A Monograph on the Golden Rule

A Brief Inquiry into the Logical Implications of the Golden Rule
(Or: Do we really want people to do unto us as they would have us do unto them?)

The Golden Rule is one of the oldest and best known attempts to reduce all moral and ethical issues to a single, simple statement of moral imperative. As with many heuristic shorthands, it is surprisingly successful at resolving the majority of situations to which it is applied. However, it needs to be seen for the rough "rule of thumb" that it is, rather than accepting it as a moral law of universal applicability.

Although the Golden Rule "feels good", if it is to be used as a rule of action, it should be examined logically. In order to determine how any logical rule has been derived, one must observe the premises upon which it is based. As will be demonstrated by example, below, the Golden Rule is dependent on two premises in particular that are either far from universal, or are simply untrue:

1) that everyone wishes to be treated the same as everyone else; and

2) that everyone wishes to be treated identically by everyone else.

Neither are postulates which will withstand rigorous investigation.
As with most simplifications of extremely complex subjects, the Golden Rule works best when applied to simple situations. Do we want to be treated politely? Then we should, as the Golden Rule says, treat others politely. Do we wish that people would not steal from us? Then we should not steal from others.

However, morality and ethics are among the most complex fields of human behavior. Universal or dogmatic application of this simple "rule" to all human interactions is not an acceptable substitute for conscious inquiry as to the best moral course of action in any given situation. Such can be demonstrated by observing the application of the Golden Rule to situations where such application results in unacceptable ethical actions.

1) Don’t Do Unto Me what you want everyone to Do Unto You!

The most glib and glaring example of the failure of the Golden Rule is the case of masochists; which is also the obvious example of the failure of the postulate that everyone wishes to be treated the same as everyone else. Most people do not like being spanked; either physically or emotionally. However, some people do. If such people were to do unto others as they would have others do unto them, then there would be a whole lot of unwelcome spanking going on. This is hardly the result that a universal rule of moral behavior should mandate.

Masochism is an easy target. It may be argued that masochists are psychologically disturbed and that the Golden Rule wasn’t meant to apply to them. Such a limitation of its application, however, takes a bigger bite out of the Rule, and its simplicity, than may be apparent. Restated to account for this exception, the Rule would be "People who are not psychologically disturbed should do unto others as they would have others do unto them".

This formulation opens a Pandora’s Box: how do we define who is psychologically disturbed? And who makes the decision? I’m sure many masochists would not agree that they are; maintaining rather that masochism is a "lifestyle choice". And if we define "the psychologically disturbed" broadly enough to save the Rule we may end up with a moral rule that applies only to those who don’t need a rule to behave appropriately.

Nor is masochism the only challenge to the universality of the Rule or to the postulate that everyone wishes to be treated the same as everyone else.
Let’s look at a less sensational example: huggers. Some people, who are not generally considered to be psychologically disturbed, seem to love to hug and to be hugged. Others, who also are not generally considered to be psychologically disturbed, prefer more personal space and do not enjoy being squeezed, for instance, by a large woman reeking of perfume with whom they are barely acquainted. But if one applies the Golden Rule to a hugger at a social function ... since the hugger would very much like to have others, even near strangers, hug her ... the Rule directs her to embrace everyone in sight (and to invade the space of non-huggers and make them uncomfortable) ... whether they want it or not.

There are myriad other examples: naturists may wish others would display their bodies in the naturists’ presence ... so if they follow the Rule, it would be okay, indeed mandated, that the naturists wander around naked regardless of who they offend. Communalists may believe it perfectly fine for others to borrow their possessions without permission, thus giving them the right, even the duty, under the Rule to similarly borrow from others. Cigarette smokers may wish and prefer that others would smoke around them; ergo the Rule says they should light up in the presence of others – even those who do not want them to do so.

