Harry Got it Right!

(1)

OKOKITIAB!

I don't dare read this stuff sober, of course, because it gets to be really silly sometimes. Today was one of those occasions when I approached this drog with trepadation even after being psychologically bolstered (tap - TMT is back) by a couple of drinks. But I forgive myself very easily and move on. I don't need God's forgiveness. God is irrelevant.

Which brings me to tonight's notes: Trip to Titan - Bush Unplugged - Blink, Malcolm Gladwell - Nightline and Intelligent Design (I think not!) - Piltdown man; skullduggery? - Mein Fury.

The first note refers to the Huygens probe to Titan. The returned photographs are at once impressive and unimpressive. The lack of color - even false color - is unimpressive; all the rest is impressive. Some say that this moon of Saturn is close in composition to the primitive Earth, but at a temperature of -280 degrees (C? F?) it is difficult for me to believe this, unless they mean a time before the Sun was fully 'turned on.'

Bush unplugged refers to the latest Bush interview wherein he admits occasional verbal faux pas like the infamous 'Bring it on' sound byte which is now being used by the Iraqi opposition in its propaganda videos. It is often painful for me to watch Bush tv because I see Bush as, 'The Idiot in the White House.' No doubt the 20/20 interview will need to be watched with some sort of medication...

Blink... refers to a book by Malcolm Caldwell which apparently examines the emotional (stomp)brain, and its universal tendency to 'judge' various situations and persons instantaneously. Not having read the book I can't say what it is all about, but let me guess: it is a book about how we are ruled by our emotional brain, not by our logical brain, and how that aspect of our brain can at times be antithetical to our greater good. Did I get that right? The main point of the book is that most of the time our emotional brain is right on the money, but that there are situations where it is wrong, wrong, wrong.

The Nightline note refers to last night's Nightline concerning 'Intelligent Design.' Seems that some Dover, Pennsylvania school board objected to the current science curriculum which teaches Evolution as the fundamental unifying principle of biology, and introduced the concept of 'Intelligent Design' as a plausible substitute, and that the result was a lawsuit by the ACLU. I love stuff like this! So I was very interested by this Nightline piece. An interesting fact emerged from the piece to the effect that America is roughly divided into thirds regarding the 'truth of Evolution:' one third believes in Evolution; one third denies Evolution, and one third 'doesn't have a clue.'
I see this 'Gallup Poll' as firm evidence that I live in a World Full of Idiots and that I am not one of them. Very pleasing. The Nightline piece invites us to wonder about the idea of 'Intelligent Design:' What can that mean? (being gassed here at 1937). I wonder. Is the Universe in some sense, 'intelligent?' Yes, I think so. Is that attribute of The Universe the result of an 'Intelligent Creator working on a Master Plan?' That is the question. I think that the question is hopelessly 'anthropomorphical in nature' and therefore does not deserve serious consideration. My current position - subject to change - is this: The Universe is intelligent in the sense that it is able to overcome Entropy in some astonishing ways.

The 'Piltdown Man - skullduggery' note refers to a recent tv account (on Nature?) to the effect that the Brits concocted Piltdown Man as answer to the European discovery of Neanderthal. I loved this glorious piece! One word, 'skullduggery,' struck me: was this usage an example of 'punnery?' Curious, I looked up the word, 'skullduggery.' The etymology of the word suggested that the origin of the word was, 'unknown.' Astonishing! I refuse to believe that the word, 'skullduggery,' was in use before the 'Piltdown Man' scenerio and was not derived from that very unfortunate British Experience. But I could be wrong. Set me right if you can.

Mein Fury refers of course to the the British Prince who wore a Nazi costume to a party which advertised itself as a 'bad taste party' which would award the title of 'chief bad taster' to the person who came dressed up in the baddest taste. Harry-boy apparently won the party prize for his Nazi costume. There resulted much International Anguish! I laughed!

Was not Harry correct? Did not Harry win the prize? 'They' say that Harry was obviously indiscreet for a 20 year old who had received a first class education. But I say that Harry got it right on!