The Means

What does it all mean? Should we cheat to win? Is it legitimate to mislead the enemy in time of war? Even more basic – is war itself justifiable under any circumstances? What are the rules and the roles of morals and ethics in decision-making?

First of all, let's deal with the question at hand: does the end justify the means? I'm not even sure I understand the question. I'll come back to that later.

When I was growing up the double feature at my local movie theater was accompanied by cartoons, a serial (cliffhanger), coming attractions, and a newsreel. It was during World War II and one of the terms I remember from the newsreels was “The Big Picture.” Somehow everything that our country did was justified in relation to The Big Picture. We had a world to save and a war to win, and we won the war and saved the world. Hooray for us.

In retrospect, however, some of our actions raise questions in my mind, but we did what we set out to do. And I realize that we did some things which may have been contrary to the rigid principles to which I like to believe I adhere. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I'm not alone in this philosophy. While so many praise diversity and remind us of that morality is relative, though, I don't buy.

Like the ACLU, I believe in absolutes. For them,ⁱ however, the absolutes are Man's laws – at least the ones with which they agree. They claim to be limited in what they can do so they don't do everything; like defend the second amendment. They declare the flawlessness and unchangeability of the Constitution only up to a point. My absolutes are “right” and “wrong,” although they may be more difficult to define. I don't accept the “slippery slope” argument because I believe that intelligent people can differentiate between cases, and don't need absolute laws to decide for them – to deprive them of the opportunity to judge. The ACLU's absolutes would put a computer in the jury box instead of thinking people. At least for the carefully chosen cases they decide to defend.

But if I praise, yet wonder about, our actions in WW II, (and, as it turns out, in other situations as well) I need to examine my concept of absolutes, at least in regard to means and ends. And that examination yields the obvious: the means – the variables for which justification is sought – are the most important consideration. We allⁱⁱ believe the ends we desire to be desirable. As far as we're concerned they're justified, even if others might disagree. So the first question relates to the means. And it also relates to their alternatives. And to how I define “absolute.”

Starting with the last of these considerations, the “absolute” is that the least intrusive method of achieving a justified goal should always be the method used. Since I've already stated that we all consider our goals to be justified, we'd probably be loath to have an outside party make that determination, but that may be necessary (a board of “independent thinkers” – perhaps ethicistsⁱⁱⁱ would be empaneled to make such determinations). In addition, unless you believe that “all's fair in love and war,”^iv you'll probably object to using means which are contrary to your goals.

But there will be times when “the least intrusive method” is intrusive. And there will be times when you may validly question whether you're using “wrong” means to attain a “right” end; are you using fire to fight fire?; will your enemy be “hoist by his own petard?” Would the assassination of Hitler been justified or would it have been an immoral violation of the injunction against killing? It's not so easy.

That raises questions about the end. How important is it? Is it more important than the proposed means – and if so, according to whom? As far as you're concerned, are the means helping someone get away with a crime if that's what you're getting paid for? Or perhaps the use of “technicalities” to achieve that aim? Is it involvement in vigilantism to act against someone being aided by those technicalities to redress a wrong? How pure should you be when facing evil? Must we always turn the other cheek and shoot ourselves in the foot?

The reality is that there are bad people in the world. Allowing them free rein may not be the best approach to deal with them simply because the use of necessary measures to limit or eliminate the damage they do may be viewed by some as a violation of that purity. As I noted above, I don't believe in the concept of a slippery slope. I believe in right and wrong. Defining those ideas may be more slippery than the slope, but the idea is based on the idea that the pursuit of justice is more important than a mindless adherence to rules.

Which brings us back to the original question. Does the end justify the means? And my answer is sometimes – but not as often as that excuse seems to be used. It depends on the importance of the end and the intrusiveness of the means – with a healthy dose of absolutism to leaven the mixture. How do you balance the various factors that affect it? It depends. How right is the end – or how wrong? And the same decision has to be applied to the means. Money certainly is not justification for performing or aiding an evil act, but poverty and the risk of starvation cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. Was Jean Valjean's act necessary?^v Or was Inspector Javert justified in hunting him.

There's no easy answer. But that's the case with so many of our problems. We have to work them out ourselves. We cannot depend on machines to do so for us. And since we write the laws, we have to be sure they're flexible enough to deal with difficult moral problems. Leon Trotsky came as close as anyone to clarifying the issue: “The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.”^vi The rest is up to us.

