Ominous Omen

I went to college a bunch of times.  Why is a subject for another missive.  But as a result, and the particular major I pursued, I took several statistics courses.  Not being a math whiz, I was terrified at the prospect each and every time.  But fear and desperation can combine to be great motivators.  Because I was aware of my shortcomings in the mathematical sciences, I applied a level of focus and effort far beyond my wont.  And to my surprise, I learned something.

Okay, you can stop worrying now.  This is not going to be a treatise on statistical methodology.  I will leave you with just one piece of relevant statistical truth and it doesn’t involve numbers.  If one can measure the history of an event, one can predict the likelihood of future occurrences with a known level of confidence.

A discussion of just how much confidence would require a dissertation on statistical methods and you don’t really want that.  It is the concept here that I am trying share, not the mechanics.  You don’t have to know just how an internal combustion engine works to believe that your car will get you to the store.

Now to the point:  I get a lot of junk mail.  Not spam, real honest-to-goodness snail-mail, postal-service delivered crap right to my mail box.  It is probably quite similar to what you receive; grocery store mailers, real estate solicitations, discounted home remodeling offers.  I usually deposit them directly into the recycling bin without carrying them across the threshold.  But once in a while, I get something that just defies nonchalance.  Such a delivery occurred this week.

Let me recall you to the opening remarks about statistics and their analysis.  Like no other industry, insurance companies employ armies of mathematical analysts to predict future outcomes based on historical data.  They are the most important cogs in the insurance industry wheel as their work output is the foundation for premium pricing on issued policies.  And they have to be accurate.  If an insurance company prices premiums too high, they will lose business to competitors.  If they price their policies too low, they will not collect enough revenue to cover claims, operations and profit to remain in business.

These heroes of the insurance game are Actuaries.  And they live in a world of statistical analysis so advanced that it has its own moniker, Actuarial Science.  They take their jobs very seriously; as do their employers; as do governmental oversight agencies (e.g. Insurance Commissions).  So seriously, in fact, that they must be certified through testing, just like a CPA or an Attorney.  I’m sure you’ve heard jokes about how dull accountants are.  Well, we make fun of actuaries.  But I digress.

Let me now tie junk mail and statistical forecasting together.

This week, I received an offer from the Trident Society.  Yeah, I’d never heard of them either and that helped spark my curiosity enough to open the envelope.  It was a nice piece of stationary resembling in size and design an invitation, such as to a wedding or baby shower (we’ll talk about the relative merits of prenatal hygiene at a later date).  Much to my bemusement, the content was an offer was for pre-paid cremation services.  I had to wonder, “Do they know something I don’t?”

Now if this solicitation had been addressed to “occupant” or “postal patron” I would have dismissed it as mere chance.  But it was addressed specifically to me right down to the zip-code +4.  Someone has targeted me as a likely customer for future cremation services and I want to know how they came up with my name.

As incentive to sign up for a sales pitch, they offer to enter my name in a contest to be selected as their pre-paid cremation winner of the month.  This produces a quandary.  I never win anything by random chance.  So, if I sign up does that ensure I won’t be needing their services?  Or, if I don’t sign up, will I die before I have a chance to make arrangements for their services; thereby deferring the onus of these decisions to the executor of my estate?

Zombie Zero!

Okay, so I am perusing the internet this week and I encounter a news story entitled, “Can You Survive the Zombie Apocalypse?” I could feel the pulse in my eyeballs as my blood pressure soared into dangerous territory.  I have for some time now been experiencing a growing impatience with the current practice of marketing Zombie defense products.  Have you noticed the proliferation of “Emergency Zombie Apocalypse Response Vehicle” spare tire covers on Jeeps? The gun range at which I do most of my shooting offers a full line of “zombie” character targets for which they charge a substantial premium over regular bulls-eye targets… and people are scooping them up! (Without any notable improvement in marksmanship, I might add… if the Zombies do appear, the best place to stand is right in front of one because they seem to be bullet-repellant.)  Did you know that reputable firearms ammunition manufacturer Hornady is producing a line of bullets labeled “Zombie Max^TM” Ammunition?  Their web ad contains the following “disclaimer”:

