larvatus prodeo

desperately seeking gypsies and nose rings

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:25:31 GMT

“Relocating bears is illegal in California, and a permit to execute a bear can only be issued to a homeowner if the animal has attacked people or livestock.”

ursi me comedant

a malthusian nightmare

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:32:01 GMT

It is near future, and our planet is proliferating with humanity. You are a 28 year old man fleeing the roving bands of cannibals. Your only refuge is an uninhabited tropical island copiously supplied by coconuts and circled by schools of fish. Your only remaining concern is to satisfy your raging heterosexual libido in a politically correct fashion. Alas, you have no condoms, and your scruples debar you from orthogenital intercourse on pain of aggravating the global catastrophe. You must choose an unfailingly stimulating companion for the rest of your life. Unfortunately, your choices are limited.

View Poll: Bend over and take it like a man!

interplanetary pussyfooting

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:27:05 GMT

Ага, строчить кляузу на Марс—намного стрёмнее, чем писать предъяву Её Величеству. Одно дело—мирская владыка, другое—небесное светило.

h.l. mencken: a little book in c major

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:07:33 GMT

A LITTLE BOOK IN C MAJOR

H.L. MENCKEN

NEW YORK
JOHN LANE COMPANY
MCMXVI

I
Commissaire, commissaire,
Colin bat sa ménagère;
C’est un beau jour pour l’amour!
—Pierre Jean de Béranger

§1    Love is the delusion that one woman differs from another.

§2    Man weeps to think that he will die so soon. Woman, that she was born so long ago.

§3    Happiness is peace after effort, the overcoming of difficulties, the feeling of security and well-being. The only really happy folk are married women and single men.

§4    Wife: a former sweetheart.

§5    How little it takes to make life unbearable!… A pebble in the shoe, a cockroach in the spaghetti, a woman’s laugh!

§6    Love at first sight: a labor-saving device.

§7    The honeymoon lasts as long as the bride believes the bridegroom’s word of honor.

§8    The bride at the altar: “At last! At last!” The bridegroom: “Too late! Too late!”

§9    The lucky man is the one who is not even invited to the wedding.

§10    After a hard night of it two old friends fell into a sleepy conversation in the steam-room of a Turkish bath.
     “My wife loves me so much,” said one. “that she’ll believe me when I tell her I was kept downtown all night by business.”
    “My wife loves me so much,” said the other, “that I won’t be afraid to tell her the truth.”

§11    The best friend a woman can have is the man who has got over loving her. He would rather die than compromise her.

§12    The one breathless passion of every woman is to get someone married. If she’s single, it’s herself. If she’s married, it’s the women her husband would probably marry if she were to die tomorrow.

§13    “I wooed and won her,” said the Man of his Wife. “I made him run,” said the Hare of the Hound.

§14    The way to hold a husband is to keep him a little bit jealous. The way to lose him is to keep him a little bit more jealous.

§15    Women may be divided into two classes: those who know how to rouge and those who know how to blush.

§16    It used to be thought in America that a woman ceased to be a lady the moment her name appeared in a newspaper. It is no longer thought so, but it is still true.

§17    Women have very simple tastes. They can get pleasure out of the conversation of children in arms and men in love.

§18    Whenever a husband and wife begin to discuss their marriage they are giving evidence at an inquest.

§19    Do not be deceived by appearances. The virtue of a man is not to be measured by what he does while his wife is watching.

§20    Women always excel men in that sort of wisdom which comes from experience. To be a woman is in itself a terrible experience.

§21    You will never convince the average farmer’s mare that the late Maud S. was not dreadfully immoral.

§22    The man a woman marries is usually her second choice. The woman a man marries is often not his choice at all.

§23    No man is ever too old to look at a woman, and no woman is ever too fat to hope that he will look.

§24    Men have a much better time of it than women. For one thing, they marry later. For another thing, they die earlier.

§25    The one thing to be careful of is that you are on with the new love before you are off with the old.

§26    Cold mutton-stew; a soiled collar; breakfast in dress clothes; a wet house dog, over-affectionate; the other fellow’s tooth-brush; an echo of “Ta-ra-ra-boom-de-ay”; the damp, musty smell of an empty house; stale beer; a mangy fur coat; katzenjammer; false teeth; boiled cabbage; a cocktail after dinner; an old cigar stump… the kiss of Evelyn after the inauguration of Eleanor.

§27    Whenever a woman begins to talk of anything, she is talking to, of, or at a man.

§28    The worst man hesitates when choosing a mother for his children. And hesitating, he is lost.

§29    The charm of a man is measured by the charm of the women who think that he is a scoundrel.

§30    A bachelor’s virtue depends upon his alertness. A married man’s depends upon his wife.

II
    The show-bird sings and soars amid the
blast: he has no catarrh from wet feet.
—Mary Baker G. Eddy.

§1    Democracy it the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

§2    Civilization is a concerted effort to remedy the blunders and check the practical joking of the Creator.

§3    An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it is also more nourishing.

§4    Morality is the theory that every human act must be either right or wrong, and that 99 per cent, of them are wrong.

§5    All men may be divided into two classes: those who like vaudeville and those who can stand it when they are drunk.

§6    Say what you will against civilization, it has at least got rid of whiskers, the vermiform appendix and the Ten Commandments.

§7    The surest way to get a reputation as a liar is to pretend to be very good. The next surest way is to pretend to be very wicked.

§8    The Christian always mixes prudence with his devotion. He is willing to serve three gods, but he draws the line at one wife.

§9    Exit the roller-towel. Enter the individual drinking-cup. Hygiene makes steady progress. The end, perhaps, will be a law penalizing the laborious Italian for spitting on his hands.

§10    The ideal home is one in which the human inhabitants multiplied by 50 outnumber the cockroaches divided by 100.

§11    The truth that survives is simply the lie that is pleasant to believe.

§12    Say what you will against the morality of anonymous letters, at all events no one ever seriously doubts them.

§13    Democracy defines the truth as any thing believed by at least 51 men in every 100. It is thus firmly committed to the doctrines that one bath a week is enough, that “I seen” is the past tense of “I see”, and that Friday is an unlucky day.

§14    The final proof of human greatness is an embalmer trembling with stage-fright.

§15    It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.

§16    All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.

§17    An anti-vivisectionist is one who gags at a guinea pig and swallows a baby.

§18    The original efficiency expert: Simon Legree.

§19    Said Oscar Wilde: “Each man kills the thing he loves.” For example, the amateur musician.

§20    A yacht club is an asylum for landsmen who would rather die of drink than be seasick.

§21    Thanksgiving Day: a day devoted by persons with inflammatory rheumatism to thanking God that it is not hydrophobia.

§22    A Socialist, carrying a red flag, marched through the gates of Heaven. “To hell with rank!” he shouted. “All men are equal here.” Just then the late Karl Marx turned a corner and came into view, meditatively stroking his whiskers. At once the Socialist fell upon his knees and touched his forehead to the dust “O Master!” he cried. “O Master, Master, Master!”

§23    Definition of the truth: something somehow discreditable to someone.

§24     Every failure teaches a man something. For example, that he will probably fail again next time.

§25    Pensioner: a kept patriot.

§26    Conscience makes cowards of us all. Politeness is even worse. It makes actors of us.

§27    The nocturnes of Chopin: two embalmers at work upon a minor poet… the scent of tuberoses… autumn rains.

§28    Let no man take his friends and enemies too seriously. One of the conclusions every man is bound to come to, reviewing his life in his old age, is that his enemies have done him much less good than he expected and his friends much less harm.

§29    A clergyman is a ticket speculator outside the gates of Heaven.

§30    Christian Science is the theory that, since the sky rockets following a wallop in the eye are optical delusions, the wallop itself is a delusion and the eye another.

III
    And to anyone who wishes to do so,
we publicly and freely give permission
to swear; and we will never prevent any-
one from swearing.—Magna Charta, §61

§1    A man becomes a gentleman the moment the betting odds on his word of honor pass 3 to 2.

§2    If George Washington could have foreseen the chautauqua it is likely that he would have let Cornwallis go.

§3    A Sunday-school is a prison in which children do penance for the evil consciences of their parents.

§4    Brevity: die quality that makes cigarettes, sermons and ocean voyages bearable.

§5    A successful man is simply one who doesn’t make a fool of himself in the same way more than two or three times running.

§6    An osteopath is one who argues that all human ills are caused by the abnormal pressure of hard bone upon soft tissue. The proof of his theory is to be found in the heads of those who accept it.

§7    During a lull in the uproar of Hell two voices were heard.
    “My name,” said one, “was Ludwig van Beethoven. I was no ordinary music-master. The Archduke Rudolph used to speak to me on the streets of Vienna.”
    “And mine,” said the other, “was the Archduke Rudolph. I was no ordinary archduke. Ludwig van Beethoven dedicated a trio to me.”

§8    Politician: any citizen with influence enough to get his old mother a job as charwoman in the City Hall.

§9    The master banalities of art: the “Mona Lisa,” “La Dame aux Camélias” and “Celeste Aida.” The master banalities of nature: Niagara Falls, the Gulf Stream and the blood-sweating hippopotamus.

§10    A prohibitionist is the sort of man one wouldn’t care to drink with even if he drank.

§11    The majority always has its way in the end. So does the undertaker. But neither gains in pleasantness by the fact.

§12    ugue: one damned fiddle after another.

§13    The formula of George Bernard Shaw: to put the obvious in terms of the scandalous.

§14    After all, why be good? How many will actually believe it of us?

§15    Why doesn’t some Christian Science healer try his magic as a Christian Science embalmer?

§16    No form of liberty is worth a darn which doesn’t give us the right to do wrong now and then.

§17    The unpleasant things of life are always the most durable. A wart outlasts ten thousand kisses.

§18    A psychologist is one who sticks a pin into a baby and then makes a chart showing the ebb and flow of the yell.

§19    If all public questions were settled by shooting dice, fifty percent of them would be settled correctly. This would be five times as good a score as we make now.

§20    Say what you will about the Ten Commandments, you must always come back to the pleasant fact that there are only ten of them.

§21    Sob: a sound made by women, babies, tenors, actors and drunken men.

§22    Truth would quickly cease to be stranger than fiction, once we got as used to it.

§23    Theatre: a place in which bad ideas are filtered through worse actors.

§24    A woman’s club is a place in which the validity of a philosophy is judged by the hat of its prophetess.

§25    A man is called a good fellow for doing things which, if done by a woman, would land her in a lunatic asylum.

§26    One may cherish, perhaps, a profound respect for the Beatitudes, but surely not for the man who believes in them.

IV
Si el sabio no aprueba, malo!
Si el necio aplaude, peor!
—Tomas de Yriarte.

§1    Archbishop: a Christian ecclesiastic of a rank superior to that attained by Christ; see also bishop and archdeacon.

§2    A jury is a group of twelve men who, having lied to the judge about their hearing, health and business engagements, have failed to fool him.

§3    The verdict of a jury is the a priori opinion of that juror who smokes the worst cigars.

§4    A judge it a law student who marks his own examination papers.

§5    A judge is an officer appointed to mislead, restrain, hypnotize, cajole, seduce, flabbergast and bamboozle a jury in such manner that it will forget all the facts and give its decision to the best lawyer. The objection to judges is that they are seldom capable of a sound professional judgment of lawyers. The objection to lawyers is that the best are the worst.

§6    A lawyer is one who protects you against robbers by taking away the temptation.

§7    A fine is a bribe paid by a rich man to escape the lawful penalty of his crime. In China such bribes are paid to the judge personally. In America they are paid to him as agent for the public. But it makes no difference to the men who pay them, nor to the men who can’t pay them.

§8    Courtroom: a place where Jesus Christ and Judas Iscariot would be equals, with the odds in favor of Judas.

§9    The penalty for laughing in a court room is six months in jail. If it were not for this penalty the jury would never hear the evidence.

§10    Sunday is a day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in Hell.

§11    The chief argument against prohibition is that it doesn’t prohibit. This is also the chief argument in favor of it.

§12    Conscience: the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.

§13    As for the great masses of the plain people, whose rectitude and acumen ate so much lauded, they may be divided into two classes: those to whom thinking is painful, and those to whom it is impossible.

§14    Ideal picture of a reform movement in the United States: a hangman signing a petition against vivisection.

§15    To an embalmer there are no good men and bad men. There are only dead men and live men.

§16    Democracy is also a form of religion. It is the worship of jackals by jackasses.

§17    Immortality: the condition of a dead man who doesn’t believe that he is dead.

§18    Three proofs that the Creator is a humorist: democracy, hay fever, any fat woman.

§19    University: a place for elevating sons above the social rank of their fathers. In the American universities men are ranked as follows: 1. Seducers; 2. Fullbacks; 3. Boozers; 4. Pitchers and catchers; 5. Mandolin players; 6. Poker players; 7. Scholars; 8. Christians.

§20    A man’s belief in his soul is in direct ratio to his inability to digest proteids.

§21    How little it takes to make life perfect! A good sauce, a cocktail after a hard day, a girl who kisses with her mouth half open!

§22    Y.M.C.A.: a cheap boarding house for thrifty and agnostic Jews.

§23    Literature, in America, is life in a flour barrel.

§24    Christian Science and the coroner: the initiative and referendum.

§25    A clergyman is one employed by the wicked to prove to them by his example that virtue doesn’t pay,

§26    The Puritan is one who uses the Cross as a hammer to knock in the heads of sinners.

§27    The agents of argumentation under a free democracy, in the order of their potency: whiskey, beer, cigars, tears.

§28    Vanity is at the bottom of a good deal of morality. A moral man is one who likes to be thought capable of doing things that no man could actually do.

§29    Marriage: an unresolved dissonance. Divorce: the return to the tonic.

§30    A man of self-respect is one who still believes that nobody suspects him.

V
    We brought you the truth heretofore,
but the greater part of you
abhorred the truth.—The Koran, XLIII.

§1    What a world, alas, it is! So many drinking! and so little in a keg!

§2    A great nation is any mob of people which produces at least one honest man a century.

§3    Since Shakespeare’s day more than a thousand different actors have played Hamlet. No wonder he is crazy!

§4    Hell: a place where the Ten Commandments have a police force behind them.

§5    A celebrity is one who is known to many persons he is glad he doesn’t know.

§6    It is not the drinker, but the man who has just stopped drinking, who thinks the world is going to the dogs.

§7    Remorse: regret that one waited too long to do it.

§8    A poet is usually a bad critic of his own work. And a critic is often even worse.

§9    The father of liars took the first shower-bath.

§10    The chief knowledge that a man gets from reading books is the knowledge that very few of them are worth reading.

§11    Suicide: a belated acquiescence in the opinion of one’s wife’s relatives.

§12     Socialism is the theory that the desire Of one man to get something he hasn’t got is more pleasing to a just God than the desire of some other man to keep what he has got.

§13    A moralist is one who is a good deal less moral than he would have you believe. And an immoralist is one who is a good deal more moral.

§14    A cynic is one who has learned to read the secret cost marks on the world’s price tags.

§15    To have a wooden head is much less a misfortune to an actor than to have a wooden leg.

§16    To be found out: to escape from suspicion.

§17    Biographer: an unjust god.

§18    Psychotherapy is the theory that the patient will probably get well anyhow, and is certainly a damned fool.

§19    What alcohol is to men, tears are to women. In each there is sanctuary from the duel of sex.

§20    There is only one justification for having sinned, and that is to be glad of it.

§21    Sunday-school: the first refuge of scoundrels.

§22    The objection to Puritans is not that they try to make us think as they do, but that they try to make us do as they think.

§23    It is a sin to believe evil of others, but it is seldom a mistake.

§24    The doctrine of reincarnation runs aground on the puzzle as to what most men did in the last life to deserve being what they are in this one.

§25    Democracy is the theory that two thieves will steal less than one, and three less than two, and four less than three, and so on ad infinitum.

§26    ’Tis more blessed to give than receive. For example, wedding presents.

§27    How the whole course of history would have been changed if Mrs. Mary G. Eddy had been baptized Birdie!

§28    The one unanswerable objection to Christianity is that the God it asks us to worship, if the descriptions of its official spokesman are to be believed, is a vastly less venerable personage than Ludwig van Beethoven.

§29    The objection to a scandal-monger is not that she tells of racy doings, but that she pretends to be indignant about them.

§30    Firmness in decision is often merely a form of stupidity. It indicates an inability to think the same thing out twice.

§31    Faith: a mellow and caressing ecstasy, a benign and uplifting boozlness.

§32    The trouble with the hymeneal knot is that it is often tied too tightly. Many a husband reminds one of a 16 neck in a 15¾ collar.

§33    A tombstone is an ugly reminder of one who has been forgotten.

§34    An altruist is one who would be sincerely sorry to see his neighbor’s children devoured by wolves.

§35    In the year 1830 the average American had six children and one wife. How time changes all things!

§36    If the plain people had heads of ivory it wouldn’t be so bad. But celluloid!

VI
The women, woven, built and kneaded up
Of hydrogen, of azote, oxygen,
Of carbon, phosphorus, chlorine, sulphur, iron,
Of calcium, kalium, natrum, maganese.
—John Davidson.

§1    A man always blames the woman who fools him. In the same way he blames the door he walks into in the dark.

§2    On one issue, at least, men and women agree: they both distrust women.

§3    A really good husband is almost unknown. What women mistake for a good one is usually only a careful one.

