Fear
Your 'Ol pal Huckleberry posits some thoughts on human nature and one concept of Fear.

What is that characteristic that makes fear such a unique quality among mankind. It is true that animals have fear, but the fear experienced among animals is that of predator and prey; the shock of the unexpected; the tenuous and unfamiliar; and the anxiety that comes—like the Pavlovian ringing of the bell—from an associated experience or training. Mankind shares all of these petty fears with the animal kingdoms and then some. We develop fears of things where none would occur to the beasts of the field. And unlike the animals, we require no ringing bell or heavy-handed master to wring fear from our soul—we teach fear to ourselves.

Each of us can close our eyes and imagine ourselves. This is unique to us amongst all creation. As we do so, often we do not like what we see. There will be elements that we do like—other things we are unsure of. There are undoubtedly pieces that we see as simply bits of us that are neither good nor bad. All of these are jumbled up alongside other bits of baggage and treasures that we have carried along for the ride—imposed upon us through relationship and experience. But surely there is more. For none of us can ever be fully aware of how we understand ourselves fully. Just as there are unconscious pieces and bits that inform our peculiar tics and behaviors, there are unconscious bits and pieces of our definition of ourselves that we do not understand and may never be fully aware of. In any event, the mosaic of our self-definition only takes shape when viewed with some distance—like a fine mosaic of ceramic and glass, each shard of glazed clay and chip of stained crystal has sharp edges and smooth spots and various shapes and forms that are incongruous until one stands back from that whole. A few paces back, the colors blend and the shapes blur into form and an image appears. Many of those pieces were laid by our own had and are fraught with bits of denial and deception. This is, after all, our self-image—not necessarily our true image—and we added the denial and deception to fill in the gaps and missing pieces in vain attempt to see ourselves for ourselves. At some point then we think that we have a picture that is relatively complete.

We live our lives seeing all that happens to us in the light that bounces off of this self image. Eventually we convince ourselves that this image is reality--or at least it is "our" reality as if there were more than one.

There are those who then project this self image outward. They take their image and place its strictures onto the people and the world around them. Think of the man who cheats on his taxes or steals from, his employer because he believes that everyone cheats steals. He cannot accept the good in any man because he cannot find the good in himself.

There are others who project their image inwardly. Think of the person who believes himself worthless because he believes in conceit that others see him as worthless.

There are those who construct their opinion of themselves based upon this self-appraisal.

• The captain of business who believes himself superior.
• The master of a craft who sees himself defined by his skill.
• The well-ordered mind that sees all within his control.
• The disciplined athlete who sees himself as a physical sculpture of flesh.
• The glutton who finds pardon and comfort in his girth.
• The self-defeatist who satisfies his excuses in the vagaries of fortune.
• The manic who justifies himself in his production of work.
• There are so many more.

Each of us wraps the definition around ourselves as a blanket. We use it to shape our understanding of ourselves, our world, and all that we experience. In this it is comforting. But is it real or a distortion. Consider that each of us has anxiety, fear, despising, and dread of all things, experiences, people, and ideas that challenge this self-imposed mosaic of our soul.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Mac Magruder Supersizes Ignorance in the Illegal Immigration Debate

Mac Magruder, prominent Arizona businessman and owner of several MacDonald’s franchises, appeared on NPR radio on July 6th, 2007, in an attempt to support his position against Arizona’s new law that toughens employer penalties for knowingly hiring illegal workers.

It is painful to hear Mac Magruder fumble and flail has he tries to make his points (listen for yourself- http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11784006 ) If I may summarize, Mac says that this law is bad because

• The verification pilot program mentioned in the law is flawed—because Mac says so.


• If the dictates of the law are followed to the letter and even-handedly applied to every applicant, that’s profiling. (This comment does not make sense in any language.)


• It is un-Constitutional now because if we change the law, it will then be unfair. (Um…excuse me?)


• The Governor knew the law was un-Constitutional when she signed it because it usurps Federal jurisdiction. (State Business licensing usurps Federal Law?)


• No business is knowingly hiring Illegal workers. (He actually said that.)


• Businesses that are hiring illegal worker deserve to be punished. (But, didn’t he just say that…Oh, never mind.)


• People and jobs will flee the state. (Perhaps only the illegal ones will flee.)


• We have entrapped all of the illegal workers by offering them jobs. (If they are entrapped, how can they flee?)


• It’s really a racial issue—because Mac says so. (Forget all that “rule of law” mumbo jumbo.)


• “Most of the people we are talking about are brothers and sisters down South; that are hard-working, wonderful people…they came here to build a better life….” (Since no one is hiring an illegal worker, who do you think Mac is talking about?)


• The economic benefits of illegal workers far outweigh some of costs people are associating with our “friends coming from Mexico.” (Where do I begin? Outweigh some of the costs?


• The economic benefits of who, exactly…since there are no businesses hiring illegal workers? Mac thinks all the illegal workers come from Mexico?)

It seems that Mr. Magruder cannot decide which argument to use, so he is trying them all on for size—supporting none of them effectively—and contradicting himself most of the time in the process. Mac has followed up his performance on NPR with several additional interviews on radio and in print that have added only consistency to his comments—but not quality. His thoughts are ill-informed and poorly presented, and so they remain unsatisfying on every level.

It is fitting and a touch ironic that Mac Magruder is in the business of fast-food—because, like the products he sells, his thoughts are over-cooked and quickly thrown together in a way that is not really good for any of us. How can one man, ostensibly a successful and savvy business leader, twist so much double-speak, ad hominem, and non-sequitur into a four-minute interview? Doesn’t he know that this is what we have Senators for? On the plus side, if this burger restaurant deal doesn’t pan out in the long run, he appears to be honing his skills for a career in liberal race-baiting. But I digress.

Big Mac is serving up a super-sized helping of self-serving sophistry with a side order of unpleasantness that will carry a price for Arizona far beyond the limits of any Value Menu. He is harming our wonderful state and its citizens of every configuration by degrading the valid arguments of his opposition and dragging honest dissenters through the grease-trap so that we all come out sticky and smelling bad. This technique failed when the Senate tried it, it failed again when President Bush tried it—it will fail now as well.