 Hornady® Zombie Max™ ammunition is NOT a toy (IT IS LIVE AMMUNITION), but is intended only to be used on…ZOMBIES, also known as the living dead, undead, etc. No human being, plant, animal, vegetable or mineral should ever be shot with Hornady® Zombie Max™ ammunition. Again, we repeat, Hornady® Zombie Max™ ammunition is for use on ZOMBIES ONLY, and that's not a nickname, phrase or cute way of referring to anybody, place or thing. When we say Zombies, we mean…ZOMBIES!

Really?

I’ll tell you how to defeat the Zombies.  TURN OFF THE TV… SHUT DOWN THE VIDEO GAME… WALK OUT OF THE MOVIE THEATRE!

I have no problem with either the science fiction or horror genres of film.  And when I was a ten year old, I pestered my parents for toys that let me live out the fantasies I experienced in the movies.  As I recall, James Bond was very much in vogue at the time so I was particularly enamored of spy stuff.  Before that, when TV was ruled by the Western, I wore my Mattel six-shooter everywhere.  BUT I OUTGREW THEM.  I advanced to a stage where real-world stuff was the locus of my discretionary spending.  Stuff like cars and fast food and girls. I have no problem with nostalgia either.  I will watch a Warner Bros. Merrie Melodies cartoon whenever I can.  But I don’t carry a carrot around with me everywhere I go!  All of this aggravation got me to thinking about the origin of this craze.  So, after my pulse returned to a more congenial rate and my breathing more regular I decided it was time to educate you, the gullible public, on the true nature and history of Zombies.

Etymologically, the English word zombie was first recorded in 1819 in a history of Brazil in the form of “zombi”  The origin of the word is West African and derives from the Kongo language words “nzambi” (god) and “zumbi” (fetish), per the Oxford English Dictionary (credit to Wikipedia “Zombie”).  The cultural historical root of the zombie is Haitian, from the African slaves transported there.  Per the folklore, a zombie is a dead person physically revived by a bokor sorcerer.  The zombie remains under the control of the bokor as a personal slave and has no will of its own.  There is no reference in Haitian folklore to mass risings or apocalyptic swarms.  Eye witness accounts of necromancy and the animation of the dead has largely been debunked by the scientific community except on those rare occasions when zombie activity can be blamed as a source of global warming and rising sea levels.  Then ninety-five percent of the academic community pronounces zombies not only as plausible but incontrovertible truth.  As evidence they offer Al Gore.

In popular fiction, flesh-eating undead have been around since the Epic of Gilgamesh (an epic poem from Mesopotamia) considered the first truly great work of literature… the first surviving tablets date to the 18^th century BCE and contain the verse:

I will knock down the Gates of the Netherworld,

I will smash the door posts, and leave the doors flat down,

and will let the dead go up to eat the living!

And the dead will outnumber the living

White Zombie (United Artists-1932)

While that may sound pretty apocalyptic, there is no tangible connection to zombies.  Reanimation of the dead by scientific means as we are familiar with in our century (fiction) was prefigured in Frankenstein by Mary Shelley (have you read it, Swee’ pea?) in 1818.  Bram Stoker gave us Dracula in 1897 and the race to scare the hell out of us was with tales of the undead was on.  The word zombie was introduced into our cultural consciousness by Bela Lugosi in the 1932 film White Zombie directed by Victor Halperin, wherein they were depicted as the mindless henchmen under the spell of an evil magician a la the Haitian tradition; still no apocalypse.

So where did the notion of an apocalyptic army bent on devouring the living have its genesis?   Credit goes to George Romero’s Night of the Living Dead (1968).  This was the film that started it all, though Romero’s script did not reference “zombies”.  Puffed up literati comment on the social significance of Romero’s army of the dead as criticism of real-world social ills, but they probably get paid by the word.  Romero’s bad (and I mean it, it is bad) first effort launched us into an age of the zombie, but it took a while.  Romero waited ten years before writing the first sequel, Dawn of the Dead.