§4    When women kiss it always reminds me of prize-fighters shaking hands.

§5    There are two times in every man’s life when he is thoroughly happy; just after he has met his first love and just after he has parted from his last one.

§6    Man’s objection to love is that it dies hard; woman’s is that when it is once dead it stays dead.

§7    The sort of man a woman remembers longest is the sort that it would be better not to remember at all.

§8    Without a doubt there are women who would vote intelligently. There are also men who knit socks beautifully.

§9    Definition of a good mother: one who loves her child as much as a little girl loves her doll.

§10    Love begins like a triolet and ends like a college yell.

§11    Bachelors know more about women than married men, If they didn’t they’d be married too.

§12    No matter how long he lives, no man ever becomes as wise as the average woman of forty-eight.

§13    A gentleman is one who never strikes a woman without provocation.

§14    Man is a natural polygamist He always has one woman leading him by the nose and another hanging on to his coat-tails.

§15    All women, soon or late, are jealous of their daughters; all men, soon or late, are envious of their sons.

§16    A transvaluation of all values is now in progress. No doubt the future will see men of questionable repute and women who neither drink nor smoke.

§17    Women’s tears are the most precious things in the world. They always cost some man or other at least $2 apiece.

§18    Jealousy is the theory that some other fellow has just as little taste.

§19    The man who marries for love alone is at least honest. But so was Czolgosz.

§20    Bachelors have consciences, Married men have wives.

§21    Marriage: the end of hope.

§22    Fashions may come and fashions may go, but the best bait, after all, is still a bit it of lace about the neck.

§23    A woman always knows that a man is in love with her long before he knows it himself. And even when she doesn’t know it, she often assumes it.

§24    There was a woman once who was satisfied with her husband, her dress allowance and her complexion. Her name has not been preserved. She died before writing was invented.

§25    When a husband’s story is believed, he begins to suspect his wife.

§26    Woman is at once the serpent, the apple and the stomach-ache.

§27    Optimist: the sort of man who marries his sister’s best friend.

§28    If there were only three women left in the world, two of them would immediately convene a court-martial to try the other one.

§29    Alimony is the ransom that the happy pay to the devil.

§30    History seems to bear very harshly upon women. One cannot recall more than three famous women who were virtuous. But on turning to famous men the seeming injustice disappears. One would have difficulty finding, even two of them who were virtuous.

§31    Husbands never become good; they merely become proficient.

§32    The devil: a man with a woman’s soul.

§33    Sign to hang outside the parlor door after the engagement has been announced: Don’t stop! Don’t look! Don’t listen!

§34    Widower: one released on parole.

§35    A wedding is a device for exciting jealousy in women and terror in men.

§36    Strike an average between what a woman thinks of her husband a month before she marries him and what she thinks of him a year afterward, and you will have the truth about him in a very handy form.

§37    The worst of marriage is that it makes a woman believe that all men are just as easy to fool.

§38    Possession is nine points of the law. This is the only reason why so many men keep their wives.

§39    Cleverness in a woman means any mental state superior to downright imbecility. A clever woman is simply one who seems almost like a man.

§40    The great secret of happiness in love is to be glad the other fellow married her.

§41    A misogynist is a man who hates women as much as women hate one another.

§42    If hammocks could talk no one would care to listen to church pews.

§43    Suicide and marriage: the supreme acts of cynicism.

§44    A man may be a fool and not know it—but not if he is married.

§45    All men are proud of their own children. Some men carry egoism so far that they are even proud of their own wives.

§46    Intelligence lasts a woman much longer than beauty. But it is a good deal less useful while it lasts.

VII
…weil Verschiedenheit des Nichts
mehr ergötzt als Einerleiheit des Etwas.
—Johann Paul Friedrich Richter.

§1    The great difficulty about keeping the Ten Commandments is that no man can keep them and be a gentleman.

§2    When a man is old enough to be sinful discreetly he is usually too old to be sinful at all.

§3    Puritanism: an attempt to bleach the red corpuscles.

§4    The moment everyone begins to believe a thing, it ceases to be true. For example, the notion that the homeliest girl in the party is the safest.

§5    In the main, there are two sorts of books: those that no one reads and those that no one ought to read.

§6    A bachelor is one who has learned the lesson of his brother’s punishment

§7    The object of all religion is to teach man what he ought to do. The object of all knowledge is to show him how to do it. The object of all art is to make him glad he is not doing it.

§8    There are always two sound objections to a fat woman. One is that she is fat and the other is that she is sentimental.

§9    Women have a good deal more sober sense than men. But men would be just as sensible if there were no women.

§10    The agents of human happiness in the order of their potency: a good bank account, a negative Wassermann, a clear conscience.

§11    Theology is an effort to explain the unknowable by putting it into terms of the not worth knowing.

§12    A church is a place in which gentlemen who have never been to Heaven brag about it to persons who will never get there.

§13    No matter how happily a woman is married, she always hopes that her daughter will grab a better one.

§14    At the bottom of Puritanism one finds envy of the fellow who is having a better time in the world, and hence hatred of him. At the bottom of democracy one finds the same thing. This is why all Puritans are democrats and all democrats are Puritans.

§15    It is better to have a conscience than to be run over by a locomotive.

§16    Happiness is the china shop: love is the bull.

§17    Pediculocracy, or government by vermin.… Lohengrinophobia, or the fear of marriage.…

§18    Ah, the divine persistence of beauty!… Once I enjoyed the great Christian diversion of seeing a man hanged. As he plunged through the trap and came up with that last, abominable jerk, the taut hemp sounded a soft, sonorous CCC.

§19    Wife: one who is sorry she did it, but would undoubtedly do it again.

§20    When you sympathize with a married woman you make two enemies—or gain one wife and one friend.

§21    An historian is an unsuccessful novelist.

§22    The vice crusade: an effort to fill up the ocean by throwing sailors overboard.

§23    Surgeon: one who takes the blame for the family doctor’s error in diagnosis.

§24    Women do not like timid men. Cats do not like prudent rats.

§25    He marries best who puts it off until it is too late.

§26    A bachelor is one who wants a wife but is glad that he hasn’t got her.

§27    Eugenics: the theory that marriages should be made in the laboratory; the Wassermann test for love.

§28    Women usually enjoy annoying their husbands, but not when they annoy them by growing fat.

THE END

virtues and values in market exchanges

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:00:38 GMT

All appropriations and transfers of conventionally valued goods or services, be they consensual or coerced, are essentially self-regarding as regards their cost, but essentially other-regarding as regards their value. For consumable goods, the relevant distinction between their consumption and socially warranted dominium arises from Deuteronomy 23:24-25, as explained by John Kilcullen. To the extent that sex is valued conventionally rather than intrinsically, all varieties of sexual intercourse are likewise essentially other-regarding. In particular, while no one is qualified to speak for all sadomasochists, the following passage from a review by Charles Rosen is very much to the point:

When I was writing a review of Alban Berg’s correspondence, I remarked to an elderly and very distinguished psychoanalyst that I was surprised by how many of Schoenberg’s students seemed to enjoy being so badly treated and humiliated by him. She replied, “I have no time to explain this just now, but I can assure you that there are a great many masochists and not nearly enough sadists to go around.”

What is valued in all kinds of sex, as in all other kinds of conversation, is not the mere brunt of its experience, but also its mutuality.

Market exchanges of all sorts of goods or services are essentially other-regarding, not in regard of obtaining them at the lowest possible cost, but in regard of establishing and maintaining their value. In so far as an analogous situation obtains in communication, this is a matter of conventional values in the conventional Lewisian game-theoretic construal of convention as coordination. Notwithstanding any misgivings concerning the expense of spirit in a waste of shame, market exchanges are expected to leave each party with the impression that what they received in the exchange is worth more than what they gave up. In the normal course of events, a notional impression of increase in value would serve as well as, or even better than, an actual increase therein. Thus Max Weber’s criticism of Benjamin Franklin in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, that the appearance of honesty serves the same purpose as honesty itself, and hence an unnecessary surplus of this virtue would appear to Franklin’s eyes as unproductive waste. Weber concludes that Franklin purveys a strict utilitarianism, whereby the mere appearance of honesty (der Schein der Ehrlichkeit) is always sufficient when it accomplishes the end in view. But in the long run, such appearances can only be sustained by tacit collusion of both parties. The butcher who places his finger on the scale enters in a relation of mutual dependency with the carnivore who averts his eyes from this petty subterfuge. Likewise the wife who shores up her sex appeal with face paint and foundation garments, colluding with the husband who bears mute witness to her daily embellishments.

Consider sexual politics. In the context of a long-term romantic relationship, reciprocal constructive ambiguity manifests in the woman wondering whether the man is just using her for sex, while he wonders how long he can keep her guessing. The maintenance of this equilibrium depends on a delicate balance between competition and coordination, negotiated among the parties. This is where David Lewis’ analysis of convention may pay off. Lewisian conventions exemplify two main conditions:

Convention is a strict Nash equilibrium with no gain realizable from unilateral deviation by any party thereto, and a loss realized by any deviating party, with an additional coordination proviso that all parties prefer universal compliance in the convention, on condition that at least all but one comply to it.
Convention is arbitrary in having an alternative that could serve equally well in its place.

Consider the case of corporate employment, where the corporation is tasked with creating the appearance of improvement in the lot of its employees over the scenario of their free agency. As explained by Ronald Coase, this improvement is due to amortizing the transaction costs of their initial association. The appearance of extra value accruing to the employees in this association, depends on coordination among its parties in representing real or imaginary long-term benefits of sticking together. Correlatively, the appearance of extra value accruing to the employer from the employees is a matter of coordinating their appearance of hard work sustained through brown-nosing and back-biting, and relieved by the meremost minimum of discreet sexual harassment and persiflage around the water cooler. And so on.

A Microsoft employee takes several years to vest into his stock options. In exchange, he gives up the opportunity of higher wages in the free market. (That may no longer be the case in the current economy, but let us set that aside.) The value of this long-term benefit depends on the interim growth in the Microsoft stock price. This dependence yields a motive for all Microsoft employees to prefer universal loyalty to their employees amongst their colleagues, on which see the pep talks by Steve Ballmer, with their disparate reception among the faithful and the unaffiliated. At the same time, when and if Google gets big enough to buy Microsoft, with all outstanding stock warrants subject to universal conversion, all current Microsoft employees would prefer a universal shift in loyalty to their new employer amongst their colleagues. In short, their loyalty is stable in being motivated by a prospective gain dependent on universal compliance, but arbitrary in lacking an essential connection to the fortunes of the brand.

An analogous situation appears to arise with any construal of value motivating economic exchanges putatively benefiting both parties. Indeed, it is hard to conceive of an alternative to construing it as a matter of coordination in the foregoing fashion, given that the labor theory and other unfashionable imputations of inherent value are unlikely to yield the preponderance of the “win-win” scenario. As for the aspect of virtue playing its part in market exchanges, its role appears to be taken by Frankfurtian bullshit serving as the counterpart of the mere appearance of honesty claimed by Weber to be necessary and sufficient therefor.

honor and dignity in the american soul

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:52:27 GMT

In his account of “the stark, enduring figure” of James Fenimore Cooper’s Deerslayer in his 1923 Studies in Classic American Literature, D.H. Lawrence observes:

He is neither spiritual nor sensual. He is a moralizer, but he always tries to moralize from actual experience, not from theory. He says: ‘Hurt nothing unless you’re forced to.’ Yet he gets his deepest thrill of gratification, perhaps, when he puts a bullet through the heart of a beautiful buck, as it stoops to drink at the lake. Or when he brings the invisible bird fluttering down in death, out of the high blue. ‘Hurt nothing unless you’re forced to.’ And yet he lives by death, by killing the wild things of the air and earth.
It’s not good enough.
But you have there the myth of the essential white America. All the other stuff, the love, the democracy, the floundering into lust, is a sort of by-play. The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted.

A recent treatment of the essential American soul in an article by Jill Lepore in the New Yorker discusses murder in America within the conceptual framework of honor and dignity, in reference to work by the late Eric Monkkonen and the ongoing Pieter Spierenburg. The underlying premiss incoporates Monkkonen’s influential conclsion:

To clarify the ongoing debate: Would gun control to the point of elimination save lives? Obviously. Would the United States then join other industrial nations? Even without guns, the United States would still be out of step, just as it has been for two hundred years.
—Eric H. Monkkonen, Murder in New York City, University of California Press, 2000, p. 179.

Monkkonen’s account of murder in New York City is rife with details that include a 1854 knife slaying of Peter Garrison Post by his friend and bedmate Jerome B. King, based on a report in the New York Times, which quotes a witness to the event:

Wm. H. Matthews, residing at No. 13 Amos-street, being sworn, said: On Wednesday evening about 7½ o’clock, the deceased and myself were standing on the corner of Washington and Horatio-streets conversing, when Jerome B. King came up to where we were standing, and informed us that he had been insulted by a man named Charles McPherson, who lived in the same house; the deceased asked him how he had been insulted; King replied that McPherson had taken his seat at the tea table; deceased replied that he did not consider that an insult; King said that he did, and that if he ever done so again he would lick him; deceased replied that he could not lick him and offered to bet $10 that he could not; King then took off his coat and said that was worth $10, and that he would put that up, and also called deceased a d—d liar; deceased then struck King in the face with his open hand, when King exclaimed “Damn your big soul, you can’t strike a man of your size;” deceased then ran after King into the grocery store on the corner where we were standing; when I arrived at the door I saw them clenched and deceased threw King down on the floor, and then left him and walked out on to the sidewalk; King then got up and followed him on to the sidewalk with a large knife in his hand, and stabbed deceased in the back; the knife now shown looks like the one I saw in King’s hand when he came out of the store; after King stabbed deceased, he threw the knife on the walk; deceased then ran up washington, about half a block, where he met two acquaintances, and exclaimed to one of them, “Simms, I’m stabbed;” the two then took hold of him to prevent his falling, and conveyed him to the drug store on the corner of Hudson and Jane streets; dod not see deceased strike King, except once, and that was on the sidewalk, with his open hand, before they entered the store.

The newspaper article cites the prisoner stating that he never had any ill-feeling toward deceased and never intended to injure him till deceased struck him. Drawing upon its account, Monkkonen observes in regard of the killer and his victim: “Other than the comment that the two were bedmates, we learn little about the nature of the relationship between these men. Were they blue collar workers sharing lodgings in a city with a tight housing market, something like Queequeg and Ishmael’s port lodging in Moby Dick? Their pattern of fighting and making up suggests a more affectionate relationship, as does King’s apparent remorse at Post’s death. Or did King’s reference to Post’s size, his ‘big soul,’ indicate that defeat in front of the other men drinking in the grocery was a shameful status loss that only further violence could restore?”

In his posthumously published article, “Homicide: Explaining America’s Exceptionalism”, Monkkonen proposes a research program attributing the vast and enduring difference in homicide rates between the United States and Europe to a combination of four hypothesized social factors, two being political—mobility and federalism, and two being social—slavery and tolerance. He conjectures that “wandering poor” or those trapped in dysfunctional communities could have significantly contributed to American homicide, causing increasing homicide differences between places on a national scale, whereby such a hypothesis could be tested, given enough information over a long time period. He points out that American federalism from its beginning left almost all criminal justice up to the states, and they in turn delegated it to counties and cities, later claiming primary authority for prisons, resulting in the permanently fragmented and piecemeal system that the United States maintains today. He reminds his readers of race slavery standing as the biggest and most obvious population difference between Western Europe and the United States, asking whether those who point to a southern culture of post–Civil War homicide identified a principal source of continuing American homicide, and wondering, why this particular heritage should have persisted. Lastly, he recalls his proposal from Murder in New York City, that the U.S. political and criminal justice systems have tolerated more homicide than their European counterparts, just as they have had to tolerate ethnic and religious differences. Monkkonen adduces all of these factors to explain the estimates drawn from his book and the article by Manuel Eisner, “Modernization, Self-Control and Lethal Violence”, whereby New York City murder rate compares with European murder rate as 5 to 2.7 per 100,000 pre-1850, and as 10 to 2.1 per 100,000 between 1850 and 2000.

