ON THE BUS--OR NOT

The brilliant author Tom Wolfe died May 15, 2018 at age 88.  I have read most of his books.  He was a native of Richmond, Va.  I did not think he was THAT old.  I always regarded him as young and “hip.”  I guess that means I’m pretty old, too!

One of his earliest works is Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, being about the LSD-fueled wild journeys of Ken Kesey and his gang of “Merry Pranksters” in the early 1960’s, back and forth across the US in a psychedelically painted school bus named "Further."  Reading that book moved me to pursue a thorough reading of the published works of Ken Kesey, now dead, whose most well-known book is probably One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, later made into a great movie starring Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher.  I have a photo still from that movie autographed by Jack Nicholson.

In the mid-1990's I went to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC to hear Ken Kesey speak in a presentation sponsored by the Resident Associate Program, of which I was then a member.  Kesey was also rather well-known to most as having been an aggressive experimenter with drugs of all kinds, including psychedelic mushrooms and LSD. However, on the night he was at the Smithsonian, he seemed rather straight and sober.

Prior to the start of his talk, I saw Kesey "meandering" in the lobby of the auditorium where he was to speak. I approached him, and I asked him first if he was, in fact, not "Mr. Kesey," to which he replied he was. I then asked if the Smithsonian had been trying to get him to donate his old bus to them for display.

Kesey said that the folks with whom he had been speaking there had wanted to display the bus, but he said to me, "Y'know, that bus is rusting away in my back yard and is almost completely gone now!" I said that was no surprise to me; then he said (which I knew) that they had shot a lot of 16-millimeter film on those bus rides, and they had a tape recorder patched into the bus's electrical system. Unfortunately, the tape recorder would speed up when the bus engine speeded up, then it would slow down again when the engine slowed down. Kesey said they had been unable to "sync" the film to the tape, but the emerging digitized sound technology was holding out some promise.

(Indeed, subsequent to Kesey's death, his son has managed to produce DVD's of those films with the digitized sound track intact.)

Anyway, Kesey said he had proposed to the Smithsonian officials an idea they were not very warm to--to create a long, narrow theatre with two rows of bus seats therein, with those films projected onto a far wall for viewing by visitors who would be seated in those seats and who might, in some small way, be able to share the experience of "being on the bus."

He then looked at me and said, "Y'know, it was not about the ride; it was about the trip!"

LET THEM EAT CAKE! (Joke)

Regarding MASTERPIECE CAKE SHOP vs. COLORADO; oral arguments were heard in early December of 2017 before the US Supreme Court:

The case concerns the refusal of Jack Phillips, who claims to be a devout Christian, refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay male couple in Colorado.  The Colorado Civil Rights Commission had held that, as a business, the Shop cannot refuse to DO BUSINESS with anyone pursuant to a prohibited discrimination.  Phillips asserts that his First Amendment right to freedom of religion prevents the Colorado government from forcing him to violate his fundamental moral and religious beliefs.

I have a serious observation about that: I assume that Phillips objects primarily to the manner in which gay men purportedly have sex.  If so, he should hurry to bake the cake and do everything he can to expedite the marriage, because we all know that married people don't have sex!

THE Memo

… or, much ado about nothing.

The text of THE Memo (cobbled together by congressional Republicans) was published in The Richmond Times-Dispatch on Feburary 4, 2018, so I decided to read it a couple of times.  One must get information "from the horse’s mouth” if at all possible.  I must admit that I have not seen any of the classified material that purportedly undergirds the “damning” conclusions in the Memo concerning the recent machinations about the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (FISA), but I doubt there is any “there” there.  The Memo's “conclusions” are pretty much bootstrap fluff that amount to the same-ol’/same-ol’.  We’ve heard all that blustering crap before.  But for a couple of minor revelations therein concerning "sources and methods," I really don’t understand why the Memo was classified material in the first place!