The next two decades brought us a spate films about evil spirits and reanimated dead feasting on flesh, but it wasn’t until the new millennium that armies of undead, in all their various iterations became mainstream box-office fodder.  So now we have shoulders upon which we can surely rest blame.  It is the Millennials!  In no small part are they responsible for the cultish growth of all things “Zombie”.  And who did they put in charge of preparing us for the upcoming battle for the survival of mankind?  None other than Barrack Obama!  Well, I can’t think of anyone else better suited to lead us in a fantasy war against an imaginary foe.

Hints for Surviving Hallow e’en

Chainsaw - There is a popular trend toward chainsaw slasher films.  If you are attacked by a chainsaw wielding psychotic, RUN.  I have done some little bit of chainsaw work and they are heavy and unwieldy.  All but the fattest, uncoordinated ghoul bait can outrun someone with a chainsaw.  And if one of your party happens to be a bit on the portly side it will just to aid in making your escape more effective.

Vampires - Dracula and his ilk flow in and out of fashion and I’m not sure they are cool this year.  But to be on the safe side, carry a cross; or better yet a “cross fitchy” on which the bottom has been shaped into a point.  Don’t forget your wooden mallet and find a Catholic Church so you can pick up some holy water.  How do you feel about the smell of garlic?

Mummies – If you have the presence of mind, look for the loose end of the mummy’s shroud.  Grab the material and give it a good yank is if you are starting a lawn mower (or chainsaw).  The resulting spin should remind you of a top and give you plenty of time to escape.  As a back-up, carry a copy of the Book of the Dead.

Houses - If perchance you find yourself either alone or in company within the environs of a spooky domicile, and you hear a creepy noise, feel a cold chill or stumble over a recently slain body, get out of the house by the shortest route!  Do not go upstairs; the best you could hope for is a window leading to an old tree, probably haunted.  Do not go downstairs: Do you know why they always find the bodies in the basement?  Think about it.  That’s right, because the only way out is blocked by whatever chased you down there in the first place.  If you survive the night, make a note to yourself to contact a licensed realtor in the morning to begin the search for a single-story ranch with lots of doors.

Ghosts - Don’t panic.  It’s just some prankster wearing a sheet.  Ghosts aren’t real.  But if you are feeling a bit squirrelly, pull the sheet so the eyeholes are no longer of use, grab his trick-or-treat bag and run.  Your yield in purloined candy will rise as the evening advances.

Storm Trooper - Like ghosts, their helmet impairs their vision.  Give it a twist.  Grab their flashlight disguised as a light saber.  Run.

Final tip: Regardless of your costume, which by now you should have figured out must include no headgear, wear good running shoes.

Happy Halloween!

Frankenstein (Universal-1931)

Extra! Mars Attacked!

A special bulletin for readers of the Obsequious News Service!  Sunday, October 19, 2014, Comet Siding Spring (named for the Australian Observatory at which it was first seen) will have a close encounter with our neighbor planet Mars.

Comet Siding Spring

The comet will pass within 87,000 miles of the Red Planet, (I don’t have to go over that again, do I? Do we all remember from the blog post of April 7, 2014, “Extra! Mars Attacks!” why the planet is named Mars?) just one-third the distance between the Earth and Moon.

Comet as seen from Mars

In addition to the close encounter, this occurrence is remarkable because the comet is from the Ort Cloud: Which is a long, long, way.  The Ort Cloud is that ring of rocks and ice balls out beyond Neptune where that erstwhile planet Pluto resides.  NASA suggests that Siding Spring was nudged out of its usual orbit by a passing star some million years ago (talk about a road trip) on a trajectory toward the sun.

Maybe… or could it just be a bit of revenge?

While several satellites and the Mars bound rovers are keyed up to take pictures as the intruder passes, there is no indication that we will be able to see the comet from Earth.  That can only mean one thing… STEALTH TECHNOLOGY!

Keep your eyes open and report anything you don’t see to authorities.

Happy Birthday Mickey Mouse!