If the quality of one’s position is truly to be judged by the quality of one’s argument, then Business leaders like Mac Magruder and pro-illegal politicians have very weak positions indeed. I challenge “Wake Up Arizona” to stand legitimately on the field of ideas and present their case without the quick-fried fluff. I await their reply. Mr. Magruder, I suggest to you that Arizona has already “woken up” and that is precisely what is causing you so much angst.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Global Spider Monsters

In 1960's horror films, a normal creature--usually an insect or lizard--wanders helplessly into some man-made disaster and is transformed. Let's say it's a spider. Anyway, this spider gets blasted by nuclear radiation, lasered by angry aliens who think we are wasting our planet, or poisoned by a toxic chemical spill and the next thing you know...Bam! The spider is sixty feet tall and munching down on poodle-skirted contestants from American Bandstand. (I always was a bit suspicious that Dick Clark was an alien mutant--but I digress)

The sheer number of movies and TV shows that followed this template is daunting. To use the term "ubiquitous" would be an understatement. But the formula works and is rather simple: Man-made disaster plus recognisable yet mildly creepy animal equals a sixty-foot tall reversal of the food chain and box-office success.

But what if the horrible monster created by unfeeling and wasteful mankind was, say two inches tall? Would the theatrical President of the United States call out the military or seek out the female scientist (who is a bit too attractive to be a scientist in real life) to solve the unsolvable? Would anyone really care? If the spider that is normally, say...1/2 inch high were to mutate into a fearsome 3/4 inch high, it is likely that the heroine would have to save mankind with a rolled up Sunday paper and no one would ever know the difference. In fact, would anyone suspect that there was ever a monster or mutation at all? We have all seen big, creepy spiders and--if we saw one just a little bit bigger or mildly creepier, we would likely think that this was just another big spider in the normal context of the realm of spider-dom. But if the spider were just a little larger than average no one would get scared--which is, after all, the whole point of the exercise.

Fast forward to today. Global Warming is the big, sixty-foot tall monster that has been created by bad and evil mankind. It is going to eat us all unless the President calls out the Army and good-looking scientists get free reign to solve the problem...whatever the cost. Mother nature has innocently walked through the exhaust emissions of our SUVs and coughed-up a disaster of unimaginable proportions.....right?

The problem is that, just like there are big spiders and little ones, the Earth has been at times a very warm place and at other times it has been a pretty cold one. Even the most aggressive and extremist prognostications by green-tinted socialists projects a scenario that is within the normal range of Earthy temperature fluctuations. The Earth has been warm enough for Greenland to be very green indeed, for grapes to grow well in England at one point, and for Mammoths to roam the Siberian plains which are now frozen tundra. In addition, good 'ol Mother Earth has been so chilly at times that glaciers covered huge swaths of the landmass and the sea-levels were so low that early man inhabited caves now submerged dozens of feet below current sea-level. These types of climactic shifting are the norm for our dear planet. Sometimes the changes happened rather swiftly, indeed. And these are just the examples at the extremes. Science and history provide us with evidence of hundreds if not thousands of lesser fluctuations in average climate. Even these lesser climactic oscillations were on the order of dozens of average degrees--still a multiple of what the fringe Global Warming pundits conjure in their nightmares.

So this means that even if we were to turn off all "green-house gas emissions" tomorrow, the Earth may warm up anyway--and could go even hotter just to spite us. It also means that such an extreme warming (and by extreme I mean the most dire Global Warming prediction of 5 or 6 degrees) is not even a blip on the Earthly scale. This spider--even in its worst-case--is only a little bit bigger than the one uncle John squashed for Aunt Martha on the back porch.

Statisticians call this gap a standard deviation. In other words, the range that is normally expected to occur in a dynamic system. For example, when the weather man says that the "normal" temperature for the day is, say 90 degrees, what he is really saying is that the "average" temperature is 90 degrees--sometimes it's hotter and sometimes it's colder. In fact, it is rare that the actual temperature on any given day is the average temperature because MOST times it is either a little hotter or a little colder. As long as the temperature is within it's standard deviation, nobody should be surprised at all.

Well, welcome to Global Warming folks. Even the absolute worst sky-is-falling-chicken-little-scenarios of the Eco-tyranny Movement fall well within the standard deviations of good 'ol regular climate. In fact, it leaves one wondering whether Mother Earth has even noticed that 1/2 half of us drive cars a bit bigger than we really need. It might also be worth noting that, according to the Earth Sciences, Earth at one time had an atmosphere that consisted ONLY of so-called "green-house gasses" (CO2, methane, and ammonia) and that this was the cradle of life. But I digress.

Suffice it to say that, since all of the temperature forecasts are in the"normal-range" and the Climate could randomly decide to go all "warm" or "cold" on us at any time without consulting Greenpeace or Al Gore, is there really anything that we can or should do about it? The truth is that, even if there is a monster, it is only about 1/2" inch tall and it would be better to leave the President alone (he has a bunch of other issues to attend to). It may be more productive to whack Al Gore with a rolled up newspaper and call the issue done.

I'm not saying that we should ignore important issues. Far from it. But it is vital that we keep our perspective. If we were to adopt the positions and policies advocated by the Global Warming proponents, the world would sacrifice trillions of dollars in real value and productivity to effect a world-wide average temperature correction of +/- 3 degrees centigrade one hundred years from now in the off-chance that Mother Nature will not decide differently. Mother Nature (in the form of sun spot activity, water vapor, volcanic activity, plant growth, etc.) can--and often does--toss up changes to climate trends. It's not that she is trying to mess around with us, it's more like she is unaware that we are even here at all. Actually, Mother Nature has no conscience or reason--she just is.

In fact, recent history is full of examples. Just the other day another Woolly Mammoth was discovered frozen in time--wholly preserved because the last cold snap happened very quickly--and millennia before the first SUV rolled off the assembly line. Woolly Mammoths roamed the Siberian Stepps and ate trees and grasses because....drum-roll please.....the Earth was a much warmer place. Far warmer that a couple of metric degrees above today's averages. The ensuing cold snap caught them largely unaware and thus we occasionally find caches of Woolly Mammoth frozen solid and ready for defrost and a quick Bar-B-Q. (Mammoth; the other white meat!)