Next episode:  "Nota Bene 5" -- Here we go again.

I        And for many others as well.

ii       That certainly includes me. My ends – as well as my sides and middle – are always justified.

iii      “Ethicists” are no less prejudiced. But these opinionated people usually have taken at least one course in philosophy, and have the backing of some media body to broadcast their opinions. And all they are, are opinions which are loudly stated. They're no more valid than what you think, but they have someone's seal of approval all over them.

iv       From “Frank Fairlegh: Scenes from the Life of a Private Pupil” by Frank Smedley. A similar sentiment had been expressed two-and-a-half centuries earlier by Cervantes in Don Quixote, but the wording was different.

v        In Les Misérables by Victor Hugo.

vi       Their Morals and Ours, 1938.

 

Oh Say Can You Si

Nota Bene can't handle it all. So I've decided to throw in an extra blog. It's another thought that I want to turn into an essay. It starts with a list whose meaning, if it doesn't become obvious, I'll explain shortly.ⁱ

Apostasy, C (the computer language), Caesar, cease, cede, coelacanth, emcee, exequial, fancied, fanciful, fantasies, lunacy, prescient, psephite, receive, scene, sea, secant, see, seize, Seymour, sierra.

Got it? The list was compiled by my younger son (an English teacher) and me, and all of the words in it contain a syllable that sounds like “si.”ⁱⁱ And in all of the words the sound is spelled (spelt?) differently.ⁱⁱⁱ Admittedly some of the words have multiple published pronunciations and all of them don't correspond to the sound, but in every case there is at least one valid pronunciation that does.

It's pretty confusing and inefficient. In a world in which I ♡ U and emoticons are replacing traditional text, it's getting harder and harder to justify what seems to be chaos.^iv In speech, where no one sees the spelling, the discrepancies are invisible and pronunciations don't confuse us. We usually use the words that we've always used^v and we understand what they mean even if we can't spell them. Spelling has become less important to those growing up now, and abbreviations abound in cyberspace. Some shortening of (written) speech has been around for a long time – not just shorthand, but messages like xxx or, more recently, B2B – but it's really blossomed with recent technological advances. And spelling bees are becoming less popular than in the past. Perhaps it's time to revisit the idea of phonetic English. Because ours is a large language, and one that has accepted and adopted the words and spellings of most of the world's cultures, written English has come to contain many variations of the same sounds – just as it has accepted the words themselves.

Attempts to institute phonetic English have been around at least since the nineteenth century.^vi One of the most famous proponents was George Bernard Shaw, but the effort predates him. People have been making fun of our orthography for a long time. Perhaps the best known example is ghoti. “Fish” is the pronunciation you'll have when the “gh” is rendered as in “rough,” “o” as in “women,” and “ti” as in “motion.” That pronunciation was first recorded^vii in 1855, the year before Shaw was born. Ten years earlier, schiesourrhce was facetiously proposed for “scissors,” along with some other ridiculous spellings, but I leave them to you. And there have been many other critics and parodists.

Ignoring the satire that is part of some of the proposals, it is difficult to argue with the idea that English is unnecessarily confusing for our own natives, and extraordinarily difficult to learn for new Americans. For this reason I favor the use of symbols to replace some of the sounds we use. For example, the letter “o,” which currently represents, among other letters and groupings, “eau,” “o,” “ou,” “owe,”and “ough” might be replaced by 5, alth5 I admit this is arbitrary. $ could represent “si”^viii sounds in words like “$t,” “$nosure,”^ix “prophe$ (the verb), and $ence. And, as an extension, other symbols could replace some of the other sounds in th5se words, making a truly ph5netic language.

Taking the original example, “si,” pronounced as it is in Spanish to recognize the increase in Spanish-speaking Americans, and using “3” in its place in the words noted above, we have aposta3, 3 (the computer language), 3sar, 3se, 3de, 3lacanth, em3, exequial,^x fan3d, fan3ful, fanta3s, luna3, pre3ent, 3phite, re3ve, 3ne, 3, 3cant, 3, 3ze, 3mour, 3erra. I'm sure you'll note both the savings in space and the ease of reading the new script. Admittedly there is some 5verlap of words,^xi but context will clarify m5st of the issues. And it's unlikely that the Vatican will be confused with the trinity, alth5 b5th might be written out as “H5ly 3.”