Okay, you’ve got me.  This week’s post has nothing to do with Walt Disney’s beloved rodent.  I am almost ashamed to say it is possibly the one subject more off-putting than vermin, The Constitution of the United States.  I can hear the yawns now. Oh, and you patriots out there: shut up… there is some measure of sarcasm in everything I write.

   

Be honest, if I had titled this post The Constitution, would you have started reading it?  I didn’t think so.  But hang with me for just a few lines and see if this doesn’t spark your interest.

Since the very first moments after the ratification of the Constitution there has been debate on the scope and meaning.  Does that sound like a description of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)?  Except that the ACA is 906 pages (the actual text of the statute, not including subsequent regulation) and the Constitution is only 4,400 words.  That’s less than nine pages in modern typewritten font: Less than nine pages to define the parameters of a whole federal governing system.  Interesting fact; it is the oldest and shortest written Constitution of any major government.

Interestingly enough, the conventioneers that would eventually produce the Constitution had no legal authority to do so.  The Continental Congress, somewhat preoccupied with keeping the creditors at bay, created a body of state representatives charged with correcting a major flaw in the original Articles of Confederation.  The revolutionaries, it seems, had borrowed a considerable sum from several European countries to fund the war with no real mechanism for repayment of the debt.  Does this remind you somewhat of our government today?  This was critical as back in the days before world monetary controls, creditor countries collected the arrears via invasion and conquest.  The problem was the original Articles of Confederation included no proviso for direct taxation by the Confederation.  All monies had to be gathered from the coffers of the independent states, all of whom were a bit reluctant to hand over the wealth they had just fought a war to retain.

James Madison

James Madison is considered the father of the Constitution because of his efforts to get the document drafted.  He was a Virginian and protégé to Thomas Jefferson, Much of the template of the Constitution came from the Virginia Constitution which had been written by Mr. Jefferson. The final document was a compromise generally reflecting the constitutions of Virginia and New Jersey. One of the key sticking points was the disparity of votes caused by basing legislative representation on population.  The solution was the introduction of a bi-cameral legislature, one house of which would be populated evenly by representatives of each state.  This was the birth of the most deliberative body in politics, the U.S. Senate.  You know, the gang led by Harry Reid who can’t bring anything to a vote.  Ah, the progress we’ve witnessed in two hundred and twenty-seven years.

Gouverneur Morris

The actual text of the Constitution was largely written by Gouverneur (enate family name, not a political office) Morris, delegate from Pennsylvania (although a citizen of New York).  Yeah, things were a bit confused in the early years.  He is largely credited with authorship of the Constitution’s preamble, you know: “We the People...”

Interestingly enough, two of the three heavy hitters of the Continental Congress that created the Declaration of Independence were not at the Constitutional Convention.  Jefferson was in Paris as the U.S. Minister to the Court of King Louis XVI working to shore up monetary and military support for the new country, and reportedly charming the ladies of polite society.  And his old pal (but political rival) John Adams was serving as Minister to The Court of Saint James (England, for you tyros) trying to put a happy face on relations between two countries recently at war.  If you’ve read anything about Adams you understand the irony in his appointment as a diplomatic envoy. Benjamin Franklin was a delegate to the convention and signer of the Constitution.

Adams and Jefferson

On September 17, 1787, the delegates of the Convention approved the Constitution and adjourned.  That was the easy part.  The delegates were all interested in forming a unifying federal government.  But having just fought a war to dislodge the onerous taxation and control of the British, many members of state governments were resistant.  A case had to be made that would convince the states, with their varied political and economic interests, that turning over governance to a distant federal bureaucracy would not reinstate monarchial tyranny.

Alexander Hamilton

In a herculean effort, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay (but mostly Alexander Hamilton) wrote eighty-five articles (really op/ed pieces) published in New York City newspapers to sway popular opinion in favor of ratification of the new Constitution.  These opinion pieces were titled The Federalist Nos. 1 – 85 submitted under the pseudonym “Publius” to protect the identity of the authors (a common but curious practice by political writers as far back as the classical Greek era).  It is widely held by modern scholars that the influence of The Federalist in the ratification process was minimal as they were generally available only to residents of New York.  They are however, considered a significant resource in gleaning Constitutional intent.