I must first get something off my chest: most Democrats have really blundered in their response to the Memo.  Their near-hysterical reactions have basically invested the thing with much more significance than to which it is entitled.  I realize they had no way to know in advance what the Memo would say, but they behaved as if it would likely be a serious condemnation of Robert Mueller's "Russia" investigation, James Comey, Rob Rosenstein, et als.  RELAX!  Calm down!  The Memo is utter nonsense.  Democrats, however, seem incapable of playing things “cool.”  They need to take a chill-pill, but I doubt they will.  They seem to think they will achieve political advancement with their self-righteous, histrionic, paw-wringing contortions.

I feel somewhat hypocritical even defending the FBI or Justice Department because I have been seriously concerned about the establishment of the FISA courts and the wanton, gratuitous, routine spying on Americans by the federal Security State.  But the incongruity of REPUBLICANS worrying about government spying is just too much of an incredible provocation for me to resist.  What is WRONG with that picture?  Not that Democrats are rushing to defend our rights against such stuff.  They have carefully avoided expressing any concerns about government spying, also.  They seem to be buttressing the work of the Security State!  So, I don’t trust Democrats any more than I trust Republicans.  Neither group is committed to protecting us from wanton government snooping.

The document that I read in no way presents anything credible along the lines of what Donald Trump and many others have said about it.  It is certainly no exposé of anything significant, and it does not validate any hostility toward the FBI or the Justice Department nor any of the prominent persons thereabout.  Carter Page is the central figure in the Memo.  He is identified in the Memo as a “volunteer advisor to the Trump presidential campaign” that did not get cranked up until 2016, so it is curious that the Trump campaign engaged Page AFTER he had been under  close investigation for his machinations with the Russian government since 2011!  The Memo takes up as the FISA court was approached to issue (renew?) a warrant for “electronic surveillance” (wiretaps) of Page.  The Memo seems to imply that the initial Page wiretap was first sought in 2016, not in 2011.  Such warrants must be renewed every 90 days under FISA.

As someone else pointed out in criticizing the revelations of "sources and methods," the Memo does impugn the work of a British spy, Christopher Steele, who compiled a “dossier” that was allegedly used to buttress the FISA wiretap warrant.  Steele was purportedly employed by the Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign, which facts were apparently not revealed to the FISA court.  Part of Steele’s mission was to dredge up negative information on Trump’s dealings in Russia.  Steele had been "methodically" used by the FBI as a “reliable source” in the past, but his overt ties to the Hillary Clinton campaign and some indiscretion with Mother Jones Magazine (properly) cost him his FBI connections.  So what?  The Memo asserts that none of this was revealed to the FISA court in the wiretap application and should have been.  As a major justification, the Memo asserts that Andrew McCabe, the Deputy Director of the FBI, testified under oath that the 2016 wiretap warrant would not have been sought without the “Steele dossier information,” [my emphasis] but of course there is no way to know if there were other sources for that information, or that other information might have been sufficient.  So, "but for" Steele's corrupt work, Carter Page would have been totally vindicated?  That is what Donald Trump is claiming for himself, but I failed to see either vindication.  Sometimes what is NOT said is every bit as important as what is said.

The Memo also asserts, incorrectly I think, that FISA wiretap applications “should include information potentially favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known to the government.”  I practiced criminal-defense law for about 12 years and have never known of any obligation put upon any prosecutorial operation to reveal “favorable” information about a suspect.  If there is known EXCULPATORY information that shows that a suspect is INNOCENT, then I think it would be bad faith to thus proceed.  But there is NOTHING in the published Memo that suggests that there was ever ANYTHING FALSE asserted against Carter Page, nor did it contain any EXCULPATORY information seemingly withheld.  True, the DNC and Clinton connections make Steele look bad, but they don’t suggest Page’s INNOCENCE!  There is NOTHING in the Memo that suggests that Steele’s information procured a phony wiretap.  There is NOTHING in the Memo that suggests that any information ever obtained by the FISA wiretaps demonstrated Page's INNOCENCE!  Even if Steele is totally prejudiced against Page, the FISA courts issued wiretap warrants against Page numerous times, so there must have been SOMETHING going on!  But the Memo tells us nothing of that.