The point of the examples is to demonstrate the flaws in the inherent premise of the Rule that everyone wishes to be treated the same as everyone else; ie: that the "you" of the Rule and the "others" whom "you" do unto, each wish to have the same things done unto them. The premise must fail, and with it the universality of the Golden Rule.

2) Don’t Do Unto Me just because you would like me to Do Unto You!

The other primary premise failure of the Rule is that everyone wishes to be treated identically by everyone else. Indeed, this premise is almost universally false.

How we wish to be treated by a dear friend or lover is very different than how we may wish to be treated by a stranger or an enemy. Yet the Rule makes no allowance for any differences. So long as our lovers and enemies are clearly defined and each of us sees the other in the same perspective, the Rule may work well enough, and the failure of this premise is not obvious. For instance, we may want our lover to greet us with a kiss. Presumably, there would not usually be an obvious ethical glitch if we followed the Rule and therefore greeted our lover with a kiss. (Although depending on potentially differing attitudes towards public displays of affection, this could still run afoul of premise no. 1, above. See, eg: huggers.)

The more obvious failure of the premise, and the Rule, is when we do not share the same perspective on our relationship with the others we are to do unto. The following example will illustrate.

If Jim is very interested in and desirous of Mary, the Golden Rule may allow, even mandate, that he approach her, touch her and act in other ways towards her which she finds distasteful and disturbing; perhaps even repulsive. Yet Jim would be simply doing unto her what he would have her do unto him. Indeed, with the Rule as his guide, Jim may honestly take actions which would violate all accepted moral norms of behavior.

Mary may appreciate exactly those actions from Ben, whom she desires, even though those same acts from Jim repulse her.

Because we do not wish to be treated identically by everyone, and, indeed, want some "others" to do unto us as we very much would not want other "others" to do, the Rule’s universality fails.

Nor does the example need to be so dramatic. Most people have a large range of how they would like to be treated ... depending upon who is doing the treating. In order for the formulation of the Golden Rule to be sensible, each such desire would have to be identically reflected by each "other". In other words, it only works if the treatment that you wish to receive from each individual with whom you interact is exactly the same as the treatment that individual wishes to receive from you. And vice versa.
Since the odds of such perfect mirroring are zilch, the Rule fails in all but the most simplistic of circumstances.

Given the significant flaws in the two essential premises of the Rule which render it suspect at best as a guide for moral behavior, the question arises as to whether there is, perhaps, a "better" rule. Perhaps rather than an "activist" mandate that instructs us to do unto others, we would be better off morally and ethically with a rule that proscribed such doing.
I submit for consideration the following. Call it the Platinum Rule.

"Don’t do unto others unless you know that they want you to so do."

It might not make everyone actively polite. But it would keep people from stealing or being actively rude at least as well as the Golden Rule. And it would keep masochists or would-be lovers or huggers from doing unto us what we’d really rather not have done.

Blogging in Obscurity

It is somewhat fascinating writing to no one.

I haven’t bothered with a hit counter ... but it seems unlikely that many people have stumbled on this blog. (Although someone wandering through did leave one comment!) But it’s not as though Google is going to run my posts at the top of its search engine. I don’t have any links. And I haven’t told anyone that I know that I even have a blog. I mentioned a post that I’d written in an email to famous personage, but I doubt that he bothered to stop by :-) Other than that ... I have essentially avoided any mention of this site.

Sounds of silence. If words appear on a blog, but no one reads them ... did they make any noise?

And yet ... this comforting cloak of invisibility is relaxing. But is there a point? Why not just keep a private journal rather than writing to a blog that no one reads? I don’t know. Kind of a strange psychology. Perhaps I’m just waiting to be discovered. Or not. But it is fun and oddly rewarding.

Mostly I think I need to get comfortable in the medium before I want a lot of people here anyway. And then, perhaps, I shall decide what to do with this blog.

Why Did the Chicken ... ?