Pieter Spierenburg connects Norbert Elias’ account of the “civilizing process”, a genealogy of public behavior depending upon physical restraint and self-control, to the growth of the centralizing state, expressed in its Weberian Gewaltmonopol, a monopoly on the use of force. In her synopsis, Jill Lepore mentions anthropologists talking about a related process, the replacement of a culture of honor with a culture of dignity. These distinctions are commonly drawn in the study of American regional history, in terms that echo Monkkonen’s invocation of Southern culture:

Contemporaries who described Southerners as gracious and hospitable described men who adhered to honorable conduct, but so did those who described Southerners as touchy and belligerent. Honor, the overweening concern with the opinions of others, led people to pay particular attention to manners, to ritualized evidence of respect. When that respect was not forthcoming between men, violence might be the result. A culture of honor thus tended to breed the extremes of behavior for which nineteenth-century Southerners were famous. Yet Southern culture was not so brittle that it could not absorb the usual range of human foibles and quirks. Honor did not create one temperament, one personality, any more than does any other culture. A sense of noblesse oblige and disciplined rectitude, as well as violence, could and did grow out of honor.
    Any accurate description of Southern honor must be couched in qualified language and described with care, for it was simultaneously potent and elusive. No contemporary visitor saw the entirety of Southern honor, no Southern poet or philosopher described its workings from the inside. Historians must therefore reconstruct it out of fragments, glimpsed encounters, passing comments. Southern honor was an anomaly, a strange hybrid of Old World and New World.
    But so was Northern culture, and by the mid-nineteenth century the North had generated the core of a culture antagonistic to honor. Northerners could only shake their heads in disbelief at Southern violence. “About certain silly abstractions that no practical business man ever allows to occupy his time or attention, they are eternally wrangling,” one observer wrote in the 1850s, “and thus it is that rencounters, duels, homicides, and other demonstrations of personal violence, have become so popular in all slaveholding communities.” Northern culture, for its part, celebrated “dignity”—the conviction that at birth white males possessed an intrinsic value at least theoretically equal. In a culture of dignity men were expected to remain deaf to the same insults that Southern men were expected to resent. “Call a man a liar in Mississippi,” an old saying went, “and he will knock you down; in Kentucky, he will shoot you; in Indiana, he will say ‘You are another.’” Dignity might be likened to an internal skeleton, a hard structure at the center of the self; honor, on the other hand, resembles a cumbersome and vulnerable suit of armor that, once pierced, leaves the self no protection and no alternative except to strike back in desperation.
    —Edward L. Ayers, Vengeance and Justice: Crime and Punishment in the 19th-century American South, Oxford University Press, 1984, pp. 19-20; also see his “Legacy of Violence”.

The European perspective suggests that colonial Americans have failed to follow them in the social evolution that replaces the hard exoskeleton of honor with the internal trellis of dignity. According to Spierenburg, the advent of democracy in the United States was premature. In his 2006 article “Democracy Came Too Early: A Tentative Explanation for the Problem of American Homicide”, he argues that the social pressures favoring a monopolization of force in the United States have been weak in comparison with those in European national societies. He discerns “an intriguing paradox” in the fact that that “the country that boasted the most formidable military externally throughout the twentieth century was unable to do away with competing claims to authority internally”. But at the core of this imputation lies the scholar’s unwillingness, if not an inability, to distinguish a putative failure of the state from its fealty to the democratic mandate of a Constitutional republic. Polling data over the past seventy years shows a nearly uniform growth in opposition to a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons, from 36% against a 60% support in 1939, to 71% against a 28% support in 2009.

In construing the essence of statehood as the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, Max Weber’s definition circumscribes its scope and extent, not to debar other institutions or to individuals from this use, but to allow for their right to use physical force, inasmuch as the state permits it. Contrary to a common misconstrual, Weber’s definition identifies state not as the sole possessor of the right to use violence, but as its the sole source. And even that is not the case under the doctrine of natural law and natural rights, expressly recognized by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. The right to defend oneself and others using deadly force against an imminent threat is the paradigmatic example of a natural right that cannot be alienated to anyone else, under any circumstances. The American government, emerging from the principle of unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, is bound to recognize and protect this right as part of its Constitutional mandate. Therein inhere honor and dignity of the American soul.

Crossposted to larvatus, history, and guns.

the necessity of acedia

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:16:45 GMT

    Lo naturale è sempre sanza errore,
ma l’altro puote errar per malo obietto
o per troppo o per poco di vigore.
    The natural is always without error,
but the other may err through an evil object
or through too much or too little vigor.
    —Dante, Purgatorio, Canto 17, 94-96

“To love is to risk not being loved in return.” This slogan, sometimes traced to Leo F. Buscaglia, or credited to Rollo May, proliferates in self-help manuals, many of them cast in a religious mold. Therein lies a contradiction. If God is love, he cannot but love every man. Then, if to love is to risk not being loved in return, it follows that men cannot love God for want of risk of not being loved by Him.

Nothing in this rebuttal depends on the meaning of is. If God is love, the inference goes through with the copula being interpreted as a relation of identity, predication, or belonging. It might be argued that in loving God man runs the risk of not being loved in return, in the event of His non-existence. But it is implausible that love—unlike its collateral attitudes such as fear—could be predicated without presupposing the existence of the lover and the beloved alike. There is something wrong with our homiletic premisses. Love does not require the risk of not being loved in return. Or else, God is something other than love.

max weber on starting and ending fights

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:35:37 GMT

Welcher Mensch wird sich vermessen, die Ethik der Bergpredigt, etwa den Satz: „Widerstehe nicht dem Übel“ oder das Bild von der einen und der anderen Backe, „wissenschaftlich widerlegen“ zu wollen? Und doch ist klar: es ist, innerweltlich angesehen, eine Ethik der Würdelosigkeit, die hier gepredigt wird: man hat zu wählen zwischen der religiösen Würde, die diese Ethik bringt, und der Manneswürde, die etwas ganz anderes predigt: „Widerstehe dem Übel,—sonst bist du für seine Übergewalt mitverantwortlich.“ Je nach der letzten Stellungnahme ist für den Einzelnen das eine der Teufel und das andere der Gott, und der Einzelne hat sich zu entscheiden, welches für ihn der Gott und welches der Teufel ist. Und so geht es durch alle Ordnungen des Lebens hindurch.

What man will take upon himself the attempt to “refute scientifically” the ethic of the Sermon on the Mount? For instance, the proposition, “Resist no evil” or the image of turning the other cheek? And yet it is clear, from a worldly perspective, that an ethic of indignity is being preached here; one has to choose between the religious dignity that this ethic confers and the dignity of manly conduct that preaches something quite different: “Resist evil, lest you be jointly responsible for its empire.” According to our ultimate standpoint, the one is of the devil and the other of God, and the individual has to decide, which for him is God, and which is the devil. And so it goes through all the orders of life.

—Max Weber, Wissenschaft als Beruf / Science as a Vocation, 7 November 1917

Befreien wir es aber zunächst von einer ganz trivialen Verfälschung. Es kann nämlich zunächst die Ethik auftreten in einer sittlich höchst fatalen Rolle. Nehmen wir Beispiele. Sie werden selten finden, daß ein Mann, dessen Liebe sich von einer Frau ab- und einer andern zuwendet, nicht das Bedürfnis empfindet, dies dadurch vor sich selbst zu legitimieren, daß er sagt: sie war meiner Liebe nicht wert, oder sie hat mich enttäuscht, oder was dergleichen „Gründe“ mehr sind. Eine Unritterlichkeit, die zu dem schlichten Schicksal: daß er sie nicht mehr liebt, und daß die Frau das tragen muß, in tiefer Unritterlichkeit sich eine „Legitimität“ hinzudichtet, kraft deren er für sich ein Recht in Anspruch nimmt und zu dem Unglück noch das Unrecht auf sie zu wälzen trachtet. Ganz ebenso verfährt der erfolgreiche erotische Konkurrent: der Gegner muß der wertlosere sein, sonst wäre er nicht unterlegen. Nichts anderes ist es aber selbstverständlich, wenn nach irgendeinem siegreichen Krieg der Sieger in würdeloser Rechthaberei beansprucht: ich siegte, denn ich hatte recht. Oder, wenn jemand unter den Fürchterlichkeiten des Krieges seelisch zusammenbricht und nun, anstatt schlicht zu sagen: es war eben zu viel, jetzt das Bedürfnis empfindet, seine Kriegsmüdigkeit vor sich selbst zu legitimieren, indem er die Empfindung substituiert: ich konnte das deshalb nicht ertragen, weil ich für eine sittlich schlechte Sache fechten mußte. Und ebenso bei dem im Kriege Besiegten. Statt nach alter Weiber Art nach einem Kriege nach dem „Schuldigen“ zu suchen,—wo doch die Struktur der Gesellschaft den Krieg erzeugte—, wird jede männliche und herbe Haltung dem Feinde sagen: „Wir verloren den Krieg—ihr habt ihn gewonnen. Das ist nun erledigt: nun laßt uns darüber reden, welche Konsequenzen zu ziehen sind entsprechend den sachlichen Interessen, die im Spiel waren, und—die Hauptsache—angesichts der Verantwortung vor der Zukunft, die vor allem den Sieger belastet.“ Alles andere ist würdelos und rächt sich. Verletzung ihrer Interessen verzeiht eine Nation, nicht aber Verletzung ihrer Ehre, am wenigsten eine solche durch pfäffische Rechthaberei. Jedes neue Dokument, das nach Jahrzehnten ans Licht kommt, läßt das würdelose Gezeter, den Haß und Zorn wieder aufleben, statt daß der Krieg mit seinem Ende wenigstens sittlich begraben würde. Das ist nur durch Sachlichkeit und Ritterlichkeit, vor allem nur: durch Würde möglich. Nie aber durch eine „Ethik“, die in Wahrheit eine Würdelosigkeit beider Seiten bedeutet. Anstatt sich um das zu kümmern, was den Politiker angeht: die Zukunft und die Verantwortung vor ihr, befaßt sie sich mit politisch sterilen, weil unaustragbaren Fragen der Schuld in der Vergangenheit. Dies zu tun, ist politische Schuld, wenn es irgendeine gibt. Und dabei wird überdies die unvermeidliche Verfälschung des ganzen Problems durch sehr materielle Interessen übersehen: Interessen des Siegers am höchstmöglichen Gewinn—moralischen und materiellen—, Hoffnungen des Besiegten darauf, durch Schuldbekenntnisse Vorteile einzuhandeln: wenn es irgend etwas gibt, was „gemein“ ist, dann dies, und das ist die Folge dieser Art von Benutzung der „Ethik“ als Mittel des „Rechthabens“.

First, let us free ourselves from a quite trivial falsification, that ethics may first arise in a role that is highly compromised morally. Let us consider examples. Rarely will you find that a man whose love turns from one woman to another feels no need to legitimate this before himself by saying: she was not worthy of my love, or, she has disappointed me, or whatever other like “reasons” exist. This is an attitude that, with a profound lack of chivalry, adds a fancied “legitimacy” to the plain fact that he no longer loves her and that the woman has to bear it. By virtue of this “legitimation”, the man claims a right for himself and besides causing the misfortune seeks to put her in the wrong. Likewise, for the successful amatory competitor, the adversary must be less worthy, otherwise he would not have lost out. It is no different, of course, if after a victorious war the victor in undignified self-righteousness claims, “I have won because I was right”. Or, if somebody under the frightfulness of war collapses psychologically, and instead of simply saying it was just too much, he feels the need of legitimizing his war weariness to himself by substituting the feeling, “I could not bear it because I had to fight for a morally bad cause”. And likewise with the defeated in war. Instead of searching like old women for the “guilty one” after the war—given a situation wherein the structure of society produced the war—everyone with a manly and controlled attitude would tell the enemy: “We lost the war. You have won it. That is now all over. Now let us discuss what conclusions must be drawn according to the objective interests that came into play, and what is the main thing in view of the responsibility towards the future that above all burdens the victor.” Anything else is undignified and will rebound. A nation forgives if its interests have been damaged, but no nation forgives if its honor has been offended, especially by a bigoted self-righteousness. Every new document that comes to light after decades revives the undignified lamentations, the hatred and scorn, instead of allowing the war at its end to be buried, at least morally. This is possible only through objectivity and chivalry and above all only through dignity. But never is it possible through an “ethic”, which in truth signifies a lack of dignity on both sides. Instead of being concerned with what the politician is interested in, the future and the responsibility towards the future, this ethic is concerned with politically sterile questions of past guilt, which are not to be settled politically. To act in this way is politically guilty, if such guilt exists at all. And it overlooks the unavoidable falsification of the whole problem, through very material interests: namely, the victor's interest in the greatest possible moral and material gain; the hopes of the defeated to trade in advantages through confessions of guilt. If anything is “vulgar”, then, this is, and it is the result of this fashion of exploiting “ethics” as a means of “being in the right”.

—Max Weber, Politik als Beruf / Politics as a Vocation, 28 January 1919

a slogan for two anniversaries

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:15:32 GMT

Ἡράκλειτος τὸ ἀντίξουν συμφέρον καὶ ἐκ τῶν διαφερόντων καλλίστην ἁρμονίαν καὶ πάντα κατ᾽ ἔριν γίνεσθαι: ἐξ ἐναντίας δὲ τούτοις ἄλλοι
Heracleitus says, ‘Opposition unites,’ and ‘The fairest harmony springs from difference,’ and ‘'Tis strife that makes the world go on.’

—Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1155b1-6, translated by J. Bywater

Thirty-three years ago the author of these screeds walked free after serving a fifteen day sentence for petty hooliganism with twenty-two codefendants, counting among the first Soviet political protesters to get away with a slap on the wrist. The Berlin Wall came down thirteen years later, to the day. Coincidence? You decide.

Meanwhile, the philosophy of freedom is making giant strides in Russia. On 18 April 2009, Vadim Karastelev, head of the local Human Rights Committee, protested the curfew forbidding anyone under 18 years of age from appearing in the streets of Krasnodar region by displaying a sign with the slogan “Freedom is not given, it is taken”, a paraphrase of an analogous quotation about rights taken from a play by Maxim Gorky:

Прав—не дают, права—берут… Человек должен сам себе завоевать права, если не хочет быть раздавленным грудой обязанностей…
Rights aren’t given, rights are taken… Man must fight to win his rights if he doesn’t want to be crushed by a mountain of duties…

Herewith the expert philosophical analysis rendered in connection with his public display:

НЕЗАВИСИМОЕ ЭКСПЕРТНОЕ ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ

Мною, Рыбниковым Владимиром Анатольевичем, кандидатом философских наук (Диплом Московского государственного университета ФС №008883 от 27 июля 1988 г.), историком (Диплом Иркутского государственного университета Г-1 №805525), имеющим «Почетную грамоту» Департамента образования и науки Краснодарского края за «личный вклад в развитие научных исследований и активную научную деятельность» (№01.5/304-1 от 07.02.2006 г.), специалистом в вопросах философии, философии права и истории России.

ПОДПИСКА:
    Мне, Рыбникову В.А., известны права и обязанности независимого эксперта, Предусмотренные ст.57, 62 УПК РФ.
    Об уголовной ответственности за дачу заведомо ложного заключения по ст.307 УК РФ предупрежден. В соответствии со ст. 199 УПК РФ разъяснены права и обязанности научного эксперта.
    «29.05» 2009 г.
    В.А.Рыбников

ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ ПРОВОДИЛОСЬ с помощью логического анализа, философских выводов и категорий, а также исторических свидетельств деятельности ЦРУ США.

Представленные для экспертного анализа лозунги, выдвинутые В.Е. Карастелевым 18.04.2009г. в г.Новороссийске в порядке пикетирования краевого закона «О мерах по профилактике безнадзорности и правонарушений несовершеннолетних в Краснодарском крае», представляются разнокачественными по философскому содержанию и правовому значению.
    Однако среди них есть такие, которые заслуживают философской и правовой оценки со стороны экспертов.

В первую очередь это относится к лозунгу: «Свободу не дают, её берут».
    Этот лозунг представляется ошибочным и вредным по следующим позициям:

Во-первых, для гражданского общества необходимо существование свободы и её ограничение одновременно.
    Согласно философу Спинозе «свобода—это осознанная необходимость». Если свобода не регулируется правовыми механизмами, в том числе Законодательным Собранием Краснодарского края, то она может превратиться в свою противоположность—в молодежную анархию и произвол.
    Государство как сложный правовой механизм, вбирая в себя множество частных интересов, нормирует их совокупностью «рамок и правил», которые являются юридическими средствами, необходимыми для поддержания действенности механизма социально-юридического регулирования.
    Как известно, ни одна философская и политическая проблема не обладает столь большим социальным звучанием, как проблема свободы. Особенно остро эта проблема ощущается в современную эпоху, когда всё возрастающая масса людей втянута в борьбу за её практическое достижение. Свобода—одна из основных философских категорий, характеризующих сущность человека и его существования, что отмечал в своей философии Ж.-П. Сартр.
    Философское, историческое и политическое решение проблемы свободы и необходимости, их соотношения в деятельности и поведении личности имеет огромное практическое значение для оценки всех поступков людей. Обойти эту проблему не могут ни мораль, ни право.
    Поэтому госп. Карастелев В.Е., прежде чем выдвинуть лозунг: «Свободу не дают, её берут», мог бы поинтересоваться философско-историческим содержанием понятия «свобода».

Во-вторых, система обязанностей личности выступает как совокупность требований государства, включая законодательные, судебные и правоохранительные органы Краснодарского края.
    Обязанность как мера должного поведения содержательно обозначает реализацию прав личности в необходимом, требуемом для общества поведении, направленном на уважительное отношение детей к родителям и к старшему поколению. Каждый ребенок, начиная со школьной скамьи, и тем более, когда он становится полноправным гражданином России, имеет обязанности перед обществом, в котором только и возможно осуществление прав личности.
    Согласно Гегелю и его «философии права», всякое пользование свободой связано с ответственностью личности, с ограничения прав. Это отражено в современном законодательстве и очевидно, что для законодателей ЗСК ограничение времяпровождения детей на улицах—это сохранение прав родителей на детей и, естественно, общества, которое обязано воспитывать правовое сознание у подрастающего поколения.

