 |
psywar ops vs. terrorists + liberals + bureaucrats + extraterrestrials |
© 2008 J. Burdick |
off-site links in new windows |
|
psywar ops vs. terrorists + liberals + bureaucrats + extraterrestrials |
© 2008 J. Burdick |
off-site links in new windows |
•
A
R
C
H
I
V
E
•
L
I
N
X
•
F
E
E
D
•
R
T
F
M
•
D
U
M
B
•
T
I
P
S
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
recent posts: "recency" posts on my other blog:
LATEST COMMENTS -
folks 're speechless new ¬
 old ¬
extree! extree! • • • wrecklessly risqué
• • •
friend of
• • •
• • •
My Links
tru-mirror site —» LUCKI
• • •
A l’il take-off on Oxblog’s schema — albeit slightly more fetching.
NB: blogs that are
( / u / reconnoitre ... more later )
• non-combatants: NB: You can be emplaced on my non-combatant list due to crappy blog or web site (content or style), or just because IMHO you and/or your organizational entity suck(s).
malefactorial blog archives
slipslidin' 'n' crawlin'
up the TTLB Ecosystem I ain't interested in any popularity contests, but I do think it's fun to reverse-engineer certain protocols of various folks in my leisure time
• what laura lasky looks like •
u.k. motoring news
c /o PistonHeads®
Q: whaddya git
toggle switch
• • •
• Fast upon the heels of the 9/11 terror attacks on The World Trade Center and The Pentagon, I was told U.K. law enforcement officials massively re-tasked their "war on drugs" resources to focus instead on counterterrorism. Here in the U.S., from what I see, loudmouth country bumpkins are squawking and kicking and screaming that their anti-drug budgets are being too drastically cut; yet from the look of these stats, it appears our LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES ARE BEING SQUANDERED. And as my friend The Admiral's Son used to say, back in the old days: "The U.K. is our biggest aircraft carrier." Scarce Resources Squandered
I support L.E.A.P.
|
 Wednesday, Nov 12, 2008
Happy Veterans Day (Belated, 2008) ¬ Apologies all around. Events of a semi-tragic personal nature prevented me from blogging-up a timely tribute yesterday to all our men and women in uniform who've served our country in matters of national defense within the Armed Services. I'll try to not let it happen next time around. I do find consolation in the fact that I did, at least, manage to offer some personal thanks to one special vet yesterday, a former combat pilot who's "Been and Done" in Vietnam. "Thanks Bob."  Tuesday, Nov 11, 2008
Quip of the Day ¬
[faux ponderous; striving to be stone-cold-serious but almost semi-quavering, on verge of cracking up:] "Wilford Damn Brimley."
That was Schulz a-splainin' who should be a next Hollywood spokesperson for the Repubs, after ruling out Chuck Norris. Wednesday, Nov 05, 2008
Quote of the Day ¬
"But Captain, your rucksack ... what?"
This line of Tintin's was uttered in the beginning of that particular adventure. He was about to go off to Tibet in order to search for a friend who was lost in a plane crash, and his companion (Captain Haddock) had flatly refused to accompany him. Then, as Tintin enters the Captain's hotel room to say au revoir, he notices the Captain is packing his gear as if to accompany Tintin to Tibet after all. When Tintin expresses his surprise at Haddock's apparent about-face decision, he thereby feeds the Captain an opportunity to "Go Yoda on him" (so to speak), the Captain responding with chiding words to the effect of: "Do you think for one moment that I'd let a young whippersnapper like you go off alone to ... [etc. etc.]." This "wizened old honcho" bearing came to mind by dint of the fact that Barack Obama is now our new President-Elect. The pundits and wizened old pols are coming out in force with the expected lofty expressions of hope that The Red and The Blue will somehow turn Royal Purple, and that folks will come forward with offers to serve in The Impending Barack Obama Administration. They go so far as to state that "even conservatives" should step forward with something like "Pleased to Be Here, Proud to Serve" — we'll see if Barack appoints any conservative thinkers to positions of real power a la John F. Kennedy's reputation for garnering contrarian viewpoints. My best guess is that he won't. Obama may sport a few token conservatives here and there, and if I had money to bet I'd give overwhelping odds that "It's Payback Time" ... and we're now gonna see us the biggest group of out-and-out liberals ever assembled