Category: Uncategorized

Ken Hurley

Sinners unite! In 1631, a tiny typo shook the religious world. In a reprint of the King James Bible by the famed, and later defamed, royal printers Robert Barker and Martin Lucas, the word “not” was shockingly omitted from the Exodus version of the Seventh Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” was mistakenly printed as “Thou shalt commit adultery.” Oops, but oooh, the fun, said God. The typo appeared in about a thousand copies, which later came to be known as the “Wicked Bible” or “Sinners’ Bible” or “The Adulterer's Bible.” When the error was discovered, about a year after publication, Barker and Lucas were summoned to the Star Chamber to be adjudicated, fined £300 (equivalent to about $82,000 in 2024) and had their printing license revoked. All the King's Men proceeded to find and destroy as many copies of the Wicked Bible as possible, making it a rare collector’s item. Today, only about 15 copies remain. I know one copy is in the New York Public Library rare book collection.
      And, from the “Here We Go Again” file. Commandments in the classroom! Dateline June 19, 2024 BATON ROUGE — The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation announced that they will file suit to challenge a new Louisiana law that mandates Ten Commandments in each K-12 Louisiana public school classroom. Apparently, Louisiana hasn't learned from Kentucky. (All bourbon aside.) In Stone v. Graham, the U.S. Supreme Court on November 17, 1980, ruled (5 – 4) that a Kentucky statute requiring school officials to post a copy of the Ten Commandments (purchased with private contributions) on a wall in every public school classroom violated the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which is commonly interpreted as separation of church and state. Looks like they can't actually post these Commandments on their side of the Wall Between Church and State, so they chose to legislate posting them on the walls of Louisiana's public schools. The Court found that the  Ten Commandments "had no secular legislative purpose" such as murder and stealing and was "plainly religious in nature" such as the worship of God and the observance of the Sabbath Day.
      Rhetorical question: How would the U.S. Supreme Court rule if the word “not” were deleted from each of the applicable Commandments, a la the Wicked Bible?
      Problem: We're in different times now. The Court's decision was narrowly divided in 1980. Today, we have a Court stacked with Christian Nationalists who are quite capable of ruling based on their religious biases and not precedent. 
      One more thing, the Court, at the end of its recent term, ruled in Donald J. Trump v. The United States, that presidents do have immunity from prosecution and cannot be criminally charged for "official acts.” How much immunity and to what extent is yet to be determined. This ruling allows presidents to engage in what otherwise might be criminal acts as long as they are considered “official acts” of the job — without criminal accountability. Hypothetically, even ordering assassinations. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the determination of what may or may not be a presidential official act “... is best left to the lower courts …” We now have a dramatic expansion of executive authority. Or, in other words, the president who would be king. Our former president tried to overthrow our democracy with a violent insurrection. What might he do now (if elected) in the name of “official acts?” Not just him… future presidents too.
      As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a scathing dissent, the ruling creates “nightmare scenarios” for what a president is now legally permitted to do. “Orders the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
      However, how can it be an “official act” when a lame duck president conspires with his private attorneys to overturn the results of an election? More likely it is an act of a despotic narcissist, 
convicted fraudster, convicted felon, consummate liar, and twice-impeached former president who attempted to overthrow American democracy so he could cling to power. Hyperbole? Nah. Wicked.
:::::::::

Ken Hurley

Beyond the door
There's peace, I'm sure
And I know there'll be no more
Tears in heaven
Would you know my name
If I saw you in heaven?
Would you be the same
If I saw you in heaven? 