Today is just for fun. I received a forward of spoof "famous people's answers" to the question of why the chicken crossed the road. I sent it on and a correspondent wrote back that they were funny, but that there weren't many women represented. So ... to remedy that ... I exercise my poetic license and submit the following:

Diane Feinstein:
Look, in California, especially San Francisco, we don't care which side of the road the chicken wants to walk on and people should just stop analyzing why the poor hen wants to cross over and just be accepting of it.

Hilary Clinton:
Bill promised me that he didn't cross the road with that chicken and I believed him. I am deeply hurt.

Margaret Thatcher:
Because the chicken has a will of iron and shall meet and cross any obstacle necessary for the good of its people ... or, uh, chickens.

Madonna:
Yum! I think it is great. I think all chickens ought to try crossing the road at least once. I've done it. Be like me and Britney!

Britney Spears:
What she says!

Janet Jackson:
It didn't mean to! It was an accident. There was a fencing malfunction and it just sort of popped out onto the road.

Preemptive Killing

Now that the election is over and Bush claims a "mandate" for his actions ... we can assume that there will be no course reversals. This means that we are firmly charted on a misguided and immoral course.

Realize that I say this as a kid who campaigned for Goldwater and who believes that Reagan belongs on Mt. Rushmore.

The Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush doctrine of preemptive killing is simply wrong. It is wrong by any moral, ethical or civilized standard. Especially in this country we absolutely do not accept nor ever endorse any doctrine or practice of preemptive killing. There is nothing but the slipperiest of slopes between preemptively taking out Saddam and his family and loyalists (and inconveniently located innocent countrymen) and preemptively taking out a mafia or gang leader or other who "probably deserves it" or who was perhaps thinking about doing something bad.

I have no argument with our war with the Taliban or Osama. That was not preemptive. If we are attacked, we have every moral right to fight back. But as bad a man as Saddam may have been ... he did not attack the twin towers and he did not attack us. I fear the unavoidable escalation of our new involvement in the Middle East.

This will not sit well in history. This period may be known as the beginning of the Second Millennium Crusades. I hope our ancestors have the evolved morality to be disgusted with us for allowing it to happen.

I Beat the Pollsters!

Well ... I nailed that one. Actually, there were simply no surprises for me this election. I am again bemused by all the sound and fury in the last few weeks by professionals, and others, who simply should have known better. The "experts" are all surprised? All they need to do is listen to me! :-) I’m not saying that I like being right on this ... just that with a little objectivity, the reality of the situation wasn’t hard to decipher.

On my October 22 post, "Pollsters Getting Kerry’d Away", below, I claimed that this election people were lying to pollsters and that once in the voting booth, a lot of people in the "Kerry column" according to the pollsters would grit their teeth and vote for Bush.

I said "If I’m right ... not only will the pre-election polls be wrong ... but the 'exit interview' polls will be as well". That prediction bore out as well. See for example, today’s Fox News article "Egg on Face of Exit Pollsters". A tidbit quote from the article: "'Either the exit polls are completely wrong or George Bush loses,' FOX News analyst Susan Estrich said."

If they had only read my blog, they would have known better! :-)

Electronic Voting

It's a brave new world out there. To eliminate hanging chads and other issues, there are a lot of new electronic voting systems in the works. Computers do everything from receiving the initial input (the "vote") to transmitting it to the central hub to the tabulating. HAL rules. I offer the following for fun and thought:

Electronic elections
With software protections
Allow hacker "corrections"
Of voters' selections!

Have a great election everyone! :-)

Pollsters Getting Kerry'd Away

The pulse-takers have decided that Kerry would win the electoral vote if the election was held today. See eg: Slate. They might be right. But if they are, it is a matter of luck more than science. More than at any time in the past 50 years the surveys are all skewed in unknowable directions and their "samples" are no longer representative.