in one presidential administration. Joe Scarborough may've said it best this morning; I'm paraphrasing here, though only very slightly: "The New York Times and the Liberal Media at Large has canonized themselves a saint. But now that Mr. Obama's been elected, they've raised expectations so high that folks are going to be real disappointed when they find out he doesn't walk on water." My own concerns about Obama have been expressed elsewhere in my blogs. I started out liking him, really enamored of his gumption and gaminess, even though I preferred John McCain for his comparatively greater amount of wizened experience. As the campaign unfolded, I didn't like some of Obama's negative ads, and statements (re the troop surge in Iraq, e.g.). I became dang appalled at some credible descriptions of Obama's resume — general reporting I'd seen was indicative of said resume being filled with lofty titles shorn of anything having been accomplished under the auspices of the blessings with which he'd been bestowed; putting it another way, when Obama achieved one position, "Job #1" became angling for the next step up the ladder rather than accomplishing many significant deeds he could point to later. Besides all his resume-padding and concomitant lack of experience, what concerns me most about Obama is precisely the opposite of a concern which many others have expressed through the years about various other candidates and governing officials — such criticism may have been valid in earlier times, but these days I think they've got it backwards. In the old days, people used to say that the organized, entrenched bureaucracies and powers that be, the rank and file of government officials who remain throughout one administration after another, well, one of their jobs is to "protect the boss" and strive to ensure that their Current Political Master doesn't screw up. That's a generally accepted notion of the collective wisdom being present and vigilant to keep a cowboy president from flying off the handle. But I'm concerned with precisely the opposite case: How does a president best counter the bulwark of our own gigantic bureaucracy? (If Joe Biden thinks foreign leaders will challenge Obama, he should be more concerned about bureaucrats in our own government being passive-aggressive or oherwise trying to circumvent the president's Articulated Vision.) Best example I can think of offhand (mentioned in one of my earlier posts, here) is when John F. Kennedy had to be shown satellite photos by Khruschev during the Cuban Missile Crisis, photos with which Khruschev crushed JFK's claim that we'd removed our Jupiter Missiles from Turkey. The sources I read indicate that Kennedy had to order our military three times to remove the missiles, before they were finally removed, and it was because the entrenched military bureaucracy felt it their duty to keep the boss from screwing up. I felt that John McCain, qua maverick, would ride herd on the massive bureaucracy better than Obama (Mr. "Zero Experientialism") could. Now that Obama's going to run the show, I'll go out on a limb here and predict that our citizenry will bear unfortunate witness to all sorts of bureaucratic stonewalling, successfully circumvention of his "vision for change", all sorts of cronyism, miscellaneous corruption, and bureaucratic stonewalling in general the likes of which have never been seen on this planet. And like they say: "I hope I'm wrong." Yeah. I really hope I'm wrong. [I-UPDATE 111008:] * If you think the example of JFK and The Cuban Missile Crisis is confusing, well, I don't blame you. So do I. Depending upon how "pro-military" one is, one can point to the aspect of the Jupiter missiles and say: "See? Perfect example of the so-called 'entrenched bureaucracy' getting a bad rap for protecting-up a fledgling President from his greenhorn self. Kennedy should never have ordered The Chiefs to remove those missiles, as a matter of national security and basic survival of Our Way of Life. And it follows quite logically, as a matter of course, that he should never have used 'em as a bargaining chip in negotiations with Khruschev — for in so doing he was ipso facto bargaining away our finest ace in the hole." while others would counter: "See? That's what I'm talkin' about. Perfect example of the properly-painted 'entrenched bureaucracy' undermining the credibility of The Prez. At the very moment when Kennedy and Khruschev were