So, to sum up: It will be difficult to determine how much change--if indeed there is any--is associated with CO2 emissions because Mother Nature plays a shell game with the climate on a regular basis and--even if the climate were not a moving target--the amount of temperature change impact would be indistinguishable from normal temperature fluctuations. Everything else is just scary music and theatrics. It may sell movie tickets, but you do not set economic and environmental policy based upon a movie....Do you?

Be well,
Huckleberry

To Kyl or Not to Kyl?

(With appologies to the Immortal Bard and Hamlet himself, 'Ol Huckleberry struggles with the conservative quandry that Jon Kyl--a fine man--has put us in.)

"To Kyl, or not to Kyl: that is the question:
Whether ‘tis nobler in politics to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous legislation
Or to take arms against a sea of illegal immigration
And by opposing, defeat a Senator?
And by defeat to say we end
The heartache and the thousand taxes and lies
That politics is heir to, ‘tis a royal screwing!
Therefore devoutly we wish to defeat him,
In defeat, perchance, to replace him: ay there’s the rub;
For in the joyful replacement what sophistry will come
When we have shuffled off the offending cur
Must give us pause: there’s the respect
That makes calamity of so free a democracy
For who would bear the whips and scorns of the devil we know,
The oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
The pangs of interns coddled, the law’s delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
Within the voting booth? Who would fardles bear,
To grunt and sweat under heavy taxation,
But that dread of something after tar and feather applied,
The unknown quality of Senator new from whose bourn
May put lie to election returns, puzzling the will
And makes us rather bear those Sophi-crats we have
Than to fly to others that we know not of?
Thus non-confidence makes consenters of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. – Soft you now!
The fair Liberty! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all these sins remember’d."

Be well

Huckleberry

(read the related article at PHXNews here: http://phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=50140 )

Welcome to the Main Event

Announcer: Ladies and Gentlemen! Welcome to the Main Event of the evening!

In this corner, weighing in at a sloppy 25,000 pounds; with swollen noses and wearing brown-stained Armani trunks are the 100 Senators of the United States…Senators! [boo, hiss, grumble]

In the opposing corner, weighing in at 300 million votes; carrying the rule of law, reason, and a well-defined sense of fair play upon their shoulders; and wearing Red, White, and Blue Trunks are the Citizens of the United States…Citizens! [yea!]

Referee: Alright gentlemen, I want a fair fight. No ad hominem arguments or name calling—just go out there and debate the issue at hand and do what’s right for the country.

Citizens: Hey…the Senator's boxing gloves are stuffed with cash and rolled coins.

Referee: Those are campaign contributions, questionable book deal revenues, and consulting contract income.

Citizens: Is that fair?

Referee: No,…what’s your point? At the sound of the Liberty Bell, come out swinging.

[Ding!]

Announcer: And the Senators make the first move!

Senators: It’s not really “Amnesty,” It’s more like a “Pardon!”

Citizens: That makes no sense.

Senators: What we have now is “De-facto Amnesty!”

Citizens: So we should go from “De-facto Amnesty” to “Actual Amnesty?”

Senators: It’s actually “Earned Citizenship!” Quick—someone get me a Thesaurus!!

Citizens: You’re not fooling anyone.

Senators: You're a Racist! You want to break up families! Hamburgers will be $20 each! Who’s going to pick my lettuce?? You just don't understand the issues! If we legalize them then they will vote for us!!!!!!

Announcer: A large cut has opened up in the Senators' position—the audience gasps as the Citizens come charging back!

Citizens: We tried the legalization thing before and you guys did nothing to enforce the laws. You passed a bill to build a border fence and then play political games with it so it won’t get built.

Announcer: Body-Blow! Body-Blow!

Senators: This is all the fault of talk-radio fear-mongers who have to be stopped!

Citizens: You mean those guys who helped you all get elected last time?

Announcer: The Senators are realing—bearly able to stand on their own two feet!

Citizens: Your plan doesn’t make economic, legal, or moral sense at all.

Senators: It’s the best deal we could make! It’s even Bi-partisan and everything!!

Citizens: You are running this thing like a game of Three-Card-Monte. No matter what we choose, we lose, because you are the guys dealing the cards and deciding what the choices are. I’ve had enough of this—we’re going to vote your deal-making, double-talking, legacy seeking, self-centered butts right out of office!

Senators: So you do not like this immigration bill? Why didn’t you just say so?

Announcer: The Senators have just run out of the ring and are sprinting for the door!

Referee: The winner, defender of liberty, and still champion of Constitutional Republican governance…The Citizens! [yea!]

Well, the good guys took this round with the defeat of the terrible Immigration bill in the Senate. But don’t forget, friends—the Senators will be back for another round of Sophistry and Mayhem. Let’s make sure that we are ready for them.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Immigration--Where do Solutions Begin?
In fact, they begin right here! (With a little Milton Friedman wisdom thrown in for good measure.)

And it begins with the truth that we are still talking about illegal immigration--not "immigrants" or "migrants" or any others who might legally lay claim to opportunity in this country. Let's dispense will all the talk of racism, nativism, and the rest. We have all seen, heard, and read the dribbling rants of those who are racists out there. We know them when we see them. There are elements of that everywhere and on both sides of this debate. They are the fringe, the out-landers to the American Dream--but they are a noisy lot at times and ultimately cowards. Let us set the misanthropes aside as history undoubtedly will do and get ourselves on to the business at hand.

Arizona is the Huckleberry State
I am a native Arizonan (not of the "Native-American Tribal" variety, but still enough of a rarity) and have witnessed a great deal regarding illegal immigration first-hand. I have seen illegal immigrants who work exceedingly hard and generally within the context of legality (of course, excepting their immigration status) and I have been the victim of crime at the hands of....how do we now say this...."doubly illegals?" Again, I am not shocked by the fact that a societal subset contains elements of both. Any random set of humanity with sufficient scope would do the same.