В-третьих, если, по мнению Карастелева В.Е., лозунг: «Свободу не дают, её берут» является верным с позиций правозащитника, то возникают правомерные вопросы: «Кто и зачем собирается «брать» свободу?», «У кого и почему её необходимо «брать»?, Кому и в каких целях понадобилась «дополнительная» свобода?».
    Госп. Карастелеву В.Е. как законопослушному гражданину следует знать, что спорные правовые вопросы передаются на суд экспертов или, если этого недостаточно, передаются и решаются в Конституционном суде. Только Конституционный суд может окончательно определить уровень необходимой свободы для личности, не только признать те или иные решения неконституционными, но и, в случае необходимости, дать указания Законодательному Собранию Краснодарского края изменить свои решения.

В-четвёртых, свободу нельзя просто «брать», поскольку свобода предусматривает юридическую ответственность, если она является правомерной свободой.
    Свобода, с позиций законодателей Краснодарского края, предусматривает определенный временной масштаб поведения, временные рамки нахождения детей на улицах, но не нарушает прав родителей и общества на защиту детей от возможных неприятностей в ночное время.
    Если дать аналитический ответ на вопрос: «Кому выгодно иметь распущенную и бесконтрольную молодежь в России?», избегая текста многостраничного реферата, то можно обнаружить, что пресловутый «План Алена Даллеса», опубликованный в печати как «Директива 20/1 СНБ США от 18 августа 1948г.», выполнен не полностью. Развален СССР, но есть еще молодёжь, которая, согласно планам США, должна полностью отрицать государственный порядок и действия государственных органов, отвечающих за будущее молодёжи.
    В интересах США, чтобы российская молодёжь выбирала «пепси», забыв о своих родителях, нравственности и ответственности за судьбу Родины. Для США, как стратегического противника России, молодёжная «свобода без границ» очень выгодна, поскольку порождает преступность и наркоманию.
    Проблема свободы человека одна из многочисленных проблем современности встающих перед человеком. Это общефилософская и социальная проблема. Не понимая (или желая не понимать?) важности поднятой проблемы «свободы» именно для молодёжи, госп. Карастелев В.Е. оторвал её от проблем, которые напрямую связаны с ночным временем суток. В данном случае речь идет о наркомании и проституции.
    Навряд ли госп. Карастелев В.Е. является человеком, который не слышал об этих проблемах и не знает, какой угрожающий характер они приняли в Краснодарском крае и особенно на черноморском побережье. Если «свобода» не предусматривает ответственности и общественного порядка, то она обязательно ведет к анархии и преступности. Эта общефилософская истина может найти подтверждение не только в многочисленных исторических фактах, но и в повседневной жизни г. Новороссийска, всех городов Краснодарского края. Подумал ли об этом госп. Карастелев В.Е., когда выдвинул лозунг: «Свободу не дают, её берут»?. Если он знал об этом и действовал осознанно, то данный поступок можно оценить как подрыв нравственных устоев общества.

В-пятых, с позиций современной философии и правосознания призыв «брать» свободу означает приоритет прав личности над государством.
    Вместе с тем, если личность пожелала «взять» для себя больше свободы, чем это позволено государством или его структурами, в данном случае речь идет о ЗСК, то это означает приоритет личности не только над государством, но и обществом. Согласится ли государство, выступающее от имени общества, на свободное существование такой личности? Очевидно, что государство может, как минимум, предупредить такую личность в неправомерности лозунга «брать» свободу. Осознанно или нет, но госп. Карастелев В.Е., выдвинув лозунг «Свободу не дают, её берут», служит интересам тех, кто хотел бы расшатать общественно-политический строй современной России.

Кандидат философских наук, доцент Геленджикского филиала КубГУ, Рыбников В.А.

INDEPENDENT EXPERT OPINION

I, Rybnikov Vladimir Anatolyevich, Doctor of Philosophy (Diploma of the Moscow State University FS №008883 dated 27 July 1988), historian (Diploma of Irkutsk State University G-1 №805525), awarded with a Certificate of Merit of the Department of Education and Science for Krasnodar region for a personal contribution to the development of research and active scientific work (№ 01.5/304-1 of 7 February 2006), expert in philosophy, philosophy of law, and history of Russia.

SIGNED:
    I, V.A. Rybnikov, am aware of the rights and duties of independent experts mandated by Articles 57 and 62 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation.
    I have been warned of criminal liability for knowingly giving false conclusions under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation. I have been advised of the rights and responsibilities of the scientific expert in accordance with art. 199 of the Criminal Code of Russian Federation.
    29 May 2009
    V.A. Rybnikov

THIS STUDY WAS CONDUCTED with the aid of logical analysis, philosophical conclusions and categories, and historical evidence of CIA activities.

The slogans put forth by V.E. Karastelev on 18 April 2009 in Novorossiysk, in the process of picketing the regional law “On Measures for Preventing Child Neglect and Juvenile Delinquency in the Krasnodar Region”, appear to vary in their philosophical content and legal significance.
    However, some among them deserve philosophical and legal evaluation by experts.

This primarily applies to the slogan: “Freedom is not given, it is taken”.
    This slogan appears to be misleading and harmful for the following reasons:

First, civil society requires simultaneously the existence of freedom and its constraint.
    According to the philosopher Spinoza “freedom is consciousness of necessity”. If freedom is not regulated by legal mechanisms, including the Legislative Assembly of Krasnodar region, it can turn into its opposite—in youth anarchy and lawlessness.
    The state, as a complex legal mechanism, comprising a multitude of private interests, regulates it by a set of “frames and rules”, which serve as the legal means required for sustaining the effectiveness of the mechanism of socio-judicial regulation.
    As we know, no philosophical and political problem has as great a social significance, as the problem of freedom. This problem is most acutely felt in the modern era, when the ever-increasing mass of people is drawn in a fight for its practical realization. Freedom is one of the fundamental philosophical categories that characterize the essence of man and his existence, as J.-P. Sartre noted in his philosophy.
    The philosophical, historical, and political solution to the problem of freedom and necessity, and their interrelation in the activities and behavior of the individual, is of great practical importance for the evaluation of all human actions. This problem cannot be evaded either by the morality or by the right.
    Therefore Mr. V.E. Karastelev should have looked into the philosophical and historical content of the concept of freedom before putting forth the slogan “Freedom is not given, it is taken”.

Secondly, the system of individual duties serves as the totality of demands imposed by the state, including legislative, judicial, and law enforcement authorities of Krasnodar region.
    Duty as a measure of proper conduct meaningfully signifies the realization of individual rights in conduct needed and required by the society, aimed at instilling the respect of children for their parents and the older generation. Every child, from the moment of entering school, and all the more so upon attaining full citizenship of Russia, owes duties to the society, which alone allows the realization of individual rights.
    According to Hegel and his Philosophy of Right, any exercise of freedom is associated with individual responsibility, with the limitation of rights. This is reflected in modern legislation and it is clear that for the members of the Legislative Assembly of Krasnodar region, placing a restriction on the times children are allowed to remain in the streets is a way of preserving the rights of parents to their children and naturally, of the society that bears the obligation to instill the consciousness of right in the younger generation.

Thirdly, if in the opinion of V.E. Karastelev the slogan“Freedom is not given, it is taken” is correct from the standpoint of a defender of human rights, it raises legitimate questions: Who is going to “take” freedom, and for what purpose? From whom and why should it be “taken”? Who needs “additional” freedom, and to what end?
    Mr. V.E. Karastelev as a law-abiding citizen should understand that all disputed legal questions are referred to expert judgment, or, if this is not enough, are posed and settled in the Constitutional Court. Only the Constitutional Court may definitively determine the level of freedom necessary for the individual, not only to rule this or that ruling of the lower courts unconstitutional but, if necessary, to provide guidance for the Legislative Assembly of Krasnodar region to change its decisions.

Fourthly, freedom cannot simply be “taken”, because freedom presupposes legal responsibility if it is a legitimate freedom.
    Freedom, as seen from the positions of legislators Krasnodar region, provides a certain time frame for conduct, a curfew for children, without infringing the rights of parents and the society in protecting children from possible trouble at nighttime.
    To give an in-depth answer to the question: “Who benefits from immoral and anarchic youth in Russia?” short of producing a lengthy research paper, one finds that the infamous “Plan of Allen Dulles”, published as” Directive 20/1 of the U.S. National Security Council of 18 August 1948“, has not been fully realized. The Soviet Union fell, but there remains the youth, which, according to the U.S. plans, must completely oppose the public order and the actions of government agencies responsible for the future of youth.
    The interests of the United States are served by Russia’s youth “choosing Pepsi”, neglecting their parents, flouting morality, and shirking responsibility for the fate of the Motherland. The United States, as a strategic enemy of Russia, profits from her youth having “freedom without borders”, because it engenders crime and drug abuse.
    The problem of human freedom is one of many modern problems facing mankind. It is a problem of universal philosophical and social significance. Not knowing (or wanting not to understand?) the special importance of the problem of “freedom” for the youth, Mr. V.E. Karastelev detached it from issues that directly relate to the nighttime. In this case it connects with drug addiction and prostitution.
    Mr. V.E. Karastelev is unlikely not to have heard about these problems and not to know the dangers they pose in the Krasnodar region and especially on the Black Sea coast. If “freedom” does not provide for responsibility and public order, it necessarily leads to anarchy and crime. This universal philosophical truth is supported not only by numerous historical facts, but also by everyday life of Novorossiysk, of all the cities of Krasnodar region. Has Mr. V.E. Karastelev thought about it when he put forth the slogan“Freedom is not given, it is taken”? If he knew about it and acted knowingly, this act can be regarded as intended to undermine the moral foundations of society.

Fifthly, from the standpoint of modern philosophy and theory of justice, a call for “taking” freedom signifies the priority of individual rights over the state.
    At the same time, if an individual wishes to “take” for himself more freedom than is allowed by the state or its agencies, in this case the Legislative Assembly of Krasnodar region, it signifies the priority of the individual, not only over the state, but also over the society. Would the state, acting on behalf of the society, consent to the free existence of such an individual? It is clear that a State may, at the very least, warn such an individual of the illegitimacy of the slogan calling for freedom to be “take”. Consciously or not, Mr. V.E. Karastelev, in putting forward the slogan “Freedom is not given, it is taken”, serves the interests of those who wish to undermine the socio-political system of modern Russia.

Associate Professor of Kuban State University at Gelendzhik, V.A. Rybnikov, PhD.

Vadim Karastelev’s slogan echoes the combative demon of Charles Baudelaire:

Celui-là seul est l’égal d’un autre, qui le prouve, et celui-là seul est digne de la liberté, qui sait la conquérir.
Only he is the equal of another, who proves it, and only he is worthy of liberty, who can conquer it.

In his turn, Baudelaire drew upon Goethe’s Faust calling for free humanity jointly creating universal welfare in a free society:

Ja! diesem Sinne bin ich ganz ergeben, 
das ist der Weisheit letzter Schluß: 
Nur der verdient sich Freiheit wie das Leben,
der täglich sie erobern muß.

This is the final product of my strife,
The greatest wisdom mankind ever knew:
He only earns his freedom and his life, 
Who boldly conquers them each day anew.

The Faustian maxim is infinitely malleable, lending itself as the populist motto for the National Socialism of Alfred Rosenberg, the Marxism of Ernst Thälmann, and the dissident humanism of Andrei Sakharov. May it serve as the battle cry for the advent of freedom in Russia.

сообщение для бликсофанаточек

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:42:27 GMT

mutter_nacht:
Сообщение для бликсофанаточек. Смотрите, какой лол: у Зеленого еще не прошел баттхерт. Блиа, уже десять лет прошло, пора бы успокоиться уже…

larvatus:
Сообщение для бликсофанаточек. Смотрите, какой лол:
    Уж лучше смотрите сюда.

mutter_nacht:
о, вы еще и мониторите ссылки на свою жежешечку, я в восторге.
    так забавно, что есть люди, которых настолько сильно волнуют отношения Бликсы и Эрин. они прям таки как настоящие звезды, которых знают чуть больше, чем три с половиной человека.
    меня волнует вопрос: почему “blood money from Min” и почему Эрин “chose the career path of a professional victim”? она выдумала всю эту историю? потому что в ином случае я не вижу причин, почему вы осуждаете ее, а не ее семью. не то чтобы я была фанаточкой Эрин, совсем наоборот даже, но ваша ненависть мне тоже как-то не совсем понятна.

larvatus:
Не путайте презрение с ненавистью. Какой вменяемый человек сможет ненавидеть такое ничтожество? Насчёт пожизненного заклада девического влагалища, скажу лишь, что у его владелицы когда-то наблюдались другие профессиональные возможности.

mutter_nacht:
вменяемый человек не уделяет столько внимания презираемому объекту, вам не кажется? вас волнуют упущенные провессиональные возможности владелицы влагалища? какая вам разница? что плохого в том, что она потребовала компенсацию за подобное обращение с собой? насиловать собственных детей - это же как-то ненормально вроде, а из от ваших постов создается впечатление, что вы больше сочувствуете отцу Эрин, чем ей самой.

larvatus:
Представьте себе, что у Вас имеется пенис, малолетнее дитя, и амбиция приобретения астрономического состояния. Представили? А теперь задайте себе вопрос, станете ли Вы при этих условиях совать первое во второе, ставя под угрозу достижение третьего. Я всё это к тому, что где у батюшки непреодолимое влечение, там у доченьки трезвый расчёт.

mutter_nacht:
какие-то взаимоисключающие параграфы
    Представили? А теперь задайте себе вопрос, станете ли Вы при этих условиях совать первое во второе, ставя под угрозу достижение третьего.
    ну. я бы не стала. и любой нормальный человек тоже не стал бы, даже если исключить из задачи третье.
    где у батюшки непреодолимое влечение
    то есть, батюшка все же стал. я не понимаю: насильника должно оправдывать то, что его влечение было непреодолимым и то, что он многим рисковал?
    или все же никто ничего никуда не совал? тогда я не понимаю, к чему здесь фраза про непреодолимое влечение.
    или если Эрин на самом деле не испытывает ужасных душевных мук из-за этого изнасилования, она вообще должна про него забыть и никому не рассказывать?

larvatus:
По закону, трезвый расчёт в составе преступления осуждается строже, чем импульсивное и непреодолимое влечение.

mutter_nacht:
конечно. но мне кажется, что изнасилование собственного ребенка и отсуживание денег у изнасиловавшего отца — это преступления разного порядка, разной тяжести. и изнасилование здесь более тяжкое. я вообще не понимаю, о чем мы здесь спорим, это же изнасилование собственного несовершеннолетнего ребенка. вы его предлагаете оправдывать как “просто папа очень любит тебя”?

larvatus:
Я никого не оправдываю, и «humani nihil a me alienum puto», но трезвый расчёт в долгосрочном злоупотреблении своими доброжелателями мне менее понятен, чем импульсивное и непреодолимое влечение к ебле своей дочки.

alice_yustas_r:

larvatus:
с точностью до наоборот:
Pedicabo ego illos et irrumabo.

alice_yustas_r:
Re: с точностью до наоборот:
Катулл плачет кровавыми слезами и вертится в гробу(

mutter_nacht:
Re: с точностью до наоборот:
ваше поведение очень любопытно. я, конечно, понимаю, что женщина, для которой вы так много сделали, оставила вас ради какого-то сомнительного престарелого транса, который интересуется только ее деньгами, и у которого, к тому же, уже и не стоит (по вашему утверждению). понятно, что это обидно и бесит. но через десять лет продолжать обсуждать эту историю, да еще и заходить в журналы фанаточек Нойбаутен и доказывать, какое Бликса говно… это уже слишком. я не понимаю, чего вы хотите добиться? чтобы весь мир разделял ваше презрение к Жу и Баргельду? ваш эпический пост с письмами все заинтересованные уже давно прочитали и сделали выводы. или не сделали, потому что лично мне все равно, что у Эрин было тяжелое детство и деревянные игрушки, прибитые к полу, и каким именно образом она получила свои деньги. потому что для меня есть конечный результат: музыка Нойбаутен. я знаю, что без Эрин Нойбаутен уже давно не существовали бы. и что она позволяет делать им то, что они хотят, а не то, что хорошо продается. если для этого Бликса должен буквально продавать себя (я ему, конечно, сочувствую), но если он считает это приемлемым для себя, то это его дело.

larvatus:
Re: с точностью до наоборот:
Вы ничего не понимаете. Меня никто не оставлял ради какого-то сомнительного престарелого транса. Начиная с 1997 года, у меня с нынешней «мадам Деньжат» были сугубо дружеские и деловые отношения. Следующие два года она проживала в моём доме вместе со своим бойфрендом и его зловонными кисками. Более того, в конце 1999 года, она слёзно выпросила у меня и у моей семьи материальную помощь и моральную поддержку для домогательств в адрес Вашего героя и для извлечения компенсации за злоебучесть из её детоёбного батюшки. В то же самое время, она безвозвратно позаимствовала всё, что смогла у наших общих друзей. За все эти заботы они получили хуй на палочке, а я заимел сверхнаглый наезд от её родителей и их многомиллиардной корпорации. Предлагаю переосмыслить Ваши понятия в свете этой информации.
    Что же касается Вашего конечного музыкального результата, все люди вправе делать то, что они хотят, а не то, что хорошо продается. Именно на этих основаниях я совершаю свой собственный сверхнаглый наезд на крупнейшую компанию венчурного капитала и сопряжённых лизоблюдов и психопатов. В этом заключается мой собственный перформанс. Мне очень жаль, что он Вам не по душе, но я представляю его совсем не ради Вас

mutter_nacht:
Re: с точностью до наоборот:
мы вот тут втроем прочитали эту вашу историю и не поняли: зачем позволять кому-то пользоваться собой, а потом страдать из-за этого? вы тоже старательно изображаете из себя жертву. в свете представленной выше информации я все равно не понимаю, почему нужно продолжать даже через 10 лет продолжать писать в интернете пространные высеры на эту тему.
     Мне очень жаль, что он Вам не по душе, но я представляю его совсем не ради Вас
    наверное, именно поэтому вы пишете уже пятнадцатый комментарий в моем блоге.

larvatus:
Re: с точностью до наоборот:
Позволю себе напомнить Вам моё предложение представить себе, что у Вас имеется пенис. Из этой предпосылки проистекут дополнительные возможности межличностных сношений. Иначе говоря, Ваша пассивная позиция бликсофанаточки дополнится хотя бы умозрительно активной ролью заядлого прорывателя. Как сказано выше, pedicabo ego illos et irrumabo.
    А насчёт «ради кого», Вам сюда.

frequently asked questions

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:31:54 GMT

Q: Who are you?