Those lyrics are from the Grammy-winning song, Tears in Heaven, written by Eric Clapton and Will Jennings in 1991 after Clapton's four-year-old son fell to his death from a 53rd floor window in Manhattan. Clapton grieved in solitude for a while, then began writing a musical score for the film Rush in which this song was included. The song is a powerful and emotional testimony to a religious belief regarding the concept of Heaven.
      It is regrettable, but there seems to be a timeless debate between science and religion. An endless source of contemplation, conflict, and some Cuckoo birdiness. 
     The pursuit of knowledge through empirical investigation is laudable and has yielded remarkable discoveries and technological advancements that have transformed the way we perceive and interact with the world. Our perceptions change with new information. Yay! At least, some humans are willing to accept new ideas, enjoy the process of contemplation, and are open to changing their mind.
      The earliest roots of science can be traced back to Egypt and Mesopotamia between 3000 and 1200 BCE. (Looks like Potamia was a mess.) The Babylonians get credit for recognizing geometric principles which would later confound high school students. Let's note, they were “Baby"lonians. Imagine what they might have discovered if they were “Allgrownup”lonians. 
     Other ancient humans interpreted the stars they could see at night. And by ancient, I mean old. This makes astronomy one of the oldest sciences.
       There is some evidence of religious behavior from the Middle Palaeolithic era (300-500 thousand years ago) and possibly earlier. No one is really sure. The earliest evidence of religious action is based on the ritual treatment of the dead. 
      The concepts of "science" and "religion" are relatively recent inventions: "religion," as we understand it today, emerged in the 17th century in the midst of colonization, and globalization, and as a consequence of the Protestant reformation. "Science" emerged in the 19th century in the midst of attempts to narrowly define those who studied nature.
     Thankfully, in 1583, Galileo was paying attention. He built a new and  improved telescope that enabled him to delight in star gazing and planetary observations. He also built a microscope suitable for examining bugs. Additionally, his empirical observations gave the world the knowledge that the period of a swinging lamp's sway is always the same, which is known as the law of isochronism of the pendulum or the law of harmonic motion.
      However, when Galileo described Copernican heliocentrism as a better way to think of the solar system by replacing Earth with the Sun as the center, he was met with strong opposition from Pope Urban VIII and investigated by the Roman Inquisition in 1615, which concluded that heliocentrism was Cuckoo, ridiculous, blasphemous, and heretical, since it contradicted the Ptolemaic horoscopic system which was considered a religious truth for centuries. So, how much did Galileo have to pay for his attention? He was convicted and condemned by the church for being "vehemently suspect of heresy” and sentenced to house arrest for the remainder of his life.
      Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, and many others credit Galileo with the birth of modern science.
      The idea that science and religion are at war with one another is actually fairly recent too. It likely arose in the last part of the nineteenth century, after the publication of On the Origin of Species or, more completely, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859). This work of scientific literature by Charles Darwin is considered to be the foundation of evolutionary biology.
      The effectiveness of science is evident in its ability to provide explanations for natural phenomena, develop life-saving medical treatments, and improve the quality of life for countless individuals. Lots of notable humans get credit for the development of the scientific method, including Aristotle, Issac Newton, the scapegoat Galileo, and Roger Bacon. Bacon gets credit for documenting the method with its emphasis on observation, experimentation, and peer review. He happened to be a Franciscan Friar too. The method has led to a deepening comprehension of the physical laws that govern our reality and has contributed to the evolution of human society.
      On the other hand, (right or left?) religion, with its series of beliefs, traditions, and so-called moral frameworks, offers a different form of effectiveness that amazingly still resonates with a significant portion of humanity. The power of religious faith to provide solace, so-called ethical guidelines, and a sense of purpose for some humans is evident in the diverse religious traditions that have shaped cultures and civilizations over millennia. The effectiveness of religion can be seen in the comfort, community, and fellowship it provides to individuals.
        However, I agree with Ricky Gervais when he said, take all the religious texts away for a thousand years and religious texts would not come back in the same form as originally published. But if you take all the science texts away for a thousand years, the science texts will come back as they are today because science is tested and proven. 
      In examining the effectiveness of science versus religion, it is important to recognize that both domains offer distinct ways of understanding and engaging with the world. While science provides empirical explanations and technological progress, religion offers spiritual fulfillment for many, and a sense of belonging to a larger cosmic narrative.
      Science has harnessed the power of electricity, developed life-saving vaccines, and demonstrated its efficacy in shaping the trajectory of human civilization and improving the welfare of individuals, including the religiously inclined.
      Conversely, the rituals, traditions, and communal practices associated with religious faith contribute to a sense of cohesion within some societies, and the preservation of a perception of cultural heritage, which may serve as a source of resilience and meaning in the face of existential questions.
      However, religious texts include nothing that is based on actual evidence, but lots based on conjecture and illogical circular thoughts passed down through the ages, originating with people who did not know where the Sun went at night and listened to a talking snake. Some examples: The Bible is the word of God. If that's true (which it is not) then God needs a good editor. The Bible instructs its reader as follows: 1 Timothy 2:12 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” And, Jeremiah 19:9 “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another’s flesh because their enemies will press the siege so hard against them to destroy them.” And, 1 Peter 2:18-20 “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? But if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.” The Bible teaches how one should treat your slaves! And, Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with a man, as with a woman: it is abomination.”
      How about a few verses from the Quran? Chapter and verse 2:191 “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.” 3:28 “Muslims must not take infidels as friends” 3:85 “Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable” 5:33 "The penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth (to cause) corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land". 8:12 “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than Quran” 9:5 “But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way.” 9:123 “Make war on infidels living in your neighborhood.”
       How and why do humans still believe this dangerous, inhumane, cruel, hateful, and intolerant stuff as something considered to be guidance for a moral ethical life? While absolute nonviolence is not a requirement of many other religions, some religions so sharply restrict the use of violence, that nonviolence often becomes the only way to fulfill a life of truth, justice, and peace.  
       The blinding ideology behind many religions can be traced to the source of many wars. The deadly war weaponry however, is science. 
      Throughout history, the dynamic interplay between science and religion has given rise to moments of conflict and collaboration, inspiring introspection and debate on the nature of truth, meaning, and the human condition. The effectiveness of both domains lies not in their mutual exclusivity, but in their capacity to offer diverse perspectives and avenues for exploring the depths of existence.
      Religion does not have to be truthful to be effective. Religious leaders may spew their pulpit pabulum without fear or care if their words are put to test via the scientific method. A religious belief system based on borrowed imaginations will stifle the ability to grow introspectively, collectively, and authentically. Science does not have the luxury of being static. Science is constantly correcting itself through hypothesis, tests, peer review, and reasonable conclusions. 
      Let's remember, the Pope is supposedly infallible regarding matters of faith and moral direction. The notion of Papal infallibility was established by the First Vatican Council in 1870. Personally, give me science and reason over religious dogma and fanaticism any day.
::::::  

