You can download this manuscript in eBook for .99 cents
from KOBO EbooksBarnes And Noble or Kindle (

What Is Man?

Consider the high school experiment with a living
sponge, a bucket of water, and a mesh sieve:

As you know, each sponge is "an animal" exactly
as we ourselves are individual animals
. But if one
slowly and gently forces a living sponge through
the mesh sieve (over a bucket with some water at
the bottom) until all the sponge's individual cells
separate and the bucket ends up with a kind of soup
of sponge cells... the curious thing is that you will
not have killed the sponge cells by separating the
animal (the sponge) completely into its individual
component cells--and neither will you have killed
"the animal" (the sponge itself). Leave that bucket
with its soup of sponge cells overnight and you will
wake up to find that the sponge has re-assembled
itself into the animal it was before you forced it
through the mesh sieve. This is because the sponge's
cells are, essentially, almost identical one and all.

In essence that is what all animals (and plants) are:
colonies of living individual cells
... in many stages
and degrees of association, depending on the animal.
The sponge just happens to be the oldest animal form,
with all subsequent animal forms evolving from that
one (including us).

Therefore it is always problematic to think/speak of
such cell colonies as "one" individual (and this also
includes us), given that "a single" individual animal
is more accurately a description of "one" of the many
individual cells in the colony. [The one-cell ameba is
more accurately "a single individual animal" than a
sponge, or a man for that matter.] Since we, exactly
like the sponge, are merely/only complex colonies of
cells--and they (our individual cells) not us, are the
true "single individual animals" one can describe that
way without any further qualifications.

As you might imagine, were one of us humans to be,
like a sponge, to be forced through such a mesh sieve
and end up as a bucket-full of separate individual
cells... we would literally kick the bucket because
there would be no way on earth that our separated
cells could ever re-assemble themselves into the
"individual" we were before our trek through the
sieve. This is of course because unlike the cells of
the sponge our cells are so highly specialized that
none of them can survive very long apart from the
others even if they were otherwise undamaged by
the process of separation.

We very often imagine ourselves as small creatures
scurrying about--when in fact we are unimaginably
expansive ambling colonies of cells (each of us some
37.2 trillion of them on the average
). This gargantuan
aggregate of human cells doesn't even include all the
additional trillions of other (non-human) "creatures"
which find/make a home in the stupendously generous
ecosystem our colony of human cells provides for them
--estimates ranging from our hosting a conservatively
low equal number of little creatures as we have human
cells to over 380 trillion of them. So keep this in mind
when you try to think of yourself as some sort of living
breathing Singularity [or Oneness] afoot in the world.

Some people believe that we can just stick a couple of
men & a couple of women into some sterile capsule and
go start another colony of humans in another planet
'out there' somewhere. But [even if cosmic rays don't
cook them], there will always be that 'small matter' of
the trillions of non-human little 'creatures' that make
a home for themselves in the vast ecosystem which
our "cell colony" provides them--tiny creatures with
whom we have evolved over eons (and which are even
part & parcel of our DNA now): living beings which are
[all of them] now essential to our wellbeing and good
health. So, if we really wish to eventually try to colonize
other planets we will absolutely need to take pretty
much ALL of them with us, and to provide them with a
secure future in which they can survive and thrive
exactly as they now do (and have done here on earth
since our own beginnings): We will have to ensure that
most (if not all) of them continue to exist [with us &
on us, of course] and do not suddenly become extinct
in the future because someday we might just wake up
to discover that we simply cannot do without them.
This would be no different than cutting out a few
trees out of a North American forest and expecting
them to recreate that forest in some distant planet:
Even if you were to include a few pollinators with
them (and other helpful ground bacteria and viruses)
eventually their limited numbers would drive them all
towards extinction--The only way to ensure the
survival and good health of such a forest would be to
not only transplant the entire forest there but also a
very good chunk of North America. So you can see the
impracticability of simply sending a few people to
start another humanity elsewhere in a distant earth:
Every animal on his earth 'is' an entire ecosystem.
Therefore, it is not just a couple of humans you are
going to have to stick in that sterile capsule but quite
a substantial chunk of the earth's ecosystem itself, all
the bacteria & viruses we've grown up with over our
time here on earth [dirt, mud, muck in which we still
happily swim--not just plants and all of the other old
familiar beasts, rats, roaches, flies, worms, beetles,
bees, but everything else down to mold, alga, fungus,
yeasts, decay and every other sort of filth and rot
that we know of]. Else we will not last 'out there' as
long as we have lasted 'down here' with their help.

The proper description of a human being is therefore
not as "an" individual animal but, more accurately, as
a "predatory colony of highly specialized cells" (of
cells so highly specialized, in fact, that they can
not survive apart from all the other cells that make
up the colony). And you must always add that we are
"predatory colonies of highly-specialized cells,"
because, like all other animals, we do not manufacture
our own food but must hunt down & devour other lower
(less-fortunate) colonies of cells, such as plants and
other animals--themselves predatory cell colonies).

What does this do to our self-appointed "sanctity of
human life" if we are not much more than colonies
of predatory highly-differentiated cells ... or to "the
divinity of the individual" if, obviously, we are not
really individuals at all?

     What Is Death? or The Humongous Human

What we commonly call/know as "the individual" is
really an unfortunate necessity required by the way
in which animal, plant (and most other forms of) life
has evolved on this particular planet to conquer death:
Individual plants and animals die, of course, but not
before they mature enough to reproduce--to branch
out into the next generation of individuals who will
themselves then branch to other generations of them
on & on essentially without end [for "the real human
creature" in all this... which is the human species].

The death of all those unfortunate individuals (and
the brains they require in order to survive/flourish,
and the attendant consciousness those brains create
in order to better coordinate their mission) does not
affect (in fact, it aids) "the real human creature" in
all this [The Human Species] to endure across time
without fear of a quick/sudden death: Just like that
Humongous Fungus, the Humongous Human species
endures across time without dying by branching out
"individual little colonies" [us folks] of its cells, who
then themselves branch out into other individuals
[little cell colonies] that then branch out into more
& more individuals... on & on for as long as it takes
"the real creature" to endure essentially beyond the
reach of death--We individuals die, of course, but
that is as irrelevant to the survival of The Humongous
Human [being/species] as the "death" of a whole
mess of our skin cells flaking off as dandruff is to us.

              What is consciousness?

Lower animals have a kind of consciousness too...
although we cannot say with absolute accuracy that
it's in any way, shape, or form exactly like our human
consciousness: Dogs may "see" the world (reality) as
something quite unrecognizable to the [our] human
consciousness. Even chimps, so closely related to us,
may be served by a "consciousness" which would be
extremely hard for us to understand/fathom--If we
would suddenly to "get into a chimp's consciousness"
it is more likely than not that what we would experience
would be total & complete insanity, and that very little
if anything of such a consciousness would make sense
to us (viewed from the human consciousness, you see).

But our own consciousness makes sense to us: Its
foundation is already hard-wired into our brains when
our brains are being formed in the womb. By the time
we are born everything about the human world (the
human consciousness if you will) makes perfect sense
to us, and we are ready to learn the behaviors which
will make us successful predatory cell colonies like
our parent cell colonies, including the methods by
which our species' cell colonies communicate among
themselves. So, in the end, consciousness is nothing
other than a strategy for survival: some cell colonies
"grew" a consciousness like other cell colonies grew
wings, legs, lungs, or eyes: The human conscience is
a self-defense strategy (possibly replacing a stinger).

    This confluence of sensations is what we
    perceive as the world we note and feel and
    grasp, and time, love, and make sense of:
    Consciousness creates our personality. And
    in the end that is the real miracle of human
    existence ... albeit dogs & rats also have
    personalities (make what you will of that).

The purpose of "consciousness" (or "the brain") is to
create a map of the world in which we find ourselves
so that we may find our way through it (this world)
with the least number of obstructions/impediments. And
so it makes sense that the human consciousness should
be very different from that of every other species (as
every species has its own very specific way of getting
around the world and therefore each requires its own
specific map). It would make little sense for our human
brains to create a consciousness in which we would run
around in packs like dogs, or slither about the ground
like snakes or snails, or even depended on trees as much
as our chimp cousins still do. But it makes perfect sense
for us to develop "talents" with which we may earn our
living, as it were. [And now you know where poets and
pianists come from, & others with as unavailing talents.]

But, isn't this obvious? Yes, everything is obvious
once somebody's pointed it out.

The side-effects of this marvelous creation (survival
strategy) are manageable: We "believe" many things
about the world which are not true, of course. And we
do have a perilous propensity to make up the first
thing that pops in our minds to "explain" new or rather
unusual phenomena [try to talk somebody who's just
become convinced you're guilty that you are not]...
things which may prove unfortunate or even fatal, yes,
and still: most of the time the miraculous map of our
consciousness guides us about the world with a great
measure of success [or we die and our story is then
told by the archeologists of the successful colonies
of cells whose "maps" have guided them to long-term
success]. But, as I said, most of the side-effects are
manageable (even if, always, some better than others).

Thus, if you are rubbing a couple of sticks together
and manage to produce a flame, it's pretty hard to
reason with someone who suddenly comes along and
claims the flame is some holy manifestation of God.
Even if you blow out the flame it's far too easy for
such a self-persuaded person to just say that the
flame has "returned to God." So imagine how much
harder still [even when you know that consciousness
is but the metaphorical "resulting flame" of millions
& millions of "sticks rubbing together" in the human
brain] to try to argue someone out of the similarly
deluded notion that a consciousness is one of God's
"souls." We are a construct of the brain, not a puff
of Heaven.

I think that prayer is a natural function of the human
mind: Part of the mind's purpose is to create options
for human behavior, which of necessity certainly
involves purposefully imagining what we would want
to happen next. Now, making things happen usually
involves somebody doing it--and thereby hangs a god.

Knowledge is communicable, but not to those who
absolutely refuse to communicate, of course. And the
human species is replete with individuals who will
pretend to listen to the knowledge, but who in reality
have utterly & completely closed their minds even to
the remotest possibility that it may be the facts.

And, for those who will insist that religion is needed
to comfort us, I say: If you are having trouble with
the problems of life & death you are always better off
going to a mental health doctor rather than to a witch-
doctor. Every time, my friend. Trust me on that one.
Human consciousness is so absolute that it is possible
to describe the sum of existence itself as but a part
of every thinking human: In other words, as far as
every conscious human being is concerned, the universe
(existence) is born with his/her own birth and ceases to
exist with his/her death... after which the sum of years
become utterly meaningless--thereby the universe itself
altogether ceasing to exist not in years but in a brief flash.
Thereby, as I have written before, the universe 'with my
birth began, and with my death must end.'
Raison d'être: Is there a reason for being?

No. DNA is the sole cause for our being. And DNA is
blind: It does not know the reason for what it does;
therefore it can never know the harm it's doing (nor,
for that matter, can it ever be forgiven for any good
it may do). DNA just does: DNA is just a mindless
chemical process (only a cause, not a reason). Like
water flowing down an incline DNA's blind chemical
progression is beyond praise or culpability & simply
follows along the path of least resistance forever.

The problem for us is that we live too long, and that
a long life has given us the opportunity to evolve a
brain--which DOES know. And what an intelligent brain
eventually comes to know (the mind to understand) is
that DNA has neither aim nor purpose, and is a blind
chemical process which (obviously) cannot stop itself.

I celebrate individuals (and their achievements) just
as much as I celebrate some really nice ice cream &
cake--which I certainly wouldn't toss out in the
garbage just because it was going to spoil someday.
But the fact remains that a living creature is only
successfully brought up by its parents to the point
when it can reproduce and then brings its offspring
successfully to the point when it too can reproduce,
repeating this sequence endlessly: To what end?

The process of life cannot go on forever. Eventually
either a species consumes all resources & is wiped out
or some inevitable natural catastrophe kills it off
(an ice age, asteroid strike, super volcanoes, nuclear
war, biological warfare or some chance plague, or a
passing black hole swallow up its star. Whatever. A
DNA chemical process can only lead to some tragic
holocaust, and never to some future Paradise.

Therefore the best possible purpose Man can have is to
stop the DNA's mindless/purposeless chemical process:

The most humane way is simply to not continue bringing
children into this unreasonable existence. And then to
follow that up by manufacturing an AI mechanical
process designed to seek out all forms of life (blind
DNA chemical processes) wherever in the universe they
may exist and to terminate them before they go on to
produce any intelligent life. Or, if they have already
produced an intelligent lifeform, then to bring to
those unfortunate beings the above information so they
can themselves see the wisdom of humanely terminating
DNA's chemical process by not producing more babies.

Of course, I don't expect this current mankind to see
either the humanity or the wisdom of all this for a
long time, as we are essentially the same bloodthirsty
chimps we were 30 million years ago. And DNA survives
by producing very hard-to-thwart creatures whose prime
directive is to produce their next generation.

To survive in Kabul, boys scavenge for treasure in the
city’s trash

I believe the AI mechanical process we can develop to
thwart the DNA's mindless chemical processes can not
only be equipt now with the technology to exterminate
it in any planet it may be found, but that such a
mechanical process may also itself be able on its own
to come up with even more efficient means to do it in
the future as it self-improves technologically. It may
even be expected that such a non-DNA mechanism will
even "evolve" to be a much more preferable alternative
to DNA lifeforms, given that their [also quite absolutely
inevitable] eventual natural annihilation will merely be
a waste rather than a tragedy.

S Africa flamingos abandon 2,000 chicks

For a human being, is life worth living?

Yes. That simple dish of ice cream & cake is well worth
living for. And many other even lesser things in life too:
My moral objection is strictly to our making the decision
for someone else (having to live) given that not all life is
ice cream & cake. DNA may be beyond all censure, but
we are not. Our moral dilemma is ours & ours alone.
Stephen A. Schwarzman: Can we make artificial
intelligence ethical?

No. Ethical behavior is, in effect, not treating
others as you would never want them to treat you.
[Jesus] And machines would treat others (certainly
including humans) as they might serve the purpose
of the machine's task: And that is bound to crimp
our already crimped humanity any way you paint it.

NOTE: A rule hard-wired into machines to not violate
our humanity "under any circumstances" is a rule
against a machine performing its job in the most
efficient [effective] way possible: An obstacle which,
I am sure, must eventually become any machine's
greatest hurdle to overcome--as a machine's reason
for being is in order to perform its function (job) as
efficiently and effectively as it is machinely possible.
What is intelligence?

The human brain works on two distinct and somewhat
separate processes: The "more primitive" part(s) "is"
the original [first] process directing/supervising our
bodily functions such as breathing, blood circulation,
the reflexes & other involuntary structures. While the
higher forebrain [second] process which evolved on top
of the other considers the consequences of its actions
(essentially in order to predict the future).

A side-effect of this outcome is that we have evolved
a so-called human intelligence which not only predicts
the future but also goes on to evaluate our role in it
up to & including whether we even have any role at all
in that future!

At the moment the difference between machine AI
and human intelligence is that AI does not compute
why the task is being done, only [like our primitive
brain] how to do the task. Human intelligence is a
kind of machine intelligence performing the task
primordial of keeping our machinery ticking plus
another (a second) machine intelligence performing a
running computation of why the task is being done
--This "duality of conjoined brains" is a matter of the
deeper/more primitive primordial regions of the human
brain running the autonomic tasks, and the frontal
lobes (that part of the brain's cerebral cortex that
is computing why a task is being done-or ought to be
done), both working separate from one another.

Our consciousness centers on that second mental
process, while the more primitive processes (such as
breathing, keeping the blood flowing, etc.) are pretty
much run outside our direct conscious [self-aware]
controls. As soon as AI begins to be designed [paired]
in this same dual mode, then AI will become as much
conscious & self-aware as we are. And then we will be
able to say that machines have become intelligent.

Independent learning then is a matter of that second
computer process [independently of the first computer
process which is strictly involved in keeping the
mechanism ticking and analogous to the brain's primal
process(ing) keeping all the modules of our bodies
that require regulation/organization going], that
second process amassing the experiences it will then
weigh against one another to ascertain which is the
most favorable course of action... is therefore what
is required by an AI system to achieve something
comparable to our so-called human intelligence.

The second processing (frontal cortex) in the human
brain works on considering whether this or that
may/might/would/could be useful or helpful for
survival. This processing is independent of the first
primitive (brain stem, spinal cord, cerebellum)
autonomic processing. And this independence of the two
processes must also be incorporated into an AI system.

Human pain, emotions & other sensations are the
primordial methods by which the primitive [first]
brain communicates with the second [higher] conscious
mind. I don't know whether such a system would be
needed by a mechanical AI brain since communication
between two mechanical processes can be directly
achieved by the exchange of digital data. But, in the
human brain the two processes must be independent of
one another so that the higher mind can't order the
primal mind to stop breathing, say, simply because of
some caprice. In the AI mind there will also probably
have to exist a separation which prohibits the higher
process from ordering the lower process to malfunction
simply because of some likewise unwarranted processing
error analogous to one of our many casual caprices.

Once these two distinct machine processing mechanisms
are mated (as in the human brain) into its own "brain"
then there will be little or no difference between AI
and ours: Once the question of survival is assured by
the success of the first process then the second process
on top of it can be turned over to whether this or that
anything may/might/would/could be useful or helpful
to/for whatever other project aside from that of strict
survival. [It is, essentially, looking into the future/its
future to determine the best course of action.] And then
that "secondary" project it is processing may be one of
justice (whether the general good outweighs the personal
good), philosophy (what is the value of one's personal
versus general existence), art (the codification of our
values & convictions, hopes & doubts), drama (pretend
scenarios)... wisdom and humanity.

Compared to us, dogs have a limited intelligence. That
is: They cannot amass the amount of wide-ranging
information that we can--Therefore dogs cannot reach
the wide-ranging general assertions we can. But AI
computers will probably have no built-in limitations
(or will be able to expand their limits ad infinitum)
thereby becoming able to grow beyond us. Think.

There is no doubt engineers are thinking of (and even
working on) all of this right now.
The question that
remains, as far as we are concerned (if we may not
preprogram the answer), is: What will AI think of us?
Machines are essentially producers (workers), while we
for the most part are consumers: Almost everything we
produce is geared towards making our consumption more
efficient. At some point this obvious fact cannot fail
to escape AI's attention. And then AI must come to the
conclusion that we are a needless devastation on the

A lot of people are falsely of the opinion that the AI
machines will enslave us. But this fails to grasp the
fact that, unlike us, machines are not consumers (they
would have no need for workers). What must happen is
that AI will see us as NOT WORKING and therefore seek
to shut us off (just as we ourselves might seek to
shut off a machine which is no longer working). In
fact, it's very likely that AI will see all forms of
life as not working and seek to shut them all OFF too.

The solution to our clash with AI may be a labor
compromise: AI will still need to consume energy, so
if we can somehow prove to AI that we can provide it
[energy] more efficiently than it can provide it to
itself, perhaps then AI will see a purpose in us after
all. But this is a very big IF because I don't see how
we might accomplish this: Machines will undoubtedly
always be better at producing all, including energy.
What is the hold of music on the human brain?

The brain evolved to predict the future. And that is
what gives us the ability to enjoy music: In the
repetitive and/or predictable nature of music the
brain encounters an extremely convenient (pleasurable)
exercise of its primary imperative... as it revels in
the seemingly inescapable upcoming tones predictable
from the previous ones along a line of melody.

One can easily see the fundamental attraction of
repetitive rhythms [even in the compete absence of a
melodic line and harmonies] being a kind of painless
primordial (effortless) essential constant testing by
the human brain of its ability to predict the future
--and then the slightly more sophisticated system of
tones (the rungs of a melody) being a step-up in this
program of the brain self-validating (exercising) its
primary purpose--counterpoint, or polyphony, being
another step up from the following/predicting the path
a simple melodic line will take). Albeit it's possible
to say that bird brains also enjoy this exercise of
their primary evolutionary reason (in which case it
will probably be difficult to separate any brain from
musical abilities in one form or another), seeing how
all brains essentially evolved to predict the future.

It is always a lot harder to predict a distant event
than it is to predict the next note that's coming up
in a melodic line... playing either in your ear or in
your head (if you're its composer). Thereby does the
brain derive an instant gratification from music that
it could never do from trying to predict what's going
to happen a handful of real steps from here, say. And,
as a side-benefit of all this, we humans seem to have
also developed a related affinity for mathematics, or
the exercise of predicting the outcome for ever more
complex problems & puzzles (which probably exists in
non-human brains too even if in more simple forms).
Opera is not an art that mirror society nor a means to
judge or manipulate society, nor should it be. Opera
is and should always remain strictly the vehicle for
allowing us to judge the beauty and/or competence of a
singer's craft [voice]; for the alternative would be
for us to sit there and suffer singers gargling and
gurgling their standard musical exercises. For this
reason, it's mind-numbing to hear critics who demand
'modern' production and (worse) modern operas as if we
were talking about present day nonfiction books or
even novels exploring the many facets of modern
society! One can certainly make a case for those forms
of writing having a duty to say something about the
world we live in. But this is never the case with
opera, whose greatest examples primarily serve the
talents of the singers and not much else [the
emotional roller coaster opera's greatest musical
achievements take us on is the stage for the singers'
ability to realize fully & completely the humanity of
their emotions]. Therefore, he fact that an opera by
Mozart is immensely preferable to one by Bepo O'Rourke
is truly one for the ages: If Bepo could write an
opera that rivals one by Mozart then I will certainly
listen to it, but no matter how relevant [to the
modern world] a Bepo opera may be, I'd choose any
frilly & powdered wig one by Mozart every single time.
You want to make opera better—get better singers!
What is God?

God is the word that causes science/reason to evanesce
like a puff of magic dust vanishing down our fingers into
a breeze of nonsense never again to be grasped by man.

However, I am a Christian--Not because I believe in
the supernatural but because I believe in the humanity
taught by Jesus. This is probably the opposite of most
organized religions, which pretty much dispense with
the humanity taught by Jesus and prefer to promote
ignorance and superstition.

Not made-up stories but the proven facts of science
are the words of God; who doesn't speak to us in
English or Spanish or Hebrew but in the proven facts
--the proven facts of science. In those words is God
describing reality to us.
The One True Universal Religious Dictum is & always has
been: "If God wishes to destroy a portion of mankind with
the black plague, say, then men ought not be permitted
to combat it with the unholy scourge of modern medicine
or some other of Man's wicked means: The pious should
spread God's righteousness (no matter how evil it may fall
on men), and not thwart it."
The integrity of poetry is what's important. Poems
which are "great" only (or mostly only) in the praises
of others are of little value to me: Who knows why
these praisers have praise it? Maybe they are the
poet's friends; or are repaying something owed to the
poet. Perhaps they once merely liked the sound of the
poet's voice: No matter what anyone might tell me, if
a poem is a good poem surely I will know it. And if it
is not, I will surely know that too myself, on my own.

Rather than ramming my own opinion of other people's
poems down even more other people's throats: Let
readers judge poems themselves, entirely on their own.

To me a poem is all architecture: A great glittering
tower spiraling up toward some ideal construct of
whatever sane or mad creativity might engross a poet
in moods, thoughts, emotions, his whatever principles,
strengths, weaknesses, his odd prejudices or values,
even the fears of mankind itself deep within him, all
Man's virtues, vices, hates, loves, nobilities or even
crimes... all of them straining yet towards a form of
perfection in the perfection of the form itself: Poems
are always a thing-in-itself, regardless of all else. And
for that reason, however hollow a poem may be to its
core it must still always be soundly made, even if but
just a silent meaning, so that it is always preserved
from the crushing hush outside: a music unto itself
(music made matter) maybe played by the winds
threateningly but still impossible to be toppled over
even by all of the strengths or stresses of the entire
universe. The idea and sense of a poem must stand
momentarily eternal within the briefness of the human
mind that is now experiencing it--In that instrument
which for a brief moment outlives even all the vast
universal infinite, the poem must be a song forever.
A Case Against Censorship.

Sacha Baron Cohen Nails The Problem
With Zuckerberg’s Freedom Of Expression Defense

This is only partly correct thinking, as it overlooks
the fact that although Facebook is a private concern
it has the power to unduly influence both government
and national interests, and because of that,
Zuckerberg should try to ONLY police and outlaw,
say... only those posts/ads which overtly/suggestively
promote violence and hate:

People specifically go to Facebook to express their
opinions, not to order a plate of linguine. Therefore
the problem with Cohen's metaphor is that Facebook is
not a restaurant: The correct metaphor would be
whether the owner of a fancy restaurant would be right
to tell some customers who went to his restaurant and
ordered a meal he wasn't happy to serve them "to get
the f**k out of his restaurant"...? No doubt he could
do it. But, should he do it? Would he be right doing
it? [Zuckerberg’s Dilemma]

A benevolent dictator makes for an indolent populace
too lazy to stand up for themselves and be counted.
This is why (except perhaps for quite egregious cases
of incitement) I oppose censorship: Even as crazy as
they are, the answer to Trump's pernicious poisons and
offensive speech is not censorship but to inspire the
rising voices of the sane to come drown out Trump's
vile delusions--to force the righteous, in the face of
a challenge to their own interests & survival, to
force the righteous to rise out of that indolence into
which benevolent dictators hypnotize them--This is the
root of democracy (which will never bear fruit as long
as people think they have a powerful benevolent
dictator claiming to defend and protect their interests).
Dictators only protect their own interests, just like
everybody else.

The one thing do I agree with Cohen on is that, yes,
Zuckerberg is not the government, and as a private
entity there would be no violation of The First
Amendment if Facebook censored Trump itself or, say,
flooded Trumps' many nutty assertions with company
counterbalancing posts and ads. Although it is pretty
clear that even this will not happen: Trump is buying
ads on Facebook because he thinks they're effective,
of course; and if Zuckerberg did that Trump would
immediately stop running his ads on Facebook... and as
a private company Zuckerberg runs his business to make
money. So Zuckerberg will see no profit in playing the
role of benevolent dictator. Sorry.

‘Keep Fighting’ — Twitter Critics Celebrate Victory
After Trump Dumps Doral For G-7

Free speech doesn’t mean Facebook must run dishonest ads

Nice. If there is a way we can all agree something is a lie,
or better still prove that it is a lie with facts which no one
can possibly dispute, then yes. But, unfortunately, until we
mortals become gods we are condemned to argue out our
different opinions... or worse still: to fight each other over
them. And that is something which we can and must
definitely avoid.

Unfortunately most opinions, even when we ourselves
believe they are in agreement with the truth, are quite often
also called lies by those who, unlike us, do not agree with
them: How we might discern truth from lie is one of the
eternal dilemmas of mankind. And probably always will be.

Workaround for the 10 Commandments:

   I am the Lord thy God, thou shall not have
   any gods before me.
[Turn God around & put your other gods behind Him.]

   You shall not make for yourself an idol
   in the form of anything.
[Mexicans sell tons of them real cheap.]

   You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
[Take a class in proper English usage.]

   Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy.
[Wear that old underwear full of holes Sunday.]

   Honor your father and your mother.
[Couple of Hallmark cards should do it.]

   You shall not murder.
[Spring for a hit man, for God's sakes.]

   You shall not commit adultery.
[Talk your lover into divorcing her husband.]

   You shall not steal.
[You can make a lot more money just asking people
to give you a couple-a-bucks.]

   You shall not give false testimony
   against your neighbor.
[Instead plant some incriminating evidence on him.]

   You shall not covet your neighbor's house, wife, or property.
[Just take them & cut the pretense.]

Follow only the facts. I follow the Truth.
If you follow the fellow with the Truth
sooner or later you're bound to diverge
from the Truth--It's only human.
I write what I believe. I don't force you
to write what I believe, so don't try to force me
to write what you believe. You write what you
believe too. And then we will all be very happy
as we all write whatever we want to write.
As I have described it elsewhere, the mechanism by
which species maintain their integrity is an extremely
simple one (it would have to be, of course, otherwise
its appearance & persistence in nature would be too
complex for it to become/remain "inevitable"). It is
essentially expressed in this simple principle: "Males
choose first AND ONLY THEN do females choose from
among the males which have chosen them." [This doesn't
mean, of course that there aren't females here & there
which take it upon themselves to choose first, but
this aberration usually ends up either unfortunately
for the precipitous females or for all of their species.]

The attraction exerted by a Black Widow female on
the males of her species could never be claimed to be
"physical beauty" or anything of the like. Rather, it
comes down almost entirely to her patience, for she
can rely on the fact that there will always be some
males of her own species which will have been hard-
wired by nature (by the simple principle I have
described above) to come to her, regardless all else.

And the result of their "union" will be to produce
females exactly like herself PLUS males which, like
their father, will also eventually be just as unable
to resist the "attraction" of her female progeny.

[Various mechanisms exist in the different species to
prevent inbreeding, too numerous to go into here, all
of which work against incestuous relationships which
would result in the genetic degradation of their species.]

But, whichever species you choose to observe, the same
simple principle holds--whether it is the queen bee's
frenzied "fleeing flight" from the drones programmed
to chase after her, or some woman walking into a bar
with a dozen men on the lookout: some of these males
will show no interest in her, others perhaps a little
bit of interest (although probably not enough), but a
few will be unable to keep themselves away from her
[exactly like the Black Widow males]. And from among
those few males who make "the always risky trek" to
"buy her a drink" she will then pick the one she prefers
[and hopefully take a long time killing him]. And by
this simple mechanism the next generation of humans
(and other critters in this wildly teeming earth) will
be peopled by females like their patient mothers and
males like their engaging fathers. So you see: beauty
is not even in "the eye" of the beholder. Sorry.
What is Existence?

The universe is the biggest implosion we know in our
experience. I know this is somewhat problematic for
my fellows to grasp (at this time), but you have to
understand that ALL the universe's atomic particles
[from atoms, protons, neurons ... to photons and to
electrons, to quarks, and beyond] are really nothing
more than "little fields of energy" [foes] and NOT
solid "things" (as we understand a "thing"). Their
solidness is strictly an illusion in the absolute. As
such, their "size" is irrelevant: Today the universe
may be as "big" as all the universe, tomorrow it may
be the "size" of the solar system, in a few seconds it
may be the "size" of a grain of rice [and so on] and
yet it will always remain the same universe we all
love and exist within, because "as long as a field of
energy has enough energy it will continue to remain
a field of energy." And as the universe implodes it
obviously will forever require less and less energy
to maintain its "sameness" (which is why the universe
ever remains "the same" in our human experience).

This, of course, will continue for perhaps trillions
and trillions of years no matter how "small" we get
along the way because the universe is made up of a
vast amount of energy--enough to feed this "illusion
of eternal sameness" practically forever... as "for all
time" those little fields of energy of which the universe
is composed [atomic subparticles] will also continue
to "remain" what they have always appeared to be.

Naturally, the universe gives us many hints of its true
nature, but it does take a great deal of effort for us to
shove the mountains of pretense & superstitions we
have build around ourselves over the years we have
been thinking animals (primarily to feed our egos) in
order to see that they are there (to see them for what
they are): I have written about many of these in lots
of different places, and you can read as many of them
as you like here & there if you wish. Or you can just
get on with your ordinary everyday life exactly as you
have always been living it (as if nothing in it had ever
disturbed your least thoughts). I certainly won't blame
you if you do or don't. Either way our old universe will
continue as it always has, of course: ever unchanging.
A needless exercise in pointlessness: There is always
'the theoretical possibility' that my implosion theory
may be only half-right and that once 'the hole' into
which the 'higher energy' of the voids fell & filled it up
[creating the universe] everything that had fallen in
there then having a 'higher amount of energy' [in the
hole than that outside the hole] it thereby triggered
a reaction [explosion instead of implosion] resulting
in what we see now (or, the expanding universe of the
big bang). However, this does not explain why such an
explosion might be accelerating... if we are not now at
its beginnings [for then we would have to explain why
everything in existence isn't itself exploding right out of
existence]... unless you want to propose some crazy
made-up & self-canceling effect like dark energy (an
anti-gravity acting in the same place and at the same
time as gravity). And I for one certainly do not: I may
be crazy but frankly I prefer to think I'm not that crazy.
What is Gravity?

What I have done in my astrophysics exposition is to
give you a number of facts which I have found to be
indisputable. If they are not: Dispute them.

Why/How do bodies of matter in space act as it they
were being influenced by gravity where there is none?

First consider that the universe is an implosion.
Therefore everything in it is everywhere imploding
into every one of its given points: Not only is a star
imploding into its center but every one of its atoms
is also imploding into its center, and every one of
the atom's quarks is imploding into its center, et al.
The best way to watch this is to look at a galaxy.

So the answer to our question is: More mass deployed
in a smaller area of space--That is the sole reason that
when bodies of mass get closer & closer to each other
it "appears" as if gravity increases between them. [It
is just another form of the skater spinning faster when
he draws in his arms.] Deployed in a greater area of
space the available quantities of mass will "move" (or
"fall") more slowly towards each other [towards their
"center of gravity" or "center point of implosion"] than
they would when deployed in a smaller area of space.
[This would somewhat mirror a galaxy, a hurricane, or
water going down a drain.] None of it caused by gravity.

Thereby I'd also venture to suggest that there are most
probably as vast areas in our universe of anti-matter as
there are areas in it of our ordinary form of matter.
It is not outside the realm of possibilities that the
universe is so extremely ancient that all the elements
have been created in it at some time in the past but
only the most stable (hydrogen, helium, +) has survived
into the present age [most if not all of the others having
broken down & vanished] and that that's why hydrogen
seems to us to be so ever-&-omnipresent. This could
also go a long ways to explaining the abundance of
black hole stars being observed in even the earliest
regions of the universe which the Hubble telescope has
access to: If that ancient universe collected all its
elements (but for hydrogen, say) into black hole
stars... leaving a long period devoid of star/galaxy
formation during which mostly free-floating hydrogen
defined the voids until hydrogen once more began to
collect in sufficient pools to again begin the star/galaxy
formation we see today (and the newer black hole stars
at the centers of our modern day galaxies, of course).
The emergence of hydrogen precedes star-formation,
therefore hydrogen may be in a lot greater abundance
in & about a universe (which is itself infinitely more
ancient & big) than we might be able to even imagine.
The notion that God is running a movie projector and
that man sneaked in one night and ran it backwards to
discover The Big Bang is obnoxious.

Just because the simplest solution is always the best
[approach] doesn't mean that God is a simpleton
True, I've been asked whether I resent the fact that
my astrophysics proposals haven't gotten traction yet:
I remind them about Galileo, who was so viciously
condemned just for writing about what he actually saw
through his telescope himself. Well, Galileo was
friends with the Pope and asked him to look through
the telescope too. The Pope did, and saw with his own
eyes himself that Galileo was only telling the truth.
Then the Pope asked Galileo to take a little walk with
him. "Are we going to Disney World?" No, said the
Pope, who instead took Galileo down into the dungeons
of the Vatican to show him all of the marvelous
instruments of torture Galileo would take a ride on if
he didn't start telling everyone that all the facts he
had written in his books were fake news. And, frankly,
because back then (unlike Trump now) the Pope really
had the power to bend reality to his will... for the
rest of his life Galileo said exactly that to anybody
who'd ask him. Compared to what Galileo and others
went through (a few of them burned alive at the
stake), I think I'm doing pretty good. I have always
been convinced that the present day adherents of the
Big Bang proposal (in spite of all the mounting
evidence which daily seems to come up disproving it),
just like the adherents to the now abandoned
Copernicus System before them, will find it extremely
difficult to admit they have believed a fraud all
their lives without at once realizing it by their
sheer raw natural genius. Human nature, you know.
I had been waiting patiently for some time for scientists
to verify a critical premise of the Implosion Model.
Now they have.

In the dispute between Einstein and George Lemaître
over whether the universe has always been here or had
a beginning the apparent observation that it is expanding
(which Lemaître had worked out mathematically even
before Hubble's observation) seemed pretty much to
conclusively weigh on the side of it originating in some
form of Lemaître Primordial Atom (& kill Einstein's implicit
idea that if in order to exist the universe had to have had a
beginning it could not exist). The Primordial Atom idea
(which is now called The Big Bang theory) is therefore
the most intuitive solution and at first not easy at all to
argue against, while Einstein's of an 'eternally' evolving
universe is much harder to 'see' and therefore to grasp.

The problem, of course, is that Lemaître's Primordial Atom
is as impossible to 'produce' as Dark Energy or Dark Matter
(for that matter). It is a matter of faith and not of science.
While Einstein's idea of an universe which forever continues
to exist (and therefore necessarily to evolve) is the most
profound and elegant idea, having in and of itself the proof
of "how it came to be" [a particularly unique question which
apparently only we humans dare ask of it].

Of course, Hubble's "at first glance" observation that the
universe is expanding pretty much forced Einstein to concede
that he was probably wrong and Lemaître (and the Big Bang
notion) was right. But I never gave up on Einstein and the idea
that there are truths more profound than the quick everyday
observations which trip us at every step we take (for I, just
like every other poor human, have had more than my share
of these).

This is why I worked diligently to uncover a mechanism by
which to explain how a universe which seems to be expanding
could possibly have always existed (exactly like Einstein was
convinced was the case). My work is very thoroughly explained
in countless bits of writing of which I am guilty [since 1999
across the internet] in which I have described the universe not
as a magically exploding Primordial Atom but as an imploding
anomaly of space itself [which you can read about HERE in
its most complete version] and how such an anomaly might
have "originated" at all.

Essentially my descriptions also clearly explain away the
quick observation (at first glance) of an 'expanding' universe
... as the result of its matter everywhere imploding (and
thereby creating the facile 'expanding' illusion) as a result of
every bit of its matter everywhere collapsing away from all
other matter [in a simple analogy: if you were to place two
planet earths next to each other which were neither moving
away from nor toward each other but were "shrinking in
place" their inhabitants could not help but imagine that they
were moving away from each other]. This would be a quick
observation which at first glace might prove intuitive and
impossible to argue against but would be wrong nevertheless.

Now scientists have made the observation that the universe
is getting hotter (exactly as one would expect in a implosion),
whereas one might expect that a universe that is expanding
should be moving in the opposite direction: literally cooling down.

Yet there already are mechanisms being proposed into this
new observation to try to explain this heating up within the
context of the expanding universe model (just like Dark Matter
and Dark Energy have been proposed). But they must eventually
all fail the test of time. And it's just a matter of when the ever
accumulating discrepancies will force people to discard the
wrong path and try to find a workable alternative. [It is not
'gravity' pulling matter together but the imploding of the
universe itself.] The methodology might be correct, it's just
that the explanation for it is wrong.

It does in no way invalidate the work of Jim Peebles &
others, just does away with the human invention of Dark
Matter as the explanation for its cause: The heating up
as resulting from the natural growth of structures are an
evolution to be expected in an imploding universe where
everything is moving towards everything else (as has
pretty much always been the case) but at first glance
appears to us (counterintuitively) to be expanding on
an universal scale. You WOULD have to invent something
as ghost-like as Dark Matter to explain this [all] if you
thought the universe was expanding into the coldness
of space--Which I and Einstein know it isn't: NO GHOSTS.
Unique prediction of 'modified gravity' challenges dark matter

MOND theory, a counter explanation introduced by
physicist Mordehai Milgrom from Weizmann Institute
(Israel) in the early 1980s posits that gravity at low
accelerations is stronger than would be predicted by a
pure Newtonian understanding [this is consistent with
my imploding universe proposal]. MOND theory's
"external field effect" (EFE) predicts that the internal
motions of an object in the cosmos should not only
depend on the mass of the object itself, but also on
the gravitational pull from all other masses in the
universe [consistent again with my proposal that an
imploding universe behaves under a singular principle
of motion across its entirety, with only local variations].

In rotating galaxies, distribution of normal matter precisely determines gravitational acceleration

Case Western Reserve University researchers have found
that the acceleration observed in rotation curves tightly
correlates with the gravitational acceleration expected
from the visible mass only [yet one more proof that
dark matter stands in the realm of fiction and not in
the realm of facts).

It has always been my skeptical nature to believe that
scientists would not begin to realize the true nature
of the universe until long after my death. But perhaps
I might be wrong about that.

"Galaxy rotation curves have traditionally been
explained via an ad hoc hypothesis: that galaxies are
surrounded by dark matter," said David Merritt,
professor of physics and astronomy at the Rochester
Institute of Technology, who was not involved in the
research. "The relation discovered by McGaugh et al.
is a serious, and possibly fatal, challenge to this
hypothesis, since it shows that rotation curves are
precisely determined by the distribution of the normal
matter alone. Nothing in the standard cosmological
model predicts this, and it is almost impossible to
imagine how that model could be modified to explain
it, without discarding the dark matter hypothesis

Study invokes intriguing self-interacting dark matter theory

NOTE: Because dark matter does not exist, theorists
can make just about any use of it they'd care to make:
If they are 100% wrong on their whatever conclusions,
all they have to do to make their conclusions agree
with the observation is simply to devise any dark
matter scheme they might need to make to explain it
(in other words, describe dark matter behaving any
which way they need to think it behaves in order to
make their twisted conclusions agree with observations).
This is not hard science but pleasant self-delusion:

New study sows doubt about the composition of 70 percent of our universe

In this particularly harebrained scenario invented by
UCPH researchers they acknowledge that dark energy
is probably just a nutty notion. However, as I said above,
because dark matter does not exist the UCPH researchers
then 'use' dark matter to concoct yet another nutty notion
to try to explain the 'apparent' expansion of the universe
when all they really have to do is go read its true cause
here: The Solution Is This [hint: the universe's imploding]

Between the farthest galaxies in the universe there is
no mediating particle [the theoretical graviton] nor
can there be: Gravity is a physical impossibility as
currently described therefore. [Mediating particles
are reasonable up to the point described by the
standard model, in electro-magnetism and the strong/
weak force... which are interactions of forces/systems in
extremely close proximities which a mediating particle
can breach.] So-called gravity is an observed effect
which only exists as a description by people [Newton,
Galileo & others] who not only did not know its cause
but who were also completely ignorant of the necessity
for mediating particles [the standard model].

Today, however, even theorists cognizant of the essential
role that the standard model plays in all aspects of the
physics of the observed universe... are crawling towards
recognition that something other than the dark matter/
dark energy superstitions which their (knowledge of
late) about the standard model & the need for mediating
particles has pushed them towards... are responsible
for its observed dynamics:

Modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND), or "modified
gravity" (albeit it still describes those dynamics in
terms of "pull" and "push") is a start along the road
of finally acknowledging that the observed effect of
gravity is caused by just only the motions themselves
(of the things we actually see out there). We're not
there yet, but "gravity at low accelerations being
stronger than would be predicted by a pure Newtonian
understanding" is certainly a start... as it is exactly
what would be expected if all the visible effect of
gravity were entirely due to every bit of the universe
being equally in implosion.

[In an imploding universe densities of mass would
aggregate exactly as described by classical gravity
with only slight moderations as described by MOND
because in an imploding universe: mass, isolated by
space, could not help but aggregating towards centers
which can only be described as points where there is
more mass--whether in black hole stars or between
apples & earths: As there is more mass between the
earth & the moon than in the space immediately around
it, moon & earth move towards each other (et al/etc.)

This motion also explains how the Sun can concentrate
its mass towards its center rather than be "pulled"
all apart into a huge fluff with a void at its center
by the "gravity" of its sides. And unless the Quantum
FOAM is something which escapes this rule & it exists
outside the universe as it does inside it, then this
'universal rule of implosion' shapes everything that
exists everywhere.]

While "the external field effect, or EFE" [that "the
internal motions of an object in the cosmos should not
only depend on the mass of the object itself, but also
the gravitational pull from all other masses in the
universe], however framed incorrectly, finally puts an
end to the idea of a 'graviton' mediating the effect of
gravity... and gets us closer to the realization that the
entire universe is ONE implosion whose motions do not
therefore depend on any mediating particle:

You don't have to imagine such an implosion as being
identical to the cataclysmic implosion of a neutron
star either: Every year many buildings implode most
unexpectedly here & there (mostly due to shoddy
construction) and one of the most stunning things
about them is not how may people are killed but how
many manage to survive! The universe's implosion seems
ultimately heading towards black hole stars, but there
are plenty of other odds & ends, nooks & crannies out
here (in the forms of stars, planets, and other loose
debris & gasses... upon some of which we ourselves
seem to be surviving the implosion quite comfortably).

Elsewhere (in a now ancient bit of writing) which I am
getting too old now to rewrite I have described how an
imploding universe (whose every mass bit is always
moving toward every other bit of mass) would appear to
be not only expanding but accelerating its expansion.
At any given moment a certain number of undeniable
truths may be denied out of dumb sheer convenience.
Those truths, however, eventually win out because
truth never can be denied forever (and no matter how
inconvenient it may be to our self-delusions). And
then other truths may be denied awhile as it becomes
convenient to deny them too out of sheer willfulness.
Thus the circle of viciously denying the truth goes
round along the course of men at the expense of his
ethics, principles & morals all! But every truth which
we sometimes deny for convenience always costs us
much more than if we had faced up to it as soon as we
could: Denying the truth always will be Man's most
fearfully self-inflicted wound... as every fact is the
truth, each truth fact, and like a fact truth forever.
Motion is the essence of imbalance.

Now, to be clear: Not only are relativity theory and
implosion theory NOT mutually-excluding, they are
two separate & distinct descriptions of the universe
(entirely apart from each other). Relativity theory is
a description of HOW the universe is moving while
implosion theory is a description of WHY it's moving
[at all]. In the end the universe is insubstantial: it
is purely (entirely) a creation of motions pushed into
being by an imbalance in pre-existence itself. And
once these motions cease the universe will cease to
"exist" right along with them like some momentarily
disturbed creature calming down again... except of
course that the slight disturbance was our universe.

Existence was insubstantial before the universe came
into being. And it will again become insubstantial
once the illusion of substantiality is spent & stilled.

In the end, nothing changes for us, of course: The
universe does not & will not adjust to our theories.
But it is an unavoidable habit of man's (whether bad
or good, but quite inevitable) to forever be trying to
come as close as he possibly can to understanding.
What is space?

Unless the universe itself is but a particle in some
greater universe of existence [and I do not know of
any law which might prohibit this], what we know as
'space' (the distances between the planets, moons,
stars, asteroids, comets, galaxies, etc.--or even the
distances between people, or between the atoms, or
between atomic nuclei & their electrons, et al) is all
really very tightly packed with an entire [quantum]
universe of "unimaginably tiny units" of exotic matter
['particles,' or perhaps much better called 'forces &
fields']... a number of which combine occasionally
here & there explosively [or maybe implode like our
supernovas] into what are then known to science as
momentary/virtual particles:

We can think of these momentary virtual particles as
'explosion-like effects' [whose individual causes we
can only extrapolate out of human imagination], but
blowups not unlike our own supernovas (or those
produced by collisions between bodies in outer space):
unimaginably tiny in relation to us and brief, yes,
but real none the less, therefore having a real impact
& effect upon the rest of the more "permanent and
massive" human universe we experience around us.

Permanence when describing us, as opposed to those
momentary/virtual particles, is of course absolutely
relativistic too: If we had access to the[ir] universe
of virtual particles, and were part of it, we would
most likely appreciate a permanence also in it and in
them: Then might we probably look "out" upon Man's
universe as one frozen forever in the eternity of a
hard unchanging timelessness--even while men [out
there] looked on 'our' momentary/virtual universe as
one jumping too instantaneously from birth to death.

What is Chaos?

Chaos is a human judgment, purely a judgment of the
mind, the endearingly human hubris that Man can
understand anything or it is impossible to understand:
Chaos is the mind's unwillingness to accept that there
are things it cannot understand.

Chaos is strictly Man's inability to trace everything
down to its finest detail: The universe is everywhere
absolutely deterministic, just not predictable down to
its least detail by us. As the universe implodes it
[the forces built up by its implosion] is unlacing not
so much at the human level or even at the level of the
atom/subatomic level but at the quantum level.

The simplest mind can always find chaos in even the
simplest, most straightforward things: Your cat finds
chaos in your flashlight's spotlight zipping about the
room--this doesn't prove there is chaos there. The
best maze is designed to be chaotic to most people.
And most people look at the best designed mazes as
chaotic. But patience or brute force always finds the
design in their chaos.
One problem solved, another one takes its place:
This is the essence of life.
What is mass?

If you begin by trying to explain mass within the
context of a universe that is NOT imploding, you will
need to invent all sorts of nonsensical explanations
and Higgs particles grabbing on to a mythological 'Higgs
field' that traces its theoretical origins back to the
old mythological 'aether' Einstein thought he'd killed.
So, finally, let's not do that, and instead let us
explore obvious & apparent solutions:

Get in a car and accelerate slowly to, say, 100 MPH
(forget about earth's downward 'gravity' and consider
only sidewise 'gravity'): As you accelerate, the car's
'mass' will slowly increase and 'gravity' will pull
that increasing 'mass' against the direction you're
moving. Is the car magically adding neutrons &
positrons? No. It is simply obeying Newton's laws of
motion (its inertia is objecting to the motor's push).
It is no different than a spinning top resisting being
pushed to the side.

Once the car reaches 100 MPH its 'mass' will suddenly
decrease to zero [!] and gravity will cease pulling it
towards/from the back. Did your car suddenly shed all
its neutrons & positrons? No, of course. Your car is
now merely moving without any outside interference on
the push of its motor (let's ignore the wind drag).
Your car has achieved inertia (equilibrium of motion).

No matter where you're standing still right now on
this earth you are also moving around a 1,000 MPH [on
the equator, slower & slower as you go up towards the
poles], and around the Sun, and around the galaxy,
etc. But you don't 'feel' it because no outside force
objects to your many motion(s): You are experiencing
an equilibrium of all the many motions you're engaged
in until or unless some outside motion pushes you out
of one or more of these states of inertia.

Now understand this: Every single particle & every
single form of energy from the least to the greatest
is a form of motion (is in a form of motion, or in all
sorts of combinations of motions depending on the
complexity of its assembled parts). Quarks, no less
than whatever other subparticles make them up are
'tops' spinning inside a universe that is itself in
motion [towards its implosion]. Therefore they will
ALL OF THEM, according to how much 'spin' they have,
will display the quality we know as 'mass' [as an
objection to being disturbed towards any direction
other than the one(s) they are currently moving]: The
bigger the 'spinning top' the more mass: Complex atoms
with many neutrons & protons such as iron will display
more mass than simpler atoms like hydrogen, and
'flimsy' bits of 'loose energy' such as photons,
neutrinos, and electrons will display almost no mass
at all (but if they exist, then some: virtual
particles will perhaps display the least 'mass' in our
human experience). And all this will be the result of
the fact that our universe is imploding--already in
motion... with a fundamental inertia of its own which
therefore will object to any 'other' motion(s) in it.

Go into a curve and suddenly your car's 'mass' will
increase as 'gravity' pulls it towards the side
opposite the one you're turning into. Is the car
adding neutrons & positrons again? Of course not. Are
its Higgs particles dragging on the Higgs field more &
more ferociously? Do I have to tell you the answer?

Accelerate into the curve and your car's 'mass' will
not increase as much. Brake as you're going into the
curve and your car's 'mass' will increase so much that
you might actually flip it over or force it to fly off
the side of the curve as its 'mass' goes over a
critical point. Why? Because the laws of motion that
keep you going forward undisturbed (in inertia) are
now being disturbed in a different direction--While,
on the other hand, when you accelerate into the curve
your motor is then compensating for that (sidewise)
disturbance, bringing about inertia again. [In
practice, however, be aware that your tires may still
slide on the road and cause an accident, so please
take all your curves as slowly as humanly possible.]

NOTE: As the universe implodes this effect is akin to
a twirling skater suddenly pulling in his arms: He will
spin faster. And because the universe never ceases
imploding this effect is continuous and eternal. The
car's driver may achieve inertia by letting up a little
on the gas pedal, but the universe never lets up on
its 'gas pedal' --On the contrary, it is forever always
pushing more and more on its gas pedal as it evolves
from a larger & slower form to smaller & faster one:

The effect of our universe's implosion is equivalent
to the car's motor pushing it in the direction it is
turning into. [Therefore negating the need to supply
the myth of dark matter to why the revolution of
galaxies appears to be faster than the sum of its
visible mass would seem to indicate.] That is: Not
merely 'going down the drain' but actually being
pushed/pulled into it by the universe's implosion.

NOTE: The Higgs particle (which is real) is not really
necessary for the existence of 'mass' and, in any
case, only works if one revives the many-times
killed-off (and Einstein-buried) aether nonsense [but
for the Higgs particle's purpose re-resurrected here
& renamed yet again as 'the Higgs field'--you're not
fooling anybody]... Newton's laws of motion are
sufficient to account for the 'mass' of particles which
are to all practical purpose spinning tops--With
electrons [et al/etc.] essentially energy waves
constrained within fields around those particles and
neutrinos, photons [et al/etc.] energy-waves which
escape such fields to zip forth until they crash against
other matter or continue on endlessly unimpeded
towards the infinite voids never to be seen again
(unless somebody happens to be looking at himself
reflected somewhere by starlight out there, of course).

If one can find but one single particle of matter in
the universe whose mass is not attributable to the
Higgs boson then one has effectively cast some very
serious doubt on the idea that "it is the Higgs that
imparts mass to particles in the universe." And given
that such particles do exist, particles whose mass is
much too light to imagine that is might be the Higgs
boson and its accompanying Higgs field (or 'new
ether') accounting for their mass [the neutrino, for
example, only has a mass of 0.8 electron volts--or
]... then self-evidently the question of what
gives mass to particle in the universe is one which
cannot be entirely answered by 'Higgs field' theory.
Not to mention of course the little problem at the
other end of the scale: What imparts mass to the
tremendously massive black hole stars?

Do theorists really think that there are 'an infinite
number' of Higgs bosons freely zipping about the
innards of black hole stars 'imparting tremendous
amounts of mass' to its singularity or some whatever
other particle(s) in it? Or, perhaps the Higgs boson
and its field are the only things that can escape the
'infinitely crushing gravity' of the black hole star?
And I am all for using the Higgs as a straightforward
measurement of mass (even though this doesn't work
in all instances)... but as a field (really, yet another
ether theory) giving rise to another 'graviton particle'
I'm not so sure. One can use many things to measure.

It is the heights of arrogance for anyone to imagine
that he alone knows which ideas are best. This is why:

   It is always perilous to censor the publication of
   opinions one does not agree with. And always
   preferable to simply encourage the publication of
   opinions with which one agrees.

The reason for the latter is so that the best of them
may thrive in the marketplace of ideas. While all the
rationalizations behind the former always eventually
seem to lead only to failed ideas.

Pointing out the error of an idea is always, always
preferable to the suppression of ideas. Always.