A: I am the owner of this tribute to Subrah Iyar and his friends. My name is Michael Zeleny. I was born on 26 February 1958 in Moscow. I was raised in Odessa, attending High School No. 116, appearing on the stage of the Opera Theater, and winning the regional Olympiads in mathematics and physics for three years in a row. My family followed me out of the U.S.S.R. in 1977. Since then I have lived in Rome, Chicago, New York City, Cambridge, and Los Angeles. I attended U.C.L.A. between 1986 and 1990 and graduated from Harvard in 1993 with a degree in formal philosophy and assorted humanities. I co-edited a collection of papers in memory of Alonzo Church and serve as an editor of his Collected Works. I am a lumpen-intellectual Usenetter designated as a Net legend in the category of Lesser Lights. My pedantic humor is collected in a LiveJournal blog. My assault philosophy has caused the allegedly voluntary exile from the U.S.A. of incestuous child rapist Min Zhu, co-founder and former President and CTO of WebEx, and father of my former partner in business and romance, Erin Zhu, who is currently married to Blixa Bargeld, the leader of German pop group Einstürzende Neubauten. You are faced with my performance.

Q: What have you got against Min Zhu, his family and friends, and his company WebEx?

A: A company that I founded and operated with Erin Zhu did business with the rest of the Zhu family and their ventures since before their founding of WebEx Communications, an online conferencing company. In 1999 New Enterprise Associates, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm, funded WebEx, which was eventually acquired by Cisco for $3.2 billion. Min Zhu, the founder of WebEx, remains listed on the NEA roster as a "Senior Venture Advisor". His company, Cybernaut Education, collaborates with his wife Susan Xu co-founder of WebEx and enabler of his rape of their daughter, in operating private schools in California and Canada. Min’s yearning for fresh meat continues unabated.
In 2001, after my partner Erin Zhu stole the stock shares that WebEx owed to my company, I asked its CEO Subrah Iyar to set matters right. In response, I received anonymous death threats made in the names and on the behalves of Min Zhu and WebEx. The language of these threats echoed the terms with which Min Zhu had indimidated his fourteen-year-old daughter Erin into yielding to his sexual advances thirteen years earlier. After I filed my lawsuit, the Zhus’ lawyer, who had previously represented Min Zhu and Susan Xu against their daughter’s claim for childhood sexual abuse, threatened me with the destruction of people’s lives. Three years later, while my lawsuit was pending, my father Isaak, plaintiff in a related lawsuit against Erin Zhu, was killed by an apartment fire. I hired a retired LAFD captain to investigate the cause and origins of this fire. He told me that it appears to have started in several places.
After my father’s death I went public with my story. On May Day of 2005 I staged a protest at the WebEx User Conference in San Francisco. In response, WebEx shut down its conference and announced Min Zhu’s “retirement” and departure for China. Several months later, NEA’s General Partner Scott Sandell funded Min Zhu’s new business in his homeland. Min Zhu continues to work for WebEx under the table. That is what I am protesting with my personal appearances and this website.

Q: Why should we believe that Min Zhu or WebEx threatened your life? Aren’t you making it up to make your “enemy” seem evil?

A: The death threats made against me in the names and on the behalves of Min Zhu and WebEx since 25 December 2001 have been independently witnessed and well documented. Their documentation sufficed for Judge Adajian of Los Angeles Superior Court to acquit me on 11 April 2003 of weapons carry charges on the grounds of necessity, in a bench trial of case No. 2CR11665. In accounting for his acquittal, he said about me: “I think he had a good-faith belief in the threat. He did go to the police. He did do the right thing.” That is the only kind of credibility that I care to project.

Q: So your “assault philosophy” involves publicizing unsavory rumors about the Zhus and their entourage? Why are you doing that?

A: Because everything I say is true and readily verifiable, and because all facts that involve human rights deserve publicity.

Q: Even if the outrageous claims that you make here are true, how can you justify making all these scandals public?

A: If I had no legs and a place to go, I would hope for someone unencumbered by my handicap to help me in reaching my destination. If I had no shame and a cause for remorse, I would hope for someone unencumbered by my handicap to help me in making my contrition. As I hope to get, so I give.

Q: So you are a chumped ex-boyfriend posting this naked picture of Erin Zhu to shame her? Shame on you!

A: Therein lies a tail. For three years prior to the time that picture was taken, Erin and I had been nothing but friends and business partners. Most of the interim she spent sharing my living quarters with her boyfriend Brannon Wright and his stinky kitties, fantasizing about the business we were always about to build together. The picture shows her on the road, engaged in the twin pursuits of “cold cash”, true love of Bargeld and fuck-you money of her parents, funded by loans from my father and our friends. The camera that she holds in her hands belonged to our company, and Erin returned it with the photo inside, just before she welshed on her loans. I concluded that she wanted to share, and I am sharing alike.

Q: So you hate her for cheating you more than you hate her father for threatening your life?

A: Do not mistake contempt for hatred. I hate neither of them. That said, I have more understanding for a crime of passion than I do for cold-blooded fraud. A child rapist acting on impulse retains more humanity than the victim who uses her childhood suffering as a setup for a serial con. But a man who rapes his own child commingles fraud with sexual violence by exploiting his authority as a parent. Notably, around these parts, it is possible for a well-seasoned man to use his position of power and authority in foisting himself upon a thirteen year-old without committing “rape-rape”. In the final analysis, it is not my position to judge Oriental child-rearing techniques. All I am after is just amends for offenses visited upon me by the Zhus and their entourage.

Q: But why do you bring in Blixa Bargeld? We don’t care that his art is funded by Erin’s blood money. We just want to listen to his music, which only she made possible.

A: You are as free to listen to anything you want, as Bargeld is, to produce it to your liking. This is my performance. Unlike Erin and her consort, I am not reaching into anyone else’s pocket to fund it. If they had wanted to keep their funding private, they shouldn’t have involved my family and friends in it. As Immanuel Kant quipped: “All actions relating to the right of other human beings are wrong if their maxim is incompatible with publicity.”

Q: Wasn’t your lawsuit was settled to your satisfaction? If so, why do you carry on your vindictive crusade?

A: I never settled any claims against Min Zhu, Susan Xu, or WebEx. Aside from that, American courts are loath to deal in moral satisfaction. The individuals who betrayed my trust and made terrorist threats against me and my family have an outstanding opportunity to perform an act of contrition. Unless and until that contrition takes place, I am determined to shame them by all legitimate means at my disposal.

Q: But why not let it go, relax, and be free?

A: I am free here and now. Standing up to the powers that be is what got me here in the first instance, so the rest of my life must warrant that choice one way or another. As another alumnus of my alma mater put it, “there is some shit I will not eat”. In game-theoretic terms, players with pure strategies can be hawks always fighting to prevail over their opponents, at the risk of suffering injury to themselves, or doves merely displaying their colors but never engaging in real fights. Neither strategy is optimal, because hawks tend to suffer more damage than necessary, whereas doves tend to forgo too much of the available resources to more aggressive competitors. But a mixed strategy can trump hawks and doves alike. One such strategy is that of a bourgeois making like a hawk with respect to any contest in which he is the owner, and making like a dove with respect to any contest in which he is the intruder. A bourgeois population cannot be invaded by hawks or doves because its members avoid more damaging encounters than the pure hawks and win more lucrative encounters than pure doves. As an anarchist, I have little sympathy for bourgeois values. But I have no trouble making like the owner of my life against any intruder who would pose a credible threat to it. That is the kind of shit I will not eat.

Q: Don’t you have anything better to do with your life than fomenting this negativity?

A: I understand my opportunity costs and actual prospects, and plan my actions accordingly. In my thesis, I argued against John Rawls postulating a linear scale of primary human goods. I believe that human preferences cannot be so ordered. This lack can be illustrated by comparing three principal causes of quarrel that Hobbes found in the nature of man: first, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. As Hobbes observes: “The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation.” There is no reason to assume, and no ground to conclude, that gain, safety, and reputation can be served simultaneously, to the same extent. On the contrary, wealth and fame go hand in hand with exposure to the assaults and depredations of the envious, whereas a primary concern for safety debars the timid from taking risks required for attaining wealth and fame. In turn, servility of the greedy often parts ways with flattery of the vain, as the currency prized on Wall Street differs from the kudos sought in Hollywood. The existence and nature of these differences can be shown with the greatest clarity by interrogating vital preferences under extreme circumstances. When I told my thesis examiners of my confidence in empirical confirmation, they challenged me by pointing out that effective experiments in vital human preferences under extreme circumstances would be debarred by ethical considerations. So here I am handed a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity pose an exclusive choice between mutually incompatible goods of greed and vanity to eminently deserving experimental subjects. What’s not to like?

Q: How can you stage your public protests on private property?

My associates and I exercise a right to free expression on private property readily accessible to general public, pursuant to the rulings in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) and progeny. It is our belief that the strip of private property directly in front of the main entrances to the sites of our protests falls within the purview of Pruneyard in virtue of housing several unrelated businesses and being readily accessible to the general public. My associates and I are pledged to abide by all applicable laws. Our prior events since May of 2005 were unmarked by any disturbances, and we hope that the same will be the case in all future jurisdictions. We intend to enforce our right to free expression to the full extent of the law, against any illegal infringement. We do not interfere in any way with the operation of the businesses located at the sites of our protests, or any of their employees, associates, or visitors, including, but not limited to, their intended subjects. Concerned parties may address their communications to my lawyer David W. Affeld, 12400 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1180, Los Angeles CA 90025, phone: (310) 979-8700, fax: (310) 979-8701. I may be reached at 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046, phone: (323) 363-1860.

Q: But why do you carry a gun while protesting?

A: Because I am protesting death threats against me and my family. And because I can. “You can get further with a kind word and a gun than you can with just a kind word.”

Q: Your armed protests may result in legal repercussions against other gun owners. How can you put your own interest in futile tilting at windmills above the common good?

A: That is not how I see it. I am putting my Constitutional rights ahead of other people’s wishes. This sort of arrangement is implicit in the very nature of rights and wishes. Contrariwise, I would never put my wishes ahead of other people’s rights. Men need no special justification to look out for their interests within the bounds of their rights. I never claimed to speak on anyone else’s behalf or dictate anyone else’s course of action. I will not suffer anyone debarring me from lawful conduct, directing my personal efficiency, or posing as my spokesman for the common good. My public performance has caused a child rapist to get fired from the company that he founded and flee the United States. I claim that this alone makes my country a better place.

Q: Is the exercise of Constitutional rights just about you? Isn’t it about us?

A: This is a catchy Communist slogan. I am also a communist, of the Platonic variety. The day science discovers a formula for calculating the immanent value of labor, is the day I shall endorse the revival of Gosplan, expropriation of the expropriators, and submission of every individual will to the common good. Till then I shall persevere in my naive loyalty to our Constitution and grudging deference to the despotism of marginal utility.

Q: We cannot find any media coverage of your alleged exploits. Why should we believe you?

A: The press sucks up to wealth and power. But the facts speak for themselves. Stephanie Downs, scheduled to speak at the 2005 WebEx User Conference in San Francisco, has reported its cancellation in response to my protest. Look here for WebEx’s SEC filing of Min Zhu’s resignation, dated 16 May 2005. You can connect the dots.

Q: Aren’t you taking your grudge too far?

A: I reserve the right to be the sole judge of how far to take my grudges within the bounds of law.

Q: Even if you have that right, this is not a matter of life or death, is it? Or are you claiming to be in fear of your life?

A: My father was killed by an apartment fire that appears to have started in several places. But that evidence is inconclusive. I wish it were dispositive one way or another. Unfortunately, that is not the case. As for the threats against me and my family made in the names and on the behalves of Min Zhu and WebEx, I cannot think of any moral inhibitions that might hamper the man capable of serially raping his fourteen-year-old daughter. If Min thinks that he can get away with any wrongdoing in the furtherance of his will, nothing will hold him back.

Q: So what do you stand to gain by your protests?

A: A heartfelt apology from each of my offenders, delivered before a judge.

Q: What if they refuse to apologize?

A: Shame is a powerful tool. The law affords me no lack of venues for shaming my adversaries into performing a genuine act of contrition. Expect to hear my name in the dying breath of each of them that fails to do so.

Q: You are a whiny assclown. Why bother with all this verbiage?

A: Even whiny assclowns have their rights. You should be grateful to me for not allowing them to wither away.

r.i.p., c. l.-s.

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:20:41 GMT

De la constellation initiale du poème, formée par les amoureux et les savants, les chats permettent, par leur médiation, d’éliminer la femme, laissant face à face—sinon même confondus—“le poète des Chats”, libéré de l’amour “bien restreint”, et l’univers, délivré de l’austérité du savant.

The cats, by their mediation, permit the removal of woman from the initial assemblage formed by lovers and scholars. The poet of “Les Chats,” liberated from love “bien petit, bien restreint,” meets face to face and perhaps even blends with the universe, delivered from the scholar’s austerity.

—Roman Jakobson, Claude Lévi-Strauss, “« Les Chats » de Charles Baudelaire”, L’Homme, 1962, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 5-21, at p. 21

integrity and blame

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:27:51 GMT

Howard M. Kaminsky of 6130 Ridge Lane, Ocean Ridge, Florida 33435 writes in a letter to the TLS regarding Bernard Wasserstein’s Commentary on Hannah Arendt:

As for his charges relating to Arendt’s use of Nazi authors and her inadequate love of the Jewish people, I admit, Jew that I am, to believing that some Nazi authors had important things to say not unrelated to their Nazism, above all the viciously anti-Semitic but incomparably brilliant Carl Schmitt (whom Arendt used even more than she says), and I also believe that Jews have created gentile hostility by demanding equal rights but refusing to surrender their ethnic integrity. Books have been written about this by a number of authors who are not overtly anti-Semitic—e.g. Kevin MacDonald and Albert Lindemann—and Arendt’s analysis of Jewish “responsibility” for anti-Semitism can hardly be dismissed as due to her “perverse world-view”, let alone her “combination of ira et studio [sic]”.

Setting aside the insinuation of covert anti-Semitism, the notion of the Jews having created gentile hostility by demanding equal rights but refusing to surrender their ethnic integrity is baffling. Is it likewise possible to blame women for having created male hostility by demanding equal rights but refusing to surrender their sexual integrity? For that matter, is it possible to blame any man for having elicited the hostility of his peers by demanding equal rights but refusing to surrender his personal integrity? If the claim is that ethnic descent or religious confession are somehow unlike biological sex and personal identity in their moral implications, why is that the case, and how so?

susan xu, stanford mom

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:12:17 GMT

WANTED: SUSAN XU

CHILD RAPE TOOL

WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOUR HUSBAND
BRUTALLY RAPED YOUR DAUGHTER?

[ ] REPORT HIM TO THE POLICE
[ ] REFER HIM TO A PSYCHIATRIST
[ ] WALK OUT AND NEVER SEE HIM AGAIN
[ ] PRETEND THAT NOTHING HAPPENED
[ ] TALK HER INTO ACCEPTING HIS RAPE
[ ] PAY HER A FORTUNE IN HUSH MONEY

CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

tool, n. “A person used by another for his own ends; one who is, or allows himself to be, made a mere instrument for some purpose; a cat’s-paw.” (The Oxford English Dictionary)

She shouldered the responsibilities of bringing up her children and supporting her husband Min Zhu to study in the top university of The United States—Stanford University in early 80s; and in 90s, she and her husband founded WebEx in Silicon Valley and successful made it come into the market in the Nasdaq.The company was purchased by the world’s giant—Cisco in 3.2 billion dollars in 2007, and she is a veritable “Female President of Silicon Valley.” She trained her son Lei Zhu who was sent to the young class in Tsinghua University without examination when he was 14-year-old, and then Lei Zhu was admitted to the trump department of Stanford University—Computer Department when he was 15-year-old and became the youngest student ever. She also sent her daughter and daughter-in-law to Stanford Business School. Her family members are all Stanford students, and she became a well-deserved “Stanford Mom.”

