When I gave Edward Teller a professional presentation several decades ago, he advised me to assume that he was infinitely ignorant and infinitely intelligent. This was likely the usual advice this brilliant man gave to those with whom he interacted. (1/27/22)

One should remember and heed the remark by the Walter Pidgeon character in the 1941 film How Green Was My Valley: “… you cannot conquer injustice with more injustice – only with justice … ” (10/27/21)

Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural words included the famous words: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; …” Many in our times operate with charity for none; with malice toward all. (9/3/20)

Though I do not feel particularly affected by it, I am noticing more and more the common negative statements about people as they age, in the popular media and so on. It is likely due more to my awareness of it and not an increase in the frequency of such statements. I cannot understand why so many so casually say and do things that are negative about their parents and grandparents, and hurtful to them, and why they are trying to harm their own futures. It seems that some value a human life less, and often much less, as the person’s life expectancy (in years remaining) decreases. (9/2/20)

Sometimes it is helpful to characterize people with political power, not to try to “shame” them but to try to understand them. For those who have viewpoints or take actions that you do not agree with, you might characterize them as being one or more of the following: fools, cowards. bullies, evil (other than being a bully), … (This is all subjective, of course.) (9/2/20)

You may well have less to fear from persons in positions of supposed power who have a sense of responsibility and whose positions have accountability than  those with power who are not responsible or accountable, as those who use the power of being online. (9/2/20)

There are two sides to every issue, but it does not mean they have equal merit. (5/24/20)

Telling someone they have freedom of speech but there could be consequences because of what they say, means you do not think they have the right to free speech. (5/24/20)

It is fashionable for some to complain that superdelegates chosen by the party elected officials and not the voting public in the race for the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency is unfair and undemocratic. Learning some history would serve these people well. Like it or not, superdelegates were added about two decades not to control the nomination process but to lessen the odds of nominating a fringe, demagogic candidate who was able to game the nomination system (as almost happened). This is just another example of not letting the facts get in the way of untruthful proclamations. (5/24/20)

In From That Place and Time: A Memoir, 1938-1947 by Lucy Dawidowicz, the author described a German she met in Berlin during her escape from Europe in August 1939, who thought Poland was belligerent towards his country and was about to attack Germany (the opposite of what was obvious to all then, as was confirmed by subsequent events). She noted, “It was like listening to a very polite lunatic.” What a wonderful way to characterize those not in contact with political reality! Our world currently has many polite lunatics and even more impolite lunatics. (1/12/20)

Driving in New York City is not fun. Traffic has gotten worse in recent years because of more volume from, among other sources, Lyft and Uber. In an effort to make the roads safer, the vehicle speed limit has been decreased (and the reasons for this are fairly, though not entirely, invalid-the probability of a pedestrian fatality does decrease with the speed of the car that hit hi/her) and bike lanes have been added in many places (decreasing traffic in places, increasing it in others, and increasing the likelihood of head-on collisions). The the roads would be safer and more pleasant if the those on the streets and sidewalks would (do the obvious, which is): (12/31/19 (with add-ons on 1/4/20))

Drivers: Put you cell phones away. Actually fully stop at red lights when they have actually turned red. Start again promptly when they turn green (and put your cell phones away). Actually stop at stop signs. Pedestrians have right of way at cross-walks and everywhere else on the road (even if they are not following the law). Do not try to hit joggers.

Cyclists: Follow the rules of the road, as you are supposed to. Stop at red lights and stop signs. Avoid pedestrians. Do not make wild turns in randoms places, unnoticed by drivers and pedestrians. Stay off the sidewalks. Do not try to hit joggers.

Pedestrians (crossing streets): Look at the road and traffic-even at red lights and stop signs, and not your cellphones. If you must jaywalk, note and avoid traffic. Never dart out onto the street, especially in between cars and otherwise less visible to motorists.  Do not try to hit joggers.

Pedestrians (on sidewalks): If the sidewalk is narrow, let others pass the other way, with up to half the width of the sidewalk. (Then half should not be in the middle.) Look at other pedestrians, and not your cellphones. (It is also your responsibility to avoid collisions.) Do not try to hit joggers.

Related thoughts:

Dog walking pedestrians (on sidewalks): Keep your dog on a leash and always on your half of the sidewalk (the right or left half) and never let them interfere with joggers. (I like most every dog, but not all dog walkers.)

If a tree falls in an empty and no one hears it, does it still make a sound. (Of course) Yes. If a motorist approaches a stop sign (or red light) and there is no police officer or surveillance camera present, should he/she stop. (Of course ) Yes.

I recall from reading Chalmers Johnson as an undergraduate that revolutions can be caused when conditions get better (because people then expect even more) or worse (because people expect what to have what they had before it became worse). This makes sense. Transferred to everyday life, you have to be careful whenever you either improve or worsen conditions. (12/27/19)

I was once told that change is good. I corrected that statement to good change is good and bad change is bad. (12/27/19)

The problem is not whether a glass that is 90% full is viewed as being either 90% full or 10% empty, but when this same cup is viewed as being 90% empty. (2/15/17 (edited 5/24/20))

We live in a weird, illogical, inconsistent and sometimes unkind world. It is okay for many people to buy or download for a fee the highly-promoted songs whose lyrics they are effectively prohibited by society from even uttering. Why shouldn’t both be prohibited? (12/26/16)