What do you read, my lord?” asked Polonius.  
      “Words. Words. Words.” replied a trifling, nonchalant, yet crafty Hamlet.
       “What is the matter, my lord?” asked Polonius.
        “Between who?” replied Hamlet.
        “I mean, the matter that you read, my lord.”

A brief scene from Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2 where Polonius makes another effort to talk with Hamlet. Hamlet makes his sarcastic reply suggesting the words he is reading are meaningless while also slyly showing contempt for Polonius’s constant blathering.
      “Words matter!” is often said in a condescending and derogatory tone accompanied by a vigorous finger wag by one grappling for intellectual superiority while oblivious to the short path they’re traveling toward demonstrating their own frustrating cognitive dissonance. Their hope is the recipient of the “words matter” admonition will hear the phrase as revelatory.
     Ahh, words! Of course. Yes. Yes! Words. Words. Words matter.
      As if we, the subject of the intellectual onslaught, are so mindnumbed that we cannot discern the difference between the words poison and candy.
     The late Rush Limbaugh gets some credit for popularizing the phrase “words matter” when he sat behind a golden microphone on his EIB Radio Network as he patronized and denigrated women, liberals, minorities and others with whom he disagreed. “El Rushbo” thought it necessary to let his listeners know that “words matter.”
    Barack Obama famously replied to Hillary Clinton’s view that Obama’s well-versed speeches essentially didn’t mean much without action. In another well-versed speech Obama said, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream’ – just words? ‘We owe these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal’ – just words? ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself’ – just words, just speeches?”
      Obviously, words do matter. Saying “words matter” is extraordinarily obvious. Moreover, to say “words matter” without specificity is laziness.
      The troublesome issue comes from people who bellow “words matter” as a smug and often abrupt end to an argument in which they have likely disabused their own “words matter” mantra. Some of these same people seem quite capable of finding an argument on any topic while twisting definitions to suit their position. To misquote an often paraphrased quote said by the Mexican bandit leader Gold Hat from the Treasure of Sierra Madre, “Definitions? We don’t need no stinkin’ definitions.”
      The expression “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” is a half-truth. Words can hurt.
        I have a friend who had a common congenital facial deformity – protruding ears. When she was in elementary school, boys called her names like Spock, Dumbo, and monkey. These unkind remarks caused lots of tears and impacted her self-worth. She was energetic and athletic but felt it necessary to hide her ears with her hair or a hat. She no longer saw herself as beautiful but now as tainted, different, and ugly.   
     Even though she knew her self-worth did not come from her outward appearance, it was painfully difficult to forget the bullying and the name-calling.
     In college, she had surgery to pin her ears back. It helped her confidence but the memories and emotional scars linger.
    Now she is a happily married mother over 20 years living her best most creative life.
      There are too many derogatory racial epithets to share here with the further effort to show words can hurt. Here’s an excellent book that examines the history and controversy surrounding one of the more contemptuous slurs, Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word by Randall Kennedy.
       Let me offer some examples from the “words matter” lexicon of human verbal oddities of seemingly harmless yet aggressive or violent expressions spoken reflexively sans thought. 