Thus Susan Yuqing Xu advertises herself to the families of prospective students of her Dwight International School. Her real story is somewhat different. Thus writes her daughter Erin Zhu:

Crossing the busy streets of Hong Kong the other day, my mother held on to my hand, a gesture that reversed roles we’d played so long ago. She trusts me, her estranged and prodigal daughter, to guide her safely around the reckless vehicles, I think to myself, and am strangely touched by the thought. I had never been particularly close to my mother; growing up she had always openly favored my brother, and had little patience or affection for me. It was only after I’d left home and became a grown woman that she started making overtures of friendship. To think that we had to come half a world away to renew the tenuous ties of blood between us…

It surprises me still, how much I want her to at least accept me and approve of what I do, even after all these years when I told myself that I did not care.

She and I sat in the dark watching the glittering Hong Kong skyline, and spoke of our disparate rememberances of the past. Left unspoken between us was the fact that neither of us could think of any happy memories of my childhood. She told stories of me as a baby; I told her small pieces of triumph from my more recent past; the long years that stretched between age three through sixteen went untouched, bypassed with a shake of the head and mutterings of “there were historical reasons”…

— Erin Zhu to Blixa Bargeld, 25 Nov 99 20:14:42 PST

the summer when I was fourteen, my father suddenly changed his tune when my mother left for an extended visit to China. he took off my clothes, praised my naked form held up to a bathroom mirror, and devoured my body with his lust.

I wanted to die; I tried to kill. I did not succeed in either.

— Erin Zhu to Blixa Bargeld, 27 Dec 99 13:40:45 PST

According to Erin Zhu’s complaint for childhood sexual abuse, which can be seen in Santa Clara Superior Court in case number CV-809286, throughout July of 1988, when her mother Susan Xu went back to China for eye treatment, her father came to her bedroom and raped her. At the time of Erin’s sexual assault by her father, her brother Lei Zhu, a Stanford sophomore, remained in his bedroom next door and heard her struggle and cry out, but did nothing. After Erin ran away from her family home in December of 1989, and made a police report complaining about sexual abuse and beatings by Min Zhu, the police placed her in a foster home in San Mateo. Min Zhu and Susan Xu then persuaded Erin to drop her criminal charges against her father and to come back home. As an incentive for her to comply with their request, her parents pledged to cease their old family ways. However, Min Zhu resumed physical and verbal abuse of his family members shortly thereafter. According to Erin, her mother Susan Xu knew about her rape and beatings by Min Zhu but did nothing to protect her. According to Erin, a year later Lei Zhu propositioned her while they shared a hotel room during a trip to San Diego. After Erin turned down her brother’s sexual advances, Lei pointed his penis towards her and masturbated in her plain view.

Instead of walking out on her Stanford-educated, child-molesting husband, Susan went in business with Min. Their startup, WebEx Communications, entered in a joint venture with a company owned by their daughter jointly with Michael Zeleny. When WebEx reneged on its contractual duties, Erin chose the career path of a professional victim by making a belated claim for childhood sexual abuse against her parents. Min and Susan paid off their daughter under the table in order to circumvent her 2.5% contingency fee arrangement with her lawyer, David W. Affeld. Affeld had to sue the Zhus to recover his fee. For his part, Zeleny attempted to settle their dispute by contacting its CEO Subrah Iyar. At that time, Min acted as its President and CTO, wile Susan was its Chief of Operations. WebEx’s next operation comprised death threats made against Zeleny. These threats echoed the language that Min Zhu had used to elicit sexual submission of his fourteen year-old daughter. As a result of the ensuing publicity, Min Zhu left his company and fled the United States. WebEx’s related operation, aimed at judicial silencing of Zeleny, ended in its paying his attorney’s fees and dropping its libel claims.

In addition to running Dwight International School in Victoria, the capital of British Columbia, Canada, Min Zhu and Susan Xu are operating middle and high schools under the auspices of Valley International Academy in Sunnyvale and Atherton, California. Now that their Stanford-branded offspring has flown the coop, Min and Susan have plenty of nubile flesh at hand to lavish their charitable urges.

Susan Xu is a veritable “Female President of Silicon Valley” and a well-deserved “Stanford Mom”. Think twice before putting your kids in her care.

CHILD RAPISTS AND THEIR ENABLERS
HAVE NO PLACE IN AMERICAN SCHOOLS

Write to Valley Academy!

hannah arendt’s wrinkled cunt rides again

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:38:11 GMT

“Will we ever be able to think of Hannah Arendt in the same way again?”
—Ron Rosenbaum, “The Evil of Banality: Troubling new revelations about Arendt and Heidegger”, Slate, Friday, 30 October 2009, 12:37 PM ET

Path: gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc8.harvard.edu!zeleny
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,alt.philosophy.objectivism,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.conspiracy,alt.peeves,alt.fondle.vomit,rec.arts.books
Subject: Hannah Arendt's Wrinkled Cunt (was re: PHILOSOPHIC CHALLENGE!)
Message-ID: <1993Aug15.021429.27261@husc14.harvard.edu>
From: zeleny@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Date: 15 Aug 93 02:14:28 EDT
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.meta,talk.philosophy.misc,rec.arts.books
References: <1993Aug12.142454.29544@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
<1993Aug13.153916.27201@husc14.harvard.edu> <13AUG199323480156@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
Nntp-Posting-Host: husc8.harvard.edu
Lines: 103

In article <13AUG199323480156@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>
kressja@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes:

>In article <1993Aug13.153916.27201@husc14.harvard.edu>,
>zeleny@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>>In article <12AUG199321221266@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>
>>kressja@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes:

>>>Surely you must have gathered the irony with which Arendt treats the subject
>>>of Eichmann's "Kantianism." It is quite a striking instance of the larger
>>>phenomenon which she called the "banality of evil": Eichmann was so thick,
>>>so unable to grasp his own situation, that he could act as he did, commit the
>>>atrocities that he did--and at the same time think himself a moral man!
>>>Eichmann's claim to be a Kantian strikes us as amazing not because Kant's
>>>thought could ever justify Eichmann's actions, but because Eichmann seems to
>>>have actually believed that he was acting in such a way.

>>I doubt that Arendt would know irony, as distinguished from weary
>>sarcasm or her trademark impotent indignation, if it jammed its
>>probing appendage up her dried-up and wrinkled cunt. Moreover, to
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I had thought that you were offering Arendt's
>report of Eichmann to help further the philosophical debate. I see now
>that you had no pretensions to philosophical, or polite, or even human
>discourse. Why are you on this board then? If you don't have anything
>better to do than spit sexist, sopomoric, anti-semetic bile, then I
>cordially invite you to go away, and not trouble us.

What philosophical debate? Do you truly have the naivety required to
dignify the borborygmic exchange of pleasantries between my esteemed
predecessors with that lofty appellation? Still, you are quite right,
-- I have absolutely no pretensions to any sort of "discourse".
Instead, I come here only to speak my mind, and, on occasion, to vent
my spleen. Should you choose to follow up my uncouth expression with
an effort of your own, I offer no guarantees to reply you in kind,
whatever it might be. As regards your charges, I plead guilty on all
counts: sexist and sophomoric and anti-semitic enough to be amused by
the unmitigated schlockiness and banality of an up and coming Jewish
philosophy student advancing her academic career in the traditional
fashion, by fucking her "Blood and Soil" proto-Nazi professor, or by
the unbridled presumption evinced by the same woman three decades
later, in assuming the high moral ground and publishing her scathing
condemnation of the banal, cowardly, and altogether scrofulous
victims, perpetrators, and bystanders in the greatest mass murder in
the human history, ever so nicely typeset on glossy paper, between
full-color advertisements of Steuben crystal, Tiffany jewels, and
Mercedes automobiles. Surely the redoubtable Miss Arendt had earned
the right to advance her career by the customary means; and if in the
midst of unprecedented pan-European carnage that claimed the lives of
twenty million men (including half of my immediate family), and
prompted a like number (including the rest of my kin), man and woman
alike, to take up arms against the oft-unwitting, yet exceedingly
enthusiastic followers of Herr Rektor's snazzy philosophical doctrine,
our intrepid heroine chose to sit out the hostilities in the cushy
haven of the American academe, no one should construe her reticence to
risk her own hide as abridging her subsequent right to decry from her
tony tribune the shameful shortcomings of her contemporaries on both
sides of the great conflict. Mea culpa.

>>dare call evil banal would seem to require an extraordinary degree of
>>moral obtuseness and even obliviousness.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>It would seem that you lack the basic capacity for self-reflection.

Fer sure, whatever you say, bubba.

>>I submit that Baudelaire is
>>a truer and harsher moralist than any boring, anomic Jewish bourgeois
>>Nazi-fucker. As for the question of "us" being struck by Eichmann's
>>attempt at self-vindication, I see it as no more amazing than the far
>>greater carnage perpetrated by the soi-disant Christians throughout
>>the past two millenia in the name of their creed. Are you prepared to
>>judge religion and morality by the actions of their self-professed
>>followers, or would you rather attempt a transcendental deduction of
>>their intrinsic merits? Please justify your answer.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>I feel little need to justify myself to you, at this point.

Please do not flatter yourself by presuming that I stand in need of
your self-justification.

> Since you
>seem to need something to do with your time, however, you might look up
>the Fallacy of Composition and the Genetic Fallacy.

I might do just that, but for the fact that neither of the above is
instantiated in anything that has been said earlier.

>>cordially,
> ^^^^^^^^^

>Hardly.

You are mistaken.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."

“…the true path to uber trolling lies in the careful study of Mikhail Zeleny.
His 1993 masterpiece, Hannah Arendt’s Wrinkled Cunt, was a milestone. Truly a Russian-American icon!”
—posted by cr8dle2grave on Fri Oct 06, 2006 at 02:52:27 PM EST

assclowns and technocrats

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:59:31 GMT

Open Carry and Personal Agenda

My name is Michael Zeleny. I am standing in the courtyard of New Enterprise Associates, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm. I have a 6" S&W Registered Magnum at my right side and three speedloaders in my left pocket. This is my story.

My company did business with the Zhu family and their ventures since before their founding of WebEx Communications, an online conferencing company. NEA funded WebEx, which was eventually acquired by Cisco. Min Zhu, the founder of WebEx, remains listed on the NEA roster as a "Senior Venture Advisor". In 2001, after WebEx breached its obligations to my company, I asked their CEO Subrah Iyar to set matters right. In response, I received anonymous death threats in in the names and on the behalves of Min Zhu and WebEx. The language of these threats echoed the terms with which Min Zhu had indimidated his fourteen-year-old daughter Erin into yielding to his sexual advances thirteen years earlier. After I filed my lawsuit, the Zhus' lawyer, who had previously represented the parents against their daughter's claim for childhood sexual abuse, threatened me with the destruction of people's lives. Three years later, my father Isaak, plaintiff in a related lawsuit, was killed by an apartment fire. I hired a retired LAFD captain to investigate the cause and origins of this fire. He told me that it appears to have started in several places.

On May Day of 2005 I went public with my story at the WebEx User Conference in San Francisco. In response, WebEx shut down its conference and announced Min Zhu's retirement and departure for China. Several months later, NEA's General Partner Scott Sandell funded Min Zhu's new business in his homeland. That is what I am protesting today. You can find the details in my blog.

I have read your responses to my performance. I am amused and delighted by their range and tenor. I am unconcerned about being hit with a dead fish or a slab of bacon. I have been hit with worse. What concerns me is some of you claiming that my actions are causing damage to our cause. I claim a common cause of protecting my Constitutional rights. I also claim a personal interest in protecting myself and my family against unlawful threats. Since when do legitimate defensive actions taken in the furtherance of an individual interest stand at odds with the common Constitutional cause?
__________________
cordially, -- Michael Zeleny@post.harvard.edu
7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046 -- 323.363.1860 -- http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
All of old. Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better. -- Samuel Beckett

short shameful confession

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 07:02:14 GMT

I like my kike kayak.^∗,†,‡

Footnotes:

^∗ The political slogan “I like Ike” [ay layk ayk], succinctly structured, consists of three monosyllables and counts three diphthongs [ay], each of them symmetrically followed by one consonantal phoneme, [..l..k..k]. The setup of the three words shows a variation: no consonantal phonemes in the first word, two around the diphthong in the second, and one final consonant in the third. Both cola of the trisyllabic formula “I like/Ike” rhyme with each other, and the second of the two rhyming words is fully included in the first one (echo rhyme), [layk]—[ayk], a paronomastic image of a feeling which totally envelops its object. Both cola alliterate with each other, and the first of the two alliterating words is included in the second: [ay]—[ayk], a paronomastic image of the loving subject enveloped by the beloved object. The secondary, poetic function of this electional catchphrase reinforces its impressiveness and efficacy.
—Roman Jakobson, “Metalanguage as a Linguistic Problem”, Presidential Address, Linguistic Society of America, 27 December 1956; reprinted in Selected Writings, Vol. VII, Contributions to Comparative Mythology: Studies in Linguistics and Philology, edited by Stephen Rudy, Mouton de Gruyter, 1982, p. 116

^† A horn blared way too loud. Crutch opened his eyes. Shit—there’s Phil’s pet shyster, Chick Weiss.
    With his kike-kayak Cadillac. With his frizzy-ass hairdo and his British fop suit. With his fucked-up Caribbean-art fixation.
    Weiss said, “I got a fruit gig for you. The guy likes to brown well-hung Filipinos, and I got a mutant packing 10½ inches. The wife wants a divorce, and who can blame her?”
    —James Ellroy, Blood’s a Rover‎, Random House, 2009, p. 26

The old man wiped his nose-picking finger on the wall. “I can tell conversation ain’t your strong suit. Doc Katz was catching, only a snootful of juice caught him. Now he’s catching a few winks in that kike kayak of his. How come the hebes all drive Cadillacs? You’re a detective, you got an answer for that?
—James Ellroy, The Big Nowhere‎, The Mysterious Press, 1988, p. 8

^‡ His U-Drive clunker was at the curb a half block south of Sunset. The haberdashery lot was packed with Jew canoes and guinea gunboats; one sentry was stationed by the front door shooing away customers; the man by the back door looked half asleep, sitting in a chair catching a full blast of late-morning sun.
—James Ellroy, The Big Nowhere‎, The Mysterious Press, 1988, p. 401

“I thought a Jew would want a Cadillac at least,” Sonny McDonough said. “A Jew canoe, that’s what they call a Cadillac, you know.”
    “Oh, that’s grand, Sonny”, Dan T. Campion said. “A Jew canoe.”
    “It’ll be a coon quarterback next,” Sonny McDonough said. “You mark my words. There’s eleven Protestants on the team already. I did a check.”
    —John Gregory Dunne, True Confessions, Da Capo Press, 2005 (first published 1977), p. 223

So strongly is the Jew identified with the merchant image that Negroes frequently use anti-Semitic epithets in referring to ghetto businessmen who are unmistakably not Jewish. A Negro will frequently refer to his “Jew landlord” even though the man’s name may be O’Reilly, Karwolski or Santangelo. In black areas of Detroit, white storekeepers are often called “Goldberg,” even though many shops are owned by Iraqis and Syrians. And a Cadillac, even if it is owned by a wealthy Negro, is still known as a “Jew canoe.”
—The Black and the Jew: A Falling Out of Allies”, Time, 31 January 1969

best of craigslist redux

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 09:52:51 GMT

how to write good

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 22:12:04 GMT

How to Write Good

Michael O’Donoghue

	“If I could not earn a penny from my writing, I would earn my livelihood at something else and continue to write at night.” —Irving Wallace
	“Financial success is not the only reward of good writing. It brings to the writer rich inner satisfaction as well.” —Elliot Foster, Director of Admissions, Famous Writers School

Introduction

A long time ago, when I was just starting out, I had the good fortune to meet the great Willa Cather. With all the audacity of youth, I asked her what advice she would give the would-be-writer and she replied:

“My advice to the would-be-writer is that he start slowly, writing short undemanding things, things such as telegrams, flip-books, crank letters, signature scarves, spot quizzes, capsule summaries, fortune cookies and errata. Then, when he feels he’s ready, move up to the more challenging items such as mandates, objective correlatives, passion plays, pointless diatribes, minor classics, manifestos, mezzotints, oxymora, exposes, broadsides, and papal bulls.
And above all, never forget that the pen is mightier than the plow-share. By this I mean that writing, all in all, is a hell of a lot more fun than farming. For one thing, writers seldom, if ever, have to get up at five o’clock in the morning and shovel manure. As far as I’m concerned, that gives them the edge right there.”

She went on to tell me many things, both wonderful and wise, probing the secrets of her craft, showing how to weave a net of words and capture the fleeting stuff of life. Unfortunately, I’ve forgotten every bit of it.

I do recall, however, her answer when I asked “If you could only give me one rule to follow, what would it be?” She paused, looked down for a moment and finally said, “Never wear brown shoes with a blue suit.”

There’s very little I could add to that except to say “Go to it and good luck!”

Lesson 1—The Grabber

The “grabber” is the initial sentence of a novel or short story designed to jolt the reader out of his complacency and arouse his curiosity, forcing him to press onward. For example:

“It’s no good, Alex,” she rejoined, “Even if I did love you, my father would never let me marry an alligator.”

The reader is immediately bombarded with questions, questions such as “Why won’t her father let her marry an alligator?” “How come she doesn’t love him?” and “Can she learn to love him in time?” The reader’s interest has been “grabbed”!