Ideas--At Least I Know Where to Start
Only you can determine if you believe that 'Ol Huck has something constructive to offer on this matter, but let me give you a taste. It is my contention that:

• The most important elements in any solution to illegal immigration are sequence, measure, and pacing. (Think of how the Fed manages interest rates to avoid "shocking" the economy.)
• The most fearful aspects of the current legislation are that it was quickly negotiated in secret and, in fact, the most current version is unavailable for public review. (Never a good sign. The Heritage Foundation managed to review an early summary before they published their scathing account.)
• It is vital to remember that any solution must take into account the relative incompetence of the Federal government in administrating such programs. (Milton Friedman once said, "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand.").
• It is also important to view the current proposal in the context of the failures of the previous attempt in 1986 and to not repeat those errors (Milton Friedman also said, "Governments never learn. Only people learn.").
• Finally, incentives must be in place to induce lawfulness. It is clear to me that the Senators do not have a firm enough grasp of Economics to place these incentives in the correct locations. I would argue that the incentives, as I understand them, contained in the current bill encourage lawlessness. (one last Milton Friedman quote, "Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." He was a pretty bright guy, eh?)

But What About the Families and the Children, etc.?
With regards to this issue it is also plain that many are leading from their heart. I do not fault them too much for this. Grace, mercy, and compassion are the hallmarks of my faith--political and theological. But we do not benefit those who wish to come to our country under noble goals and lofty aspirations if, by doing so, we lessen the quality or value of that which they seek to achieve. In so doing, the "economy" of Freedom is put into Recession and the sum total of "good" is diminished. If the mechanism is properly in place and the "market" for such remains governed by the rule of law, only then does each transaction (of immigration) add value to the whole. This is true of every system designed by the hand of man.

Enforcement Slander
Before I sign off, I would also offer that the majority of opponents to the bill (excepting a few) are not necessarily "pro-enforcement-only" as is commonly inferred. Rather, they are largely "Pro-enforcement-first" (not the same thing) and that any government unwilling to enforce current laws cannot be trusted to enforce any.

We keep hearing John McCain and other politicians parroting the party-line:

"Those who oppose this legislation have a duty to propose an alternative."

I would have hoped that the legislators involved might have asked this same question of us prior to their first, clandestine Drafting sessions. I assure you that I would have spoken up. Now, each attempt that I and my philosophical brethren make to contact our representatives is met with disdain, slander, and silence.

"You want solutions and alternatives?
Here I am John, but it appears that you will not take my call."

Be well,
Huckleberry

Immigration and Sophistry in America

“Truth, that’s it! For when a man lies he murders some part of the world...you should know that!” (1)

Good ‘Ol Huck is starting to get in a bad way about this whole mess—refering to the mis-named Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act. It’s getting awfully lonely out here on the Intellectual Conservative front. Our evidence today comes from those previously claiming to profess Conservative Principles.

Did They Really Say That?
Is Huckleberry willing to name names? Why sure he is:

• Trent Lott (You should hear some of the tragic interviews he has been giving—this will likely end his chances at further Republican Leadership. And did he really say that “Talk Radio is a problem” that needs to be addressed? Yes he did, to his lasting shame.)
  
• Senator Jon Kyl (I am very sorry to include this fine man in this list of shame, but he has boxed himself into a rather ugly corner on this one. If he comes up with another “it’s more like a pardon, not amnesty” comment I may become ill.)
  
• President Bush (Don’t get me started. When he is right, he is mostly right, though fumbling a bit. When he is wrong, he can be tragically, horribly wrong. Is it correct to say logarithmically wrong? Hurling accusations and name calling at your political base--one that is shrinking fast do to other concerns--because they disagree with you qualifies as being just that wrong.)
  
• The Goldwater Institute (My email exchange with Clint Bolick, a staff member at the Institute, was equal parts enlightening, comic, and horrific. Did he really suggest in an Arizona Republic editorial that Republicans prostitute themselves upon this bill in order to improve their election chances? Yes he did; thus lowering the term “craven” to new depths and debasing the name of the Senator his employer is named for. By the way, ‘Ol Huck ain’t done with the Goldwater Institute just yet. They have done a bit of good work over the years and, if they can be saved from themselves, I will give them that chance.)
  
• John McCain (Perhaps someone whispered in his ear that his support for this bill would augment his Presidential aspirations…and perhaps that person was James Carville…and perhaps even he didn’t think McCain would take him seriously.)

Lest you think that your favorite blogger has gone off the deep end, allow me to mention those few who so far are fighting the good fight on this critical issue:

• Almost all of Conservative Talk Radio that I have heard (see: Trent Lott above)


• The Heritage Foundation (Bucking the trend, they have attempted some scholarly research on the costs involved. By the way, pocket change won’t do it.)


• National Review and the online incarnation of this relatively steady and philosophically sound magazine.


• I cannot think of anyone else right now, but I felt compelled to add a fourth bullet so that it does not look like reasoned Conservativism is so greatly outnumbered—though that appears to be the case.

Sophistry Shuffle
Come to think of it, this isn’t really a Conservative or Liberal issue at all. In anything near its current form this bill violates sound economic principles, denies human nature, ignores the concept of the rule of law, twists the US Constitution into some pretty bizarre shapes, caters to a few special interests and select industries, incentivizes criminal behavior, and plays a shell game with the various extended implications (Health care, Social Security, and so much more). Is it any wonder that a signifcant number of us are outraged?

But perhaps worst of all it is causing the Republican leadership--who have been duped into supporting this travesty--to lie, twist, mangle, and dance the Sophistry Shuffle as they spit into the wind and tell us it’s raining.

Be well,
Huckleberry

(1) Quote from the character Merlin in the movie Excalibur, 1981, Orion Pictures Corporation

Snow, Cement, and Ivory Young Towers (1)

Some eons ago mankind spoke one language. One may differ on which root language that was and whether the several “branch” languages were the result of geographic isolation after tribal migrations or the result of divine intervention into human hubris at—you guessed it—The Tower of Babel. It is interesting and instructive to note that modern linguistic science points rather decisively to a “Mother Tongue” for humanity and that a quorum of historical traditions and religions do so as well. So let us refer back, if we may, to our favorite Neolithic ancestor, Cousin Og. (2)

Good Cousin Og is sitting in his mud hut one day when the local leader walks up to him and says, “Hey buddy, can you make bricks?” Or one imagines such an exchange taking place (Cousin Og is a bit fuzzy on the conversation now, seeing as he is 10,000 years old and his memory is not quite what it used to be). The point being that by this time in human history, it seems we could all communicate with each other in one, unified language—Let’s call this language "Basic Rock." (3) Anyway, the request is made and appropriations allocated for another public works construction project.