Pollsters never get a fair sample of the "likely to vote" 18 to 30 year olds because there is such a high percentage of them that have no phone except a cell phone. Indeed, the "cell phone only" crowd is completely absent from all telephone poll results. That age group is a lot more conservative than it used to be. But are they really most likely to be Bush voters or Kerry voters? No one knows and no one can tell you because no one can ask them.

Telephone pollsters usually don’t talk to people with unlisted numbers. Those folks are probably both more conservative and more likely to vote than the general population.

Telephone pollsters often don’t get to talk to people with caller ID because people often choose not to pick up if it is an unknown phone number or obviously a pollster. Same situation with people who screen calls with answering machines. Folks with caller ID or who use answering machines to screen calls are probably also more conservative and likely to vote.

The pollsters generally don’t successfully call people at work, so they only reach people who are either home during the day or who get home in good time in the evenings or are hanging around at home on the weekends. In other words, the unemployed or underemployed ... a group that tends to be more liberal.

And polls based on the general population skew left because a higher percentage of Republicans actually vote than do Democrats.

This isn’t earthshattering news. Not many people talk about it, but it is widely understood that polling is a lot less accurate than it used to be.

In this election, though, there is another reason for poll results to be suspect. I believe that more than in any election over the past many years ... a lot of people are lying about for whom they will cast their vote.

They lie to their friends, to their family and to pollsters. To a lesser degree, perhaps, but yet to some very real extent, I believe many people are still lying to themselves as well.

A lot of people simply can’t stomach the idea of re-electing Bush. There is a lot of fury at him out there. And people that are mad will tell pollsters or whoever else that will listen, that they are going to vote to fire him. Which means that they go down in the "Kerry" column in the polls. But once they are within the sanctity of the voting booth, I believe that a substantial percentage of these folks are going to grit their teeth and vote for Bush.

If I’m right ... not only will the pre-election polls be wrong ... but the "exit interview" polls will be as well. It could be interesting! :-)

Headlines: Al-Zarqawi Backs Bush!

It has got to be Bush’s greatest political coup. Al-Zarqawi, the best known terrorist in Iraq, has announced his allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida.

This is the best possible political endorsement of Bush’s claim that the war in Iraq is part of the war against al-Qaida and Osama. Indeed, Bush has been attempting to connect these dots for many months, but most independent experts disagreed claiming that Al-Zarqawi and bin Laden were more rivals than allies.

At the debates, Kerry tried to convince the world that the war in Iraq was essentially a distraction from the war on terror and on al-Qaida. Bush insisted that it was, essentially, the same conflict. This may, indeed, be the issue upon which the presidential election is determined.

Now, two weeks before the election, Al-Zarqawi backs Bush’s claim. That’s political dynamite, roughly equivalent to suddenly discovering a huge hidden stash of WMD in downtown Baghdad. Al-Z may have just determined the election of a US President.

How did Bush do it? How did he get Al-Zarqawi’s endorsement? It is the great paranoid fantasy. What back-room deal did the Bush team manage to consummate the ultimate political campaign coup? These Bush operatives are good!

Only the truly paranoid would believe there is any substance to such malarkey of course. But about now I would expect that John Kerry is nearly ready to join the ranks of the truly paranoid.

Paris Hilton Sex Video(s)

As I begin my descent deeper into the blogger world, I have discovered that it is apparently de rigeur to do at least one post with Paris Hilton in the title ... and preferably one that also mentions sex tapes, sex video or such. Since this site isn’t likely to hit the top of Google in the near future I’m not really sure that it applies ... but in keeping with the rapidly evolving tradition of such things, I thought I should do my part.

Actually, I don’t have a lot to say on the subject ... unlike almost anything else you could think of :-) I never, uh ... gee dare I admit this? ... never saw the infamous sex tape. Or any of the more recent sequels that seem to be popping out like Janet Jackson’s breast. (I’m doing my "de rigeur blogger bit" here and working in a really stretched reference to JANET JACKSON’S BREAST also, so that I can get this all out of the way at once.)