With the passing of Harper Lee, we can revisit the silliness that accompanied the publication of “Go Set a Watchman” (“Watchman”) a half year ago. It was not, and was never intended to be, a sequel to “To Kill of Mockingbird” (“Mockingbird”). It was a first novel submission that the publisher rejected, but with suggestions of major changes that led to the very successful and acclaimed “Mockingbird.” The silliness was the wide public disappointment that the Atticus Finch in “Watchman” was not the high-minded person depicted in “Mockingbird.” It was not the same character at all, and definitely not the same character later in life. (2/22/16)

John Kennedy’s 1961 inaugural statement  “… ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” is now be considered by many vocal people and organizations inappropriate, and bordering on hate talk. Unfortunately, such voices nowadays usually demand “… ask not what you can do for your country – ask what your country can do for you.” (2/22/16)

First of all, xphobia means fear of x and not hatred of x-despite how these terms are constantly used, alongside xisms. (7/5/15)

The most confusing one is ageism, which apparently means having some sort of negative feelings toward “old” people, which often really means people older than oneself.  Of all the phobias and isms, this one is directed toward one’s future self, so it is more of a hatred (or other negative feelings) of one’s future self.

The “agex” terms are awkward due to the ei construct. A better term than “ageism” is “altephobia,” so one who possesses or exhibits this negative trait would not be ageist (whatever that means), but an altephobe, i.e. one who is altephobic.

These alte-terms are derived from a well-known, not-really-negative Yiddish expression describing some older people.)  In ways, altephobes, really fear their future selves.

Note that the term “atelophobia,” the fear of not being good enough or fear of perfection is sometimes mistyped as altephobia.

Last week on the drive home in Manhattan: (10/14)

1. I made a right turn from the right lane, as someone was illegally making a right turn from the left lane.

2. I then tied to drive straight through an intersection northbound on a boulevard-like drive (with no lights or stop signs, and proceeding at the speed limit), and needed to slam my brakes as someone going southbound decided to make a left turn as I entered the intersection. (The other driver also slammed on his brakes when he finally realized that you are not supposed to make a turn into oncoming traffic.)

3. Then I saw someone ahead of me driving 2 or 3 mph faster than the recently lowered speed limit (which is still a safe driving speed given the nature of this specific road).

4.  Finally, I, along with the several cars in front of me, waited to proceed when the light changed to green, as two cars going southbound went through a red light to make a left turn in front of us.

A police vehicle was in wait to pull over one of these offenders, #3. The other three were committing offenses that could lead to accidents, but in our new NYC there is talk about making the streets safer, but the enforcement is misdirected and really pretty silly—and does little  to save lives.

Maimonides composed the eight degrees or levels of charity, each one more elevating the nature of the charity to another rung in the ladder, from directly giving an inadequate amount of charity to someone unwillingly after being asked to do so to helping someone to be independent of needing help. (7/22/14)

I offer the eight steps of modern-day political discussion with one having an opposing view.  These are commonly used as if one were going up the ladder of effectiveness of discussion; I think they are descending the ladder of dialogue.  Some descend the ladder quickly, skipping several rungs at a time.  Others start discussions at or near the bottom rung.

1. Explain your point and why you think it is right. Explain how your point fits in your view of the world, including your ethical view of the world, and why this is right.

2. Explain why your opponent’s view is incorrect, why it is based on a poor ethical philosophy, and then ramp it up to why it is improper.

3.   Say you are above morally above your opponent, and therefore you are right and he/she is wrong.  One way of doing this is to say that your opponent is on the wrong side of history and therefore is automatically wrong.  You can also declare that your opponent’s view is based on outdated views.  Declare that you are for reform and your opponent is against it.  You could also say, “Now I know what kind of person you are”. Note that your opponent’s view is hurtful and offensive to you and to others.  Act offended.

4. Define your opponent’s view and your opponent in a way that is helpful to your cause, though it may not be accurate.  Use politically charged code words and phrases to define your opponent’s view.  Distort it by relating it in substance, style or context to a generally-accepted past misdeed in the world, even if there is no rational way to relate then. Demean your opponent’s point by demeaning others who agree with your opponent’s view. Define it out of context and proportion by using a selective element of a broad philosophy that some may find objectionable, or by improperly relating it to someone known to have such a philosophy.

5. Take one aspect of your opponent’s view, perhaps a detail, a slight inconsistency, or an exception to the rule, and explain it out of all context, distort it, or blow it our of all reasonable proportion. Take an exception to the rule in your opponent’s viewpoint and say it represents all aspects of it.  Instead of addressing the clear and narrow point your opponent is making, obfuscate and veer the argument by finding a way to misrepresent them by broadening it without reason.

6. Purposely misrepresent or redefine your opponent’s viewpoint in a major way.  “You are not really for this, you really are for that.” Change facts and history as needed. Pretend that what you want exists, when it does not, and ask why your opponent wants to ban or change the existing reality.

7. Without any basis to do so, connect your opponent to a widely-hated group, so he/she will be slurred by association.  Then proceed to call your opponent bad names.  One way to do this is to call your opponent an x-ist or an x-phobe, even if there is no substantive basis for it.  Brand them and their views.  Another, sly, way is to say that your opponent does not like, like to be involved with, or like to be led by someone from a given group, even though there is no real basis to think so.  You can add that this must be true because there is no other possible reason for your opponent’s view. Say he/she is in involved in hate talk.  Find other ways to demean your opponent’s character.

8. Slur your opponent publically and on public and social media. Propose to boycott or disrupt your opponent’s business or home.  Prevent your opponent from speaking about or distributing his/her views.  Continue your onslaught so your opponent will be tarred for life, have hateful things about him/her forever pop up in web searches, and so hopefully he/she will lose his/her job and standing in the community, and future prospects for the pursuit of peace and happiness.