If Donald Trump were capable of feeling embarrassment about anything at all, he ought to be embarrassed that the tepid contents of the Memo do not in any way vindicate his silly bloviations about it.  But Trump has never demonstrated he is thus capable, so I guess he is also incapable of shame, REGARDLESS of what his thugs and sycophants do.  I am not going to hold my breath, waiting for him to act “presidential” for a change!  I hope Robert Mueller will eventually tell us what we need to know.

And, speaking of “shame,” EVERYONE I grew up with was scornful of “brown-nosers”!  They were the scum of the Earth, dismissed derisively!  What has happened to all those people I grew up with?  Where are they now?  If there was EVER someone who almost begs people to “brown-nose” him, it is Donald Trump, and there are scads of such earnest little “puppies” out there, all lined up to just burrow right on in!  And I am talking about people with advanced degrees and a fair amount of presumed intelligence!

Good grief!

HEARD IT THROUGH THE GRAPEVINE

[The following e-mail was sent to a Catholic friend 9/20/17:]

Some time ago I had heard that "Immaculate Conception" pertained to the conception of the Virgin Mary herself within the womb of St. Anne (Jesus’s grandmother), to keep the Virgin “sinless.”  Apparently, the Holy Church’s leaders (all male) seem to have had a problem with even the “Missionary Position,” as ordinary conception via S-E-X would be “dirty” and riddled with “Original Sin."  UGH!  Many of us faithless goy have mistakenly believed the phrase referred to the Virgin Birth itself, also “sinless” (poor Joseph), but I was finally corrected in my misunderstanding.  It seems that Church leaders are straining to make all the weird doctrines that have been dreamed up over the centuries fit into the human perceptions of reality, and I think that’s an unfortunate, misdirected waste of time and effort.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Dare we infer that, because Adam & Eve likely had S-E-X after they ate the apple (and saw the light), that “Original Sin” (which I have NEVER really understood) is related to having done the “nasty”?  Should we infer that Cain & Abel were conceived without S-E-X?  I don’t remember if they were born before or after “The Fall,” which is supposedly when “Original Sin” attached.  Might it relate to the OBVIOUSLY occurring incest that HAD to have happened if ALL humanity is descended therefrom?  My Sunday-School teachers could NOT answer these questions!

I can accept that someone might personally feel that S-E-X would taint an otherwise “sinless” conception and birthing, though I could never agree with that, but was it REALLY necessary for the Pope (Pius IX) to jump through his own asshole to solemnly pronounce the matter as “official” doctrine back in 1854, or thereabouts?  I don’t remember reading that nonsense in the Bible!  My former German professor, who is also an ordained Episcopal priest, was able to read Greek and Latin, and he told me once that the translation from Greek attributed to the English word “virgin” could also be translated as “young girl,” NOT NECESSARILY a “virgin” in the sexless sense.

Having studied 3 foreign languages, I am firmly leery of hearsay translations.  Way too many human beings put their own spin on stuff like that.  I cannot buy the notion of utterly inerrant translations via the “spirit” of God having infused the translator!  Seriously!  Jesus did NOT speak Elizabethan English, despite what many would fervently believe!  Of course, I don’t know about any of that, but it seems that a LOT of declared Christians (not just Catholics) are obsessed with all the “rules and regulations” and hocus-pocus and less so with just accepting and following the teachings of Jesus.

SPEAKING OF “hearsay,” one should read the so-called “Jefferson Bible.”  Thomas Jefferson was classically educated at William & Mary and was fluent in Greek and Latin.  He did his own translation of the New Testament from Greek, and being also LEGALLY trained, he applied the English Rules of Evidence thereto, excluding ALL hearsay but for some narrative to tie things together.  It pretty much boils down to just a small, distilled recital of the teachings of Jesus! The MOST INTERESTING part of it, however, is that it ENDS at the Crucifixion, NOT the Resurrection (which is hearsay)!  I think that every account of the Risen Jesus in the New Testament is written in the 3d-person.  I don’t recall ANY passage where one directly declares that he/she has PERSONALLY seen the Risen Jesus—it is always written in the passive voice: he “was seen”; the wounds “were seen,” etc.  Hearsay.