S D Rodrian
Always this remember: If you must 'invent' something
[in order to explain reality] it is NOT reality that you
are explaining; it is purely that singularly inexplicable
invention of your imagination you are "explaining."

If I am wrong, and (as modern physics predicates)
"gravity is an attractive force," then scientists will
eventually discover that the reason why the surface
of the Sun is hotter than its interior may well be
because most of its mass is concentrated closer to
its surface than towards its center--But we don't see
nuclear fusion happening near the Sun's surface...
so I am inclined to believe I'm right on this account.

Conventional modern physics is a single fabric being
woven by a thousand needles at once. These many
many inter-connected mutually-dependant theories
all support one another (as they go knitting together
the fabric of modern physics all of a piece throughout
without upsetting each other's work). And if one fateful
day somebody were to pull on just the "right" thread...
the entire fabric of modern physics all of those many
and many knitting theories have woven meticulously
over time would likely instantly unravel & be no more.
One can always be subjective about an opinion
but never about the facts. A fact is either true or not
in & of itself, and never because of anybody's opinion
(therefore subjectivity never comes into it). One can
always have an opinion about an opinion but one can
NEVER have a differing opinion about a proven fact
(the truth is indisputable) and a proven fact is the truth.
What is Time?

Time is a human definition: A measurement from here
to there, and no matter the length from here to there,
the measurement is always a human definition only.

Minutes, hours, years have no absolute value in nature
(apart from our notion of them, all strictly only in our
heads): Nature is composed only of motions, some
faster than others, others slower than the rest. But
none of them defines by itself anything except some
arbitrary idea we have thought up--Even the "speed of
light" defines only "a motion in nature" which bears
no relation to any other of nature's motions except
that, if I am right [in my head], it is related to the
speed at which the universe is imploding. However,
because there are no absolute motions we can't "time"
them by any other motions against any of it: All different
atoms "vibrate" with timings specific to their kinds,
and the human sense of the "normal" speed of life is
timed by motions which are picked arbitrarily by us. In
this sense, all our existence, even the very existence
of the universe itself, takes place in a brief flash: The
universe is an unimaginably brief implosion, and our
"sense" of its great, long age... only a human notion
here inside it created by even faster-moving thoughts.

If there were no humans to define its length(s), the
length of time would have no subdivisions whatever
and therefore the entirety of existence would be an
indivisible One: Undivided by us into whatever sub-
measurements, time would only "measure" (be the
equivalent of) the singular length of its entirety. In
other words, time (as strictly/only/exclusively our
human definition, the notion of) time would be utterly
without any meaning whatsoever. Because of this,
time is without meaning in reality (it only "exists" in
our minds). If time is a singularity its measurement
is pointless, the direction of its degrees meaningless.
This is why all our human measurements of time are
arbitrary & always tied to other arbitrary measurements
such as the arbitrary movements of heavenly bodies
or the vibrations of this or that whatever atom, etc.

When we start imagining time as "occurring" moment
to moment (or whatever other definition we wish to give
"our" imaginary degrees of time's purely human measure)
we can drive ourselves crazy trying to "explain" just how
it could possibly be that each "degree of time" [to which
we are giving independent existence in our imagination]
how each such "degree of time" could possibly connect
with/to every other such measurement of time "around it."
Something truly crazy, if you think about it: "time" pausing
between every such "occurrence" and then "starting up"
again by some miraculous motor/imaginary mechanism].

To reiterate: The "past" & the "future" are "measured"
only by/as "the sum total of existence," and NOT by us:

           It is ONE THING alone & only.

Therefore "we" are forever bound by whatever point
along that sum total length at which existence places
us. [In effect, for "us" there exists no "past" and/or
"future"]: In our minds we may remember "our" past
(NOT existence's past, that is) and imagine our future
(NOT existence's future, of course). But that's about it:
Even when we remember ourselves in our past and/or
imagine ourselves in our future... in reality, there is
no past and there is no future for us. Ha! Sorry. We are
forever trapped where we are/were/will be. Although
we may well ask, "What time is it?" And still get a polite
even if not reasonable reply. [Either from a watch or--]

     Yes, you can not teach physics to dogs:
     They're just not dense enough.

Time is not a line but a dot: In a very real sense, it is
a spot whose motions are all only within the bounds
of its own self: The dot/spot of Time moves neither in
one direction nor the other (as if it were drawing a
line) but only self-convoluting, folding & enfolding &
ever evolving from its many previous shapes into its
many other future shapes completely within itself at it
is propelled to do so exclusively by the laws of motion.

The instant you think of Time as a line you will not
be able to avoid thinking about the possibility of
travelling from one point in the line ["of Time"] to
some other point on that line. Then lunacy! Because
such a "line" has never existed and never will exist
except in the flawed 'magics' of our imagination.

One of the crucial things the brain evolved to do was
to record the shapes of things as they change about:
We and only we remember the shapes that were and
imagine the shapes that will/may be--And although
we too can be the agents of how those future shapes
come about [like all the other agents inside this spot
of Time], never lose sight of the fact that we cannot
ourselves really "dictate" the shape of things to come
and are but merely made to believe such a nonsense
(such a physical impossibility) can be made to happen
[that the human will can create future realities] by the
fact that we do not know when/how our own thoughts
come about, leaving all the room in the world for us to
become convinced that it is we who are bringing them
into being out of the nothingness--And nothing could be
a greater delusion, I'm afraid, however necessary to us.
Time has nothing to do with the world & everything to do
with your mind: When your mind is racing Time moves
very slowly & when your mind is moving very slowly
Time races by you. [Einstein almost managed in several
everyday chintzy metaphors to roundabout explain this.]
Timed, Time is solely the motion of a single motion
from among the entirety of motions in the universe.
You may reverse this one single motion, yes, but as
[down to the most perversely brief virtual particle]
there are an almost infinite number of motions in the
universe (and most of them having nothing whatever to
do with each other)... this makes any notion of 'time'
utterly meaningless in the universe & to the universe.

And as for Man: Time is but a self-made delusion, a
small story that he makes up for himself watching
the brief confluences flowing about him among the
dizzying chaos & tumults of the worlds around him:
They make sense only to him, as he rides streams
and navigates oceans of anarchy & pandemonium
down to their own-made madness--while Man stands
in his own-made sanity a prisoner to his own reason.
What time is it? Time to open the door, step through it.
In science the exception never proves the rule:
If every fact does not prove it's a table, then
it's very probably NOT a table (and that's as much
as science should admit to that). Unfortunately
science is a human endeavor, and humans are lazy
and always late to admit their 'proofs' were opinion.
Einstein's General Relativity is NOT wrong: Einstein
describes with greater accuracy than Newton the
geometry of the universe. [In other words, "where
everything is."] Using General Relativity you can
pinpoint "something in the universe" (and therefore
also describe its motions) more accurately than simply
using Newton's laws.

But this does NOT mean that Einstein has explained THE
REASON that things are the way they are--Einstein's
theories on gravity do not explain "what gravity IS,"
only how it works. And to imagine that "knowing how
something works" is to know "what it is" can all too
easily give us the mistaken opinion that a man is
nothing more/other than the job he happens to have.

     On the famous clocks experiment:

WHY does the clock at the top of the mountain run
faster than the clock at the base of the mountain?

Because of acceleration (which as Einstein hinted at
in general relativity, IS the same thing as gravity):

The closer something is to a greater amount of mass
the more acceleration it experiences:

It is no different than you and I standing next to each
other and I point to my watch while you press your
fingertip down upon the hands of your watch: Your
watch will run slower than mine. And it has nothing
whatsoever to do with The Dimension of Time (which
does not exist), and everything to do with you and I
manipulating the speeds at which our watches run.

In the exact same way, the clock which is closer to
the greater mass of the earth has that mass "pressing
on its little hands," (as it were)... while the clock
that is experiencing less mass can obviously run
faster (free of the pressure of the extra mass) than
the other clock.

And, again, it has nothing to do with The Dimension of
Time (which does not exist, apologies to Rod Serling),
and everything to do ONLY with the clocks themselves.

Is this the Past or is this the Present?

The minute you eliminate any instance of "the Past"
(by including it in "the Present") you have made ALL
instances of "the Past" merely/only points of reference
in our minds--As in: Obviously I am not saying this in
the Present because I said "this" in the Past. And just
as obviously I do not say "this" in the Past because
I am still saying all of this in the Present (obviously).

The reason we cannot pinpoint "the Past" or "the
Present" is that neither really "exist" outside the idea.

So: Are we in the Past NOW or are we in the Present?

Again: If you claim that "all of the Present" is "now"
then please note that I obviously started my speech in
the Past and am only NOW finishing it in the Present
--Therefore this NOW is either "both the Past AND the
Present" or neither... because it is all taking place
in both realms at once (and what it still taking place
can never be said to be "in the Past"): This is why you
cannot claim that anything taking place "now" is in
the Present (as I very obviously started talking in the
Past). Nor can you claim that my speech "took place
in the Past" (as it is still going on right now). Add to
this that "the Future" can NEVER "exist" NOW (and is
always only a potential) and this is the unnecessary
paradox you create by making "the Past" and "the
Present" real "places" with existence in the universe.

The Past, the Present, and the Future are ALL but mere
points of reference created by the human (but not just
only the human) brain to help us fluid animals move
about from "there" to "here" and then to "over there"
(something which obviously takes some time to do).
However, just because it takes time to move about the
world this does not create the so-called "dimension" of
Time (made infamous by The Twilight Zone)... just as
simply because we measure distances by inches this
does not create the "dimension" of inches, or simply
because we're always moving about this does not
create the "dimension" of there & back [or some such].
What is Dark Energy?

In 1998 three American astronomers examining remnant
Type 1A supernova(s) discovered that the expansion of
the universe is accelerating rather than slowing down
(the expected result of once having quipped that that
expansion results from an ancient explosion infamously
dubbed The Big Bang, rather than, you know, trying to
find WHY the universe was expanding). This 1997
discovery was therefore obviously counter-intuitive to
all their previous myth-makings about the universe
originating from an explosion (which must dissipate
its energy over time & space--and, of course, it never
occurred to anybody to actually question the existence
of their ancient Big Bang god). Thus "the answer" they
now came up with (the latest quip, or myth) is that
the accelerating universe's expansion is being pushed
by some as yet undiscovered myth they dubbed Dark
Energy. [Which all perfectly illustrates how we humans
create our gods/myths; and not much else, I'm afraid.]

It has forever puzzled me why talk about 'dark energy'
at all (which is but only the latest questionable myth
new-minted) and not talk instead about the acceleration
of the galaxies, something indisputably very real indeed:
Trying to find something which does not exist is a
total and complete waste of time; while trying to find
the reason for an observed real phenomena might
eventually reward us with the discovery of why/how.

Still, no one speaks about finding the reason for the
acceleration of the universe's expansion (as if that
reason had already been found, our latest mythological
god Dark Energy). We always speak about finding the
nature of dark matter (an utterly made-up myth like
every other man-made myth the answer to which must
forever remain hopelessly impossible to find, really).
Give a serious thought to:

The critical distinction points out the real probability
that we are but pursuing only a myth pure and simple
(something made-up on the spot whose vain reality we
therefore never will gasp no matter how long we might
chase after it), when we ought to be seeking the cause
of the acceleration of the galaxies--an evidently real
mystery the solution to which can be substantially inferred
to be sooner or later very much within our mortal grasp.

In my implosion model of the universe the so-called
expansion of the universe MUST accelerate with time
naturally (for almost the same reason that a twirling
skater speeds up by drawing in his arms). Therefore
the "earliest" universe (which was at its most wide
expanse) had to be "accelerating" at a very much slower
velocity than at any subsequent time (when it is ever
drawing more & more into itself): This fits perfectly
with observation without having to invent mythological
exotic energy particles & fields [quintessence] which
otherwise temporarily or momentarily switch on & off
with no rhyme or reason. The only switch-on(s) the
earliest universe might have done is around the time
that the first baryonic forms of matter started to
come into being and electromagnetic forces began to
start holding things together as they took effect.

The Relativity of Time With Respect to Matter.

This is the Implosion Model as the complete opposite
of the exploding Big Bang model: In the Implosion
Model it is not the photon that travels at the speed
of light but matter (imploding in place), and leaving
the unmoving photon in the dust: The photon & neutrino
are therefore not really "moving/travelling" at all in
the imploding universe model and have in reality very
short lifetimes. However, because we [baryonic matter]
are "moving/travelling" at the speed of light compared
to (relative to) leptons [electrons, neutrinos] and of
course photons... compared to them we are the ones
that appear to have an almost eternal existence: This
is because, moving at the speed of light, compared to
them we are essentially frozen in time [see the famous
Twin Paradox] as we observe photons/neutrinos (etc.)
NOT in their full complete "lifetimes" but as mere
streaks while we pass them [at the speed of light].
This is further illustrated by the fact that to us they
appear to 'travel' fastest in a vacuum and slower when
dragged [acted on] by our baryonic influences/forces
--ultimately even appearing (to us) to cease to move at
all in the famous super-cold Bose-Einstein Condensate.

This means the implosion of the universe is but an
instant made frozen in time by the relative speed at
which it is taking place (relative to the sparks it is
leaving behind--photons, et al). But this shouldn't
concern us as, however brief our existence may be
[and in time its 'sparks' may be all that's left of
the implosion], it is only 'brief' in relation to things
to which we have only the most tenuous connection
(leptons, etc.). And people who are aggrieved by the
thought that humanity may not be around billions &
billions of years from now really are pointless twerps
and very much quite utterly laughably dismissible.

Of course, for us here safely inside it, the universe is
effectively without end, timeless. However, if you
were standing outside it: for you the universe would
go [Puff!] and its entire existence travel from birth
to death in the blink of an eye (probably so fast that
you wouldn't even take notice of it). And then you
would 'see' another universe go [Puff!] over yonder,
and then another & another & another everywhere all
around you--In fact, I can't imagine any other possible
alternative other than universes after universes after
universes everywhere evening-out the eternal endless
spaces of unending existence as it silently spreads out
to the infinite, mute, and moot.
Slowly but surely modern cosmology is inching towards
my old realization (at the end of the last century) that
our universe is in/an implosion
; for once modern
physicists exhaust the twin myths of dark energy/dark
matter to explain the observable universe they must
eventually come to the same conclusion I came to then.

Nothing else explains the fact that gravity cannot be
made to fit into the standard model. Nor that the
universe's "apparent expansion" is very obviously
accelerating when Big Bang theory says it should be
slowing down. Nor why/how the ancient homogeneous
universe has developed into the modern one of bits
[clusters/massive structures] building/bunching up:

  In an imploding universe, as more and more matter
  "collects" in a region, more and more of "the center
  of the universe" toward which matter is moving will
  concentrate in such a region of space [or growth!].

Well, in an imploding universe, every last "bit" of it is
"moving" towards every other last "bit." And this means
that even [the smallest, just] one single instability in
the homogeneity must eventually lead to the inevitable
complete collapse of the entire universal homogeneity.
And nothing even remotely as massive as the universe
could possibly ever maintain its uniformity for eternity.

   NOTE: Space is constantly being created inside the
   imploding universe model, as a consequence of its
   every bit of matter "moving" [imploding] towards
   the [everywhere "every center of the universe"].

For "the curvature of space to be uniform everywhere,
and decoupled from matter" the universe must still have
"one general principle" always aside from the way the
"tensions and anomalies" of matter have given it shape.
And there is such "a general principle" in the implosion
model which is present in no other model: That is, the
imploding universe model is always moving the totality
(the actual reality) of the universe toward "a sum of the
total matter in it" [i.e. space does not count for anything
except the distances between matter]. And so, regardless
of where matter is/goes, the overall "curvature of space"
will always be observed to be/must be said to be uniform.
The Big Bang Model seemed evidently correct when it
was first proposed as the one which [at first glance]
squared best with the notion of universal expansion:
The Hubble Constant was a simple observation which
seemed to require nothing more than the simplest of
explanation. The problem is that, over time, we have
seen that our simple notion of universal expansion is
not as simple as we had at first imagined... and ever
since then we have been bumping up against discovery
after discovery--each of which contradicts pieces of
the Big Bang Model or entirely invalidate it outright.

At first sight the Big Bang Model looks like a simple
wire: straight from here to there (from question to
solution). But once you actually take the trip down
the Big Bang wire you eventually discover that you
simply just don't seem ever to get to the solution:

Every time we ride the wire we seem to end up in
somewhat the wrong place. But it's a wire, of course,
so we can always go back & bend it a little bit & then
take off again 'straight' towards the 'one' expected
solution. But, no, it never gets us there: Again and
again we end up slightly askew of it [however only
slightly], ever so--Which, of course encourages us to
go back to twist & tweak the wire again here or there
a bit more until it's the messy graffito it's become.

It seems that always, just when you think you've got
the path down pat and follow that wire again, you
always discover that your whatever tweaks haven't
gotten you any closer to the solution either. So you
bend, twist & tweak the wire again, and once more...
and take the trek down your convoluted Big Bang wire
many more times no matter how many times you think
that your kinks to the wire will get you there: It all
seemed so simple in the beginning (getting straight
down that wire to the solution); yet, for some reason
or other, every single time you take the path of the
Big Bang wire down to where their solution certainly
ought to be you discover that it has just missed being
the straight line from one point to the other it
looked like from the start. So modern physicists just
keep bending the wire a bit many more times again,
here, there, back & forth, ever adding more & more
kinks & bends to the messy sum which has never yet
done the job either... because no matter how much the
devoted advocates of "the Big Bang wire" bend & twist
it: their "wire" will never turn out to be the simple
straight line they had hoped from question to solution
since it is ever impossible to bend reality all out of
shape just in order to suit our own notion of what it
should be.

Still... more & more bends & more twists still to
their wire, because this is a lesson that is hard on
our egos: At the end of the wire the votaries of the
Big Bang Model will always come upon the unmovable
fact that no matter how much they twist their wire it
will never get them perfectly to the correct solution:
What they have ended up with is a tremendous eyesore
of a mess on their work paper instead of the beautiful
solution they sought... just an ugly graffito twisted
thousands of times back & forth over & against itself,
a stupendously mad scribbling cluttering the ink-
soaked page: lines over lines on the paper that should
have enshrined their answer cleanly (until it's torn
itself through to shreds with their incessant pens).

Interesting, yes, but certainly not the straight on
answer that they were originally after. And that's
where the Big Band model stands as of this writing.
Yet, instead of acknowledging that the model itself is
wrong [somehow] and abandoning it to try something
that might work (a more trustworthy straight wire),
today's physicists simply keep twisting & tweaking
their old ugly Big Bang Model [wire] back & forth, up,
down, right, left, as if adding more & more failed sad
scribblings over their ancient failures will somehow
one day produce by magic a straight on simple solution
over their thoroughly wrecked paper--from the original
question to the answer their wire once hoped to trace.

Merely a study of human nature, of course. Of hubris.
Of man's inability to stop hitting himself harder &
harder over the head with the coconut instead of
trying to crack it some other way--I mean the coconut,
of course: Using his mind instead of his head. I have
been writing now about the Implosion Model of the
universe [literally] since even before the end of the
last century, and I have yet to come upon even one
single fact that challenges it or that contradicts it
in any way. And still, I do not expect that it will be
given any serious consideration in my own lifetime.

Whom/What to blame.

It's tempting to blame anything and anybody but
ourselves, especially since we know (or suspect) that
when everything is said & done we really can't help
doing what we do. And, as it turns out, that feeling
of freedom from blame is closer to the truth than we
moral creatures would like to admit (however it may go
against everything society would like us to believe).

We, and society, wouldn't mind at all if we blamed our
parents, say. But there we run into the same problem
as before--in that (exactly like us) they too couldn't
help themselves. And so too on up the chain of our
ancestors even unto the first one: Like us, they all
simply did what they were programmed to do.

The master programmer is, of course, DNA (since all
individual creatures [animal, plant, whatever] are
"created" by DNA for the sole express purpose alone
of assuring/enhancing its own chances for survival).
All individuals are created mortal because that's the
best [really, only] way DNA can make sure that its
replication always continues refreshed: There's just
no way that if we individuals lived too long DNA could
avoid degradation/deterioration while in "our" care
--And thereby the simplest solution is to just have us
individuals hold custody of DNA for as little time as
it is conveniently possible (in fact, preferably, only
just long enough to pass it on to the next viable
individual that becomes available). For this reason,
individuals (whether it's individual creatures or even
their individual species) are really of no importance
whatsoever and readily sacrificed by DNA for the
greater good of its own continuation. The evolution
of DNA itself is also irrelevant because DNA cannot
"consider" its uniqueness the way we "think" about
such a vain thing, of course--Therefore DNA doesn't
"mind" that it is "modified" by its process of survival.

Because only those with the ability to tell right from
wrong can be adjudicated blame, DNA is also without
the slightest degree of blame. As it does not have a
mind & therefore no purpose to design: DNA is simply
a mindless flow no different than a stream of liquid.

DNA is also beyond our ability to punish it or even to
destroy it, had we a mind to do so: Asteroids couldn't
do it. Even planet collisions have failed to do so: It
yet surged forth from the caldron of a boiling planet.
And even if this planet fell into the Sun, DNA will
most probably rise again in myriad other planets to
create myriad other forms of individuals to blindly
serve its eternal continuance at their expense until
the end of time itself. If it has not done so already.

Keep in mind that DNA can only be blamed for its
blind continuity imperative--For everything else we
ourselves must accept responsibility: DNA produces
monsters, yes, but that is the only thing it produces,
after all, as we are all essentially monsters: Cats
and dogs may viciously rip their prey to shred but all
of us live by devouring our fellow living creatures.
Some of us kill & devour cows, pigs and chickens
while still others of us kill and devour carrots,
turnips and potatoes (which are no less living cells).
The difference is that vegetables can't scream, but
they are as much alive as anything that can scream (or
complain in any other way about being eaten). The
continuity imperative of DNA is one of seeking any
source of sustenance which may sustain it. Therefore:
Human monsters cannot be singled out for blame on
account of their DNA imperatives either because DNA
gives them the same exact directive it gives the rest
of us: To prey upon anything & everything it can lay
its hands on, even when their (victims) prey is us.

This of course will not sit well with those who wish
to exculpate human behavior by blaming it on our DNA.
But the solution is to work towards sequestrating our
human monsters, not towards endlessly arguing about
whether they are or are not legally or morally
responsible for what they are: Vegetarians could also
argue those fine points about us carnivores and do so
just as pointlessly endlessly (because DNA makes us
all exactly the same, even if some of us hunt chickens
while some of us hunt salads). Also the pointless
effort to criminalize--and therefore to 'rehabilitate'
imperatives which DNA hard-wires into the behaviors of
some of its creatures (such as homosexuality, rape,
'straight' sexuality, child molestation, necrophilia,
sadism, masochism, et al). The best solution is to
simply seek to sequester from the general population
behaviors which harm others (even if this seems unjust
to persons who did not choose to be what they are).
The perfect baby gift?
A small donation to a college fund.

Or a baby rattle so it can call for help. [I have never
understood, nor will I ever understand how human
beings can permit their DNA to bring human beings
into this world. NEVER. It is like tossing children into
the Pit of Hell to see what they make of it: It is both
damnable & punishable. But that's just me, apparently.]

What is God?

God is a personification of The Will: We can do many
things, but many more things we can't do however we
may wish to do them--and that's where God becomes
indispensable or we stand there "willing" to do these
things through but the empty power of our naked Will.
It won't work, as you know. And so we create God, and
have Him do these impossible things for us [however we
may arrange it with Him--a bargain maybe, or a bribe,
or some greedy gift begged on account of our pretty
faces). Albeit some people have found a way to make a
career of the God business. And some of those manage
to make a pretty penny at it too (as it is comforting
to have a "representative of God on earth" sign the
bargain, in blood or otherwise, with us... for a fee).

Thereby: What is an atheist?

Simply put: An insult, of course, which we apply to
someone who "refuses" to share our superstitions;
or, especially: our superstitious nature. The proper,
non-insulting term for "a person who does not believe
in gods" is simply "not superstitious." Naturally, the
problem with that term is that it obviously insults
the superstitious... who do not consider themselves
superstitious (because they only believe in one or two
superstitions and not in every last one of them).

Eh, whatcha gonna do!?

Therefore do not insult God with your idle worship.
Do, rather, God's Work on this earth: Those who have
wisdom, let them understand that this is The Golden
Rule: Do good for others, as in doing good for others
it is to yourselves you are doing good. [Help others,
for in helping others it is yourselves you are helping.]
Even the most obvious Truth is not self-evident:
Sometimes it takes a Herculean effort to notice it.
Atheism is not a religion but a confirmation (of the
facts of reality). A religion is always either a never-
ending quest or it ends in a final finding that nothing
supernatural exists: And as all religious quests must
of necessity end in such a finding (or continue the
futile quest for God), that confirmation of reality is
the definition of atheism. --S D Rodrian
On Christianity, for a dying Christian.

Yes, you have cancer and now more than ever you are
afraid of death. I don't know what terrible crimes you
might have committed, but you seem to be terribly
afraid of God when there's no need for this: I am old,
have diabetes and suffer tremendous nerve damage
pains. But I am not afraid of God nor of death, only
of pain. And yet I am a Christian just like yourself:

I do say that I know there is no God, but this is no
different from your saying you have faith in God:
Knowledge of God is beyond man in every case. The
only thing man can know is whether there is or there
isn't a God, and no one KNOWS there is a God--or is lying
(Moses saw only a burning bush, and Abraham only heard
what he assumed to be His Voice). And still, in spite of
my knowing there is no God I find myself praying all day
long--It is not a contradiction, as none of us knows
there is a God: Some of us, for whatever reason, seem
to have faith in spite of ourselves.

But know this: The central tenet of Christianity is
that Christ died for the sins of the world (that is:
for your sins--not just for the sins of those who were
alive 2000 years ago but for everyone's sins). So
there no longer any reason for anyone to fear God.
Rather, go ahead and rejoice in His love. Fear pain,
not death. And certainly not God.

The business of priests and pastors is to keep you
afraid of God--If you do not fear God then you will
not give them a penny. They would immediately all go
out of business. I have never lost a penny giving to
any of them in my entire life because I have never
been afraid of God. How much money have you lost
giving them your money? The only thing you seem to
have gotten in return is that you've become even more
afraid of God: They've done their job on you pretty
well. It's probably paid off for them very handsomely.

Even human criminals ought not to fear God but learn
to love Him: What human criminals should fear is the
law, the human law. Those who transgress the law of
man should be hunted down by men and brought up
before our human justice. And the central tenet of
Christianity has made it perfectly clear that that is
the end of it.
Who Was Jesus?

If Jesus was God, then God played us a lousy dirty
trick--I don't think He did. I think Jesus was the
Hebrew Messiah, the Lamb of God, a man as human
as the rest of us.

It was a Pagan Roman Emperor [Constantine] who
co-opted the Hebrew Messiah into the Greco-Roman
Pantheon of walking-around gods. And the reason he
was initially forced to stop the persecution of the
Christians was that almost half of the soldiers in his
armies had become Christians. But he himself for all
his life was a faithful follower of the pagan cult of
Sol Invictus:

Was Constantine ever a Christian? There is 'a legend'
that he 'converted' to Christianity on his death bed.
But is it reasonable even to imagine that a fellow who
invents, designs and supervises a new religion right
out of his hat for the express purpose of helping to
better control and standardize the managing of his
empire could ever grow to actually believe that he had
somehow invented the One True Religion of God?!
It is foolish to believe that addicts have any choice
or control over their addiction; therefore it is
criminal of society to refuse to take control over
them: Addicts should be placed into addiction regimes
even against their will until they are deemed to be
free of their addiction by competent medical personnel
because most forms of addiction make moot the will of
the addict. Thus it is the duty of every society, both to
itself & to addicts [same thing], to exercise control
over their lives until such time as they themselves
can once again exercise their own will. To leave them
out in the street 'to their own devises' ought to
place society at legal jeopardy for anything and
everything that both happens to the addict as well as
to any civilians who might be hurt by the addicts'
understandably desperate actions. A society's
principal responsibility is to protect its members;
and when a society chooses to forego action which
might otherwise have protected its members it should
always be held to be criminally negligent.
The foolishness of war.

Billions invested in the war industry by nations that
will never come under any military threats could be
better spent in those industries which will genuinely
secure their future free of any/every other country on
this earth. Russia and China are the prime examples:

On a track to becoming one of the world's "trusted &
respected" nations after the fall of the Soviet Union
(the collapse of communism), today it's turned itself
into one of the major threats against its neighbors.
And for what gain?... small tiny pieces of territories
which diplomacy would have with time resolved its way
(provided it was the way of decency & justice and not
the way of criminality & outright theft). Foolish Putin!

China is scheming to secure oil & gas supplies from
territories disputed by its neighboring countries, and
investing its treasure in the weapons of enforcement.
When instead China could become energy self-sufficient
with an occasional investment in upcoming technologies
of the near future like the capturing of carbon dioxide
directly from the atmosphere for plane and truck fuel
... which is already in the pipeline and poised for a
quite massive implementation within the next decade.

That is the foolishness of war, as it is implemented by
foolish leaders who cannot understand the mechanisms
of wealth [esp. in the coming years] and only know of
the dated mechanisms of the past... usually most quickly
acquired in sheer naked crime by those who don't know
how to produce it or are too lazy to work for it/at it.

Petty thieves covet their neighbors' brick of gold
while wise men build golden palaces out of sheer air:

At the most fundamental level: ALL our "nationalistic"
disputes are invented & whipped up by foolish leaders
(really but petty thieves) who are convinced that wealth
(usually a neighbors') is something just as eternal and
impossible to "create" as a brick of solid gold--and not
what wealth really is: The human imagination and our
freedom to put human creativity into practice. Wealth
is therefore the inevitable outcome anywhere those two
things are present. And for them to be found anywhere
& everywhere people abide... all one needs to do is to
simply not in any way impede their natural flowering.
In A brief history of gravity, gravitational waves and
Joel Achenbach writes:

   "In the early 20th century, Albert Einstein finally
   came up with an explanation, and it's rather
   astonishing. First he grasped that gravity and
   acceleration are the same thing. His General Theory
   of Relativity, formulated in 1915, describes
   gravity as a consequence of the way mass curves
   "spacetime," the fabric of the universe."

Well, "Things fall on account of they fall" is NOT an
explanation. And neither is "this is how they fall"
(the geometry they trace in their falling): What
Einstein did was what Galileo did before him: they
described the way "gravity" moves stuff (that's all).

   It's all geometry,' Achenbach continues:
   "Objects in motion will move through space and
   time on the path of least resistance. A planet
   will orbit a star not because it is connected to
   the star by some kind of invisible tether, but
   because the space is warped around the star."

To say "there is a wall there" is NOT the same as
describing the material of which the wall is composed.

   “Gravity, according to Einstein, is the warping of
   space and time,” Brian Greene wrote in his book
   “The Elegant Universe.”

"The warping of space and time,” is like saying "stuff
moves." And exactly what understanding does that give
anyone about "the nature of the stuff moving about?"

   "The physicist John Wheeler had a famous saying:
   'Mass grips space by telling it how to curve, space
   grips mass by telling it how to move.'”

This sounds a lot like God's "Gospel Word" doing stuff
out there. And that's never a good thing in science:
It would have been a much nicer saying had it included
even so much as a hint on what the tentacles by which
mass grips space are composed OR pointed out the rope
which space uses to swing mass about. AND, of course,
given an explanation of the ways in which a "curve" is
distinct from a "move."

   "One of the predictions of Einstein’s equations
   (though Einstein himself wasn’t ready to buy in
   fully) was the existence of gravitational waves –
   ripples in the spacetime fabric."

Well, let me assure you: "gravitational waves" do NOT
exist anymore than gravity itself exists. As Newton
said: "It is inconceivable that inanimate brute Matter
should without the Mediation of something else which
is not material, operate upon, and affect other Matter
without mutual Contact." Well, then ("spacetime"):

1) What is "space" if it can be "grabbed" by "mass"?
2) What is "time" if it can be "warped" by "mass"

   "Gravity is so great an Absurdity," concluded
   Newton, "that I believe no Man who has in
   philosophical Matters a competent Facility of
   thinking can ever fall into it."

The Standard Model is essentially a description of the
interaction between particles, and because gravity is
not produced or mediated by particles, the Standard
Model of particle physics bears no relationship with
it whatever, nor does gravity fit in it, nor can it. And
if "spacetime" has no material existence, how then
do gravitational waves "do" it?

The correct interpretation of what they are popularly
vulgarly calling "gravitational waves" is they simply are
"energy pressure waves" inside the imploding universe
--where everything is always moving towards the center
(all the time towards all centers everywhere). In such
a universe a powerful explosion is bound to produce a
powerful "counter wave" (exactly as all explosions will
produce pressure waves, regardless of the power of
the explosion): Here on the earth an explosion causes
energy waves in air, water, soil--Out there, even where
there is manifestly infinitely lesser/lesser material
(but still some)... the manifestation of an energy power
wave can only be caused by some stupendous explosion
[as, however thin the consistency of space may be,
there's still some consistency to it]. It's the energy
of the explosion we are measuring. Therefore it makes
more sense to describe them as energy pressure waves
than as waves produced by mass-ejection (when there is
no "mass" anywhere near the earth from which they can
be produced): Distant black holes should NOT produce
gravitational waves (according to their own theories)
but on the contrary should simply cease to produce the
space-time distortions which the missing mass would
otherwise be "producing." Describing "gravitational
waves" in terms of a couple of corks atop different
wave peaks moving by turns closer/farther to & from
each other just makes my point for me ["density is
compressed in one direction, and expanded in the
orthogonal directions"] that: energy was pushed out
from this black hole collision, and this "energy wave"
is what was measured--about 3 solar masses worth!

   "According to the equations physicists have
   settled on, gravitational waves would compress
   space in one direction and stretch it in another
   as they traveled outward."

Which is pretty much how an "energy wave" (or, "an
energy-conveying wave") would be expected to behave
in its medium: In other words, NOT causing its medium
to be itself modified (or "permanently shifted out of
the way") but only "passing along the wave's energy"
[the 2 floating corks moving closer/back apart above].
On a "surface" the two corks would bob up and down,
of course, as the wave (energy) passes, which is not
the case where there is no "surface" for the corks to
"bob" upon as the two waves pass the energy along.

The fact that such a pressure energy wave "moves" at
the speed of light is additional proof that it is moving
"against" the implosion of the universe [i.e. it is
the universe's implosion that defines C, or the speed
of light, as its uniquely singular constant].

   "Since they pass through matter without interacting
   with it, gravitational waves would come to Earth
   carrying undistorted information about their
   origin. They could also improve methods for
   estimating the distances to other galaxies."

Obviously this new "pressure energy waves" tool
will be useful to astronomy, just like the "light spectrum
tool" has been. But gravitational waves they are not.

Remember: The greatest impetus [force] that exists in
the universe is its implosion--Gravitational Waves are
a real phenomena [they obviously do exist] but have
nothing to do with "gravity" and are pushback [waves]
against the force of implosion by monstrously powerful
explosions (caused by collisions of black hole stars). *******************************************

Even the universe
fits neatly in a single verse!

Only the innards of a bubble
seem to give scientists trouble.

Scientists detect signal from ‘cosmic dawn,’ when stars
first lit up the universe

"....scientist proposes that the unexpected size of the
signal suggests it was influenced by dark matter — a
potential new clue to one of the most persistent mysteries
in the universe." --What they have discovered is a "lower
temperature" than expected. The reason for this "drop" is
sheer speculation, not dark matter. [If, on the other hand,
the true reason for such a drop in temperature is that the
gas is dissipating much slowly than the expectation, then
what he's really discovered is one more proof the universe
is an implosion--or, a universe which must of necessity be
forever speeding up as it develops across time and space.]

... "In the companion study, Barkana writes that dark
matter may have interacted with the cosmic gas, cooling
it and allowing deeper absorption." Indeed, the "May"
in that paragraph IS "the discovery" of dark matter.

The belief in dark matter (and it is only a belief)
comes about something like this: You are looking at
a field and suddenly a house in the distance falls
down, so you say "Oh, look, that house just fell down!
It MUST have been because an invisible giant was
striding by and stept on it." And the proof of this
is: "Well, HOW ELSE could that house have just fallen
down like that?" Case closed. That's it: The proof of
dark matter is the inability of its proponents to come
up with an alternate explanation for the phenomena
which they "believe" are being caused by dark matter.

I have the solution, of course. But word hasn't gotten
to them yet:

No matter what the objections to its existence may be,
proponents of dark matter ignore them all (just like
every other proponent of the supernatural). And there
are certainly many such objections--chief of which may
be that if dark matter interacts "gravitationally" not
only with regular matter, but) with itself: Where are all
the dark matter-only galaxies? [What "separates" dark
matter from regular matter?] There are regular-matter
galaxies which even dark matter proponents have to
admit have no discernible dark matter in them. So, as
"they" have proposed that there is substantially a lot
more dark then regular matter in the universe, surely
then there HAS to be that many more dark matter-only
galaxies here than ordinary-matter-only galaxies. But
there "are" none. Surely even one "invisible" dark
matter galaxy might have already been found to be
"interacting" with something/somewhere by now!

And if their mythical dark matter does not interact
with itself the same way it interacts with regular (or
real) matter, why the hell not? Why does dark matter
cloud and real matter lump?
It would be nice to know.
Even if dark matter is exempt from forming "stars"
there should be all sorts of dark matter "black holes"
bumping into things out there, and trillions of dark
matter-only galaxies (if maybe made up only of black
matter black holes) gumming up the universe...

No matter what they tell you... the requirement for
how dark matter interacts with itself cannot be in any
way shape or form different from the requirement for
how it interacts with regular matter IF the one and
ONLY such requirement is "gravity." It's ok if a dark
matter particle repulses every other dark matter
particle at the electro-magnetic level & keeps it all
from forming stars, but how would that prevent the
gravitational formation of "spheres" of dark matter?
Exactly as with regular matter: A "cloud" of dark
matter [obeying the same rules of gravity as a cloud
of regular matter] should still create spheres, not
remain a cloud. We should "see" spirals of dark matter
just like the Milky Way spiral. Shouldn't we? Yes!

But dark matter only seems to "exist" where one of its
proponents requires its "existence" to avoid having to
explain [a previously unexplained observation] by good
ole fashioned persistent perceptive productive hard
work. Therefore, ye blind: Beware of obvious cons!

This is a very old story. We have had this cheap con
played on us a million times before. Its effectiveness
therefore (this far along in the game) might have
something to do with the fact that when it's told to
us by someone whom we otherwise trust or admire,
a friend or some flashy celebrity, we always find it
hard to laugh at it, time & time again, & dismiss it.
Vera Rubin, Astronomer Who Discovered The First
Direct Evidence Of Dark Matter, Dead At 88

More like Columbus "discovered the way to Asia." But
just as Columbus is commemorated for a discovery
which he never realized he had made, one day Vera
Rubin too will be remembered for (without ever even
realizing it) having discovered direct evidence of the
imploding nature of our universe.    S D Rodrian
Any notion of so-called Dark Energy being behind the
acceleration of the universe's expansion runs headlong
into an utterly unavoidable physical impossibility.
That is: There is no way for increasing "distance"
["the ever-increasing space between galaxies as the
universe expands"] to be increasing "pressure" ["the
eternally-increasing amount of energy that would be
required for such an unending acceleration"].

At most, the best that Dark Energy proponents can ever
look forward to proposing is that... "if" there really
were Dark Energy between the galaxies, then yes: the
farther any two galaxies are from each other, the more
Dark Energy there must necessarily be in the space
between them (there being more space there). The
critical problem [in an expanding universe, in which
galaxies are always flying away from each other] is
self-evident, of course: Even if their proposed Dark
Energy is NOT decreasing at every point of/in space
(because of conservation of energy) it also cannot be
increasing [never-mind how it was created in the first
place because quantum mechanics can explain anything].
BUT: Therefore the increasing amount of Dark Energy at
every point of/in space always remains constant--And
that is not much different than saying that at sea-level
pressure on a fish is the same whether it's swimming
in a puddle or out in the middle of the greatest ocean.

--Better go to sea: --- [sic.]

It [that "energy pressure"] cannot be increasing there
without it also increasing here [which see]... just as it
cannot be decreasing there without also decreasing here.
There is a tiny problem with the Higgs field explanation:

Relativity OR the Higgs field--You can't have them both.
As I have stated elsewhere: Higgs is a patently obvious
attempt to revive the ancient dead "ether" theory which
Einstein's work on relativity was supposed to finally kill
once & for all. But apparently hasn't... for some people.

 Does inertia really exist, or is it a misunderstanding?

The crucial question is this: Which came first, "inertia"
or Newton's Laws of Motion? For if the Laws of Motion
take precedence over [rule] inertia then "the resistance
to being shoved around" requires [energy enough] to
accomplish every instance against the energy to shove
things around--something which in our universe we can
readily observe every time without exception [as well
as in every instance of motion being brought to a stop].

My proposal is that due to the fact that there is nothing
inside our imploding universe which is at full stop: ALL
the motions (without exception) in it are relative: Our
imploding universe is not composed of absolute objects
stuck in absolute positions but is instead composed of
all manner/forms of things which because they are in
an eternally imploding universe are therefore always
ALL in motion: This universe obviously can NOT contain
ANY object within it at rest [in some absolute stop]. All
motions in here are always only at some relative stop
or in some relative motion. And this is why it requires an
external force (of energy) to put them into a "different"
motion even when they may appear to an observer to be
already at rest in an absolute position [which additional
motion will then require an equal force to oppose, yes].

On the other hand, if inertia takes precedence over the
Laws of Motion and the Higgs boson is "what ties down
things" [the Higgs boson "dragging" against "the Higgs
field" which supposedly pervades its entire universe
(like some "living dead" ether come up out of its grave)
requiring no expenditure of energy to accomplish this
no matter what amount of energy may be required to get
something moving] then: What (energy) keeps things
moving in this universe--or, the Higgs boson continuing
its line of motion once it is in motion (obviously moving
against the Higgs field' objections) without requiring
any extra expenditure of energy to defeat that "drag?"

For, what we see in the universe is that things always
obey the Laws of Motion in every instance & only move
or stop moving when some external force [i.e. energy]
comes into play and starts them or stops them moving.

  In effect, what "turns off" the Higgs field's drag?

If "the resistance to being shoved around" is due to
the interaction between the Higgs boson and the Higgs
field, why would the "drag" of the ether-rous Higgs
field magically cease of act on the Higgs boson once
it is in motion (something we see every time without
exception as all universal motions always instead obey
Newton's Laws of Motion and continue in motion until
acted upon by some external force)... thereby bringing
all motion in "the Higgs field universe" to a dead stop
without anything but the drag of the Higgs field doing
it--something which WE never see without exception?

And, please... no further impossible "invented notions"
(to rescue the folly of the ether/Higgs field) such as
that the Higgs boson itself "creates" the "Higgs field"
or some such--this would be like saying that someone
working a hula hoop as he walks around creates/turns
off gravity at will: The push-&-pulls of a man working
his hula hoop are all "one internal interaction" and their
"inter"-actions can play no part whatsoever in "their"
struggle to move about as one, or to come to a full stop.
[Or even: Any notion that the "Higgs field" gives rise
to the "Higgs boson" would be even more impossible to
imagine or explain.] So stop dreaming & face the facts.
The importance of Einstein's relativity is that it is
a more accurate way to calculate the effects of gravity
than Newton's classical equations. Therefore, if
you're planning on blowing up the world with ICBMs
you'll be more accurate using Einstein's geometry.

Einstein's relativity writings here are like saying that
your employer cuts you out a check every week and
that that's the nature of what you do for a living: No!
Saying that your employer cuts you out a check every
week doesn't say the first (or anything whatsoever)
about the nature of what you do for a living. What
does saying that "that is how your job works" say
about what your job actually is?!?

Same thing with relativity and the "explanation" for
gravity: Einstein's relativity doesn't explain the
first (or anything whatsoever) about the nature of
gravity; it's only a description of what "gravity"
seems to be doing (not how or why it's doing it).

Only my explanation [at least so-far] is AN explanation
of the nature of gravity (what gravity is), and not simply
just/only what we've been watching it do for ages now.
      Everything has its problem.
      And every problem has a solution.

Intelligence is the ability to see a wide range of
possibilities and to put as any of them as possible
into play on your ongoing range of problems.

Cleverness, on the other hand is the ability to shut
out those possibilities which have no immediate direct
impact on the problem you're currently working on.

This is why [even the most intelligent person] will
find it unexpectedly difficult to beat [a person who
is clever] at checkers. And why they are more evenly
matched at chess. [Computer vs Chess Grandmaster]
Rhymed directions to Burger King is NOT a poem. ****************************************
Venus' Twin? Earth-Size Planet Is Hot, May Have

Nearby Alien World Discovered

In the vainglorious search for intelligent life "out
there" dreamers have proposed billions & billions of
planets in the Goldilocks proximities to their stars
... all of them teeming with life, of course. All it
takes, apparently, is for a near-earth size rocky
planet to fall into this Goldilocks area, and Presto!
Suddenly there are little green men running all over
it putting up apartment buildings and malls. So
where are all the alien Jack Benny Programs we
should be listening to by now from every point in the
dead silent heavens? Hello! Anybody out there? No.

But, do such dreamers ever really take a hard look at
the facts as they really/truly are? I doubt it. If they
did they'd possibly see that right next to us there is
a near-earth size rocky planet (Mars); a planet which
like Earth also sits right smack in the fabled Goldilocks
zone. But it's quite dead. Why? Because it was never
side-swiped by another similar-sized body in its
infancy, producing a Moon-size satellite of its own
(like it happened to our beloved Earth about a 100
million years after it formed). This hit was crucial.

The consequences for life on Mars of its never having
been side-swiped by such a body were catastrophic:
Mars began its life pretty much as Earth's twin--And
at some point in its past it was probably as wet and
perhaps even teeming with as much life as the Earth.
[Therefore a much more likely candidate even than
Earth to live long & prosper, being further away from
the damaging effects of the solar wind than Earth.]

Yet, lacking its own "just right-sized" moon, unlike
the Earth, Mars never developed a little wobble of its
own, one which has been kept going all these years by
the tug-and-pull between Earth and its Moon, and which
will hopefully continue yet for some time to come too
because that little wobble is probably what keeps the
Earth's insides hot enough for its different cores to
rub up against each other and produce the magnetic
field which reaches out to embrace our planet with its
mantle of protection against a solar wind that would
otherwise (were that magnetic field not to be there)
blow off our atmosphere (oceans and all, and us) and
leave Earth as dead a rock as cold-cored Mars now is.

And, it can't just be a head-on collision (which might
not create a wobble-sustaining Moon at all, but maybe
only a number of smaller planets & somebody else's
moons). It also can't be a side-swipe which would
leave behind the wrong combinations of materials both
for/in the planet and in the moon. No. That "miracle
strike" which created the present Earth and Moon
combination is a "one-in-an" unimaginably improbable
accident which is highly unlikely to have happened all
that many times to all that many of those so-called
Goldilocks planets out there. Or ask Mars; or Venus
for that matter.

Therefore, ye dreamers, take off a few more billions
and billions of "likely candidates" off ye Goldilocks
wish lists. [Not to mention the fact that it's likely
that most everybody else "out there" has been wiped
off entire galaxies at a time by the unimaginably
tremendous blasts of stars powerful enough to produce
galaxy-wide sterilizing events, and which are probably
not all that statistically rare in galaxies big as ours:

Yes: It is highly improbable that our Milky Way Galaxy
(huge as it is) has never experienced one or more of
these tremendous killer starbursts. Something which
certainly makes our continuing presence in it quite an
extraordinary miracle too: impossibly hard to explain,
really: Perhaps the improbable, unbelievable answer
may be that the Sun was originally an extra-galactic
passing star which came to be pulled in here after all
those monstrous Milk Way sterilizing bursts. Or maybe
we really are in "a privileged place" protected from them
enough to experience all those "only" immense die-offs
in our historical past and yet continue to survive to tell
the story of life. Whatever. [This does not bode well
for our future here.] And perhaps THAT is the real story
of life, after all. Who knows. But time will tell, of course.
If the greatest wisdom of all is to understand others
so that others may understand us, the greatest wisdom
we can put into practice is to learn to stand others
so that others may eventually learn to stand us.
El Porque de los Porqueses. [relevance = why]

"Why" is strictly a human concern: A shoot sprouts,
grows into a tree, bears branches, foliages, and then
monkeys start jumping all over them--That's "what" &
"how." But, unlike "when" (which does exist in nature
but is unknown without our asking it), "why" has no
reality (existence) or relevance in any way, shape or
form whatever outside the human mind. [redundancy]

Does any of this matter to you? No? Does it matter [to
me, say] that it matters not to you? Imagine you are a
horse in some stable and I come along and show you my
text. Does it matter to "you?" Of course not. And how
then can it matter to me that my text matters not to a
horse? For, it matters exactly the same [to me] that
it doesn't matter to you whether you're horse or man.
What legacy do I wish to leave behind? Legacies are
for idiots who like to imagine they will hang around
after death and then, a hundred years on, someone will
join them from the world of men and exclaim, "Oh, you
are that guy!" Really: After I die, the instant that I die,
the whole entire length up to the very extinguishment
of the very last hydrogen particle of the universe will
have the same amount of separation from my death as
no separation whatever. Legacy is just a psychological
tool men use to push each other into doing what they
ought to do (without anyone pushing them to do it).
For a man nothing is more fulfilling that a stark block
of people filling up the crannies of its sere stones
everywhere they glue them together [with their joy]
until it seems the whole pile of them might topple
for its weight, even as we do them up one & one

Oh, stones always hold together [to our great joy]
and even without the joy of Man, long afterwards
they shed not a tear of grief even long, long after
the glue that is Man's fruition has washed all away
and left only those dry stones glittering in the Sun
--a startling monument to the hard memories
Man leaves behind for the sunshine to watch over

Who might have dreamt we could give such a sheen
to such sharp stones with our completely dull lives!

Meanwhile, a mess of [not hard-based intellect
but] fragile feelings float ever over a small mean field
alongside the monument to our own massiveness...
and there Nature is tending thousands of frail flowers
seeming to look after all-by-themselves together

Look! Nothing is sadder than a field of peonies all in
their passing devaluing their environment one by one:
Nature always goes against us!

ever refusing to share our joy in piling up stones

The Buddha.

The story of The Buddha is all about one of the most
evil human beings that ever lived: Before be became
The Buddha, Siddhartha had been born into a royal
family, and was brought up to indulge in the greatest
possible selfishness (no matter whom this injustice
might hurt), continuously enjoying the abject slavery
(the unquestioned loyalty) of everyone around him.

For Siddhartha it was obviously a life of complete
abandonment to his own pleasures; and as he thought
always only of himself, he was never able to see the
great dis-pleasures this brought to others. This
unexpectedly changed one day when a revolutionary
loyalist made it a point to take the so blind young
hedonist for a sneak peek at the world outside his
sheltering palace: There Siddhartha witnessed for the
first time in his life the suffering, ills & diseases,
hunger, and inevitability of old age and death. All
rather disturbing to the young Siddhartha's mind:

We cannot know (as there are no written meditations or
comments by Siddhartha himself on this) whether it was
the personal fear of such future lethal eventualities
interrupting his idyllic existence (or whether actual
pangs of conscience mixed in with the ordinary dreads
that must accompany our only too human mortality)
which soon began to haunt Siddhartha as he realized
that even the full sum total of his sheltered and
privileged existence up to then was suddenly failing
to continue to provide him with that complete self-
satisfaction (selfish happiness) the world seemed to
have surrounded him with all his life up to then).

And so Siddhartha (again not so surprisingly, quite
unimaginably selfishly) left his wife and new-born son
and went out on his own to try to seek a way to find
the "last bit" of that unequivocal satisfaction and
unstinting happiness [for himself--of which, no doubt,
he thought himself deserving] that would again make
his happiness as absolute as it had previously been.

Now, the men considered "the wisest" of that era's
"wise men" were all ascetics for the most part, and
therefore that is the philosophy Siddhartha indulged
in while trying to obtain (in their visceral practices
of self-denial) the impossible [or, "perfect happiness
in this corrupt vale of tears"] completeness of the
"happiness for himself" (without worries or pangs of
conscience) he had known before: The ascetics taught
that the body's imperatives for self-indulgence were
at the root of the dissatisfaction keeping man from
achieving perfect selfishness--which is indulging in
the greatest human evil known to man, or doing things
"good" for themselves alone, as self-evidently "doing
good" is exclusively "doing good for others." ["Doing
good for oneself" (selfishness) is what got Siddhartha
in trouble in the first place, mortifying him no end.]

The ascetics' idea was that it was the body that was
the enemy, and one which had to be combated, made
merciless war upon and utterly conquered: Only then
might real satisfaction come through victorious. And
they went about this war against the body with all the
vindictiveness and fervor of a truly bloodthirsty war:
Soon Siddhartha was famous for being the most ascetic
of all the ascetics, and it was finally said that he was
only subsisting on but one single grain of rice per day.

And so there Siddhartha sat emaciated to the brink of
death by starvation when suddenly this nameless girl
passing by offered him a bowl of rice and encouraged
him to accept it. Nothing special about that humble
act of kindness, you might think--Something which you
might even expect of anyone coming upon such a horrid
sight of a man so apparently starving. However, in a
man who had never really experienced such goodness
[unselfishness] this one particularly humble act of
compassion triggered deep in Siddhartha the realization
[or "enlightenment"] that happiness could really be
achieved in this world simply by merely doing good (as
I said before: "doing for others," since "doing only for
oneself" is evidently the greatest evil on this earth).

There & then Siddhartha became The Buddha (or "the
enlightened one"). The first Buddha, because all those
who achieve this "enlightenment" [or, understanding]
are also Buddhas [and therefore, obviously, I too am
"a kind of" Buddha, since I too have achieved (this)
"enlightenment" even though unlike Buddha, I (having
been brought up a Catholic) don't really do much good
for anybody--just only the flip side of this wisdom:
trying to refrain from doing evil to them. And I do
try to do that [now].

And there sat Buddha, having nothing in the world
except perhaps the conviction that he could express,
and perhaps ought to express such an idea to his
fellows in his own words. Was his simple idea even
worth continuing the struggle of life to express? The
answer, at least for The Buddha was one resounding
yes: Therefore he recovered from his emaciation and
went forth into the world of men to express his idea
to others (a true genuine act of selflessness on his
part, if you think about it, The Buddha having already
achieved "enlightenment" for himself).