So make bricks they do and up goes a tower. Now the story gets tangled a bit, but it appears their prehistoric intent was to (literally and metaphorically) build a tower so high that the locals could poke a stick into God’s eye. The Hucklebberry Legal Team tells me that I must warn you not to try this at home. Such impertinence is likely to anger deities from any and all religious traditions that I am aware of and—if you are an atheist—it makes you look like a jerk anyway.

You know how the story ends. Cut to the present day and we now have six-billion people in the world (more or less) who speak a couple-hundred different languages and one is left to wonder what could be accomplished if that were not the case.

Now, this author is a professional communicator by trade and I can assure you that I am the only one on the planet who speaks clearly, concisely, effectively, and correctly. If you do not understand me, then there is something wrong with you.

My point is that I would tend to argue that what we really have today are six-billion-odd humans speaking six-billion-odd dialects of a couple hundred languages. I speak, well, "Huckleberry English" and you speak "Whatever-English." Some words, concepts, inflections, and idiomatic expressions hold subtly different “meaning" for you than they do for me. I am reminded daily of the difficulties of being understood experienced by family members and close associates, let alone co-workers and complete strangers. Even people related by blood and raised in the same households come to each conversation with their own completely unique set of agendas, biases, conceptions, and linguistic relationships that compound the burden of clear intent. It is a wonder that we can understand each other at all. Communication is hard!

But did the pre-Babel folks have a more perfect system? Did they literally speak with the tongues of angels and understand each other perfectly? If so, I am jealous and would gladly trade my Ipod and plasma screen TV for a few happy days in mutual comprehensive bliss. That local leader who recruited Cousin Og to make bricks may have been able to communicate the request with a level of purpose, precision, and brevity that would astound us (please avoid the temptation at this point to contrast such linguistic efficiency with this blog entry). Imagine, a few words that not only communicated the desire to have bricks made, but detailed their composition, physical dimensions, method of construction, where they needed to go, and--perhaps--even their purpose and reason better than any set of architectural drawings. Cousin Og would have related to him the completeness of meaning distilled down to its most efficient form.

This idea of Babel and it's antecedent potentially "prefect" communication has stimulated many thoughts on my part and I have started referring to this concept as "singularity of meaning" (the irony of ‘Ol Huck venturing to coin a term in an attempt to define this is not lost on me). It is, if you will, the natural horizon of communications--the vanishing point at which the injection of one additional word, inflection, pause, or guttural sound would add nothing to the understanding. Conversely, the removal of any single element would bring loss. Unfortunately, this may be unattainable for us today. For us it is a mathematical limit--like the speed of light. With great effort and energy we can approach it ever closer, but we can never reach that pinnacle of meaning singularity. Ah, but the effort has given us some wonderful art, has it not?

On the more mushy side on the concept is the notion of the tortured artist--being so tortured by his or her inability to properly or fully express the desired "meaning." Just like an infant fusses at times due to his inability to communicate the specificity of his wants and needs, the artist storms about in frustration at the inadequacy of his medium, vocabulary, and talent to express the intended meaning. Thus art is often described as being "felt" and we defer to our "sense" of it.

Taken to its edges, one may find perfect communication--perfect language--to therefore define perfect art. But this is a bit of a digression. For the moment let's turn our attention to the concept of "language as repression" and step in to gently correct Sigmund Freud by suggesting that language is better understood as not the point of repression, but rather the point of limitation (not the same thing). Repression may be thought of as the internalized result of our frustration at our limitations. Repression is the humanistic and flawed response of man (the spoiled and frustrated child) straining at his/her own limits. That which we cannot express en veritas toto we either repress, transfer, or act out upon unproductively.

Returning to the singularity of meaning, we discover then that there is one more example that begs our address--Epiphany. Epiphany is the rare moment when meaning crystallizes for us in a brilliant flash of comprehension. We rush about looking for a note pad because even the act of starting up our computer would take too long. The "meaning" and comprehension are flying by us and we get but a glimpse of it. We are then limited by our ability to record such moments effectively and, ultimately, some portion of each Epiphany is lost to us every time.

Who could communicate so quickly, beautifully, and with such full and complete meaning....standing, if you will, at the point of singularity and...perhpas...at the speed of light? It is only God who speaks in such ways and can do no less.

Be well,
Huckleberry

(1) First line of the song “Tower of Babel” by Elton John and Bernie Taupin, from the album “
Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy,” 1975. This post has nothing to do with the religio-phobic and self-aggrandized homosexual diaspora intended by the song—but it is a solid cultural reference point for “Babel.”
(2) Yes, I know that I have referred to Cousin Og in previous posts as “Paleolithic.” He called me last week from his condo in South Boca to correct me and remind me that he is “not THAT old.”
(3) I stand on the shoulders of Carl Reiner and Mel Brooks (2000 Year Old Man)
* The graphic used in this post is that of a woodcut image by M. C. Esher titled “Tower of Babel

Go Get'em Peggy

I do not always agree with her, but Peggy Noonan expresses the current sentiments amongst Republicans rather well in her June 1st, 2007 editorial.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

Be Well,

Huckleberry

I Guess 'Ol Huck Just Doesn't Understand
An Open Letter to President George Bush

Mr. President -

It is relatively easy for me to understand and accept political disagreement. I am accustomed to such as I am sure you are. I also understand that my President may not, on occasion, completely agree with me on every position--this is one of the realities I am content to live with.

It is quite another thing for my President--and ostensibly the leader of my party--to lecture me on my need to accept diversity. Please understand, sir, that I do not intend to lecture you and I intend no disrespect. But I cannot support the current (and terribly mis-named) Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act in anywhere near its current form. I would further say that my reasoning's have nothing to do with fear of diversity or racism and that I have not been manipulated by fear-mongers. Quite frankly, sir, I resent your saying so. In rhetorical arguments, the first one to defer to ad homonyms and non sequiturs is usually the one with the weaker case. I am left to assume that this implies my arguments against this legislation are stronger indeed.