Finally, the metaphor about “The Fall” seems to be that one should remain fat, dumb and happy and do what (s)he is told, then God will be nice to you.  But if you DARE open your eyes and question what is going on, you will be PUNISHED for your uppity ways!  The Evil Snake will BITE YOU!  That is hogwash, as far as I am concerned!  I well KNOW that one must trade clueless “happiness” for being dreadfully aware of all the misery and suffering and evil going on, but I prefer unhappy KNOWLEDGE over STUPID happiness!  I don’t need a “devil” to blame to let human assholes off the hook, either!

I heard it through the grapevine!

APOLOGIES TO KEATS (Poem)

Imagine what Keats MIGHT have said had he desired to address the issue of mathematical proportion implicit in Greek vases:

Its base is but a starting place,
In height but insignificant,
Yet stately stands the lovely vase
Its form is just magnificent!
On top, its mouth flares from the heart.
Considering Its size,
The whole but greater than the parts;
Proportions yield surprise.

ALICE

    I have recently been reading a lot about the “Golden Ratio,” 1.61803 …, known by the Greek letter ϕ (pronounced “fee,” not “fye”), a mathematical ratio or proportion frequently found in nature by which many plants and animals grow and/or expand.  It is also manifest in certain architecture, art, music and science, and it has even been implicated in the behavior of the stock market!  The first known enunciation of it was by Euclid, the ancient Greek mathematician, who observed that any straight line cut at a certain point would manifest a ratio of the entire line to the longer segment as the longer segment is to the shorter segment.  It is known in German as the “Goldene Schnitt” (Golden Cut).

    The Ratio also represents the relationship of the numerical sequences in the “Fibonacci Series,” originally stated by Leonardo Fibonacci, a 16th Century Italian mathematician, who posited the Series about the reproduction of a pair of rabbits in captivity.  The Series is defined as each sequential number therein being the sum of the two preceding numbers in the Series, e.g., 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, etc.  The Golden Ratio, an irrational number that does not repeat nor is evenly divisible by any integer, is also expressed in the design known as the “Golden Rectangle,” which is considered a rectangular proportion that is inherently pleasing to the human eye.  The ratio of the shorter side to the longer side calculates out to the Golden Ratio, and it is allegedly manifest in playing cards, index cards, the Parthenon façade, and many other examples.

_________________________________ 

    Dr. Mario Livio published a book about The Golden Ratio.  Dr. Livio is an astrophysicist who, until 2015, was the director of the Space Telescope Science Institute, associated with the Hubble Telescope. Livio is discussing the nature of various historical number systems and how they used “bases” different than our own. Some cultures have used “base-5” (as with the abacus in China) and some even have used “base- 60” which, though awkward, probably accounts for the manner in which time and circles are divided into degrees, minutes and seconds. (Sixty just happens to be the lowest number evenly divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, as well as 10, and 12, 15 and 20.)

    Most Western cultures have used “base-10,” and the perfect example is a vehicle odometer.  Recalling my own elementary-school arithmetic, we learned to put numerals in columns, starting from right to left, as ones, tens, hundreds, thousands, etc. An odometer has a series of little “wheels,” with black numerals on a white ground, except that the rightmost “wheel” (showing tenths of miles) has white numerals on a black ground. The odometer, moving from right to left, thus shows on each “wheel” tenths of miles, miles, tens of miles, hundreds of miles, thousands of miles, etc.

   Livio discusses the nature of various historical number systems and how they used “bases” different than our own (which is “base-10”). Some cultures have used “base-5” (as with the abacus in China) and some even have used “base- 60” in the past which, though awkward, probably accounts for the manner in which time and circles are divided into degrees, minutes and seconds. (Sixty just happens to be the lowest number evenly divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, as well as 10 and 12.)

    Livio then cites a passage from Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland by “Lewis Carroll,” the pen name of Charles Dodgson, who lectured on mathematics at Oxford!  In an observation totally unrelated to the “Golden Section” Alice, agonizing over the strange things she has encountered, frets:

“I’ll try if I know all the things I used to know. Let me see: four times five is twelve, and four times six is 13, and four times seven is—oh, dear! I shall never get to twenty at that rate!”

