Conspiring to Destroy the World

Our military--the Pentagon--is full of overgrown boys, people who have not gotten over a childish fascination with blowing things up. If you look at any showing of the hardware (and, I guess, also software) developed or being developed by or for the military, you can't help but be struck by this. (The 1964 movie Dr. Strangelove, I think, very nicely shows the mindset of military people.) When (as, I suppose, it always is) the objective of these new toys is to kill people, they euphemistically call it "neutralizing personnel."

Unfortunately, these overgrown boys continually hunger for bigger and better (i.e, more deadly) toys. We are now in an era where their toys could spell the end of the world.

There was a time when the widespread use of nuclear weapons was predicted to cause a "nuclear winter" that would mean the death of all plant and animal life on earth. Apparently that view was called into question; but the bottom line is that no one knows for sure what would happen. Should we err on the side of caution and not risk nuclear winter or even nuclear autumn?

It’s not only the "brass," the big generals in the Pentagon. Every person in the armed forces, every soldier or sailor, who is part of the apparatus that would launch nuclear weapons, is a potential co-conspirator in the possible extinction of mankind. And, as well, all the scientists and engineers whose occupation is developing and manufacturing the horrors of massive death and destruction.

Trump Summed Up

Donald Trump is a horrible, horrible, horrible human being. I can't say "horrible" enough times; and it saddens me that enough American people elected him and, worse, still support him after we  have had three years to see what he is like.

He has separated children from their parents at the border and put them in cages. Every other word out of his mouth is a lie or an exaggeration, and he has abused his office and violated the law (e.g.-- only the latest--by trying to enlist Ukraine to help him get "dirt" on a political opponent). He can't stand criticism and childishly calls names to anyone who criticizes him.

Not to mention his attitudes toward women (remember the tape where he tells Billy Bush, "grab 'em by their pussies" and the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels just before the election?), minorities, Latinos, Jews, and LGBT people (the last quite likely influenced by Mike Pence, who was well known, before becoming Vice President, as hugely anti-LGBT).

His only good or value is Donald Trump and how to advance his own power, position, status, or personal wealth.

And I have hardly begun to enumerate all the things that are bad about him.

If we could get rid of him today, that would not be soon enough.

Trump and Smog

At one time, the Los Angeles, California, area was plagued with smog (the word was formed by combining smoke and fog). It made visibility very poor at times. Worse, it caused breathing and respiratory problems for people who lived there and breathed the smoggy air.

Once science figured out that smog was caused by the interaction of various chemicals in automobile exhaust with sunlight, the remedy was to impose governmental regulations on the types and amounts of substances that cars would be allowed to pour into the air. The result? Los Angeles' air has been cleaned up in a dramatic way.

We have national regulations on so-called tailpipe emissions from cars, and California has its own, stricter emission laws. But now Donald Trump wants to take away California's right to impose tighter restrictions on tailpipe emissions than the national standards. California needs these tighter controls because the unique topography (and plentiful sunshine) of the Los Angeles area was causing smog to not only form there but settle and remain.

It seems that any liberal, progressive policy--all right, regulation--that benefits 99% of the populace at the expense of the remaining 1% (which is going to be big business and/or the very wealthy individuals) simply rankles with Trump, and he can't wait for his chance to get rid of it by executive order.

Moon, Moon, Moon

All of this now-at-end month, July, PBS (the public broadcasting TV network) and even some of the commercial networks have been broadcasting programs commemorating the moon landing of 50 years ago, July 1969. It's been moon, moon, moon, until, frankly, I've started to grow tired of it.

We must acknowledge that it was an enormous achievement of science and engineering. At the same time, I feel it's very sad that it was not an international effort. Then it would have also been a great monument to the ability of different human groups--nations--to cooperate with one another.

Instead--unfortunately--it was "the space race" between the United States and the Soviet Union, a rivalry like one between two sports teams. Our team beat your team; therefore we can feel that we are better than you are.

Copyright © 2019.

Trump's Style of Arguing (Logic 101)

It's probably pretty well known by now--it's been going on for a long time--that when he is attacked in any way, Donald Trump fights back, lashes out. He tends to do this in a manner which is childish and illogical: he attacks the person rather than what they said about him. This is worthy only of a school child, and is known as the argumentum ad hominen. That means simply attacking the person rather than his ideas or comments or argument. In logic, it's considered one of the fallacies.

His latest is that he attacked former President Jimmy Carter. Carter questioned Trump's legitimacy as a president because his election may have depended on Russia's interference in the US presidential election in 2016.

Trump's response: Not trying to refute or dispute what Carter said, but saying Carter was "a  terrible president." Now, to try to be logical for just a second, let's suppose Carter was a terrible president--probably at least a somewhat arguable proposition. Even if he was, does that have any bearing on what he said?