sitting atop The Giant Powder Keg, Kennedy's own people made him look like a clown who harbored delusions of controlling them, thus putting Khruschev in a dangerous position of wondering: 'Can I trust anything this Nekulturny Neophyte says? Dude can't even control his own Step-'n-Fetchits.' The President is The Boss of Bosses, proof that in Our Representative Democracy, the democratically-elected civilian leadership is in charge, and not some military junta. That's (one of) the sine qua non(s) which makes us very different from them." The example, therefore, can be used by both sides, depending upon presuppositions. Very confusing. As a common Joe Citizen, I for one do not have access to anything in the way of still-classified materials (which may or may not exist) which might conceivably shed some light on the subject. My point, simple and possibly uninstructive as it may be, is that Obama may be tested early on (as JFK was), and he may not be in a position to know what The Wise Old Military Hands are really up to; are they "protecting" him, or "circumventing" him? On that note, I'll close by simply noting that we could sketch out a hypothetical case wherein the Joint Chiefs present a case to Obama that he should do such-and-such, and/or refrain from doing this-and-that, and Obama refuses whereupon The Chiefs deem that "push has come to shove" and feel they've no choice but to institute "Certain Medical Protocols" whereby POTUS qua CINC may be deemed unfit for command, and thereby ensure that The Prez Won't Be Allowed To Screw the Pooch (to borrow a stolen page from the cosmonauts at NASA). But that puts us squarely in the Harsh Realm of "them thar Star Trek episodes wherein Dr. McCoy almost bends over backwards trying to get Mr. Spock to countersign a determination that Captain Kirk must be relieved of command (pending resolution of some sort of biomedical condition) — and I for one amn't any expert in such protocols as applied to POTUS qua CINC; that'd have to be the subject of a future post, following suitable research by Yours Truly. (These are tough questions. Like they said when they hired me as an 'Adjunct Professor of Homeland Security Law', or something like that, "You'll be there as a facilitator [rather than a doctrinaire dogmatist or pompous pedant]; and like my dad used to say about being a professor, back in the day when he was one: "If you get up there on Day One and tell 'em 'I have all the answers, folks', you're setting yourself up for a fall.") But I digress. Put another way: Some say we're safer with Obama, 'cause The Chiefs will easily control A Poster-Boy Dove whilst McCain The Old War-Hawk might take scant guff and thereby screw-up The Military's Dang-Well-Oiled Machine. Funny how these things work. 'Nuff said. [/I-UPDATE] Also in my blogs, I've expressed how much I admire Colin Powell. I can and do greatly admire Mr. Powell, and I can/do simply disagree with his late-in-the-game, somewhat-lukewarm-tho'-emphatically-uttered endorsement of Mr. Obama. [AFTERTHOUGHT:] I will not serve in Obama's administration. Nothing personal.** I would've turned down any posts in a McCain Show too. My reasons have been expressed elsewhere, they include the fact that I was seriously wronged by government officials under circumstances wherein no legal remedies were available to redress such proven wrongdoing. "Sorry, folks. I might've coulda helped, but the asswipes fucked me over irretrievably." * [P.S.] [ed. note: In case you are wondering, my "[I-UPDATE]" syntax published above in this post (and in other posts I've written) stands for "Intrastitial Update" and it is coined under the auspices of the case law decisions about patents wherein it's been ruled "A patentee may be his own lexicographer." I utilize "[I-UPDATE:]" (with colon, sometimes dated, sometimes undated, the lack of a date signifying that the [I-UPDATE] was published on the same day as the post proper, and the end of each "[I-UPDATE]" being signified by similar notation sans colon and dated/undated, preceded by a slash: "[/I-UPDATE]" or e.g. "[/I-UPDATE 111108]") in blog posts wherein I desire to introduce an update to the post but feel such update is best published immediately following the paragraph containing such information that I desire to update; that is, I feel it would be confusing (and/or otherwise "less fetching") to publish a standard update at the end of an original post proper. Some