    Crediting famous mathematician Martin Gardner’s The Annotated Alice, Livio points out that Alice’s bizarre math (4 x 5 = “12”) “works” IF “base-18” is used and would, therefore, be equivalent to our “20”: 1 (x 18) plus 2 left over! “1-2”! And 4 x 6 = “13” IF “base-21” is used, since our “24” may be thus expressed as 1 x 21 + 3 left over!

    So, I decided to play around with Alice’s (Dodgson’s) “system” and, recalling my elementary-school “times table” for “4,” I noted that every equation implied therein might be stated thus: 4 x 7 = “14”; 4 x 8 = “15”; 4 x 9 = “16”; 4 x 10 = “17”; 4 x 11 = “18”; 4 x 12 = “19”; 4 x 13 = 20; 4 x 14 = 21; 4 x 15 = 22; etc. In our base-10 system, those equations respectively “equal” 28, 32, 36, 40, 44, 48, 52, 56 and 60, but if the number “base” that Alice implicitly referenced is incremented by “3” for each succeeding equation (starting with base-21, then base- 24, base-27, base-30, base-33, base-36, base-39, base-42, base-45, etc.) then Dodgson’s equations can make sense! Consider: “4 x 7 = 14” works if “base-24” is used: “1-4” yields 1 x 24 + 4 “ones” left over = 28! “4 x 8 = 15” works if “base-27” is used: “1-5” yields 1 x 27 + 5 “ones” left over = 32! “4 x 9 = 16” works if “base-30” is used: “1-6” yields 1 x 30 + 6 “ones” left over = 36! “4 x 10 = 17” works if “base-33” is used: “1-7” yields 1 x 33 + 7 “ones” left over = 40! “4 x 11 = 18” works if “base-36” is used: “1-8” yields 1 x 36 + 8 “ones” left over = 44! “4 x 12 = 19” works if base-39” is used: “1-9” yields 1 x 39 + 9 “ones” left over = 48! “4 x 13 = 20” works if “base-42” is used: “2-0” (“1-0” + 10 “ones”) yields 1 x 42 + the 10 “ones” left over = 52! “4 x 14 = 21” works if “base 45” is used: “2-1” (“1-0” + 11 “ones”) yields 1 x 45 + 11 left over = 56! Whew! Mind-bending!

    That hidden math progression is rather intriguing, and though I have read the original Alice, I did not pick up on any of that until I had read Livio’s exposition. . It makes me wonder if there might be other math riddles in Alice In Wonderland.

    I think that the ORIGINAL version of Alice is also written on two levels: one for children and the other for adults. I think the “adult” version is a vicious satire on the dominant British culture of the day! I was quite amused while reading it. I also think that the Uncle Remus Tales by Joel Chandler Harris satirizes Southern US culture.

Most of us started with the Walt Disney versions of both in our childhoods.  However, I think Walt missed those subtle viewpoints. 

(8/16/17--updated 12/11/22; 4/29/24)

da VINCI'S GOLDEN RATIO

For the past month or so I have been reading and have almost finished Math and the Mona Lisa, which I bought back around 2004 when it was first published by a long-ago friend, Bülent Atalay, who is a theoretical physicist and who teaches at U.Va., Mary Washington University and Princeton University.  Atalay is also an accomplished, published artist.

I have had an abiding interest in the “Fibonacci Series” and the related mathematical “Golden Ratio” for many years.  I started out as a physics major in college, but I decided to switch to the dreaded “social sciences” because I hit the “brick wall” of calculus, in which I was sadly lacking.  I  did pass the intro physics course, but barely.  Nevertheless, I have enjoyed continuing to dabble in that stuff as a layperson.