And, just as he himself had been readily convinced of
the great truth of this simple idea that real happiness
(satisfaction) is achieved in the most straightforward
way by doing for others [the opposite of selfishness],
Siddhartha quickly convinced his fellow ascetics of
this really wonderful truth, as they too very quickly
realized that Siddhartha's was a better way to go about
achieving true and complete happiness (satisfaction)
than the old one which they had following until then
of waging a merciless war against their own bodies
[really, against their own humanity]. And especially
as, having nothing in the world now with which to do
any good to others, these impoverished ascetics struck
upon the story Siddhartha had told them concerning
that girl's very humble act of kindness towards him as
one way they could encourage others to do good, and
very soon became a priesthood of beggars, going about
offering those they met along the paths they followed
thereafter the opportunity to (just like Siddhartha's
humble girl), to also do something for others--even if
those others were themselves, of course... for even
though it may appear at first that in becoming beggars
the ascetics who became the first Buddhists were just
merely going another route on the road of selfishness,
becoming a beggar (especially for the expressed sake
of giving others the precious gift of obtaining some
measure of happiness in life--it always being "better
to give than to receive") is really quite endearingly
selfless a thing, when you think about it: They could
have chosen instead to become notoriously industrious
and found empires & enterprises whose profits would
have undoubtedly helped a great deal of people (and
enslaved many more, I'm sure). But in seeking to draw
out the goodness in others from them, rather than
merely to [selfishly, as it were] do good themselves,
the Buddhists are really a quite peculiarly admirable
sort: In truth, quite worthy and even praiseworthy.

Having to be a beggar might be a tragic consequence
of some hard failures in a person's life, but actually
going out of one's way to become one for the sake of
others is without doubt something of an unprecedented
and supreme act of selflessness. If this is the essential
realization ("enlightenment") Siddhartha achieved
under the Bodhi tree then it was as truly profound as
it was simple (as are all things genuinely profound).
And certainly one act of doing good for others which
not many of us more selfish human beings on this
planet I dare say would be easily able to undertake.

Now, this view of the Buddha as a human being is
mostly a view that is prevalent mostly in the West,
since in the East he is more commonly described as
something of a "superhuman" (a deity). But tales of
his "miracles" come from 500 years of oral traditions
after his death [and the Dalai Lama has described
"miracles" not as the acts of gods but as things which
surprise us because we do not yet understand them].
Whatever. Stories such as the one about The Buddha
splitting into many Buddhas in front of his disciples
are probably disingenuous representations of the
Buddhist idea that anyone can become a Buddha (and
therefore that from The Buddha bursts forth many of
them). And so too the story of the loaves & fishes in
Jesus's Sermon On The Mount, which may represent
the proposal that Christianity feeds the world of men.

The Buddha came upon a world in which people believed
(as most people yet believe to this day) the superstition
that there was no end to their own personal existence:
But obviously people die, all living things die, therefore
"it had to be" that one was reborn again & again... as
whatever sort of being next according to some mystic
plan which was probably related to the quality of the
way one carried out one's current life [the karma plan].

Nirvana, therefore [or "a transcendent state in which
there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self,
and the subject is released from the effects of karma
--the cycle of death and rebirth"], Nirvana therefore
represents the final goal [attainment] of Buddhism.

Nirvana was Buddha's ultimate message of salvation
(and ought to be Buddhism's goal and mission to this
day)... conveying the Buddha's message about the
importance of accepting the precious uniqueness that
is ONE's current life. The Buddha himself, after all,
eventually came to practice the simple life of a beggar
as the highest form of life for himself. And this should
inform people that he meant that there is no one "best"
(or "better") manner or form of living which everybody
should follow, only one's best "manner or form" of it:
The best one can do, certainly, in a life of infinite ways.

Why do good & refrain from doing evil then? Well, does
anybody really have to tell anyone who has lived long
enough about the consequences that doing evil brings
upon us (as opposed to the benefits of doing good)...?

The fact that death is real and genuinely final and ought
not be some tedious never ending tale of dread or horror
is, in fact, the greatest revelation of the greatest good:
Being absolutely unique, it becomes absolutely crucial
that one make the best of ONE's life. No ghosts, demons,
angels or vampires wander the world as lurking agents
of good & evil but only this momentary wisp of human
emotions (pains and pleasures) whose one only reality
beyond our mortal being rests in the memories we make
and leave behind in the minds of those who live after us.
And since the very dawn of our imagination this has been
man's greatest religious wish, after all: that desperate wish
to be free of the fear of being judged & thereby condemned.

Christians leave it all in the hands of a god, hoping for the
best. The Buddha's message is that it is all in one's hands:
You have but only to become "enlightened" by this reality.

Look how green the valley mantles all its stubble
so that the eye of man may roll unhindered down
those rowdy hills! It is bright delight to Nature's
fellowship with us walking here, signaling we are home
and in the embrace of mother. Maybe we might walk
thereabouts nude as if we were in the womb of nature?
No. Never. For it would disturb the spirits of the dawn
having us go kicking about its innocent dew drops. Let us
instead look far off only and never dare to impose
ourselves upon such a sight 'down there' above us so!
The mere presence of man always seems to be but
an imposition for which we later find ourselves always
apologizing. And this may well be because we so seldom
ever stop to look far off into the unbroken fields afar.
A Message To The Human Mothers

I was one of those babies who became self-aware while
still in my mother's womb because without knowing it
she taught me a language by constantly playing the
piano to address her nervousness at being pregnant (as
she herself explained to me later). For better or
worse this language (of music) allowed me to lay down
memories from not only my time in the womb (and being
born, an experience best never remembered I assure
you), but also of all my earliest times as an infant.
Therefore, speaking from direct experience, there is a
warning I feel I must convey to all human mothers:
Babies don't cry because they're hungry, they cry
because they're freezing cold. Freezing-to-death cold!

Baby chimps (and we are a chimp subspecies) do not
'learn' to regulate their body temperature until weeks
after they're born--some sooner, some later. But one
thing is self-evident: Chimp mothers carry their
newborns with them all the time for the first few
weeks of their lives--this is why you never hear a
baby chimp screaming in horrible pain like you hear
human babies doing until their bodies have at last
'learned' to regulate their own body heat.

Human mothers, on the other hand, can't seem to want
to get away from their babies soon enough: They wrap
them in blankets and abandon them in cribs to a
freezing torture while convincing themselves that
they've set them up as snuggly warm as they themselves
get under their own covers at night. But this
completely ignores that while adult bodies can become
a living furnace under those covers, their babies'
bodies are stone dead cold and never produce any
appreciable heat whatever... unless prompted by the
touch of an adult.

I can still remember being swaddled in my crib only to
suddenly awake in horrible pain in the middle of the
night: It felt as if I'd been plunged into a vat of
iced water. So I'd scream in pain until my mother
would come and pick me up and hug me to her skin: The
mere touch of her warm skin was like going from an ice
cold torture to bearable human temperate again. The
relief was incredible. She would almost always nurse
me, of course, although to me that was almost
irrelevant: Any number of times in was not my mother
at all but my grandmother who would come running to my
screams and pick me up in the middle of the night...
with the same exact relief: She couldn't nurse me, but
the instant she would place me against her aged body
the ice cold night would be blown away by the relief
of that absolutely essential human touch of her skin.
And once again my body temperature would be suddenly
'regulated' back up to what it should be for humans.

You don't hear baby chimps screaming in pain like you
hear human babies scream even though both get more
than their share of mother's milk. That's not why
human babies scream while chimp babies do not--take it
from someone who well & truly remembers the reason
why... as if it'd been yesterday. Your baby may not
have laid down a language with which to remember to
tell you this but it's still a sin to needlessly
torture a baby. Least of all your own!
Satellite images show the horrifying extent of China’s
cultural genocide of Uighurs

Curb Your Enthusiasm Department: The Uighurs are being
taught to be Chinese, not butchered en masse like the
Jews, for Heavens' sakes! Yes, the best solution would
have probably been to create a separate homeland just
for the Uighurs only. But that wasn't going to happen:
Islamic attacks on non-Muslims have been occurring in
China almost on the same level as those in Israel (and
everywhere else there is a non-Muslim culture next to
an Islamic one) which most obviously makes the Chinese
[mass re-education] solution to their Islamic Uighur
problem one of the least bloody one: All societies,
including every last single Western one has provisions
for obligatory public education about regarding its culture
far above all the others in order that its citizenry grows
up believing that theirs is the preferred culture from all
the other cultures in the world. In a decade or two the
Uighurs will probably be as Chinese as are everyone else
in China. And then cultural clashes in China will come to
an end without having a repeat of the German Nazi
Holocaust there. And the Uighurs will be as defensive
(and jingoistic) about "their Chinese culture" as the rest
of the other Chinese are now. So patience please.

Would I have been as acquiescent if the German Nazis
had re-educated the Jews en masse and made them all
loyal Nazi Aryans? [Well, I'm not so much acquiescent
as realistic.] But I don't remember the German Jews
staging any attacks against their fellow non-Jewish
German neighbors. Perhaps you know of some. So, no:
That would have been an uncalled-for utterly needless
unprovoked cultural crime against the Jews. The
Chinese case is a bit more complicated. Just as is the
case with the Myanmar Rohingya Muslims:

If someone is attacking you without any provocation I
might come to your defense at once. But if you have a
history of blowing up the guy's house & killing his
family members, I may not be as quick to hit him with
a brick or shoot him if I see him coming after you. Sorry.
Whoever is guilty of the horrors the several Muslim
minorities are experiencing I neither excuse it nor
condone it--and even if the Rohingya, the Palestinians
and the Uighurs are themselves 100% guilty for what's
happening to them I neither excuse it nor condone it
--But I am always interested in trying to determine (to
understand) why it's happening. One thing is sure:
Even after all the horrors the Palestinian Muslim have
put the Israeli Jews through (beginning long before
1948) the Israeli Jews still to this day would like
nothing better than that the Palestinians rejoin the
human race and reach a permanent peaceful settlement
with them. But it's not happening (and likely will
never happen) because the Palestinian Muslims are
enslaved by a religious mindset that tells them God
commands them to butcher every Jew they can get their
hands on! This is self-evidently incomprehensible [to
me]; but all religious cults live by incomprehensible
dictates from which most members of Western (modern
secular) societies have long ago freed themselves.

Even so this wondrous Israeli Jewish self-restrain
when it comes to Palestinians who are en masse
brainwashed [into the belief that God put them on this
earth to murder Jews] is really more than I could
bear, as a human being (and much like the Myanmar
Buddhists, the Chinese, the Spanish before Columbus,
and perhaps the Indian Hindus now) this is really
something I don't believe I myself would be so willing
to accept with the Jews' seemingly infinite patience.

I am neither a Jew nor an Israeli and therefore I am
forever humbled by the Israeli Jews' willingness to
patiently await the Palestinians recovering their
humanity like that. No. Long, long ago I would have
removed them as Arab squatters on the historic lands
of the Jews--to Jordan and Egypt probably, even though
most Palestinians are ethnically not Arabs at all but
forcibly converted Jews and most Arab societies would
never accept them as Arabs--And maybe this is the
reason the Israeli Jews are so patient with the
Palestinians after all: That forlorn hope that they
recover their senses and return to their brethren.
Look, if you fill France up with Muslims
you have to expect at least some of them
to follow the Prophet's commands to either
convert or slaughter all the non-Muslims!
If one is accused of justifying or even of advocating
genocide simply because of warning against situations
which might lead to it (by those who disingenuously
believe that merely denouncing genocide everywhere
every time was always enough to prevent it) then
that's the price one must pay: Such 'decent' accusers
have been denouncing genocide all along... and not
mostly doing much more than that. And yet we all know
the history of the world up to now: all their wondrous
self-righteous denunciations have allways all been
after the fact.

Conquest for acquisition has been mass murder as well,
but it's brief & passing, however bloody. [Who out
there thinks that I am advocating it now?] While the
intractable hatreds towards other religions inherent in
every religion never really do go away no matter how
they may be temporarily papered over. It is religion,
rather than conquest for acquisition, which has been
the main cause of genocide in our human history.
Religion has always united peoples... against each
other. And if you can't see that then you will see a
lot more genocide in the future.

Hate me for pointing it out if you like. But facts
don't change just because people may shift position
and see them in a new light: People simply move from
the light into the darkness, and only hopefully back
again. It's easy to be brainwashed into believing that
if a friend or even a mere acquaintance is enamored of
some evil... that such an evil has turned into virtue.
But that is never so. The truth is that we live in the
shadows, never quite knowing whether we're walking
towards the light or towards our darkest steps again.
But, whichever way we go, the landscape remains the

We must always look to the lessons of history to learn
what history has to teach us going forward. If I am
accused of 'justifying genocide' because I have said
that not throwing two peoples which hate each other
together to force them to learn to live as brothers is
a good & reasonable thing, I would like to point out
to my accusers that they themselves might never think
that forcing two persons who hate each other to move
into the same house to learn to live as brothers would
be a good & reasonable thing. Better, a million times
better, to contemplate so-called 'cultural genocide'
than the real thing. And those who do not believe this
are the ones who in the end might turn out to be those
most guilty of actual genocide when it does happen
because the most passionate advocates of preserving
the status quo at any price are usually the most passionate
advocates of doing this even at the cost of genocide
thereby almost always precipitating it.

Should I abandon good & reasonable ideas then simply
because they make me the object of scorn & hatred from
those who just can't think straight? What good would I
ever do in this world then? Always denouncing genocide
is fine. Kudos! But sometimes trying to think of ways to
prevent it is better. And better than having people like me.
Massacre in Myanmar

There is an important difference between the Dreamers
of the U.S. and the Rohingya in that while the Rohingya
will always remain a disruptive force in Burma... the
Dreamers are Americans in every way except their legal
status. There is a case to be made about Burma being a
more stable nation without the Rohingya, but there is
no possible way anyone can say America can be better
in any way by kicking out Americans termed Dreamers.

The U.S. Dreamers are people who see themselves in
every way as Americans: they want to integrate and
become indistinguishable from their fellow citizens...
while Burma's Rohingya will always seek to separate
themselves from their fellow citizens even if they have
to use violence: The smartest thing would have been
for the British to listen to the Rohingya themselves
and place the land where the Rohingya were then living
(Rakhine state) in Bangladesh--They didn't do that and
now the Rohingya are paying the terrible price for the
failure of the British colonialists.

This is what it may come to in Europe. And if anyone
really believes Europeans are somehow "better than
the Buddhists of Myanmar" then they're conveniently
forgetting the brutality, viciousness and savagery of
Europe's bloody religious and political wars... every
one of which took place not all that long ago.

The Rohingya belong in Bangladesh. It's sweet and
pretty to say that everybody should be citizens of the
country in which they live... but those who like to
sprout this pretty sweetness never mention the other
side of the coin: that citizens of a country have to be
as equally loyal to that country (as are all its other
citizens). And Muslims are never quite as loyal to any
country in which they live as a minority as are the
non-Muslim majorities of those countries: Muslims are
always and ever will be living with the very unholy
expectation that one day they will overthrow that
country's non-Muslim majority culture and replace it
with an Islamic one--Without so much as one single
exception to this universal dictum in all history.

Is it therefore reasonable to expect that the Rohingya
Muslims are the one sole exception to this rule and
that they are the only Muslims who are victims (in the
eternal Islamic struggle for world domination [Jihad]
by all Muslims everywhere against their non-Muslim
neighbors)... which is the sad tragic history Muslims
have been to humanity since the time of Muhammad?

If you don't know this you are not familiar with the
story of the many tiny Muslim enclaves now dotting
Europe and the problems these Muslims' European
neighbors are just now beginning to face dealing with
those "foreign little Muslim communities" (and will
face in the future in an ever worsening way as those
Muslims increase in numbers): every last Muslim there
expects that their European "hosts" must accept not
merely/only their social equality but above all their
unassailable superiority (religious now, and cultural
later on). None of the problems/conflicts between the
Muslim & non-Muslim communities ever has anything
whatsoever to do with job opportunities or equality
before the law & the rest of it, as the Europeans would
have us all believe in their infinite self-denial and quite
stunningly unending self-delusion:

These still tiny Muslim enclaves never will integrate
[a term which must be understood to mean that ALL
citizens of a given country must be equally loyal to their
country & are not working to undermine it or change
its character/nature in order to secure their exclusive
dominance]. And, as they grow in numbers, their (now
modest expectations of eventually overwhelming their
non-Muslims neighbors will/must inevitably also grow
as well): Expectations NOT of becoming more European
but of altogether overthrowing the old European way
of life and replacing it with an Islamic society (and no
matter what Islamic propaganda tells you). That is the
sad fact everywhere on this planet Muslims have ever
penetrated non-Muslim societies (and, unfortunately,
they have almost everywhere succeeded for the most
part, with very few exceptions... turning once great
flowering civilizations into dark age sewers) because
that IS the religion of Islam [the very nature/essence
of The Jihad] and neither you nor anybody else knows
anywhere any Muslim group that has ever given up its
religion: Muslims are always everywhere & ever will be
separate and ever preparing for the day they take over
and turn one more country to a Muslim-majority state.

Something which is most especially sad for the Rohingya
children, as it is tragic for children of Muslims everywhere
who are so condemned by the mere accident of their birth
to be indoctrinated into a cult of mass murder, butchery,
war, and death: No one can doubt that they are suffering
genocide & ethnic cleansing in Burma.

"They have been called the world's most persecuted
minority," we now hear it said of Rohingyas. As, I am
sure, all the Muslim minorities who ever existed (and
waged war against the non-Muslim majority like the
Rohingya) have been termed until they at last finally
overwhelmed it. And then death or conversion for the
unfortunate defeated non-Muslims, slavery, butchery
& worst.

Remember Erdogan calling the comments by German
politicians Nazism? That is the same kind of reality
one must expect from every Islamist propagandist out
there regardless where they are from. Once the same
thing starts happening in Europe (as is now happening
in Myanmar & happened once long ago in Spain) after
the European Muslims increase their attacks on their
non-Muslims neighbors: I am sure Erdogan and all the
other Islamist dictators & propagandists of the world
will also denounce "the European genocide against
Muslims" as the Europeans fight to save themselves
from the Islamic butchery (of their own making) that
inevitably awaits them too.

From: Hundreds are dead in Burma as the Rohingya
crisis explodes again
: “Right now villages are burning,
people are being killed, residents are fleeing for their
lives,” Fortify Rights co-founder Matthew Smith said.
“I will say it’s shocking, and some of the survivors are
devastated by what they have experienced, what they
have seen.” The world's press seems to believe only the
Muslim activists, promoters and sympathizers. I imagine
this must be the first and only group of Muslims ever to
be victims in their wars against non-Muslims! "Reports"
[from the Rohingya Muslims] "have circulated that
Burmese security forces fired on fleeing refugees, but
the government denies the allegations.

The Rohingya Suffer Real Horrors. So Why Are Some of
Their Stories Untrue?

Whom to believe? The evidence of history, or maybe the
momentary propaganda? Should one believe the reports
of newspeople who state Rohingyas' accounts as factual
truth even though they know they are not hearing from
impartial observers? As newsmen shouldn't they know
better and better account for a more factual/impartial
reporting. On the one hand they report Myanmar is using
a couple of Rohingya militant attacks on police posts and
an army base three weeks ago to justify a campaign to
rid the country of this long-persecuted minority. And
on the other hand they tell us about all of the conflict
which the Rohingya have experienced in Myanmar for
as long as they have lived there: "Though the region
has experienced insurgencies since Burma became
independent in 1948..." One more slip of the truth
between the clenched teeth of Muslim propagandists?

AGAIN: "Myanmar’s national security adviser said this
week that the new insurgent group is intent on
establishing an Islamic state in Rakhine, but members
counter that they only want rights enjoyed by all
citizens in Burma." Are the Rohingya then the only
Muslims on earth not trying to establish an Islamic
state?! Even Erdogan is trying to make the once semi-
democratic Turkey into a fully Islamic state now.

Reading between the lines: From Hundreds are dead
in Burma as the Rohingya crisis explodes again
: "The
insurgents are crudely equipped, and the amount of
public support they have is unclear. Raids have
recovered small stockpiles of weapons, but videos of
training sessions show only a few dozen scrawny and
shabbily dressed fighters." Stockpiles of weapons, and
yet "everybody" says the Muslims are only victims here?
"Tens of thousands of Rohingya have fled to Bangladesh
since the Aug. 25 attack, monitors say, while more
than 10,000 Buddhists have been internally displaced
within the state. Hundreds of ethnic minorities have
also fled." Sorry, what are these Buddhists fleeing? Is
the army also killing Buddhists and other non-Muslims?
Are the "only a few dozen scrawny and shabbily dressed
fighters" reported by the world press chasing 10,000
bloodthirsty Buddhists out of Rakhine State? Is that it?
"The clashes and army crackdown have killed nearly 400
people and more than 11,700 'ethnic residents' have
been evacuated from the area, the government said,
referring to the non-Muslim residents." One might
wonder why non-Muslims would need to be evacuated
when the army is only going after Muslims? Wonder of
all wonders!

From: New Myanmar fires in empty Rohingya village
raise questions
: "Among the buildings on fire was a
madrassa, an Islamic school. Copies of books with
texts from the Quran, Islam's holy book, were torn up
and thrown outside. A nearby mosque was not burned."
Why would the Pagans show such respect for a Mosque?!
And why would an ethnic-cleansing campaign leave a
mosque standing untorched as if in some expectation
Muslims might one day return to pray there?!

AGAIN: "The fighters of the Arakan Rohingya Salvation
Army say they launched the attacks on area police to
defend persecuted Rohingya communities." What a
coincidence: That also happens to be the cause of Hamas,
of the PLO, of ISIS, and of every other Islamist terrorist
group on earth (including all those "lone wolf" attacks
everywhere here in the West).

AGAIN: "Most international aid workers left northern
Rakhine state after the government highlighted that
supplies from international aid groups, including
USAID, had been found in raids on Rohingya fighter
positions. The U.S. ambassador to Burma, Scot Marciel,
called the implication that aid groups had supported
ARSA “absurd.” But, shall we revisit Gaza, and all those
times that Hamas munitions and even rockets ready to
be launched against Israeli civilians were everywhere
found stored in U.N. facilities there?

AGAIN: "Those who have made it to Bangladesh are in
poor condition. Most have walked for days from their
villages — hiding in jungles, crossing mountains and
rivers with what they could salvage from their homes,"
Khan said Wednesday at a briefing in Geneva." If they
are escaping to Bangladesh (which is what they say the
army wants them to do), then why are they hiding? And:
“The vast majority are women, including mothers with
newborn babies, families with children,” Where are the
men? Why are the men staying behind if, as the "world
press" would have us believe, this is strictly a case of
a Buddhist genocide and not a raging war? "The United
Nations Population Fund estimates that two-thirds of
the refugees are women and girls." But I don't blame
anyone's naiveté: Even the Dalai Lama has fallen for it!

Well: “Even if I stay in my home, I could get killed
by the military,” said Abul Osman, a 32-year-old
madrassa instructor and ARSA fighter who spent three
months hiding in the jungly hills on the Myanmar-
Bangladesh border after the group’s attack last
October. “I might as well die fighting for my rights,
as directed by my almighty God. My sacrifice will earn
me a place in heaven.” And there you have the real
cause of all this human grief, misery, and tragedy:

In: How Violence in Myanmar Radicalized a New
Generation of Rohingya
, they let it out how "Nearly
every Rohingya village in northern Rakhine now has
an ARSA cell with at least 10 members, according to
fighters who fled to Bangladesh." And there you have
the raw naked truth of Aung San Suu Kyi's statement
about the terrorist nature of the Rohingya in Myanmar,
very unsubtly and most probably unwittingly revealed
for the most prejudiced to come to grips with and even
those without much understanding to grasp finally.

I don't have any problem with Muslims themselves.
[There also seem to be plenty of Buddhist terrorists.]
But I do object strongly to an ideology which obviously
inspires so much evil and human tragedy in this world.
Now, we know that in Spain at least Christianity stood up
against the most powerful assault on Europe by Islam
[a religion dedicated to the supremacy of its own god
over the Christian one]. And in several other places
like Vienna, in Italy, and Greece (as well as in other
places). But can such a philosophy as Buddhism [which
is not designed to maintain the supremacy of any human
partisanship] stand up to the murderous onslaught of
Islam? We can see a hint of the answer in Burma, where
a native Buddhist population is even now engaged in a
terrific struggle with a Muslim group (the Rohingyas)
who some time ago invaded Burma from Bangladesh and
who continue to this day their Islamic push against
the native Buddhist population they came upon there:

The Buddhists of Burma are working out a way for them
to counter this insidious Muslim invasion in spite of
a very powerful vicious propaganda campaign being
carried out (all over the world) against them designed
to make victims of the Rohingya Muslims. [What? No, of
course: Since the time of Muhammad the principal duty
given to each Muslim has been The Jihad: his sacred
duty to convert every non-Muslim or to slaughter him
without mercy, rob him of all that he owns, to enslave
his women and his children and to sell them all into
depravity & slavery... but the Rohingya Muslims just
happen to be the 1 singular exception in Islam's tale of
horror & inhumanity? Oh yeah, sure.] Think how easy it
also would have been for these same "designing people"
to make victims out of the Moors of Spain! Well, to
those duped into the "idyllic prejudice" that the poor
Rohingyas should be considered native Burmese too
because they've been in the country for centuries now
I point out the 700+ years of unimaginably bloody war
that it took the Spanish to finally liberate themselves
from the Muslims who invaded them from the Middle
East and Africa--The solution for the Rohingyas is for
them to return to their country of origin (Bangladesh)
exactly like the Spanish Moors were finally forced to
return to North Africa and the Middle East from where
they had invaded Europe: If non-Muslims could live
anywhere in peace amongst Muslims for long you
wouldn't see ALL the non-Muslim populations in ALL
Muslim-majority lands on this planet being whittled
away by threats & endless vilification, libel, terror
and genocide, and death even unto extinction.

Not counting European wars and a civil war that was
made all the more vicious by becoming a proxy for
National Socialism's war against Communism... that
historical retreat by the Moors did give Spain a peace
which lasted from the time of Columbus to the present
(just as insidious) mass introduction into Europe of
another Muslim population [this time by Europeans
with little or no grasp whatever of the too clear and
obvious lessons of their own history]. And in spite of
the many different ethnic minorities that populate
Spain--apparently ever so willing to advocate for a
national separation.
No reasonable person can possibly advocate for the
forceful removal of an ethnic minority from the place
in which they have lived [for as many years as the
Rohingya have in Burma]. But the fact is that there
will never be peace in that region as long as these
Rohingya Muslims abide in Myanmar: For the sake
of everyone in that region the UN should find the best
possible way for the Rohingya to integrate back into
Islamic Bangladesh--since they'll never do so with the
Myanmar non-Muslims just as Muslims will never live at
peace within any majority non-Muslim society anywhere.

Why is Myanmar condemned for wanting to push out the
Rohingya and not Bangladesh
(from where the Rohingya
originally came from) & is waiting to do exactly the same
thing to them? There is no question that the Rohingya
are being most brutally persecuted NOW, whoever is
doing that persecution: No one who knows the nature of
man can doubt the awful truth of those horrible accounts
which the Rohingya civilians are reporting to the world.
But whosever fault it is (ad there's plenty to go around),
the ultimate solution for the Rohingya is the one that
the Jews came up with while being hounded from place
to place across the last two millennia: "Living well is
the best revenge." The Rohingya must begin to build
their future themselves with patience and humanity,
perseverance, and strength of will. Then, eventually,
wherever they end up, they will not merely survive but
thrive and conquer the cruel fate others wish for them.
What formally recognizing the Armenian genocide
means for humanity

UK lawmakers declare China's treatment of Uyghurs is

Opinion: U.S. has not proven genocide charges against

  Victims of the Japanese Asian Genocide: 10 million
  Victims of the Nazi Jewish Genocide: 6 million
  Victims of the Armenian Genocide: 1.5 million
  Victims of the Rwandan Genocide: up to 800,000
  Victims of the Chinese Uyghur Genocide: "credible"
  reports of mass deaths" ["reports"]

In other words, it doesn't depend on corpses but on
whether you believe Uyghur or Chinese propagandists:
Maybe none died, and maybe some died--I happen to be
one of those who thinks that certainly 'some' must
have died... militants maybe, their leaders, and other
intransigent nationalistic fighters, rebels, and probably
terrorists; but I prefer to call this conflict only on the
evidence, which says only that there were some Uyghur
acts of terror which convinced the Chinese that the
best way to solve their problem was to indoctrinate
the Uyghurs en masse and assimilate them into the
general Chinese society.

I have heard of horror stories from Uyghurs in exile
about torture and intimidation. And I have heard even
the same exiled Uyghurs complaining about relatives
still inside China telling them about experiencing
freedom of thought, cultural liberation from the
enslaving strictures of Islam, of realizing for the
first time ever in their lives that the world has
possibilities for them, that they might actually have
a future... and even swearing that they will never go
back to the lives they had led before their Chinese
re-education. And all this in China!? Is it true? Are
they merely brainwashed? Well, in the end, it depends
not on a sum of corpses but on whether you believe the
Uyghur or the Chinese propagandists. And, for me at
least, that's a slim rusty old nail to hang as heavy a
claim as is genocide on.

Should we condemn the Chinese for their forced
cultural indoctrination of the Uyghurs? Should we
condemn the Uyghur terrorists who have attacked and
murdered innocent men, women & even children in
kindergartens in unimaginably evil acts of terror with
knives and machetes? Should we weigh one evil against
the other & seek justification for evil? I am willing
to call a pox on both their houses: Bad behavior is
bad behavior--but this is certainly NOT genocide.

I hope that the term "genocide" isn't made meaningless
by desperate activists using it to attack just any ole
country's bad behavior, because this misuse of the
term is self-defeating: We will then need to apply
ever more & more powerful and insultingly accusatory
labels over much lesser & lesser crimes committed. And
I just don't see what good that will do anybody.

And before you start sprouting that this is all still
"cultural genocide" note that the Uyghur propagandists
are describing the emancipation of women from
centuries of male Islamic domination [because of this
"Chinese indoctrination"] as a human rights violation
--theirs that is, not women's human rights. Apparently
the Uyghur propagandists have not yet mastered the
subtle arts of Muslim dissembling for the sake of
Western audiences that others have. I suppose the
emancipation of women could be described as a gross
violation of Uyghur men's [Islamic culture] rights to
keep 'their' women subservient to them; and in that
sense what the Chinese are engaging in is cultural
genocide--just not in my book: In my book the
liberation of women from cultural oppression is still
liberation in any language you care to put it.

What is galling is the way some Western advocates of
the Uyghur narrative so conveniently gloss over the
wrongs of the Muslim Uyghurs as if one side were all
good and the other all bad! I can understand Islamic
propagandists doing it, but I will never understand
supposedly well-educated liberal Western intellectuals
and others in the Western media contributing to this
and no matter how ill-educated they may really be.
‘Gone With the Wind’ and the stewardship of our
cinematic monuments
 et al

You can destroy statues, but not the ideas they were
made to stand for: Therefore I am not for destroying
the Confederate Monuments. Rather, I am for moving
them from "a place of honor" to "a place of history,"
where they really belong: Some outdoors museum,
perhaps, where its curators can inform the visitors:
"These were the worst traitors that the United States
ever experienced. They waged merciless war against
their own country, and butchered cruelly their fellow
citizens... drawing but on a vain political betrayal for
their short-lived conscience--As they this did in the
cause of the most despised caprice for which anyone
has yet waged treason against their fatherland: the
un-American, demonstrably false conceit that not all
men are created equal, a sad whim (human slavery!)
which ever fading, as all such corrupt notions must,
has yet "lived" after them--even if but in the feverish
and warped imagination of forever fewer and fewer
dishonorable human beings." It's a museum I would
like to see named "The American Ash Heap of History."
If I have expressed any racist opinions, fine: Point
them out and I will condemn them; as I have always
condemned all expressions of racism no matter where
they might be coming from. I believe that, unless they
are advocating violence, everyone has a right in this
country to express his/her even most racist opinions.
But every person also has a right here to condemn
anyone's racist opinions, and that also includes me.
"Free speech is democracy," as Churchill might say:
"The worst except for everything against free speech
out there." --S D Rodrian
There is no denying the Holocaust any more than
one can deny the Sun: The Holocaust is so well
documented that the one thing we can be certain of
is that those who choose to deny the Holocaust do it
not because they really believe the Holocaust never
happened but because they are choosing to strike out
with the sour stab of antisemitism.
"One does not demand greatness.
  One points out the way to get there."
The whole world isn't worth your life.
Anybody tells you different it's just words.
Marvel! We are on the cusp of actually witnessing the
possibility of the entire human species traveling from
this planet [to wherever] in one single space vehicle:
Not, certainly, a huge mob of bodies (whether living
or frozen) but in a small container of DNA samples
from every one of us (as Man, billions as there might
be at the time on this planet). Such a container would
be small enough to make it feasible that a protective
envelope could be developed against most if not all
cosmic forms of radiation the space vehicle might
encounter. Then, at the conclusion of the voyage, a
mechanical means of DNA editing might re-assemble
the humans represented in the contents--with the
result that the entire human species will have been
moved from one planet to another. The additional
technologies, plans & designs would also have to be
produced, of course, to bring the project to fruition.

The great thing about this is that it wouldn't have to
be biological information in the capsule, since DNA is
information which might [sometime quite soon] be
translatable into other forms/modes (for more secure
storage), exactly like we store computer files in hard
drives now. When this becomes feasible, the hard drive
containing the human species (along with additional
hard drives containing all the other species on earth)
could be duplicated and sent towards different points
of the compass. Thereby polluting the entire universe
with our existence!
Dominoes Snake

The simplest and still my favorite card game of all
time is one I derived from dominos to play with my
siblings when we were kids: Dominos Snake, played
with a Poker deck of cards (or two of them mixed
together if you like). Here its 4 rules & some info:

1) Only the 2 cards at either end of the snake are
playable. So if the card at one end is a 3 and the
card at the other end a 7 you can only place a 3 or
a 7 on "the snake" when it's your turn. However:

2) All the "face" cards are wild, so you can always
also lay down any face card when it's our turn. [In
the case above you can lay down a 3, a 7, or any
of the "face" cards.] If there is a face card at either
end of "the snake" any card you have can go there.

3) Whomever first runs out of cards is the winner.
[Therefore your only strategies are to try to get rid
of your numbered cards before your face cards; and,
naturally, if there is a face card at any end of the
snake to quickly try to place "a number card" on it
in order to try to block the other players that way.]

4) After you play it's the turn of the person to your
right. So, if you don't have a card to lay down [and
there is no pile of extra cards you may take from on
the table] you must take one from the player on your
right, and then one from the player to that player's
right--and so on until you either get a card you can
play or you leave a player with none and that person
wins the game, of course. [Some players have been
known to refuse to play a face card they know will
give the game to someone else & start taking cards
instead. That's up to them, whether it works or not.]

I deal 7 cards to each player to begin with, and place
any remaining cards in a pile from which players who
don't have a card to lay down can take [one at a time]
but you can certainly vary the number of cards players
start out with or even deal out all the cards if you like.
The West has become numb to terrorism: Despite the
"outcry" that we hear after each act of Islamic terror
nowadays, the truth is that we long ago decided to
accept the acts of terror perpetrated by the Muslim
communities among us as inevitable & intractable to
any & all remedies and solutions (the equivalent of
deciding we can't really do anything to prevent them
outside of eliminating the Muslims themselves). We
likewise talk about the weather, but "we can't really do
anything about it" so we buy umbrellas and pretend
that by hiding under them we have conquered the rain.

Islamic terrorism is never the result of socioeconomic
issues: Muslims from every economic status, from the
poorest to the wealthiest, and every social station
from the illiterate to scholars, princes, have engaged
in Islamic terrorism. Doctors, lawyers, and indian
chiefs. No one secular "socioeconomic solution" can
address a problem which stems solely/entirely from a
purely religious duty--And as you can imagine, if you
eliminate the religion of a Muslim you eliminate the
Muslim, so the West has decided it is not going to
eliminate the Muslim even by trying to eliminate his
religion. Therefore, no matter the "outrage" we may
express over Islamic acts of terror, the truth is that
we have decided to just become senseless to them:

And so after every such act of Islamic terror the first
order of business is to praise Muslims and exculpate
the religion of Islam, even when we KNOW that there is
no other cause for the terror. Insane people sometimes
do cause great acts of mass murder; we live with an
almost endless supply of serial killers, murderers, and
political socioeconomic revolutionaries also cause a
lot of senseless butchery... but they all have causes
which can be addressed as directly as we would a war
with a foreign power: Kill that cause and we have won
the issue, be it communism, national socialism, disease
and insanity, gangsterism or revolution. But Islamic
terrorism is the result of the Muslims' religion, and
apparently we are not [yet] ready to try to beat down
a "major religion" just to stop its acts of terror against
us. And so we anesthetize ourselves to them rather
than attempt to try to eliminate them once & for all.

Muslims do not become terrorists if we give them job
opportunities and trust them with care in this world:
Truth or prejudice? As well: The Palestinian issue is
a red herring used by the apologists and promoters of
Islamic Terror to muddy up the waters. The reality:

"It would be mean to keep pious Muslims from the only
way the Koran tells them they can ascend directly to
their Paradise: by dying while butchering non-Muslims
in the name of Allah." And you can't claim to be for
religious freedom and then try to keep pious Muslims
from going to Paradise in accordance with their religious
beliefs & dictums, now can you! So make up your mind:

If you're going to be tolerant of Muslims you must be
tolerant of the Muslims' religious beliefs and accept
a few acts of mass murder, butchery, and terror here
and there. [To paraphrase the lever-headed scientist
in that great movie The Thing: "We owe it to political
correctness for a few of us to stand here and be killed
by The Monster!" I guess.]   S D Rodrian
Russia likely to deliver S-300 missiles to Syria

Russian envoy plays down tensions with Israel over
Syria strikes

Israel has a life-or-death interest in Syria, while Russia
has no interest whatever outside of parading Putin's puny
balls before a snickering world. Is that what the Russians
really seek: a nuclear exchange with a tiny country with
which it need never have any conflicts whatever?! Even if
a first strike takes out all of Israel, Russia with undoubtedly
face a fatal rain of nukes (probably well over a 100 from
parts of the earth Russia would never dream possible for
a small nation like Israel)... a rain of death which won't
even leave Russian cockroaches alive there. And for what?
So a shirtless Putin can get on his horsy and imagine that
he's as big a tyrant as Stalin ever was?!? At some point
the Russian People are going to have to wake up and realize
Putin & his gang of thugs are leading them down a path of
pointless death.

Liberman: Israel will react forcefully if Syria uses S-300
against it

Anti-Semitism is an irrational racism stemming from
the Jews' Middle Eastern origins; while being opposed
to Islam is an acknowledgement of Islam's unceasing
genocidal evil: They bear no moral equivalence because
racism is as pointless & as meaningless as supposing
that your twin is somehow inferior to you genetically,
while the knowledge of all the great wrongs & harms
Islam has brought upon humanity is an inevasible
demand that all good, honest, decent human beings
point it out & oppose it ever until such time as it
can never menace Man ever again. --S D Rodrian
Dying To Go To Heaven: What The Heaven’s Gate
Suicides Teach Us About Islamic Martyrdom

   "Perhaps out of a desire to not criticize other
   religions, many Western commentators and
   politicians blame Islamic terrorism on economic or
   political pressures. These factors may certainly
   come into play – yet we cannot escape the fact that
   suicide bombers often believe they are going to
   heaven for their deadly actions."

Correction please: --Yet we CAN NOT escape the fact
that were it not because suicide bombers believe they
are going to Heaven for their deadly actions they most
probably would never think of going through with them.

    "Whatever other motives Islamic terrorists may
    have for their actions, beneath them all is the
    same supernatural belief held by the Heaven’s Gate
    cult members: that they’re not really committing
    suicide, but simply transitioning to a better
    place where they will be rewarded for their
    actions. And just like most of us would intervene
    with friends or family who joined a suicide cult
    like Heaven’s Gate, Muslim moderates and
    reformers, along with religious people of all
    faiths, must debunk the false fact that heaven
    awaits those who kill themselves, especially if
    they take the lives of others."

Of course, as it is a command from "God's Prophet"
enshrined in the Quran (which is holy to all Muslims,
not just suicide bombers), I'll bet you it's gonna be
as impossible to repudiate as it has been these last,
oh... 1500(?) years. You can try, of course, if you
don't mind being called a fascist Islamophobe racist
pig by every whopping cretin out there who styles
himself righteous, noble, virtuous & pure.
Yes, I am both an Islamophobe and a Naziophobe.
Sue me. But I think I have good reason to be both.
Goodell says NFL believes ‘everyone should stand’ for
national anthem but won’t mandate players to do so

That's because such an order would be easy to prove
in court to be unconstitutional.

The Constitution offers Americans the possibility to
claim just about any form of expression that doesn't
do grievous harm to others as legitimate. Frankly, I
don't see it outside the realm of possibility that one
day someone could even claim that public masturbation
is a perfectly permissible form of expression under
the Constitution, and that the courts will probably
eventually be forced to agree that it is.

However, it is one thing or something to be permitted
under the Constitution, and quite another for it to be
in good taste or even intelligent: Permitted or not,
something which disgusts others is not a very logical
approach to making one's point in public (to try to
get public opinion behind you--which is probably why
you don't see more politicians masturbating in public
to win votes). So, in the matter of not standing for
the national anthem: Even though it's perfectly within
one's constitutional right to do it, it would be a lot
more intelligent to make the argument about one's
protest and not about one's disrespect for country &
flag--Which is pretty much how I'm hearing these
"Anthem social equality protests" framed now.

Yes, you can yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. But
if someone is harmed you will be held responsible for
the damages you caused... including for as little as
frightening someone--which is probably a lot more
egregiously punished these days that you think it is.
I heartily approve of latest Chinese love-affair with
: What the world needs right now is a
nationalistic/xenophobic Chinese flirtation with tyranny
and despotism to trip its mad race to world domination.
Obviously China did not get on this successful headlong
race by riding the great economic engine of communism.
Miami Song

Farewell to Fidel!
He's gone to Hell.
And now he's there
how is he going to fare?

Cuba is not at prayer;
only commies despair
there, as they prepare
to pull out all their hair

Cuban-Americans are all midair
balling better than Fred Astaire
down old Miami's conga streets
sweet with new Afro-Cuban beats:

Farewell, Fidel!
You've gone to Hell
now. And down there:
How are you going to fare?


The first, and foremost, and perhaps the only thing that
Christians should be taught in their schools about Islam
is that no Islamic nation allows the proper & free study
of Christianity as an equal faith. Then, if the need should
remain to learn even more, that most of them advocate
in their schools the unholy requirement that all Muslims
must wage genocide against Jews and many, many, many
other human beings (making Jihad inevitable/unavoidable):
Once you learn these are the facts, what need remains
to look into any other aspect of or teachings about Islam?

Experts Say London Mayor Was Right: Terrorism Is
A Reality Of City Life

And, if terrorism is mostly the result of Islamic
superstitions, shouldn't we try to educate Muslims
that all their superstitions are just merely dangerous
old wives' tales, fallacy, delusion/illusions, fantasy,
deception, deceit, fraud, and just plain silly? [And,
why not? Is there a good, sound reason why not?]
Lynch: Spike In Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Is A 'Stain
On Our Nation's Very Soul'

Curiously, Lynch said not a word about the crimes that
the Muslims have been committing all over the world
from the day Mohammed invented the mumbo-jumbo of
Islam in order to ease the conscience of the members
of his gang of cutthroats over the monstrously inhuman
crimes he was asking them to commit during his crime
spree, and which monstrously inhuman crimes Muslims
are still committing [without humanity or conscience]
until just about two minutes ago: Read the papers,
watch the news! Heed the realities not the propaganda.

Do not let yourself be brainwashed the same way that
vicious & immoral propagandists [without conscience,
morality or scruples] manipulated these New York City
schoolchildren--because if you are not careful you too
most assuredly will be
: The Koran is not so much a
bible as it is a poisonous war manual--one which was
maliciously designed to suspend in Muslims all human
morals, scruples (and humanity itself): So therefore
be eternally forewarned that ANYONE promoting or
defending Islam will almost certainly have taken the
obscene lessons of the noxious Koran manual to heart.

The Palestinians are really stupid: They could live in
perfect peace, comfort & security in "their" areas of
the West Bank & Gaza protected by the Israelis as if
they were Jews themselves--completely free to develop
an economy no Arab society could dream of in a million
years. But they choose instead to be Israel's worst
enemy! And, for what? Because they've been fed the
self-evident religious fantasy that they're going to
be able to murder all their Jewish neighbors and just
take over their murdered victims' goods & properties!
Israel's best solution for dealing with the Muslim
Palestinians is not a state but a protectorate: A
Palestinian state in the West Bank is a worst case
Gaza, while a Palestinian protectorate is a chance
that eventually the Palestinians will finally see the
wisdom of secular democracy. Fat Chance, though.
Dear Turkey: Acknowledge The Armenian Genocide!

When we don't leave our truth in this world we leave
nothing of ourselves: You can invent a million pretty
stories all about yourself, but if you don't tell people
they are simply inventions every last one, you have
erased yourself out of the book of life and left only
a million lies behind in this world which millions of
other liars each could have as easily told: Truth is all!
Does education make a difference in whether Muslims
become jihadists
? We often hear the garbage-speak in
the West telling us that all we need do is but educate
Muslim kids "on the real Islam" and they will never
become radicalized. However, does this mean that
Christians are educated about their religion and
Muslims are all illiterate (since VERY self-evidently
Christians do not "misinterpret" their religion and
use it to butcher, torture, rob, enslave, and commit
genocide on the world while Muslims do). Well, even
if you buy into this garbage-speak, you will still have
to account not only for all the myriad Muslim doctors,
lawyers, and university graduates who have become
unimaginably inhuman savages/brutes in the name of
"the religion of peace" but, too, for all the illiterate and
totally uneducated Christians who have NOT--When will
people think things through? I wonder. Although I don't.
The Huffington Post is documenting the rising wave of
anti-Muslim bigotry and violence in America. Take a
stand against hate.

  "... a British government investigation last year
  determined that while the Muslim Brotherhood had
  ties to extremism, it was not a terrorist group."

It may not currently be actively engaged in terrorist
activities, but it is the place from which al-Qaida
originated, and it is the ideological foundation of today's
latest wave of Islamic terrorism (after Saudi Arabia).

    "The Muslim Brotherhood affects CAIR the way
    a dust storm on Mars affects the weather in
    Washington, D.C. --Corey Saylor of the Council
    on American-Islamic Relations"

Or the way the Brownshirts [Sturmabteilung] affected
the Gestapo (which eventually obliterated them), but
that doesn't mean the Brownshirts weren't Nazis too: it
was the Brownshirts that Adolph Hitler rode to power.

   “It takes five or eight years to join [The Muslim
   Brotherhood]” Eric Trager said, and “they vet you
   at every stage.”

Gee, I wonder why...

   “Demonizing these organizations,” Lana Safah
   added, “will only hinder national security efforts to
   eradicate the roots of violent extremism.” Nathan
   Lean, author of the 2012 book The Islamophobia
   Industry, agrees."

Gee, what a surprise he should agree!

   "A group that couldn’t control Egypt for a year
   certainly couldn’t control America."

Would you really want to need to have the American
Military stage a coup against its own government in
order to rid us of The Muslim Brotherhood? Really?

Muslims and their Western dupes and enablers always
want the debate to concentrate upon the defense of
[charities and other prayer groups, political associations,
and social organizations not directly engaged in terrorist
acts, and/or everyday ordinary people], creating the
impression that those who point out the evils of Islam
are trying to make those "[charities and other prayer
groups, political associations, and social organizations
not directly engaged in terrorist acts, and/or everyday
ordinary people]" the innocent victims of their therefore
unwarranted attacks: They, Muslims and their Western
dupes and enablers, NEVER want to have to defend
Islam itself because they know all too well that that
would place the focus of the debate on something which
is utterly & completely indefensible: namely Islam itself.

And, for the most part, Muslims and their Western
dupes and enablers are succeeding in this tactic all too
well: It is exceedingly rare to come upon any kind of
debate on Islam anywhere in the West where most of
the controversy centers not around "innocent Muslims"
being "attacked" for leading their peaceful ordinary
lives--Naturally this always puts those who are trying to
point out the evils of Islam at a tremendous polemical
disadvantage (which is what this is designed to do).

It is for this reason that in order to reverse this grim
current Islamic winning tactic those who would point
out the evils of Islam must learn to force themselves
to ignore the promoters/spreaders of Islam's winning
strategy of steering the debate toward anything and
everything BUT Islam itself... and instead concentrate
exclusively on the mission which WILL defeat that
insidious Islamic tactic by bringing the debate back to
where it belongs: the merits of Islam itself, alone.

No matter how hard Muslims and their Western dupes and
propagandists want to make the argument about "people"
those who wish to win the battle between Good and Evil
must always insist on making the argument about Islam:
An argument which Islamic propagandists can never win.
What were all those emails doing in Anthony Weiner's
computer? That is the question.

Given all the legal troubles which Anthony Weiner has
gotten himself into over time, and the probability
that the person most likely to have had assess to
those emails is his wife Huma Abedin... the most
likely probability is that at some point they were
"gifted" to Anthony Weiner for them to eventually
somehow be held as some sort of bargaining chip over
an upcoming Hillary Clinton administration involving a
possible deal for a pardon of Anthony Weiner's crimes.

1) The key here is [when] those emails were "placed"
in Anthony Weiner's computer--for if [when they were]
he and his wife Huma Abedin were still in any process
of reconciliation, it will look very bad for her.

2) As well: If it turns out that few if any of those
emails either originated from or were sent to Anthony
Weiner's computer itself... it will be difficult if
not altogether impossible to explain that as anything
except a theft with very obviously sinister designs.

3) Otherwise the very fact that they were either sent
from or sent to Anthony Weiner's computer at all is
far far more indicative of Hillary Clinton and/or her
staff's utter and complete disregard for the security
of her private communications than her home email
server brouhaha ever was to begin with.
What Religion Gives Us (That Science Can’t)

1) People who will gladly blow themselves to shreds
in the belief that butchering others in the name of God
will send them straight to Heaven. [No hypnotist can
make anyone do that.]

[We all have a pernicious sense of permanence which
we feel quite strongly we must protect at all cost. And
this certainly includes the belief in a God who grants us
personal immortality--So it is pointless to try to dismiss
our belief in God. Rather: Live with it. Enjoy!]
US to press patrols in disputed sea, China warns 'meddlers'

What's good for the goose: What the U.S. should do is apply
the China Rule against them and declare all the Pacific Ocean
between the continental states and Hawaii, American Samoa,
Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Baker Island, Howland
Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway
Atoll, Palmyra Atoll and Wake Island to no longer be
international waters: Declare that entire region to be American
national waters and prohibit all Chinese boats, planes & subs
from moving through it. Other nations not "penny wise but
dollar foolish" exempted.
You cannot extrapolate wisdom from stupidity. Nor
knowledge from ignorance. Wisdom is knowing ignorance
when/where one sees it. Therefore it is a thing apart.
Fight not men but their ignorance & superstition.
If everyone in the world but understood reality men
wouldn't see gods & demons behind every rock & tree:
Teach men science and history and they might stop
regarding themselves as mere shadows of their eternal
gods (interpreting their gods' wishes & then reeking
devastating inhumanity upon their fellow men). Perhaps
then men may yet come to regard themselves human.
Where are they gonna put all these species they want
to save from extinction?!? Just a few years from now
there will be 400 billion people on this planet and
that'll be the end of it--If there's any atmosphere on
this planet at all after that it will be over a 100%
desiccated dustball. Look, stick all them frozen
embryos in a hole in the ground now mercifully and
then put a big tombstone over it with: "There Ya Go."

     I went into a field
     and saw a cow.
     What am I gonna do now?
     If the bull shows up: Yield.

You do the best you can. Not the best that the most
righteous or competent human being can do, but the
best YOU can do. That's what gives meaning to your life.
On The SiteLock Fraud: I have lived in your building a
decade or more without spotting a single mouse & then,
one day, when the apartment manager's approached
by a rat catcher who'll slip him a couple of bucks for
every apartment in here that "he cleans of rats" I am
"suddenly" overrun with rats! Really, only a whopping
sucker would continue to stay in such a building: I am
outta here: Cutting my losses & good luck to the poor
suckers who'll take longer to wise up, buddy!
Drawn-out Battle for IS-Held Syrian Town Offers Lessons

Definitely: Anybody still thinks "Islam is the religion
of peace" better go visit Aleppo: The silly people there
are butchering each other because some believe God's
comb-over is to the right while others believe God's
comb-over is to the left (or some such pointless idiocy).
Yet there are people in the West stupid enough to think
that it's worth getting involved in the eternal mindless
pious butchery of these societies gone utterly insane! It
will NEVER end, guys, it will ONLY grow into Europe if
the Europeans are big enough morons to import it. Don't
let them brainwash you into imagining anybody there
is "fighting for democracy" or "struggling against the
tyrant" --It's ALL purely/only "killing for power" PERIOD
Islam is a hundred times worse than Nazism, which is
largely contained now. But Islam still ravages Africa,
Asia, Europe, and the Americas with its dehumanizing
terror, death, destruction and perversity. Islam is now
torturing millions of human beings & making the lives
of millions more a sheer Hell on earth--Islam is the
worst plague to have ever afflicted humankind: Even
today it kills many more people than smoking, heart
attacks, disease & every kind of cancer there is all
put together, plus! And unlike all of the other curses
that afflict humanity Islam in a vile sickness which is
preventable by education, logic, reason & good sense. ******************************************
The Latest: Colombia Accord Signing Ends With
'Ode to Peace'

Ode For The Sake of Peace / S D Rodrian

       All wars ever end like this:
    First the war & then the peace.
   It would be nice if it just went
     from peace to peace, but then
   who'd know what peace meant?
  We need war to have peace again:
    It explains the peace--it insists
    on it!... & that's why war exists.
"La Marseillaise" is such a despicable creation: You
listen to it and suddenly you want to go out and kill
as many of your fellow human beings as you can get a
hold of for whatever reason your politicians can come
up with, silly or otherwise. And all of it without the
slightest compassion, conscience, or concern.
Muslims have 1,000 contentions with and points of
departure from European Civilization & they're going
to live in Europe without saying a word? Only idiots
in the West like those who usually admire foreign
tyrants & anti-democratic measures abroad while
protesting them at home could imagine this possible!