bloggers I've read simply publish any and all updates at the end of their posts; while other bloggers I've read do make use of what I herein term intrastitial updates but in so doing they simply use the wording "UPDATE:" — and, in some cases, it's seemed that they don't even demarcate the end of their intrastitial updates, a practice that I find disconcerting and confusing. As promised in an earlier post, I intend to publish more thoughts about my own blogging protocols, which future, to-be-published thoughts may constitute the dreaded "blogging about blogging" (cf. remarks of Tina Fey's during a recent NPR interview, if you can find 'em, regarding her 30 Rock show being based, in part, on SNL writing experiences, and regarding her thoughts on writing-about-writing; but since I'll be "blogging only a little bit about blogging", on blogging protocols per se, hopefully it won't be too boring and you might bear with me.] BTW ... "Hi Nancy." ** [P.P.S.] Though I certainly wouldn't be caught dead-to-rights turning down any Big Game of One-On-One Hoops with Barack. BTW, along the lines of a theory about computer-language programmers once expressed by my old friend Adam (that "Programmers are Lazy" [i.e. they strive for efficiency]), I'll point out that it's not strictly necessary (nor desirable?) to end dated "[I-UPDATE]"s with repetition of date (e.g. "[/I-UPDATE 111108]". In the interests of laziness-cum-efficiency, I will most often omit an end-date and use the basic form: "[/I-UPDATE]". That said, I'll close-out this here post by stating that I'm hoping not to have to trot-out too many [I-UPDATE]s in my blogging exploits lest I be accused of what some might consider: Tawdry Attempts at Out-And-Out Social Clambering. Wooden wanna Get In No Dutch with them CIA Fellers. " Nothing but 'Net'? Fuck You. SLAM DUNK! " Non-Negotiable: I'm not interested in negotiating, nor executing any contract(s) or licensing deal(s) regarding, any of my hard-wrought intellectual properties unless (as a condition precedent) such negotiations, contracts, or licenses embrace a package deal which includes up-front bonus compensation in addition to back-end royalties and other compensation. I'll demand a few dollops of Artistic Control. He Who Arriveth First With "Paperwork Admitting of Power-of-Acceptance On My Part" Gets First Bite at An Apple. All Y'all Happen to Know How This Game Be Played. Darn Tootin'. Reckon I ain't no amateur. Traveler's Advisory: If'n there be any business-type entities out there admittive of both a "News Side of the House" and "An Entertainment Side of the House", be forewarned and advised that if you think you're gonna "newsify" my story (via declaration that's it's newsworthy, and reportable in the public interest) — and then have your Entertainment Cronies make e.g. a "docudrama" — rest assured I'll come after you with as many "lawyers, [federal-] guns and money" as I can muster in order to prosecute you for perceived antitrust violations and toss your asses in The Clink besides reaping ALL your 'Net'. On a brighter note: If I do get some money, I'll happily fund scientific research and donate to some charities. I've said it before. I'll say it again: " He who seeks to Get Me Off My High Horse will be sent back reeling: 'Damn. That is one high HORSE!' " If you commit antitrust violations, I will "shove so much paperwork up [your] ass" (as Sven once said, back in law school) that (my words): "Rupert F'-ing Murdoch and His Henchmen May Be Forced To Declare Your Bum A Corporate Fire Hazard." Tuesday, Nov 04, 2008
Our Quadrennial Election-Day Drama: What, Me Worry? ¬ Hardly. My teams of skilled info-hackers and expert attorneys stand ready to bring this time-waster campaign to a close. [UPDATE:]. Muss be a big day for them news folk. MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski and her non-mussed hair and all that ... [UPDATE:] Meant to add this earlier, but got bogged down. NBC's Ann Curry looked trés stunning this morn in her deep forest-green Amazement Park. Later in the eve, she'd crosso-ed into one of her trademarky basic black eye-popperoos. [UPDATE 110508:] I managed to skip all the election night coverage for once, but I chanced to tune in circa 3:30 a.m. Though bleary, I witnessed NBC's Chris Jansing in a darling li'l cranberry-purplish jacket with ruffled white blouse. Mmm. Thursday, Oct 30, 2008
Quote of the Day ¬
"Damn the torpedoes! Full steam ahead!"