Just so there’ll be no misunderstanding about grabbers, I’ve listed a few more below:

“I’m afraid you’re too late,” sneered Zoltan. “The fireplace has already flown south for the winter!”
Sylvia lay sick among the silverware…
Chinese vegetables mean more to me than you do, my dear,” Charles remarked to his wife, adding injury to insult by lodging a grapefruit knife in her neck.
One morning Egor Samba awoke from uneasy dreams to find himself transformed into a giant Volkswagen.
“I have in my hands,” Professor Willwobee exclaimed, clutching a sheaf of papers in his trembling fingers and pacing in circles about the carpet while I stood at the window, barely able to make out the Capitol dome through the thick, churning fog that rolled in off the Potomac, wondering to myself what matter could possibly be so urgent as to bring the distinguished historian bursting into my State Department office at the unseemly hour, “definitive proof that Abraham Lincoln was a homo!”

These are just a handful of the possible grabbers. Needless to say, there are thousands of others, but if you fail to think of them, feel free to use any or all of these.

Lesson 2—The Ending

All too often, the budding author finds that his tale has run its course and yet he sees no way to satisfactorily end it, or, in literary parlance, “wrap it up.” Observe how easily I resolve this problem:

Suddenly, everyone was run over by a truck.
-the end-

If the story happens to be set in England, use the same ending, slightly modified:

Suddenly, everyone was run over by a lorry.
-the end-

If set in France:

Soudainement, tout le monde était écrasé par un camion.
-finis-

You’ll be surprised at how many different settings and situations this ending applies to. For instance, if you were writing a story about ants, it would end “Suddenly, everyone was run over by a centipede.” In fact, this is the only ending you ever need use.^[1]

Lesson 3—Choosing A Title

A friend of mine recently had a bunch of articles rejected by the Reader’s Digest and, unable to understand why, he turned to me for advice. I spotted the problem at a glance. His titles were all wrong. By calling his pieces such things as “Unwed Mothers — A Head Start on Life,” “Cancer—The Incurable Disease,” “A Leading Psychologist Explains Why There Should Be More Violence on Television,” “Dognappers I Have Known and Loved,” “My Baby Was Born Dead and I Couldn’t Care Less” and “Pleasantville—Last of the Wide-Open Towns,” he had seriously misjudged his market. To steer him straight, I drew up this list of all-purpose surefire titles:

________ at the Crossroads
The Case for ________
The Role of ________
Coping with Changing ________
A Realistic Look at ________
The ________ Experience
Bridging the ________ Gap
A ________ for All Seasons

Simply fill in the blanks with the topic of your choice and, if that doesn’t work you can always resort to the one title that never fails:

South America, the Sleeping Giant on our Doorstep

Lesson 4—Exposition

Perhaps the most difficult technique for the fledgling writer to master is proper treatment of exposition. Yet watch the sly, subtle way I “set the scene” of my smash play, The Last to Know, with a minimum of words and effort.

(The curtain opens on a tastefully appointed dining room, the table ringed by men in tuxedos and women in costly gowns. There is a knock at the door.)
LORD OVERBROOKE: Oh, come in, Lydia. Allow me to introduce my dinner guests to you. This is Cheryl Heatherton, the madcap soybean heiress whose zany antics actually mask a heart broken by her inability to meaningfully communicate with her father, E. J. Heatherton, seated to her left, who is too caught up in the heady world of high finance to sit down and have a quiet chat with his own daughter, unwanted to begin with, disposing of his paternal obligations by giving her everything, everything but love, that is.
    Next to them sits Geoffrey Drake, a seemingly successful merchant banker trapped in an unfortunate marriage with a woman half his age, who wistfully looks back upon his days as the raffish Group Captain of an R.A.F. bomber squadron that flew eighty-one missions over Berlin, his tortured psyche refusing to admit, despite frequent nightmares in which, dripping with sweat, he wakes screaming, “Pull it up! Pull it up, I say! I can’t hold her any longer! We’re losing altitude! We’re going down! Jerry at three o’clock Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagggh!”, that his cowardice and his cowardice alone was responsible for the loss of his crew and “Digger,” the little Manchester terrier who was their mascot.
    The empty chair to his right was vacated just five minutes ago by Geoffrey’s stunning wife, twenty-three-year-old, golden-tressed Edwina Drake, who, claiming a severe migraine, begged to be excused that she might return home and rest, whereas, in reality, she is, at this moment, speeding to the arms of another man, convinced that if she can steal a little happiness now, it doesn’t matter who she hurts later on.
    The elderly servant preparing the Caviar en Socle is Andrew who’s been with my family for over forty years although he hasn’t received a salary for the last two, even going on so far as to loan me his life’s savings to cover my spiraling gambling debts but it’s only a matter of time before I am exposed as a penniless fraud and high society turns its back on me.
The dark woman opposite me is Yvonne de Zenobia, the fading Mexican film star, who speaks of her last movie as though it was shot only yesterday, unwilling to face the fact that she hasn’t been before the cameras in nearly fifteen years; unwilling to confess that her life has been little more than a tarnished dream.
    As for her companion, Desmond Trelawney, he is an unmitigated scoundrel about whom the less said, the better.
    And, of course, you know your father, the ruthless war profiteer, and your hopelessly alcoholic mother, who never quite escaped her checkered past, realizing, all too late, that despite her jewels and limousines, she was still just a taxi-dancer who belonged to any man for a drink and a few cigarettes.
Please take a seat. We were just talking about you.

This example demonstrates everything you’ll ever need to know about exposition. Study it carefully.

Lesson 5—Finding the Raw Material

As any professional writer will tell you, the richest source of material is one’s relatives, one’s neighbors and, more often than not, total strangers. A day doesn’t go by without at least one person, upon learning that I’m a professional writer, offering me some terrific idea for a story. And I’m sure it will come as no shock when I say that most of the ideas are pretty damn good!

Only last week, a pipe-fitter of my acquaintance came up with a surprise ending guaranteed to unnerve the most jaded reader. What you do is tell this really weird story that keeps on getting weirder and weirder until, just when the reader is muttering, “How in the heck is he going to get himself out of this one? He’s really painted himself into a corner!” you spring the “mind-blower”: “But then he woke up. It had all been a dream!” (which I, professional writer that I am, honed down to: “But then the alarm clock rang. It had all been a dream!”). And this came from a common, run-of-the-mill pipe-fitter! For free!

Cabdrivers, another great wealth of material, will often remark, “Boy, lemme tell ya! Some of the characters I get in this cab would fill a book! Real kooks, ya know what I mean?” And then, without my having to coax even the slightest, they tell me about them, and they would fill a book. Perhaps two or three books. In addition, if you’re at all interested in social science, cabdrivers are able to provide countless examples of the failures of the welfare state.

To illustrate just how valid these unsolicited suggestions can be, I shall print a few lines from a newly completed play inspired by my aunt, who had the idea as far back as when she was attending grade school. It’s called If an Old House Could Talk, What Tales It Would Tell:

THE FLOOR: Do you remember the time the middle-aged lady who always wore the stiletto heels tripped over an extension cord while running to answer the phone and spilled the Ovaltine all over me and they spent the next 20 minutes mopping it up?
THE WALL: No.

Of course, I can’t print too much here because I don’t want to spoil the ending (although I will give you a hint: It involves a truck…). I just wanted to show you how much the world would have missed had I rejected my aunt’s suggestion out of hand simply because she is not a professional writer like myself.

Lesson 6—Quoting Other Authors

If placed in a situation where you must quote another author, always write “[sic]” after any word that may be misspelled or looks the least bit questionable in any way. If there are no misspellings or curious words, toss in a few “[sic]”s just to break up the flow. By doing this, you will appear to be knowledgeable and “on your toes,” while the one quoted will seem suspect and vaguely discredited. Two examples will suffice:

“O Sleepless as the river under thee,
Vaulting the sea, the prairies’ dreaming sod,
Unto us lowiest sometime sweep, descend
And of the curveship [sic], lend a myth to God”
—Hart Crane
“Beauty is but a flowre [sic],
Which wrinckles [sic] will devoure [sic]
Brightnesse [sic] falls from the ayre [sic]
Queenes [sic] have died yong [sic] and faire [sic]
Dust hath closde [sic] Helens [sic] eye [sic].
I am sick [sic], I must dye [sic]:
Lord, have mercy on us.”
—Thomas Nashe

Note how only one small “[sic]” makes Crane’s entire stanza trivial and worthless, which, in his case, takes less doing that Nashe, on the other hand, has been rendered virtually unreadable. Anyone having to choose between you and Nashe would pick you every time! And, when it’s all said and done, isn’t that the name of the game?

Lesson 7—Making The Reader Feel Inadequate

Without question, the surest way to make a reader feel inadequate is through casual erudition, and there is no better way to achieve casual erudition than by putting the punchline of an anecdote in a little foreign language. Here’s a sample:

One crisp October morning, while taking my usual stroll down the Kurfurstenstrasse, I spied my old friend Casimir Malevitch, the renowned Suprematist painter, sitting on a bench. Noting that he had a banana in his ear, I said to him, “Excuse me, Casimir, but I believe you have a banana in your ear.”
“What?” he asked.
    Moving closer and speaking quite distinctly, I repeated my previous observation, saying, “I said, ‘You have a banana in your ear!’”
    “What’s that you say?” came the reply.
    By now I was a trifle piqued at this awkward situation and, seeking to make myself plain, once and for all, I fairly screamed, “I SAID THAT YOU HAVE A BANANA IN YOUR EAR, YOU DOLT!!!”
    Imagine my chagrin when Casimir looked at me blankly and quipped,

    Oh, what a laugh we had over that one.

With one stroke, the reader has been made to feel not only that his education was second-rate, but that you are getting far more out of life than he. This is precisely why this device is best used in memoirs, whose sole purpose is to make the reader feel that you have lived life to the fullest, while his existence, in comparison, has been meaningless and shabby….

Lesson 8—Covering The News

Have you ever wondered how reporters are able to turn out a dozen or so news articles day after day, year after year, and still keep their copy so fresh, so vital, so alive? It’s because they know The Ten Magic Phrases of Journalism, key constructions with which one can express every known human emotion! As one might suppose, The Phrases, discovered only after centuries of trial and error, are a closely guarded secret, available to no one but accredited members of the press. However, at the risk of being cashiered from the Newspaper Guild, I am now going to reveal them to you:

The Ten Magic Phrases of Journalism

“violence flared”
“limped into port”
“according to informed sources”
“wholesale destruction”
“no immediate comment”
“student unrest”
“riot-torn”
“flatly denied”
“gutted by fire”
“roving bands of Negro youths”

Let’s try putting The Phrases to work in a sample news story:

NEWARK, NJ, Aug. 22 (UPI)—Violence flared yesterday when roving bands of negro youths broke windows and looted shops in riot-torn Newark. Mayor Kenneth Gibson had no immediate comment but, according to informed sources, he flatly denied saying that student unrest was behind the wholesale destruction that resulted in scores of buildings being gutted by fire, and added, “If this city were a Liberian freighter,^[2] we just may have limped into port.”

Proof positive that The Ten Magic Phrases of Journalism can express every known human emotion and then some!

Lesson 9—Tricks Of The Trade

Just as homemakers have their hints (e.g. a ball of cotton, dipped in vanilla extract and placed in the refrigerator, will absorb food odors), writers have their own bag of tricks, a bag of tricks, I might hasten to point out, you won’t learn at any Bread Loaf Conference. Most writers, ivory tower idealists that they are, prefer to play up the mystique of their “art” (visitations from the Muse, l’ecriture automatique, talking in tongues, et cetera, et cetera), and sweep the hard-nosed practicalities under the rug. Keeping in mind, however, that a good workman doesn’t curse his tools, I am now going to make public these long suppressed tricks of the trade.

Suppose you’ve written a dreadful chapter (we’ll dub it Chapter Six for our purposes here), utterly without merit, tedious and boring beyond belief, and you just can’t find the energy to re-write it. Since it’s obvious that the reader, once he realizes how dull and shoddy Chapter Six really is, will refuse to read any further, you must provide some strong ulterior motive for completing the chapter. I’ve always found lust effective:

Artfully concealed within the next chapter is the astounding secret of an ancient Bhutanese love cult that will increase your sexual satisfaction by at least 60% and possibly more—

(Print Chapter Six.)
Pretty wild, huh? Bet you can hardly wait to try it! And don’t show your appreciation by reading Chapter Seven!^[3]

Fear also works:

Dear Reader,
This message is printed on Chinese poison paper which is made from deadly herbs that are instantly absorbed by the fingertips so it won’t do any good to wash your hands because you will die a horrible and lingering death in about an hour unless you take the special antidote which is revealed in Chapter Six and you’ll be saved.
Sincerely,
(Your name)

Or even:

Dear Reader,
You are obviously one of those rare people who are immune to Chinese paper so this message is printed on Bavarian poison paper which is about a thousand times more powerful and even if you’re wearing gloves you’re dead for sure unless you read Chapter Six very carefully and find the special antidote.
Sincerely,
(Your name)

Appealing to vanity, greed, sloth and whatever, you can keep this up, chapter by chapter, until they finish the book. In fact, the number of appeals is limited only by human frailty itself…

LESSON 10—More Writing Hints

There are many more writing hints I could share with you, but suddenly I am run over by a truck.

-the end-

Footnotes:

^[1] Warning—if you are writing a story about trucks, do not have the trucks run over by a truck. Have the trucks run over by a mammoth truck.

^[2] Whenever needed, “Norwegian Tanker” can always be substituted for “Liberian freighter.” Consider them interchangeable.

^[3] This insures that the reader reads Chapter Six not once but several times. Possibly, he may even read Chapter Seven.

—Originally published in the National Lampoon, Vol. 1, No. 12, March 1971.

продукт элитарного взращивания

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:40:42 GMT

aptsvet:
Любой реальный язык есть продукт “порчи”, а не элитарного взращивания.

larvatus:
Французский язык является продуктом элитарного взращивания со времён кардинала Ришелье. И если можно поиздеваться над тщетными потугами вытеснения англицизмов типа email и software туземными новообразованиями типа courriel и logiciel, несомненно, что литературный модернизм от Бодлера до Бекетта обязан своим существованием именно этому академическому аскетизму.

aptsvet:
В каком-то смысле верно и заслуживает особого внимания. Тем не менее, не мне одному кажется, что французская модель надзора за языком не идеальна. Русская, кстати, с нее во многом скопирована.

larvatus:
Ежели верно и заслуживает внимания, зачем тогда стулья ломать?

aptsvet:
Во-первых, в силу иных убеждений. Во-вторых, там тоже не так просто, многие нынешние авторы прилагают все усилия, чтобы не скатиться в язык Расина.

larvatus:
И первое и второе понятно и оправдано. Но всё же, Ваше заявление, что любой реальный язык есть продукт “порчи”, а не элитарного взращивания, полностью опровергается вышеуказанным исключением.

aptsvet:
О, я могу привести контрпримеры еще лучше—эсперанто, например, не говоря уже о строго формализованных языках программирования. Литературному французскому до этих эталонов далеко. Но я все же берусь предсказать, что узус победит норму и во французском, а польза его контролируемой эволюции для меня неочевидна.

larvatus:
Контрпример эсперанто, не говоря уже о строго формализованных языках программирования, в контексте разговора о реальных языках проходит под рубрикой лёгкого издевательства, если не злостной софистики. Я не спорю с Вашими предсказаниями победы лингвистического народничества и восприятиями неочевидности пользы контролируемой эволюции. Меня удивляет лишь кульминация Вашей полемики заведомо ложным утверждением.

aptsvet:
Лучше все же взглянуть в начало, в исходный пост. Ситуация в эпоху классической латыни, особенно серебряной, была во многом сходна с нынешней французской. Индукция имеет свои минусы, но лучше инструмента у нас нет.

larvatus:
Самый лучший инструмент—это правда. Индукции здесь не стояло. В противном случае, мы бы всё ещё существовали в пещерах.

aptsvet:
Пещеры тут ни при чем. Мне кажется, вы путаете мою неприязнь к лексической регламентации с отрицанием речевого этикета, на который я ни в коем случае не посягаю—наоборот, постоянно сетую на его кризис в сегодняшнем русском языке. Тем не менее, к грамматическому роду кофе он никакого отношения не имеет.

larvatus:
Я пишу не про отрицание речевого этикета, и тем более не про грамматический род слова кофе, а про вполне реальный язык, являющийся продуктом “элитарного взращивания”.

благотворительно

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:20:58 GMT

Догола разоблачась,
Выдрочив сию новинку,
Быков фыркает, но Глинку
Затоптать не может в грязь.

parenting, indian style

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:42:40 GMT

Let us connect the dots. Min Zhu, Subrah Iyar’s partner in the founding of WebEx, raped his daughter Erin when she was 14 years old. Fourteen years later, Subrah went on court record denying Min’s sexual abuse of Erin and squandering WebEx shareholders’ assets in a futile attempt to cover up his partner’s incestuous rape. Which brings us to the question: How much “better” is Subrah getting to know his daughters?

Marriage among the Kallans is said to depend entirely upon consanguinity. The most proper alliance is one between a man and the daughter of his father’s sister; and, if an individual has such a cousin, he must marry her, whatever disparity there may be between their respective ages. A boy, for example, of fifteen must marry such a cousin, even if she be thirty or forty years old, if her father insists upon his so doing. Failing a cousin of this sort, he must marry his aunt or his niece, or some near relative. If his father’s brother has a daughter, and insists upon his marrying her, he cannot refuse: and this whatever may be the woman’s age.
—Edgar Thurston, Ethnographic Notes in Southern India, Madras: Government Press, 1906, p. 53; also see Sir James George Frazer, Folk-Lore in the Old Testament: Studies in Comparative Religion, Legend and Law, Vol. II, Macmillan and Co., 1919, p. 105, and Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Elementary Structures of Kinship, Beacon Press, 1971, p. 428, a translation of Les structures élémentaires de la parenté, La Haye, Mouton et Co., 1967.