The current bill is mis-guided from the perspectives of economics (monetary and incentive), our established concept of justice, the establishment of unwarranted precedent, and quite frankly our American sense of fair play. Your support and defense of this bill should be abandoned and I have equally communicated this sentiment to my state Senators--Kyle and McCain. I will continue my resistance in the form of my vote, communications (my blog, letters, and related articles), and the withholding of financial and moral support from my Republican Party, you sir, and my Senators to make my position known.

Respectfully--Be Well,
Huckleberry

Nature, Nurture, and……What’s Left

Recent discussions have recalled one of the oldest controversies since the dawn of the scientific age—are odds of our success in any endeavor more dictated by the genetic blueprint that forms the mortal coil (nature); or more by the conditioning and training of the environment we are dropped into.

Trading Places

The debate has raged for centuries and inspired the literati (novels and scientific papers proliferate) as well other media (theatrical productions and cinematic efforts included). In these, the debate is carried alternately by one side of the argument or the other, and sometimes the result is a draw. Ultimately, it seems, each of us is left to determine for ourselves that which is more formative in the development of the human animal.

Human Animal, eh?

There is certainly fodder for both camps. Statistics can be found that variously suggest that simple DNA and its vagaries control our destinies or that education, social status, poverty (or lack thereof), or some other environmental influence has a greater impact. The problem for both sides of the debate arises in the exceptions. All of us know of some personal story of success where an individual springs forth from hardship or poverty to reach the pinnacles of prosperity and status. We even cherish such stories and revere them enough to make more movies and books in celebration of their biography. It is equally true that as many (if not more) who are born to wealth, position, status, and fame have floundered and squandered such advantageous positioning unto nothingness and sometimes criminal acts. The exception, it is said, proves the rule. But there must come a point where the exceptions are so numerous as to make the rule moot.

Will You….Or Will You Not?

In such cases, it is incumbent upon those seeking truth to consider that the premise itself is flawed or that all options are not yet considered. Could it be that Nature and Nurture are not the only options and, further, that perhaps they are the lesser of the totality?

The Great Bluff

Let's imagine life as a great card game that comes down to the final hand—poker, it is. The players have their chips and sit at the appointed table across from a set of other players they had never met before, within a casino owned and operated by others, and playing a game whose rules were laid down centuries before this day dawned. The environment—Nuture—is so defined. The dealer taps the table and, with an experience flick of the wrist, deals the cards to each player in turn, thus granting a random set of attributes to each player's hand. Nature is equally blind and chaotic in its dealings, is it not. You? You are the great humanistic scientist who is given access to “see” each player's cards, examine the table and chips in play, and determine who will win the hand before the first bet is made or the first card is revealed. You have been trained that you can do this, but now you are not so sure.

Any reasonably good card player will tell you that this is a fool’s errand. Because, in the end, the winner is not always the one who has the most chips at the start, nor is it the person who is dealt the best cards—almost always, the winner is the one who does the best job of playing the game. The greatest influence is neither Nature nor Nurture, but what is done with them by……what unknown force?

What Force?
That force is a part of what puts lie to the term “Human Animal.” For we understand that even animals have Nature and Nurture. What we do, or do not, is the Human part of it all—the want and the will of it.


Be well,

Huckleberry

Immigration Reform...NOT

Today, we have a topic from the Government Office Of Oxymorons (GOOO). The Senate has just agreed upon Compromise Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation. Each word of this mis-titled bill is severely mal-placed.

Compromise
When an issue is black or white, there is no such thing as compromise. In this particular debate, one side says that illegally crossing national borders, regularly taking payment under the table while here, and appropriating a false identity and/or social security number are crimes. The other side says, "well, not really." The current bill obviates the debate in favor of the latter. No compromise has taken place.

Comprehensive
One can only apply this word to the bill if one removes the topics of health care; criminal punishment; consequences to the nation under the interpretation of Clause one, section one of the 14th amendment to the Constitution; and the economic analysis of the migration incentives (a long topic by itself).

Immigration
We have long-standing immigration laws and restrictions in place. This bill seeks to circumvent such policy and the incumbent mandate to enforce it. If you are unwilling to prefix the word "Illegal" to the term, then "Migration" is probably a better choice of words as it infers a free, unrestricted, and perhaps seasonal flow.

Reform
I do not want to get all "word wonk-ish" on you, but I cannot see how our immigration policy will be reformed by this terrible little bill. We have, at the heart of all this, an enforcement problem. Jiggling around the periphery in order to avoid enforcement is not likely to solve or reform much of anything.

That group of Senators (normally stalwart Jon Kyl included) is trying to pull a David Copperfield on the nation--flash, bang, and dazzle abounds; but the illegal aliens didn't really disappear--they just hide under the sheets.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Spiritu Ex Machina
(Charlie Stross has a blog: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/ . He is a writer and "futurist." I reply to his post of May 13.)

Millennia ago as our ancestors stacked one rock upon another to construct the first shelter in the first cluster of shelters in what would become the first town of the first civilization, one of the brightest in the group (let's call him Cousin Og) realized that rocks were pretty heavy and that there was a limit to the size rock that he could lift. (Coincidentally, this was also the first time that Mrs. Og gave that look of disapproval because the neighbor's house was built of bigger, shinier rocks--but I digress). This now henpecked and Paleolithic cousin discovered that when he wedged a stick under one side of the large rock and pressed down, he could then move that which he was incapable of with his directly applied strength. He thus discovered leverage (launching the first Hedge Fund, I imagine).

Futurisms and Techno-philosophy fail most when they fail to consider advancements within this context. Every device we build and every machine or process we design is a leverage upon what we already possess. Computers work because they run programs that we create. We work them over and over again--often thousands of times--until that set of instructions works well. Then we let that machine do it again for us efficiently. The computer and software that I am using right now is simply the leveraged millions of man-hours brought to efficiency to build my terminal, write the software, and link the whole mess together.

Specialization is a form of leverage. In the GPS world, specialization allows Garmin and Galileo to get very very good at mapping places and finding people (and saving a lot of trees and frustration in the process). This allows me to be very very good at......well, I'll think of something later; but you get my point.

As memory chips advance and becomes cheaper, we are simply finding new and unique ways to leverage our own memories and resources--to "remember" and access more; and to get more memory from whatever resources we already have, both physical and mental. Ken Burnes (the film documentarian) has made a career out of reading the letters and journals of Civil War era citizens into a microphone to record and display what, for those citizens, was memory. Digital memory is simply a more efficient version--it is leverage against what is for us a natural instinct--taking notes to communicate and remember.