Nor did I watch Paris Hilton on her tv series either. Nor do I have any connection with her or with anyone who knows her whatsoever. Well ... once when I was in France I did see the Paris Hilton ... but it was just a building.

So why all the excitement? Why does the world care so about watching someone rich, beautiful and famous having sex with miscellaneous people and objects? Is it admiration? Nah. Envy? Possibly. Pure voyeurism? Most likely. But that still begs the question of why people would rather watch her than, say, a trained professional x-rated actress who could probably provide a much higher quality product.

Maybe we just like to see our celebrities tarnish. See, for example my earlier post on Martha Stewart. Will we all get a thrill when Paris gets busted for drugs and does the obligatory rehab?

I guess that is the real question here. What does the popularity of naked tapes of Paris Hilton tell us about ourselves?

Superman is Dead

He could leap tall buildings in a single bound ... but couldn't survive a head-first dive over a horse's head.

Christopher Reeve had it all. Now, after years spent in a straight-jacket of his own body, he is dead at 52. It makes one realize anew how tenuous this thing we call life is. And that the Grim Reaper doesn't play favorites. No matter your wealth, power or intelligence ... mortality levels us all.

Dying is such an incredible waste! If only there really was something beyond death. Ah, the most beguiling of all fantasies. And yet, and yet ... if wishes are horses ...

Martha Madness

Martha Stewart went to prison today. It is a minimum security facility. There won’t be any German Shepherds nipping at her as she tries to scale razor wire at the top of a wall.

But she won’t try to escape. She will do her time. As much for business reasons as any other, she wants and needs to get this all behind her.

I never much cared for Martha (although some of her recipes were excellent). And I admit that a disturbing part of me enjoyed watching the "perfect person" taken down a notch (I don’t think highly of that part of me, but I’ll ‘fess to it).

Somehow I don’t think I ever believed that she was actually going to end up behind bars. But now she really is in jail. And I have difficulty accepting that she deserves to spend 5 months there.

Yes. She did something dumb. And then lied about it which was dumber. Didn’t she learn anything from Nixon and Clinton? It’s the lies that get you, not the act. They didn’t bust her for insider trading. She was convicted for lying. (Two counts of making false statements plus one count of conspiracy and one of obstruction of justice.)

Since when did we as a society start throwing people in prison for saying "I’m not guilty"? Which, when you look at the charges, is more or less what she is in jail for. Lying to the government used to be a noble tradition in this country.

But what next? Will we threaten all criminal defendants with extra jail time if they plead "not guilty" at their arraignment? "Aha," says the district attorney, "We want to amend the indictment to add counts for making false statements and obstructing justice because the defendant says he isn’t guilty. And ... he and his lawyer were whispering about what he should say so that is a conspiracy charge as well."

Isn’t there something wrong here? If we couldn’t convict Martha for illegal insider trading or other substantive crime ... why exactly is she going to be sitting in jail longer than many people who beat their wives to a pulp? Or rob a house at gunpoint?

OJ has got to be laughing his head off in his Florida mansion.

Three Cheers for Rutan

I must depart from my usual cynicism to note the incredible accomplishment of Burt Rutan and his team for achieving that critical "first small step" into space without government assistance.

I was involved in an earlier effort to attempt to "get off the mudball and live forever". It was 20 years ago that the fifty-two foot Dolphin rocket that we built was successfully launched out of the Pacific Ocean near California. That was the first successful launch in the history of the world of a rocket developed and built entirely with private funds and without government involvement.

It was suborbital and didn’t carry any passengers. But it was a magnificent success.

Unfortunately, although the rocket went up, the company went down. It took us over $10 million to get to that point and, although we had three more rockets on the assembly line and plans for orbital capability ... we couldn’t achieve additional funding to get us there.

I’m sorry it took 20 years for someone to make it farther than we did.

But I am delighted that someone finally did.