$...... Maybe that's not the way to g5.

I        Actually I'll explain it whether or not it becomes obvious.

ii       Meaning, among other things, “if” in Latin. That's the pronunciation in the word list I've presented.

iii      I suspect there are more, but we're tired of looking.

iv       Kos?

v       Usually, but not always. It's easier to say “goodbye” than “TTFN,” but somehow the latter has caught on. Some acronyms do, in fact, save time, but that's not the subject of today's effort.

vi    Spelling variants have long been common. Writers showed no great concern for consistency in orthography until dictionaries were well established. Since they weren't around in serious numbers or of great significance before he eighteenth century it's not surprising that people didn't take spelling too seriously and there was no standardization of sounds.

vii     See http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=81 for this and the next example.

viii    As in “psychosis.”

ix      More accurately, “$n5sure.”

x       Exequial presents a special problem since the “x” is pronounced with both a k and an s sound. Perhaps it would be written “ek3quial.”

xi      Like 3 and 3. And, for that matter, 3. But that's what homophones are all about.

Justifies?

Let's leave the lawyers aside. And the journalists. Otherwise we all agree. The end never justifies the means. Except when it does. Machiavelli was a proponent of that position.ⁱ It was his view that the ends were of primary importance, and you did whatever was necessary to achieve them.

The principle is not simply one of realpolitik. It's reality. My daughter had a baby a few months ago.ⁱⁱ He cries. That's what babies do. It's not pleasing to everyone around. Apart from soiled diapers and other sources of discomfort, he uses the crying to signal hunger. Day and night. That means that neither my daughter nor her husband sleeps very well. The end (the goal, that is – forget the issue of the diaper) is a full stomach. The means is the crying. Not very pleasant, but it works.

And there are those with diseases that require medication. As we've always been told of a medicine, “the worse it tastes, the better it is for you.” It's even worse with chemotherapy for cancer. The drugs are toxic and they make you sick. But if they have a positive effect on the tumor it's all worthwhile. The end justifies the means.

It's not so clear though. Part of the reason is that we don't all agree on the ends or the means. Many believe in unfettered “artistic expression,” even if that means justifying what others consider to be the use of pornography for profit; some view marriage as an end in itself, and would excuse some degree of abuseⁱⁱⁱ as an acceptable cost in order to achieve this end. And there is disagreement about whether sexual intercourse is justified as a means – because new life may result – or if is an end in itself. And the arguments about religion, contraception, and evolution complicate the issue still further.

Perhaps the most striking example of the problem, however, relates to one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shall not kill.” It's not really clear what that means – whether, for example, it exempts self-defense, or war. It isn't absolute, since the Bible itself speaks of death penalties and the like. But there are many who would ban the practice of capital punishment while others, although they may view it as a sad means, consider it a justified method to achieve the ends of lowering the murder rate and punishing abominable crimes. For some it's simply a regrettable necessity (to save face, for the sake of pride, to punish evil, or a combination of these and other motives).^iv Whether they're right or not isn't the point. They accept the means of achieving the end.^v And in many jurisdictions, capital punishment is well established, with the United States Supreme Court accepting it as legitimate.

If society can legitimately kill, however, how does that apply to its members? Paul Kersey^vi believed that he was justified in acting as a vigilante, and a number of apologetic movies followed his. A decade later, with the subsequent approval of the public, Bernhard Goetz meted out his own form of justice in the New York City subway. And the technique worked. The end was accomplished by means which were questionable at best.^vii But the end was accomplished.

Vigilantism, however, is not a new phenomenon. Ancient societies permitted, and sometimes encouraged, retribution for criminal acts. In the Bible^viii we read the story of the rape of Dinah and the retribution taken by her brothers for the crime.^ix Indeed, what we view as an unspeakable crime, murder, is often viewed by their proponents as a necessary and justifiable “honor” action. That the punishment may be given the victim in addition to – or instead of – the perpetrator does not mitigate the idea that the means – perhaps a killing – is warranted in order to achieve the end of regaining the family's honor.

No. It's not so clear. It's not clear because we live in a “multicultural” world, and we disagree both about what constitutes and what justifies means and ends, and about what qualifies as acceptable or even obligatory behavior. It's even uncertain in more homogeneous settings because people have different levels of tolerance for “deviant” behavior even when their backgrounds are similar. Or they may disagree over the basic question regarding the justification of means for worthy aims.

