wiggle room in it. And it was dangerous for a significant part of the electorate to base its choice on that stance. It appears that a chasm has been opened – an irreparable rift between nations that share basic values. And that is a chasm that must be closed.

But how do you do that? Clearly the United States must “win.” If Israel prevails it will be further “proof” to an anti-semitic world that the Jews control our country, and they are the source of all evil. Israel will lose by winning. Our country, which is perceived as weak and leaderless, one already losing the respect of the world, will suffer a further decline in prestige and see its role in world affairs further diminished.

Netanyahu, and Israel, must “lose.” The challenge will be to find a way to do so in a way that can be presented to the voters as a political necessity rather than a disavowal of the promise he made to them. Even if the best result would be a stronger stand by the United States, and that is Israel's goal, Israel will not be permitted to defeat our country in a head-to-head confrontation. Ideally we will recognize the importance of good relations with Israel and the strengthening of our image around the world – it may take years and a change of administration to reach this point – but a breach in our alliance now will make rapprochement in the future more difficult.

Are there any plausible steps that can be made at the present? Perhaps. It's not likely that either side will recant – at least not willingly. Some modifications may be possible however. Most important, though, for the moment at least, not very likely, will be the restoration of American prestige. It will take time for our friends to trust and rely on us again, and it will take time before those who disagree with us take our wishes seriously. We do not project the power and resolve that was, once, our hallmark. But regaining that image is critical to our influence around the world. It has nothing to do with Israel. It's all about us.ⁱⁱⁱ

Israel, however, is a small state. However valuable it may be to us, it must recognize its role as our follower, not as our leader. Netanyahu has pledged not to have a Palestinian state during his time as Prime Minister, but the Knesset can overrule him.^iv Or he can initiate steps that will result in such an entity following the completion of his term.^v Alternatively, Netanyahu, in building a coalition, may be “forced” by potential partners to accept modifications of his pledge, in order to prevent the establishment of a left-wing government that might be worse for the country. And there are, I'm sure, other scenarios that can be adopted.

But Israel must act quickly, before the United States takes any steps by which it paints itself into a corner. Before the United States does anything irreversible, like voting in the UN to authorize a Palestinian State within borders unacceptable to Israel, healing must take place. It's not impossible, but it will be to everyone's best interests if we don't simply sit around and watch the paint dry.

I        It does not matter if your opponent (friend? – the one you are debating – one with whom you might wish ultimate reconciliation) is completely wrong. In fact, if he is completely wrong it's even more important that you leave him a way out.

ii        A “back door” – a condition under which you might modify your position. Or at least a hint that can be “spun” into proof that you have achieved your aim.

iii      The possibility that Iran will develop nuclear weapons must be taken more seriously by us. Initially President Obama pledged that it would never happen (the American people have learned that a leader's pledges aren't worth much, and the Israeli people must learn the same lesson) but those words have been forgotten. Initially, however, the risk was primarily Israel's – the country which Iran had vowed to eliminate. And Israel is expendable. But with Iran's development of intercontinental missiles, the nuclear threat to the United States is a consideration we must factor in. In this case the danger faced by the United States may make it more sympathetic to that facing Israel.

iv       This would result in a new election, but that provides another opportunity for the Israeli electorate to speak its mind.

v        Ideally a strengthened United States will be able to convince the Palestinians to accept a defensible Jewish state within borders agreeable to Israel. And guarantees will be provided for the survival of Israel. Perhaps the possibility of a state when Israel has vowed there will be none, will make the PA more amenable to an agreement.

Watson

“Surely, when he was home, he worked on his invention saying, in his first call, 'Mr. Watson – come here – I want to see you.'”

Many intermediaries.

“Sherlock Holmes worked on his cases with Dr. Watson and wanted him to see some hair.”

The game of “Telephone” is based on the idea – no, the reality – that when people pass on to others what they have heard, the message gets altered. Sometimes beyond the point of recognizability. Gossip and rumors are natural outgrowths of this problem. The current reality is that often the sound on telephones is so poorⁱ that the messages are not understood.