No Law Allowed

The village nearest to me held an election last night to decide whether to create a sheriff (or other local law enforcement) department. Currently, the area is serviced only by the State Troopers and some residents felt that we would receive better law enforcement service if we had our own cops. The proposition was soundly defeated demonstrating the inherent intelligence of the backwoods voters.

The ballot explanation of the proposition, however, demonstrated the inherent lack of intelligence of the overseeing bureaucracy and provided an anarchists' dream come true. The official ballot provided as follows:

YES [A Yes Vote will result in the creation of a law enforcement service area in the [local] area.]

NO [A No Vote will prohibit the exercise of law enforcement powers in the [local] area, and the service area will not be created.]

As the vote was resoundingly "No", the exercise of law enforcement powers is now apparently forbidden!

Let's Hope They Lie

People keep ranting for more efficiency in government and the candidates keep promising it.

Yeah right. That's the last thing we need. It is the size and muddle of the great United States bureaucracy that has managed to preserve those freedoms and liberties that are still enjoyed by the citizenry. The government keeps trying to stifle them, but it just can't get all its freedom reduction programs through the bureaucratic maze.

As Will Rogers said, quoting Mark Twain who stole it from Shakespeare who cribbed it from the Bible: "Thank God we don't get all the government that we pay for."

Abort This !

Well, the news is full of talk about abortion rights again. The quadrennial pre-election marches and demonstrations are in full swing. Thousands of people demonstrating in Detroit (makes sense since none of them have jobs left to go to). The Detroit News reported on it yesterday and said "Experts on both sides have said the country is at a critical moment in history for the abortion issue". And it probably is because whoever gets elected President will get to appoint a bench-full of Supreme Court Justices.

So once again the nation will be confronted with the question of how best to cross the Potomac: Row vs. Wade. I should research this.

I just looked in my Constitution. Yep, there it is:

Amendment IX: Congress shall pass no law infringing upon the right of an individual to shoot heroin or abort a fetus or do any other damfool thing they want to do so long as it does not infringe on the rights of any other individual.

And Amendment XIV says: And neither shall any state government.

Roe v. Wade is bad law only when it starts attempting to make medical pronouncements. (Blackmun went to med school before he realized that lawyers made as much money and didn't have to get up in the middle of the night and deal with bloody body parts.) The Constitution says that a citizen is someone born (or naturalized) (Art.14). There is no suggestion that any constitutional rights attach to a fetus at any point before birth so the trimester distinctions are gobbledygook (although no sillier than many others routinely made by the Court.)

But a right to privacy? (Or whatever you wish to call it.) That is what the entire Bill of Rights and constitutional framework of our government is about. For those who believe in a social contract -- those are the terms of the deal: The government is to keep its nose out of our individual affairs so long as we don't infringe on anyone else's individual affairs and in return we won't shoot at members who practice government in public.

You want it as a syllogism?:

The Constitution protects the individual's right to do as (s)he pleases so long as it does not infringe on the rights of another individual;

Abortion during the first trimester does not infringe on the rights of any other individual;

The Constitution protects the individual's right to an abortion during the first trimester.

You can argue with the major premise and say that the Constitution doesn't say that. But that is in essence what Amendment IX (and the whole Bill of Rights) says and what it most emphatically originally meant. Such rights exist "as inherent rights, conferred by nobody, preempting any contrary law of a besotted legislature or misogynic Baptist judge." Those rights are exactly what the IX Amendment protects.

You can argue with the minor premise and say that a fetus is an individual, but I think that that is where you have to torture the Constitution. There is no suggestion of any sort that suggests that the fetus has such standing or was ever intended to. You can cross out "during the first trimester" and it is still probably just as good a syllogism. This is where Roe v. Wade made stuff up, deciding that rights sort of gradually attach.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with whether abortion is ethically right or wrong ... or indeed, is even morally repugnant. It only deals with whether it is or should be legal.