The main premise of Atalay’s book is to explore the wonderful conjuncture of math, science and art in the person of Leonardo da Vinci, who painted The Last Supper and the Mona Lisa and also explored and enunciated many scientific truths.  One of da Vinci’s main thrusts was to study the occurrence of the so-called “Golden Ratio” or “Golden Section,” expressed as the Greek letter ϕ (phi, pronounced “fee,” not “fye”), which is mostly a rectangular proportion that is frequently manifest in both art and nature and is inherently pleasing to most viewers’ eyes.  The mathematical ratio for ϕ is 1.618 : 1, being the mathematical ratio of the long side of the rectangle to the short side and which also happens to be manifest in a string of numerals called the “Fibonacci Series,” first expressed by Leonardo of Fibonacci, a contemporary of da Vinci, discussed below.

The Golden Rectangle is reflected in the façade of the Parthenon, the proportions of playing cards, 5 x 8 index cards, etc.  It is also manifest in certain ratios of human figures as in the human face and the height of the navel to the overall height of the figure!

The essence of the Golden Ratio is that as any such structure or body gets larger and larger (like a plant or tree adding buds or branches or a growing chambered nautilus), it does so logarithmically by adding an exact “SQUARE” to such a previous “rectangle,” sized equivalent to the long side of that previous rectangle, such that the resultant and larger combined rectangular structure is 1.618 larger than the square being so tacked on!  And, the previous rectangle happens to be 0.618 of that same square, the mathematical inverse of ϕ (1/ϕ)!  Then the resultant combination of the prior “Golden Rectangle” added to the new square becomes it’s own “Golden Rectangle”!  Consider: if the value of the added “square” is arbitrarily stated as “1,” then the combination is 1.0 + 0.618 = 1.618!

The “Fibonacci Series” is defined as the series of numbers in which each is the total of the two preceding numerals.  Leonardo de Fibonacci expressed it as a pair of rabbits maturing then breeding in a closed space, then the resultant pair of offspring mature and also breed two offspring, and the first pair breed again, all of which then mature and breed further, etc.  The Series is: 0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144, etc.  Above 5 and 8, dividing the next higher number by the immediately lower number closely yields the Golden Ratio.  (The ratio expressed by 5 and 8 is 1.6, pretty close!)  Atalay shows a photo of a stained-glass window at the UN created by the famous artist, Marc Chagall, which has 5 square panes x 8 square panes, being itself such a manifestation of the Golden Ratio.  Consider adding “squares” beginning with 8 x 8, then 13 x 13, then 21 x 21, etc. in a spiral fashion, and the growth” pattern mentioned above is readily apparent.  As a growing body may be restricted by physical space (like the nautilus shell), it may well be forced to spiral out to the side as it grows.  So, the new growth produces a “SQUARE” of sorts because new tissue must spread more or less equally in all directions, and that is basically what a “square” is—it is spread out from side to side and end to end equally, and it is going to be defined in scope by the size of the existing tissue from which it emanates.

Years ago I read H. E. Huntley’s book, Divine Proportion, about these topics.  I also want to read Mario Livio’s book about the same thing.  Years ago another friend also gave me Jay Hambidge’s book, Dynamic Symmetry, etc. which explores how the Golden Ratio is manifest in the proportions of ancient Greek pottery.  Several years ago I attended a lecture by Roger Penrose, the theoretical physicist.  I bought his book, Emperor’s New Mind, about the math of interlocking tiles and geometric figures.  I tried to read the book at the time but found too difficult to continue.  I am fascinated by mathematical “coincidences” found in nature.  I also am reading a book, Physics for Gearheads, which has a lot of interesting material related to auto mechanics.  I am a certified auto mechanic as well as a retired lawyer and auctioneer.

Some of this stuff may be over the reader’s head.  Atalay’s book has been a tough slog for me, but I really want to know about it all.  Leonardo da Vinci was an amazing individual whose contributions to both art and science cannot be overstated.

_________________________________ 

PUTIN & POLITICS

(From an e-mail sent to friends 6/17/17.)

There has recently been a SUGGESTION that Russia may have tried to mess with the actual vote-tallies in the 2016 Presidential Election!  That would be reprehensible and actionable, in my opinion, if true.  It transcends the issue of “stupid people” being manipulated by ALLEGED Russian meddling with e-mails and other media.  Hillary Clinton DID write and send those surreptitiously disclosed e-mails, though!  Vladimir Putin did not invent those!