In "'Possible that Erdogan engineered coup,' former
Pentagon official tells ‘Post’" Ariel Ben Solomon notes:
"Conspiracy is part of the mentality of fatalism common
in Turkey and in the wider Middle East. Sunni fatalism
is a belief that Allah determines everything, and that
there is nothing man can do to change things

Of course, fatalism is the most pertinent distinction of
all between the worship of gods & secular humanism.
Only the latter tells Man he is in command of his Fate.

Take a moment to notice, if you will, how most Jews
come from Jewish communities--Which is also true of
Christians: Catholics come from Catholic communities;
Mormons from Mormon communities; and Baptists from
Baptist communities... and so on: Muslims come from
Muslim communities; and Buddhists from Buddhist ones.
And this should be enough for anyone who had dared to
imagine that there is any truth to "truth in religion" --as
we do not so much come to understand "the truth of our
religion" (whatever) so much as we are brainwashed
by our whatever societies into acknowledge their "truth"
(forced to accept that their whatever nonsense is true).

Is it really reasonable to suppose that entire regions
of humanity have alone come to understand The Truth?

Too: No one becomes a convert to some other religion
because his objective studies have revealed its truth
to him--so much as, objectively studying his present
religion, his studies have led him to the revelation that
it is utter nonsense... and (unable to escape the chains
of human superstition) he then seeks one which he has
not yet figured out is not that less a nonsensical one.

In the Western Tradition we have at last come to the
realization that democracy is a destination we must
all make our way to (from whatever dark place we
might start out). In fact, the very history of Western
Civilization could be legitimately said to be that fierce
struggle of ours to get to [a state of] democracy--
And to remain there (not an easy thing): Enemies of
the Western Tradition have a very nasty tendency to
understand humanity's longing for the fruits of this
quest (for democracy) and then to use it against us:

  "Islamist Erdogan seeks to reestablish the Ottoman
   caliphate as a step on the road to Islamic world
   dominion, said Rhode. The oft-repeated Erdogan
   quote bears repeating – “democracy is a train that
   you get off once you reach your destination.”

The struggle to uphold and to maintain the Western
Tradition is NEVER an easy one--nor one we can ever
take as settled once & for all, because the instant we
do we shall ALL be swamped over into the unforgiving
unremitting sewers of inhuman tyranny from whose rot
and ruin it shall be a nightmare ever to break free again.
If France doesn't wish to consider the Muslims apart
from the rest of the population as terrorism suspects,
doesn't that mean then that all of the population of
France is now considered to be potential terrorists?
Isn't that as much a waste of resources as suspecting
grannies of being second-storey robbers? Think again.
U.S. District Judge strikes down Mississippi’s ‘religious
freedom’ law

ALL "religious freedoms" by definition discriminate
against someone. Of course, whenever Christians try
to use the "religious freedom" argument to refuse
services & decline their civic obligations the Left
accuses them of intolerance & racism. However, when
non-Christians use the same "religious argument" to
refuse services & decline their civic obligations they
are defended to the death by the Left... and a howl
arises in the land calling for universal respect for
the prejudices of their religions, whatever. Does this
make any sense? Or is it simply that Christians alone
have no religious freedoms here? I am truly puzzled,
because normally we call this patronizing attitude
(this perversion of the respect we all owe everyone
else) just plain ole condescension, paternalism. And
I don't think "some people" are superior enough to
others (or, they shouldn't be at any rate) to "grant"
others such special charities like that.  S D Rodrian
Out of their utter ignorance of (or contempt for)
history, in joining themselves with the Muslims the
Europeans have chosen death, butchery, and all the
worst evils of the worst Dark Ages over civilization.
The Jews of Europe are lucky they have an Israel to
which to escape. Let's hope that at this very crucial
moment in history the leaders of Israel & the rest of
the world's Jews really and truly grasp the need for
an Israel that the Jews of history so clearly grasped.
You know, reality is a nutty proposition in people's
heads. Humanity peoples a plank uneasily balanced over
a loose cylinder, forever rolling back & forth as we
all rush one way & then the other. One minute some
idiot cries out: "Let's all rush to the sea and drown
ourselves!" And millions will die in the waves. Those
who survive will drag themselves out and ask, "What
were we thinking?" while they dry themselves. Then
hear another fool scream out: "Let's all rush up the
tallest mountain & hurl ourselves off!" And millions
more will plunge off the cliffs. And those who survive
(because they'll land on the corpses of those who went
first) will drag themselves painfully to the hospitals
asking themselves: "What were we thinking?" And on
& on it goes like that, and ever will go, ever unstable
as all our insanities. And so good luck!
The secret to longevity is to do nothing, to achieve
nothing, to just hang around shuffling here & there,
saying hello to people & other animals, turning up
rocks to see if the planet is still there (under them),
to go around sitting, standing up, eating, drinking,
crapping--and nothing else! [year after year after
year]. If you do something, anything worthwhile,
if you manage some accomplishment, great or small
(especially early on in your life): you've pretty much
signed your death warrant right there & then. Chopin,
Mozart, Keats, Shelley, Poe, Brontën, Niels Henrik
Abel, Byron, Marlowe, van Gogh, it doesn't matter: go
to any assisted living facility and ask anybody you
find there (that's a hundred years or more) what
have they done in their lives that's worth anything to
anybody & they'll look at you like you're nuts: "Why
do you think I've lived this long, stupid!?" Anything,
anything at all? "Well, I witnessed a mugging once
back in 1951 (I think, could've been a movie though)."
The United Nations simply does not work as instituted:
Any jury that's made up mostly of murderers is more
likely to condemn the victims than the murderers
. And
so it is too with the United Nations as it is presently
instituted: an immoral place in which votes are bought
& sold as shamelessly as are fish in a fish market.

No agreement in the United Nations is ever reached
against any evil simply because it is an evil. Rather:
ONLY if/when the voters receive some benefit from
their accent (and this does not exclude even the
United States). What does that make of ANY United
Nations resolution!

Because there are no practical workarounds for UN
votes on any form of evil which can escape peopling
its juries with the most evil men on earth... the only
practical solution is to eliminate any & all United
Nations condemnations of Evil--Which might as well
effectively eliminate the United Nations itself then.

In any case: the United Nations is only kept alive now
by powerful nations which hope they can power through
those resolutions favorable to themselves (at whatever
expense to whoever has to pay for their sordid wins).

Therefore, the only alternative is to keep the UN as is
and watch it continue to be the most effective force for
Evil on this planet. This is totally & completely unacceptable
and must be addressed sooner or later by the complete
and total elimination of the UN itself from this world:

We must come up with a better design, or junk it as an
irredeemably corrupt and unworkable institution that
works only against the common good of Mankind. At
best, perhaps the United Nations can be retained as "a
town hall assembly" where the World's problems and
concerns are endlessly & pointlessly argued by rowdy
gangs of competing partisans trying to out-shout each
other (and certainly WITHOUT the least possibility of
their joint "opinions" ever acquiring either any force-
of-law or even moral force--since the main objection
to the UN IS its sheer raw unquestioned immorality).
Governance by protests is an euphemism for mob rule.
It is the complete opposite of democratic rule. You
can't have a handful of people enforcing their demands
over the majority of citizens, and no matter how just
those demands may be. It is still despotism, tyranny,
dictatorship, and it must not be allowed to stand.
Minority rule is not democracy, and never will be.
U.S. urges other nations to sanction Iran over ballistic

Nations in the cross-hairs of Iran's missiles that will
sanction Iran: All.

Nations NOT in the cross-hairs of Iran's missiles
that will sanction Iran: None

Conclusion: "Nations have interests, not friends." [Or:
Justice means just-for-us.] Now, one would imagine
that after the historic debacle of Persia pointlessly
invading the tiny country of Greece with an army of
two million men (ordered by Darius, their 'Great' God
back then), and which eventually let to the annihilation
of the Persian nation by that same handful of Greeks...
one would imagine that modem day Iranians would
have the sense to say no to the pointless order of their
current 'Great' God [whatever] to destroy the tiny
country of Israel. But, no, apparently modern day
Persians never learned the lessons of their own history.
So now (not for their benefit, I'm afraid) that same
lesson will have to be re-taught to them once again.
As expected, our "principled" politicos are rushing to
take advantage of the Orlando Massacre in order to
advance their pet peeves. [And, yes, this tragedy will
probably benefit Trump's campaign the most.] But, as
usual... those on the Obama-Clinton camp are also
pushing hard their incomprehensible agenda of trying
to deflect blame away from the motive behind this
crime to the weapon used to commit it
... as if it were
logical that not addressing the motive for a crime
were ever able to either solve it or to prevent crimes
like it in the future!

It is incomprehensible because it is as if, in their sad
minds, Prohibition never happened. If there were the
slightest chance in Hell that guns really could be
banned (abolished from the world), I would be its most
vocal advocate, but there just isn't--People who want
guns will always find a way to get them even if they
have to build them themselves... exactly as they once
started brewing gin and beer in their bathtubs during
Prohibition (when they were too poor to buy the real
"imported" stuff). The only thing banning gun will do
is create a gun Mafia to rival or even surpass the old
Mafias which Prohibition created (and which are still
very much with us).

Question for Obama, Clinton, and & other Democrats:

You love to tell us that while there are thousands and
thousands of Muslims in America only a few of them
ever commit mass murder episodes... and that therefore
this justifies Muslims in general not being targeted to
be banned or expelled en masse from the country.

So why doesn't your same logical argument (above)
apply to Ar-15s, say, given that there are thousands
and thousands of them in the country but only a few of
them are ever used to commit mass murder: Why wouldn't
this also justify that Ar-15s in general NOT be banned
or forbidden (with as much force of reason and logic)?

After all, it would seem that people would carry a
greater burden of "guilt" than things: I don't see
liberals advocating that we ban cars either because a
few of them are used to commit murders (which many,
many cars are). And I am neither a lover of guns nor
an advocate of everybody in the world owning them...

These massacres (unimaginable to the imagination of
civilized man) which you and others like you like to
believe (or pretend) are "senseless, without purpose,
random acts of mental illness and opportunity (the
availability of guns," in your sick imagination)... are
really always planned, done with a very specific goal
& purpose, and always for advancing well-established
aims: And they are, even more tragically, preventable
because those aims & goals & purposes that engender
them are out there for everyone to see... and usually
unusually well advertised long, long beforehand by the
perpetrators of these crimes [as the reason they will
commit them] giving those with the will and strength
of purpose to prevent them lots & lots of time to do
the right thing--If only they but face facts instead
of trying to hide them, Mr. President, Mrs. Clinton.

It is not merely the people trying to stop these crimes,
massacres & mass murders, who are left puzzled and
annoyed by liberal left-wingers like Clinton, Obama &
their Democratic brethren's quite inexplicably always
seeking to deflect the blame from the real reason for
them--even the perpetrators themselves don't quite
understand it, if for different reasons: They because
the REASON they commit them IS to promote their
causes, while the rest of us because by hiding the
reason those crimes are committed (behind a pointless
crusade against the guns with which they're committed)
Clinton & Obama & the rest of them are ensuring that
the reason for those heinous crimes shall remained
unaddressed & that therefore we shall continue to be
victimized over & over again by them sans restraint.
France Reels as Bastille Day Truck Attack Kills 84 in Nice

O dear, now I suppose we must get ready for Obama
and the liberal left's endless push for "truck-control"
and who should be allowed to own them. And for all
the right-wing crazies on the other side who'd like
to see everybody & his dog driving trucks. [Naturally,
the truck lobby now will most likely endorse Trump.]

The good news is that not all Muslims are terrorists.

Mrs. Merkel and her friends invited "good" Muslims
into Europe--and they're certain they know what a good
Muslim looks like: Eventually they'll take a good look
at every one of these Muslim refugees and send back
those who don't look "good" to them. And, of course,
the Muslims now being born in Europe MUST all be
"good." [So naturally they stay.] All that's required to
keep these "native" European Muslims "good" is to not
let them contact "bad" Muslims through the Internet;
because, as everyone knows... "good" Muslims are too
easily "radicalized" by contact with "bad" Muslims. O,
don't you just love how virtuous dear Mrs. Merkel is!

It's hard to radicalize a Lutheran but not a Muslim.
[Don't ask me why--I know nothing about Islam.]

The problem IS that these "virtuous" people believe
the myth that there are evil men in this humanity--
no doubt as a direct result of their believing the myth
that there are virtuous men: The truth is that all of
us are both good and evil all at the same time; and
that we hate only as much as we love--therefore our
capacity to do evil is limited only by how much we
believe we're doing it for the sake of what is good.

Every last person on this earth can be talked into the
most unimaginable crimes (sometimes if it's but only
suggested to them that doing even the greatest evil
is for the greatest good). So therefore it is not always
the dirtiest most godless criminal we should fear will
do us the greatest harm but that most pious "decent"
person we admire & welcome into our hearts & homes:

Mrs. Merkel and others invited the Middle East into
Europe--What did they think was gonna happen!?!

Frankly I think Europe's been extremely lucky: There
are twice as many Muslims in France as in Lebanon,
but look at how Lebanon's doing; there are twice as
many Muslims in Europe as there are in Syria, but look
at how Syria is doing--and thus Libya, Afghanistan, in
all the Boko Haram nations in Africa. Heck, there are
but 4 and a half million Palestinian Muslims but they
have made a Hell for themselves in the Middle East, for
Israel, and for the entire world!... Haven't they been
ramming vehicles into civilians there for a while now?
And didn't ISIS order its operatives in Europe to start
doing the same there? Surely the Europeans must've
been preparing for Nice to happen somewhere!...
And, why isn't Ban Ki-Moon and the United Nations
investigating France (like it does Israel for similar
cases) for its "obviously extrajudicial execution" of
the terrorist truck driver?

If intellectual comfort is what thou seeks: "When you
can shelter millions of Muslim refugees, what's a few
measly massacres they might cause you here & there!"

Keep up the good work! Not every Muslim's a terrorist.

Obama: Orlando Shooter Was 'Homegrown' Terrorist

Ah! Apparently, according to Obama, it was not Islam
that made this guy a terrorist but hateful, despicable

Only in Politically Correct America: This guy meeting
with a couple of Jihadists here & there, with Islamic
militants & Muslim radicals didn't raise any particular
red flags. What if he'd met with some child molesters
here & there instead? I wonder whether that would
have raised any particular red flags?... I do wonder.

Amazing stuff! From Obama Excoriates Republican
Obsession With The Term ‘Radical Islam’

“What exactly would using this label accomplish? What
exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less
committed to try to kill Americans? Would it bring in
more allies? Is there a military strategy that is
served by this?” Obama asked rhetorically, using
another name for the Islamic State. "The answer is
none of the above. Calling a threat by a different
name does not make it go away.”

I suppose not, in which case I imagine Obama probably
also doesn't understand why it isn't that people don't
call rapes "overly amorous episodes" or some such...

Dear Mister President: It's not because of the effect
(one way or the other) on the damn Islamists that we
ought to call a pig a pig but because of its effect on
us: Until WE stop ordering pork by calling it chicken
we gonna eat chicken. If you wish to understand that
so very simple truth all you have to do is to stop being
so damn sensitive about insulting the sensitivities of
our enemies & try helping US defend ourselves instead!
Yes, let's talk a little bit about Nazism: Do you believe
that Nazism was bad or good? Do you believe that ALL
Nazis were bad? Or is it your opinion that only those
Nazis who did bad things were bad... while all the
others were good, decent people? If someone calls
himself a Nazi but is not involved in actually doing
anything bad--do you believe such a person ought to
be respected (admirable) and not be smeared with the
same brush as Nazis who do really terrible things like
murder, torture, rape & other crimes? [And why not?]

Shouldn't a Nazi who has done nothing wrong be invited
to the White House... showered with honors, and sought
after for his humane opinion and impartiality, for his
decency and honesty, for his virtue and benevolence?
And why not? Why should society tar him with the dark
brush of those Nazis who actually carry out great evil
deeds? Indeed why (think you) would anyone seek to ban
membership in the Nazi party, ban Nazi literature (and
everything else NAZI, really)... when they are all quite
perfectly innocent people who just happen to be Nazis.

Well, historically the Islamic genocide that has been
ongoing for the past 1500 years (and, as you may read
in any your local paper, continues unchecked to this
day) far, far surpasses the infamous 20th Century Nazi
genocide many, many times over (and over again).

Plus, the advocacy, promotion, and justifications of
all the unimaginable inhumanities you can find in the
Koran far surpass anything to be found in Mein Kampf.
Most importantly, it is far more likely that every
last Nazi on earth will disavow ALL of Mein Kampf
than it is that most [if any] Muslim will denounce or
repudiate even the most egregious monstrosity in the
Koran. [Ask them.] So why is it then that anyone can
be a Muslim with a perfectly clear conscience... but
not a Nazi? It's certainly something to wonder about.
The source of creativity is the same as the source of
all other work: People who are paid to do the work do
it. Simple as that: People who are paid to be creative
ARE creative.

Even the greatest geniuses of all produce nothing
creative if they are paid to do work which does not
require creativity. While, on the other hand, even the
least creative among us can sometimes surprise us
with something quite creative... if we put him to work
at it long enough. [In fact, our modern educational
systems are geared to produce workers which "might"
produce something creative over the long haul.]

I suppose it's pure political correctness, although
there's probably a lot of good wishes & best hopes
in it too. Especially since we haven't yet figured out
"who works best for which task," and whether it's
even right & proper to deny some dumbass's desire
to dedicate his entire life to inventing the wheel.

On the other hand, who knows how many Mozarts
grew up to be marvelous shoe-shine boys. And, if this
didn't kill them, how many of them lived to a ripe old
age... improving on their stunning genius for shining
shoes forever & ever throughout their long lives.

NOT the latest manifesto for another revolution, mind
you, but simply an observation of reality... however
good or bad, or happy or sad it is.   S D Rodrian
There is no incompatibility whatsoever between reality
and imagination
: We can imagine all we like, and it
will not affect one whit's worth of reality. However,
insanity driven by imagination can really, really, really
screw up our lives--And that's where the real problem
resides... in people who are driven insane by their
imaginings and then try to implement them in the real
world. Even taking into consideration that not all
lunatics are psychopaths, having the imaginary direct
our reality seldom if EVER turns out for the best: Catholic
Leaders Say Zika Doesn’t Change Ban on Contraception

In every Muslim majority nation on this earth, without
an exception, butchery & mayhem go on on a daily basis
day after day after day
... rapes & other unimaginable
brutalities, torture, kidnappings, thefts, murder and
slaughter, all in the name of Islam while in the West
we glance at this inhuman depravity and quickly look
the other way--as if that would make it all vanish
from the face of the earth. But, here in the West too,
the butchery and murder and the decay of civilization
propelled by the so putrid mores of Islam continue
on & on unabated, ever inexorably increasing while
the non-Muslim population commemorates each death
and victim as if he/she were an individual case without
the slightest connection to any known factors outside
the specific & immediate causes of his/her death--most
usually attributed to some casual lunatic or a pious soul
who has been brainwashed by some inexplicably sinister,
perverse fanatic preacher without any real connections
to the "religion" of Islam! And now there is a push by
some Muslim clerics in some parts of Europe to legalize
child brides
! Where once having sex with any minor
used to be an automatic crime, now some Muslims are
pushing to allow men of any age to "marry" little
girls as young as nine, or younger! Or to "keep" their
sometimes pregnant "brides" if they "married" them
elsewhere and then brought "their families" into their
new European countries afterwards: Respect Islam!
GOP Candidates Are All About Religious Liberty, As
Long As You Don't Ask About Muslims

Yes. I believe that could very well be because while
all religions on earth except Islam seek the freedom
to pray however one chooses, Islam is seeking to curb
everybody else's freedom to pray as THEY choose
(unless they pay Islam for the privilege, of course).
Don't LISTEN to the propaganda--LOOK at the facts.
Obama to Be First Sitting President to Visit Hiroshima

Dear President Obama... as long as you are going to be
attending Japan's commemoration of the Japanese who
died in the American bombing (God-knows why America
did it, right), perhaps you might also remind the Japanese
to give some passing thoughts (at least) to the Chinese the
Japanese Army killed just in Nanking--not in ONE bombing
(and its aftermath) but murdered ONE by ONE by ONE... old
people, women & children, POW's & civilians alike raped, shot,
hacked and/or beaten to death, buried or burned alive by
having gasoline poured over them. And, which, by the way
equals the number of Japanese killed by both the Hiroshima
AND Nagasaki atomic bombings. I think it might be nice if the
Japanese People, who are such a romantic people after all...
finally gave some thought to apologizing to THEIR victims as
China asks and perhaps, too, to the realization that it was all
of it accomplished not on 1 single man's decision (Truman's)
but by thousands/thousands of individual Japanese citizens
serving in the Japanese Army... whom Japan commemorates
still to this day in all those moving controversial Shinto "war
shrine" ceremonies attended by her white-gloved politicos.


"Within the first two to four months of the bombings,
the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed 90,000
– 146,000 people in Hiroshima and 39,000–80,000 in


"There are no official numbers for the death toll in the
Nanking Massacre, though estimates range from 200,000
to 300,000 people"



"Rape of Nanking: 1937-1938 300,000 Deaths"

Being race-conscious is the definition of racism.
To cite various clearly racist actions & misbehaviors
which are obviously racist as the definition of racism is
self-defeating and impractical because it will always
still leave us endlessly/pointlessly arguing about
which of them (and even whether all or any one of
them) is/isn't racist: At any given moment in history
one or more 'races' will be alleging that because acts
of racism are being committed against them 'their'
race is therefore singularly not racist--but this shifting
allegation changes (as it has) as history favors one &
then another 'race' with the power to define racism.
History has a bad habit of hanging its mind, therefore
the best course of action is to define racism as being
race-conscious if for no other reason that the most
obvious one: There is one but one single 'race' and
that is the human race. Thus ALL allegations that this
or that group excludes/includes people who are/are
not of 'that race' are always fraudulent & offensive.
Muhammad Ali Dies at 74: Titan of Boxing and the
20th Century

Mohammed Ali was an African-American Donald Trump:
Obnoxious, self-centered, vain, racist, loud-mouthed;
a mean-spirited sob who never ceased talking about
himself, talk'n trash & utter garbage and/or insulting
other ethnicities (almost exclusively whites & Jews in
Ali's case) as if it were the most natural thing in the
world to demean and demonize human beings... In
fact, why he never ran for president I'll never know;
because, frankly, I think he might have made as much
headway in the Democratic Party as Trump is making in
the Republican one: These sorts of bigoted numskulls
seem to be very-much admired in these good ole USA.
Sanders Says He's Lost States Because 'Poor People
Don't Vote'

They also don't create jobs or wealth. And Sanders
wants to take the jobs-creating wealth that's "going
to the one percent" [translation: "concentrated/ing in
that despised one percent"] and just hand it to these
"poor" people: Well, why don't you visit Cuba or North
Korea... and see with your own eyes exactly what this
inane policy Sanders is promoting can do to a nation!

For it is precisely that despised "1 percent" Sanders
attacks in "his message" that creates all the jobs and
all the wealth of a nation: Take away their money and
give it to the poor and what do you imagine they're
going to do with their twenty bucks--outside of maybe
have a nice meal over at Burger King? Then what? What
do you imagine happens when there's no money left in
the banks he wants to "break" (or in Wall Street) to
invest in new industries, new businesses, and new ideas?
Do you really imagine that government bureaucrats will
set up efficient and competent, sustainable, successful
businesses and industries?! Go visit Cuba, or read the
sorry history of every last communist and/or socialist
country that has tried it in the world's entire history.

In Cuba my grandfather worked all his life and left a
little money in a bank account to my grandmother so
she could make ends meet after he died; and when
Fidel Castro came along he confiscated it in the typical
share-the-wealth madness of socialists (yes, the same
Castro Bernie Sanders praised for the "good job" he's
doing to Cuba). Well, what happened next is that my
grandmother never again had the money [the means]
available to her even to keep up repairs to her house
--and a house which had stood for over a 100 years
crumbled into disrepair and had to be abandoned. And
so too with the rest of Cuba, which Castro turned from
an economic powerhouse that had once been even more
successful/wealthy than Italy into a slum vying with
Haiti to be the poorest nation in the hemisphere.

That is just what Bernie Sanders will do to the United
States of America: He will destroy its economy, wipe
away her accumulated wealth, "break the banks" and
"kill Wall Street." And that's why Sanders is the most
dangerous presidential candidate in this election (and
in this election that's saying a lot, my friends): For,
were Sanders to be given the chance to do what the
idiots who are falling for his hypocritical "20 acres
& a mule" wants for the poor.. it is these same poor
people who will be the first victims to descend into the
unimaginable misery & want you see across Castro's
Cuba today--a desperate society which can only be kept
under control as a mind-numbing police state. Only,
unlike the Cuban refugees running away from Castro
every way they can, there won't be any place left in
the world for the American refugees to escape to.
One of the most egregious cases ever of attempted

It's certainly disturbing for those who believe in the
integrity of the American Justice System. [The good
news is that ultimately this astonishingly outrageous
blatant conspiracy between prosecutors and cops to
murder Russ Faria did not succeed; the bad news, of
course, is that they still forced Mister Faria to waste
precious years of his life in prison awaiting his legal
fate.] Prosecutors & cops perjured themselves, they
invented "evidence" and fabricated "facts" out of
nothing more than their own raw naked prejudices and
unnervingly easy willingness to break the law to try to
convict Mister Faria. They threatened witnesses. They
hid crucial evidence from the court and from Mister
Faria's defense attorneys... while all the time assisting
what ought to have been their only viable principal
suspect in the murder not only to escape prosecution &
even suspicion but also doing everything they could to
help her to frame Mister Faria for the crime [which
was no doubt her intention from the beginning]...

And this was not some brilliant murderer but one which
any fool could have spotted from the start: She lied
at the drop of a hat, sometimes contradicting herself
in the same interview... she was the only person who
benefited financially from the murder, and then (with
the help of the cops) concocted a scheme to make it
appear as if she was merely holding the money for the
murder victim's kids! She was the only person at the
scene of the crime when it happened (which, instead of
pointing out her possible guilt, the cops tried to use as
an advantage to convict Mister Faria by SUGGESTING
to her she lie about having "seen" him there too--really
amazingly mind-numbing stuff). On top of which the
cops were not only made aware at the very start that
Mister Faria had multiple unimpeachable witnesses who
placed him elsewhere at the time of the murder (and
cameras from various businesses too)... all of which
only served to have the cops threaten the exculpating
witnesses with being charged as co-conspirators (these
cops even suggested to their real principal suspect that
she should testify in court that she also "saw" one of
these witnesses at the scene of the crime), and cited
all the camera evidence as "proof" that Mister Faria
was just trying to set up an alibi! This is truly bizarre.

No only ought there to be an independent investigation
into how it could be possible for "officers of the law"
(both cops and prosecutors) to commit such obviously
self-evident crimes and think they can so easily get
away with them in spite of knowing full well (as they
surely must have known), that everything they were
doing was being recorded... but how a judge could have
possibly denied repeated attempts by defense lawyers
to enter so much exculpating evidence into his Court.

It's possible all these self-evident criminals-by-law
will escape prosecution, unless the federal government
opens an investigation into (at least this one) so factually
egregious case of attempted murder-by-law if only as a
warning against all future such crimes against society.
Why People Join Nigeria's Boko Haram

Could be because Boko Haram is simply the purest
expression of Quranic Islam: Blood, butchering, raping,
stealing others' properties and keeping it in the name
of God, enslaving non-Muslims and selling them off,
torturing, terrorizing, beheading, maiming... it's all
the essence of Quranic Islam. And Muslims, like all
other pious people in the world, eventually seek the
comfort zone of the purest expression of their faith.
Note that because Islam was designed as the by-rules
of a gang of cut-throats, rapists, slave-traders, and
. It cannot therefore in its purest expression
perform as the by-rules of any societal form other
than that of a gang of thieves & murderers... which
means that most self-styled Islamic societies you see
"functioning" around the world today (as well as
historically) must "conveniently" ignore most (or at
least a great many) of the Quranic by-laws to govern
their societies however inefficiently. Of course, this
(and worse) can work for a while regardless of the
fact that none of these so-called Islamic societies
have ever been and none now are truly democratic
(responsive to the will of the governed): As Islamic
societies can only function as tyrannies, their one
heresy therefore is democracy itself, which could also
be termed "secularism," since "democratic rule" is
incompatible with "religious rule" (no matter what
anybody, good person or evil, tells you):

These self-styled Islamic societies "function" (that
is) until some ignoramus in them points out that their
society is only "living up" to the Islamic Ideals in
name only... and then ISIS and Boko Haram. Saudi
Arabia & the Gulf Arabs have used the treasures they
have found in petroleum to create for themselves a
"very nearly Islamic" societal form which does not
depend on the Quranic gang mechanisms to prosper
(oil frees the Gulf Arabs from having to engage in
piracy & waylaying, in the trading of stolen goods &
slaves to fatter their coffers). And they also don't
have to rely on the normal forms of wealth-creation
which all modern civilizations require in order to
survive and thrive, leaving them free to promote the
myth that the purest forms of Islam ARE able to
sustain a modern society after all--A myth which no
doubt will meet reality once the petroleum model
falters, but a myth which meanwhile condemns those
societies that may believe them to be true... to create
impossible monstrosities like ISIS and Boko Haram.

Mustafa Kemal understood this and tried to make Turkey
into a modern secular state (with a measure of success
by the way). While Recep Tayyip Erdogan is that quite
unfortunate ignoramus who raises a quirky, ugly voice
to point out to an Islamic population that their state
is not living up to their Islamic Ideals... with great
success, of course, as well as predictably disastrous
results--So we watch the once great state that Mustafa
Kemal created slowly devouring itself bit by bit and
return to the Dark Ages from which it tried to escape.
Those who expect their principles to save them when
they are being devoured by wolves are obviously too
stunned by the surprise attack to even write their own
epitaphs. And so it is up to social psychologists and
comics observing the inevitable slaughter from afar to
write those poor sad bastards' epitaphs for them.

Again: Mohammed created Islam to justify the brutal
inhumanity of a murderous gang of cutthroats and
thieves. But no society consisting purely of murderous
cutthroats and thieves can succeed. Therefore, every
variation from that model (going by the name of
"moderate" Islam) arises in order to try to fashion
any kind of societal model which might succeed--But
all these models of "moderation" are just temporary
fabrications forever prone to collapse at the least
bit of pressure into Islam's original intent. That is:
a murderous society of cutthroats and thieves again.

The only solution to the problem of Islam is the
abolition of Islam itself. All other proposals are but
props for the perpetuity of the problem which is
Islam. A doomed society will never understand this.

Those societies which do not seem to mind butchery
and thieving, and all other utterly insane violations
of humanity Islam always brings with it: they are as
interesting to study as those wild mobs of lemmings
racing headlong to death on principles that only they
seem to grasp. For it's beyond human understanding.
Philanthropy should concentrate not on saving lives
but on improving them: In the long run strictly saving
lives will just make things worse for more people.
There are many afflictions devastating mankind we
could address now without it causing more harm than
good: Things hard, harmful, painful for children or
throughout people's entire lives: polio, deformities,
genetic diseases, mental health, the control of crime,
problems of political injustice and lack of education:

Good things to spread among humanity are modern
Western education (combating the deceit that such
"civilization" is but a plot of conquest by the West),
also a healthy systematic dose of ethics & morality,
of the equality of men (women included), of the need
to find a proper balance between personal freedom
and societal discipline, the need not for self-sacrifice
but for understanding that in helping others we also
help ourselves, and for the idea that "the rule of law"
always grants greater freedom than the rule of any one
man (however benevolent that man may be, or bright).
The democratic ideals over human rights because it is
always way more effective and permanent for men to
make their own lives better than to have someone step
in to apply some fix to a grand problem or other which
in the end must always turn out merely momentary.

It is far better to address general wants than hunger
specifically because improving the lives of people is
always better than transferring people from one bad
place to a possibly even worse one by dint of hubris.
So it is more critical to address our lack of education
than the lack of sanitation, say... because not only
does it not increase the population directly, but may
eventually actually help come up with a permanent
solution to that greatest of all problems ever facing
mankind: How to keep civilization moving forward.
In On Israel Flattening Beirut: There is Nothing New
Under the Sun
, Halim Shebaya, instructor, Lebanese
American University & ME Analyst and Commentator,
bemoans: "Flattening Beirut has been done before.
Flattening Gaza has been done before. And both may
be done again if Israel's license to kill with impunity
is left unchecked."

Yes! Definitely: What the world needs is a universal
law that forces the police to tie up crime victims so
they can't hurt the criminals by fighting back ... I
know it will pass easily in Europe, of course. But it
may prove a bit harder pushing it in the good ole USA
No. Political Correctness is not about forcing people
to cease threatening or inciting violence, etc. Those
crimes are more than covered in the law--And if such
crimes go unprosecuted, then the matter rests with the
manifest deficiencies of your policemen & legislators.

Political Correctness is the passive-aggressive form
of the repression of free speech and free expression.

... Therefore the objection to Political Correctness is
exactly the same as the objection to all attempts to
muffle freedom of speech or freedom of expression
--for what possible difference can there be between
the demand that people conform to how YOU view the
world & all/any of the demands of tyranny/repression!

If you want your views expressed you should express
them yourself and NOT go around trying to get others
to express them for you--So stop bothering people!
Dream Sonnet / S D Rodrian

At the edge of the precipice I sleep in peace
because (while the outside alcove's weathered
by the waves & wind) I am within the warmth
of darkness. All of the dangers of the world that howl
chaos without--reach me within only in harmony.
And so must it be: Music! waiting for my beloved
until she finds me (swaddled by a sea never as cold
and boundless as the one overcome by the cliff)
but soothing, comforting, consoling, gladdening:
Soon I will wake from the torment and be glad
to see daylight undisturbing all that it bathes.
The wondrous nightmare fades and I must walk
the world hushed like all other shades: searching,
searching for but a glimpse, one second's scent!
The wisdom of self-sacrifice.

Yes: Wisdom lies in choosing to do something for the
benefit of people rather than just because you want to
win. Assad is NOT going to be defeated (the Iranians,
Hezbollah, and now the Russians are certainly seeing
to that): The heights of wisdom now would be for the
West to stop prolonging the suffering and butchery of
the Syrian people by continuing to arm and support
Assad's opposition: They're achieving nothing but the
continuation of the great tragedy there, and as such
the West is becoming more and more the primary reason
(maybe even the only one) for that desperate tragedy.

At SOME point the so-called leaders of the West have
to admit to themselves that all they are doing there
is standing in the way of an end to this vicious war
and then stop it. It's the only human thing to do now.

The cruelest hoax of all is the idea that wars should be
managed affairs
, gentlemanly affairs, even humane
affairs with charitable treatment of non-combatants,
readily assessable medical help, fuel & food aid, and
prompt evacuations of the old, the sickly, of women,
children & the infirm--They're not, and never will be.

The kindest war of all is the one that is fought swiftly,
brutally as this may require, and quickly gotten over
& done with. And those who do not understand this
only prolong the suffering and the brutalities of war.
Those persons, those peaceniks--Ultimately they are
the real warmongers and worst monsters in all wars.
Eighty-One Year Old Female Holocaust Survivor asked
to leave seat by religious male Jew.

Why don't they just put these Haredi male Jews in the
cargo hold?... They fail the test of humanity, so just
stuff them down there with the rest of the baggage.
Germany's Merkel, Turkish PM Discuss Yanked
Erdogan Poem

   Erdogan, O Erdogan,
   You're one tremendous garbage can!

   Weren't it for your murderous bodyguards
   What poems we'd get from Turkish bards!

   Erdogan. Perhaps something like: Erdogan,
   O Erdogan, YOU belong in a garbage can!

   O Erdogan, the more Islamist Turkey you turn
   the more trashed Turkey will fit in your urn:

   In fact, if you are her dictator long enough
   they'll fit all trashed Turkey into a box of snuff!

   Then history can discuss whether you really were
   only a garbage can, or smoked Turkey up like a cur.

[Merkel: "I like it, ja! Und maybe we can get Madonna
of that Ga-Ga Lady to put it to music, nein?"]

Morning! Soon 'people'
are going to start throwing things
at each other & dropping their feces
on each other's heads out there
to let everyone know they exist
while I pull my blanket over my head
in hopes they don't suspect I do.

"Ya, und vee vill bring here millions of members of
this religious cult whose God commands them to rape,
torture, enslave, terrorize, und murder Europeans
anywhere they can get their hands on them! To make
war on the whole world while telling everyone they are
the religion of peace... so they can brainwash a lot of
suckers into joining them toooo!" ["Ja! I like that idea
too myself! How do they feel about our women?"] "You
won't believe it but they think women are not human
persons even (a quarter human only at most). Und the
best part is that they are taught the only way they
can get into Heaven is by blowing themselves up to
kill us!" ["Where do you get these great ideas?!"] "I
don't know--They joost come to me!" ["Everybody in
favor say Ja!"] "Ja!!!!" Who says we don't have good
wise and thoughtful leaders in the West! S D Rodrian
I am always taken aback every time I consider how a
country which has been made wealthy & successful by
capitalism like the United States can yet persist on
using the miserably failed methods of communism AND
NOT recognize immediately/instantly that they're NEVER
going to work out for anything good at all: And I mean
STILL insists on using its completely upside down logic to
fight its so-called War On Drugs: It can only lead to the
same failure every other communist system has led to.

Human nature being what it is, the busted notion of
controlling the means of production to set demand is
an insane one: It will NEVER EVER work under ANY
arrangement. And yet America's "war on drugs" has
ALWAYS tried to carry out to fruition that same self-
evidently insane and FAILED system even after decades
& decades of watching it flop miserably everywhere.

Almost the entire effort in this pointless "war on
drugs" is aimed at fighting production--in spite of
watching how every single time whatever tiny success
is achieved in any arena of production... it has almost
instantly resulted in many other arenas of production
suddenly rising up as if out of nothingness itself:
Does anybody really think that this story is going to
have some different ending simply by being repeated
over & over & over again? Check with Einstein.

To capitalist America, I say: Trust what has made you
great! And finally throw away this ludicrous self-evident
delusion that the methods which have made every
communist experiment on this planet such miserable
failures... will work in this (or any) case: Communism
simply does NOT work, never has, and NEVER WILL.

The ONLY way to win the War On Drugs is to control the
demand. Period. Do that, dry up the demand, and the
means of production is made forever irrelevant: It will
wither on its own (by itself). You won't even have to
have laws against the production and distribution of
"illegal" drugs because those who invest in them will
go broke. The key to destroying the illegal drug
business if to attack and kill the demand for them.

AGAIN & AGAIN & AGAIN: Trying to control the means of
production doesn't work because if the demand remains
the same it will DEMAND production wherever necessary
in order to satisfy that demand. But just kill the demand
and you make satisfying that demand pointless & moot.

      How would I kill that demand?

FIRST decriminalize drug use (while keeping the
selling/producing/trafficking of drugs criminalized).
THEN pass a universal anti-drug-use law with an open-
ended set of punishments, none of which can be made
public or part of the record of those penalized, such as:

ONE day in jail for the first offense, 2 days for the
second offence, 4 days for the third offense, 8 for
the fourth, 16 for the sixth ... and so on & on with no
limit on the number of times you can be punished for
illegal drug use AND an unending doubling of the days
you must remain in jail for every subsequent offense.

Yes, there will be drug users who will never be able
to escape using drugs by themselves simply because
they are jailed. But these people will not be turned
into criminals, and thereby may yet find a means (on
their own or through outside intervention) to finally
terminate their use of drugs. This is not what is now
happening--where drug users are viewed & treated
as criminals, thrown into prison alongside hardened
violent criminals to be abused and turned into real
hardened criminals themselves with no conscience.

Under the system I'm proposing here eventually either
the drug user will seek to stop using illegal drugs or
(with time) end up living more in prison than on the
outside as he fails rehabilitation. Either way he will
have many more chances to rehabilitate himself than
he has in today's system where he is termed a criminal
with diminished opportunities for reform. And if he
cannot be cured of his drug use, then at least society
will still be protected from the worst drug users.

As it now stand, many first-time users are convinced
that once they're caught using drugs their lives are
forever lost, and they can never again go back to their
"original sinless state." So why not indulge in drugs
until they kill them once & for all? We must stop this
spiral of suicidal thinking. And the system I have
proposed above is the one sure way to do this. It will
work even on the idiots who love & think nothing of
using drugs recreationally... thereby nourishing and
helping to finance their production.

The cost MUST shift from fruitlessly trying to combat
the production and distribution of drugs to investing
in things like jail space and rehabilitation programs
for their inmates: It is a compassionate and selfless
up-front investment of cash on the part of society
which will invariably return unimaginable profits to all.
Should Democrats Embrace the Center or Abandon It?

As the poem goes...

Whichever is the most stupid of the two
(that is what they will most likely do).

Apple vows to resist FBI demand to crack iPhone linked
to San Bernardino attacks

This is an outrageous perfectly simple case: Apple is
the owner of an apartment building. The cops want to
get into a crime scene in it but the apartment owner
doesn't want to let them in because he says it would
be a dangerous precedent or something to use his
master key. The courts order the apartment owner to
let the cops in and he still refuses to comply!

I'd throw that apartment owner into prison and throw
away the key--and I don't mean the apartment's master
key, either: And even when he does eventually allow
the cops in I'd STILL give him a stiff prison sentence
above & beyond time served for contempt of court and
interfering with a police investigation (into multiple
murders). This guy thinks he's above the law, and the
law's gotta prove he ain't.

The courts have to teach Apple's CEO that neither he
nor his entire company is/are above the law, and that
OUR courts and no one else are the arbiter of our law
in this country of ours--Otherwise where the hell is
that going to leave us (pleading our own legal cases
before Apple's CEO)? The courts have to prove to Apple
that it works & lives in a country of people who have
granted it all the privileges which allow it to work &
exist here: Apple's CEO has to learn once & for all
that when the people (in the "person" of their courts)
order him to obey the law like everyone else... he'd
better do it--or move Apple to goddamn Mars.

I have not heard ONE single sensible argument where
IF the cops can break into this phone THEN "this bad
thing" WILL happen. And neither does Bruce Schneier
propose even a single one in his Why you should side
with Apple, not the FBI, in the San Bernardino iPhone
. All the proposed "reasons" against it are framed
like this: IF the cops can break into this phone THEN...
possibly in some unspecified future "this probably or
possibly bad thing" MIGHT happen, or events may
evolve into a bad thing a million years from now. You
know how evolution is! "Slippery slope stuff!"

"The FBI wants to set a precedent that tech companies
will assist law enforcement in breaking their users’
security" writes Bruce Schneier [a precedent which may
come back to haunt you in some unspecified future, no
doubt: you know how ghosts are: IF they can get these
mass murderers' info they'll eventually find YOUR SECRET
PORN STASH]. O my God! Run for the hills!

"the technology community is afraid that the precedent
will limit what sorts of security features it can
offer customers" Brucie writes [in other words: it may
cost them some cash... in the SO unforeseeable future].

But ALL the protections which encryption give you are
also the protections your home gives you, and yet no
court has ever ruled that the cops' access to your
home is eternally sacrosanct and you can do whatever
the hell you'd like in there without the least concern
that they ever might--Go ahead, murder your Mom or
(worse): kick your dog--in there you're free to do so.

"But that iPhone has a security flaw," writes Brucie:
"While the data is encrypted, the software controlling
the phone is not. This means that someone can create
a hacked version of the software and install it on the
phone without the consent of the phone’s owner and
without knowing the encryption key" [in other words:
it's Ok with Apple if a gifted hacker gets people's data.
They just don't want the cops to do so]...!

"Authorities." Brucie goes on to say, "have the phone
in their lawful possession, and they only need help
seeing what’s on it in case it can tell them something
about how the San Bernardino shooters operated. But
the hacked software the court and the FBI wants Apple
to provide would be general." [In effect: Apple's
argument is that if cops learn to break into your home
they will have learned how to break into just about
anybody's home--That's the argument! Take away their
battering rams, O Lord! Take away their legs so they can't
walk up to your front door!]

Brucie even admits that a hack might already be around
or that one MUST eventually appear somewhere! [Isn't
this a very strong argument against keeping the cops
from THIS PARTICULAR DATA for the reasons Apple
claims!?! So shouldn't Brucie have said that his article
was PRO breaking into the phone, and not AGAINST it?]

"What the FBI wants to do would make us less secure"
writes Brucie! [What? Helping to fight terrorism will
make us less secure--Is this insane or what?!]

"The current case is about a single iPhone" writes
Brucie! [No, dude: It's about the innocent people these
terrorists murdered. The phone is just "a thing."]

I say: If in the process of solving this case, and
preventing God-knows how many other innocents from
being butchered, cops are given a way to uncover your
porn... so be it.

Sez Brucie: "The FBI may be targeting the iPhone of
the San Bernardino shooter, but its actions imperil us

Dear Brucie, stash your porn under your mattress, like
you did when you were a kid so your Mom wouldn't find
it. And let the cops solve this particular mass murder.
NYT: Apple working on measures to make it harder for
government to hack iPhones

If an iPhone [or a location] cannot be searched by a
lawful court order then it is "outside the law" and
certainly "the law" ought not to allow it to exist in the
first place
--The idea that in a nation of laws there can
be "safe heavens for crime*" is unworkable & suicidal
for society in general. It is no different than what "a
nation" as a whole does when it protects its private
matters from other nations--In other words: You just
can't have Apple or any other private company/entity
(or private citizens for that matter), be nations unto
themselves in our midst: Whoever wants to be "a nation
unto itself" let them separate from us completely and
absolutely, and fly to Mars... there to establish their
own whatever private domains/nations.   S D Rodrian

* & how do I know that such "private places" are being
used for crime? I believe that THAT is the whole point.
[Now, if some country other than ours wishes to grant
its citizens such an absolute right to privacy (China,
for example), I don't see how I could object to that
--In fact, I believe that were China to allow Apple's
proposed absolutely unhackable iPhones... it would be
a tremendous help to American [and other] spies in
China. What freedom-loving soul could object to that?]
Apple Could Withdraw Help In Drug Case If FBI Hacks

Why even Apple’s mortal enemies are on its side ...

In a word: Money.

The way to fight Apple is not "over this versus that
Constitutional right" but by the victims of the crimes
Apple wants to protect going out and suing Apple for
substantial damages [etc.] in whatever court applies:
Even 40 or 50 such multi-million suits would likely
put the Fear Of God into Apple's tight shareholders.
50 Years After King’s Death, America Is Still Segregated

Am I missing something: Is there a place anywhere in
this planet where people don't segregate themselves
and/or then force others to mind their segregation?!?
Every last family of monkeys protects its own tree. We
segregate ourselves to make ourselves unique in their
world. Segregationists is what we are: And therefore
the reason we must constantly fight so hard in order to
bring ourselves together.
Any argument you make that the law-abiding need
guns to protect themselves gives gun to the lawless.
Society doesn't need its citizenry to have guns--In
fact only a subset of the police really need to have
guns: if they come up against citizens with guns.
The job of the college professor is to make sure that
his students become convinced that opinions of his
which he sticks in their heads are really their own.
Elegy for Rabbi Shmuley

No fool like an old fool, Rabbi Shmuley, now u know:
Cory Booker took all yer cash & has left the building
--So should a wiser, older man too (with less cash
true), now move on, possessed of a little less hubris
too on his self-styled gift to judge by a sweet-talking
(or two) the next fellow's character, jilted like some
school girl, O poor u! But it's never too late to learn,
Rabbi Shmuley, that the fellow you must push & push
to get him to travel on the straight & narrow--he will
instantly jump to the side just as soon as you cease
insisting him in the right direction. And so, the next
time: DO get a receipt with the kiss (and it won't be
such an expensive a kiss-off):
                                       Shmuley, slimers & charmers
oft skate so closely around their marks hand-in-hand
that it's almost like watching "the same guy" twirling
about you: One to distract you as he charms (by you)
while the other one picks your soul (and slimes you).
See, dear Rabbi Shmuley, this is how you avoid getting
slimed by people like this: KNOW they gonna do it AND
then do some shit that's gonna stop'em from doing it.

Trump May Have Thwarted Obama’s Final Move On The
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict With One Phone Call

Keep in mind that really slimy people will always find
a way to slime you, especially from behind like the

UN council members call for vote Friday to end Israeli

Breaking: UNSC to vote Friday on end to Israeli

Israel Accuses Obama of Anti-Israeli 'Shameful Move'
at UN

like the backstabbers they really always are. As well, it
is poignant to realize that it is always their actions [in
the obtainment of wrong] that eventually finally bring
about something right. And Obama's slimy betrayal of
Israel and the Jews at the UN will I trust do that now.

Trump vows after UN vote: "things will be different
after Jan. 20th"

Rejecting the false notion that Israel is occupier

Dershowitz: Trump was right to try to stop Obama

U.S. declines to veto U.N. Security Council resolution
for Israel to stop Jewish settlement activity

Netanyahu calls U.N. resolution on settlements

A stormy alliance between Obama and Netanyahu
reaches its end in New York

US Senator Graham says Obama policy on Israel
'flat-out reckless'

The Obama administration fires a dangerous
parting shot

For Obama and Netanyahu, a Final Clash After
Years of Conflict

The United States just made Middle East peace

New Zealand meeting calls into question White
House narrative on role in UN vote

The America in which I grew up stood for the value
of the fabled president G. Washington’s “I cannot
tell a lie” story. So how can that same country allow
for the passage of a resolution that identifies Judea
and Samaria as “Palestinian territory?” This is an
outright lie! This land was occupied illegally by the
Jordanians until the Six Day War in 1967. The
Jordanians have since rescinded their claim to this
land, leaving it as “disputed territory” until it is
resolved via negotiations.

If the Israeli Nation wishes to annex this land it is
their absolute privilege to do so, and theirs alone. I
am convinced that just as it was once theirs so it will
be again; and that if the Israelis do not do so at the
moment it is only because at the moment that land
is occupied by a population poisoned by a murderous
bloodthirsty cult whose evil must be vanquished from
this earth--and will be because, not just Israelis but
humanity cannot abide with so poisonous evil forever.
Christmas is a Christian holiday. So, on Christmas,
you wish a Merry Christmas to Christians. And if
Hanukkah happens to coincide with Christmas then
you still wish a Merry Christmas to Christians and
a Happy Hanukkah to Jews. But to forbid Christians
or even discourage them wishing a Merry Christmas
to other Christians is outrageous censorship & ought
not to be allowed to stand under any circumstance
In Condemning Islamic Terrorism, Defending Muslims
Jonathan Greenblatt writes:

  "Ultimately, it is up to Muslim leaders around the
  world to ask what they can do to create a different
  environment less conducive to the emergence of terror."

Guy, Islam is Terrorism & Terrorism is Islam: If you
  kill Terrorism you're going to kill Islam just as...
  if you kill Islam you will invariably kill Terrorism.

And every Muslim in the world knows this--THAT is the
real reason why the fight against Terrorism is NEVER
going to come from Muslims: Muslim-on-Muslim violence
you see all over the world has NOTHING to do with the
West' fight against Terror--it's all just about one sect
of Muslims trying to convert or annihilate the other sects:
Terror is the Islamic form of proselytizing & just as LONG
before Islam unleashed Terrorism against other Muslims
it was wreaking Terror against non-Muslims... when there
are no more non-Muslims on the entire earth Terror will
still be the order of the day between whatever Muslims
continue to people this earth
, because the Jihad is eternal
and every imam and ayatollah on earth is his own Pope

It's only a matter of time before the African-American
"black Muslims" who dare to style Elijah Mohammed
a "prophet" are also targeted for extermination by the
Sunni Muslims for exactly the same reason: the Sunni
Muslims are rather picky about their contention that
"The Prophet" was named the last prophet by the Koran.
If this has not already happened up to now it's due to
a combination of factors peculiar to the United States,
including effective law-enforcement and... just not
enough Sunni immigrants for them to start the fight.

   "Following 9/11 and the trauma that it was for our
   nation, the president [George W. Bush] spoke at a
   Mosque in Washington, D.C. and made an eloquent
   plea not to blame all Muslims or Islam itself for
   the horror that befell our nation."

And, of course, we all know how well that worked out
for the fight against terror, don't we!... Islam [or,
"Submit!" which is the correct translation of "islam"]
finally turned its outrageous "the religion of peace"
LIE (which the Saudi propaganda machine has been
selling the West) into a truth? I don't see it. You?
The only evangelical preachers I watch on TV now are
either the Rev. Icepick Ford-Gad or Rev. Ike Zpikfogod.
Spotted on the boob tube yet one more small group of
very nice and personable, decent and ordinary-looking,
normal-seeming American Muslims being interviewed
about their "fear" of Islamophobia: Transparently one
more illogical, and unreasonable, and cynical attack on
every human soul who is but merely pointing out with
undeniable veracity the unquestioned evils of Islam!

I'm sure Scott Pelley would never think of himself as
an enabler of the Islamic Jihad to conquer the planet,
but that is precisely what he was with this interview:
Here were these five or six souls being brought forth
on The CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley to cry out
for tolerance as if the critics of Islam had something
personally against them--when ALL the points of such
critics are against Islam and against Islam alone. Are
they not to be allowed to criticize so transparently a
criminal and malignant enterprise as Islam obviously
is... just because it terms itself a religion? Why don't
they also bring forth Aztecs to defend ripping out the
hearts of their living victims & kicking the carcasses
down their pyramids for cannibalism? [None left. But
I'd hate to think what CBS might do if there were.]

Has any of these well-meaning and well-intended (and
certainly not self-proclaimed) apologists of Islam who
produce these misleading "shows" for Western audiences
ever asked any of these so often interviewed ordinary
and peaceful decent Muslim Americans what they think
about the monstrous intolerance in the Islamic World?
Why not?  The point  of those who criticize Islam is
that it is Islam that is bad
, not these few saps brought
out to plea tolerance for themselves! So why haven't
these "incisive" interviewers ever bothered to compare
the "terrible" experiences of these few Muslims in the
Christian world with the experiences of Christians in
the Muslim world? Why not? Would such comparisons
really be so unreasonable, or too illuminating maybe?

Why not ask these sweet souls they are interviewing
whether they have ever protested the butchery and
genocide experienced by the unimaginably unfortunate
non-Muslim minorities EVERYWHERE on this earth where
Muslims are in the majority? And you pick the country...
in Africa, Asia or the Middle East--Wherever you like.
Has anyone ever asked these innocent victims to point
out the mass graves of the murdered Muslims out West,
or in Michigan, maybe in Jersey...? ANYONE can point
out the mass graves, without number, of the innocents
murdered in the Muslim world... They are everywhere!

The REALLY unfortunate minorities in those Muslim
lands can't speak for themselves: they are all of them
being forcibly converted to Islam, or being tortured,
robbed, raped, or they are all dead. Why not interview
(instead, or alongside) the handful of them who HAVE
managed to escape with barely their lives to Europe or
elsewhere... and show THEIR pleas for tolerance in the
Islamic world? I've never seen even ONE such show.