As I said, and as anyone knows who has paid attention to things Trump has said for two or three years, he does this over and over again. I wonder how many people are swayed by this brand of terrible logic. As I have said before, I have to think that many people who listen to Trump, who pay attention to what he says, don't have the habits of thinking critically. Trump lies over and over (The New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN have often called attention to some of his lies). Sometimes it's not immediately apparent that something Trump said was a lie--we need to hear from "fact checkers" like the ones just mentioned--but other times even a moment's thought should tell the hearer that what he has said is not likely to be true. For example, some of his ridiculous and ego-serving assertions, like saying he's the greatest president ever. Other times there are photos, videos, and so forth that can tell us that Trump on an earlier occasion said the exact opposite of what he's saying now.

So my assertion is, Trump possibly would not be president if people were critical thinkers more of the time. And the people who continue to support him continue to uncritically take in what he says and take it as truth. It's very scary when he expects his assertions to be accepted and he can discredit the media by calling it "fake news." Manipulating public opinion by discrediting the media is a tactic used by dictators like Hitler.

Copyright © 2019.

Don't Know What to Call This--My Habits? Life?

I've never been too good at achieving a goal where there are one or more subgoals that have to be accomplished first. That is, before you can do a, you have to do b. And possibly before b, c; and maybe even d before c. To me it's just too hard to keep that original, ultimate goal in sight.

Also--and somehow I feel this is related, though maybe it is not at all--when I am in the middle of something, I may suddenly think of something else that needs to be done; maybe a completely unrelated task. My tendency is to want to drop whatever it is that I'm in the midst of and go do the other, newer idea. When you do that--insert one thing in the middle of another that you in theory intend to come back to--I call that "bracketing." My home in littered with magazines where in fact a magazine is literally inserted in the middle of another magazine, because I turned to read something before finishing something else that I was in the middle of.

Nowadays I sometimes--often?--try to exercise a little discipline and finish that which I am in the middle of before I turn to something else, but it really bothers me, sort of makes me nervous, when there is that other thing that I'm eager to move on to.  Right now, I've been mentally composing some other things that I want to write, and it was hard to defer working on one thing while I work on another, but things have to be prioritized.

Which brings me to another point: in life, the order in which one does things can matter, and can  matter a great deal. I often have to tell myself, "No, do it in the other order!" Here is an example: Pull your pants on before you pick up that glass of water! (Can you imagine doing it in the reverse order?)  And in cooking, as probably any cook knows, the order in which you do things often matters.

So--tying this back up to the earlier point--I might have four things I need to do, and I often have to decide that a needs to be done before b, for any of a number of reasons. Or more or less force myself to finish a first. Well, that is just life, and a life lesson that maybe others have learned much sooner than me.

Copyright © 2019

I Was Wondering. . .

Do water polo players ride on sea horses?

Do players on the Chicago Cubs (baseball team) grow up to be Chicago Bears (football team)?

Do the podiatrists hold a big annual dance called the Foot Ball?

If there is a New Brunswick, New Jersey, is there also a New Jersey, New Brunswick?

If there is Chicken of the Sea tuna, is there Tuna of the Land chicken?

Okay, these are just musings of mine. Here is another "funny" (at least I hope it's funny) that I have come up with:

It was during the Spanish Inquisition. The Inquisitor has some poor heretic stretched out on the rack and is inflicting sadistic and merciless pain upon him. Naturally, the poor fellow cries out loudly in pain. The Inquisitor says, "My poor fellow, don't you know that they say that pain is all in your head? In other words, 'The pain in Spain lies mainly in the brain.'"

Okay, now here are some--not fancies of mine, as above, but real, actual facts and oddities:

In Chicago, recently a stretch of a road known as Congress Parkway was renamed to honor an African-American woman named Ida B. Wells. However, the Chicago City Council, in its infinite wisdom, was not particularly  bothered by the fact that we already had a Wells Street. In fact, the Wells Street which has existed for quite some time actually intersects the new Wells Street (or Road or Parkway, whichever it is). So you could say to someone, "Meet me at the corner of Wells and Wells"!

Similarly, you could say, "Meet me at the corner of Wacker and Wacker." This is possible because Wacker Drive in Chicago makes a right-angle bend, going from running east-west to running north-south. In fact, Chicago's Wacker Drive supposedly is the only street in the world with street numbers running north, south, east, and west.

Also--a slightly different phenomenon--you would not want to say to someone, "Meet me at the corner of Broadway and Sheridan Road," because--would you believe?--Broadway and Sheridan Road in Chicago intersect three times! How is this possible? Well, Broadway runs on a diagonal, and Sheridan runs in sort of a step-wise fashion, running north-south, then turning east-west, and running north-south again. I think there are several such steps, so Broadway actually cuts across Sheridan three times.