That's the good news. The proliferation of notepads, portable telephones, and Skype, along with the social media, has made it possible to spread misinformation to the entire world, not just to a group of giggling children. False information can circle the globe rapidly, and correcting it is not as easy as spreading it.

The telephone's history prior to he internet is fascinating. Not only were there real varieties, like two cans and some string, but also the imagined – at least at the time – like Dick Tracy's Two Way Wrist Radio.ⁱⁱ However, although there were experimental models for the transmission of sound, the first practical model of what we now call the “telephone”ⁱⁱⁱ was developed by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876. He is famous for summoning his assistant on it^iv as the first example of its actual use.

But, as I have noted, much has happened since then, and we now live in an age when almost everyone in the country, including children, carries a telephone around. I'm not sure if having the device immediately available gives them a sense of security, but I am sure that it deprives them all of privacy. Not that people want that anymore. With social media of various sorts there is an urge to inflict their private lives on everyone else and, for reasons that are completely beyond me, everyone else looks.^v

Even more frightening is the tableau that meets our eyes as we walk down the street. No one's eyes meet ours because they are all focused on the contents of their hands: electronic devices, apps, and texts. Some even use the instruments as telephones, although that has receded into being a secondary function.^vi But, by whatever means, it seems to be necessary always to be in contact with someone else. Earbuds and isolation are the order of the day. Telephone calls and texting may be significant contributors to motor vehicle accidents and deaths, but that information is not likely to have any effect on those responsible. After all, they only happen to someone else.

I know almost nothing about economics, so I probably shouldn't be commenting on this subject. But that certainly won't stop me. To use my personal lack of knowledge as a criterion would be subjectivity, and I'm nothing if not objective. (I'll leave time at this point for your individual musings.)

You can't go anywhere nowadays without seeing people on the telephone. Nor can you escape the advertisements for various telephone and texting plans or the ubiquitous apps that you must have in order to keep up with modern society. Add to that the cost of satellite, cable, or other television and internet service and the average family is probably paying for several communications packages – enriching the providers and draining personal savings.

One might argue that such a drain is bad for the economy in addition to being an unnecessary luxury, but another approach is that this creates jobs and keeps the money moving. As I said, I'm not an economist and not the one to answer those questions. But I do suspect that, for the economic better or worse, expenditures which may extend into the thousands every year are causing people to feel poor and resent the ones who are receiving the money. Well, not all those receiving the money – not the installers, linemen, office workers, and the like – but certainly the executives of communication firms.

As for privacy, forget it. In addition to the senseless material that so many post nowadays, there's also some significant data available to those tapping our lines and to hackers around the world.^vii The only privacy that exists is the experience of blotting out the rest off the world^viii when the earbuds are inserted.

Am I a troglodyte? Do I yearn for a return to the past? Perhaps in some ways. But I'm not a Luddite. I haven't destroyed an electronic device all week, although I may, in the future, find it necessary to put some of them out of their misery if I am to maintain my own sanity.^ix Most of all I long for the days when people only talked when they had something significant to say, and when you could occasionally believe what you were told – if you cared.

Alexander Graham Bell moved society forward with his work. Or was it back?

Next episode: “As Luck Would Have It” – Growing old and golden.

I       However helpful the apps.

ii       Which first appeared in 1946.

iii      Definition of the term from the Online Etymological Dictionary: 1835, "system for conveying words over distance by musical notes" (devised in 1828 by French composer Jean-François Sudré (1787-1862); each tone played over several octaves represented a letter of the alphabet), from French téléphone (c.1830), from télé- "far" .... Sudré's system never proved practical. Also used of other apparatus early 19c., including "instrument similar to a foghorn for signaling from ship to ship" (1844). The electrical communication tool was first described in modern form by Philip Reis (1861); developed by Scottish-born inventor Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922), and so called by him from 1876.

iv      Alexander Graham Bell: notebook entry of March 10, 1876, describing his first success with the telephone. He spoke through the instrument to his assistant, Thomas A. Watson, in the next room. "I then shouted into M [the mouthpiece] the following sentence: 'Mr. Watson – come here – I want to see you.' To my delight he came and declared that he had heard and understood what I said." We are asked to assume that he heard through the instrument, not simply because someone in the next room was shouting. OK. Sounds plausible. I'll buy it.