The rhetoric of sex with family members also appears in many later tantras such as the Guhyasamāja and Cakrasamvara Tantras. In its fifth chapter, the Guhyasamāja Tantra states that the adept who has sex with his mother, sister, or daughter can attain great success. In its thirty-third chapter, the Cakrasamvara Tantra describes sexual yogic practices to be undertaken with a consort and promises that if readers undertake these, even with female relatives, they will be liberated.
—Yudit Kornberg Greenberg, editor, Encyclopedia of Love in World Religions, ABC-CLIO, 2007, Volume 1, pp. 317-318.

Childhood in much of India begins with the young child being regularly masturbated by the mother, “high caste or low caste, the girl ‘to make her sleep well,’ the boy ‘to make him manly…’” This practice has been said to be widespread by many reliable observers, including Catherine Mayo—whose extensive investigations in India in the 1920s led to the first child marriage laws—a physician, an ethnologist, a religious scholar and a sociologist. As is the case with virtually all non-Western cultures, the child sleeps in the family bed for several years and regularly observes sexual intercourse between the parents. The extent to which Indian parents go beyond this and overtly have sex with the child cannot be determined. Rampal, the sociologist who recently did interviews modeled on the Kinsey studies about contemporary Indian sexual practices, concludes that “there is a lot of incest… It is hidden along with other secrets of families and rarely gets a chance to come out, like seduction at the hands of trusted friends of the family… To arrive at even a passable estimate of incest cases would be to touch the hornet’s nest… no one will ever confess to such a deed, therefore, any attempt to collect statistics may prove to be futile at present.”
    Boys as well as girls are reported as being masturbated and raped by the men in the family, including fathers, older brothers, uncles and cousins. By the time children are four or five, they are usually taken to bed at night by others in the extended household. “A particular uncle may like her to sleep in his room, which is considered a great gesture of closeness.” As one girl describes it: “I hardly ever slept with my parents after I was four. I rotated almost every night between my various uncles and sometimes my grandmother. But it was difficult to have any space in her bed because all the grandsons slept in her bed… So I preferred to sleep in [uncle’s] bed, who was very nice and put his arms around me in winter.” This practice is similar to the customary sharing of their wives by brothers, who have free sexual access to each other’s wives, an ancient practice still approved of in some areas in India.
    So acceptable is sex between close relatives in India that uncle-niece and cross-cousin marriages were preferred among certain Indian groups. As the old Indian proverb has it, “For a girl to be a virgin at ten years old, she must have neither brothers nor cousin nor father.” These sleeping patterns with relatives who live in common residences continue even after marriage, since husbands are often cold to wives, and sex with the husband’s younger brother is covertly encouraged by the family to give the wife someone to be “close” to. Grandfathers often call the little girls “my little wife,” give them candy and “play the role of an old seducer,” teasing them by saying “Don’t you want to marry me?” One observer stuns up traditional Indian sexual stimulation during childhood as follows: “The little Hindu girls are deflowered by the little boys with whom they play, and repeat together the erotic lessons which their parents have unwittingly taught them on account of the general promiscuity of family life throughout India. In all the little girls of less than ten years of age the complete hymen is wanting… Incest is often the rule rather than the exception.”
    —Lloyd DeMause, “The Universality of Incest”, The Journal of Psychohistory, Fall 1991, Vol. 19, No. 2, footnotes omitted.

Close-knit family life in India masks an alarming amount of sexual abuse of children and teenage girls by family members, a new report suggests.
    Delhi organisation RAHI said 76% of respondents to its survey had been abused when they were children—40% of those by a family member.
    The report suggests that disbelief, denial and cover-up to preserve the family reputation is often put before the individual child.
    —Daniel Lak, “India’s Hidden Incest”, BBC News, 22 January 1999.

[Subrah Iyar]’s family has grown through the years and the addition of his two daughters is one of the most treasured things in Iyar’s life. With 14-year-old Leena, who has a personality more like him and wants to be a lawyer, and 12-year-old Nikhita, who is more like her mother, yet wants to be a corporate leader just like her father, Iyar isn’t wasting any time getting to know his daughters better now that his workflow has leveled off. His children are only now starting to realize that their father is an important businessman with a great deal of responsibility.
—Diana Rohini LaVigne, “Subrah Iyar’s WebEx-ceptional Success: Capturing the Power of the Internet”, indianlifeandstyle.com.

party chatter

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:55:34 GMT

—What do you do?
—I elicit apologies.
—How so?
—I come to men who owe an apology and inspire them to make it.
—What are you then, a lawyer?
—Not as an officer of the court.
—An officer of what then?
—I answer to a higher authority.
—What is that?
—Whatever witnesses men coming short of the mark.
—So you are an apologist.
—An apologist makes apologies. Vocationally, I am an apologer.
—So how do you go about it?
—By reminding people of the right thing to do.
—And there is money in that?
—There can be. The stakes are high one way or another.
—But why do it when there is no payback?
—Causing the right thing to get done is a charity for my clients.
—What happens if your clients decline to do the right thing?
—I make them sorry.
—How?
—Like this.

sig p210 prices

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:00:21 GMT

The P210 has been out of production since December of 2005. According to Fjestad’s 2004 Blue Book of Gun Values, the last MSRP at that time was $2,695.00 for the P210-6 and $3,031.00 for the extended barrel P210-5, with a $124.00 premium charged for the P210-6S and P210-5S versions with a lateral magazine release. The top of the line, polished P210-1 cost $1,861.00 in 2002, whereas the basic sandblasted P210-2 model cost $1,680.00. According to the Swiss price list of 1986 reproduced by Armbruster, at the time one could buy a P210-1 for 2,620.00 CHf, a P210-2 for 1,765.00 and a 65.00 CHf surcharge for wood stocks, a P210-5 for 2,600.00 CHf likewise, a P210-6 for 1,895.00 CHf likewise, with a 10.00 CHf or a 245.00 CHf surcharge for a contrast or a micrometer sight, and a P210-L for 5,920.00 CHf to 9,345.00 CHf, depending on the engraving pattern and stock carving. The Swiss Frank exchange rate ranged between 1.66 and 2.00 CHf per dollar in 1986. As of today, it is about 1.02 CHf per dollar.

The current availability of spare parts for the P210 in Europe is as follows. Swiss Arms stocks centerfire magazines, plastic Hi-Grips and checkered walnut stocks, and a full complement of sights and accessories therefor. Additionally, Wyss has trigger springs, 120mm barrels in 9mm Para, and aftermarket micrometer rear sights made by Swiss gunsmith Stefan Dobler and recently approved for use in the Swiss service pistol competitions, whereas Lagardere has 120mm barrels in 7.65 Para and 9x21 IMI, 150mm barrel assemblies in 9 Para, factory pattern walnut stocks, and magazines for .22 l.r. conversion kits. These parts are very costly at the moment. For example, Swiss Arms and their authorized dealers in Switzerland offer the OEM micrometer rear sight for 380.00 CHf, or around $375.00 according to the current exchange rate, whereas the asking price for the LPA and Dobler sights in Germany is 128.00 Euros or around $191.00. A few years back new old stock 120mm P210 barrels sold online for around $200.00 apiece, or $350.00 for the 150mm barrel assembly with a Patridge front sight mounted in a removable carrier. Today, fair prices for the same parts are upwards of $800.00 and $1,300.00, respectively. While retail prices are lower in Europe, the costs of importing a single part regulated by European law and ATF import division alike are prohibitive. All inbound foreign gun parts shipments containing rifled barrels and/or valued at over $100.00 are subject to import licensing by the BATF. In my experience, these regulations are enforced vigorously but fairly. Violate them not only at your own risk, but to the common detriment of your fellow enthusiasts. A litany of import and export licenses, shipping, and duty along with a summary of my importing experience, linked to relevant online resources, is posted here. The correct English, French, and German designations of SIG P210 parts can be found here, accompanied by my notes on their fit, function, and variations.

comment on paie ses dettes quand on a du génie

zeleny@post.harvard.edu — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:12:38 GMT

Les feuilles mortes
paroles : Jacques Prévert ; musique : Joseph Kosma

Oh! je voudrais tant que tu te souviennes
des jours heureux où nous étions amis
En ce temps-là la vie était plus belle
et le soleil plus brûlant qu’aujourd’hui
Les feuilles mortes se ramassent à la pelle…
Tu vois je n’ai pas oublié
Les feuilles mortes se ramassent à la pelle
les souvenirs et les regrets aussi
et le vent du nord les emporte
dans la nuit froide de l’oubli
Tu vois je n’ai pas oublié
la chanson que tu me chantais

C’est une chanson qui nous ressemble
Toi tu m’aimais
et je t’aimais
Et nous vivions tous deux ensemble
toi qui m’aimais
et que j’aimais
Mais la vie sépare ceux qui s’aiment
tout doucement
sans faire de bruit
et la mer efface sur le sable
les pas des amants désunis
Les feuilles mortes se ramassent à la pelle
les souvenirs et les regrets aussi
Mais mon amour silencieux et fidèle
sourit toujours et remercie la vie
Je t’aimais tant tu étais si jolie
Comment veux-tu que je t’oublie
En ce temps-là la vie était plus belle
et le soleil plus brûlant qu’aujourd’hui
Tu étais ma plus douce amie…
Mais je n’ai que faire des regrets
Et la chanson que tu chantais
toujours toujours je l’entendrai

C’est une chanson qui nous ressemble
Toi tu m’aimais
et je t’aimais
Et nous vivions tous deux ensemble
toi qui m’aimais
et que j’aimais
Mais la vie sépare ceux qui s’aiment
tout doucement
sans faire de bruit
et la mer efface sur le sable
les pas des amants désunis.

1950
—Jacques Prévert, Œuvres complètes, tome II, Gallimard, 1996, pp. 785-786

La chanson de Prévert
paroles et musique : Serge Gainsbourg

Oh je voudrais tant que tu te souviennes
Cette chanson était la tienne
C’était ta préférée
Je crois
Qu’elle est de Prévert et
Kosma

Avec d’autres bien sûr je m’abandonne
Mais leur chanson est monotone
Et peu à peu je m’in-
Diffère
À cela il n’est rien
À faire

Peut on jamais savoir par où commence
Et quand finit l’indifférence
Passe l’automne vienne
L’hiver
Et que la chanson de
Prévert

Cette chanson LES FEUILLES MORTES
S’efface de mon souvenir
Et ce jour-là
Mes amours mortes
En auront fini de mourir

1958
—Serge Gainsbourg, Mon propre rôle I, Denoël, 1987, 1991, pp. 56-57

Gréco avait chanté « Les feuilles mortes » ; Gainsbourg compose « La chanson de Prévert ». Il a l’intention de frapper un grand coup, mais se fait tout petit quand il s’agit d’aller demander à Jacques Prévert l’autorisation d’utiliser son nom.
GAINSBOURG : « Il m’avait reçu chez lui. À dix heures du matin, il attaquait au champagne. Il m’a dit : “Mais c’est très bien mon p’tit gars !” et timidement je lui ai tendu un papier qu’il m’a signé. »

—Gilles Verlant, Gainsbourg, Editions Albin Michel, 1992, p. 55

Jacques Prévert est un conJacques Prévert est quelqu’un dont on apprend des poèmes à l’ecole. Il en ressort qu’il aimait les fleurs, les oiseaux, les quartiers du vieux Paris, etc. L’amour lui paraissait s’épanouir dans une ambiance de liberté ; plus généralement, il était plutôt pour la liberté. Il portait une casquette et fumait des Gauloises ; on le confond parfois avec Jean Gabin ; d’ailleurs c’est lui qui a écrit le scénario de Quai des brumes, des Portes de la nuit, etc. Il a aussi écrit le scénario des Enfants du paradis, considéré comme son chef d’œuvre. Tout cela fait beaucoup de bonnes raisons pour détester Jacques Prévert ; surtout si on lit les scénarios jamais tournes qu’Antonin Artaud écrivait à la même époque. Il est affligeant de constater que ce répugnant réalisme poétique, dont Prévert fut l’artisan principal, continue à faire des ravages, et qu’on pense faire un compliment à Leos Carax en l’y rattachant (de la même manière Rohmer serait sans doute un nouveau Guitry, etc.) Le cinéma français ne s’est en fait jamais relève de l’avènement du parlant ; il finira par en crever, et ce n’est pas plus mal.
    Après-guerre, à peu près à la même époque que Jean-Paul Sartre, Jacques Prévert a eu un succès énorme ; on est malgré soi frappé par l’optimisme de cette génération. Aujourd’hui, le penseur le plus influent, ce serait plutôt Cioran. À l’époque on écoutait Vian, Brassens… Amoureux qui se bécotent sur les bancs publics, baby-boom, construction massive de HLM pour loger tout ce monde-là. Beaucoup d’optimisme, de foi en l’avenir, et un peu de connerie. À l’évidence, nous sommes devenus beaucoup plus intelligents.
    Avec les intellectuels, Prévert a eu moins de chance. Ses poèmes regorgent pourtant de ces jeux de mots stupides qui plaisent tellement chez Bobby Lapointe ; mais il est vrai que la chanson est comme on dit un genre mineur, et que l’intellectuel, lui aussi, doit se détendre. Quand on aborde le texte écrit, son vrai gagne-pain, il devient impitoyable. Et le « travail du texte », chez Prévert, reste embryonnaire : il écrit avec limpidité et un vrai naturel, parfois même avec émotion ; il ne s’intéresse ni à l’écriture, ni à l’impossibilité d’écrire ; sa grande source d’inspiration, ce serait plutôt la vie. Il a donc, pour l’essentiel, échappe aux thèses de troisième cycle. Aujourd’hui cependant il rentre à la Pléiade, ce qui constitue une seconde mort. Son œuvre est la, complète et figée. C’est une excellente occasion de s’interroger: pourquoi la poésie de Jacques Prévert est-elle si médiocre, à tel point qu’on éprouve parfois une sorte de honte à la lire? L’explication classique (parce que son écriture « manque de rigueur ») est tout à fait fausse ; à travers ses jeux de mots, son rythme léger et limpide, Prévert exprime en réalité parfaitement sa conception du monde. La forme est cohérente avec le fond, ce qui est bien le maximum qu’on puisse exiger d’une forme. D’ailleurs quand un poète s’immerge à ce point dans la vie, dans la vie réelle de son époque, ce serait lui faire injure que de le juger suivant des critères purement stylistiques. Si Prévert écrit, c’est qu’il a quelque chose à dire ; c’est tout à son honneur. Malheureusement, ce qu’il a à dire est d’une stupidité sans bornes ; on en a parfois la nausée. Il y a de jolies filles nues, des bourgeois qui saignent comme des cochons quand on les égorge. Les enfants sont d’une immoralité sympathique, les voyous sont séduisants et virils, les jolies filles nues donnent leur corps aux voyous ; les bourgeois sont vieux, obèses, impuissants, décores de légion d’honneur et leurs femmes sont frigides ; les curés sont de répugnantes vieilles chenilles qui ont inventé le péché pour nous empêcher de vivre. On connaît tout cela ; on peut préférer Baudelaire. Ou même Karl Marx, qui, au moins, ne se trompe pas de cible lorsqu’il écrit que « le triomphe de la bourgeoisie a noyé les frissons sacrés de l’extase religieuse, d l’enthousiasme chevaleresque et de la sentimentalité quatre sous dans les eaux glacées du calcul égoïste ». (La lutte des classes en France. [Mais non, il s’agit plutôt du Manifeste du parti communiste. —MZ]) L’intelligence n’aide en rien à écrire de bons poèmes ; elle peut cependant éviter d’en écrire de mauvais. Si Jacques Prévert est un mauvais poète c’est avant tout parce que sa vision du monde est plate, superficielle et fausse. Elle était déjà fausse de son temps ; aujourd’hui sa nullité apparaît avec éclat, à tel point que l’œuvre entière semble le développement d’un gigantesque cliché. Sur le plan philosophique et politique, Jacques Prévert est avant tout un libertaire ; c’est-à-dire, fondamentalement, un imbécile.
    Les « eaux glacées du calcul égoïste », nous y barbotons maintenant depuis notre plus tendre enfance. Or peut s’en accommoder, essayer d’y survivre ; on peut aussi se laisser couler. Mais ce qu’il est impossible d’imaginer, c’est que la libération des puissances du désir soit à elle seule susceptible d’amener un réchauffement. L’anecdote veut que ce soit Robespierre qui ait insisté pour ajouter le mot « fraternité » à la devise de la République ; nous sommes aujourd’hui en mesure d’apprécier pleinement cette anecdote. Prévert se voyait certainement comme un partisan de la fraternité ; mais Robespierre n’était pas, loin de là, un adversaire de la vertu.

—Michel Houellebecq, “Jacques Prévert est un con” in Interventions, Flammarion, 1998, pp. 9-14
Cet article est paru dans le numéro 22 (juillet 1992) des Lettres françaises.