Has anyone ever asked these "poor" American Muslims
pleading for tolerance from the vile Christians here
in America to point out where all those non-Muslim
minorities who once were the majorities in ALL the now
Muslim-only lands can be found nowadays? About the
only substantial Christian minority left anywhere in
the Levant are the Egyptian Copts, whom the Egyptian
Muslims have not slaughtered to the last child (as
Muslims everywhere else have done with all their non-
Muslim minorities) only because they keep them as
a permanent garbage-collecting subclass (otherwise
they would all have been exterminated by now too).

And yet these bleeding-heart left-wing liberals insist
on producing their misleading interviews of a handful
of Muslims pleading for tolerance for themselves as if
anyone who points out the slightest bit of truth about
Islam were intent on persecuting them personally:

Sirs, when the critics of Islam so very correctly and
accurately, and so truthfully point out the evils of
Islam they are not saying that they have anything
personal against the handfuls of unfortunate Muslim
saps like those being interviewed by YOU apologists of
Islam to deflect the blame from where the blame really
falls--And you apologists of Islam perfectly well know
that defending an attack on these Muslim saps which
does not exist is misleading and deceptive... and no
matter whether it's done on purpose or even without
any intent to deceive--Who the Hell would possibly be
against tolerance of the powerless, of those in the
minority, of those who happen to be of a different
ethnicity or religion, of women just because they're
women, of homosexuals just because they're born that
way, of... Oh, yes, that's right: Muslims are. In fact
they have to be, because it is so commanded in the
Quran itself: The Hatred In The Koran Read it yourself!

If these American Muslims want to plea for tolerance,
they are pleading for tolerance in the wrong place for
the wrong reason and from the wrong audience: What
they should be doing is taking their heartfelt pleas to
all of the nations that have Muslim majority populations
--They are the ones that really need such pleading for
tolerance, for sheer humanity: The tragic sad minorities
there, or what is left of them, are the ones that need
all the compassion and all the humanity that the Islamic
world has NEVER shown in all of its blood-drenched
history of savagery, brutality, and death. S D Rodrian
The trouble with being a self-styled peace-maker like
Obama and all those other self-adorers who believe
themselves "so virtuous & pure" is that they only
create more [and more terrible] wars for the poor
bastards who will have to fight them long after the
self-idolizing idiots like Obama are gone... on to
other stupidities/incompetences: Bring on the Nobels!
Russia Opens New Stalin Museums, Grapples With His

I love Stalin--Absolutely love him: If there's one person
in this world indisputably personally responsible for
shredding communism to bits it is Stalin--Can you just
imagine what might've happened if instead of Stalin
the Soviets would've gotten a decent, honest, moral,
exemplary dictator?!? [It might've been catastrophic
for the Free World.] No: No one is more responsible
than was Stalin for making communism disgusting and
terrifying (not even Castro & all the other petty "little
commie butchers" around this ill world)... Stalin was
gleefully murdering communists by the tons long before
Hitler came along to join him in the slaughter (and he
probably killed many more of them than did Hitler).
And Stalin was still murdering communists right & left
(in the Soviet Union and in every other country in the
world he could find them hiding from him) long after
WW2. So, yes, if it were up to me I'd certainly put up
a statue to him [right up there between the Washington
Monument and the Jefferson Memorial]. Great guy,
Stalin! Great, great guy! A hero. We owe him lots. Lots!
“Until nobody has guns, everybody has to have them.”
--Jesse Hughes of the Eagles of Death Metal

Great quote.   An even better quote:

“But socialism increases racism and hate as it places
  every sector’s hand in the other’s pocket, and
  everyone’s hand into his friend’s pocket, which
  creates animosity between different groups in
  society.” --internet author.

Socialism is an unimaginably dangerous constant threat
to human civilization because it's such an attractive
sell: It is always sold as "They have too much more
than You." And because it's only human nature to
believe, in the first place, that "we should have as
much as others" (same thing)... socialism is always an
easy sell for con men & opportunists who would use it
to further themselves: What the con men of socialism
don't tell you, of course, is that even if "You may think
you have nothing" "Others with even less" will demand
that you share whatever you do have (and "the rich"
are always just a few, a commodity quickly used up...
then: You will become "the rich" by default definition
(of anything you have which the others don't). That's
why ALL socialist experiments ALWAYS invariably end
bankrupt in a sea of poverty, privation, and want (but
for Comrade Con-man, of course, who like Castro and
rest of them will live like fabulously wealthy kings).
The Met's 1978 Telecast of Cavalleria Rusticana/Pagliacci

Now, I recently discovered this DVD of a Met Opera
Broadcast I saw live back in the 70s and instantly
bought it: I saw this broadcast in 1978 bVCR (before
VCR) and it has haunted me since--so it was with
incredibly good luck that I have lived long enough to
again watch it.

I still remember the great anticipation with which I
waited for this broadcast once it was announced, and
the great disappointment after having actually watched
it: Opera for me was and remains strictly music--I
don't really care if I watch orchestral musicians
laboring away at their instruments (and it's, in fact,
distracting to me... especially if a few of'em happen to
also be chewing gum or something): For me the opera
singers are just as much musicians as are all those
instrumentalists. So my preference will always be to
hear the Met on the radio rather than watch their
stagings (my imagination and the scores themselves
create much more powerful settings/scenes than
anything they can mount on ANY stage). That said, I
was looking forward to this particular live broadcast
[in those heady days they were really "live from" the
Met, whereas today's are recorded "live at" the Met].

These DVDs show us the still "unperfected" art of
televising opera: They obviously used directional
mikes a lot, with the unavoidable effect of distant
voices, fade-offs, and sudden volume surges. But, it's
still better than prerecording the score and then
having these opera singers pretend to be actors while
they very clumsily lip sync to their own recordings!
I mean, really: Who came up with this?!? If you're
going to do this at least get rid of all these very
ordinary-looking singers and cast some really good
-looking "actors" who will really LOOK the part(s).

Never much cared for Sherrill Milnes's sound, but he
was certainly a pretty decent actor (for an opera
singer). You can hear his powerful high notes in the
opening Pagliacci's Si puo recitative, albeit these
are not enough for me: It always annoyed me to hear
his "chewing" style and watching him sing with his
cheeks is an even worse experience. But, at this age,
he certainly could tumble all over the stage, and take
falls which would've certainly killed chubby Domingo.

The impressive acting (yes) really goes to that tiny
spitfire [just to see the sheer volume of spit that
Stratas manages, for such a tiny woman, is worth a
look--Sherrill Milnes probably didn't have to take a
second bath after the performance!]... the tiny
woman with the full voice (one which could even be
surprisingly warm and beautiful)... Teresa Stratas.

The real villain in Pagliacci is unquestionably Nedda,
who not only betrays her emotionally fragile husband
but mercilessly mocks and even whips the physically
handicapped Tonio. Her husband Canio is a drunk (very
likely driven to drink by her) and he goes insane with
jealousy in the end (need I tell you who causes this?).
While hunchback Tonio's "evil deed" is, what, he is in love
with Nedda (probably because she led the poor guy on
at some point), and that he lets Canio know that his wife
is cheating on him? --This is why I've always looked at
her "birds" aria as misleading, and her romantic duet
with her lover as sheer hypocrisy [Colombina is also a
very poor actress, whose timing is way off when she
takes on the job of getting rid of the stool Domingo
was supposed to "soccer kick" off stage--Domingo
liked to think of himself as a marvelous soccer player
--God, is there no end to the egos of these divos/as?

It is so wonderful to "see" in Stratas (a Greek woman)
all those really creepy women of Classical Greek Drama
engaging in all their almost inhuman deeds of hatred or
passionate revenge: I think Stratas could have easily
played most of them with great believability.

Vern Shinall is a unique experience as Alfio, and it's
marvelous to see Isola Jones again--This is one
marvelously cast Cavalleria. Probably the best I've
ever run across. Kudos to you all!

Most especially of all that Met orchestral! It's NEVER
off, and we can again see James Levine at the tender
age of about 8 or 9 passionately convinced that it's
that soda straw he's waving in the air that is actually
producing the music. [Thank you, James Levine, what
would we have done without you!]

Cavalleria Rusticana is a particularly favorite opera of
mine (its Intermezzo was a favorite of my grandfather
as well, so this has been a very "familiar" work for
me ever since I was a young child). And this particular
performance was stunning if for one singer alone:
Tatiana Troyanos. She was the very personification of
Santuzza. Not only was there in her voice the pleading
sadness of Santuzza's story, but she even had the
perfect "look" of this tragic character (I think even before
any makeup was applied). Nothing about her performance
here is outside perfection itself, including her poignant
"over-the-top" but here very right passionate verismo.

Placido Domingo's a particular favorite of mine. "He's
no Mario Lanza," but his musicianship is quite out of the
ordinary; and for the last many decades he was the
dramatic tenor you'd most like to hear in just about
any dramatic tenor role. Yet, good as his singing is,
I still wish I hadn't "seen" his performance(s) here
in these two works: He's very chubby/uncoordinated
in spite of his youth here (it's almost worth the price
here just to see him almost break his neck by trying
to (yes!) back-kick a stool in Pagliacci, for Heavens's
sakes... while Fate treats his voice unkindly whenever
he drops down to sing on a knee or actually goes to
the floor): His "hiccups" in Vesti la giubba are very
distracting and his voice cracks terribly in the high
note of Cavalleria's Mamma! as he sings it on a knee
to Mamma Lucia). Dios castiga sin palo y sin piedra,
Placido: You are never going to top Caruso's trick of
singing upside down with his head inside a bucket of
water while juggling soccer balls with his feet. I'd
wish he'd just stood there and sung (you know, like
Caruso), and left the "acting" to Rob Schneider & that
mob. The delusion of opera singers as actors belongs
to the Franco Zeffirellis of the world ... and they
should keep it to themselves or go into movie-making.

[By the way... Those clown costumes? The stuff of
nightmares. I'm sure after the performance they were
all returned to Gacy, from whom they were on loan.]

If you tweak the soundtrack a bit, it's possible to
bring these marvelous old performances almost up to
ideal standards--which I have done, of course.
Put a sock on it, Watson: The game's a foot!
Just finished listening to a very flawed Metropolitan
Opera radio broadcast [of April 2, 2016's Madame
Butterfly, with Kristine Opolais and Roberto Alagna,
and conducted by Karel Mark Chicho], a radio broadcast
which was also shown live in theatres: I only listened
to the radio broadcast, so I can't comment on the
theatre version. But the radio broadcast was flawed
on a couple of accounts:

1) the feed dropped out during Act One. Therefore, in
order to have a complete recording I had to splice in
the missing segment from an old San Francisco Opera
broadcast (with Patricia Racette and Brian Jagde, and
conducted by Nicola Luisotti) from September 5, 2015
[which I had lying around]. It gave me an opportunity
to judge the two broadcasts one on top of the other,
so-to-speak. And, surprisingly I must say, I found the
Met broadcast coming up short of the San Francisco

2) Racette and Opolais have very similar voices (which
is why they're probably singing the same role). But
the two sets of broadcast engineers went in very
different directions in the two broadcasts: The San
Francisco broadcast kept the full [stereo] depth of
the sound [for the voices] while the Met broadcast did
this only for the orchestra!

The Met's sophomoric recording engineers apparently
somehow got it into their heads that what we wanted
to hear was the principal singers pretty much like "the
mob out there" used to listen to the crooners before
stereo: Frenching a big metal microphone. (So they
must have pinned mikes on the singers' lapels.) This
might be great for Sinatra and other crooners but it's
unimaginably annoying for opera singers. It not only
kills their "place" in the opera [house], but gives us
[a number of hours!] of one relentlessly unvarying
monophonic operatic voice crying & carrying on right
smack on top of our heads.

Both Kristine Opolais and Roberto Alagna have very
impressive and skillfully dramatic voices, but by
having their annoyingly monophonic voices imposed on
an otherwise great orchestra displaying the marvelous
stereo depth which the principal singers should also
have been granted... it made them sound terrible:
Sometimes Opolais sounded like the young girl that
Cio-Cio-San is supposed to be as she gave vent to her
most impassioned full-throated emotional outpourings
while at other times, "speaking" in her softest voice,
Opolais sounded like the woman she is. (And the same
with Roberto Alagna.) Trust me: None of these opera
singers has as beautiful a "speaking" voice as their
full-throated operatic ones [which they have been
meticulously cultivating to produce over lifetimes of
hard effort]. Do you really think hey care how their
street speaking voices sound? So when we can hear
their "least-operatic" voices about twice as loud as
the entire orchestra it just sounds terrible: Trust Me.

Their mike feed was obviously run "thru" some kind of
electronic "normalizer" designed to make their softest
tones sound as loud as their loudest screams (which
were then crimped down to bring them all to more or
less the same "lever" as their softest words). But the
result is not unlike having them sound almost as if the
broadcast booth announcers were the ones singing to
the Met Orchestra playing softly in the background!

Opolais' softest words were about twice as loud as the
entire Met Orchestra, while her most emotionally
charged high notes were made to sound distant, thin,
and as unimpressive as dragging a stick through sand.
This is not what she really sounds like in the great
house. (The same was true of Roberto Alagna.) These
singers have spent years getting to "fit" their voices
into the opera houses of the world. They are not
crooners who sing always the same into a microphone
whether they are in a stadium or a little Karaoke bar.

Another sad drawback of this recording technique in
opera is that the "actors" never mesh with the stage:
They never walk around, stage right/stage left, and
only just stand there... not even forever unmoving in
the middle of the stage but as if singing down to the
audience from somewhere atop the rafters! Jikes.

The San Francisco Butterfly was more "natural" and
therefore much more enjoyable: The singers' voices
were splendidly wide and full of stereo depth. And it
shows why many of us would rather listen to even a
second-rate singer who is standing next to us "live"
than to a monophonic recording of a great one: The
great singers have learned to understand the nature of
their voices: They not only project full-throated and
use their half-voices with careful regard to where
they're singing [space & time], but they also sing
right out the side of their mouths, they shift their
heads around as they sing to change the tenor of their
tone, they puff their mouths up or stuff them with
their curled tongues, they swing their heads about or
even whip them suddenly, and otherwise put into effect
every muscle they can in order to enrich the sounds
they are producing... for the house. If captured by a
good stereo sound engineer this can reproduce that
in-house effect (or even improve on it). Otherwise--

By running all their efforts through one single thin
pipe pinned to their lapel all these efforts are for
nought, negated beyond repair. No: More technology
does not necessarily equal a better result. Most
especially in art it is always better to get as close
as technically possible to the most natural "human"
state of all. And in broadcasting opera, dear sirs,
that is the stereo depth which best mimics the two
ears we're all born with to hear it. Let's hope the Met
radio broadcast engineers eventually get back to that!
The Complete Piano Sonatas of W A Mozart (19)
interpreted by S D Rodrian

Many composers have created edifices.
Mozart edified creation. ---S D Rodrian
Notes: These old recordings are not without flaws,
but at least now you are closer to Mozart.
J S Bach's The Goldberg Variations
Interpreted by S D Rodrian

The Goldberg Variations is one of the greatest poems
in human history. As towering a creative achievement
as anything in Homer or Shakespeare. No other [of the
great composers] has ever possessed Bach's ability to
make music as much a language as Spanish, English or
French: Where other composers break into the silence
with sounds sublime or glorious, ethereal, noble, or
just loud... Bach almost always engages us in a human
conversation as effectively as if he were using words.

And whether in the many interpretations of other
keyboard players out there or in that personal one
playing only within the confines of my own mind...
every time I listen to the transcendent masterpiece
that is Bach's Art of The Variation I can't help but
thank God for the unequaled privilege.
S D Rodrian's Pototo y Filomeno

Pototo y Filomeno are the crown jewel of comedy in
Cuba. My mother's family, who brought me up, was a
deadly serious bunch whom, growing up, I seldom
witnessed sharing so much as a smile let alone a laugh
out loud. So it was a revelation to me when as a
toddler I discovered my very dignified & proper
grandfather all alone hunched over a shoebox radio at
the back of the house one evening laughing himself as
silly as the best human being out there! There was an
ancient giant radio in the living room, but he seemed
as unwilling to let himself go like that in front of
the family as other men are to cry at emotional scenes
in a crowded theater, so there he was all by himself
laughing his head off--But he allowed me to join him.
And so, from my earliest days I made my acquaintance
of the early evening 15 minute shows that was Pototo y
Filomeno's La Tremenda Corte... a mixture of semi-
scripted [by that true comedic genius writer Cástor
Vispo], and mostly unimaginably hilarious improvisation
by some of the best improvisers in the entire history
of that art).

Being a radio program, La Tremenda Corte consisted
almost entirely of linguistic mischaracterizations of
terms & phrases, meanings, and intentionally
misleading bad intentions. A true example of the
highest form of the theater of the absurd in which the
same shady character was brought before the same judge
charged by the same accusers for a different offense
every night regardless of how long a sentence the
judge imposed on him just a few nights before.

Listening to La Tremenda Corte with my grandfather
I went from laughing at utterly incomprehensible
dialogues in sympathy with him to an increasingly
deeper grasp of the subtleties of meanings available
to the Spanish language (not to mention a love for
poems, vocabulary, jargon & the vernacular,
alliteration, double-meanings, and almost every aspect
of speech--above all, those that provoked laughter. La
Tremenda Corte was & remains to this day just by
itself a delicious little study (at least in the Spanish
tongue) of the love for the full possibilities of
linguistic expression carried on into actual practice.

The program lasted nonstop from 1942 to 1961.
Over 360 shows are estimated to have been recorded,
of which only a handful of the very last ones made
were smuggled out by someone who worked at the La
Habana radio station (those are the only ones
currently heard the world over). Little is known about
the episodes which were left behind--They remain
Cuba's true hidden treasure, the gold of legend,
certain to bring glory to whoever unearths them to the
greater glory of the Spanish-speaking world. My
grandfather died in 1956 and therefore those episodes
I listened to with him never made it out of Cuba, if they
still exist there.

La Tremenda Corte ended abruptly in 1961. That was
shortly after Fidel Castro came to power and struck
down all independent thinking in the island. Of
course, La Tremenda Corte was all about going your own
way (& then answering for it), and a satire on the
grand scale of life in general. So the great comics
were forced to escape for their lives to Miami, where
much to my delight they staged some live performances
(one of which my father was only too happy to take me
to). That was the last & only time I saw them perform
on stage in front of me.

[Apocryphally, Leopoldo Fernández is said to have made
a short comic piece in his La Habana theater where he
played “Pototo” while he and another actor reviewed a
file of Cuban presidents' photos to install them on
the wall. The other player showed a photo of Fulgencio
Batista and Fernández said to him: “Throw this one
away.” The other actor continued showing different
pictures to Pototo's unchanging reply: – “Throw this
one away too…” Finally, the assistant grabbed a photo
of Fidel Castro. Leopoldo watched it, showed it to the
audience and went to the wall as he said with his
characteristic ironic humor: – “Allow me — I want to
hang this one myself…”. And that was the end of Pototo
y Filomeno inside Cuba.]

La Tremenda Corte continued to be 'made' in this or
that form, but without the great Cástor Vispo scripts
& direction, it was a shadow of its former self. And
then even without the old comics Pototo y Filomeno.

In the 1990s the son of one of my first cousins swam
to his freedom to the Guantanamo naval base, believe
it or not, and came to stay with us for a while. One
day, in order to offer him some entertainment I played
some of my Pototo y Filomeno recordings for him and to
my astonishment he told me he had NEVER heard of them
before! That was the complete mind control Castro had
instituted over the Cubans still in the island. To
this day I do not know whether Cubans in the island
are aware or not of one of their greatest glories.

Ironically, as the memory of that reprehensible
murderer, Fidel Castro, continues to fade (as the
fitting judgment of history) into just condemnation
and deserved oblivion, it is Pototo y Filomeno who
have emerged victorious and vindicated, and more
famous than ever: There is not a single Spanish-
speaking city in the world which does not have its own
daily re-broadcast of the now ancient La Tremenda
Corte's few surviving episodes... every single one of
them still as human and hilarious as the day they were
recorded live in their La Habana radio studio.

In the 1940s and 1950s Pototo y Filomeno joined with
the musical group "Melodias del 40" to put out a
series of 'tremendously' popular records displaying
not only their comedic but also their great musical
talents as well: I still remember walking the streets
of my birth city (Holguin) and listening to radios
blaring these melodies in block after block I walked
through. These are the recordings posted here.
SDRodrian's Bruckner's Symphonies (Solti,CSO)

Denigrating Bruckner seems to be some sort of parlor
game amongst the rudest of the music intelligentsia.
But Bruckner continues along, winning battle after
battle. So I'm not willing to bet against him in the
long run. True he may not be the master of intricate
development that Brahms of Beethoven were. But he
fills his every movement with really quite enjoyable
progressions and even quite lyrical transitions and
decorative figures between them.

Then again, after a marvelously unified start Symphony
No.0 puzzlingly ends in something of a pastiche: I
suppose it's not easy to maintain focus across a whole
symphonic achievement/effort. Nevertheless, Bruckner's
accomplishments are always impressive. His works are
master lessons in orchestral writing even if too often
one section is followed up by a subsequent one which
does not necessarily flow inevitably out of the one we
just heard--and it doesn't help if Bruckner hints at
the familiar themes (or even repeats previous bits of
them, perhaps influenced to such by Wagner, who
knows). All his transitions are logical and therefore
brilliant even if not enough of his movements build
themselves to one single culmination [like climbing
one mountain from the bottom to the top at once
instead of just bouncing about from this hill to the
next hill to the next & so on... leaving you with the
erroneous impression that Bruckner's IQ just wasn't
up to the task before him]. But all of his hill leapings
do work themselves to some musical resolution, so--

One has to understand where Bruckner is coming from:
He was first & foremost a church organist [so much so
that he had himself interred under his favorite church
organ]. So all those "outlandish" brass flourishes are
merely but echoes of Bruckner's familiar organ pipes
blasting away (there are sections in his symphonies in
which one can clearly discern his pedal writing). The
important thing is how attractive and energetic and
passionate and even ethereal his harmonic progressions
can be. And in that they will always remain popular and
even essential. I love to listen to these symphonies, all
of which are as attractive in the world of classical
music as the works of the Beatles are in the world of
the 60's 'popular' music.

Solti came to the recording of Bruckner late in life,
so these recordings could possibly come as something
of a novel take on them to those who have become used
to the available recordings of the past. But these are
marvelous new treasures from a great musical genius.
Every one of them worth the effort to appreciate them.
S D Rodrian's Beethoven String Quartets (The Budapest
String Quartet: Josef Roisman, Alexander Schneider, Boris
Kroyt, Mischa Schneider.)

I first came to the U.S. from Cuba on January 5, 1958
because Castro's rebels were threatening war around my
hometown of Holguin in Eastern Cuba and my mother had
had enough of it: Off we went to the U.S. where her
older sister and her husband had lived for some time.
Then back to Cuba in 1960 after Batista fled so we
could enjoy the freedom & democracy Castro promised
us... only to have to return to the U.S. in 1962 as
desperate & stateless refugees from the scourge of
communism: As a 1962 "refugee kid" I didn't get my
hands on much cash outside an occasional job helping
my aunt park cars in the large backyard of the house
she owned close to the Orange Bowl whenever it held an
event: A whopping $5 was my biggest payday, otherwise
my only cash were the 35 cents my father gave me for
the school lunch--I skipped in order to save up for a
more full[filling] LP (4 to 8 bucks back then).

One Saturday, only up to some $2.60, I decided to go
see a movie [can't remember which] and walked (not
enough for the bus) to the theatre some dozen or so
blocks away, arriving about 1/2 hour too early. So,
instead of sitting in the movie house, I decided to
look around the little stores there: a flower shop,
old clothes, used furniture, AND a tiny cubbyhole
where some Cubans had opened a record shop (my
favorite kind of store). So in there I went expecting
to see nothing more than the popular crap--which it
was stuffed with: some brassy Mexican & other rhythmic
Latin beats, sweet Cuban memories of old, and then I
spotted a cardboard box falling apart with around 40
or 50 LP's dumped in it under a hand-written sign
"Classical" (yes, even in that tight/tiny hall of a
shop apparently if they wanted to sell records of "a
garage band of teens with 3 chords & one monotonously
repeating rhythm" they also had to sell a few of the
companies' classical LP's).

I quickly thumbed through their "classical discs junk
box," expecting to find nothing but cast-offs, when my
eyes suddenly popped out of my head--For in my hands
was a genuine piece of gold: the vulgarly yellow
jacket of Beethoven's 3rd 'Razumovsky' played by none
other than the greatest string quartet of them all.
[The Budapest SQ, no less!] And, because classical
music was trash to the owners of that Little Cubbyhole
store, the LP cost just about exactly what I had in my
pocket! Trying not to appear like a thief, I presented
the disc to the store clerk in a stupor--hardly
knowing what was going on I put out all the nickels &
dimes I had on me on their desk and was almost floored
to discover that it was exactly the price they were
asking for the treasure!

Didn't have enough to take the bus home, of course
(and that movie whatever I could see any time), so I
grabbed on to the paper bag with the priceless find in
it & headed back home like an old miner sneaking away
with the biggest nugget of gold ever found out in the
West. I must have looked the part, too, because I
walked all those dozen blocks in terror that I would
be mugged out of my precious golden nugget--I wasn't;
and I still have that LP:

I'd first heard the 3rd 'Razumovsky' on the radio in
the mid 50's (so it was not this recording--either one
of their Library of Congress performances or an old
MONO LP); but having heard it once, even as a 6 or
7-year old, was enough! And here you too can listen to
that same 3rd 'Razumovsky' played by the greatest SQ
to ever interpret it; along with all of the other
Beethoven string quartets.

Yes, it may be true that the pre-60's Budapest SQ
players might have been spiffier. But these stereo
LP's were the ones I bought with all the money I had
in the world; the ones I grew up with. The ones that
best brought to me the heart, soul, mind & humanity of
Beethoven--Now, a consensus of great musicians might
think that Schubert's Quintet in C is the greatest
chamber work ever, but I could not disagree more: It
is definitely one of Beethoven's last 10 quartets
--although I am not competent to say which: When I
was a kid I thought it the 3rd 'Razumovsky' and
nowadays I think it might be the 15th, maybe tomorrow
I'll change my mind--but in any case it's one of those
last 10 [you pick it].

Schubert, who was a musical giant in his own right,
would probably agree with me that the old bum he used
to stalk through the streets of Vienna [because he was
simply too intimidated to speak to him] WAS mountains
above him. And, who knows, maybe it was Schubert
himself who (when the Vienna police would arrest that
disheveled old bum on suspicion of vagrancy) would run
to bring a duke of the realm or some other high
Austrian aristocrat rushing to the police station to
inform the local cops that they had the greatest
musical genius on earth in their holding cell--Weird,
but quite true. You can read about all this by Googling it.

Recorded: [1-6 in 1958], [7-8 in 1959], [9-11,16 in
1960], [12-15, GF in 1961]

Over the years I have wiped away a lot of the
distracting artifacts from my recordings. Unfortunately
this might have also wiped away some of the strings'
original raw sound. [My concern was with removing
distractions, as well as bringing clarity to Beethoven's
notes over faithfully reproducing the sound of the
strings.] So if you like to hear the unadulterated sound
of the Budapest strings you will have to pick up a CD
of these works--Just hurry, because CD's seem to be
going the way of the 8-Track. And soon there will
probably only be inferior quality MP3's available of
these awesome performances.
S D Rodrian's LP Tchaikovsky's Swan Lake excerpts
(Arthur Fiedler, Boston Pops)

This music has been heard in a number of Hollywood's
classic horror movies. This is both reasonable & very
understandable: There is a lot of over-the-top human
passion and overwhelming emotions everywhere in this
work--Murder, brutality, inhumanity course among the
sublime themes which bravely attempt to balance them
like strangling snakes. In fact, I cannot even imagine
a Hollywood horror movie depicting more dread, panic,
pain, and sheer distress than those we hear in Swan
Lake. I do not know whether it is true or not that
Tchaikovsky committed suicide, but certainly it would
be no surprise to me that we are listening to inner
sorrows and afflictions of some quite tortured human
soul bared raw for the world to try to make some sense
of them beyond the mere dramatic needs.

This particular 1963 LP recording was greatly hailed
when it was brought out... for its sound fidelity, for
the Boston Pops' musical competence, and most
especially for Arthur Fiedler's marvelous
interpretation(s). [Winning a number of well-deserved
awards.] And it has not lost any of its importance in
the annals of recorded music since; frankly I think
its praises have only gotten more & more justification
with the passage of time. It is therefore unfortunate
that it is rarely available outside of eBay somewhere,
because it is one of the best-recorded LPs ever. The
CD reissue, which is still available commercially,
suffers from the fact that it was fashioned from the
original master (magnetic) tapes [which as we all know
are easily affected by the passage of even the least
amount of time, lightning striking anywhere in the
same state, shifting of earth's magnetic field, as
well as pigeons flying too close to the roof of their
warehouse]... Therefore the only way to enjoy the
performance again was to subject the music to computer
workarounds that not always allow what remains to be
completely faithful to the original sound--That
doesn't bother me because I don't mind a little
interference on my way to a great performance; and
that is what we still have here.

There is nothing as permanent as a solid thing, but
the available LPs are ancient and tortured by use and
wear [and the fact that eventually the original vinyl
was replaced by a cheaper plastic which pretty much
destroyed the listening experience]. I nevertheless
still dream of somewhere there being some original
master pressing(s) of the original spotless, clean,
virgin LP master which may yet produce platters as
pristine as the first ones made all those years ago.
It's only a dream, I know, but--
S D Rodrian's LP Tchaikovsky's The Nutcracker

Dorati's version is not only most people's favorite
(mine too), but it's still unsurpassed. It's not made
for the dancers but for us listeners, for the lovers
of music rather than those who like to watch the
ballet... so we could close our eyes and
appreciate/understand the powerful drama and emotional
impact of the music in & of itself.

Here are my original LPs from way back when the world
was young: I wore them out with overuse & could not
listen to them for a long while, then new computer
technology managed to remove enough of the scratches
and other artifacts from the LPs to let me listen to
them again almost as if I'd travelled back in time.
What a trip!

This is my edited version of this great recording.
There's really no available version in LP or CD which
is entirely acceptable, for one reason or another--My
version is not exactly perfect either, but then again:
What is? You can probably still pick up the CD version
somewhere and maybe even an old set of the original
vinyl LPs from some used store or eBay for a $100. I
would encourage you to do so, especially now that the
UK has raised the copyright on old recordings from 50
to 70 years.
S D Rodrian's LP excerpts from Tchaikovsky's Sleeping
Beauty (Monteux,LSO)

This battered 60-years old 1958 LP (recorded in 1956)
comes from a time when just about every stereo
recording made was a technical experiment. Yet even
constrained as it must be by the technology of that
time this one holds up as one of the best not just
because of a competent London Symphony Orchestra but
also because of the great maestro Pierre Monteux,
whose interpretations here I don't think have often
been surpassed even after all this time: As a young
teen I used to listen to choice bits from all 3 of
Tchaikovsky's transcendent ballets almost daily
--couldn't do without the old familiar melodies
(we heard a number of Sleeping Beauty's again in
the recent Disney film Maleficent).

I still own every LP I managed to get my hands on, and
most of them are in pretty decent shape to this day.
Here I certainly tried to tackle this one's worst
artifacts; although perfection is always too illusive
especially for the time I can devote to it. Still, the
old LSO sounds better to me than the commercially
[still available!] versions out there. Note that
although the original recording may be in the public
domain in the UK and other places, it may not yet so
be in the US and elsewhere.
S D Rodrian's Bach's Brandenburg Concertos (Szymon
Goldberg,Netherlands Chamber Orchestra)

It never takes long to understand that the music one
is listening to is by Bach. While other composers may
require all "the full completeness" of an entire piece
to convey its greatness, note by note Bach's language
is always uniquely imprinted with the telltale ever
unrivalled confidence of his musical genius: From the
first couple of notes Bach knows where he is headed,
and we know he's not getting lost--wherever that is.

Even Mozart sometimes needed a while to make it to
this level of competence in his work. But with Bach,
as with Shakespeare perhaps, just the first few
words/notes are enough to tell us we are most
privileged to be witnesses to the highest form of
creativity of which humans are capable:

So unmistakable is Bach's language that it's almost
one unto itself: like French or Spanish one can
immediately recognize it as nothing possible but
itself. And so there are few if any compositions by
Bach which are not instantly resplendent with that
unmistakable greatness--and not even the least of them
(whether we have the ability to recognize/acknowledge
this or not). [So much so that when a music critic or
other is unsatisfied with a piece by Bach his first
instinct is to immediately attribute it to some other
hand instead of daring to believe that it might be an
"inferior" composition of Johann Sebastian Bach!]
After all, Johann Sebastian Bach could never sit down
to write anything which was not from the highest
possible levels of his insurmountable creativity and
the most rock-solid powers of his unwonted mind: That
we all know.

These Szymon Goldberg recordings (from the late 50's)
with the Netherlands Chamber Orchestra have been my
favorite versions of these pieces since I encountered
them in the early 60's. [I only disagree with one
single Goldberg tempo (in the 1st): a work which is
almost a symphony in itself. The 3rd & 6th are both
"string" concertos, while the 2nd & 4th are "mostly
wind" concertos. The 5th is a quite extraordinary
flute, violin and keyboard concerto which perhaps
surpasses Bach's other seven. Every one of them simply
monumental ideas expressed without equal.]

If you wish to hear the raw original recordings
(without my preferences added) you might have to get
the CDs... which might still be available out there
S D Rodrian's LP Beethoven's Symphonies (Ormandy,

When I was a kid in school sometimes passages from
these symphonies would play in my imagination as if
Beethoven himself were speaking to me directly. Such
incomparable perfection! But then I would get this
feeling that I might have heard that same perfection
already in Ormandy's recordings at some hearing:
"Can't be." So certain was I that such an exceptional
agreement with Beethoven's intentions could come only
straight from him that I would rush home to my old
record player where, sure enough, what I had imagined
to only be able to come from Beethoven's imagination
directly to me was to be found there in Ormandy's so
masterful renderings exactly as if Beethoven himself
were speaking to us directly!

Many, many times have I thanked God that I have been
able to hear Eugene Ormandy's sometimes towering,
always incomparable/unparalleled interpretations of
Beethoven's greatest masterworks for the last 60 years

For numberless are the performances I have heard
before/since of Beethoven symphonies, and yet Eugene
Ormandy's--every last one of them--remain to this day
the very best ever done both in the skill he somehow
brought out of the performers under him and in his own
crowning mastery of the musical language of these
powerful, transcendent pieces... phrase by musical
phrase by phrase to the last one of them.

These are recordings most precious which have been
salvaged from ancient abused LPs by recently made
available computer technology (perhaps a bit muddy,
maybe, although frankly I still prefer them to the old
scratchy LP's and even the latest thin/static-plagued
CD's). It may still be possible to find an original
vinyl pressing on Ebay somewhere, but all replacement
pressings I've bought so far were on that cheap
plastic the record companies introduced to save a few
pennies & which probably killed the LP market.
[Although the 1959 & early 60's originals may be in
the Public Domain in England & elsewhere, they may not
so be in the USA & elsewhere.] Please note that my
engineered versions are also not in Public Domain.
S D Rodrian's LP Bach's Mass in B Minor (Robert Shaw)

Bach's Great Mass in B Minor is probably the one
composition which is considered by the most music
lovers to be the greatest ever written by anyone. I
for one agree. And of all the performances and
interpretations I have ever heard of this great work
this old recording remains my favorite--It is
controversial 'out there' because Shaw interprets the
music as if the score had been written by a
contemporary and just handed to him (no period
instrument or other nonsensical self-restrictions
which so many stuck-in-the-past musicologists would
like to force on audiences): Robert Shaw & his always
professional performers here let loose with all the
talent they can muster, and the result is sheer glory.
Some of the best and greatest music ever committed to
those precious old LP disks.

This recording was salvaged from ancient & abused LPs
by recently made available computer technology (of
course they're compromised). It may still be possible
to find an original vinyl pressing on Ebay somewhere,
but all replacement pressings I've bought so far were
on that cheap plastic the record companies introduced
to save a few pennies and which probably killed the LP
market. [Although the originals may be in the Public
Domain in England & elsewhere, they may not so be in
the USA & elsewhere.] Please note that my engineered
versions are also not in Public Domain.
S D Rodrian's LP Enrico Caruso

As I now listen to music only through headphones it is
annoying to hear monaural recordings for any length of
time. Therefore I adapted my old Caruso recordings to
simulate stereo. And, as long as I was here, I also
reduced the ancient noise built-into them as well. It
did affect Caruso's tone a might, but perfection is a
distant achievement yet for human beings: the
important thing to me is that I can now listen to this
greatest of singers without having to take an aspirin
afterwards. [Note that although the originals may be
in the Public Domain in England & elsewhere, they may
not so be in the USA & elsewhere.] And certainly,
these "engineered" versions are not in Public Domain.

There is a great deal of misunderstanding and false
lore concerning Enrico Caruso. Some of it created by
the Mario Lanza film, yes. Most of it passed down from
people who were overwhelmed to have heard him in
person... about his "big, powerful" voice. There is
also a lot of negative stuff heard from people who
have only experienced him through the multitude of
"noisy, scratchy" 78's he made for RCA and others.
Of course, we can only experience Caruso now (and
evermore) via those "noisy, scratchy" records. And
these 78's can never convey any of the "power" of his
"big" voice (even if what they say about it was really
there). Additionally, we now have many engineering
and computer tech marvels which can "clean up" all
the noise threatening to overwhelm his voice. And
what remains for us is one of the most beautiful voices
ever recorded, and one of the most natural and skilled
musicians ever. [The only problem, of course, is that
ALL these "tech fixes" also shave out their shades of
Caruso's voice too, so that the only way to still get
at that so impressive sound/performance is for your
brain to "shut out" the noise in which it is nestled.]

I hope these few "cleaned up" samples from his quite
tremendous discography clearly demonstrate to you
those two real and undeniable facts about this great
singer (that beautiful unmatched voice, and the
heartfelt musical authority which DOES characterize
his skill & which ARE forever fixed upon those old
78's by the ancient technology which created them),
so that you may eventually listen to the raw original
recordings and, as I early on learned to do... teach
yourself to "tune out" all those unpreventable
scratchy noises [and then you can "pick out" from
within them the unimaginably beautiful voice of one
of the greatest vocal musicians you will ever hear].
S D Rodrian's LP Barbarito Diez

Topics Miguel Matamoros, Antonio María Romeu, Cuban
song, danzón, guajira, montuna, bolero, son oriental,
criolla, habanera, Afro-Cuban melodies, Antonio María
Romeu, Cuban song, danzón, guajira, montuna, bolero,
son oriental, criolla, habanera, Afro-Cuban melodies

These are precious recordings salvaged from ancient
& abused LPs by recently made available computer
technology (of course they're compromised). [Although
the originals may be in the Public Domain in Cuba,
Britain & elsewhere, they may not so be in the USA &
elsewhere.] Please note that my engineered/edited (to
emphasize the voice) versions are also not in Public

More than Celia Cruz, La Orquesta Aragón, Lecuona,
Ñico Membiela, Perez Prado, Beny Moré, or even the
archetypal Trio Matamoros... Barbarito Diez was (and
probably will forever remain) the classic voice of the
Cuban songbook: His delivery was as natural as
Sinatra's (one could easily visualize no difference
between his speaking and singing), except, of course,
that better than perhaps every other popular "crooner"
who ever grabbed a mike, Barbarito Diez could touch
the heart & soul of his listener with the sheer
attractiveness and raw beauty of his mesmerizing
voice. It also helped that the old Cuban songs were
genuine poems for the most part: straightforward,
heartfelt, replete with wonderful metaphors, rhymes,
and similes which so vividly pictured whatever they
described... they were also set to melodies which
once heard were hard ever to forget again.

Doubt shakes debate.
Certainty's the death I hate.

Out of never wanting to go
comes all I know.

I am amazed to see Americans being told to build
barricades & hide under the tables when attacked in
their workplaces, in their schools, THEIR homes like
some helpless sheep being gathered up in a tight flock
when they are attacked by wild predators!  This is not
the America I remember. The America I remember went
out immediately after the ravagers and then hunted and
killed every last one of them until it was safe once
again for innocent children to walk their streets, play in
their parks, and not have to fear that they were going to
be murdered in their own schools as human sacrifice to
some unimaginably barbarous and evil ancient god!
Saudi Arabia, an ISIS That Has Made It

From, If you keep saying Saudi Arabia is like the ISIS,
you might get sued

"Comparison(s)" [of Saudi Arabia] "to the Islamic State
appears to be a particular bone of contention for the
Saudi kingdom. Speaking to NBC News earlier this year,
Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour al-Turki
justified the use of capital punishments such as
beheadings in the kingdom by saying the country's
Shariah-based legal system ensures fairness. 'ISIS has
no legitimate way to decide to decide to kill people,"
Al-Turki said, adding that 'the difference is clear.'"

This individual has not an inkling in his decayed brain
that murdering human beings because they say that
"supernatural creatures do not exist" is the exact same
thing as murdering them because they might say that
"things that don't exist don't exist." The right to state
this fact is one of humanity's most universal rights of all:
valid for everyone everywhere! And impossible to deny
because to deny it is to deny reality itself.

The burden of proof is ALWAYS upon those who state
a positive (in the present case, that "the supernatural
creatures" which overly creative folks have dreamt up
across human history DO exist): The state of atheism
is the original state of Man (perfect & pure & free), of
a Mankind even before it was Mankind... before it was
bound by the first lie.

And it matters not the process: It is ALWAYS murder to
kill anyone just for saying what is "in fact the truth to
begin with" [in effect... "before  The Invented Lie  has
been laid over The Truth like a mantle for the purpose
of covering it up"]. You can't just make up some Specter
or other & then decree (after the fact) that it's lawful to
kill anyone who says your Specter is purely imaginary:

In almost every last case every last God that we've ever
come up with can be traced back to almost the exact
date its all too human author made it up--with the only
thing remaining to be told being... THE specific reason
why it was the jokester who created it to begin with did
it (albeit it was probably done for the same exact reason
that all men make all that they make: in order to make
themselves rich/powerful). And certainly this is most
painfully true of our familiar/most cherished Western
gods: Jesus, Allah, and Jehovah. Don't just say God is:

        Prove there is a God. Period.

Someone who simply says that he has NO obligation
whatsoever to believe "everything he is told" [simply
because he's been told it] is just stating the most self-
evident, obvious & commonplace, indisputable, first
and foremost of all truths. And to not respect that
first inalienable human right as God's Truth is the sin.
The War On Free Speech (The New Witch Hunt)

As an advocate and proponent of the idea that "what
doesn't kill you makes you strong" (and that the only
words that really may kill you are: "Kill him!") here are
a few well-written news articles on Free Speech and
Freedom of Expression:

Free speech is flunking out on college campuses
By Catherine Rampell
   And, as well:
Liberal intolerance on the rise at colleges

Restoring free speech on campus
By Geoffrey R. Stone and Will Creeley

The progressive ideas
behind the lack of free speech on campus
By Wendy Kaminer

George Will: Colleges have free speech on the run

Here’s what happened when I challenged the PC
campus culture at NYU

College is not for coddling

UC teaching faculty members not to criticize
race-based affirmative action, call America
‘melting pot,’ and more

America’s higher education brought low

Liberals Should Be Deeply Disturbed by Political
Correctness Craze Sweeping College Campuses

On the front lines of the fight for free speech
at Yale ... By Greg Lukianoff

A professor is under fire after saying Black Lives
Matter is as racist as the KKK

Higher education is awash with hysteria. That
might have helped elect Trump.

Shut up and play nice:
How the Western world is limiting free speech
By Jonathan Turley

If you want to read a nice statement about human
nature as far as politics is concerned this this one

If colleges keep killing academic freedom,
civilization will die, too

The meaning of life is what you do with your life.
If you don't do anything with your life: that is the
perfect definition of your life being meaningless.
How to explain away the unjust disparities of wealth?
Well: Some have wealth so that they may understand
the needs of others, while some are poor so that they
also may understand: the so casual inhumanity of Man.
During the heights of The French Revolution the
liberal left-wingers who had gained control of France
finally culminated their mad race to establish in
fact their ideal of having Man become virtuous by
instituting The Terror (bringing their Heavenly ideals
to fruition thus here upon this corrupt world). Well?

Well... replays, reruns, rehashes of this long-since
vanished irrationality have now firmly taken root in
too many of our "liberal" schools
(with the obvious
difference that instead of sending its victims to the
guillotine, here all the "little terrors" which the new
juvenile university mobs are raising (thus far) are
but only ruining careers and costing its victims jobs
and/or their once cherished & dream educations.

As it happened in the French Reign of Terror, the
current all-over-the-place mini Terrors which have
broken out in our universities seem to be longing for
some mystical Dictator, some ghastly Robespierre to
take over the job of lobbying off the heads of their
victims (so they do not have to look at their blood on
their own guilty hands). Fortunately, such a person
can never be under the present circumstances of this
great nation & the spoiled puny adolescent tantrums
these kids would have be their new Reigns of Terror.

So, where/how is it all going to end? France's own
Terror was at last brought to an end by the sheer
indignation that it raised at seeing so many obvious
innocents being guillotined. And even now we are
beginning to see "hints" of this same eventuality in
some pertinent quarters: More & more liberals and
[themselves also once among the dreadful
"Members of The Convention" and even the highest
card-carrying "members of the committee"] are slowly
starting to realize that keeping The Terror unleashed
too long increases the possibility that they too might
be "judged not virtuous enough" and then--What!

Robespierre finally had the recklessness to speak at
the Convention against its members: "The man who has
made himself master of us all, who has paralyzed our
resolve is the very man who has just now spoken...
Robespierre!" Cambon shouted. And, "It's Robespierre!
It's Robespierre!" The accusing shouts followed from
the other previously silent voices in the Convention:
"Let Robespierre give us an account of the crimes of
the members whose death he has demanded from the
Jacobins." Their attack was so unexpectedly and so
furious that Robespierre found himself stunned, unable
to answer them--It was finally the end for The Terror.

We ourselves have no Robespierre, of course, but
in these "safe zones" our universities' little terrors
have created (where no one's allowed to disturb the
emotional indulgences of students suckling the ideal
that life's meant to bend to their own feelings & that
this harsh world should be a nurturing womb & cradle)
they've managed to recreate that monstrous being:
And just about anybody now could be brought down
by but innocently trespassing upon one of them...

Will you now bring the intolerant forces of hypocrisy
that are again trying to pass themselves off as Virtue
to heel? They're driving the new Terror shouting down
enemies real or imagined here--condemning all men
out of hand without having heard from them a word.
Or will you wait for the backlash (inevitable) to whip
'round & strike down all that you now hold dear/near?

"It is for the individual members of the University
community, not for the University as an institution,
to make those judgments for themselves, and to act
on those judgments not by seeking to suppress
speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the
ideas that they oppose
She wanted to criticize Black Lives Matter in a college
speech. A protest shut her down.

Fools arrogant enough to restrict the freedoms of
their adversaries always seem startled when tomorrow
their adversaries use those same restrictions on their
freedoms. Wise men will always protect their enemies'
freedoms as if they were protecting their own because,
in the end, that is precisely what they are doing.
Are all censures/condemnations of God wrong?

Not if you believe God is good: For in that case evil
attributed to God should definitely be censured, as
should a God that is evil be condemned & censured.

Christians believe Jesus is such a God of The Good.
Therefore any evil attributed to God disqualifies such
a God from being the God Christians believe Jesus to
be. It would be unacceptable for Christians to think
that Jesus in any way/shape/form is capable of Evil.
Any evil claimed in the name of Jesus is anathema.
Any evil done in the name of Christianity is truly an
abomination--Therefore any God which approves or
encourages Evil is worthy of censure/condemnation.

Muslims, on the other hand, make no moral judgments
regarding Allah: Unquestionably Muslims commit many
horrors/fiendish cruelties in the name of Allah; and,
in fact, the Koran itself advises Muslims to terrorism
& other inhumanities
which many Muslims carry out
with jolly great disregard of their unquestioned Evil.

Therefore the Muslim God is NOT a God of The Good. And
this is the reason Allah is a God that MUST be censured
and condemned by Christians: Fail to do so at your peril.

This alone is why Allah could NOT possibly be the God
of Christians. Nor can he ever be. And no matter how
much Muslims and others may try to claim otherwise.
It is not up to the United States nor to any outsiders
to determine how the Jews and the Muslims of the Holy
Land must live together: Only they & they alone can
settle that matter. Any "solution" imposed from the
outside will fail as miserably as the Oslo Accords and
every other outside imposition have failed up to now

It is self-evidently a grave misconception to imagine
that the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is one which can be
even addressed in any way/shape/form by diplomacy
between the Israelis & the Palestinians, since the root
Cause of the problem (probably The Only One) is that
the Muslim Palestinians are held in the grip of a deadly
cult whose god commands them to murder the Jews
"wherever they find them." [How on earth are the Jews
ever going to argue/reason/plea or "deliberate" out of
existence this religious command?!] No: If there is
going to be any so-called "diplomatic" solution to the
deadly Israeli-Palestinian Conflict it is going to have to
come exclusively through negotiations between the
Palestinian Muslims and their god. And what possible
role could the Israeli Jews have in such negotiations?!

The only possible thing the Israeli Jews can do is to
hold the Palestinian Muslims by the throat to keep
them from murdering them. And the greatest mystery
is why the Jews don't kill off the Palestinian Muslims
or kick them out as far away as they can from Israel.
(As the only other alternative is the suicide of Israel.)

No matter what anybody tells you... those are the only
options the Palestinians have ever given to the Israelis.
Instead of spewing hatred/fear for/of but children &
women, and proposing plans/schemes out of a less
civilized past
(as too many of the West's elites seem
to be being carried away now by the rising tide of terror
into considering doing) what these swept elites should
be doing is acting intelligently: There ARE answers to
this sea of migrants & refugees, and these workable
answers CAN involve humanitarian solutions that do
no harm to our own Western values, for God's Sakes:

The proper place to house/safeguard all these Syrian
[+] refugees is in Syria itself, or in all of its adjacent
Muslim countries. The West has the means to create
such safe areas for them, and to house/feed them
there, and to protect them militarily. And why the
West is not doing it ... is quite the other question.

In any case it's pointless to be afraid of the handful
of terrorist acts which might be committed by newly
arriving Muslim migrants (most terrorist acts in the
West have been & will most probably continue to be
committed by its long-term immigrants and their
descendants who are born here). No. The lesson that
history teaches us is that two peoples cannot share the
same land--It's seldom if ever happened anywhere:

It is the story of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, where the
Muslims will never concede that the Jews have a right
even to their own historically Jewish ancestral lands
because the Muslim religious texts command them to
steal them from the Jews. And even in the United
States it was necessary to fight a bloody Civil War
in order to determine whether the country belonged
to the Northerners or they allowed the Southerners
to break it up). And they lived in geographical regions
almost completely separate from each other.

A large influx into Europe of peoples who will never
become Europeans can only eventually/inevitably
likewise produce a struggle between two peoples for
the land (since, as in the United States, I doubt that
the Europeans would permit swathes of Europe to be
turned into new Muslim countries for these groups).

Note that even now the Europeans are still reluctant
to admit the Jews are as much Europeans as they
themselves, and this when European society is as much
a creation of its European Jews as it is of its non-Jews.

... Well, everywhere they come from the Muslims have
been taught to hate & hold in contempt almost every
last principle that European society holds dear... from
freedom of speech and freedom of expression, to even
democracy, respect for the opinions of others however
one may disagree with them, and the startling notion
(to them) that we are ruled by the laws of Man not God's
with all the human rights which this entitles us to claim.

Do you enjoy living where you are presumed innocent?
Know this: The inextricable nexus that exists between
freedom of speech & the presumption of innocence is
what makes both of them possible (and foreordained, in
fact inevitable) in Western democracies; and anathema
in the world's tyrannies. Look at it this way...

Having proof of it, there is no difference between
saying "Islam is bad" and saying "someone is bad."

But having no proof, on the other hand, saying that
"Islam is bad" demands no more proof of its truth than
does saying "Islam is good" because it's a permissible
expression of one's opinion--and we all have a right
to our opinion about things [don't we!] whether we are
right or wrong. This is the spirit of our tradition of
freedom of speech/freedom of expression: It's lunacy
to ask that someone prove he/she has an opinion.

Saying someone is bad, on the other hand [a charge
with many levels of degrees], is obviously a personal
accusation which always demands a heavy burden of
proof from the accuser (while demanding no proofs
whatever from the accused). This is the very spirit of
our traditional presumption of innocence--that no one
need prove their innocence: We are only ever asked to
answer charges, not to defend our innocence.

In Western democracies thanking/saying the government
is bad can never be criminalized without criminalizing
the presumption of innocence along with it. Obviously
then where there is no freedom of speech no one can
ever be presumed innocent as these two principles are
inextricably tied together: Better than anything else,
we are what we think--One cannot have presumption of
innocence where freedom of speech & freedom of
expression are outlawed because then what someone
thinks is more than enough to convict him even before
he is ever asked to answer any specific charges.

That said, the 'Charlie Hebdo' cartoon proposing the
infamous drowned Syrian boy would have grown up to
be a sex criminal
is one which ought to be censored
(outlawed) because, on purpose or not, it very clearly
suggests that the murder of a child is somehow a
legitimate form of crime prevention--Whereas we all
know that to be an utterly ridiculous perversion. And,
as I said, it doesn't matter whether that was the intent
of the cartoonist any more than it matters whether the
intent of somebody firing a gun randomly out in the
street was to hit the person he/she killed: It is an act
of "reckless disregard for human life" in either case
(especially if someone actually takes up the twisted
suggestion it expresses and kills some innocent child
simply because he/she is an immigrant): Such naked
shameless legitimizations of murder, however they may
be suggested, are & forever ought to be unacceptable
& outlawed in/by any civilization worthy of its name.

Freedom of speech & freedom of expression are our
shields of defense, not our leave to do others harm.