Will we design a machine that thinks better than we do? The question is moot because such a machine would only be a leverage of the billions of combined man-hours and trillions of dollars in resources that are put into it. It will be an efficiency--a leverage of what we already do and have already created. It will be an expression....of us. And Cousin Og would be proud.

Be well,
Huckleberry

* The Cross image above originally appeared as the cover illustration for the DEcember 2002 issue of WIRED Magazine.

The Wolves are Feasting Upon Wolfie

Well, today Paul Wolfowitz resigned as President of the World Bank. Lefties cheer and Bushies jeer. So we set aside all the cheering and jeering to see if there is anything to glean from the cacophony.

Cheers?
Paul Wolfowitz, you see, was assistant Secretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld at the start of the current Iraq War. Any time misfortune or evil befalls a so-labeled "Neocon" proponent of the invasion, everyone who disagrees thumps their chest in a display of voyeuristic victory.

Jeers?
As for the jeering, many respected journalists--even many without a political axe to grind--have labeled this a hit job that intentionally smears the good name and reputation or a decent guy doing a decent job on many fronts--including his cleaning up of much that is messy at the chronically corrupt World Bank.

Why is he stepping down?
Good question. It appears that Mr. Wolowitz likes the ladies. Normally that is not too much of a problem for an American male, but in Mr. Wolfowitz's case he apparently likes the ladies that are not necessarily his wife.........in a serial fashion, I might add. Worse, he gives the impression of playing favorites with the ladies he does like in matters of job position and salary when they happen to work with him. It appears that the Democrat Party is not the only harbor for marital scoundrels.

Now the World Bank has an Ethics Committee (I know, this shocked me too). This Ethics Committee approved his appointment; even though they were aware of his "relationship" with a current World Bank staffer; and were aware that Wolfie (that nickname has a whole new meaning for us now, doesn't it?) had stepped out in similar fashion previously on at least one occasion in 2001 (causing a permanent, though not formalized, rift with his wife); then murkily colluded to buy-off the World Bank staffer with a substantial bump in pay and a State Department reassignment. Yes, that Ethics Committee. They are now shocked and stunned that this conflict of interest might have interfered with Mr. Wolfowitz's duties (Gasp!).

Yes, He Is Our Problem
Well, what is President Bush to do now. He appointed the guy and will reappoint his successor. The Left is making quieter hay about this situation than usual because......think about it.

Setting aside whether you like the decisions and influence of Wolfowitz or not--or whether you like Republicans or Democrats for that matter--we have been taught over the last fifteen years that personal lives do not matter. Morally, I agree that serial infidelity can indicate a lack of philosophical and moral standing that should not be ignored. But how can the Democrats and the media (et al) now stand up and claim "If we had only known!" Remember that the left-leaning side of the media built a presidential campaign--and supported an entire Presidency--on the premise that it just didn't matter.

Well....whose pigeons are coming home to roost? Whose ever pigeons they are, it sure doesn't smell very good, does it......and I think that some of it is stuck to the media's shoes.

Be well,
Huckleberry

The Riddle of the Sphinx Amongst Wistful Memories

Four Legs in the Morning
Early in our lives we are in awe of them. We hang in rapt attention upon their answers to all of our questions in total acceptance as if gospel. In fairness to our parents we must remember that they are humans--and as such they are more like us than we care to consider. Any mis-step or failing that we have had, it is likely they also failed and tripped many of the same ways and included a certain unique subset of their own. We become disillusioned with our folks usually to the extent that our expectations are unrealistic. This is compounded by the necessary inclusion of a measure of hero-worship and respect incumbent in the parent-child relationship. Otherwise, few of us would have ever gone to bed on time nor attended class when other interests beckoned.


Two Legs in the Noon
But as time advances, the hero-worship tempers into a different kind of respect. Sometimes one wonders how the folks managed to get through it at all--especially at the time when you are wondering for yourself if you will be able to endure. So--from the vantage point of this male writer--instead of gazing at Father as "Superman," we begin to look at him as the experienced soldier who has marched into battle ahead of you and cleared a little of the path. Instead of seeing mother as linen-wrapped saint and healer of all boo-boos, she morphs into a defining reference point of wife and care-giver.


Three Legs in the Evening
Later still, as one reaches the dreaded middle ages, your parents' role can feel inverted. The world you live in--the technology, speed, and standards experienced in your halcyon days--can be estranged from them. You are called upon to help them understand the world because certain aspects of it have left them behind. But help them you do, in much the same way as they helped you when for you the world was new.


Further, by your forties you have had the opportunity to see your parents fail; and in their failing you have seen them both shine and fail miserably. You realize that they are just like you--or, more correctly--that you are just like them, but different. Respect remains to a degree, but that respect is more focused on specific accomplishments and attributes rather than on the whole. All vestiges of hero-worship have faded with the years, and you may find yourself reciting the moral and philosophical lessons to the generation that came before you as often as you do to the one that follows.


Tell Me Soon
What remains for us as we don our temporal and temporary mantles--as we take our parents position as the caretaker of the generations--as we find our faith, sometimes lose it, and then hopefully find it again--is love. Our love for them and their love for us.


Be well,
Huckleberry

Saint Cripsin's Day Falls in May This Year

Recent efforts and travels have kept me from my blogger's keyboard and dedicated to more wordly pusuits. The struggles of a friend have called to my mind one of Good Bill's most famous soliloquies. Forgive my lack of attention and read the better words of another.

"What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmorland. No, my fair cousin:
If we are marked to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will, I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It ernes me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace, I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more.
Rather proclaim it presently through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart. His passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is called the Feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a-tiptoe when the day is named,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall see this day and live t'old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian":
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remembered.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remember'd;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he today that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now abed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day."
Henry V, Act IV, scene iii

Be well,
Huckleberry

Amazing Fossil Discovery in Washington DC

HuckleberryNewsWire
Washinton DC, April 26, 2007
staff writer

The fossilized remains of a new species of human-like ape have been discovered under our Nation’s Capital.