As stated, there was considerable resistance to the formation of a strong central government.  Among the concerns was the natural tendency of government to self promote and grow its power at the expense of the states and the individual.  Thomas Jefferson was among the more influential opponents to the Federalist template.  The compromise posited (lore has it at a dinner hosted by Jefferson for the purpose of bringing the political opponents Hamilton and Madison together) was the addition of a bill of rights.

Hamilton asserted that such a document was superfluous as the powers of the federal government would be strictly limited to those positively enumerated in the Constitution. (Ha-ha-ha… that one still cracks me up!)  The Bill of Rights proponents prevailed.  The Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787 and ratified by the final state (Rhode Island… but they had to park their carriages in Connecticut) May 29, 1790 thus becoming the supreme law of the land.

As you know from current debate, even the express limitations attached to government power by the Bill of Rights are constantly under attack.

Recently there has been much sensational discourse on the state of the Constitution as to it being a living or dead document.  What an unfortunate choice of language!   Of course the document is living, as it is the officially adopted law of the land.  The authors (and by agreement, the signers) recognized the need for adaptability in a changing world by including a provision for amending the document when in the best interest of the CITIZENS.  They also showed considerable insight into human behavior by making the process arduous and exacting so as to preclude capricious change on a swelling tide of temporary emotion.  The Constitution has stood for over two hundred years and amended only seventeen times. (Prohibition of slavery, good… prohibition of alcohol, not so much.)

It is the duty of the legislature as representatives of the people, not the executive branch of government, to assess the applicability of Constitutional provisions and undertake the amendment process when shown to be necessary.  The courts have dismissed the right of nullification by the States.  If no such right of nullification exists, where do the courts derive their authority to liberally (small “l”) apply modern philosophies (either pro or anti government) to change the original intent expressed in the Constitution?

I hope you’ve enjoyed this little expedition through your history.   Be sure to tune in next week when we explore the political machinations that created the Duchy of Lichtenstein.

Pissy Mood!

“Why am I in a pissy mood?” you ask.  Because I haven’t shaved since September 7^th and strangers on the street are telling me I missed a spot when attending to my morning titivation!

It’s not the opinion of strangers that authors my angst.  It’s the humiliating truth that at sixty years of age, I fall behind most twenty-year olds in the production of whiskers.  My main assertion is that a mane should befit a man’s mien.  (Hah!  Three homonyms in one sentence:  Let’s see you top that, Brenda Moguez; if that is your real name.)

Reason dictates that I am merely a victim of the genetic dice-roll.  I should consider myself lucky I avoided the fate of my enate uncles who all sported the ever-popular bozo.  No, no comb over for me; short and fuzzy every time.  But I digress.

The true genesis of my unshaven state is a latent realization that at my advanced age, I am not bound to subscribe to societal dictates.  If I choose not to shave and the consequent patchwork stubble that resides on my cheeks and chin offends the members of the population at large, so be it.  There is only one reason to shave and that is concern for ones level of attractiveness.   The days of submission to the desires of the community at large are ended.  I feel no further impulse to please the masses with my previously handsome countenance and alluring profile.  I need be slave to only one emotional driver, “I hate to shave!”

I have hated to shave from my very first bloodletting experience.  (See my blog post “Suave and Debonair” from March 7^th, 2013… yes, I’ve been at this for that long.) There are probably only two readers out there who have seen me without a mustache, but a mustache is no beard (See the blog post “The Zen of Mustachios” from July 3^rd, 2013.)  A mustache is a statement.  Scraggly whiskers are a surrender. Or, are they a victory?

I can hear the synapses of the female reading audience closing as I type, “Men have it so easy, they should try shaving their legs!”  Well ladies, let me assure you, I have shaved my legs.  No, there was no gender identity crisis involved.  As a high-school football player with bad knees (that should have been an omen, but young equals stupid) I had to shave my legs so the training staff could apply joint bracing tape.  And I aver that shaving ones legs is far easier, less painful and less bloody that shaving ones face.  This is particularly true when you are young and your skin is as tight as a drum.  But I digress.  