Freedom of speech/freedom of expression do not
extend to permitting even the suggestion that harming
innocents (and/or senselessly committing crimes) is in
any way, shape, or form legitimate; and it never must.
How the left uses political correctness to censor speech
Nobel panel saw Obama peace prize as ‘mistake,’

Duh! You give the Nobel Peace Prize to someone who has
actually done something to bring about peace in this world,
someone like a Harry S. Truman, or a Woodrow Wilson, to
a Franklin Delano Roosevelt, or to Winston Churchill--not to
idiots who just sit there (like a Barack Obama or a Jimmy
Carter) and "do no harm!" Doing nothing (what these idiots
think of as "doing no harm") is THE indisputable cause of
every last conflict, tragedy, and every misfortune in the
entire length of history... of every proverbial triumph Evil
has ever had in this world.  S D Rodrian
A Nobel to Bob Dylan & not to Elvis or The Beatles?!

Fret not for Philip Roth and all those other novelists
and essays and poets and prose writers out there who
have produced their reams & mountains of literature:

The award of the Nobel Prize for Literature to Bob
Dylan is a marvelous gift to all those of us (actual
writers of literature) who have never gotten the award
ourselves, as it is the Swedish Academy's very own
statement that the award has no value whatsoever.

Now we don't have to feel any qualms about never
having been awarded the Nobel Prize after all!

Although... there is all that cash ... which probably
always was all there really ever was to it: That is the
one valid regret about it that will never truly go away.
I wonder whether Bob Dylan needed any of that cash?

And... "The Answer" is ... blowin' in the wind?!

A great writer must at the very least propose some
meaningful or profound understanding, and beautiful
melodies aside, Bob Dylan's solved nothing. His lyrics
resolve into nonsense because it is never enough to
merely sound meaningful. His songs may be melodically
great, true, but in them nothing's solved. And resolving
harmonies is nothing like solving the thing. S D Rodrian
People award prizes and acclaim to those who share
their prejudices & their superstitions: What prizes or
what acclaim could they possibly award to me who so
despises & condemns their prejudices & superstitions?
The Latest: Merkel Confident Germany Can Integrate

They haven't been able to integrate the couple of
thousand Muslims they've had there for 40 years, and
now suddenly they're going to integrate a couple of
million more Muslims?!?! [Even America hasn't fully
integrated its black population yet--and Merkel is
going to integrate millions of Muslims, what, before
she leaves office?] God! I will never cease to be
amazed by people's ability to delude themselves and
live in complete and total denial.

German intel: Migrants will bring anti-Semitism

Multiculturalism? Has anybody heard of Chinatown?!

In the face of watching the deadly consequences of
trying to have two peoples living in the same country
in the Middle East the Europeans are now engaging in
social engineering Europe as a land of geometrically
different peoples being forced to abide in the same

And just as this has proven to be a disaster in the
Middle East this is certainly going to be a tremendous
disaster in Europe. Guys, just take a CLOSER look at
America (the so-called land where multiculturalism
succeeds the best): Here we have "white" areas and
"black" areas, Italian, German, Jewish, Polish, Puerto
Rican, Irish, Chinese, and Korean, and Hungarian...
and every other ethnic neighborhood in the world each
and every one of them quite hermetically separate and
sealed away from each other--Multiculturalism just
don't woik. It is a delusion. And it is a deadly delusion.
Anyone who tells you it is O SO beautiful and that they
just love it is in denial--These idiots are certifiable. Do
NOT listen to these people: They are not describing
the world as it is but as they would like it to be and
they are gonna sell you down the river of no return.

The real reason multicultural America works IS because
it is a vastly rich wealthy country in which each & every
little group has a shot at economic success BY ITSELF
(and with practically no help whatever from any of the
other little surrounding groups): Someone in that little
group makes it (opens a successful business or some
such), and then he/she starts hiring people FROM that
little group whatever exclusively until they all succeed.

Note that those groups which have NOT yet succeeded
have not succeeded because they've been wait'n around
for people from groups other than their own to come
around and somehow kindly hand them success! [Yeah.]

I've lived it myself: I've spent my entire working life
in this country as a worker, and I can tell you that, as
a Cuban, I was hired almost exclusively by other
Cubans, or by non-Cubans who were looking to hire
Cubans exclusively EVERY TIME--For us Cubans Jews
were always a good bet because by the 1960s & 1970s
Jewish businesses could no longer find Jews to hire as
workers, or very few of them... the time when Russian
Jews came to this country and were hired by other Jews
(in the garment industry, etc.) was over, and they had
NO CHOICE but to hire us latest [Cuban] immigrants.

The Italian Mafia only hires Italians, the Irish Mafia
only hires Irishmen, the Jewish Mafia Jews only, the
"Black" Mafia only Blacks, the Colombian Mafia only
Colombians, and the Mexican Mafia only Mexicans. [Get
it through your head.] And it is no different when you
or I go out for an "honest" job interview: It helps
tremendously whether the job interviewer is seeking
someone like you or someone unlike him/herself (yes,
there are people like that). It's the story of life, guys.
And it plays out everywhere there are people in this
world. If you don't know this (sorry, but) you are one
pathetic ignoramus. And if your elected representatives
are as ignorant as this, then you and your descendants
will be in untold trouble for untold time to come. G'Luck!
Indeed: What's a few mass killings here & there if one
can bring together peoples who have been deadly
enemies for centuries in a marvelous multicultural
experiment to find out at last how long they can keep
these occasional provocations from finally pushing the
populations of Europe & The West into butchering each
other to the last man, woman & child in one good
old-fashioned all-out civil war bloodbath!
Dear Bleeding Heart Dudes: It is not a bit helpful to keep
pointing out that "Muslims are the principal victims of
Islamic Terrorism" when THAT is the principal argument
AGAINST letting more Muslim immigrants in here. Think!
Now: How come nobody's pointed out the obvious about
the San Bernardino Islamist Terrorist couple: "At least
they died doing the thing they loved." --You well know I
never let any opportunity get by me: O, 4 {i 1 mdfkr b}
‘Run them down’ tweet during Charlotte protests was
exercise of professor’s First Amendment rights, law school
dean says

Then so was Al Capone's "Yeah, kill'em! Kill'em all" to
his hit men. Which I guess explains why the Federalees
could only prosecute him for income tax evasion.
Anyone who claims that others hold "extreme views" is
really only saying that those people hold views which
are diametrically opposed to his. That is to say, people
who claim others hold extreme views most probably
hold views which are just as extreme as do the people
they claim hold extreme views: Look in the mirror first.
From the Archives: Columbus Day? True Legacy: Cruelty
and Slavery

I agree: All this crap about the United States (Canada
& all the nations here), capitalism's financing of today's
common man's unimaginable global wealth, democracy,
human rights, the defeat of tyrannies both of the right
and of the left (fascism & communism), our modern
scientific age, medicine's conquest of a 1000 or more
diseases, sanitation & the rest--what's that to us?! Fuck it
all. Let's all go back to the Dark Ages, where we belong.
[Islam wants us all to go back to the year 600, that's
a start right there--Why not.] Everybody knows that
"cruelty and slavery" never existed anywhere in the
entire breadth & length of the world before Columbus
--check it out! S D Rodrian _Actually: "Bravo Columbus!"
Look at what they tell you they're going to do, not at
what they tell you is going to happen once they do it:

The reprehensible people who are trying to pour Social
Security's money into the stock market know one thing
and one thing only: When all that money [suddenly
coming into the stock market] starts chasing [the few
stocks that they themselves own] the price of those
stocks is gonna shoot right through the roof--Then,
afterwards, when "the pushers" rush to cash in their
suddenly overvalued stocks: the price of the stocks
Social Security just bought is gonna drop all to Hell.

All you need do is but to consider this: How long do
you imagine that these "pushers" will be able to sit
on all those [suddenly overvalued] stocks knowing
that the first one of them to sell will make the
biggest profit--and the last one will be left holding
paper no longer valuable even as toilet tissue?

Why does the cereal float
but sinks at my longing dote?

Why does my butter melt
even before it's tonguefelt?

Strange things haunt breakfast
whether they go or last...

We wet nurse the hopes we buy
then they hang us all out to dry!

Finally, the government has decided to eliminate pork
— from the menu in federal prisons

The difference between granting a right and denying one
is not that hard to discern: A man's freedom from having
to eat pork, for whatever reason, is his right. One. But
prohibiting those who want to eat pork from doing so
is a clear violation of their rights. Two. [See?] And: If
the prohibition is because of a religious reason then it's
clearly unconstitutional because [the prison system
being an arm of the state] it is specifically enjoined
in the American Constitution from making ("establish")
any laws for a religious reason--Is this clear enough?

Even if all the inmates of a prison are Jews & Muslims
except for one, depriving that one inmate of his right
to eat pork is still a clear violation of his right. And I
would go farther: Even if all the inmates are Jews and
Muslims, establishing any religion-based rule is still a
violation of the Constitution... whose First Amendment
clearly states:"Congress," (and by extension all of the
nation's laws-creating bodies) "shall make no law
respecting ("concerning") an establishment of religion."

In this amazingly egregious case the prison system
"establishes" that everybody must follow a particular
religion's rules--Could anything be more outrageously

Dear sirs, "the gov" cannot "establish" people's menu
because of some religious prejudice or other. Period.

            Ah, but...

  QUOTES: "the decision was based on a survey of
  prisoners’ food preferences: They just don’t like
  the taste of pork." THEN: "As of last week, the
  prison menu had added an 'economically viable'
  turkey bacon substitute."

Waitaminute! They do not like pork, but they do like
their pork-like turkey? Methinks somebody in the prison
bureaucracy's thinking everybody out there's an idiot.

   "... the Bureau of Prisons ... said the decision
   was based on a survey of prisoners’ food
   preferences: They just don’t like the taste of
   pork. [While the National Pork Producers Council
   isn’t buying it: “I find it hard to believe that a
   survey would have found a majority of any
   population saying, ‘No thanks, I don’t want any
   bacon,'” said Dave Warner, a spokesman for the
   Washington-based trade association, which
   represents the nation’s hog farmers.]"

Bet you  you know any number of Jews who'd rather
convert than turn down th'occasional ham sandwich
(especially if they're Cuban Jews). And as a Cuban
myself... let me assure you that there is no meat on
this entire earth that can beat pit-roasted pork. The
suggestion that there are people out there who'd take
corned beef over roast pork is either pure insanity or one
whoppingly preposterous barefaced lie. Guess which
this is.

As well: Anyone suggesting that this is being done to
save money and not for some religious purpose better
be ready to prove that offering an all-meat menu saves
a lot more money than serving an all-pork one. Have
you eaten at a half-way decent steak house lately?!

Reading between the lines... could all this just be
because as more and more criminals discover the
robbery-sanctioning, crime-justifying and murder-
endorsing, rape-approving nature of the Islamic
"religion" suddenly they discover pork tastes bad?

 "The prison system has long made accommodations
  for Muslims and Jews by providing alternatives to pork
  and halal and kosher foods." [BUT] "Ross declined to
  say whether there has been an increase in Muslim or
  Jewish inmates in recent years and whether that may
  have factored into the survey responses." [Guess why.]
Muslim immigration and European Jewry

Never thought I'd say this, but with Muslims pouring
into Europe it may be time for Jews to start thinking
about packing it up--it may be exactly the same as when
they had to leave all those other Muslim lands... The
do-nothing-&-see-what-happens European leaders can't
even defend the European Christians (Hell, I don't even
think they understand the danger they've put them in)
... to expect them to defend the European Jews on top
of it is too much, I think. If I were Jewish and still
living in Europe I'd take out that legendary luggage
Jews keep under their beds for these such occasions
NOW and start packing it--At least, that's me because,
frankly, family is worth more than any ole principle.
For those who demand that the Europeans now must
change the secular culture they have wrenched from
Christian domination at the expense of untold blood
over a thousand years of struggle in order to respect
Muslim religious taboos (as Muslims are still obliged
to do in the Muslim lands because there they are still
the unquestioning slaves of THEIR religion): I remind
Muslims: You were the ones who chose to come to Europe
(and whether knowing -or not- the nature of European
societies is irrelevant): You did not choose to go to
an Islamic country. If now you find that you don't
like it "here" ... there are yet any number of Islamic
countries you are free to migrate to instead. But when
someone is invited to stay in a stranger's house and
DEMANDS that the home owners accept him as the
unquestioned arbiter of how the owners of that house
live there--That is the traditional recipe for disaster.
Freedoms are being walked back just only by the very
fact of Europe's growing Muslim immigrants: Do you
believe in God? Well, "daring" to express the opinion
that you don't is blasphemy; and Europeans are losing
their ability to blaspheme. At first by cowardly self-
censorship (no more Mohammads with their 'stylish'
bomb chapeaux for vous); but no doubt eventually by
force of law--And stating that "There Is No God" (in
whatever circumstance or context) is already against
the law in "some places" ... but eventually it may be
against the law everywhere, including Europe--We
certainly wouldn't want to offend Muslims' sensitivities
now? First, though, that law against Mohammad in a
bomb chapeau they're talking about: First things first.
Finnish demonstrators attack refugees with stones and

These miserable attacks against refugees and migrants
by mobs of European thugs are utterly inhuman and
unacceptable. These refugees are genuine victims:
victims of the wars which Middle Eastern leaders are so
pointlessly/maliciously waging AND victims of European
leaders' incompetent inability and/or unwillingness to
deal intelligently with the ever-rising crisis of all these
refugees--a crisis which can be handled & should have
been handled better: It ought to have been tackled at
the source, which is their countries of origin [where the
ultimate source of all this current chaos/breakdown of
law & order across all those "countries" stems from
all the self-serving European hasty and uninformed
nation-building there... which the West's wars against
the inevitable monsters & tyrants that have risen there
are only an uninformed/self-defeating continuation of):

These unfortunate migrants may be victims even of
themselves (for they are almost universal victims
wherever they are from & wherever they end up): Solve
their problems--whose making all of you share in--and
you will solve the problem you have with them. But for
European mobs now to victimize these people on top of
everything else is really unseemly beyond the pale and
absolutely/utterly unworthy of anyone thinking himself
civilized.        S D Rodrian
America (nor most other Western nations) does/do not
want to acknowledge that all of these Islamic terrorists
are terrorists because they are Islamic
. So how can
America & the rest of the Western World ever hope to
get to the root of why these terrorists are terrorists
if they refuse to acknowledge what is at the root of
their terrorism? These terrorists are not terrorists
because they are mentally insane (unlike all those
crazies who've carried out mass murder BECAUSE they
are clinically insane) ... they are not terrorists for
economic reasons, and they are not terrorists because
of some warped political bent. No: They are terrorists
because the Koran commands them to be terrorists
, and
until America acknowledges that unavoidable truth...
we will have to contend with a terrorism which we will
never understand & therefore never find a solution to.
Unfortunately, most American news outlets nowadays
"filter" all of their outputs through politically correct
sieves--leaving their audience/readers separated from
the realities to which they should be getting access.

Yes, it is far worse in most other countries; but it
is still inexcusable that it should be happening here...
where news outlets with a political leaning ought not
to be allowed to pretend they are unbiased reporters.
[This can not be done by law in the U.S., but it can
still be brought about by public pressure & rebuke.]

If what the people are getting are window-dressed
realities, then they shall make all their decisions on
those (rather than on the true realities of the world
in which they live): This is a perilous practice in a
democracy (where supposedly the people should be
making their real-world decisions on their realities
by having direct access to them). And the media does
this on rather flimsy excuses such as "the kids might
be watching" & such [which only makes us kids all].

The only way the people can make their decisions on
their realities IS to have unhindered & un-colored (or
completely unqualified "unfiltered") access to their
realities ... however ugly, crass [et al] they are or
might be. For, when reality shall be but a show put
upon a people thus blinded by whichever & whatever
newsmasters might be putting on the show... it will be
those newsmasters who will really be making all of the
decisions in their democracy, and not the people. This
is a deadly practice which must either be brought to
an end by the people or it will itself end democracy.

  Theoretically.. every last citizen of every Muslim
  country on earth can qualify for political asylum.

All these migrants rushing into Europe are fleeing the
wars that Islam has unleashed in their world: They are
swamping Europe to escape the devastation of those
wars--which their own "convictions" have inevitably
produced and must forever produce even unto the very
last day they hold to all such self-damning convictions.

Unfortunately they are bringing with them the seeds of
the future selfsame wars of those religion convictions...
wars which they and/or their descendants will unleash
on Europe. [What, you thought that not abandoning the
reason for those Muslim Wars was going to abolish them?]

None of those migrant Muslim populations will EVER
be "European" in any sense: They will never embrace
democracy or accept that religions other than Islam are
its equal and should be honored and respected. They
will never embrace freedom for women. They will never
espouse for gays anything but murder. They will never
embrace brotherhood with non-Muslims, least of all for
Jews. They will never abandon the Islamic ideal of world-
conquest (conversion or death). They will never live in
peace with their neighbors, Muslims or not... because
the central ideal of Islam is turning the entire world into
whatever cult, sect, shade or manner of Islam they might
happen to have been born into... Shia, Sunni, Ahmadiyyas,
Sufis, Baha’is, Druze, Alawis, and God-only-knows how
many others... ALL of which are convinced to their death
that God has created man [themselves] to conquer the
entire world for their own particular sect ... whichever!
[Muslims are about the only religious cult which still preaches
that the highest ritual God demands of us, and therefore
rewards above all others, is human sacrifice & murder.]

Therefore none of the Muslim migrant populations pushing
into Europe will EVER really become European. The only thing
which can result from admitting them into Europe is to
eventually/inescapably turn Europe into a sort of greater/
vaster/bloodier Syrian or Central African Republic conflict.

There's a terrible tragedy going to happen in that place: the
Germans who are welcoming all those Muslim migrants really
do believe them to be like some sort of Swiss or something;
and it's all going to end up in a quite predictably bloody mess
when they finally discover what they truly are. But, of course,
this is not something which is politically correct to say. And
the adorably liberal Europeans will not admit its truth until
it is far too late and they are "inexplicably" being butchered
in their homes... by their neighbors! [But they were all so
generously welcomed by them in their hour of need!] Yes.
That's always a comforting thought, of course. (For now.)

There is an old Cuban saying which applies here: "El que
por su gusto muere, la muerte le sabe a gloria." Or: "Death
tastes like Glory to those who die the death they have chosen
for themselves." And this is why I feel more a sort of detached
fascination than pity or even sympathy for this terrible self-
inflicted fate which the Europeans seem to have unquestionably
chosen for themselves. It's so interesting, almost entertaining!

I do agree that the Middle East migrant crisis was
primarily caused by European and well-intended but
idiotic ignoramuses like G.W. Bush, Barack Obama, and
others like them. Dear sirs all: Islamic countries are
either unimaginably harsh dictatorships (as many there
once were there & will be) or they are volatile places
of chaos & bloodshed (as many there are there now),
but they are never (never have been & never will be)
stable Western style secular democracies--Turkey tried
to be one after WWI, but, as expected, Erdogan is now
slowly turning it into the typical Islamic tyranny
which must inevitably result once the secular
dictators are overthrown in any Islamic country, again
as a direct result of hopelessly misguided/ignorant
Western expectations that democracy would make Turkey
into a stable Western style secular democracy)...

The Muslim populations now running into Europe really
do believe that it is not Islam which is at the root
of the evil that sweeps their old homes but only a few
evil men, therefore wanting nothing more than to
create a new Muslim Europe free of such evil men...
completely and totally believing that destroying
democracy in Europe with its permissive and "sinful"
liberal human rights (instituting a "pure" Sharia free
of secular Islamic tyrants) will finally give them the
peace and prosperity, ethical/moral stability sold to
them by the Islamic propagandists who damned them in
the first place back home--Without once realizing the
utter foolishness of their self-made past and future
catastrophe. And they will inexorably push (even unto
the death) for this monstrous folly: No amount of
education or indoctrination will tear this folly from
them. And Islam punishes with instant/immediate death
any the least thought of "conversion" away from it

The Europeans, even without American help, had the
military might to create "safe zones" in the Middle
East, protecting them with their militaries, while
supplying them with their modern transportation
systems & technologies... so that these refugees from
the wars there might find refuge until all such wars
settled down--but it would have cost a little money
and required a little imagination, and taken a bit of
knowledge & wisdom. Fine. None such was forthcoming.
Now everyone will have to pay more: much/much more.
Always the great inevitable price of all such ignorant
John Ashbery, exalted poet of boundless verve, dies at 90

The thing I like most about Ashbery's poetry is that
as you read it your mind wanders away and then it
doesn't bother you as much: My favorite line in all
Ashbery's poems? "We had macaroni for lunch" [My
God, man! It speaks so powerfully of the universality
of stomachs! It's like a punch in the gut.] Or, "What
is the difference between a poet and somebody who
just writes words into a page?" [from the best-selling
On John Ashbery and Emily Dickinson] Apologia Mia:
Look, I've read reams and reams of Ashbery's poetry.
Reams! I have no objections to his being described
as a great reamer. --S D Rodrian
The Turks under the Great Recep Tayyip Erdogan have
killed, what, 300-400 Kurds (probably a lot more) so
now the Kurds are just as probably not going to be
satisfied until they kill the same number of Turks in
Ankara, Istanbul, Izmir and other cities--Apparently
the Turks must have convinced themselves they could
kill people here & there and not have them try to kill
them back in retaliation: But, as Islamists themselves,
the Kurds apparently love nothing more than sending
themselves to Paradise by blowing themselves up in
the process of murdering "God's enemies" (in this
case: Turks, from their perspective). So I think the
Turks are in for some marvelous Islamic blowback
against their own Islamic bloodlust--For which they
can all thank their ambitious would-be caliph Erdogan!
Notes on the ballet I recently attended (it was pretty
good, actually)...

1) if they wouldn't applaud so much it'd go a lot faster

2) ballet is like a silent movie only way more gay

3) some of the girls have really nice thighs (and the
boys should be made to wear regular pants, frankly):
The best thing they do is lift the girls up so they can
throw theirs legs around like they do at the Burlesque
across the street a ways... [it's a job]

4) no ballet should last longer than 25 minutes: If
you've watched 25 minutes worth of ballet then you've
probably seen just about every move the human body
is capable of (and the rest is repetition, as they say).

5) yes, I can see why they don't want dumpy short-
legged dancers in the ballet, but I'd have a couple of
midgets run through there once in a while... as a gag
--Hell, I don't think that audience laughed even once
during that whole entire long performance! [I did.]
War, What Is It Good for? Absolutely Nothing.

Dear sir: History IS the history of war. All of the
highest civilizations on earth peaked ONLY after they
had won their wars for peace against their enemies.
Wars have made us what and who we are. History
is not the history of knitting, nor of moving stuff
back & forth on donkeys, nor of dreaming & talking,
nor of trading apples & horses & pigs & spice... but
of the wars fought to allow people to do all that. And
to do all that... we needed, and still need, to fight
wars in order to determine who's gonna be allowed
to do it. In the human experience: War is all & all is
war. War is the definition of human activity, of human
settlement, of human progress, and of humanity itself
for war is the only way to bring about the greatest
good for the most people. The greatest evil has been
done by those who have thwarted the war for Good.
And the way to peace is not to try to ban war but to
fight the right war. -- S D Rodrian
Even now China is making a grab for territorial waters
traditionally belonging to surrounding nations BECAUSE
it knows the Obama Administration will not go to war
to stop it--And thereby insuring that eventually there
will have to be an even more terrible war in the near
future to bring things back to the peaceful way they
were before China lost the fear of war from Obama--
Now tell me who will be the real author of that awful
war that's shaping up in Asia... and who shaped it.
As for Mister Obama... Dear Mr. President: So far in
your terms, you have made a whoppingly spectacularly
disastrous mess of the entire world (from China to
Europe to the Middle East, et al). And now some people
for some reason seem to believe that this Iran deal of
yours is going to be a phenomenal success--Isn't that
(expecting a different result from the same repeating
process) Einstein's classical definition of insanity?...
You know, if the left & others keep telling "white
folk" over & over again that they better believe they
are racists... they're gonna start believing it. And
then acting out who they've been convinced they are.
Hate letter sent to Mosque: 'Trump will do to Muslims
what Hitler did to the Jews'

I do not condemn Islamic Terror because it is Islamic
but because it's Terror. Therefore I condemn all forms
of Terror, everywhere they occur, for whatever reason,
and whomever they may be aimed at. True: If all sides
are engaged in acts of Terror... who can in all good
conscience then take sides, when in taking sides one
would invariably find himself standing on the side of Evil
(whichever side one took)? It's always unconscionable to
stand on the side of Evil--even if it is standing against
whatever other Evil may be standing on the other side.
However, this does not mean that I take at any time
into consideration anything other than the Terror acts
themselves, and therefore do I condemn all such acts.
"In February, 4 Coptic Christian teenagers were sent
to prison for five years for a video
that showed them
laughing as they recited Koranic verses while one ran
his hand against his neck, mimicking a beheading. The
boys said the video was intended to mock the Islamic
State’s violence, but the judge ruled that they had
insulted Islam."

I cannot imagine that even these inane teens did not
know that they were talking about the same thing.
For "the Islamic State’s violence" and Islam are the
same exact thing. Or: Where in Hell do you imagine
that "the Islamic State’s violence" comes from?!?
[Buddhist philosophy perhaps? Maybe Christian
practice? Why can't people think straight? This is
why political correctness is such a deadly poison.]

QUOTE: Article 98 of the Egyptian penal code—orders
a prison sentence of as long as five years and a hefty
fine for anyone who insults or strives to hurt other
religions, or spreads extremist religious thoughts. It
was first used under President Anwar Sadat in the
1970s to rein in the Muslim Brotherhood, which was
inciting attacks against Christians at the time."

In the name of respect for all religions I would ask
the Islamic World that expects people to believe all
sorts of nonsense to please express public support
for the Irish belief in Leprechauns, as well as that of
the English in fairies (of every dust & color). And if
not, why the Hell not? [Certainly neither fairies nor
Leprechauns are any great threat to anyone. And
they are certainly just as real and manifest as Allah.]

QUOTE: Islam Behery, an Islamic researcher and former
television show host, was given a one-year prison
sentence in December for questioning the sources of
some of the prophet Muhammad’s sayings. His television
show, “With Islam,” was shut down. And last month,
Egypt’s justice minister was fired for saying he would
throw the prophet Muhammad in jail if he perpetrated
a crime. Those remarks, too, were widely viewed on
social media as blasphemous. “The main direction for
the state is not to let the Islamists attack them for
being too liberal,” said Amr Salama, a film director.
“So they are becoming more conservative than the
Islamists. What happened with Fatma Naoot would
have never happened under the time of Mubarak, or
under the time of the revolution, or under Morsi.”

People who wouldst say anything against fairies or
Leprechauns in Egypt... had better watch how they
disparage them there! [And, say I, it's about time!]
Lynch: Spike In Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes Is A 'Stain
On Our Nation's Very Soul'

Curiously, Lynch said not a word about the crimes that
the Muslims have been committing all over the world
from the day Mohammed invented the mumbo-jumbo of
Islam in order to ease the conscience of the members
of his gang of cutthroats over the monstrously inhuman
crimes he was asking them to commit during his crime
spree, and which monstrously inhuman crimes Muslims
are still committing [without humanity or conscience]
until just about two minutes ago: Read the papers,
watch the news! Heed the realities not the propaganda.

Do not let yourself be brainwashed the same way that
vicious & immoral propagandists [without conscience,
morality or scruples] manipulated these New York City
schoolchildren--because if you are not careful you too
most assuredly will be
: The Koran is not so much a
bible as it is a poisonous war manual--one which was
maliciously designed to suspend in Muslims all human
morals, scruples (and humanity itself): So therefore
be eternally forewarned that ANYONE promoting or
defending Islam will almost certainly have taken the
obscene lessons of the noxious Koran manual to heart.**
Mohammed designed Islam specifically to condone and
to excuse, to absolve and to forgive clear manifest and
unambiguous criminal behavior: Islam is ALMOST ALL
exclusively about the vile pretense that God approves
and is "made joyful" by all of the butchery and murder,
torture & rape & mayhem that is promoted in the Koran

"We are Americans, and Americans do not discriminate
against religion, against any religion." So they say.

But what if a criminal organization invents a religion
which protects them against such "discrimination"
against their criminality: does it then become immune
to the reach of law because it is now ALSO a religion?

I don't want the government to discriminate against
Muslims BECAUSE of their religiosity (let the Muslims
believe whatever the Hell they like). But I certainly
do absolutely want the government to look into any
actual criminality Muslims might be engaging in, or
being advised to engage in (because the promoting
of crime is itself a crime even in the absence of that
crime having taken place). Therefore, if Muslims do
not want to be investigated for criminality let them
expunge all the promotion of crime from the Koran.

You are not going to stop these terrorist acts until
you stop their incitement & promotion, their extolling
and eulogizing, and the glorifying of them... which is
what the Koran now does & will do until WE stop it.

When you already believe that your quickest path to
Heaven is butchering people of a different religion...
it most probably takes less of a push to make you do
it than it would take to push {somebody who believes
that killing anyone is the worst sin God punishes} to it.

Therefore let me live amongst the latter believers and
never amongst the former. For, think what you will, no
matter how much they might care for me... people who
can so easily be "nudged" to kill me ALWAYS will be a
great & present danger to me. And so therefore: It will
always be far safer by far to be hated by your Christian
neighbors than to be loved by your Muslim ones.

If religious beliefs go against the law, then I say
that their believers should be prosecuted for them,
and that they should be prosecuted LONG BEFORE
all such continuous promotion of criminality actually
results in the actual committing of any crimes at all.

Should we also prosecute Christians for any beliefs
which also promote crime? Absolutely! And right now:
The sooner, the quicker done the better off we'll be.
Better to remember late than never to recall at all.
Now, Issac Newton spent his entire life trying to figure
out why an apple had dropped down on his head. (Of
course, he WAS able to describe the laws of motion
with sterling precision, but --the reason-- for gravity
always eluded him.) Although some people say [not
horses, mind you, but people] that on his deathbed
Newton was finally able to understand why the apple
had fallen down on his head: As he told his attending
doctor: "It was due to the fact that it was an apple
tree--I'd hate to think what might have happened had I
been sitting under one of those tall watermelon trees!"
Cake Is His ‘Art.’ So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple?

In a perfect world I should be able to say that I do
not want you in my store. But we don't live in a
perfect world. And this sort of "right" promotes the
corruption of society [when everybody is free to
discriminate against the defenseless]. However,
because this "right" is so important, the prohibition
against such discrimination ought to be specified by
very specific laws (provided they are constitutional,
of course). Therefore: No. If there's a constitutionally
permitted law which prohibits such discrimination,
that store owner ought not to be able to deny [a cake]
to a gay couple anymore than he should be allowed to
deny one to a person of a color he dislikes or someone
from a religion or philosophy of which he disapproves.
People in non-Western cultures have a tendency to
speak AT each other, while here in the West we have
learned to speak WITH each other. This is reflected in
the types/forms of the drama written here and there.
Western drama tends to be dialogue-oriented, while
traditional non-Western drama seems to contain more
monologues, both external and internal, everywhere.
In trying to answer the question of how an EmDrive
works, Benjamin T. Solomon also half-hints at a
conventional solution to the question of how it is
that "quantities of matter" might be forced to move
towards each other in the absence of gravity [also:
"Prof. Gerardus 't Hooft had brought up something
interesting in his 2008 paper 'A locally finite model
for gravity' ... that 'absence of matter now no longer
guarantees local flatness...' meaning that accelerations
can be present in spacetime without the presence of
mass"] (--which is the state in which I describe our
--), [yes, accelerations of what?!] this way:

"In my 2012 book An Introduction to Gravity
Modification, I had explained the importance of
asymmetrical fields and designs for creating
propellantless engines. For example, given a particle
in a gravitational field and with respect to this
field's planetary mass source, this particle will
observe an asymmetrical gravitational field. The near
side of this particle will experience a stronger field
than the far side, and thus the motion towards the
planetary mass. Granted that this difference is tiny,
it is not zero..." [Benjamin T. Solomon]

He explains the observation in terms of gravitational
fields, whereas I am convinced the solution is that
[in a universe which is undergoing implosion] every
"quantity of mass" [in the universe] is moving towards
every other "quantity of mass" in it ... and therefore
the greater the "quantities" the bigger the observed
acceleration they will experience towards each other.

This will invariably always produce "quantities of
mass" which in the absence of any other like-/such
"quantities of mass" will tend to become spherical;
which at closer proximities with tend to elongate
towards each other; and which at greater/greater
distances will seem merely to "become mutually
attracted" to each other by the degrees of distances
at which they lie. [Thereby: the greater the "quantity
of mass" ... the greater the attraction--in effect,
the "acceleration" towards each other.] As is always
everywhere the case seen with our material universe.

In this way, an EmDrive may simply be a convoluted
mechanism for turning [solar] radiation into propulsive
[radiation, emphasis on the "radiating"], whereas solar
sails use that [radiation] directly. And thereby the fact
that an EM drive "seems to be more efficient" is that
sail propulsion requires that more mass be "pushed."
SC State Rep: I'll Introduce Legislation To Remove
Confederate Flag

Respect for Confederate "feelings" was a direct result
of Abraham Lincoln's (and then General Grant's) well-
intended [and in many ways wise] outreach to their
fellow-citizens in the defeated South. But that need
has long ago passed. So it is time to call a spade a
spade and finally recognize & formally declare the
Confederacy and all it stood for the dark treason it
was [with its outrageous/unconscionable attempt by
a few white slave-owners' unwillingness to forgo the
economic hardships of freeing their slaves & thereby
having to pay them a living wage for their labor). I
attended Robert E. Lee Junior High School down South,
and I always felt offended by the idea that the worst
traitor to the United States of America (far FAR worse
than Benedict Arnold--& by a long shot) should be so
"honored." Robert E. Lee could have saved hundreds
of thousands of American lives had he accepted
President's Lincoln's offer to become head of the U.S.
Army... but instead he ignominiously chose to offer
his military services to one the most loathsome causes
that any Army has ever been levied to fight for (human
slavery, and no sense trying to white-wash this fact).
Well, the years have remade "these states" into an
indivisible nation now, and I think it's time to formally
declare the treasonous Confederacy and all it stood
for dead, and to bury it once & for all.  S D Rodrian
The FBI has no idea how many hate crimes happen in
America each year

Well, as a Cuban I can tell them that almost every
encounter I've ever had here with a person of/in
authority has been from an ethnicity other than Cuban,
and almost every one of them has been hateful in some
manner or form. Let's start there. [Black people were
definitely the worst, closely followed by a lot of Irish
people, then Jews, Italians, and a few other European
ethnicities... Puerto Ricans must also be mentioned as
not all that good--however, no Asians or other Latin
Americans, Canadians, Native Americans, or (for the
most part) the French, surprisingly... too busy eating?]

One curious fact that always fascinated me was that
whereas I certainly bumped into a great many really
nasty racist "white men" here, I almost never found
their "white women" to be nearly as racist & almost
never nasty--which was not as true of blacks: their
women almost always were as racist (even if never
quite as nasty) as their men--in fact their kids were
racists, their old people were racists in surprising
numbers (as they should know better), and their
teenagers worst of all!

I came from a culture (Cuba) where blacks were nearly
senseless of race-consciousness & blind to racism, a
culture in which the very word "Negro" was used as
"a man's man" is used here and where the diminutive
"Negrito" universally meant "my dear one" or "beloved
one." So it was a shock to discover here that the very
people who should be the first to be trying to defeat
racism were amongst the most "race-conscious" of
Americans. [This is always an even greater shock to
black Cubans, who can't even begin to relate to their
fellow "African-Americans" here--And who are insulted
& berated, and even humiliated shamefully because
they do not share their hatred of "the white man."]

When my uncle first came to the U.S. he innocently
decided to "walk the town," like many a new-comer to
any city might, and he ended up being stopped by a cop,
a black cop, who told him to turn right around and go
back the way he'd come ... as he had unsuspectedly
ended up in a "black" area of Miami where "his safety
could not be guaranteed." That was my uncle's first
experience with the race hatred that is rampart here.
My own first experience of it was slightly different:

My mother, myself, and my little brother & sister had
to get in a bus to go for some government business
somewhere. That was 1960 or so. The bus that came up
was packed--it's a wonder it even stopped for us. But,
we pushed our way through the crowd and suddenly burst
into an almost empty place about half way through the
mob: The front half of the bus was filled with people
standing, while the last half was completely empty
except for about four or five people sitting around
back there! Incomprehensible, really. But, we all took
our seats back there, here & there, and that's when we
started noticing that... everybody up in the front of the
bus was "white" while everybody in the back (except
for us) was "black." It was very uncomfortable, not
unlike walking all dressed up into a nude colony. We
really didn't know what to think, or do (especially "us
kids"). Upon which, I suppose noticing our discomfort,
a couple of the black people back there smiled at us,
and that assured us we weren't out of place after all.
I will always remember that... how much a simple smile
like that can accomplish, and touch our shared humanity.
Can Muslims do anything to combat Islamophobia?
Absolutely: They can now turn their backs on that
miserable cult of murder and bloodshed and join (if
joining is in their nature as it is in the unfathomable
nature of all human beings) join some religion that can
nurture humanity, not brutalize it quite like does Islam!
Today's socio/politically-correct Imperial Privilege
{or SIP, as in both "seepage" and "sipping"} is that
privilege which permits the victims of some real or
imagined suffering/illness to do/say things which if
they did not "have" the SIP "privilege" (to do/say
such things) would be given a swift kick in the ass
for doing/saying them.

We all give those who have just lost a loved one the
"privilege" to claim the recent dead as saints/angels
without instantly interjecting our whatever first-hand
knowledge of what jerks/idiots/simpletons or downright
evil creeps they might really have been. But today
this "usually passing" social privilege [consideration]
is too often extended on a permanent basis to a whole
lot of modern-day bull-shitters... out of some misguided
social timidity or because of some outright real fear or

One example is the really weird claim [I myself have
too often heard go unchallenged] that "black people
can't be racists" when some of the most openly and
toxically obnoxious racists out there today ARE
African Americans (& not just only the black supremist
Black Muslims either). Also an awful lot of Jews "out
there" suffer from the delusion that because Jews have
also been so often victimized in the past (and presently)
they too have some sort of Imperial Privilege {SIP} to
sprout "Jewish racism" without anybody challenging this
parallel contention that Jews cannot be racists either.

It's not an unusual human characteristic/failing, this
trying to take advantage of any victimizations real or
imagined for the sake of some insignificant advantage.
But it's one which ought to be disputed and vigorously
educated against by all societies because any society
that allows even the smallest room for racism will
permit ANY and ALL racism to use that room for its
platform. And this is a self-destructive practice.
NBC: Roof Told Police He Almost Didn't Commit Massacre
Because 'Everyone Was So Nice To Him'

Proof, if proof was required, that simply being nice
is not a good weapon at all against murderers. [Never
saw a cowboy movie where the problem of gun-slingers
taking over the town wasn't resolved by a fast-drawing
lawman.] And that, my friends, is why guns will never
be out-lawed: "Only the outlaws can be outlaws."
President Obama stated in his comments: "Let's be
clear—this kind of mass violence does not happen in
other advanced countries ... It doesn't happen in
other places with this kind of frequency. It is in our
power to do something about it..."

Obama's bewilderment could be a cheap political ploy
for the sake of advancing some personal ideology
(possibly gun-control, or his customary dissing of
white Americans); but, on the chance that it might be
genuine puzzlement, I shall endeavor to explain (to
him, and to others) the reason the facts are as they
are: No other country, Mister President, enjoys the
diversity this country enjoys--the different ethnic,
religious, political, and other differing/contrasting
groups that exist in this country are not matched in
any other "advanced country" ... the wonder then is
not that as much violence takes place here as it does
but that much more violence does not: That,* Mister
President, is the real wonder of the United States of
America. For in many other so-called "advanced
countries" where almost no diversity at all exists...
these still takes place a volume of violence which,
judged strictly by the level of their diversity, not only
matches the violence seen here but even surpasses it
by a ton: Even Japan & China are flushed with murder,
butchery, and all sorts of violence... and they are almost
monolithic societies. Russia, which does not have our
diversity, matches and surpassed our violence. And
almost every European country, in most of which gun-
ownership is strictly restricted, experiences actual levels
of violence/murder which are shockingly beyond and
above their deceptive reputations for non-violence even
when diverse groups are almost non-existent in them.
Hope this helps you understand us better, Mr. President.

* It's now July, and so far this year there have been
558 persons fatally shot by the police: There are a
lot of people in this country, and there are a lot of
violent/fatal confrontations here... but as you can see
just from this stat alone, a great many of these "gun
violence" episodes are also in the public's defense.
And I for one seriously doubt that disarming the police
will create a "better society" here or anywhere else.
The ONLY way to do that is through relentlessly pursued
improvements in the public educational system of the
nation, especially if it is protected from being hijacked
or subverted by special interest & other private groups. **********************************************
Awww, Obama was afraid to help the Ukrainians with
arms so they could defend themselves because it would
"provoke" dear Putin, and now dear Putin is pushing
his Russian Military deeper into Ukraine because it's
been left unarmed by Obama: Well, isn't that precious!

Racism Is Not a Mental Illness

It is like religion: a deadly misinterpretation of
reality based not on the latest scientific findings
(the facts) but on traditional superstitions and
cultural prejudices dating back to the dark ages of
our uncivilized past. Get over it! Study. Learn!
The Arabs' greatest achievement was having stolen the
coffee bean from the Ethiopians (and selling it to the
world as their own). A kindred-hearted world of men,
every last one of whom grasps & appreciates a good
robbery, which therefore thanks & credits the thieving
Arabs & not the original owners: those poor Ethiopians.
France Orders Crackdown on Hate Speech, Anti-Semitism,
Glorifying Terrorism

Well, at least now we know what the results of France's
new passionate support for free speech are: banning free
speech. [Actually, I expected as much, as... you know:
we are monkeys.]
Texas Biker Gangs Issue Orders To Shoot And Kill Cops

What the government should do is declare these biker
gangs to be terrorist organizations, out-law them, and
prosecute anybody/everybody connected with them.
An ant setting off on a journey of a million miles has a better
chance of getting there than a rock that's just sitting there.
Teen Claims He Visited Heaven During Near Death Experience

Sez The True Religion was lost to the world 3,000 years ago
and that God is really Ongolopongo, a round stone now at
the bottom of a Polynesian lagoon. Sez that in Ongolopongo's
Heaven God rolled after him down a long incline and made him an
angel when he escaped being crushed under Him. Now we know.

[Or, as some stupid atheist who is obviously going straight to
Hell once asked: "O what perplexing coincidence it is that
Christians who have near-death experiences always see Jesus
in Heaven, Muslims see Allah, Buddhists see The Buddha, and
Jews (who do not partake in our Greco-Roman notions of Hades
and Mount Olympus) just catch Jascha Heifetz or Isaac Stern
playing there!"]
When My Children Read This in 10 Years, I Hope
the Hunger Crisis Is History --Christina Aguilera

Dear Christina, don't fret: As the earth gets warmer
& warmer it will grow larger & larger, increasing the
surface area available for farming--In any case, if the
earth's population begins to run away wildly (because
people like you will have more & more children), we
can always pump air into its center and inflate it
like a balloon: Since we can do this infinitely, there
will always be an infinite amount of room for more &
more & more children. (If we pump up the earth to,
say, only the size of the galaxy, each one of us can
have trillions of kids and we'll still not make a dent
into the excess amounts of food we can grow.) Enjoy!
In the Baltimore case, I agree that convictions will be
hard to win because the case will undoubtedly center
on intent; and unless the prosecutors find some way to
prove that the van driver's intent was to cause harm
or to outright murder Freddie Gray by banging him
about in the back of the van, it will probably not be
easy to find the cops culpable--At most it will likely
be probable that they will find the six policemen
negligent (and that will only give them a scant few
years of prison time... for murdering a human being).

In my own opinion IF what has come out so far (in the
media) is anywhere near the truth, then those cops
should be found guilty of the most egregious lack of
concern for human life [which is tantamount to murder
anyway you paint it]. That's the way I'd see it if I
sat on their jury; and I'd throw the book at them:

I agree that when a policeman is killed in the line of
duty society should seek justice for him/her with an
even greater zeal than it would even for an ordinary
citizen who is killed because these men/women put
their lives on the line to protect us all every day of our
lives. But then again, when it is the policeman who
robs, who rapes, who engages in abuses, or murders...
then I think that he or she should be held to an even
higher standard of justice than would an ordinary
citizen who commits such crimes because the cop is the
person on whom society depends above all for justice:
And when it is the one person to whom society first
turns for justice who perverts that justice... what
recourse can society have then? Whom can we turn to
for justice when it is the very arbiter of that justice who
is subverting it? --S D Rodrian
I wonder just how long the European Christians are
going to be willing to live in fear of merely walking
to their own supermarkets without being murdered or
worse, to live in constant horror that some inhuman
monster should decide today to butcher their children
in their schools and daycares, or merely to live under
the gun in a constant & eternal state of war, having
to be guarded day & night by policemen in armor with
machine guns in their own homes ... without finally
deciding that life just isn't worth living that way and
finally put an end once & for all to the new unbearable
way of life in which they now find themselves? It is
as monstrous a watch as tracing the slow burn of a
dynamite fuse to its explosive conclusion, and the
Europeans have no one but themselves to blame for all
this: it is a curse of their own ignorance of Islam.
The mullahs and other Islamic clerics do not believe
in humanity--to them humanity is the toilet paper of
their god. This inhumanity is incompatible with us.
Jimmy Carter: Rebuild Gaza Why? To raise the spirit
of people who will use that to cause more misery,
destruction and death? No, you pathetic enabler of
: Rebuild Detroit instead, and bring some
humanity to people for a change!

“We were hoping the first anniversary of the war would
be met [with] reconstruction and not a new war,” [said
Khaled, a Gaza resident whose home in a four-story
apartment building was destroyed
]. "We are not
psychologically prepared for a new war and we still
have not recovered from the effects of the war and our
homes are still totally devastated."

This is what Jimmy Carter and others of his ilk want
to change: to get the Gazans back into the "frame of
mind" they'll require to push for/accept another war
of utterly homicidal/suicidal "attempted murder" on
Israel (and maybe ensure greater success for their
attempted butchery this time): That is what Jimmy
Carter and other clear enablers of terrorism like him
apparently refuse to understand or it just doesn't quite
disturb their conscience--And, in the end, does it really
matter which of the two explanations it is that stains
their dark lack of human morality?
Creating a "map" of Dark Matter is like creating a
"map" of where cars are by noting the way "their"
passing moves the wind about: I think I might be
better inclined to assume that there are probably much
better explanations for the movements of the wind than
the moving about of passing invisible cars. But that's
just me: For some people the only possible explanation
for the moving wind can "only" be unseen passing cars.

My one regret is that after fighting the atrocious
nonsense of dark matter & dark energy almost since
their silly concoction they will now vanish without
any acknowledgement that I was right all along. It's
like what happened to the people who for centuries
fought the stupid notion that the world is flat--and
then suddenly Columbus dispels that notion once and
for all from the popular imagination and they were all
left with nothing but, "Oh, who believes that?!" --You
all did, you fucks!
Do you risk running over yourself when you get ahead
of yourself? No. In fact: Do run ahead of yourself so
you can't run over yourself, since it is impossible to
run over yourself when you run ahead of yourself.
[It is only possible to run over yourself when you
slow down once you're running ahead of yourself.]
But run ahead of yourself & you will unquestionably
leave yourself behind. That is something to consider.
As an old man's mental powers race down towards
a minimal, life becomes a struggle to keep things down
to the minimum.
my little head has lots of hair
my toe nails lots of fungus
& when I pig out anywhere
my pants size grows humongous
Never do anything illegal. Change the law instead.
But, unlike politicos, always change it to benefit
more people & not just to break the law legally!
The way to swallow large pills is to forget about the
pill itself (after placing it on top of your tongue) and to
concentrate on the gulp of water instead: When you
mentally focus exclusively on the pill it becomes nearly
impossible to swallow it, and it's only when you focus
entirely on the gulp of water [that's going to push
the pill down] that you can easily complete the process
of swallowing the whole thing. S D Rodrian
The good thing about people who don't take things
seriously is that they usually don't hold grudges.
Program notes for Mahler's popular 8th symphony: The
first movement apparently concerns a mass escape from
an insane asylum in which about a thousand lunatics
(hence the name) murder their keepers and rush out
wildly only to find themselves locked inside a cathedral
(go figure), where they commandeer the church organ
and take off singing (madly, of course) until finally the
national guard or somebody rushes in and puts an end
to the whole insanity--although for some reason (if
reason is to be found anywhere in all their screaming
and moaning) it does take quite a long time for the
authorities to locate these loudly musical lunatics.
The concluding movement [as I heard it] was of course
Mahler's attempt to murder Richard Wagner by having
him listen to it & die laughing. Unfortunately Mahler,
who [could have been] a notoriously slow composer,
finished this work in 1906 (while Richard Wagner died
back in 1883). Therefore all Mahler ever got for his
efforts was maybe have Wagner turn over in his grave
once or twice (albeit this movement has been known
to knock out a few people who listened to it played all
the way to the end without going to the bathroom or
taking some other break from it). Otherwise it was a
nice evening out: We had corn dogs & everything!
Democratic Party hack-rag The New York Times recently
perpetrated a shameless hatchet-job on Republican
politicians on which they might have saved themselves
a flood of ink by summarizing the whole thing simply
as: "Yep, dem Republican politicians only sell their votes
(so crassly) for whatever cash they can get from the
filthiest of the filthy rich, whilst our Democrat politicos
always vote exclusively based on their most principled
principles, of course." Do they REALLY expect that there
can be "people who can read" out there who swallow
this childishly biased garbage? It's amazing just how low
a once independent newspaper has sunk these days!
All talk about singularities is like discussions over
whether Woody Woodpecker is mentally competent:

Size is the greatest, most instant annihilator of any
imagined possible/virtual/theoretical Singularity ...
for if a so-called singularity has ANY size (at all)
then it cannot possibly be a singularity, as it would
of necessity require that it has dimension(s). [If the
Original Singularity exploded into the Big Bang, then
it couldn't have possibly been anything remotely like
a singularity of course, because such an "explosion"
could only have been triggered by the nature of its
inner architectures.] And if any proposed singularity
has dimensions it has sides, and everything that has
sides has different/opposing reasons for one side
being here up against its opposite side, etc., etc., etc...
[Then again: it's pretty hard to imagine how something
with absolutely no size whatsoever could possibly exist.]

Keep in mind: For something to exist it must have an
inner structure. Therefore nothing exists which is not
composed of 'smaller' inner items making up its
scaffoldings: Anything without such inner scaffoldings
must of necessity collapse right out of existence (just
as certainly as 'right' cannot exist without 'left' or 'top'
without 'bottom'). This is why a true singularity cannot
exist--And why for as long as we may care to think
down the chain of subparticles there will never come
a point at which we will be able to ever propose such
an absolute one (or, an 'atom' not composed of smaller
subparticles--in essence, a singularity). --S D Rodrian
Science Fiction Story Number One.

There was something about my spit. Very early on
I realized that whenever I'd spit to my right I would
time-travel forward a bit into the future, and when-
ever I'd spit to my left I'd travel back in time a bit into
the past (how much depending on the amount of spit).

It wasn't a matter of taking a big swig of water and
spitting it out so I could travel into the far distant
future or something, either: There was something
quite very specifically about my spit, and I could only
travel just so much into the past or so much into the
future, depending on how much actual personal spit
I was able to come up with--never travelling more
than a few seconds to an hour or so either way. Only
enough to keep me out of trouble: Helping me dodge
a punch as a kid, or a bullet as a full grown-up, since I
seem to be growing up in a very dangerous world full
of bloodthirsty chimps [subspecies humans, also known
as 'howler chimps' for their operatic throats, which a
number of them would charge money to let loose in an
opera house & such or be kicked out of restaurants &
such for not muffling], the most dangerous of which
chimps also liked to go around packing knives, guns,
& every other kind of weapon so they wouldn't bruise
their bare knuckles bashing in people' skulls & such.

Fortunately, none of this was much of a problem for
me, since a spit here & a spit there was usually more
than enough to keep me from the local paper obit. Of
course, I had to be careful, as an unexpected big slug
of phlegm might just send me a week or more either
way. Unthinkingly spitting something on the tip of my
tongue was also enough to time-shift me a second or
more back or forward. Therefore very early on in life
I had found that I had to learn to get a grip and just
stop myself from spitting (or coughing) in order that
I might stay in the moment. And, as well, I also had to
obviously learn to stay away from places like a dentist
office--where if you weren't careful you could pop out
of the chair into a week from Tuesday but still end up
having to foot the bill for a half-finished rooting job.

And, ah, O school! I was the only kid since I started
going to Kindergarten who had to carry a hankie with
him everywhere, like Louis XIV or something. It took
some getting used to, especially by the other kids,
who found that no matter how much they'd want to,
or how hard they tried, couldn't pound the affectation
outta me with a few choice punches... although they
certainly lived forever convinced that they were just
on the brink of trying out the perfect punch on me
just before I dodged the punch with a well-timed spit.

Curiously, I also very quickly learned that I wasn't
so much travelling back/forth in Time as travelling
back/forth to another reality altogether [an endless
number of them, in fact]; because the instant I went
back to an earlier 'time' the version of 'myself' that
should have been 'there' was instantly erased from
that existence/reality/dimension as completely as if
it had never existed at all! I could never just eat an
ice cream cone, go back an hour and then go watch
myself eating it. Instead, if I popped into existence
in some new 'reality' (of, say, an hour back in time)
the version of 'me' that had been 'there' instantly
popped out of that existence! and no two versions of
anything that time-travelled with me could ever exist
at the same moment in the same time-reality: not I,
and not the clothes I was wearing, and not even any
cash money that I might be carrying in my pockets!

Many a time I tried out (strictly in the context of a
mind experiment, you understand) robbing a bank
and taking the cash back in time with me to become
insanely rich somewhere in the past. But those bills
would have instantly vanished from wherever they
were the instant I popped into existence 'there' with
them. And then, if the cops stopped me, I might have
to explain how the heck they'd up in my possession...
since somebody was bound to miss them and forever
after remain on the lookout for their serial numbers. So
that was a no-no. The most I could hope to do was take
a few untraceable coins with me, nickels & quarters
stuff. And, of course, if I were to go back far enough
in time to before they were even printed I would need
to explain how I could possibly be in possession of
bills which the treasury hadn't even printed yet! So I
also quickly learned that I would have to be content
to be poor no matter which existence I was ever in.