I've always loved that expression. Applying it to my own life by way of analogy, sometimes it seems like I've successfully pushed past various obstacles of potentially damaging natures, taken some hits and suffered damage, but managed to continue forging ahead whilst making repairs en route a la an observation of Otto Neurath's regarding scientists: "We are like sailors on a ship forever at sea, obliged to repair our vessel and to improve its operation as best we can without the advantages of drydock." Carrying the analogy further and moving beyond: I pushed way upriver (as planned), leaving my compatriots far behind (likewise), then jumped out of the boat and infiltrated behind enemy lines (ditto); but because my weapons and supplies fell into the river I was forced to scrounge sans benefit of even basic gear. One well-wisher recently assured me "But didn't you want it that way, aren't those sorts of obstacles character-building?" — which only netted her a weary reply of "No, I'd built up all the character I'd needed sans benefit of [those particular] additional foils against which I had to resist." Sad to say, there came a point where as a rational person I had to concede mission failure. I was left wandering around in morally dangerous places; I'm just glad I was exceptionally lucky in that I didn't get done-in (or far, far worse). [AFTERTHOUGHT:] Hat Tip to Prof. Dr. Wahl, for introducing me to Neurath's "metaphorical simile" some 20 years ago. Wednesday, Oct 29, 2008
Military Persona of the Day ¬ LUCKI's Military Persona today is: Senator John McCain (USN ret.)
John S. McCain came from a Navy family. Both his father and grandfather became Navy aviators, and John III followed in their footsteps. He
graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1958, as his father had in 1931. John III was later shipped to Vietnam, where he became the third generation
of his family to serve.
Of special note is that while he was a P.O.W., McCain was offered early release by his North Vietnamese captors (due to McCain's father's rank as a Navy Admiral, the North Vietnamese desired to release him for propaganda purposes) but in solemn accord with his Soldier's Ethic ("First In, First Out") he turned-down the enemy cold. See e.g. McCain's Wiki entry.  Song of the Day ¬
Which Side, by Arlo Guthrie Explicitly contains the following lyrics: Which side are you on, boys / Which side are you on Insofar as the Good/Evil Dichotomy Thing be concerned, I resolved that particular question for myself many moons ago. Good friends know where I stand. Like, in the old days, back when we were kids, we used to play Dungeons and Dragons — and given its role-playing choices for our characters to be one of four types (Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, Lawful Evil, or Chaotic Evil) I always (or nearly always) chose to field a character which was "Lawful Good" (there may've been a few rule-proving exceptions, though I could not swear to the veracity of such musing). And I'd bet that some of my friends must've found me a wee bit boring in such regard. A Classic Problem: ofttimes it seems The Bad Guys Have All The Fun. Coupling that notion with "Nice Girls Need It Too", well … I guess that's why nice girls all-too-often fall victim to bad guys. Riding Herd On "Yet Another FOX News Boo-Boo" ¬ I was watching the excellent FOX News show Special Report with Brit Hume in the wee hours of the morning today, and, as usual, Mr. Hume successfully registered-up YASP (Yet Another Stellar Performance). But on the other hand, I noticed that their comparative lackey Major Garrett (who used to work for CNN before he jumped ship to The Chest-Thumping Hidebound Folks), well, Garrett committed a "major" error of logic during a segment he'd reported regarding a recent campaign appearance (in Pennsylvania) by the noted glitzy rhetorician Barack Obama. A deceptively simple mistake, it were, though one which indicates a bit of the ol' "Sloppy Reporting". Regarding the fact that Mr. Obama is (according to most pols, and polls) currently sailing with a comfortable lead going into the upcoming presidentiary election, Mr. Garrett made note of the fact that The Obama Campaign is not letting up, still campaigning hard, and, as Garrett described it: "Which means they either don't trust their lead, or else they're not taking any chances." But ... Hunh? Ain't them fellers the same thing? IOW, Garrett presented us with a type of false dichotomy, not the kind I'll term a classic false dichotomy a la some (not all) 2AFCs (Two Alternatives Forced Choice), of which I blogged here, but rather a type of dichotomy which is itself false qua dichotomy — i.e. it's presented as a dichotomy whereas in fact it's no dichotomy at all. (BTW, for a great example of someone "blowing off a classic false dichotomy", see e.g. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan wherein Captain Kirk was presented with a "no-win scenario" as a test of character yet finagles a way to win; all true Star Trek fans know of this famous Starfleet Academy training exercise by it's formal name: Kobayashi Maru.) But back to Mr. Garrett: Isn't it true that it's precisely in a case wherein a candidate "doesn't trust his lead" that such candidate will "not take any chances"? Helll-looooo. You can generalize this example to make the lesson even clearer: When you don't trust someone, or something, you "don't take chances" with them (or it) — that's a basic operational definition of the verb "to trust", and I can't believe Garrett don't know that. Hence I conclude his reportage was sloppy. Mayhap the proverbial competition with other news folks caused Garrett (and/or FOX) to rush their story way too hastily. BTW, I really thought this one through, and I did my darnedest to muster a plausible case in Garrett's defense. That is, I strove semi-valiantly to hammer-out a line of reasoning wherein Garrett's Blooper does not, in fact, constitute any error of logic, and should not, therefore, be considered any sort of mistake. But I failed in such self-appointed eristical chore. The only Hail Mary I felt could be thrown seemed, in retrospect, awkward and strained. Sorry, Charlie. Tune no taste good. Perhaps illustrative of Garrett's mindset is that (later in the same segment) he uttered the apologetic vernacular phrase "My Bad" (I believe it may've been shown on one of those fancy-schmancy split-screen thingies which allowed us to see Mr. Hume cracking an avuncular smile at Garrett's fess-up); Garrett's apologia was not tendered regarding the error of logic I mention above, but rather in regard to something else he screwed-up on. [ed. note: for awhile there, some time ago, I figgered Mr. Garrett was angling to position himself as a future anchor, i.e. Hume's heir apparent; but now, in retrospect they've got me surmising that [the usually stern-sounding] young Brett Baier would seem to have successfully parlayed his current or erstwhile Pentagon Gig into some sort of a provisional dauphin-ship within the context of FOX's Special Report.] Sometimes Major Garrett reminds me of Major Hoople (link is to a satire of the Major Hoople character, not any actual instance of the famous Our Boarding House comic strip in which Hoople's character appears); ergo, given his recent peccadilloes, perhaps we might be well advised to start addressing Mr. Garrett, humorously, as: "Major Bloople". [AFTERTHOUGHT:] When I first started listening to the segment-in-question I'd thought it sounded like FOX reporter Carl Cameron was reporting it. But then they displayed Garrett. So, by way of disclaimer, I'll simply point out that if the segment was concocted as some sort of "mix 'n match tag-team" approach, the error may not have been Garrett's. But it's reasonable to surmise it was. (Hard for me to be certain whilst dominated by thoughts on That Nanci Puttyknack Gal). [P.S.] If memory serves, in The Wrath of Khan it was Starfleet Cadets, rather than Kirk, who got hit with Kobayashi Maru; and reference made therein to Kirk's passing of the test (via hacking into the simulation computer) when he was a cadet. Friday, Oct 10, 2008
Imaginary Technical Articles I'd Like To Write Some Day (first in an [intended] series) ¬
Previously Unknown Noncurvangular Temporalities Within Concave Elementals of Multivalent Flipped-FLOPS
What I'd in mind is along the lines of: a curious, drippin'-with-homagey admixture of category theory and control theory. Wednesday, Oct 08, 2008
Song of the Day ¬
Don't Do Me Like That, by Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers Actually had to quote the title lyric fro' this one not long ago in a fielded sitch wherein I countenanced an aggressor. Fun. Monday, Oct 06, 2008
Word of the Day: investiture ¬
investiture, n. ( in-vess´-stitch-er )
(source: the type of pea-brain "mental dictionary" of sorts I favor) Used in a sentence: During the special, high-falutin' investiture ceremony whereat I flatly refused to accept lé Prix Nobel and indeed even felt a need to rebuke the Committee, I grew weary of all the stuffy company present and soon reflected: 'Dang, I wish my brother George was here.' Sunday, Oct 05, 2008
Song of the Day ¬
Words, by Missing Persons I reckon if I recollect proper this here song takes a position that in an event no'un listens anymore it's no use talkin' t'all. Monday, Oct 03, 2008
Song of the Day ¬