Grab some coffee • Beat you to the punch • Beat a dead horse • Nail it down • Knife in the back • Dying of thirst • I’m starving • Brutally honest • Dying to meet you • Shoot you an email • Dog eat dog world • Push comes to shove • Roll with the punches • Kill time •  Pick your brain • Drop me off •  All tied up •  Have a crush •  Brainstorm •  Kill them with kindness • Jump the gun •  Gunned down the runner at third • Kill the ump •  Shoot the breeze •  Take a shot at it • Burned out • End of my rope • Bury the hatchet • You strike me as …

Here’s a mindnumbingly odd phrase spoken by people who want to preface what follows as a truthful statement but in effect puts veracity into question, “To be honest . . .”
      “To be honest” may be said before or after a statement to indicate the speaker is telling the truth about their opinions. To be honest, the undeniable implication is that the speaker hasn’t been honest other times. Honestly, “to be honest” is an unnecessary phrase unless the speaker honestly struggles with honesty.
     Here’s another figure of speech that generations of people use. When we work, we’re told to work hard. When we play, we’re told to play hard. “I work hard and I play hard!” These same people ask why is my life is so hard? Suppose instead of working hard or playing hard we worked and played joyfully and lovingly?
     Here’s another phrase spoken with little thought yet said by the hopeful that the recipient will back-off. “I’m busy!”
      Take note next time someone says, “I’m busy.” Because you’ll rarely if never hear, “I’m busy” from truly busy people. Truly busy people make time for you without saying, “I’m busy.” How? Because truly busy people know how to manage their precious time effectively without the whine, “I’m busy!” For so many, “I’m busy” is a simple and amazingly accepted excuse to avoid accountability, express disdain, boredom, or demonstrate priorities. (And you ain’t a priority.) “I’m busy” remains an unfortunate effective verbal mask.
     With all due respect, may we take a moment of scrutiny to look at the phrase, “With all due respect…” While intended as a polite way for the speaker to lessen the effect of the speaker’s cortisol-elevating grumbling complaints that follow the expression, the phrase has become so overly used it has reached cliché status. Time to develop a ‘respect meter’ so we can learn how much respect is actually due. With all due respect, of course.
      What might be different in our verbal exchanges if we taught ourselves to avoid the downward spiral into the powerful vortex of tired, thought-terminating clichés and resisted the path of least resistance in an effort to be original, inspiring, and thought-provoking with the words we choose?
     Suffice it to say: “Actions speak louder than words.” I had an attorney who said “Suffice it to say…” often. Problem was she never had anything to say after “Suffice it to say…”
     I also enjoyed the company of an Italian tour guide in Rome who began each sentence with, “Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera…”
    Instead of “Let’s grab a cup of coffee” suppose we said, “Let’s go sip a cup of coffee.”
     Whether you’re “dirt poor” or “filthy rich” –  either way you need a bath.
      If you’re going to bury the hatchet at least bury it where it will do the most good.
     And sometimes, words unspoken may leave gentle hearts broken.
     Anyway, it all boils down to pushing the envelope. Business is business. A deal’s a deal. It is what it is. No means no. Enough is enough. And, “never say never” means I just said never twice.
    The tree is matter. The sky is matter. You matter. You are matter. Words matter.
    Duh.

Please send thoughts in word form to Ken Hurley on the contact page.

Ken Hurley 

It is time to explore other solar systems. Spreading out may be the only thing that saves us from ourselves. I am convinced that humans need to leave Earth… To stay, risks being annihilated.  – Stephen Hawking