However, I am still skeptical of anything coming out of the American Security State.  I think most of our Fearless Leaders in BOTH parties are spoiling to revive the “Cold War."  President Trump has done some seriously stupid stuff lately, but he’s not alone.  America really NEEDS a villain, just like Christianity NEEDS the Devil!  We must have a boogeyman to hate and to dump on and, since the “queers” are now off-limits, and the Muslims are slowly fading, that leaves China, Russia and North Korea, the titans of our precious “Domino Theory.”  Welcome back, Kotter!

This past week I watched all 4 nights of interviews with Vladimir Putin by Oliver Stone on “Showtime.”  I am certainly not ready to become a Putin cheerleader.  He is probably VERY ruthless, but I have no doubt that being President of Russia is a much harder job than being President of the US.  Some autocracy is not excusable, but it is understandable.

I DO think Putin is very wise and very accomplished.  He does not seem to traffic in petty nonsense at all.  He is a black belt in judo and in another self-defense skill AND he plays competitive team ice hockey (w/SKATES!!!) on a regular basis!  He is as “focused” as anyone I have ever watched!  He seems to regard most of our obsessions and declarations as utter silliness.  I have no doubt he was playing to the American audience, however.  I don’t know if he is “truthful,” but I have no reason to trust his version of things any less than the usual bullshit coming from the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, etc.  They are KNOWN liars!  Why do Americans so easily forget?  EVEN IF they are telling the truth THIS TIME, their warnings and conclusions are impaired by their past dishonesty, manipulations and even assassinations.  I trust Edward Snowden and Julian Assange (who denies that the Russian government was the source for the Wikileaks-published e-mails) a lot more than I trust the American Security State!

Most Americans have a two-dimensional view of most foreign nations and peoples.  We cannot seem to comprehend their complexities as being as convoluted as our own, but they are.  I learned this first-hand during my travels in China back in 1987, which was the ideal time to be there, being between the “Gang of Four” and "Tiananmen.”  It was an extraordinary experience, as I traveled up and down the east coast of China, from Hong Kong to Guangzhou to Shanghai to Beijing and back, by train, alone, in the winter of 1987.  I tried to pay attention during that extraordinary experience.

That warped view of the “other” that so afflicts most Americans is seriously damaging to our level of global awareness and sophistication.  We are mostly abject fools and don’t know any better.  The recent expansion of NATO is a case in point: NATO SHOULD have been disbanded when the Berlin Wall came down, but instead it has been thrust right up against Russia’s borders.  That was a stupidly arrogant provocation so easily avoided with a shred of common sense!  But, NATO is really Big Business for defense contractors!

The perfect metaphor for the Usual Suspects fabricating US foreign and military policies is Lucy van Pelt in “Peanuts,” when every fall she wheedles Charlie Brown to trust her JUST ONE MORE TIME to hold the football so he can kick it.  Then, of course, she jerks it away just as Charlie runs up to kick the ball and winds up on his back instead!    General Motors periodically declares that it has learned from its past mistakes building total crap on 4 wheels and that we can trust it THIS TIME to make good cars, which it mostly STILL does not do (see Consumer Reports' evaluations).  Likewise, the American Security State, knowing that its deplorable record is now common knowledge, implores us to trust it JUST ONE MORE TIME when it tells us that Russia, etc. is messing with us.  Right.  The journalists and politicians may be willing to suck on that lollipop, but not I.  Not yet, anyway.

I am thinking more and more that there may be no constitutional authority for the federal government to keep “secrets” from the taxpayers in peacetime, exc. as related to potential war strategies and armaments specs.  I don’t see it enunciated anywhere in the Constitution, and I think the 10th Amendment plainly prohibits “implied” powers.  I believe the American Security State expends most of its energy and money trying to manipulate alleged allies to give knee-jerk support for our business-focused global policies instead of protecting us from “terrorists.”

And now, with Donald Trump at the helm, it is bound to get much worse.  It seems he’s even got the American Security State itself worried!