v        Heaven help us if there is a problem with the internet; if, as a result, we're not all connected. How will we know all that's going on. Not that most of it matters.

vi       Of course if you call a commercial firm you're not likely to get anyone. Only voice activation and simulated speech. It's hard to get a live person anymore. But remember, “Your call is important to us. Please stay on the line. It will be answered in the order received.”

vii      I won't discuss the relationship of hacking and cyber war for the moment, but it's becoming a major battlefield.

viii     And any contemplation or thought in general.

ix       I suspect questions of the sanity of others have crossed your mind as they have mine when seeing someone walking alone but talking. It might be that he's on the telephone or he may be bonkers.

Ice Breaker

The lowest price of gasoline in my town the last time I looked was $2.599. That's certainly a lot less than it has been,ⁱ and the price of oil on the commodities market is tumbling. I guess that's good. It has me rethinking a policy I've had in place for years though. I'd walk for short distances, justifying that act as a way both to save time and money and to improve my health.ⁱⁱ And I'd also glory in the idea that I was denying those sheiks somewhere a little of my money. I was both frugal and virtuous.

But I'm driving a little more now. Not simply because I'm older, but because it's cheaper. My schedule has changed as well and it makes more sense to drive for that reason, however I'd be fooling myself if I really tried to justify my transportation on that basis. The real reason is that it makes economic sense.

I came to this conclusion when seeing all the people pulling out their bottles and drinking while walking.ⁱⁱⁱ I'm not sure that the water is their fuel, but it's certainly a major accompaniment of their ambulation. The longer the walk, the more water they drink. It requires a place to keep the bottle and the wasted concentration and energy needed for the whole process. It doesn't seem to make much sense.

And another thing. It's expensive. People may view it as beneficial, believing the water to be pure and healthful, especially when it's supplemented by vitamins or minerals (along with food coloring) but I suspect the real reason they do so is because everyone drinks bottled water nowadays. So it must be good.

It's not for me though. I'll stick with tap water, which is the source of much of the bottled water on the market anyway. As far as I'm concerned the taste is fine. It's New York City water, which has a fairly good reputation. No added flavors that I can detect.^iv And, to the best of my knowledge, the water's healthful enough. No major outbreaks of toxicity or infection^v have been reported in drinkers secondary to it. And I don't have to buy and throw away plastic bottles. So I'm actully doing something good for the environment – not that I'm all that concerned.^vi

But let's get back to the economics. I was checking out the price of bottled water on my computer^vii,viii and I learned that the list price for eight ounce bottles of water (Nestle's^®) was $4.67 a gallon. Of course I could get it cheaper. In the liter bottles, for example, Poland Springs^® water was little as $3.17 at Staples, and there's one not too far away by car, but I couldn't walk there, and I certainly couldn't carry back enough of the water to make the walk worthwhile. (Of note, as well, is the fact that the nearest Staples is on the other side of the Bronx River which is difficult to walk across unless it is frozen,^ix and then there is always the risk of it breaking when I walk over it carrying heavy bottles. If I'm not drinking something – not the water – I don't need cracked ice. And it's only frozen at times when I wouldn't want to walk, and when perspiration and dehydration would be less of a hazard than otherwise.)

What it boils down to, is that it's cheaper (and easier) to drive on gasoline than to walk on water. It's also a lot faster. By and large, gasoline has it all over water.^x It even floats on it. So I'll drive more often and walk less.

But I'd still like to find some way to stick it to the sheiks.

Next episode: “Watson” – Not the computer.