Turn Me Loose, by Loverboy Contains the following explicit lyrics: I've gotta do it my way / Or no way at all Mirror, Mirror, On the Wall, Who's the Fairest of Them All? ¬ Inasmuch as True Fair Judgment of any of my work may be concerned, there are very few folks whose OPS I'd even want to take time to consider. One of them would be an imaginary (IOW he's not a real number, though he may be something of a doozy) perfesser I have in mind for a novel work of fiction that somehow I've been kicking around in my head. On that score, maybe it goes back to a gal named Amy who once told me she really really hoped that one day might find me turning my thoughts away from my memoirs and film script and straightway into the curious realm of fiction (I told the pretty young thing I'd certainly take it under advisement). Anyway, w.r.t. such potential fictive nonsense, I had in mind a fictional character called Yevgeny Carryoverya, statistically speaking he's an archetypal sort I just keep coming up with as far as imagining some sorta "Mr. Chips" -type dramatis persona whose opinion a protagonisticky antihero character based on me would seek as far as opining if any of my work was good. Haven't decided how the novel turns out after all of its many twists and turns, though I do have some sort of an uncanny feeling that only three relevant cases might obtain: (a) he never even knows my work exists, in which case I end up hating myself; (b) he thinks my work sucketh, in which case I also end up hating myself; or (c) he actually likes and admires any something I've done, in which case the bookends on a bookshelf I dream of constitute proof I actually managed to get me a good night's sleep for once in my lifetime. My idea of "Perfesser Carryoverya" is loosely based on a guy I met some ten years ago, we were showing him the newfangled thingie called "Google" (which he'd already seen and stress-tested, of course) — and what struck me silly about his simple question (paraphrased: "Yeah, but how do you keep this 'search engine thing' from spawning and spewing out gigantic amounts of crap so you don't have to sift forever?"] — was that I knew I could answer his question with something like "Adroit Boolean Tactics", but I didn't because I knew from the look in his eye and the smile on his face such brevity would land me nothing but a hopefully-not-ruinous guffaw: "Helluva lot of information you've got wrapped up in that there adjective, son: 'adroit'? "[Depending upon what you're searching for,] Easier Said Than Done." [P.S.] Got the idea for the name as a blend of Yevgeny Yevtushenko the Russian poet plus the notion of "carrying over" from addition where, as we recall from our schooldays, you add e.g. 5 by 5, get 10, chalk-up a zero and "carry over" a 1. Thursday, Oct 02, 2008
Publick Service Pronouncements ¬ Here are some notions I figgered might be beneficial, as far as posting for a hypothetical John Queue Publick:
These have been some Publick Service Pronouncements. You may now return to your regularly scheduled blogramming. [UPDATE:] Re #3 'tis possible consumer mishandling caused crackage or propagation thereof. But, I doubt it's the case. [P.S.] "Will the real 'Joe Sixpack' please stand up?" Common folk like me have problems just gettin' a dang cuppa joe. [UPDATE 100308:] Re #2 above, I'm reminded of something my old friend Idaho Brad and I once discussed; his simple question was tendered in the context of our proclivity for displaying "a rather pronounced fondness for spirited debate". I may be paraphrasing here but the gist of his sentiment was: "What do you do with a guy who, after you're sure you've scored a point against him by referencing some [presumably valid] source which makes such point, he parries: 'I know that.'?" IOW, an opponent claims he's read the book too but also draws differing conclusions therefrom and applies the source's lesson(s) differently within the context of what-it-is about which you're speaking; he claims to have sufficiently assimilated such info and "Gosh, gee whiz, I guess y'all just cut it differently than I duz." Well, since Brad's question was an operational one, that is he wanted to know how to counter, I'll opine as follows. First, and this may not always be obvious: your opponent might simply be lying; his "Yeah, I already knew that" might simply be a knee-jerk reaction born of pride. I've noticed from time to time that various "authority-figure types" sometimes just plumb don't like it (and can even get huffy) when "uppity underling | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![shreddin' it, bro'er: Justin DeLeonardis, you still owe me a hundred 'n sixty dollah [whooowh ... spark ... crackle ... ''Shove It, Skoal!''] -- /s/ Jon Burdick](./images/JB.gif){kind=small}
") or question-marks (??) that = advertisement in a language which uses
alphabetic characters in a font you don't have … Nippon magnates, e.g.,
be hoggin'-up allah my Google-Ad space again
\