But I'll deal with that next week.

Next episode: “The Means” – Next week. The final installment dealing with this question.

I        The Prince, by Niccoló Machiavelli, 1532. In reality there probably was a Latin version available as early as 1513, but the first actual printing was in 1532 and in Italian.

ii        Her sixth.

iii      It is important to remember that abuse is not always physical, whichever partner may initiate it. Verbal and psychological abuse may be perpetrated by an individual who fears loss in a physical battle. In many ways the “henpecked” husband is analogous to the “abused” wife.

iv      For example, Marshal Will Kane of Hadleyville, New Mexico Territory, in High Noon.

v        The same question may be raised about other forms of punishment. If there is a high recidivism rate indicating the unlikelihood that rehabilitation is occurring, incarceration is simply a way of getting criminals off the streets using warehousing as our means of accomplishing that end.

vi       The Charles Bronson character in the Death Wish series.

vii      “The bumper stickers were everywhere in NYC - 'Ride with Bernie -- he Goetz 'em'! The crime rate in the dangerous subways plunged dramatically -- so much so the authorities even held back the numbers -- the truth hurt too much.” – So wrote the Huffington Post, February 21, 2015.

viii     Genesis chapter 34.

ix       Interestingly the name Dinah is the homophone of a Hebrew word for “the law.”

 

A Light Unto Our Nation

Every year they are fewer. Every Yom Hashoah I am saddened by what I see at our city's Holocaust Remembrance – an annual commemoration at Mount Vernon's City Hall. It is not so much the diminution in the count of survivors. I expect their numbers to decrease with time. It is now seventy years since the liberation of the death camps, and the few who survived are diminishing. That some of those, who endured the horrors of the camps and the starvation and rigors of both the camps and the hiding and running of those attempting to avoid capture, are still alive is a miracle – one that we cannot expect to be reenacted forever.

But what is troubling is the attrition among the rest of us, who were fortunate to have been living in safety. Perhaps we did not know or do enough to support our brothers and sisters; perhaps we could have done more. Now, however, there are too many of us who cannot even spare the time to remember. Our generation is passing as well, but our loss of interest seems to be a prominent reflection of our attitude; and a greater contributor to the diminishing attendance than our thinning ranks. We don't want to remember.

Even so, there is something more lamentable. It is the absence of younger generations from the commemoration. As time passes people choose to forget. We feel compelled to commemorate events of two millennia ago, rushing through them on Yom Kippur and Tisha B'Av. They are the subjects of sterile recitations of traditions which have little meaning to us, but they're tragedies that those who compiled our prayer books won't let us dismiss. Sadly we find it easier to ignore our recent history; to forget the suffering that occurred when a mad man tried to wipe out our people. That was so long ago, and it's so depressing, that we gain nothing by recalling it.

Another part of the reason is a desire in this modern society to reject our religion and all that is associated with it. Especially in this setting of comfort and acceptance, too many of our children have lost interest in the history and the traditions that formed them. Or, at least, in some of them. They may glory in the liberal position of Judaism, but they interpret that idea to mean that they are no different from anyone else, and the Holocaust was a universal tragedy rather than one that has a specific meaning to Jews as Jews. People are dying all over the world – people of all religions and races – and to focus on our own pain is a denial of the suffering of others. If they have any responsibility at all it is to help those others.

They are not to blame however. We are. Too many in our generation, and the one that preceded it, not only emphasized a liberal, universalistic outlook, but were enamored of the concept of a melting pot. They rushed to adopt the mores of their new home, and forget the customs of their ancestors. And they encouraged their children to do so as well: perhaps not by word, but by example. And as their children distanced themselves from their people they distanced themselves from Israel, their people's homeland. For some of the parents, even though they understood, this was not the result they sought, yet they did it themselves. Many of them regret that Israel is not as liberal as they believe it should be. And the philosophy is more important than the physical reality. They are very concerned about Good and Evil as concepts, but they don't always relate them to the world in which they live. And by their reluctance to go beyond a condemnation of Evil as an idea – to fight it, if only by remembering, as it applies to actual horrors – they insure its continuance. After the Holocaust we swore “Never again,” but, unhappily, we have forgotten both the oath and the reason we took it.