 

 

I        And according to all the news reports, it's likely to go lower. At least until it goes higher.

ii       I must admit that I'm not convinced that most of the measures we take – including walking – to improve our health really have any value. I suspect that they're fads that give people the illusion that they're doing something useful. I employ the same tactic, but I recognize the fact that it's only an excuse for something that I want to do for other reasons.

iii      I'm not one of them, but the possibility that may occur is alarming.

iv       If there are, I've been drinking this stuff so long that I don't notice them.

v        Or infestation.

vi      The environment has been doing fine for billions of years and it is only human arrogance that convinces us that we're more powerful than the earth and we can destroy it.

vii      How did we ever survive before there was a Google^®?

viii    Parsing that sentence is a little difficult because it's ambiguous. Just so you're clear, the bottled water isn't on my computer – that's where I do the checking.

ix       Sure I could use a bridge, but if I'm walking all that distance I'm going to take all the shortcuts I can think of.

x        I have to admit, though, that bourbon goes better with water than with diesel.

Nota Bene 3

 

Once again I find it useful to dump some of the material on my list of ideas for future essays. The list keeps getting longer at a rate faster than I can imagine working on it. And since I don't want to commit to a schedule that might entail the publication of more than one essay each week, it serves my purposes to present a brief taste of what interests me, and let anyone who wishes to develop it do so. If and when I have the time and the interest, I might do so myself – but now's not the time. So here [what follows] are some of my thoughts:

[As you'll soon see. I've chosen to present the unadorned notes for certain subjects. The format relieves me of the time-consuming job of writing an introductory paragraph, and allows me to include more of the issues that concern me. I have my own view of the direction these groupings and their components should take, but it's not something I can dictate since I'm not completing the job. The points are in the space below. Mine it if you see fit.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

1.       The First Amendment

Speech, hate speech, provocative of violence, libel. Are all justified by the Constitution?
(False screaming of) “Fire” in a crowded theater
Political speech
Lying and its limits (if any)
Promises, oaths (legal and otherwise), contracts
Promise of marriage – breach of promise
Censorship, self censorship
Who can listen? Tapping telephones. Privacy
The cost of Freedom of the Press. Is it only for the wealthy?

Hate Speech – The Case Against

Love Speech

“Die you mother-*#&@# son-of-a-^~#*&$. I hope you rot in Hell.” [Contains a reference to sexual intercourse (*#&@#). Therefore it must be love speech.] Even moreso if it occurs during a rape

“This is your punishment for deviating from the Bible. I pray that you are forgiven.” [Said to a homosexual with AIDS it constitutes hate speech.]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2.       Change the Constitution.  

The Bill of Rights was an “afterthought.” A necessary afterthought. Should it be updated?
First Amendment: What are its limits? Freedom of Speech vs. insults and condemnation of particular groups.
Second Amendment: Is it still justified? With terrorism do we need it more than ever?
Fourth Amendment: Does security override privacy?
Etc. Including rights of “minority” groups
What are the rights of the majority?
Would you change (or define) the charge of the President, Congress, the Courts? How?
Would you limit their authority?
Would you mandate compromise?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3.       They: Different “they”s and their arenas (for better or worse).

Bureaucrats
Conspiracies
The “rich”
Politicians
The Courts
Society/culture/television
Who are the decision-makers who rule our lives and how are they chosen? Do they have any responsibility to us? Have we any control over them?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4.       What is America's (or the country you live in) obligation (if any) to:

Protect other governments? Are we (should we be) the world's policemen?
Protect the citizens of other countries?
Provide for our own
Security
Selves – no matter what it costs and who pays it
Minorities
“Underclasses” – Is socialism justified?
Children and grandchildren
Give them a better world
Environmental
Cultural
Political
Don't saddle them with debt
Industry
Protect the world's environment
Is there a problem?  
Can it take care of itself?
Is it too late to solve problems?
What are the costs and who will wind up paying them?
Should the “Third World” get a pass to catch up?
Or should we mind our own business and leave the world alone? Is the status quo better than what we might do.?

From time to time I've raised these subjects, but my thoughts about them at this time are a little different from the past. Some would require a multi-part discussion were I to tackle them, so I leave it to you. And in this semi-random outline form I can list a more complete selection of the areas of concern that I have. I have enough to write about without dealing with them.  (By the way, the original formatting doesn't seem to transfer properly, so you'll have to figure out what some of the sub topics are.  For example, in the last grouping "security," and everything thereafter are areas which we may want society to provide.  And the five issues after "Our children ..." relate to that subject.  Good luck.)

Next week back to the regularly scheduled programs.