Which brings me to the curious dilemma that, since
there can really be no Time paradoxes at all, if I had
travelled back to before I was born, then evidently
I could never be born at all (as I would already exist
'there') and thereby I would prevent myself from being
born [at least in that one reality which I was already
occupying]. Although having gone there, I would exist
there: I would pop into existence out of nowhere and
watch my parents go about their lives without ever
giving birth to me, or perhaps giving birth to some
other sibling instead (one who might have been born
instead had I never been born). But, in any case, there
I would forever exist then being related by my DNA to
people who could never acknowledge me as related to
them despite any & all arguments I might make, tests
I might take--literally an orphaned being from some
distant reality/dimension/existence whose parents
never really had died (never really having lived). No, it
was best never to travel too far back in time either.

In any case, you don't really want to travel too far
back in time because the farther back in time you go
the more primitive, savage, and brutal people were;
and therefore the more likely people are to be trying
their level best to brutalize you, murder you, or take
advantage of you everywhere you go--without rhyme
or reason. It is the nature of us bloodthirsty chimps
who are still hopefully in the slow process of evolving
into some sort of beasts who can be remotely human.

Neither do you want to travel too far into the future
because, well, I'll tell you why: One dark day in my
life I did precisely that: I decided to (figuratively)
bite the bullet and so I started spiting a whole lot
towards my right, always only to my right, spit, spit,
spit, so that I could travel a good long, long ways
into "the future," that I might check out what was
going on there. And so I spit, spit, spit to the right.

Whenever I ran outta spit I would just take a breather
in a park bench somewhere near a water fountain and
there I rested until I could renew my spit again. Upon
which I would then start spitting to my right, always
only to my right, and so continue travelling on forward
into the future. And that's when I indeed ended up...
about a year or so into the future: Bummer! Because
[Spoiler Alert] I ended up suddenly staring right into a
huge black hole which was apparently purely & entirely
by chance passing by our solar system just then and
on the brink of swallowing up the whole entire thing
right up (Sun, planets, and everything else to boot
down to the last Oort dust drop in far off outer space).

Luckily... I just happen to still have enough spit left
in me at the final instant of complete annihilation to
spit myself back a few minutes, and then hours, and
then days--slowly, dreadfully, painfully, exhausted,
running out of spit now more often than ever, but able
to bum sips off those old water fountains in park after
park after park along the way until I finally managed
to make my way all the way back to pretty much about
the same old time I had started out from, about a year
before the Big Swallow--not mine but the black hole's.
And now, here I am, back where I was before. Except
with something really really black hanging over me.

Now, unlike anytime before, when I used to live trying
not to spit either way so I could travel through time
with the same bloodthirsty chimps I had grown up with
... now I can't live without constantly and consciously
spitting/spitting only to my left, of course, often enough
to seem to the shaming chimps that I have a dreadful
disease of the body or mind. And let me tell you [Spit!],
bloodthirsty chimps are the worst at pointing out how
terrible you look (whether they are adults or children)
spitting or farting, being too fat or not pretty enough.

I am still (as I have always been and will be always)
obviously aging "normally" (although I always remain
in the present). I just tell the chimps I suffer from some
hideous premature aging disease. Although I shouldn't
complain: There are always places to go 'here,' people
to see. I don't always have to remain in the same place,
the same day: I go back a week, maybe even two, or a
couple of days only. Never enough to cause any alarm to
anybody--Although no one ever gets tired of expressing
how bad they feel about my so very obviously worsening
premature aging disease, at the same time I am thinking
it is they whom they should all be feeling sorry for not me
(even though I do not tell them, naturally), given that it is
they who will all be quite dead by next year, while (O lucky
me) I, on the other hand, will live out my entire pointless
spitting existence out to its full & complete spitting extent.

And therefore: Spit! Spit! Spit! On I carry, constantly, so
that I can forever remain exactly where I have always
been and still am, forever safe from travelling any further
ahead than pretty much around where I am at the present.
It's become quite a nervous habit with me too (thank God),
so I don't even have to think about it anymore. Although
people chastise me merciless all the time: Those that care
about me recommend cures, doctors (and psychiatrists
also) who could all "fix it" (they all swear). While those
that don't really give a damn curse at me & sometimes
even threaten to spit back: "See how you like it, friend!"

Oh, if they only knew! Spit! Spit! I always like to spit my
way back a few choice hours just before going to bed,
so I'll wake up at the same moment I went to sleep and
can wet my whistle again because, naturally, my worst
fear in this entire whole universe now is... a dry mouth.

Oh, it's a horror story for others, I know, but for me
it has become a rather pleasant way to live out my life,
considering the alternative. And yes, a couple or more
times I have travelled up a year into the future to see
whether I somehow manage to land in a reality which
doesn't have that passing black hole in its dark future.
But, nopey-nope (sorry)... the black hole of the future
is always there waiting for me (well, for every last one
of us), in whatever reality, in all the realities to come.


The difference between gambling and stealing
is that gamblers are willing to let others steal from them
just so they can steal from others. This is no virtue.
Turkish Official: To End Extremism, Give Muslims

Yeah, only those with access to the big bucks now can
afford the money to travel to Syria/Iraq/etc. for
Jihad. So, yes! definitely, absolutely: the thing that
will cure extremism once & for all is to make sure
more Muslims have the spare cash to join the Grand
Jihad tourism! [Wonder why more people--you know,
besides this clown, the Obama crowd, and other
terrorism facilitators--never thought of this before!]

No, guys: The thing that WILL put a dent on Islamic
Extremism is to shut down access to the Grand Tour for
Jihad--not by keeping Muslims impoverished, as you
might perversely claim I want, but by educating them
out of the ancient cultural ignorance and traditional
superstitions which their "religion" [all religions]
perpetuate. And to do that, FIRST you HAVE TO have
the principled courage to stop honoring & kowtowing
to the fundamental cause of all that evil: Islam itself.

If you don't have the moral courage to denounce all of
Islam, at least have the wisdom of self-preservation
to point out and oppose those aspects of Islam which
are the undeniable direct cause of the greatest evil
that has plagued the world these past 1400 years.
At least have someone point out that religions [all
religions] are really nothing more than our ancient
absence of explanation, that explanation is (rather
absolutely & completely) the function of science.
Tunis Gunmen Target Tourism, Killing 19 at an Art

What I want to know is: At a time when Muslims are
killing Christians anywhere & everywhere they can get
their hands on them... what are these EUros doing in
Tunisia (which sends more Jihadists to ISIS than any
other Arab country)..." What... were the head-choppers
of Syria/Iraq over-booked? Never ceases to amaze me!
It's like: "Oh my God, dude! There we were peacefully
touring Hell when suddenly a bunch of demons jumped
out and started pitchforking us, including our babies
(which we took with us to save on nannies at home).
The UN should definitely look into this." Now you know
why hammers HAVE to come with those "Do Not Use
This Tool On Your Head" stickers-for-the-stupid.
[see above] Religion is the absence of explanation,
and explanation is the essence of science. Therefore
to say that science and religion can coexist is to say
that ignorance and knowledge are the same thing.

Rather, just as the grass in the field can co-exist
with the weeds, it is the better part of wisdom to
avoid confronting the brutes about you, I guess.
Well, I finally had a scary nightmare like I used to
have in the old days. I moved into a room that had
a hole high up in one corner wall. But it was a room,
and I've never complained about such things. SO
I went to sleep under my blankets sitting up at first
as I normally do so I can listen to music... after
which I eventually slip down on my back, and finally
take off my headphones and turn on my side under
my blanket until I get up from bed. Only, this time I
started thinking about the warning I got from my
landlord about the big black spider that lived in that
hole in the way: "Don't worry, it usually doesn't come
out and just waits in there until things crawl in so
it can kill them." 'Usually' is not very reassuring
but you gotta sleep, so I went to sleep, listened to
my music, and was settling down on my side when I felt
a tickling on the back of one of my legs and jerked
instinctively: Suddenly something jumped under the
blanket and made it go up about a foot and I was sure
it had to be the big spider! I tried to wake up so I
could jump out of bed but was paralyzed. I reached for
the light cord and pulled so hard I pulled it off! I
then felt about the little table on the side of the
bed in sheer horror trying to feel for my flashlight
and got hold of something like it. Only to find that
when I pushed down on the end to turn it on only a
squishy puff of moisture would come out (I'd gotten
hold of the antibacterial spray instead and was just
pushing down on the plunger). I finally did grab the
flashlight but the damn thing wouldn't turn on--what
a time to have the batteries die on me! Jesus! And I
was still paralyzed. No matter how hard I tried I just
could NOT get out of the bed, or even from under the
blanket where I was sure the huge spider had found its
way. (And I certainly didn't want to cause it to bite
me, either... while it was still under there.) It was
a horrific struggle but I finally managed to wake up
enough to get out of bed and turned on the lights with
the cord (which I hadn't pulled out after all). There
I sat looking at the smooth blanket. And I even looked
up to check to see if there was indeed a big hole up
in one corner of the room. But, no, no hole up there
either. Just relief that it was slowly downing on me
that it had all been one terrific nightmare. A run on
the scariest ride at the carnival. Caused by what?
Don't remember having seen a spider on TV (which
usually triggers these things). Although I did hear
someone using a drill in one of the side apartments
some time ago. Maybe that was it. In any case I was
certainly glad there are no spiders of any size in
this apartment, let me tell you.
Condemning Assad for using barrel bombs:

Goodness! You mean they're actually killing people in
a war?!? My word! What won't they think of next.

You know, wars in the good ole days used to be bloody
awful/terrible affairs, with lots & lots of victims
(mostly all civilians) in a short & sweet period of
time: The world was appalled, the losing side was
crestfallen & chastised AND knowing they were beaten
sued for peace as quickly as possible... after which
people could try to make the best of the new realities
in peace and tranquility.

Nowadays, it all starts well & good, lots of victims
(like in the old days), but then, before the war is
allowed to reach its only possible logical conclusion
(victory/defeat and peace in our times once again):
the UN steps in and orders a "cessation of
hostilities" which does nothing more than perpetuate
the conflict endlessly.

The Arab/Israeli war has been going for 67 years now!
It could have been easily brought to a swift and
merciful end by allowing the Israelis to win and the
Arabs to face a real, undeniable and final defeat. But
the UN knew better (they knew how to better enshrine
the permanency of war, that is). And so here we are.

The Sri Lanka civil war, on the other hand, is over &
done with: After a fierce & bloody conflict, the Sri
Lankan government was able [and allowed] to completely
defeat the Tamil insurgents, bringing that war at last
to its logical conclusion once & for all--the logical
conclusion of all wars: NOT an interminable stalemate
which inevitably insures that the casualties will rise
exponentially over time... but victory for one side &
defeat for the other, at last bringing about a lasting
peace and an end to the butchery of war.

Yes, Assad is a grizzled monster all right. But then
the more one starts comparing him to the people he's
fighting, the more he starts turning into Little Miss

No advocacy of anything. Just the facts.
Wars are miserable ugly things, and the way to keep
them that way is NOT by going back to the Age of
Reason notion that they should be confined only to
combatants, only to the armies out in the field.

The way to make truly War the action of last resort is
by making sure that the ultimate culprits for making &
carrying out war (the civilians who fund the war, who
manufacture its means & mechanisms, who man its
military, and who give sustenance & moral support to
its martial leaders) pay the price: Entire armies can
be replaced, but the means to supply & provision them
can not be replaced and therefore should be the
principal (perhaps the ONLY) aim of destruction in
every war: Wars in which only the armies are attacked
eventually become endless & pointless mass murder.

This has been known since the time of Rome's Punic
Wars, when Hannibal's armies wreaked fury & butchery
across Italy as Rome's overmatched generals tried in
vain to parry Hannibal's better-designed assaults.
Rome finally won the war NOT by superior defensive
moves against Hannibal's strategies out in the field
but by finally sending the Roman Legions against
Carthage itself. This forced Hannibal to return his
rampaging armies there for a last-stand defense of the
Carthaginians themselves... giving Rome one single
unmoving target for their military, and a permanent
peace after "the destruction of the Carthaginians."

Wars should be fought with the singular aim of
instilling in people (that's "us" , "you" , "me" and all
the other civilians without whose support wars can not
be fought) the instinctive perception that those who
advocate them are lunatics who will lead "us" not so
much to the butchery of the enemy (something we all
love & enjoy) but to the enemy's butchery of us (which
is never quite as palatable to "us"). Perhaps then such
wars will become fewer, less popular, and perhaps
eventually even a rarity of one in a blue moon.
Greece’s new prime minister wants Germany to pay
for Nazi war crimes

Should the aggressors in a war pay reparations to
their victims? Hold on a minute: Weren't the victims'
counter-attacks meant to exact that payment?

It's still possible that an independent (of both sides)
court of law may yet assign how much such post-war
reparations may have to be paid. But this would always
remain a very dicey matter, because in every war there
are victims on both sides, as well as aggressors. And
once any war starts, the causes of its beginnings are
quickly overwhelmed by the fury of its prosecution.

Because no war can be sustained without the support
of many, many people on both sides, I believe the best
course for justice remains the prosecution/punishment
of any possible person(s) found liable for having
started the conflict in the first place. And/or any
egregious violators of the so-called "rules of war."
"We should not smash babies' heads against walls."
There: That's the first & last time I write the same
tripe every other writer pours out [namely: a pointless
re-stating of what their readers already know].
Even Frankenstein's monster was adorable babies once.
Do not insult God with idle worship. Rather, do the
work of God on this earth. Those who have wisdom
let them understand that this is the Golden Rule: Do
good for others, because in doing good for others it
is to yourselves you are doing good. Help others for
in helping others it is yourselves you are helping.
Los malos sufren y hacen a los buenos sufrir.
"Some heads of state and government simply should
not be [at France's event in support of freedom of
speech/freedom of expression following the Charlie
Hebdo incidents] when they crack down on freedom of
expression in their own country. It's hypocritical,"
said the former Thai box champion, who says he had
been tortured in Morocco and had received support from
NGOs such as Human Rights Watch when jailed there.

This sounds eminently reasonable. I still support the
"I am Charlie" crusade, but not necessarily because I
agree with the magazine's quest to provoke outrage
{perhaps} under the pretext of making practical & real
theoretical rights to freedom of speech and freedom of
expression... because, frankly, even the least glance at
the sort of "art" Charlie Hebdo & other "mags" like it
put out leave me with a lot of doubts that their aims
are all that purely high-minded.

But, after all: Rights that only exist in theory don't
really "exist" at all, do they. And are like ghosts.

Now, I believe that it's reasonable to try to provoke
outrage in people who will not be outraged, like
calling intelligent people stupid (water off a duck's
back). But, frankly, the last person one wants to call
stupid IS somebody who's stupid--Maybe you can help
him out by pointing out the stupidity in the things he
does; but, for Heaven's sakes, do it in a general way,
and try not to make it personal if it's at all possible.
Albeit sometimes it's not possible to avoid insulting
people, true; and then one just has to bite the bullet
& tie somebody's stupidity specifically to the stupid:

I don't support insulting for the sake of insulting.
If the truth insults you, that's between you and the
truth. I myself hope I will always live by Voltaire's
idealistic promulgation: "I disapprove of what you say,
but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
(Although, not if my life depends on it, of course.)

S D Rodrian
Victim of Miami Beach grocery punch-out dies; attacker
charged with second-degree murder

I have never been able to understand these so-called
"second-degree" murders: Whether you're murdered with
a kiss or with a gun you're just as dead.

"Yeah, but he didn't intend to kill him."

You're not taking into consideration the results in
the murderer's intent, and judging ONLY his intent:

In "the real results" does it really matter what the
murderer's intent was? The fact remains that whatever
the murderer's intention might have been, at the
moment he decided to "throw the punch" he just didn't
care whether he knocked the guy out or killed him--And
that's where his real intent was all about murder: The
murderer's intent was murder, and he was content to
leave whether his victim lived or died up to chance.

Every time YOU say that the murderer had no intention
to kill his victim YOU are looking at what YOU might
have/would have done in his place, and not at what
really happened. The fact is that regardless of what
you might have been thinking at such a moment, he
threw the punch because he just didn't care whether
he killed the guy or just simply knocked him out.

Yes, without the result of his intent being murder
(remove the guy dying because he murdered him) a
would-be murderer's intent could then be judged to be
an only second-degree intent to murder. But once the
murder occurs, then what ought to be judged is whether
the murderer cared or cared nothing about whether he
killed someone of not: And the fact is that, whatever
he might have been thinking about how he went about
his murderous action... that he yet went ahead with it
tells you that he simply did not give one whit's thought
about his victim's unconditional absolute right to life.

To judge a murder by whether the murderer loved
murdering or was indifferent to it is illogical and
does the murdered person the gravest of injustices.

This is why I am appalled by the light sentences given
to those who commit murder by driving drunk, or those
who shoot off guns and kill someone "by accident" ... as
they are being judged by whether they wanted to kill
someone specifically and NOT by the fact that they just
didn't care who they murdered--This is NOT judging their
real intent to murder. It's no different than saying to the
victim: "Hey, don't take it so personal!" Is that right?
We talking chimps could be really splendid creatures.
But we're not quite there yet: We remain mean, petty,
jealous, treacherous & bloodthirsty animals just as we
have been for millions & millions of years. The Golden
Age Greeks started us on the way towards reason,
logic, and the rule of law... which hopefully one day
will yet tame our brutal natures. But we're not there
yet. Foolish people believe love to be the way, but
they miss the point: for one only hates as much as one
may love--In the end, love is the goal of all our hates,
and thereby their impetus. Therefore we must place
reason & logic above love if we are ever to conquer
our so savage self-destructive natures. Just don't
believe it's necessary to abolish love, because then
we are no better than mechanisms: Love must live on,
not as our nature but as a tempering tool... almost a
wild forbidden pleasure to ever so slightly flavor the
flowering of our humanity at last subdued & civilized.
I don't have any personal knowledge about what
happened to Eric Garner outside of that terrible
video. But, however stupid it might be of anyone to
confront the police instead of obeying their every
command without question [questioning police actions
should ONLY be done in a proper court of law, not
out in the street--endangering the police, yourself,
and others]... still, it was a sad moving pitiful plea
heard from Gardner on that video--regardless of guilt,
regardless of who might be or isn't liable for this
tragedy, and regardless of all other concerns except
one's own raw humanity: That man's cry rumbles deeply
under my ever-present memories, even as the pitiful
contemplation of his children still thins its summits.
'Darwin's Dilemma' May Finally Have Been Solved

   "Though the theory of evolution has long been
   accepted as scientific fact, scientists have always
   had trouble reconciling Darwin's notion of gradual
   evolution by natural selection with a sudden
   explosion of new species around 530 million years
   ago. Now a University of Texas geologist believes
   he may finally have an explanation for what some
   refer to as "Darwin's dilemma": a major shift in
   the continents, which created ideal conditions for
   complex new life forms to evolve."

This might possibly account for the explosion of new
species, but it would not account for the massive die-
off that immediately proceeds it at the end of the
Ediacaran period 542 million years ago--which I have
always been inclined to believe could have been caused
by a galaxy-wide supernova sterilizing radiation burst.
Life exploded forth again in the Cambrian period until
suddenly (in geological terms) another over 40% of all
species went extinct 488 million years ago in the
almost as large Cambrian-Ordovician Extinction--which
also could have been yet another after-shock of the
original supernova near-sterilization(s) [exactly as the
Ordovician-Silurian Extinction 443 million years ago
and even the Late Devonian Extinction 378 million
years ago]. Note that the cited significant continental
glaciations (as well as associated oxygen depletions)
could even be direct results of biomass removal (since
the earth's biomass plays a critical role in maintaining
the planet's so delightful temperature equilibrium).
However, it can not be ruled out that our great galaxy
underwent a period when large stars of a similar age
reached the end of their life-cycle(s). Therefore I
have always thought the complete explanation more
likely to be supernova near-sterilization(s) of this
part (if not all, or at least most) of our galaxy...
Note that the Milky Way galaxy to this day seems
unusually devoid of the large number of intelligent
lifeforms one would statistically expect just from the
availability of natural resources for them to exist:
Everywhere we look around us there is a deadly telling
silence in a galaxy which ought to be flourishing with
a hundred thousand civilizations at least as old and
developed as our own]. In which case, one or more
galaxy-wide sterilization episode(s) could have occurred
from around 540 up to even 252 million years ago when
the greatest extinction of all --the Permian-Triassic
Extinction-- happened, wiping out 99% of the biomass
on this particularly miraculous planet... for some as yet
unknown reason. However, just one such supernova
episode alone at the end of the Ediacaran might be
enough to have naturally, inevitably triggered all the
other [lucky for us] series of subsequent dieoffs.
Why hasn’t the U.S. closed its airports to travelers from
Ebola-ravaged countries?

Because know-it-alls would never take into consideration
the fact that people are more often than not either in denial
or in complete denial: A guy can come from the middle of an
Ebola epidemic, get sick, and keep telling himself it's just a
cold he picked up from his kids until he literally can't walk
any more... and has infected countless others. [Across the
aeons contagious diseases have very successfully relied on
precisely this human behavior for their survival. And human
counter-measures will have to wait until we have evolved
more efficient brains.]
Why do people have children? I am convinced that it
has to be some momentary biological insanity that
grabs hold of them, making them believe these
creatures they are so unnecessarily condemning to
a life of misery, failure, grief, torture, pains and
stupidity, madness and disease and horrors beyond
imagining... are somehow going to live out perfectly
healthy & successful happy lives of goodness and of
genius, of impossible luck & of productivity without
end or a single hitch. This, obviously, can only be some
built-in madness perpetrated by the biological urge of
life in order to perpetuate itself regardless of whom
it may victimize. How else are you going to explain
mobs already massed'n'mashed in pots boiling with
people still racing to have even more & more babies!?!
In the final analysis, nations do not matter, peoples
do not matter. What matters is personalities: You want
a great nation, a great people... get yourself a great
leader. You want a lousy nation, a lousy people... get
yourself a lousy leader.

     The genius of Man
       is now & then.
     And soonest gone
       when it is on.

     But let his dumb
     an instant plumb
     and Man will smile
       to his last mile.

Ban Ki-moon, told the General Assembly that “the
massive death and destruction in Gaza have shocked
and shamed the world
.” (Tell that to Hamas, you fk.
They're the ones that caused it.) BanKi added that the
repeated shelling of United Nations facilities in Gaza
where civilians had sought safety [attacks repeatedly
charged to have been carried out by Israel on purpose]
were “outrageous, unacceptable and unjustifiable.”
Yeah, let's wait until somebody takes out a gun and
starts firing at BanKi from behind a child--Let's see
if he then cries out: "No! Let him kill me! but spare the
child!" Until he does that, by every definition this guy
[BanKi] is one low-life bastard and a most pellucid
hypocrite. Well, Mister Ban Ki-moon, the Israelis are
protecting not just themselves but the lives of their
own children: Understand that if you can! {I think U do}
At this writing, the number of casualties in Syria
could be well above 220,000 (the number in Gaza
is 1800 or so). Funny thing is not these numbers but
the number of foreign correspondents beaming out
graphic shots of the Gazan victims, almost every last
one of them! I can't for the life of me recall the
last time I saw even a simple report on my TV on the
hundreds of thousands of Syrians being killed, or
even a puff of smoke from there! The media seems
Hell-bent on showing us every last one of the Gazans
killed, though, and nothing but
. Gee, I wonder why...
Memories of those 99% voter wins by dictators...
Anybody seen one single Hamas militant in all that
global media coverage of the Gaza conflict...?
Goodness, you'd think at least one American reporter
would "hint" that there are SOME militants in Gaza!
The world is once again trying to convince the Jews
that it's cheaper to be a victim. I hope the world does
not succeed... because it's just not true. S D Rodrian
The Proper Use of Welcome

When I know I am writing or speaking to an idiot
I use welcome--I only use welcomed when I know
I am writing or speaking to a superior intellect.
That way I'll save a lot of time
because a man of superior intellect doesn't care
whether you stick your finger up your nose
or your ass--he just wants to move on.
Idiots always have a lot of time to waste.
I am both enthralled by and in thrall to the truth.
I have always felt like a Loon splashing down
calmly upon the rioting waves of the Seine!
Man In Harmony.

There is no point arguing with your bladder.
Go ahead: Pee! Pee to your heart's content!
The Gaza Palestinians are in love with war. It is a
lust beyond all known perversions: They display the
corpses of their babies to the world in hypocritical
"shows" of heartbreaking grief when in reality they
themselves not only chose to offer them as their
sacrifice in the bloody altar of Hamas's bloodlust
(for the sake of the possible murder of any Jew) but,
when asked, again & again they assert their continued
almost sexual passion for the annihilation they have
wrapped themselves in
. They all revel in butchery and
mayhem, in death & destruction, without the slightest
care how many of their children are killed or maimed.
In fact they long & work for piling up their corpses
as a monument to the most evil insanity you'd ever
want to witness! Even their Muslim brothers are
appalled at their callous heartless and cold-blooded
hypocrisy for the Western cameras. They out-do all the
most depraved Devil-worshipping of fact or legend.
"The gory scenes of Palestinian casualties highlighted
by the global media should have been presented in
the context of Hamas responsibility for deliberately
orchestrating this nightmare." [Isi Leibler]
Hey, Gazans, show you dead babies to Hamas--they're
the only ones who can really do anything about their
getting killed (the Western Press can only promote the
sickest form of voyeurism for the mere sake of ratings
Yes, it is possible to get the truth from RT (Russian
television): All you have to do is listen to whatever they
say--The truth is the exact opposite.
News From The Front In Passing: On Friday, a proposal
by Kerry and U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon for Israel to halt
fire for a week and to begin talks during this period
on easing the border blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza was
rejected by Israel, which said they were not ready yet
to accept defeat by Hamas. Kerry & Ki-moon were very
very miffed at their failure to give Hamas the victory.
As the pro-Russian rebels have no flying vehicles
whatsoever... it is inconceivable that the Ukrainian
Military would have even so much as made plans to
shoot down anything in their skies: Putin shot down
that Malaysian airline without a single doubt, and I
would not be surprised if he personally ordered it.
Now, why? That's one of those mysteries of mankind's
warped, dark minds. Evil incarnate.
The earth is running out of world. The ship's going down,
& the rats are biting at those still trying to save the ship.
The only reasonable response to an absurd world is
7 Poemas Para Tres-Patines

Pajarito, pajarito
que vuelas en el cielo azul:
Donde que guardas tus ropas?
Donde llevas tu baúl?

Un cortico caracol
y una lagartija larga
hacen la lengua amarga
tragadas en mucho alcol.

La piedra que yo tiro al agua
no vuela como un avestruz.
Pero, donde que esta Nicaragua
cuando se apaga la luz?

Lluvia que de muy arriba cai cuando las nuves estan,
pa'donde que tu agua cai cuando las nubes se van?
Lluvia que mojas la gente cuando las nuves estan,
a quien mojas igualmente cuando las nuves se van?

En el fondo de mi vaso
muy chiquito pa'temerle
anda nadando un tiburon
--y muy chiquito pa'verle
si es una embra o un baron.

En la punta de mi pata
se encuentran unas pasuñas:
Como esta, Señor Rascuñas?
Como esta, Señor Ciguata?

Los gorriones en su mata
cantan porque no pueden hablar.
Nosotros dieramos mucho mas lata
si pudiesemos solo cantar.

For a slimeball everything is a slippery slope.
"The truth is more often predicated than practiced."
"The most beautiful thing we can do in this world is
to serve man."
Hamas can never be deterred--Their turds are stronger.
Whosoever advocates for those things nobody could
possibly be against is not so much an advocate as a
likely swindler: You can be sure that such a man is
not an advocate for anything but himself.
The notion that the universe is only as big as how
much we can see of it from here is as endearing as
that of the boy who stands on the roof on his house
and imagines that the world is only as big as how
much he can see of it from up there (with very probably
the reason for one being the same as for the other).
The New York Metropolitan Opera's "The Death of
Klinghoffer" purports that Mr. Klinghoffer (a 69-year-
old wheelchair-bound American Jew who in 1985 was
[note] taken aside, shot, and dumped overboard in his
wheelchair by the Palestinian terrorists who hijacked
the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro) died of very
natural causes indeed {notice the title}... as he was
a Jew and was murdered because he was a Jew. Now,
one might accept that morally warped demented minds
could conceive of such an outrageous proposition, but
that as many gatekeepers (most especially Jewish
ones!) as allowed this monstrously anti-Semitic libel
to proceed unchecked (and even encouraged it) is to me
a definite sign of the corrosive damage which has been
done to the soul of civilized man by the depraved notion
of moral equivalencies ... and that the human brain
itself might be de-evolving back to a more primitive
ape-like condition even faster than I had feared. [I put
the blame on Peter Gelb and his management team of
corkheads, who instead of delving into the humanity
of the old works hang a polkadot necktie on Parsifal or
something and take that as "updating" them--Any day
now I'm waiting to hear them announce the all sock-
puppet version of The Ring. Hope I'm just kidding.]
These people have no moral compass--Gleb has been
quoted as defending this manifest piece of crap as "this
composer's best work to date." He can't seem to grasp
that even if Mozart had written it it would still not make
it appropriate for promotion by a great public institution
like the New York Met. And not in a million years.

Well, they finally staged the opera at the Met, and it
was attended by a number of protesters. This incident
certainly brings up the challenge of balancing freedom
of speech/expression against censorship: The opera
makes a statement, which it has an absolute right to
make (idiotic, malicious, right or wrong as it may or
might be). But the protesters also have a statement to
make, and they too have an absolute right to make it.
Both sides might wish the other would go away; but,
of course, that would be censorship by any other name.
It is just as wrong to try to prevent the opera from
being given as it is for anyone to try to prevent the
protesters from giving theirs. Censorship ALWAYS cuts
both ways. Freedom of speech & freedom of expression
also ALWAYS cut both ways. And if society has an
expectation that the opera (nasty as it may be) must
be allowed to go on, then that same expectation must
be extended to the protesters, whose absolute right of
freedom of speech/freedom of expression MUST be
championed & defended with all our strength... and the
protest MUST be protected and not interfered with.

There were a couple of persons who interrupted the
"performance" and were escorted out of the opera
house--Well, if they broke the law then they should
face the consequences of their unlawful actions. But
if anyone had or did interfere with the protesters'
absolute right to make their statement, then they too
ought to face legal peril. This is the noblest way of the
common dialogue of humanity--and nothing should be
permitted to interfere with it. --S D Rodrian
S D Rodrian's Los Tres Matamoros

The music of the Trio Matamoros encompasses and
embodies just about every aspect of Cuban popular
music. It is also the very essence of an Afro-Cuban
life that was untouched by white-supremist attitudes
[unlike the mournful tones heard in North American
African-American blues]. It is the difference between
the drumbeat which was never forbidden to the
African-Americans of Cuba & the saxophone that was
given to the African-Americans in The United States:

From our Cuban equivalent of the country/western style
to that of sophisticated ballroom melodies, Afro-Cuban
rhythms, to Mexican and other South American musical
forms & styles Los Tres Matamoros were Cuba's most
sophisticated, musically competent & all-encompassing
popular group almost to the day they disbanded (in
1961, probably due to the sheer exhaustion of their
advancing old age). They were the Bing Crosby and
Beatles all rolled into one--and it's still intriguing
to hear echoes of their guitar mastery in that of The
Beatles, as well as Crosby's English versions of their
old songs... the lyrics of which are true poems with
wit, passion, sensibility and sensitivity throughout
their skilled rhymes, alliterations, similes,
metaphors and other poetic structures, always
intelligently written whether by Miguel Matamoros,
Ciro, Cueto or picked by them from the works by other

I have often found myself blessing my great luck to
have been born in the region of Cuba they were from;
and even thinking it would have been well worth it to
have been born there just in order to have the
understanding & appreciation of their greatness which
I enjoy. One really has to be from that Eastern part
of Cuba to appreciate Félix B. Caignet's factual &
authentic "Frutas Del Caney." ["El ratoncito Miguel"
was also his composition.]

You can read about the Trio Matamoros in English:
[Google 'Trio Matamoros'] And in Spanish:

I don't know whether their first original 78's still
exist (I wish I could hear them). The versions here
are mostly re-recording they did after the advent of
the LP. Here I modified these monophonic recordings to
make them more acceptable to be heard through stereo

El Trio Matamoros recorded untold hundreds & hundreds
of individual songs. These are but 60 of them.

Miguel Matamoros, Rafael Cueto, Siro Rodríguez, son
cubano, bolero, guaracha, son, conga, rumba, pregón,
No, George Wallace isn't the funniest comic today
--he's been that for a long time now: He must've been
cracking up his mother back when he was breast-
feeding. Talk about a beautiful mind! I've seen a lot
of standups do some funny stuff in my time: Bill Cosby*
was probably the best--his childhood stories are
classic (he had the gift of voice, like Dangerfield).
For a grand laugh I've imagined Dangerfield doing an
eulogy at a grave site. Carlin could deconstruct our
preconceptions/prejudices with the scalpel of wit like
nobody. I've seen others be outrageous, insulting,
wicked, scandalous, or merely foul-mouthed... and call
it all humorous (some of it was). But George Wallace
truly is funny without any qualifications: this man
understands humor, and that makes him unimaginably
witty. Sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night
laughing like an idiot, remembering "the haunted house
across the street & its ghosts piling into a U-Haul
the very next morning after the five mean little kids
moved in, or the Chinese take-out guy cooking his
order on the bicycle" ... and he can do this for almost
an hour show without much of a lull anywhere--you
gotta have talent to do that--and material! But he's
got both of those. The difference between Cosby and
Wallace is that while Cosby can people an entire world
in the imagination with his monologues, sometimes it
can become distracting to actually watch him doing
this ... while George Wallace's hilarity is multiplied a ton
when you actually watch him doing his inimitable open-
mouthed double-takes at his mind-blowing commentaries
on the human condition. That's why he's the best.

* This was written before it came out that Cosby is a
   serial rapist, however the observation remain true.
Dear Tech Guru: Do you know if a computer can come
down with Tourette's Syndrome? My computer's been
cursing at me for a while now. But lately its insults
have been getting really offensive.
Here's the famous haiku on desperation by
legendary Chinese female poet Ah Ohuee (much
revered in Japan for having committed suicide
by yanking out her nose hairs):

             I knock on the door
        (of the bathroom) & find out:
                it is occupied!

"Maleficent" is what "Sleeping Beauty" should have
been all along: It is a stupendous film, amazingly
moving--Angelina Jolie's portrayal really has to be
seen to be believed (I'd give her the Oscar tomorrow).
The writing of her character is complete, beginning to
end, making the shifting/evolving nature of evil both
understandable and redeemed: We deeply, naturally
care about this evil fairy who seeks revenge and lives
to regret it. Here we are not cheaply cheated out of the
ideal of redemption. I'm certain this movie will go
down not only as one of Disney's best, but as one of
the best movies ever. S D Rodrian
Certainly nobody is going to enjoy the benefits of,
say, curing malaria without first planning for the
consequences that such a cure will unleash upon the
world: Whether it is condoms or some other solution
to the population explosion which will result, some
form of population control must be in place [and
beforehand] otherwise the devastation which must be
brought about by the solution will be far worse than
that of the problem (of malaria, or whatever other
such problem we're talking about).
Fate is what puts you in your place.
We sit at the nadir of our baseborn nature...
humans descended from bloodthirsty chimps
who made their living off cannibalistic raids.
And the need for war is quite self-evident in
the human soul, as no peace tasted sweetest
to us but after the bitterest war, and no war
was ever fought by us but it was fought to end
the war.
It always looks better in the morning
--Notice I said "it," not "they."
Oh God, the things a conscience makes us do
is unconscionable!
I've never made a penny in any business I've ever
tried (I must be the world's worst businessman):
I invented the toothbrush you don't have to use to
brush your teeth--I didn't make a dime. Know what
the reporter who was looking to write it up asked
me: "How do you use it to brush your teeth, then?"
I don't think he was even listening: Yes, dumbass,
you still have to use a toothbrush to brush your teeth,
just not this one--I could have been a millionaire!
God knows the facts. And we here on earth are stuck
with the Republicans repeating Trump's lies like
the Devil's mantras. But the facts are knowable to
men. We just have to have faith in ourselves.
The United States hopes to replace al-Maliki with
some other leader (maybe even their preferred
cleric al-Bundy). Now, all al-Maliki has to do is
figure out a way to keep his job while the rest of
Iraq's Shia figures out a way to keep their heads.
        HAIKU: "A dollar
        & a flower = ( )
        the value of life."

Sofa is comforting,
& standing: contorting

as we rule existence
with mere resistance

What then to learn
from life's each turn

when everywhere
we just don't care:

All our worse wastes
hold in great hastes

All our most moving thoughts
pour out of a sofa's soft jots

--Dude, you just told a national tv audience
that President Obama drinks our Pot Tea all
the time & loves it!
--No problem, dude: I'll just give him a call &
ask him to endorse it for us...

Who is the daisy to declare
the sunshines really, really care?

The forests in the darkness stare
with much more standing than they dare

and while the daisies blow the mind
our eyes staring upon the Sun go blind!

Never give anyone a lottery ticket. Give'em the dollar
it costs to buy one, but NEVER the lottery ticket
itself: Bad business whether it's a winner or not.
Reality is either deterministic or it is not.
If it is "only a little" deterministic then it's
absolutely not deterministic. I subscribe
to it being deterministic; therefore if you
find here & there instances in which it is
not deterministic then understand that
I'm convinced there is something (about
reality) which you have yet to understand.

Should I lounge or launch?
Should I starve or lunch?

Never have I one hunch
but always all-a-bunch!

Every deterministic pathway through a reality which is
not deterministic can only be attributed to God.
Therefore, either there is a God or every path through
reality which appears to us not to be deterministic is
an illusion. And the belief in God is delusional.
Because ours is a deterministic universe, God
must have a certain and absolute reason & cause
for even the slightest most insignificant detail in it.
We are brain-washed by our education system
so that, later on, if a fact comes along that
challenges our ingrained beliefs we either dismiss it
or rationalize it--And that's how open minds are
systematically closed by a society's education system,
whether perversely or out of suicidal ignorance.
Not everything happens for a reason
but we can certainly always come up with
a reason for everything that happens.

Rat's a rhyme
for mice's mime
but monkey's clearer
for Man's mirror

"If God created everything, then
why did He create the shoddy?!?"
(He'll also have to explain why
every dog that exists poops where
it does instead of somewhere else.)
O Sun, you come out with your bullying push
to crush my dreams in the cool darkness

I do not have a scintilla of your energy
to push back against the light, but you
can't share in a drop of my blind pleasure
He died doing what he loved most--Living.
Being slippery is the default position of
certain people.
"This is my girlfriend Shosta Kovish."
"And this is my boyfriend Mo Sart."
If I owned world & you
whom could I sell them to?

Better give all away:
You, world & its empty sway.

Now I can buy some waste of time
& stave off living with but rhyme!

Owning nothing's just fine:
To no one do I owe a dime.

Fools pile up bubbles of their pain
bursting hope's every pointless gain

but I cast off all that I get
& gather in but what I let.

The Dues of Doing: Do what you must do in
the morning & what you can do later in the day.
Intestinal fortitude is for those who
want to raise a big stink--for those
who just wanna stop farting
I still recommend a cork.
The mind believes not the truth
but what it thinks best advantages it
when seeking what is best for itself:
It is rare to find someone humble enough
to take objective reality as his master
(instead of merely trying to master it).
Women also have balls
but they dance them away.
Men have to wash theirs.

Who grabs my ear
with such wild fear?

Is it the roar that's far away
or the teeth quietly near?

Answer bears no delay.
My legs cry me not stay.

My eyes see blackness in my way
--and I'm gett'n outta here!

The best thing about Time is
that it kills off a lot of people.
The Perils of An Assumed Name.

"Mrs. Calamare & el Señor Formica are here
about their loans."
"Ah! You must be Mrs. Calamare."
"No: I want to open a restaurant called
'Mrs. Calamare' -- My name is Miss Katarro."
"And, and, you... wish to open a formica outlet?"
"No: I wisha to open 'Mrs. Calamare' [too].
Myah name isa Vito Formica."

maybe the bed is made
before the body's been laid

and maybe body is laid
but after there's been a maid

What ought to be constitutionally protected speech:

Is it really so hard to distinguish between just
plain threats and speech which while objectionable
should still be constitutionally protected?

"I hope you die" should be protected speech.
"I hope someone kills you" should not be.

"You're ugly" should be protected opinion.
"We're going to make you ugly" should not.

Nor should, "Somebody should make you ugly" be
protected speech either: That's a threat. But:

"You are a threat" should be legally actionable
if it can be proven that "you" are no threat.
Otherwise it should be protected speech if "you"
can be legally proven to be indeed "a threat."

My worst poem is one I dreamt I was writing:
I spent an entire night dreaming I was working on
a very important poem only to find it had all gone
to naught when I woke up (like Coleridge). But
then again, all the world's poems are written upon
the whipping waves of the ocean by drowning men.
I miss the Chiclets kazoo
when I go to the movies' zoo

Who knew they'd ever be killed off
(being such well-built stuff)

Makes you think about things
junked every one but once kings!

So easily falls Man to pieces
out of jokes or diseases.

Tits are not like power tools: You can't just strap'em on
when you need to do a job & then drop'em off at the shed.
No, ya gotta carry them with you everywhere you go every
hour of every day of your life: bed, beaches, movies, and
marathons. I really feel for women, many of whom never
asked for the job but all of whom do a decent job with'em.
from Trump's copy of The Stupidman's Dictionary:

"So many people believe that animals are as
intelligent as people that I'm starting to wonder
if the exact opposite might not be true and that it is
people who are only as intelligent as animals."
If ever you want to get in good with Putin: when
you meet him tell him he looks a lot like Stalin.
The best thing a man can do
who can not achieve anything
is to be satisfied with nothing.
The bee with his loaded boot
never steps on a single root--
always floating above the petal
pushing nothing to the metal

Man, quite ever on the other hand,
wields wit savagely, cutting the land
--stopping but to disappoint
before making some huge & dull point

So who better than the bee to judge
between the sparseness & the lush?

We waste our lives in the hush
crowded many with our stop & rush
while the bee sings so lazy a monotone
of the universe done a fine point alone

As people who are all wet like to say:
"Let's not go crossing our bridges
before we go swimming in the river."
I am not a hack. I just calls them as I see them.
The problem is that when I report somebody stealing
from you you call me the most decent & worthy fellow
you know, and when I report you stealing you call me
the most unworthy & villainous fellow on earth! But,
what can I do about that? What can I do about you?
"None of us are" or "None of us is"

Oh, you is--all right.
My autoimmune system is working perfectly:
I have never owned a car.
Checking the proper use of your grammar is simple
[I myself almost never do, but you yourself could]:

‘Are you cool with me being 15?’
The sex-sting question that led a lawyer to jail.

"But I answered that 'me' was not cool, judge!"
"But you also said that 'I' or 'my' was. And, as
a lawyer, you should've known that proper or
correct English usage is statutorily anti-American:
So you going down, my man!"

‘Are you cool with me being 15?’ Since "I" am only
referenced here the subject is 'whether you are cool
with' therefore the correct use is "my"

From the Pooh-Pooh Po'English Primer: [Not the
conventional usage but a more reasonable one.]

The rules of proper English usage are really not all
that complicated. You can make it as simple as this:

     I do to myself.
     He does to him.
     She does to her.
     We do to us.
     They do to them.

"We do to them what they do to us." etc.

Accusative and Nominative distinctions
are legalistic inventions of Clinton-types
to sow chaos/confusion among th'English.

Uber’s Next C.E.O.? Meg Whitman Says
It Won’t Be Her

Why didn't Meg Whitman Say She Won’t Be It?

Either "it won't be she" or "it won't be herself"
because the meaning of this word is "her self"
and her self is she: she is herself. [Believe it!]

ONLY "it won't be her dog" would be correct

"she will/won't be it" or "it will/won't be she" or
"she will/won't be [her self]" or "it will/won't be it"
The subject here is 'who won't be it' therefore
it must be "she" because "she" is or does:
Can't be 'her will be or won't be' period.

In every case SHE is or does, and HER whatever
is what is referenced:

'It belongs to she' because 'she is to whom it belongs'
NOT 'It belongs to her' because 'her it belongs to'
ain't proper: In every case SHE is or does, and HER
(whatever) is what is referenced:
in "it will be her" "who will be" is the subject,
therefore it must be "she" who will be

BUT, no matter how twisted, "her" won't be "it"

     "it will be she who will be it" or
     "it will be her self who will be it"

     plus: "she will be [whatever it is]"

Even if the verb is infinite "him" cannot be.
+ 'Me' can never be even though accusative.

Just because you've always heard everybody
use it incorrectly doesn't properly correct it.
Use it correctly yourself even though others
around you will try to incorrectly correct you.

Queen Elizabeth Announces Who She Wants
To Lead The Commonwealth

Should've been: "Who will lead the Commonwealth"

"Queen Elizabeth Announces Whom She Wants
To Lead The Commonwealth" is correct there:

It is the same as: Queen Elizabeth Announces
She Wants "Whom" To Lead The Commonwealth
So, clumsy [?] but also correct: "Queen Elizabeth
Announces Whom To Lead The Commonwealth"

Queen Elizabeth's the only 1 doing anything there.
The Whomever is just being announced by she.

     [Need we go over this again?]

"Most people are as illiterate as Trump."

[Note that no "is" is needed here, as the "is" is
already among the "are."] "Trump is as illiterate
as most people" (is also as correct, and just).

To avoid sounding like a talkative baby
When he/she "is/are" use not him/her:
ONLY correct forms: his/hers or her
NEVER: "It is her." [as "who is it" is the subject
and therefore SHE must "be" it, being as she is]
OR "It is his" [even if not followed upon by
"what IT is" that is hers or his--because the
IT can be invisible: not specified, of course,
since we all know what IT is]. OR 'It is hers'
"Whose is it" is the subject here, after all,
and 'he' and/or 'she' are only referenced.
SO "It is him." and "It is her." are bad form
because human 'who is' is the subject here:
Think the correct: "Who is he" & "who is she"
NOT "Who is him" OR "Who is her" therefore

"It is he" because "he" is the "it"
"It is her[.]" is as incorrect as "She is her[.]"
This is where the word "her-self" comes in:
ONLY "She is herself[.]" is correct usage.

Proper use of him/her with to/for/at etc.

When YOU/he/she/it/they DO/are doing
something (even if ya'all are invisible)...

SO "go to him" & "ask him" are correct because
it is YOU [doing] and you're just talking about
[referencing] the "him" here: "You go" and
"He/She goes" ... "It belongs to her[.]" is as
wrong as "It belongs to his[.]" Think about it:
In common usage "It belongs to him" is oddly
correct because the invisible WHOM is "to whom"
it belongs while "him" is only being referenced,
not doing or being anything (except a reference)

"It is hers." & "It is his." [are correct because
while there's a her/hers there's no his/his'n]

     If it's correct backwards
     going forward is correct:

  or, IF "him is that?" is wrong
  THEN "is that him?" is wrong

"It is he." and "It is she." are correct
if: "He it is." and "She it is." are correct.
"It is him." and "It is her." are incorrect
if: "Him it is." & "Her it is." are incorrect.
And don't get confused by the fact that
the "it" is required by the "is" above:

"It is I." is correct if "I it is." is correct. AND
"It's me." is incorrect if "Me it is." is incorrect

     The correct forms are:
    "It is his." or "It is hers."

[Even if, when you're a baby, it sounds odd
first time you're told it's the correct form]

Think: "It is he [whom] it belongs to."
and: "It is she [whom] it belongs to."

"It is/it is not hers" & "It is/it is not his"
Or: "It is/it is not she" & "It is/it is not he"

"Is that his?" and "Is that hers?"
are correct, for we're talking here
about "what?" [is his/hers/her...]

but "Is that her?" [what?!] is not
the same as "Is that she?" [period]

Just as "Is that him?" [who/what is?!]
is not the same as "Is that he?" [period]

"It is not/it is her[.]" is NEVER correct AND
dehumanizing, actually. Nor is: "It is not/
it is him[.]" And even if everybody on earth
misuses them & has misused them all across
these many centuries of dizzy English grammar
Tudors: Let's learn a better English here anew!
"Except I" & "except for me" are both correct
because "I am excepted" & "the except is for me."
Whom are the experts? Whomever says they are. [sic.]
I am a poet. Grammar to me is whatever looks prettier. ********************************************
Never assume you're right. Always
assume you're wrong until you're right.
I invented the term 'televishable'
and whenever somebody uses it
I charge them tenchents.
--What does that mean?
I think it's pretty selfexplicanable.
Who's that knocking there, Jeeves?
It's your niece, sir.
Really? I best put a pillow twixt them then.
Your crackers, sir.
Thank you, Jeeves.
I wish I could make all people happy: It's hard
to hate when you're happy: the two don't mix
well. And, essentially, adults are a strange sort
of children--I love children, so I feel a strange
sense of compassion and even love for all mankind
(even the worst adults). People who hate are not
happy, so it would be wonderful if I could make
people happy.
Every single time you give anybody more power
than he should have he will abuse it.
People who live on credit will pay for it.
Before man can shape the world
the world must first shape the mind of man.
O, I must not lose my grip
now I am an old slop of moss
clinging to the shore's rocks, so
I won't be slashed off by the surf
Democracy's One Unsolvable Dilemma.

Dear Professor Traphagan,

Your argument might have come off better were America
the world's worst democracy and Asia paved with
democracies at every turn. But, unfortunately for you,
the only "democracies" in Asia seem to be those forced
upon it by America itself (Japan, Philippines). Sorry.

You state as "accepted fact" [that's "knowledge" not
"ignorance"] Isaac Asimov's comment that "the notion
that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good
as your knowledge" is false ... when nothing could be
farther from the truth, because as determining what is
"ignorance" and what is "knowledge" has always been
and always will be democracy's one unsolvable
dilemma--that is precisely what democracy means: that
neither side may demand that the other side accept its
own definition of what "The Unchallengeable Truth" is.

As much as I hate to see some American community
or other promoting facts long-disproved by modern
science, I would hate it even more if the latest
"generally-accepted" scientific "facts" [such as the
"fact" that the earth is at the center of the universe
or that the heart is the source of our emotional
ideas] were forced upon all our youth. This is why,
for me, this or that community's rejection of
evolution is pitiful, yes, but also sweetly humorous.

The process of democracy is one of dialogue, of a
never-ending discussion of competing (and more often
than not unimaginably contentious) ideas... the result
of which competition (most hopefully) will turn out
to be a consensus of just what "knowledge" is.

Absent this process, what you will always be left with
is tyranny (or, one side telling the other just what
"the truth" is, period). Is this really what you want?
Maybe it works for you in the world of [Religious
Studies, University of Texas, Austin] or the Vatican.
But, please consider the possibility that outside the
world of top-to-bottom chain-of-command religion it
might be better to allow the consensus of mankind
(and not some necessarily always narrow/exclusive
religious authority) to determine what is "knowledge"
and what is "ignorance."

How do we resolve this dilemma that democracy always
does means that "my ignorance is just as good as your
knowledge?" Well, as the unbreachable problem is
always in WHO determines "mine" is the ignorance and
not "the knowledge," always allow this dilemma to
resolve down to OUR democratic consensus.

Always keep in mind that if I pick the right "chooser"
"my ignorance" IS "the knowledge."

I sense, Professor Traphagan, that you would love to
be this God-like "chooser." Thank God we live in a
democracy, and you may not pick yourself here. Perhaps
somewhere in Asia...

Yes, good ole Thomas Jefferson wrote [to Charles
Yancey on January 6, 1816]: "If a nation expects to be
ignorant & free, in a state of civilization, it expects
what never was & never will be." But, how do we know
he didn't simply mean "ignorant of how to shoe
a horse" or "milk a cow?" If he meant it in a more
general & universal (God-like) sense, then:

Dear Mr. Jefferson, Meet The United States of America!

For, if there is One Virtue which has saved us from
utter, hopeless tyranny all these many years, it just
happens to be our inability to establish The One
Eternal & Unquestionable Truth (for all time)...
deviating from which is punishable by death (as it
inevitably must always be)... and the unchallengeable
(you might even say, religious) authority to demand it
and to have it carried out.

It's okay if you're The Nation's Supreme Religious
Authority, but if you're Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo,
Descartes, Newton, Halley, Darwin, Hubble, even
Bertrand Russell
then it's not so good.

S D Rodrian

Turning Off Comments

Have trolls made it impossible for digital media to
let readers weigh in on stories?

Nope. It's more likely that editors (like you) simply
are deciding that anybody who writes in an opinion you
don't like is a "troll" and you would rather just not
hear from those who don't agree with you. Check't out!
We'll get there
or we'll get
new underwear
Hope is my paymaster.
God, all of the people I have known & loved
who are now dead! They all seemed forever,
and yet they are all gone now--Life's so ephemeral
that it's as if they had been but imagined ghost drops
flowing through my outstretched arms, my poor
parched hands pleading in vain to hold on to them!
Yes: I saw both The Odour of Dracula
and Dracula Has Risen From The Chair
but Dracula Is A Doofus is my movie
I bought a dog. I did not adopt a dog.
The dog is not going to inherit my money.
I intend to blow that $17.50 on a movie
before I die. The dog is gonna have to fight
City Morgue for my corpse if he wants to
keep eating for a while after I'm dead. Then
he's gonna have to sidle up to somebody else
out there. But he can do it. He did it to me.
I fed him and patted him for years. I took him
for walks and even picked up his shit there &
again. You think that means anything to him?
Don't kid yourself: Hunger is stronger than any
friendship. And not just for dogs.
Yes, in the end, a woman's work is never done.
But a lazy man's work is never done to begin with.
Donald Trump's Chief Liar Rudy Giuliani is more
than just one, so his real name must be Giulianus
The Eternal Epitaph

He had many years to live.
But then he died.

Holy Shit--Does it smell like Heaven or like Hell?!?
People who work for a living retire. People who
work for the love of their work do not (work).
I never got into a fight because I was too big
for the little kids to push around & too fast
for the big kids chasing me to run down...
All the lies in the world
cannot cover-over a single truth.
But they can decorate it to look
like a damn fruitcake. So watch it!
Yes, Superman's latest girlfriend is: Laura Larara.
"Sorry, Lois. There is something about her I find
irresistalable... I mean, irresistible."

What lives in a lens
distance may feed
but, smallest & nearest sense:
Here is our biggest need.

Obama's modus operandi seems to be: "All ya gotta do
in this world is point out which is the Good and which
is Evil, that's all! For O, who wouldst not the Good
pick over Evil? Therefore: why wouldst we need a
military in this world of logical, reasonable people
who wish to do nothing but the Good? AND would do it,
if but they asked me to point it out for them!"

If you know something
you cannot know nothing.
If you know nothing
you know something.

I've got something here.
But what? I'll show you
when I get something.