Three times Isaiah spoke of Israel as “a light unto the nations” – in 42:6, 49:6, and (with some variation) 60:3. In the spirit of a people who have a message that will heal the world, who can be an example for others, we try to spread the concepts of social justice to others. We look to the nations to follow our lead in conquering the ills that have beset humanity. But in doing so we have neglected our own children – the ones for whom we want to make the world a better place. We have not educated them to their own history. We have not shed adequate light on their identity. It is not sufficiently important to us, so why should it be important to them?

It is said that you must love yourself first before you can love anyone else. But the same idea can be extended to other traits as well. You must understand yourself and your history – you must know who you are and what you stand for – before you can help others understand the values by which we must all live. For us, that means we must know our history, understand our religion, and educate ourselves and our children to our roots before we can hope to enlighten the nations.

First we must be a light to our own nation.

The End

Whatever happened to principles? Whatever happened to reasoned debate? Have we all accepted the perspective of the lawyers we see on television?ⁱ It’s right there on “LA Law,” “Boston Legal,” and “The Good Wife,” among others, and the common theme seems to be that, as so many coaches have put it, “winning isn't everything – it's the only thing.” Right and wrong are secondary issues if they're considered at all. It's all about winning. The rationalization that everyone deserves good representation (even criminals)ⁱⁱ is just so much bunkum. It certainly doesn't apply to those who cannot afford good representation. But for those who can pay, the goal is to beat the opposition, even if you have to hold your nose while you do it.

And I, an ultracrepidarian of the first water (if self-proclaimed experts are so ranked) understand the legal system as one akin to sports. Getting the edge on the opposition is more important than being better than him. If you win, you are better. Virtue is not its own reward – winning is. If you can convince a jury that the party you represent is right, no matter how you do it, or whether it is true or not, you win. And that's all that counts.

All that counts. Yes. The first decision is that your client has to win. Only afterward is a plan formulated as to how to accomplish this goal. It may require the discrediting the opposition – the presentation of “facts” that support your claim and the exclusion of those that suggest otherwise. It may require distortion, suppression of information, intimidation, or “technicalities,” but as long as you achieve your goal and aren't shown to have violated the law or “legal ethics,” you're home free. Or probably not free but very expensive. But all's fair in love and law.ⁱⁱⁱ

What it all boils down to is that first decision. And irrespective of the facts, it is that your client wins. Once the end is clear, the means are inevitable. The interpretation of whatever information is available must justify whatever you've already decided. First the decision, then the evidence. It's like “Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.” First the sentence. Then the verdict.

Unfortunately that's the way too much of what we experience originates. The motive is not always venal, and participants would vigorously deny any intent to mislead. They would decry any suggestion that the end justifies the means. They would defend their actions with the contention that they are trying to get at the truth. Lawyers and other physical and mental athletes may put winning above “right,” but those of whom I speak would maintain that what they do is in the interest of truth and right.

Perhaps the largest marketplace for the attitude that the end justifies the means can be found in the media.^iv From a “macro” standpoint that means the bias of the organ itself – the viewpoint of the owner or owners of the organization distributing what it claims to be the news. While we pride ourselves on our free press – on the right of a publication to express its opinions openly – we assume that what is presented as objective news is neutral. That, however, is often not the case. By the selection of subjects and articles presented^v the media tell us what is important for us to know, and by the choices of photos, captions, and headlines they implant their prejudices^vi in us. And all-too-often they use unchecked material if it corresponds to their own biases.^vii Fact-checking is of greatest value when it raises questions about a view contrary to your own.^viii Otherwise it's a luxury that is often bypassed in the interests of the need to “scoop” everyone else while limiting costs.^ix After all, a free press is expensive, so only the rich can make their views known to a wide audience. The piper calls the tune.

So if the publisher/editor/whatever has a bias, and that is almost certainly the case, it will most probably be reflected in the way news is presented. “Journalists” will be employed who use their articles to promote a point of view – subjective rather than objective reporting of “news” by “advocacy journalists”; use will be made of releases from organs known to falsify, with the publication of questionable (or obviously false) “information” in the interest of “balance”; there will be prominent placement of false claims with inconspicuous admission of their inaccuracy several days later – if there is any correction at all; and, since most people only read the beginnings of articles, that will be a good place to present self-serving claims, while reserving refutations for areas less likely to be read like somewhere near the end of the article, especially if it is on another page.