Paleontologists have dubbed the new hominid species Hillarius Clintoni because of its unique political and evolutionary advantage of being able to kiss up to the minority co-species Jessimus Jackassicus and Judisicus Liberalis while storing its head inside of its rectum--much like a kangaroo carries its young in a pouch—thus protecting it from rational dissenting argument. Scientists speculate that Hillarius Clintoni accomplished this extraordinary maneuver through the use of two horizontally opposed faces and a great deal of unpleasant attitude.

Further evidence indicates that the new species would likely have met with rapid extinction without the direct support of an earlier, larger species—Williamus Clintoni—that had evolved long, coat-tail like appendages that trailed behind it and which Hillarius Clintoni rode upon as the larger species roamed about, in search of mating opportunities.

Both the Williamus and Hillarius branches of the Clintoni thrived in the swamp-bogs common to what is now the Washington DC area. Artifacts related to these primitive nomads have been found as far North as the Lower Catskill Mountains in New York State and as far West as the White Water River in Arkansas, though the evidence indicates that the Clintoni never set up permanent settlements in these remote areas—preferring instead to pass through them and return to the lowland swamps.

Tool marks and dental scans seem to point to a diet rich in interns, subordinates, and graft—though recent analysis of petrified Clintoni feces have indicated that the hominids, though relatively dim-witted, occasionally had the opportunity to feast upon cattle-futures contracts, and large chunks tax dollars have been pulled from the stool samples.

So what caused the eventual extinction of the Clintoni? No one knows for certain, but a poll of tenured college professors revealed that the ultimate elimination of the Clintoni occurred after a vast alliance of Humans—the Reaganites—arrived from the right-side of the continent driving SUVs. Thus, their extinction may be largely attributable to Global Warming.

Sometimes, just for fun.
Be well,
Huckleberry

Evil in the Kingdom

Once again we are stunned by the actions that one insane man can wreck upon us. The damage to lives and property is only exceeded by the damage to our psyches. Virginia Tech is a university and community in mourning.

The calls of remedy and blame will invariably persist:

• "Ban all firearms!"
• "The university should have done something!"
• "The teachers and administrators were suspicious and did nothing!"
• And undoubtedly at some point we will hear, "It's George Bush's fault!"

Protect ourselves, we should. Plan and prepare, of course. Sensibly regulate and legislate, if need be. But it seems one of the highest forms of denial and ego to think that we as individuals, a people, or a nation can act, do, or prepare in any way sufficient to strip the world completely of evil and its effects. Were we to try, we would populate our land with closeted phobics devoid of freedom and will--but still evil would appear to stun us again, and again.

Serve Us Justice
Insanity is just that. To expect that the reasoning and methods of insanity would make sense or be controllable in the planning and rationale of the sane is itself .....well, insane. We should take what reasonable measures we must, and then accept the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune as are flung at us by those evil and insane. That is what justice is for. For if we truly have the power to prevent evil, we have no use for justice. It is the rational realization that evil exists somewhat on the fringes of our ability to plan for and cope that the concept of justice finds its meaning.

This is true if you seek justice in the corporeal or spiritual.

As for me, I send my condolences to the families of the dead and wounded--equally to those who witnessed that dreaded day and have had their confidences shaken. I offer only that they--and we--consider that the fault of such a tragedy lays solely with its perpetrator--and evil itself.

Be well,
Huckleberry

Beware Strange Men Bearing Gifts

The Gift
So....How did he phrase it? Well, according to a transcription posted on The Independent (1), he said it thus:

"On the occasion of the birth anniversary of the great Prophet of Islam, and on the occasion of Easter and Passover, I would like to announce that the great nation of Iran, while it is entitled to put the British military personnel on trial, has pardoned these 15 sailors and gives their release to the people of Britain as a gift...."

The last time I saw such a gift, it involved Don Corleone and an unfortunate horse.

International pressure was certainly a factor--nobody believed that the British sailors were captured in Iranian waters. But Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can rest comfortably in the knowledge that he accomplished his primary mission. Though in person he may be physically diminutive in stature, he was able to pull up to the grown-up's table using the booster-seat of this contrived crisis. That's what he really wanted. And he got what he wanted by stomping about and raising a ruckus like a spoiled child who has been spared the rod too often.

Imams, Ayatollahs, and Sheiks (Oh, my!)
Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insane? Maybe. But likely his madness is just enough to allow his adequate function on the world's stage. He will play his pawns and subsequently be played as one by the Imams, Ayatollahs, and sheiks. For rarely does one who plays humanity cheaply avoid getting played himself. It is the way of totalitarians and tyrants.

Ashes to Ashes
We will undoubtedly hear from the Iranian president again soon as he either creates another crisis or inserts himself into one. Ronald Reagan once famously consigned communism to the "ash heap of history." Certainly, Ahmadinejad will one day join his Islamofascist brethren in that smouldering pile. Let us pray that he does not take a city or two with him as he goes.

Be well,
Huckleberry

(1) Published: 05 April 2007;
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2422638.ece

In a Tip to the Bard

It's a smack-down....really "old school"....in the Shakespeare style.

"You have the understanding of an infant--but this is very well, if a child you are--reliant on the willingness and care of those 'round about to hold their noses, gather your soiled garments, and wipe your bare ass. This is a task that all do quite willingly for the very young. But there have been decades since you sat up to your mother's breast; What then is your reasoning? You speak proudly of your manhood and erudition, then soil yourself in your naiveté' and crass calumny. Is there no hair yet upon your chest and arms? You wryly lay claim to a salient command of science and art, yet spout only childish philosophies.

Well it seems that you would have me run through your gates and traps once again; defend my faith yet cry "foul!" if I venture the slightest retort. Quite the fragile boy, you are!

But you are worse than a child, for a babe knows nothing more. You embrace your reckless ignorance like a drunkard does his wine. It is both shield and sword to you--but good for neither.

Fine then! As I have been the needy recipient of grace up til this very day, may the Lord in Heaven give me patience as I come 'round to mop up your filth once again, resist the temptation to strike your bare bottom with a cane in the process whilst it hangs out, and explain it to you one more time.

But remember this: I may be willing to wipe your ass, dear child, but dare not ask that I kiss it."

I giggleth, therfore I am.

Be well,
Huckleberry