GOLDEN RATIO & SQUARES

(E-mail to a friend 6/17/17.  Updated 2/7/18.)

I have been reading a lot, lately, about the Golden Ratio (ϕ = 1.618) and the Fibonacci Series which, as you know, is manifest in nature in many ways.

My friend, Bill Atalay, has published (several years ago) Math And The Mona Lisa about the use of mathematical proportion by Leonardo da Vinci, etc.  Bill is a professor of physics at Mary Washington, U.Va. and Princeton.  I may have already mentioned him.  I recall that I did so.  He goes into extensive detail about da Vinci’s use of the Golden Ratio and related factors.  He discusses the Great Pyramid as a manifestation of the Golden Ratio, which may be why I mentioned it to you earlier.

He references a stained-glass window (with photo) at the UN by Marc Chagall, which has 5 square panes x 8 square panes, a manifestation of two numbers in the Fibonacci Series, which mathematically invokes the Golden Ratio.  I have taken it upon myself to graph the expanding projection of the Series in a “logarithmic spiral” on graph paper, proceeding in successive squares and starting at 1-1-2-3-5-8-13-21-34-55-89-144, etc., making a right-angle turn at each break.  I ran out of space at “55” but it continues, of course, into infinity.

ANYWAY, as each number increments, it does so by adding an exact SQUARE of the long side of the preceding rectangle, such that the two side-by-side ones add a 2 x 2 square adjacent, then a 3 x 3 square is added to the long side of the (2 + 1 =) 3 x 2 rectangle, then a 5 x 5 square is added to the long side of the (3 + 2 =) 5 x 3 rectangle, then a 8 x 8 square is added to the long side of the (5 + 3 +) 8 x 5 rectangle, etc.  If one assigns an arbitrary value of “1” (1 x 1) to any square added, then the preceding rectangle that itself already measures as a Golden Rectangle is 0.618 of the square, 1/ϕ, being the mathematical inverse of ϕ!  Then that prior Golden Rectangle added to the new square becomes it’s own Golden Rectangle which is then 0.618 of the next larger square added, etc.!!  Therefore, each manifest Golden Rectangle is 1.618 of the preceding rectangle (1.0 + 0.618)!

THIS IS SIGNIFICANT and explains why (I believe) the Golden Ratio is manifest in nature!  Consider that a plant, a chambered nautilus, whatever, is going to grow LARGER by adding more tissue to its existing size, and it will do so more “efficiently” if added to the larger "side" of the existing tissue.  It might also be confined by the allowed physical space (like the nautilus shell), so it is forced to "spiral" out to the side again and again as it grows.  Now, the new growth produces a “SQUARE” of sorts because the new tissue has spread out more or less equally in all directions, and that is basically what a “square” is—it is spread out from side to side and end to end equally, and that "spread" will arguably be defined in scope by the size of the existing tissue from which it emanates.  Perhaps the existing long side of the prior rectangle serves as sort of a “brake” to tell the organism to stop growing for that particular sequence once it reaches the full-spread “square” equivalency.  I don’t know if this explains WHY it grows that way, but that is what I imagined.

I took my graph of the squared-off “spiral” and colored the succeeding squares added in different colors to readily show how it accretes size in such a maneuver.

SHUT THE F*** UP!

(Published in the Richmond [Va.] Times-Dispatch 6/14/17, “Flag Day,” inexplicably without the last sentence!)

Dear Editor:

I have concluded that there is WAY too much attention being paid to the many peccadilloes of Donald Trump, and that we should ALL just shut up about him.  He is NOT going to change nor reform.

I agree with Trevor Noah of “The Daily Show” that there is so much silly stuff coming from Donald Trump that a whiplash injury may well result from jerking one’s head back and forth trying to comprehend all the absurd words and deeds of Donald Trump.

I propose that a 30-day period of self-imposed total silence about Trump be observed from June 20 to July 20.  He may well be unable to bear the burden of being utterly ignored and thus have a meltdown!  We owe ourselves at least THAT much!

I hereby express my gratitude in advance to those who refrain from pointing out that I have already violated my own suggestion!