There, you have it.  In a perfectly self-serving tack, I have opted to please my own sense of need.  I shall place my individual interests above that of the community at large.  Thank you John Galt!  (Yes, Brenda, after twenty-some years I finally followed your advice and read the liturgy of objectivism… thank you.  (For those of you wondering where you got off the train, Google “John Galt” and all will be clear.)

And anyway, my barber calls it a beard… says she likes it… trims it for free.

Next week, I will announce the winner of the “Name Dale’s Beard” contest; so vote early and often.

Why Worry?

The human body is a reasonable analog for the writing process.  Sometimes there’s junk flowing out of every orifice and at others you’re sealed up tighter than a can of sardines without a key.  This week is very much the latter.  So, being absolutely void of anything interesting to share, I will write about everyone’s favorite debate subject; global warming.

Hey… you get this for free, remember!

If you read the news, especially via the internet, you are more than aware there is a dearth of source articles available that claim to interject some new fact bolstering the argument that if we fail to take drastic measures immediately, rampant man-caused climate change will surely render our planet uninhabitable to life as we know it.  Scientists always like to add that tag, “as we know it” to the word “life”.  I conjecture that it is because they really have no idea what life is and they’re just covering their bases.  Oh, they can identify the parameters under which life will operate.  But if you ask them, “How did it start?”  Their answer is always, and I commend them for their veracity here, “I dunno.”  And if you do not know the origin of a phenomenon, you surely haven’t got a handle on it, cosmically speaking.  But I digress.

One of the stories I read this week offered that a dire consequence from extreme climate change was the congregation of 35,000 walruses on the beaches of the Pt. May, Alaska.  This unprecedented (by the way, who is counting the walruses?) gathering is apparently the result of diminished sea ice.  As there are no bergs upon which to rest, they have been forced to lie about on the beach.  The article did not intimate that any poll was taken amongst the walruses to query their motives for coming ashore.  Perhaps they just grew tired of having cold tummies.

Another, unrelated story, proffered that the ease with which ISIS was able to subjugate a swath of desert larger than Oregon in what used to be Iraq and Syria could be explained by severe drought (not your every day, run-of-the-mill drought mind you; but a catastrophic, globe-altering drought fueled by the run-away green-house effect) that prevented farmers from realizing normal crop yields.  Never mind that for the last four thousand years (yes, even before the Prophet), one conqueror after another swept through the area establishing a temporary dynasty, e.g. Babylonians, Sumerians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Britains, etc. (I know that should be “the British”, but the prose just doesn’t flow as well and if I can recall your attention to the opening paragraph, you know I am all about the flow.)  But I digress.

 

Or maybe, both examples are just among myriads that can be attributed to Darwinian natural selection.  Maybe the walruses are engaged in a practice that will somehow cull the herd.  Perhaps the time is right for the Semitic (look this word up, it probably doesn’t mean what you think it means) peoples to discover a unifying ethos that will allow them to prosper (no matter how dangerous to the rest of us).  Allah knows they’ve had enough false starts.

But to bring this to the point I want to make (finally!): We cannot continue to believe our destiny as a species is dependent on climate change.  The universe has our number and some day it’s going to make the call.  If you look out over the long term, we know that our sun will eventually run out of fuel and doom our planet.  That is, of course, if we aren’t smacked by a big ol’ asteroid in the meantime.  And don’t forget the bubbling cauldron of volcanic death percolating under Yellowstone valley, overdue and just looking for an excuse to exterminate us interlopers.

In understanding nature, one does not buck trends.  And the trend has been 99.9% of all species that have ever lived on earth are extinct (source).  Do we really think that because we, (as a species) have codified Darwinian Theory we are exempt from the law?  So I say give the argument a rest.  Take a cue from the walruses; relax and go to the beach.  But be sure to lather up with sunscreen.  There’s no reason to tempt fate!