Perhaps the reporters and editors act as they do in order to keep their jobs,^x or perhaps they have sought positions in media organizations that share their prejudices. The bottom line, however, is that the conclusions come first, and the “facts” presented are arranged to support those conclusions. It's very much like law. Discredit the opposition – especially if your own case is weak. Journalistic ethics, like legal ethics mustn't be allowed to get in the way of the mission,^xi especially if they can be avoided. In this case the goal is to convince the audience that your ideas should be accepted.

That's the problem. Our minds are made up. Facts only serve to confuse people so we only tell others what we want them to hear and believe. In journalism as in law, the end justifies the means.

 

Next episode: “Justifies?” – It's not always so clear.

I        I can't believe that the profession would tolerate such behavior in real life.

ii        Especially those who pay well.

iii      The same is true in sports. Whether professional or “amateur” (for example college athletics), they're big money-makers, and bending the rules, or ignoring faulty decisions in your favor while protesting those harmful to your team, are necessary evils. They're not even evil. They're part of the game.

iv       This is hardly the first time I've expressed this opinion and it's probably not going to be the last. We are dependent on information in virtually all we do, and we always want to know what is happening locally, nationally, and internationally. We want to believe what we read and what we see. But the majority of Americans – not only the conspiracy theorists – don't trust the “news” presented to them by the media.

v       There has to be selection since there is not room to present everything that is touted as news.

vi       The TRUTH.

vii      Retraction of a prominently made claim in an inconspicuous location a few days later may not be seen, but publishers' lawyers assure the publishers that it meets their obligations.

viii     It is certainly a FALSE idea that no one in his right mind would believe. It results from the propaganda of the evil, and must be corrected.

ix       A free press is actually very expensive. First Amendment rights are primarily the rights of those who can afford them.

x        Never take seriously the owner who loudly proclaims a “hands off” policy when it comes to reporting the news. Employees don't – they know better. They know what is expected of them.

xi       For the athletes there's the concept of “sportsmanship,” But no one pays much attention to that unless the public complains and there's a risk of losing some of the audience and revenues.

Nota Bene 4

It's all a blur. I don't know what I've said so far. (Not today, but in general.) I do know that there remains a lot more but, as I've noted before, I'll never get there so I'm declaring it hefker.ⁱ What follow are some thoughts that I don't expect to have time to develop in the near future. Whether or not I've raised these issues in the past, there's still a universe of additional thoughts to be discussed, and I leave that to you.

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

1. Suppose the Universe (there's that word again), having expanded after the Big Bang, reached a maximum and started collapsing. Suppose unidirectional time which, according to some physicists, started at the time of the BB, turned around as the Universe started collapsing and, while it is still unidirectional, is now moving from a time when there was much information to a time when little is known – when past and future (as we know them) are reversed. And billions of years from now the same people who once lived (who live now) live again – only the direction of their lives is reversed.

As the days pass, we forget much of what we knew, only remembering what we personally experienced. Now “progress” has a meaning opposite to what we understand. For example, as time goes by the iPod which someone had used a few years earlier no longer exists and he can only remember that there was such a device at one time. And while his retirement is over he becomes younger and his own children disappear while his parents become a more important part of his life. He is aware of the sequence (it is the normal one) and tells his parents what life was like when he was old. Birth is the termination of his life – his death having been its beginning.

2. According to a guy I know in my community, a dog is man's best friend. His criterion? Lock your dog and your wife in the basement. If you open the door after three days, only one will be glad to see you. There must be other benchmarks by which to evaluate such affection, or any other variety, but I have no time to consider the problem now. Maybe I'll get some help in three days.

3. They mustn't win – When is showing that they haven't won more important than your own personal interests? Are there other times when you gain more from losing than from winning. One is to get a better choice in a sports draft, but there must be others. Another is in the effort to gain sympathy. And when must you do something you wouldn't ordinarily do just to show that you can?

4. In a rational scientific Universe, one that originated with the Big Bang, how do we account for the laws of physics. The scenarios explaining the development of the various features of the reality in which we live are based on the existence of such laws – which apparently waited for the Big Bang so they would have something on which to act – but their existence, which assumes that there was something before the origination/creation seems to be separate from the Universe in which they operate.

Have at it. I'll be interested in your results.

Next episode: “Andrew And Greta” – No one to watch over me.

iOwnerless (Hebrew). Available to whoever claims it. And whoever uses it can change it as seems fit.