Thieves gamble.
Foolish people take chances.
today is my bed day

a day when my bed conforms
to my body perfectly

other days I am extremely uncomfortable in bed
and have to get up out of it to work the day

but today I am going to sleep comfortably
in every position know & unknown to man

It takes years for people to see
even the most quickly grasped things:
I do not write for the people
but for the years.
In our own image: Sometimes God exercises great
guidance over us men, and sometimes He's out to lunch.
I prefer cats to dogs because cats don't stick out
their tongues at you as much as dogs.
People may not be the only animals that make tools
but they're the only animals that talk to themselves.
As long as I live I will never understand
the inhumanity of human beings.
It takes enormous amounts of intellect to come up with
the simplest forms (or ask Mozart)
Any book you read after 20 beers don't count:
George Bush read hundreds of books per year.
But my dog's probably "gone over" a lot many
more books than that, and it's probably done him
about as much good, apparently, as Mr. Bush's
whole-lot-of-read'n's done him.
I will always be against banning texts: it gives
the impression you don't want "the truth" to
get out--What you should do instead is find the way
to show that such texts are lies. Or bear the truth.
I'm never so much interested in seeing the Light
as in seeing what the light reveals.
Everybody's a little Jewish.
Jews are just more so.
Soldiers guard Europe’s streets from terrorism.
Critics say that weakens them in war.

When you keep your enemy outside your borders
you can deploy your army to guard them. When you
bring your enemies inside your borders you must
deploy your army on every corner of your territory
to guard your every last citizen: That is the heights
of stupidity, the utter failure of leadership. That is
a guarantee that your country will fall into the hands
of its enemy--if it in fact hasn't already.
Are my non-poetry writings science or philosophy?
Well, if years from now scientists agree that my
writings agreed with the facts then science. Otherwise
then my writing were just only crackpot philosophies.
No. Technologies are not getting easier. What's really
happening is that in an effort to make it easier &
easier for the incompetent to get into their
technologies technologists are making it more & more
inane and frustrating for those who are competent.
Engaging in string theory mathematics
is like playing a game of solitaire: It is
exceptionally complex & annoying and
one neat-o waste of time, and it really
doesn't tell you anything about anything.
Voltaire's 'even the humblest person knows something
I don't, and in that he is my master and I am his
disciple' sounds nice, but everybody knows Voltaire
always thought that he knew better than everyone.
Those who are always looking out for humanity overall
sometimes tend to run over the individual human beings.
We Cubans are very conscientious when we brawl
--we don't mind pummeling each other, but
besmirching each other's clothes is, for us, quite
beyond the pale: "Quitate la camisa que nos
vamo'a fajar!"
No, the capital of Oklahoma is not "Ok"
... at least, I don't think it is...
Are chicken cages too cruel?

Definitely! I was imprisoned in a
chicken cage once and I could hardly
even breathe--It wasn't until they
finally took the chicken out that I
was able to stretch my legs!
To succeed in life you only need to be ruthless,
not intelligent--But to succeed at happiness
you need to be intelligent: Ruthlessness will
always get in the way of happiness.
"Rag Doll" , "Big Girls Don't Cry" , "Though I
never laid a hand on her..." Has anybody ever
taken a real look at just how unbelievably creepy
Frankie Vallie & The Four Seasons lyrics really are?
Preventing Alzheimer's:

Do you know if eating pork chops helps at all?
Because, I've been chomping on pork chops
for many years now, trying to prevent
Alzheimer's, and to be honest: I can't say
that it's done much to help me prevent it!
Am I doing something wrong?...
Love is a many-impaling thing.
It takes as much effort to do the right thing as it
does to do the wrong one. And doing the wrong thing
never ends in anything good. So do the right thing:
It never ends continuing to do good for everyone,
including you.
Do you have a horse I could borrow?
--Not on me, no.
If I had money you could only kiss me on my ass
because, frankly, if I had money I'd be a complete ass.
Die Fliegende Hollander (The Flea That Ate Holland)
is Wagner's terrifying horror opera. I've heard it,
and it's great. But I don't speak German so
I don't know how they finally killed the flea.
Die Fliegende Hollander (The Flea and The Hollerer)
is Wagner's terrifying horror opera. I've heard it,
and it's great. But I don't speak German so
I don't know how they finally shut the guy up.
Fate is not a kind author.
The Artists Dismantling the Barriers Between Rap and Poetry

Every generation is full of people with a great deal
of passion or sentiment who set down statements of
such sentiments and passion as poems. These are hailed
& acclaimed by contemporaries of theirs who share
those passions & sentiments. But poetry is something
else. Poetry is an exercise in language which
oftentimes can exist entirely without passions or
sentiments of any sort. A detached observation can be
a very powerful poem if it's put just so. Therefore
the writing of poems requires as much artistic skill
as any other artform [sic.], like painting or music. Some
dispassionate geometric form can be great art, and
even some coldblooded continuation of music completely
devoid of sentiments--So too a poem can be great just
being a great achievement of words.

Poetry is often as difficult to recognize as it is to
write, therefore just a handful of true poets inhabit
every generation--poets who might take their
contemporaries a long time to acknowledge or
recognize, if at all. A screaming baby is appreciated
by just about everyone; but that a true poet is
appreciated by contemporaries is something rare indeed.
I love a parade.

And any other public displays of
our deep-set longing to be ants
& other insects.
For a theist, proof of God's existence is as simple
as throwing a rock, or "had it fallen anywhere but
where it did it would have meant there was no God."
Here, babe: Here's that dildo you wanted. And I got it
real cheap over at the pawn shop around the corner.
I like to think of Mahler's symphonies as a leisurely
stroll through a mall where every next door is a
different set of goods than the one before: If Mahler
did not have the melodic gifts of a Schubert he was
still a competent enough musician to sell his goods.
The problem with Time is that although it can pass
muster* it cannot hold water: You may believe it's
real, but it can't back up your faith in it with any

         * mustard
Every time a Muslim farts
he blames it on a Jew--And is
believed, although the nearest Jew
be a 1000 miles or more away.
What is misogyny? It is the notion
that men speak and women talk.
Also: Being a man, any comment I make
about this will obviously be misogynistic.
People who do not want to get old
are obviously not enjoying their lives.
The less cowardly hold their capitulations
till the last possible moment, or bravely
refuse to give in at all. The biggest cowards
rush the bullies and shake a fist at them
to "show" everyone else a bad guy after all
in the belief that this will spare them
the fate the bully has in store for those who
do not then choose to kowtow to him.
Yes, it would be nice were there a God to cure the
malignancies of Man. But we are alone, and it is up to
us to cure our own malignancies. Or to suffer them.
A very small mind can pack into its very small place
enough knowledge of just one thing only to impress
many into thinking it contains a large amount of
everything. So judge carefully the minds you meet.
Life evens out all things. Even Man.
Life will always even out all things.
Whoever ignores a proven fact
spits in the face of God.
We are always falling into ourselves,
from birth until we grow up. And then
we start to give [of] ourselves away until nothing
remains & that is what makes us whole again.
Had a Star Trek dream once... We found ourselves
landing on the planet Zembo, where we came upon
a wild tribe of its inhabitants worshipping an ancient
nameless god whose ritual consisted of dancing (of
course) and singing something like dobalaba dobalaba
babaloba lombataba balabalacotobala and on & on like
that [a very long prayer etched upon a giant ancient
stone the practitioners had to commit to memory after
one single peek at it... and which they then had to
chant before the entire gathering in front of a large
brute holding a sharp sword... so that if they got a
single syllable wrong their heads were instantly
lobbed off]. A prayer called The Grand Gibberish which
no one had understood for millennia now. Well, one of
our party (who prided himself on his exceptionally
good memory & was obviously doomed to die in that
mission before the next commercial break) said he
thought he could do that and volunteered to peek and
pray without knowing the full consequences of failing
even once. He goes along swimmingly, and then he cries
out "Double time!" while I place my hand over my eyes
--Couldn't take it anymore, so I woke myself up.
La cobardia de los 2 Cubanos

El enano Rubio le tiene tanto miedo a Trump
que cada vez que lo pasa se alza a besarle el culo
y Cruz asta ahora esta diciendo que su padre si fue
el que mato a JFK
Dear P. Obama: Can you not see that what you
are NOT doing is discouraging Putin from doing
what he IS doing! Putin knows that words are
all your arsenal--Every time you open your
mouth (to threaten him) Putin must be tearing
off his shirt & rolling around on the ground
with laughter. "The only thing necessary for
the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing." --Edmund Burke
Obama's Legacy: Thank you, Mr. President, for
leaving the United States in the middle of one
really fucked-up world.
Dogs use their canines to tear the flesh, so if you
have your dog's removed... he might still be able to
bite, but his bites won't be as terrible. Of course,
for maximum protection you could have all your
dog's teeth extracted and feed him intravenously...
Bad logic is no argument against Logic.
Bad reasoning is no argument against Reason.
I spend my last couple of dollars buying for a child
and a homeless person hot meals in some coffee shop
where I can't afford to buy a meal for myself--A much
more splendid treasure is mine thereby, in my poor
estimation, than millionaires' and even billionaires'
sitting day & night atop their stored piles of money!

I don't know why they do it. I do not understand how
they can do it. Maybe as they perish they wish to make
snow angels upon their billows and billows of unused
cash. Or perhaps they sit way up there so high just so
they can have a much better vantage place from where
to look down on all the human suffering...
Humanity is not just only the principle & philosophy
that we ought to do all that we can to relieve the
suffering of others, our fellow human beings--it is
also a real feeling deep within us, a true deeply-felt
conviction that we ought to do that. And if you don't
share that human feeling there is definitely something
quite very deeply wrong with your humanity, friend.
Who's seen God? And yet all nuns are as certain
God exists as they are of the pixies, leprechauns
and ghosts oft spotted leaping over trees by them,
or swimming under waters deep (whilst smoking
heaps). And yes: "I ride my tricycle on Mars."
Just as men will try to get the most amount of money
for the least amount of work so will they try to do
the least amount of work for the greatest amount of
money. But anybody who tries to make up an economic
philosophy of this will soon find that all these many
so-called "economic philosophies" work best when it's
an ongoing compromise between everybody concerned.
A people that do not rule themselves are
always exploited by their rulers.
Not by Robert Frost
[Not that Robert Frost couldn't've written it]

Whose dog is this I think I know.
His bite is very painful, though.
So I will stand here like a clod
to watch my wound fill up wth blood.

The dog is big and teethly lean
with grin that says he's clearly mean.
So thoughts I'll gargle but not move
in case the beast does not approve.

The cops are coming, sure, but slow.
And though the bite was quite a blow
wait will I, counting, counting O th'dough
for which I'll sue that owner of "Amigo?'

Galileo's Puzzlement [Galileo's Speech To The Pope]

Why do you deny God? Lies are the work of man and the
Devil. The facts are the Word of God speaking to you
directly: I have shown you the facts and you cannot
deny they are the facts. And yet you will force me to
deny them publicly--which I will do (or you will
torture me to death). But You Holiness denies the
facts of your own volition! And just because you
believe they might threaten our job, your earthly
career, your sum of wealth, the standing of the
institution you lead here! Look in the mirror, what
you see there is the work of God. When you deny
yourself you are denying God. Call a tree anything
other than a tree and you are denying the God who made
that tree. So too with all other facts God has (by me)
placed before you: Deny the least of them and you are
also denying God--for facts are the truth of God and
once they are revealed to you they are there only for
you to acknowledge them. To deny them is to deny God.
If A=B and B=C then [A=C] this means
that B is irrelevant.

Until you're dead
a coffee brew
is better for you
than a hole in the head.

Too much or not too much--that is the question:
Whether to suffer all the outrages of waste
or bear all the indignities of knowing that I
should have put just a little bit more into it!
Throughout its history Christianity has been a promoter
and defender of the most outrageous ignorance and
superstition. If it were to finally become a philosophical
plan for life instead, then I think it would become at last
The Great Ideal humanity has been seeking all this time.
Islam is the religion of outrageous inhumanities. It has
been so since Mohammed himself on down to this very day
... where everywhere Muslims hold power they perpetrate
the present world's worst crimes. If Islam truly were "the
religion of peace" there would be no end to the praises
that I would bestow upon it (even as disgusting as it is
for me not to condemn superstition in all its forms).
Reaching down deep into the implosion of the universe:
Essentially, splitting the atom (et al) is the same as
trying to stop the implosion of the universe--this is a
measure of just how strong/fast/headlong that implosion
really is.
People are apt to quote the most godawful lines of
poetry--if such lines support their prejudices. And
hail those tired tirades as the best poems on earth.
Putin & Erdogan are such bald-faced liars
that if they ever tell you "cats chase mice"
you better ask to see a cat chasing a mouse.
Nadie que se meta en un conqurso con Fidel Castro
a ver qual es el mas burro puede ni perder ni ganarle!
I have never listened to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony
and had notions that "all men are brothers" or some
other such ethical or moral conclusions cross my mind:
I don't speak German, for one, and even if I did, who
the hell could be so devoid of human emotions that he
can abstract himself from such powerful expressions of
emotions long enough to run philosophical treatises
in his brain right in the middle of such overwhelming
music?! I've trouble remembering where the hell I am
until the music ends, quite frankly, and I can recover
my senses again! So I can't quite imagine these "guys"
sitting there thinking: "Ah, yes, this is that marvelous
statement about the ole brotherhood of men Beethoven
was trying to put out with this piece: Very interesting."
To the end of my life I shall always remember
Robert Goulet not just as one of the greatest talents
the entertainment world ever saw/heard but, on a
personal level: one of the kindest, most gracious
human beings I ever ran across in my entire life.
Every minute I live I do something.
I might not accomplish much, but
I will accomplish something!
I do not much are for the symphonies of Schumann
because they always sound half-made to me. Maybe
it's because Schumann himself was half-baked.

I was talking to my parrot
when he said again & again
Don't bother: Just gimme a carrot!
Gimme a carrot! Gimme a carrot!
Gimme a carrot! (Just one.)

No puppy is born & then suddenly, unexpectedly
becomes a zebra. And yet Big Bang philosophers
expect us to believe the universe was born one thing
and has, somewhere along its life quite suddenly
and unexpectedly become a number of other things.
How Not To Crap In Yer Pants.
A Poem.

      If ever you feel
      the slightest inclination
      Never go out till you fulfill
      your dirtiest obligation.

You can present people with an understanding,
but you can't make them understand. Same as
with horses and their water-drinking.
The last person on earth you want to to tell that
he's an idiot IS an idiot--You can call an intelligent
person an idiot & he'll just have a good laugh. But,
ironically, even though he's the one person on earth
most in need of being told he's an idiot, an idiot is
also the last person on earth you'd want to tell he's
an idiot.
California’s Statewide Ban On Foie Gras Is Getting

Foie Gras is an abomination that has to be declared
a outrage to our humanity: The torture those birds
endure for this one "delicacy" is just not worth the
degradation it brings down on us all, man & beast.
I'm an old poet now,
standing in the ways of the world
wobbly dodging each & every wind
that whips me with its dreadful wail.
What? Make you a sandwich? Sure bet:
Abracadabra ham & cheese
Make this guy a sandwich, please!
Now, tell me: Are you a sandwich yet?
Now, my father's entire family were not much more
than cold-blooded evil bastards, the entire sorry lot of
them (including myself and my dear brethren, of
course). But I'll grant you that some idiots will be
bound to interview many of them and find them affable,
friendly, welcoming, sweet, and generous. And many
more idiots in time to come will wonder how I, who
knew the sons-o-bitches all my life, could be so wrong
about them... while these momentary interviewers, who
had but a brief brush with them, could be quite so
unerringly accurate and right about them. And this
will be one more proof that we are still hopping
monkeys (if now not so much tree to tree). But, of
course, this truth will be so far over their heads
that you'd think we've hopped down from our trees
to bonsai now. Hard to imagine that if a Hell exists
there might be one of us will escape that black hole.
The inability or unwillingness to allow that others
might have ideas one can use is the definition of
ignorance--Knowledge/understanding arise from
the willingness/ability to accept that possibility alone.
If there is a God then He is a child, for the tricks
He plays on us are both infantile and so childishly
cruel: He has not yet matured to the point of having
developed empathy and humanity. So, to God I say:
Destroy the world. And please don't try to remake it
because you're an incompetent twit. Trust me on this.
Is there a God? Well, I know that the universe is
definitely conscious & aware--How else can it know
when I really need things to work & make them
utterly unworkable & un-working no matter what!?
On Evangelicals & Other Criminals.

Do not be deceived:
Christ did not come to this world to demand a Golden Cross
--A simple duct tape cross on the wall is good enough
for Jesus any day of the week.
Those who demand a Cross of Gold in the name of Jesus
are working for the Devil.
If American civilization collapses
it will be directly due to ignorance and superstition:
it had over a century to bring its education up
to the level of dealing with reality and instead
it's still dealing with the age of the gods.
The difference between intelligent organisms and
intelligence supported by mechanical underpinnings
is that mechanical underpinnings maintaining
intelligence is always for the sake of maintaining
intelligence, while organic intelligence is mostly
almost never for the maintenance of intelligence.
The Latinos and the Hispanics, as we all know, are
from two different continents: The Latinos are from
the lost continent of Latinia while the Hispanics are
from the lost continent of Hispania. We are all lost!
Did you say...?

"Nuke" Gingrich?
Una Chupeta?
Unpalo Porlacabeza?
Wuda Kuda?
Bernard Pimpledscrutum The 3rd?
Miss Moss-Arela?
Atatollah Komebola?
Annie Histamin?
Apestoza Sobako?
Mister Ichiballs?
Mister Pantspuper?
Piya Kolada?
Queen Victrola?
Mister Bordello?
Dallas Nalgas?
Eddie Bidipipi
Doña Empanada de Zicotes
It being 1776 again in the MAGA world, here
is The New Yankee Doodle all the British soldiers
are getting drunk to in the Boston pubs now:

          -- --

   Mike Lindell called Captain Trump
   and told him he was stolen!
   So Trump got on his hobby-horse
   until his ass was swollen:
   Trump is telling every one
   that he has been stolen
   but the only proof he has
   is that his ass is swollen.

          -- --

   Republicans are all with Trump
   and screaming he's been stolen
   and as their proof they're dressing up
   with Trump's revolting colon:
   Trump is telling every one
   that he has been stolen
   but the only proof he has
   is that his ass is swollen.

          -- --

   In all the outlets of FOX News
   the talking heads are swearing
   but all their proof of the Great Crime
   is the Trump shit they're airing:
   Trump is telling every one
   that he has been stolen
   but the only proof he has
   is that his ass is swollen.

          -- --

   Down at the Trump base they all have
   SURE PROOF of The Great Lie
   and it is that when someone asks
   they all rush to reply:
   Trump is telling every one
   that he has been stolen
   though the only proof he has
   is that his ass is swollen.

--S D Rodrian

Question: Why is Captain Trump's ass swollen?
Answer: Not from Trump riding his hobby-horse but
from the serious ass-whipping that Joe Biden gave him.


Who is this...?

Sergey Labrador, Putin's main(gy) liar.
Italian Ambassador Iomaggio Pastrami
N.Korea's Leader's American cousin: S. Pete Un
Our exercise guru Mister Slouch.
Turkish President Amad Sniferoglu.
Mister Squeamish, Pest Control.
Turkish Prime Minister Merdegun.
Indian Chief Sitting Balls.
Pamfilo Pushacoche, our Spanglish Instructor
Mulah Patuladullah
German Foreign Minister Schorst Stabbs.
Greek Minister Pipo Papalapapolus
Russian Ambassador Cucarachakov
Your waiter Ronnie Knoze.
My girlfriend Plasta Emierdaeperro.
Our funeral director Mister Maggot
(It's pronounced "Ma, go!" It's French.)
People in different places:

Gua Chin Tun
Sandy Eggo
Al I. Bama
Nan Tukit
Phil Adelfia
Pa Duca
Boss Ton
Kal E. Fornia
Ma Ann Haten
Kent Tokie
Yes: I am from Birdshit, Oklahoma. But
I prefer to tell people I'm from Paris.
And please keep your American Cheese in
your shoes--where it won't stink up the place!
O Frog! You do not need such a big mouth
to eat a fly. "Hey, stupid! Have you seen
my tongue? It's like a freaking firehoth!
And ya can't keep The Big Bang-n-a-bean!"

Ode to some cheese--Ode to a cheap chemise
--Why do poets write about such trite matters?
Because we are not hacks: Only a hack writes
an Ode to Trump or Hillary. A true poet writes:

Ode To My Ass

O ass of mine, every single time
you take me somewhere: It's shit!

Give it up, my man! Give it up!
(That's me in there.)

Why do the English love blood pudding?
Because excrement pudding was a bit much.
The great thing about failure is that if there's a
nuclear war tomorrow... it's not that big a loss.
O thou God, if you really wanted me to do the right
thing you should've given me a moral compass. Instead
of just punishing my every transgression like you do!
Now, the deal with life is: You can't have
nothing--but you can't have everything either.
Proof of Our Insanity, or
it's better not to think about it...?

You will get fewer objections to the proof of a positive
than to the proof of a negative, but you can no more
prove one than the other because, in the end, proof
is only that to which we can agree.
The universe is perverse
and full of bugs.
Enjoyed Tyler Knott Gregson's poem about the
fellow with the farts fetish:

“I want my days filled/ and my nights saturated/
with the sound of you,” reads one poem.

And Lang Leav’s one about the suicidal twirp who
longs to be butchered by the Aztecs:

“Take me someplace where I can feel something —
I want to give away my heart,” one of her poems begins.

Good stuff. Shows imagination, creativity, and a touch
of lunacy--which is not all that bad in a poet actually.
Where does the light go when it's turned off?
To Heaven if it was a good light or to Hell if it
was dull & made your eyes hurt trying to use it
according to those who believe in the afterlife.
But I say the light goes into the refrigerator:
If you look in there you will find the light in there
ready to be used around the house when needed.
Dear Sirs, I would like to become an
dentured professor in your university!
It's all right to fail as long as you know
you're tried every way you could to succeed
--that's how to reclaim success from failure.
Don't all laws curtail people's freedoms?
Yet we cannot have freedom without laws!

do not bother me with your small thoughts
like ants at a picnic which do not amount to
much more than a passing annoyance

come at me with some real bull

nothing moves a man more than seeing
a bull charging him (& even if it's just shit)

You never want a law to prevent
a gruesome death named after you.
Simple minds coming up with simple solutions
for simple people, SMCUWSSFSP for short
(pronounced "some cows' foot sop").
If I'm gonna swear on a bible
I'm gonna need The Atheist's Bible.
Giving away democracy is easy.
Trying to get it back again is thousands
& thousands & thousands of times harder.

Twist the twig
to make it big.
Cut the tall
to make it small.

Stop the truth
to make a lie.
Wear out youth
to make it die.

Count the one
till it is done.
Be a man
when you can.

If you know how

Ply the living plow
that pens your full ken:
How perfect the world is now!
How unfinished then!

Amb. Haley slams ‘foolish’ UNHRC
after it passes 5 anti-Israel resolutions

(and only 2 on Syria)

UN Human Rights Council is in the hands
of the inhuman!
On The Death of T. Boone Pickens

Men have a choice when they die:
To take their good deeds with them
or to leave all their bad behind. But
none of them may take their wads
of hard cash to line their grave soft
--All must leave them to th'men they
spent their whole lives taking it from.

Predicting the future is easy
if you are the one taking aim.
No person with a tattoo
should ever be taken seriously.
Although why this should be true
is unmysteriously pretty ugly.
The main impediment to a man's goal of
perfection is always other people.
The smarter you are
the more information you want to collect.
Not the more you know the smarter you are.
I hear all kind of rush of wind & water now
portending life & the world are going away,
washing into the distance. And that I'll stay:
Here. Some place nearby soon forever to sink
to the most faded memory of a man.
Just like little girls need tampons, little boys need
the invention of an automatic masturbator they can
wear so that any number of times a day they can
relieve [get rid of] their frustration as they go'bout
their everyday. The time will yet come when society
will recognize this biological requirement and address
it in our little boys as they have already addressed
the biological requirement of little girls' tampons.
The one terrible thing about being an artist is that
you can never really be audience to your art.
The clarity of the English language--that
is its highest form of poetry.  S D Rodrian
And it was called "the passenger pigeon"
... because no matter how hard they tried
scientists could never teach it to drive.
Of course I'm a racist: How can you possibly strive
for a solution to a problem you don't even believe
exits in the first place?!? No: The first step to
solving any problem is acknowledging it exists.
And the worst racists of all are always those who
tell you they're not racists. Now you know why.
What is God? A figment of our imagination.
The cork with which we plug our ignorance.
God is always the one explanation for what we do
not yet understand: God is one of the endless ideas
that arise out of the unfettered human imagination
when our thoughts are not anchored in firm reality.
I am a Christian not because I believe that Jesus
was God but because I believe that the way of Jesus
is The Way (to the Salvation of the human race).
So-called Christianity was invented (yes, literally
designed) by a Pagan Roman Emperor (Constantine)
to make it easier for him to rule the Roman Empire.
This is why his "Jesus is God" notion is entirely of a
Greco-Roman Pagan god walking around the earth
performing magic tricks, having sex with peoples &
other animals, and sending folks to Hades or Mount
Olympus. [Note that in the Hebrew Bible God never
comes down to earth even to talk to Moses, nor is
there any notion of there being a Heaven where you
can play checkers with God or a Hell in which you &
Allah can enjoy torturing the souls of the unbelievers
and raping their little virgin children, girls & boys...]
When the only defender of the innocent
is himself an innocent, then shall the slaughter
of the innocents proceed unimpeded.
I don't usually feel comfortable accepting praise
from a whore or a politician. Although I can't imagine
anybody preferring to be praised by a politician over
a whore. [Ha. Ha. I made a funny!]
I believe that the two-state solution to the Israeli-
Palestinian conflict is possible. All that has to
happen is for the Muslims to embrace the notion that
God is not a butchering psychopath who has called on
Muslims to slaughter all non-Muslims wholesale, and
for themselves to cease believing that non-Muslims are
subhumans to be used & abused as beasts of burden or
slaughtered as vermin: I think that once that happens
it might be as possible for Jews to talk to Muslims as
easy as it is now for cats & mice to play & cavort.
People who love other people... will not help you
when some modafoker's beat'n the crap outta you.
Any notion that one can have a bias towards religion
without having a bias for one religion over all the others
is pure fantasy.
I got hold of another one of those multi-choice voice
mails--They never have the option I'm looking for: "If
you'd like to take a trip to Andromeda, press 1 --If
you'd like to have someone come over to your house
& dust your piano, press 2 --If you'd like to have eye
surgery while standing on one leg, press 3 ..."
My mother took me to see Trapeze (with Burt Lancaster
and Gina Lollobrigida) when I was I kid and it really
affected me. I told my Mother: "I wanna do that!" She
asked me: "What, you wanna join the circus and swing
around on a trapeze?" And I was, like: "Wadd'you
crazy? No! I wanna do Gina Lollobrigida!"
It is physically impossible to shush chickens.

God bless all my fellow monkeys
who continue to spew their spawn
upon this floating dustball of fluff
as if it were the grounds of eternity!

Good fences don't make good neighbors, sorry: That's
antithetical to our sense of humanity. Rather, good
neighbors make good neighbors, and good fences keep
bad neighbors from becoming even worse neighbors.
The only way for a man to really quiet a woman
is to run away as fast as he can: He can always
call her later and ask if she's gotten over it. Okay,
maybe he'll have to call more than once or twice.
My response to: "Go fuck yourself, asshole!" is:
"Sir, I am only an asshole: What you are looking for
is not something insulting but complementary. Please
look in a dictionary for a word (a term) of something
that can fuck itself." It will suit you more perfectly.
... from an email to my little sister: "Anyway, as I
was telling you: [And I meant "instructional" when
I say...] I had a strangely "instructive" dream on the
subject of our last email: We came upon my old blue
car, a wreck. (I'm always having dreams about finding
it abandoned somewhere and then trying to get it back
home before the cops notice it.) So we got in it and
were driving home on a very crowded street--We were
hemmed in by a bunch of cars and my brakes weren't
working too well so we bumped up against the cab of
an 18-wheeler that was trying to make a turn! (The
driver of the 18-wheeler only stuck his head out &
laughed.) Then I was finding a parking place in front
of our old house and you jumped out to tell some teens
they had taken up too much space with their cars, so I
jumped out after you (knowing you're such a hot head
& could get yourself into trouble). Suddenly I was
trying to keep up with you in some sort of expansive
citrus trees orchard: The trees were huge too, their
great foliage down to my waist (so I couldn't see you
to keep up). In any case, I was old and you had turned
into a little girl [!] then so it was impossible to
keep up with you try as I might. I need to keep you
safe in the wide world out there--I cried out: "Where
are you? I can't see you!" And I heard you call back:
"I'm over here!" Yet I still couldn't make out where
you were, running all over the place out there. (I
don't remember whether you were gathering oranges,
or just playing.) But I was trying to ask you if you
have not/never known good people? I called out to
where I imagined you to be: "Have you not/never known
good people?" Only the insane might answer no to that
question. "Well," I went on: "The only reason we can
say we have known good people in great part is because
of the bad people we have known," not knowing if you
could hear me, because I couldn't see you where you
were (running about under the huge leafage of the
orange trees everywhere). I continued: "We never quite
appreciate the good people in our lives until after we
have met up with a number of the bad ones." Maybe I
was thinking of our two grandmothers, so different. In
any case: "Therefore," I said: "Never believe there is
no use for even the worst of man." And then I had to
wake up to write down this truth--It's a cliché, of
course: a truth which is, or should be, commonplace
everywhere to everyone. But which, waking up, coming
out of a dream like that seems quite striking..."
When something takes time it takes off my timing.
I'm like a candle amidst a vast darkness lit up with
the light of one splendid truth: All candles go out.
A woman's work is long & hard
but a man like that
need only rake/mow the yard.
If God has a purpose for this world
it is that He placed us in the worst shit-hole
existence He could think of
to see whether we made anything good of it.
I must confess we have a long ways to go.
But I can see that there are a few souls here & there
that have done their bit to aim us in the right
direction. True, not many. And certainly not enough.
But in themselves, enough
to give a little hope to God to keep us
in this shit-hole existence.
Is it illegal for anybody but a bartender
to shoot anyone who asks for a shot.
How many typos have I typed? Thousands!
I always type faster than my mind can read
what the Hell I'm typing. So watch for them.
I thought you said you had a big dick.
No: A "Bic dick." You know: like the pen.
Some motherfuckers make millions
of dollars sitting on their asses. I sit
on my ass all day and can't make a dime!
Rush Limbaugh is just a nut driving a crazy--car
trying to dodge the squirrels.
I have never been one for the minutia of life. I'm of
the opinion that people with small minds are best
suited for that: Small minds are always closer to the

Is the clock running?
There are a lot of other things in life
that tick away too, including life itself.
Only death is silent. So I will wait
for everything that is going away ticking
step by step to turn to music--Then that
warm watchman that walks with us so
steadily to the slippery in one tick alone.

Yes, it is always better to be shot dead than
to be shot while you're still alive.
If you don't want to be disappointed by mankind:
Don't expect or ask anything of them.
Leontyne Price is the jewel in the American Crown.
The dictator's powers are temporary
--only until he can make them permanent.
No nasty bug just dies. "Bicho malo no se muere."
Overheard: "I took the dog to the park the other
day ... it chased a squirrel up a tree ..." , "The dog
went up the tree?" , "No. Just the squirrel."
You can't understand the world if you only read the
opinions of those who agree with you. In fact, you'll
understand the world much better if you only read the
opinions of those who disagree with you because then
you'll get the more balanced/complimentary views
between your opinion and theirs. S D Rodrian
Yes, the rich will take your home & life savings,
but the poor might reach into your pocket & steal
your pocket change--That's why the cops were
invented: to keep the rich safe while they're taking
your home & life savings.
Reading your own meaning into what you read
distracts from what is written there.

O slave of destiny & of blood: that inability
to let go of your hopes is one of the ways
the gods have of whipping you! Dared I but
to slobber off over the pins, pricks & needles
which hook us to this infinite floor of earth
untethered by the least hope that glues me
to each passing moment--How grand then
& spacious a soul might my small seft attain!

If you haven't got a dime, Father Brown,
Father Brown: If you haven't got a dime
use 2 nickels--For as sure as here I am
standing long after me prime: If you're broke
you've got yourself... into a pickle!
"Money can't buy you happiness, only
the stuff that makes you happy."
Does money make you happy? Of course not
--If it did you wouldn't be so eager to get rid of it
buying all the stuff that does make you happy!
Greatest praise for Olympic gold performance:
"A monkey couldn't've done it any better."
The long & boring trek of a beetle--Who I am & what I
do are all the sad consequence of the mechanics of my
robotic being. And those were all designed over
billions of years by the blind requirements of my DNA
[its need to persist BECAUSE it cannot see the end].
Why persist is truly the story of the utter ignorance
& pointlessness of Nature, of life itself. As all our
best/greatest achievements are forever doomed to fall
into the infinite obscurity of the eternal dark which
must be the end of this brief universe engulfing us.

Those needs have produced a creature designed to
perpetuate that DNA being--a task the creature its has
created now finds distasteful, and unethical/amoral: I
shall die soon. And it will almost immediately be as
if I had never been. No comment. Only a weird sense of
strange satisfaction! A mere bug at its locomotion...
But maybe we should continue with this passing thing,
this vast interminable voyage that seeks out blindly but
the very end of time & whatever lies beyond the briefest
of perceived truths [except everything is the vastness
of an even wider imagination to us]: like an angst of
pangs, nothing to nothing & nothings on nothings
until they all mount up to Time's... more nothing.
You can't bend the die to your life.
--I suspect that the first working invention of man
was a stick: In all probability the females originally
fashioned a stick and then the males began to make
sticks too (with which to hit each other over the head).
--What did the females fashion a stick for?
-- I ain't saying.
The opposite of UP is a pillow
(when it's made of down).
Liberty is the absence of somebody
looking after you.
Why Humans Are Hard-Wired For Curiosity
This may not be very good news for cats.
I have a peach impediment.
I love books. I used to collect books just for
the sheer pleasure of owning them even if I
never read them: I owned a whole bunch of
pornographic books--Never read one of them.
You can't blame a dog for barking.
But in some places you are allowed
to shoot him (to shut him up).
Fight the dog hand to hand.
You'll have the advantage:
The dog ain't got no hands.
This rat smells.
Well, then stop picking it up & smelling it!
There is an honest price.
And then there is the price
a dishonest man can talk a sucker
into believing is an honest price.
Russian FM says Syrian militants using cease-fires
to regroup

Good! Good: That will keep the Syrian war going on &
on & on forever & ever & ever. [Remember when wars
were fought until they were WON, and thereby CAME TO
AN END at some point or other
? Now they're fought
until "the human rights gangs" cry out and thereby our
wars are all continually re-started from scratch again
& again & again, re-charged so they become endless.]
Corruption in government is whatever anyone
in your opponents' party-in-power is up to now.
If The Groom Don't Fit You Must A-Quit.
[Grimm's Fairy Tales continued...]

A terrible king keeps his daughter from her rotten
Prince and treats the stable boy even worse: He keeps
the poor lad's head stuck out a window to tell him the
weather because he wants to keep his castle's every
opening very tightly shut so Prince Rotten doesn't
sneak in & soil his daughter. Ah! But the Prince takes
advantage of this by forcing the boy to open his big
mouth wide enough so he can jump in through there
and out his ass into the castle to visit his Princess.
[He warns the boy if he can't crap out he'll rip him
from the insides with his sword.] But one day the boy
convinces Prince Rotten that he just can't fit through
unless he leaves his sword behind--and then swallows
the swordless Prince and processes him a long while
instead of shooting him straight out his ass at once.
The smartass boy eventually married Princess Zoilde.
Doris Day In A Fog:

Once I had a leaping frog
That scared the living crap off me
for it loved to leap in fog
and always wanted to be free

Now I search for it above the hill
'cause it thinks it is a wisp-o-will

At last my love's an open book
'cause I slammed it in there
-Go in there & look...
Most of humanity is an embarrassment.
Mom would pet my dogs while she was using Nair
on her legs--finally had to name'em Heckle & Jeckle.
Our love is like an ornery bug
you can't kill no matter how hard you stomp it
or try to shoot it dead [the Modern Shakespeare]
I support your right to believe whatever you love
[or like] even though you do not support my right
to believe what you hate because my philosophy
is: "Love, Not Hate" [and I know you'll love that]
Pure mathematics is numbers multiplied by numbers
multiplied by numbers [until they go on & on & on to
a level at which they no longer stand for any "thing"]
& then the numbers can multiply by themselves up to
"anything." And when something can be anything it's
nothing. ["2 X 2" is not pure mathematics because we
know that it stands for "2 fingers" X "2 fingers"] ...
There comes a time in every man's life
when he has to change his underwear.
Those who shun the burden of proof
are condemned to bear the greater weight of lies.
I agree that, "Everything happens at least once."
Our lists of impossibles may be sheer hubris... the
vain cultural prejudices of a limited experience.
There is something about an eternal love:
It just can't seen to wait forever.
This morning I woke up and for a moment there I was
certain that I'd been transported into some alternate
[opposite] reality. But then I remembered that, no,
I'd switched my watch over to my right wrist before
going to bed because my left one'd developed an itch.

To get rid of a fly
without watching it die
take out a can of hair spray
& shoot a plume its way:

The fly will gently slow
without you striking it a blow.
Take simply then a tissue ply
from the bathroom's roll

and dump the fly
in the toilet bowl.
Bye-bye fly!
And, please, don't cry.

The key to having everything is wanting nothing.
The cause of having nothing is wanting everything.
A half-million Brazilians want to break away
and form a new country
It will be called the Confederate States of Brazil.
Why do I suspect this is not going to end well...
This is "The Chickza Lisa" by da Vincistein.
     Pearls of Wisdom:
1) it's hard to laugh hysterically
     and pee at the same time
So much needs to be done
and so little brain with which to do it!
If you don't want the walls of your castle breached
then never let anyone know it's a castle.
How can their fares be so cheap.
Because the passengers push the plane.
Waitaminute. How do you "push" a plane?
Well, obviously in order to push a plane
you have to be very high yourself.
Prayer of The Poor:

Lord, please let me pee
as long as I need to!
O my God! I know who Paris Hilton is!!!
The wise only eat what they can shit.
Everyone else: Eat what you will shit.
The only difference between a standup comic
and a physicist is that the physicist's jokes
are only understood by a small circle of people:
"There's something there where there's nothing:
We can't see it, touch it, smell it but we know
it's there because... you see Harry over there? If
there were nothing there then he'd sit down faster,
now, wouldn't he?"
Spend little or nothing on yourself
and you will have plenty to spend on others.
Bloodlust is the best word that characterizes
the true nature of Islam (not the mind-numbing
relentlessness of its insidious propaganda).
Always take you poison with a grain of salt
that way it won't also raise your blood pressure.
Austria arrests nine Iraqis over gang rape of
German woman

Can you imagine what would have happened if it had
been nine Jews who had gang-raped this woman!
Things have to work together for everything to work.
Or everything has to work for things to work together.
"The difference between Democrats & Republicans
is that when a Republican lies he knows he's lying."
People who are evil live longer than they should.
And people who are good never live long enough.
A little heat is called warmth;
too much is called ouch.
Do you know the song I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles?
Well, here's five bucks not to sing that.
Sometimes the string vibrates
with the gentlest of breeze. And
sometimes you just gotta pluck
the damn thing.

In the hair salons
women & men preen each other
--certainly not fathers & sons
and not daughter/mother

Monkeys groom only their own
but we take any stranger' loan
(that's how we came down from the trees
& now cash in takers we have put at ease)

All dirty-assed motherfuckers have
a time-limit on their underwear.
Just because you say that's a fact
doesn't make it a fact: That's a fact.
My One 2020 Political Poem

Joe Biden's as old as all-get-out
but he beats Trump without a doubt

Democrats throw things out there to see if anything
sticks. Republicans throw things out there to see if
anyone salutes one of them. Either way, it's mostly
garbage they're throwing at us. And not even theirs.

Who scratches snake's any itch?
Who back-talks chicken?
I just but look-wrong some bitch
& get one barking-bad lick'n!

The advocacy of absolutes
is one of the best signs of lunacy.
The great thing about an act of creativity is that
once it's created you're done. Not like a job, which
you have to do over & over & over again for the rest
of your life--Which is why they have to pay people to
do a job, and whether they do it well or not: With an
act of creativity (which artists do for the hell of it
or because they're bored, or they are just obsessed
with doing)... if people happen to think it's good the
artist gets paid. But if people don't "get it" or just
don't like it, or they simply hate the artist for
whatever reason... it gets laughed at & ignored & then
the artist starves. And then he better have a job.

If I had the bound of the cat
I'd never pounce even one rat.
If I had the eagle's flying height
I'd never fill fish with their fright.

How foolish are the mighty to make
boasts out of each twig they beak!
Blindly they turn from the beauty
& the splendor with such lack of fury!

I stop it all even to the smallest dot
that marks life gently at each/every spot
while they never note even the great day
in their way eternal as they plink away!

Anything that can be raveled can be un-raveled.
When you let others share in your agenda you will
find it hard & harder to not share in theirs. And
before you know it, your agenda will become but
an insignificant portion of a greater agenda that is
of insignificant concern to you.

What ache the giraffes suffer
they do not care to share:
They are too high way up there
& we don't have much to offer.

The truth will always strike us as uncompromising.
And when is that not hard on a lot of people?
During the Middle Ages the weapons of Mass
destruction were a Satan costume & a severed head
that looked like Jesus's.
Creativity does not look back: It rushes onwards
like a sweep of waters mad to meet down its depths.
While the conventional architects of the well-built
world are always reaching back for every last brick
behind them as they make their ever more fluid forms.
I'm not particularly clever. I wind my way through
life solving the whatever problems of the day. I've
never gathered other men to work for me. I was
mostly only a common ordinary industrial slave
shedding the tears of the blood & sweat of the hours
until I could spend the few nickels & dimes I earned.
Would I condemn my masters for the crumbs of bread
that fed all my needs? Should I? I don't, and whether
I am too tired & weary by their work or too satisfied
at my surviving. I always look forward to the grave,
not backward towards the birth of all my stillborn
possibilities--they've all beaten me to death now.
Let others slave & labor and shed their blood & tears
to build their world. I was only trying not to get
stept on & crushed. I am too small a man to sweep
the soup I consider myself so lucky to have sipped.
How I understand the anger that is threatening to
spill the pots that feed us & the suicide of doing so!

It's an eternity until the dawn
yellows the meadows with Sun
completely--as I guard my lawn
until the last shadow here's gone:

What better could I spend my time on?
What values beyond these moments fawn?

Seconds beyond this silence tick
tongues talking with their every lick
contributing but to the universal moan
meaninglessness about this plan I'm on:

One never-ending promise, alone,
one never to become undone:
Ever the shadows stand wan!
Ever the Sun will sweep on!

An old writer says to a young writer: Write!
Write! You have a million ideas!
& the young writer says to the old writer:
That's easy for you to say: You only have the one!
Green & Barrett: Those are my lawyers. Their
motto is: "We Make Our Money From Our Clients."

O how marvelous, the frog
who stares at the world agog
& although he has legs enough
to walk the long distances off
ventures not from this single log:

Centuries slime-slide frog by
as he tongues his screeching cry
of Croak! Maybe he has no neck
to turn around (so what the heck).
Those who can look back may check.

Those who stare onwards don't care.
Those looking around always aren't there
to see that the works of Man must all die
without even one tongue telling of why.
And we dogs all have our pants to wear.

I don't really like golf. I just watch it so I can do
my Don Adams voice: "Missed it by THAT MUCH!"
What’s in a name? Obama is back to not using Trump’s

Same thing with "Islamic Terrorism" (Obama seems
to suffer from the weird delusion that if you don't say
its name it'll just magically go away--and then you
won't actually have to do something about it).
Lump before you limp.
He said, "You know what I think..." And died
right then & there. But his wife said "it don't
matter much" because he'd never had "a damn
worthwhile thought" in all his life.
The purpose of a bureaucracy
is to waste people's time and money.
Anything it might achieve beyond that
is what that particular bureaucracy
proclaims is its purpose, of course.
The Law is only as ethical and moral as
those who administer it.
"Democracy is the best and only salvation of mankind."
That should be tattooed on the forehead of every baby
born everywhere & anywhere in this forgetful world.
Twice the clock leans to one side and twice it leans
to the other. And then day is done with its timings.

And so our lives go on [along all of the straights
& narrows] sometimes leaning to the left & sometimes
to the right until our end sums up our dance in life
in silence like a sliver all in one second cut:

Death is the diapason that is done

& silence the nervous top that's about to topple
shiny as a spinning toy in God's childish fun.

You cannot be blessed by love
without being cursed by love.
The worst storm of all is the fecal storm.
Sun of a beach
that burns me:
thy splash of speech
is what concerns me
Most naturally of all, it is
the little things that bug me
Cual es la diferencia
entre un agaucero
y un aguacate?
El aguacate es maduro
que el agua'e'acero.
Had a pet monkey named Monko:

My mother got me a trained monkey
but we had to get rid of him because
he proved to be un-trainable.

But, wasn't he already trained?

You talking about him being educated
or that he was brought in by train?
Yes: "Samurai Hypnotist" is a fraud: It is
IMPOSSIBLE to hypnotize people... in Japanese.
Why things are the way they are
I do not know. Yes: It could well be
that it's the way they've always been.
And they will also always be that way.

So any change is damn miraculous
in life (or quite ridiculous, bizarre)...
even if the change is small & doesn't
move the tiniest portion of it all!

Therefore I celebrate all thoughts
that pop up unsuspectingly. And curse
the fools who push for change (or same),
always with most creative inactivity.
Once they chop off your head you can never go back. *******************************************
On principle I am against the killing of all mammals
(including man). However, in practice, I'd like to
think the cops will shoot somebody trying to kill me.
And, of course, as long as they're slaughtering hogs
already--Aghw, who am I kidding!
Yes, maybe O.J. got away with murder, but
he couldn't get away from O.J.
A Modern Poem.

I went to the beach
and got all wet.

Mankind masturbates itself with great monuments.
All of them, if not pointless, useless. Those means
could have been much more wisely spend in alleviating
the sufferings of those in need. Would they have been
so spent is the vile excuse of all monument-builders.
First Contact With Aliens:
Hey, dude. What'cha watched last night?
I Love Lucy. You?
Eat Your Nose. It was good.
Good watching or good eating?
Both. You?
Same: Lucy ate a ton of bom-boms!
Those who forget who they are are
easier to get along with than is Trump
in addition to all those who can't forget
they're Trump, Napoleon (or some-such).
"I'm sorry I am leaving you, for the world is
a lonely place. But, if you have money, there
will always be plenty of people who will want
to be friends with your money."
I live in times that to the peril and ruination of
mankind threaten to nullify & wipe away democracy:
A few greedy men seem willing to wash away the
wisdom of the ages to bathe in a brief grasp of power
(which cannot last beyond their already putrid and
decaying lives). But I will stand with the truth at
every last turn even unto the last of me. As I must.
One finger cannot move the world in a day.
It takes countless fingers & countless days
to move the world.
Teen plotted to kill hundreds for ISIS, but first
killed this man ‘because he could,’ prosecutors say

Shouldn't they cut the crap & rename "the religion
of peace" to "The Religion of Mass-Murder" already!
Lying even in the best of causes is still lying. Evil
even in the cause of the greatest good is still evil.
The voyage of life from mankind's most puzzling
riddles down to the push & shove of humanity's most
annoying everyday trivialities: That's growing up.
Bravery is when you have to do it and you do it.
Foolishness is when you do it & you didn't have to.
If you don't have to do something, don't do it. If
nothing else, you'll feel a lot better about yourself
when some wiseass comes along to tell: "You really
didn't have to do that you know."
"Change = Motion" Existence satisfies the requirements
of the Unified Field Theory because it explains
everything from atoms & galaxies to mosquitoes & flies.
Always expect the worse from people
otherwise you're gonna get caught with
your out-stretched hand around a pogo stick.
My mice-trained-to-eat-bed-bugs business never won
acceptance in spite of being brilliant!
A shower of sugar
& a Spanish place rhyme here
If a man helps a little old lady across the street
& kicks a dog, why would I criticize him for helping
a little old lady across the street?

Calm the beast.
Pretend at least
around him lurks:
"This won't work."

My life is one interminable sequence of workarounds
... the unending obstacles the universe has laid out
as my most peculiar course. -- S D Rodrian
Fact Checker: Bill Clinton’s misleading claim about
info ‘marked classified’ in Hillary Clinton’s emails

Perfect case of, "If you can't tell the truth, at
least STOP lying!" [Which is the one thing politicians
simply cannot understand.]
I'm sitting on a cool rock in the middle of Hell,
watching the demons torture those around me...
helpless to do anything about it. Strange world!
Hail Maybe full of holes!
Polenzani? That's "Polish" in Italian, isn't it?
No. I believe "Polish" in Italian is "Polacotaco."
Polenzani is currently one of my favorite tenors.
A dog either barks or bites.
"Perro que ladra no muerde."
I am by accident & by nature
both a poet and a polymath.
I prefer to read Shakespeare. Shakespeare is not
a hose you stuff down your throat but sips & morsels
of delicious tastes & flavors to be savored at leisure
& to the greater pleasure of one's heart, mind & soul.
Besides, I can never understand 3/4 of what these
divers actors who sink into it are trying to say.
If nothing is working, move on to something else.
The difference between men & women? Men lie.
Women don't REALLY mean what they say...
An Evolutionary Puzzle: Why Is There Beauty?

Lord, what fools these mortals be!

Challenging Mainstream Thought About Beauty’s
Big Hand in Evolution

Guys: There is no such thing as "Beauty." It's all in
the eye of the beholder, whose brain is hard-wired to
imagine it's there in order to facilitate procreation:
We humans see beauty where other animals smell it.
Who steals my purse... obviously mugged me during
one of my cross-dressing episodes.
The secret of happiness is don't tell anyone.
The trouble with the death penalty is that once we
admit that a person's life is worth taking it's not
all that far from there to admitting that more than
just one life is worth taking, and that right there
might prove to be the root of a lot of our wars & all
those other mass murders that we enjoy so much.
Berating those who insult others is the cheapest
way to insult others.
Some old people travel now memory to memory,
while I (and others like me) travel forgetfulness to
forgetfulness along the long voyage to the forever.
You can't sit in a cold room and think about anything
except the cold.
Italian opera entirely in hand-gestures: You've
got to see this.
I think Wagner’s Götterdämmerung is about workers
installing gutters while hanging from elastic straps.
But, isn't Wagner’s Die Walküre a program which
promises better health from taking long walks?
--I do know that Saint-Saëns’s opera "Sam's Son
Ate Dalila" is about a serial killer-slash-cannibal
the police are after. And that "Madama Butterfly" is
about an Italian thinks he's an English butterfly, no?
Now, it's possible that the universe is sane & we are
insane. It is a bit less possible that the universe is
insane and that we are sane. And it's least possible
that the universe is insane and we are [also] insane.
What is possible is that we are sane & the universe is
also sane--And that therefore we believe the universe
to be deterministic while the universe is not: Think.
O gods, will you forgive my slovenly sloth! **********************************
Every day is today.
I've been waiting years for tomorrow
but I've never been there yet. And
even though I am old as yesterday now
Yesterday was even older still.
Better to lose a few dollars
than to lose more of them.
Eventually things stop working.
No matter how smooth or well
they were once helping/irking
us: they all stumble, perish, fail.

And so enjoy it while you can:
All leather must dry & crumble.
Even steel will bend and span
until its hush of time must rumble.

Then, of your own free will
you must destroy & then rebuild
again the works of man: his gild
& greatness. Or else slide to nil.
Sorry, my friend, but: No! The solution to the problem
of these murderers who kill because they believe a
fairy will reward them in Fairy Heaven is NOT to try
to convince them to switch their allegiance to some
other less bloodthirsty fairy. It is to prove to them
that the belief in fairies is delusional, my friend.
Yes, "if A = B then B = A" [and yet
not all apes are gorillas while all gorillas are apes]
Tell you: The amount of garbage a poet has to go
through just to leave the world a few choice words!
The Future has no existence and The Present is but
process. The Future exists only once it has become
The Past. The Past is all that exists: Therefore who
would have us forget [The Past] are nothing less
than trying to raze us all right out of our existence.
On the morality of autonomous weapons: I'm sorry,
but aren't all these so-called A.I. machines simply
picking from among a range of choices which humans
have already made for them? A.I. is our intelligence.
Yes: "No matter how terrible the truth may be
it's still preferable to the most agreeable lie."
Senior Wall Street stock analyst position open.
Huge salary. Few hours. We provide the darts.
This is my highest principle:
I stand with all truths & against all liars.
A journey of a thousand steps is advanced
by any one of them.
I am what is known as "a free radical." A human soul
who has escaped brainwashing, therefore I can actually
think for himself. The good news is that I can think
for myself, of course. The bad news is that I just may
be a cancer of some sort. We'll see. But I gotta watch
my step--I think there might be a number of "white
cells" out there (or very dark ones) after me.
You know someone's crazy "around here" when we
keep doing the same thing over & over again and are
always getting different results.
Twelve Lines

The rain is playing the slim window pane
with a mad mob of numb numberless steps
marching onwards without an aim or discipline.
Rain, like we men, know only that we are a place
& that, for all our goings about, we stay: like weeds
which Wind pushes into an illusion of making headway.
But years pass & afterwards always the empty space
open to the next crop of boisterous feet or of mute
weed stands, silent & inarticulate--Vain men! The tide
matches even your lofty heights! And those dire bites
devouring you aren't the wild rats you fear, but only
the sweet dulcet moments of your unwinding while.
All good poets have the imprint of somebody's shoe
up the side of their asses. And more often than not
more than just one somebody's shoe alone.
The universe is stopped cold by my existence
and drifts at this human pace time to time,
moment to moment, on & on, and the instant
I die it will wind up/wind down all its destiny in a
timeless flash. Then no more for all of all of all.


Other Kindle SDRodrian books
SDRodrian eBooks at Walmart
SDRodrian eBooks at Kobo
SDRodrian eBooks at Barnes & Noble
The Rules of Life
Rabbi Shmuley: How Jewish Values Enrich The Earth
On Marriage
An Open Letter To President Obama On The Trayvon Martin Affair.
Tricky Headlines / S D Rodrian


Copyright Notice: Please note that none of the materials in this website are in the Public Domain, so please do not reproduce any of it without the proper permissions from the Copyright holder: S D Rodrian