Getting back to Wacker Drive and its peculiarities: Wacker is a decked-over street or road--one of several in Chicago near the lake (Lake Michigan) and the river (Chicago River). That is, it runs at ground level, but there is an upper level that runs above it. (The two are known as Lower Wacker Drive and Upper Wacker Drive, fairly logically. There is also--maybe confusingly--Upper South Water Street, Lower South Water Street, Upper North Water Street, and Lower North Water Street. So, as you can see, it's important to not just say "Water Street" but to remember to add two qualifying adjectives. Some of these are relatively new and I find it confusing sometimes to know the ins and outs--or ons and offs.)

Copyright © 2019.

Guns Yet Again (Maybe One Last Time)

I have blogged about guns so many times that I am sick of the subject--and any faithful followers that I might have are probably sick of it, too.

So this is kind of a summation.

I don't understand how many shootings it's going to take before the American populace demands that something be done about the problem.

I also don't understand why this is not apparent to people: that the problem is one of the prevalence of guns and the easy availability of guns.

As to the first: According to statistics available on the Internet, in 2017 and 2018, 42% and 43% of American households owned one or more firearm.

When guns are prevalent, there will be accidents such as children shooting themselves or other children, or accidentally being shot by their parents or other adults. Also, episodes of anger, such as an argument in a bar or road rage, all too often mean that someone whips out a gun and shoots someone else. If you pay attention to the news, you know that these things are in fact happening, and at a rate of several per week, with hundreds being murdered by guns annually.

And easy availability of guns in America has given us the school shootings and other mass shootings where someone mentally or emotionally unstable kills numerous innocent people--children and others.

America mourns these occurrences but at the same time seems to accept them as a fact of life in the US. (If I were Donald Trump writing a tweet, I'd summarize with a term like "sad" or "tragic" or "shameful" or "disgusting.") I'm about to become cynical and conclude that nothing will be done any time soon.

Copyright © 2019.

Ooh, Is That New??

In America, we like things to be new--or to look new.

We love new buildings or new annexes to buildings, or anything remodeled, renovated, rehabbed--etc. We feel a certain gratification when we can sit in, say, the brand-new quarters of a medical facility. Ask the staff how they like their new digs and they will always respond positively.

We want to rehab, remodel, fix up, maintain, replace, refurbish, paint, repair, caulk. If something is not completely new, we want it to look new. We hate decay, deterioration, weathering, peeling, cracking, fading. I'm sure huge amounts are spent on "home improvement."

Kitchens, especially, must be renovated, maybe even repeatedly. No one wants to buy a house with a "dated" kitchen--and that means more than, say, 20 years old. How much money is spent on kitchen remodeling--new appliances (and make them stainless steel!), cabinets, countertops?

(In fairness, I have to point out that there is an opposite trend, which favors the "antique" and the "vintage"--sometimes even the pseudo-old or the merely old-looking. Sometimes this is considered "nostalgia.")

I don't think this strong attraction to the new is true in all countries. Just to use one example, I don't think it's true in Italy. In Italy, lots of buildings are old, even hundreds of years old. Their owners don't mind if they look old, so there might be peeling stucco or paint, cracked walls, and so forth. No big deal.

I'd welcome comments on whether folks "out there" feel that this characteristic of America/Americans is true elsewhere.

Revised 3/21 and 3/22.

Copyright © 2019

How (Not) to Be a Copy Editor

Since I have spent a large part of my career as a professional copy editor, this could be merely the first of numerous blog postings which comprise a course in copy editing; but that is only going to happen if I feel ambitious.

Meanwhile, or for starters, I want to show just one rule of how to be a copy editor--or, rather, how not to be a copy editor; but it is a very important rule. This first of the thou-shalts, or thou-shalt-nots, is: verify.

This means, if you see something that you suspect to be incorrect--that is, a typographical error, or typo--and they definitely do occur--before you go ahead and change it to what you think it ought to be, do your best to corroborate what the word ought to be. (If you are editing a book, you usually will have the opportunity to query the author--something to be used very liberally, as I will discuss further, if there are further posts on copy editing.)

I want to give some egregious examples of cases where a well-intentioned copy editor changed right to wrong--to their shame, and to the shame of the publication they were working for. And this includes some big-name publications.

When the famous MIT linguist and social commentator Noam Chomsky was coming to town, the Chicago Tribune announced a visit by Norm Chomsky.

When the famous opera singer Yvonne Minton had performed the role of Octavian in Richard Strauss' opera Der Rosenkavalier, Time magazine had a headline which read "Milton's Octavian."

The famous Indian film director Satyajit Ray made a trilogy of films known as the "Apu Trilogy," and the first of these was titled Pather Panchali. Guess what that was made into by an over-zealous copy editor: Father Panchali.

And, before it became more widely known, I believe that the title of the famous Public Television drama Downton Abbey tended to become "Downtown Abbey."

I will even confess to being guilty of this myself, but this was in my student days, and long before I became a professional editor. I don't think I'll give the details just here.

So, as perhaps the first and prime commandment to any copy editor or would-be copy editor, be very cautious lest you change right to wrong.

Copyright © 2019.