But enough of such pedantic claptrap. There are more interesting things going on here. The abortion debate is bigger than the Constitution. This is the classic clashing of two giant heroic evolutionary myths. Two entire world views in dramatic conflict. It is more fun to watch than to scrabble about. A major cultural identity crisis that seeks to determine who we believe we are and where we're heading.

On the one hand, you have the myth that man is evolving, perhaps predeterminedly, towards ever greater autonomy and freedom. It was this myth, fed, in Western culture, by certain religious mucktruck together with the economic revolution of the last few hundred years, that has brought recognition and demand for respect from individuals wherever they may societally be located. It is what unshackled the slaves, destroyed the hard lines of class distinctions, coerced the Magna Carta, unleashed the American Revolution, wrote the Bill of Rights, and generally allows participants in the Western culture, particularly Americans, to believe that they, individually, are entitled to the absolute maximum freedom and autonomy possible and that even more should be possible in the future. I tend to identify with this myth and to root for it, although I am concerned that it is only a temporary trend purchased by our current high economic situation.

On the other hand, you have the myth that man is evolving, perhaps predeterminedly, towards ever greater compassion and humaneness. It was this myth, fed, in Western culture, by certain religious mucktruck together with the economic revolution of the last few hundred years, that has brought recognition and demand for moral treatment of individuals wherever they may societally be located. It is what unshackled the slaves, destroyed the hard lines of class distinctions, halted the practice of killing girl babies at birth, instituted minimum wage and age work laws, unleashed the cradle to grave welfare state and all anti-war movements, encouraged the personification of whales, baby seals and other animal species, and generally allows participants in the Western culture to believe that every living entity is entitled to the absolute maximum care, kindness and compassion possible and that even more should be possible in the future. I actually do tend to believe that man is becoming a more humane creature although I often feel that this is simply a, perhaps temporary, luxury purchased with our current higher standard of living.

But these are two of our most basic western cultural myths. They have often worked in concert to get us where we are, but like male pups of the same litter, the bigger they've gotten, the more scuffling and tension there is between them. In the abortion debate, they are head to head fighting for Alpha dominance of the pack. (Freedom and rights of the woman to control her own bodily functions and the compassion and humaneness towards the unconscious prehuman fetal matter in formation ... known to prolifers as "a baby". Neither side can accept or countenance a society that does not protect ... indeed worship ... their vital myth.)

Not that the placard waving actors have the foggiest idea of what myth they are roling in, of course. Many screaming for the woman's right to abort firmly believe in curtailing the liberties of everyone else and others would gladly throw themselves in front of the clubs to save a baby seal. And many of those gesticulating wildly to save the poor little babies would willingly club the baby seals.

But the myths are far more important and ascendant than the actors. And it is great fun to watch! The irresistible force meets the immovable object. The battle of the titans.

And for once, all the sounds and fury signifies a lot more than the noisemakers even understand.

Cosmic Query

According to news in the popular press, scientists using the Hubble Telescope have observed light from quasars that emanated 12.8 billion years ago, less than a billion years after the big bang.

If it took the light from these quasars 12.8 billion years to get here (presumably at "the speed of light"), how did we beat it here?

We (including earth, the solar system, our galaxy) were presumably products of the big bang. If the big bang occurred less than a billion years before the events we are now witnessing ... shouldn’t that light, that "wave front", have passed us long ago?

How did we get here before the light did?

The First Step

Hands are sweaty. Mouth is dry. I'm about to start my blog. Dare I go through with it? The "word" is that blogging is incredibly addictive. Dare I take that first hit? Will I find myself wrapped up tighter than an evercrack addict ... calling in sick because I can't get out of my pajamas until noon because I have to blog?

Nah. I can handle it. Isn't that what every cocaine addict said about their first line?

I guess we'll find out.

Contacts

Test Post

Contacts:

Alaska Man

backwoods90@yahoo.com

http://s712.photobucket.com/albums/ww126/Backwoods90/Buttons/