I was camping in Farragut State Park in Northern Idaho during the Apollo 11 moon landing on July 20, 1969. We set up a long makeshift aluminum antenna to capture radio reception to hear the live broadcast. It worked, but I had to pee so I left the camp and found a tree. On my walk back, I stumbled over a tree root, fell into our antenna and brought it down at T-30 seconds to lunar touchdown. Everybody in the camp screamed, “Oh, no!! NO!!!” We scurried to reposition the antenna. Radio reception was restored in time to hear Neil Armstrong say, “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed." And a bit later, his famous words, “That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.”
     I remain impressed that science and a desire to go where no one has gone before can bring humanity into something extraordinary. 
     Should we pursue extraterrestrial colonization? Yes. Sure. What else are we going to do? Pick up litter? We can do both.
    Humans have believed for centuries that there are gods who live in the heavens. Many humans still believe there is an invisible man who lives in the sky with a supernatural ability to address your needs when asked. 
     The notion of space travel and humans living in space can be dated to when Johannes Kepler invented the telescope in the 17th century. Johannes was thrilled with his invention and immediately dashed off an open letter to his old pal Galileo Galilei, which was published in the Conversation with the Star Messenger (1610) that read in part, “There will certainly be no lack of human pioneers when we have mastered the art of flight. … Let us create vessels and sails adjusted to the heavenly ether, and there will be plenty of people unafraid of the empty wastes. In the meantime, we shall prepare, for the brave sky-travelers, maps of the celestial bodies. …  I shall do it for the moon, you Galileo, for Jupiter.”
      The Other World: Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon by Savinien Cyrano de Bergerac (1657) is credited by Arthur C. Clark as being the first science fiction book in which a rocket to the moon is yearned for by humans. Jules Verne did his part to encourage sci-fi space lore when he published From Earth to the Moon (1865), which inspired Georges Méliès to make the film, A Trip to the Moon (1902). Then in 1903, the Wright Brothers, working in their bicycle shop, made an airplane that actually flew. 
      Dreams of intergalactic space settlements were all the rage in the 1950s after Walt Disney produced Man and the Moon. Let's also remember Ray Bradbury’s, The Martian Chronicles (1950). The song, Fly Me to the Moon, was written in 1954 but became associated with NASA and the Apollo missions in 1964 after Frank Sinatra and Count Basie recorded the great Quincy Jones arrangement. Then Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke presented us with apes who marveled at the monolith in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), inspired by Clarke’s 1951 short story, The Sentinel.
      In 1962 at Rice University in Houston, Texas, President John Kennedy delivered his famous speech about space exploration, which in part said, "But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.” 
      Satellites launched by NASA have provided critical data on climate change, natural disasters, and other environmental phenomena, which help us to better protect and preserve our planet. NASA's Earth science missions have shed light on the interconnectedness of the Earth's systems, demonstrating the fragility of our planet and the need for sustainable practices to ensure its future viability. NASA has also inspired generations of people to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The Space Camp for young students, and the Women@NASA initiative to promote diversity in STEM fields, have encouraged people from all backgrounds to pursue careers in science and engineering. Nurturing the next generation of scientists and engineers is critical to ensure that the legacy of its space program will continue to inspire future generations to push the boundaries of human knowledge and exploration.
     Humans settling other orbs has captured the imagination of scientists, entrepreneurs, writers, and dreamers. With rapid advancements in space exploration technology and growing concerns about the sustainability of life on Earth, the push for interplanetary colonization has regained momentum.
       One of the most compelling arguments for colonizing other planets is the need to ensure the survival of the human race. Why? Fair question. It is human instinct to want to live. 
      Earth is vulnerable to a variety of potential threats, from natural disasters like asteroids and supervolcanoes to human-induced catastrophes such as climate change and nuclear war. By establishing colonies on other planets, we can create a Plan[et] B for humanity, ensuring that our species will continue to survive and thrive even in the face of global calamities on Earth.
      Colonization of other planets could open up new opportunities for scientific discovery and exploration. In addition to advancing our knowledge of the cosmos, interplanetary colonization could also lead to the development of new technologies and industries that could benefit both space exploration and life on Earth. 
      The challenges of living in the harsh environments of other planets would require us to innovate and adapt, leading to breakthroughs in areas such as sustainable energy production, advanced robotics, resource management, architectural design, alternative fuel production, 3D printing, and low-gravity manufacturing, to name several. These technologies could then be applied on Earth, helping us address pressing issues like climate change and resource depletion. 
      Suppose we could find a planet that has gravity, water, and an atmosphere similar to Earth? Certainly not Mars. Mars is totally inhospitable to life as we know it. 
Take a peek at Planet K2-18b, first discovered in 2015. Suppose K2-18b had the right stuff that could alleviate the harsh difficulties we find on other planets? The difficulty with planet K2-18b is getting there. It's 124 light years away. 
      As we establish colonies on other worlds, we would create new markets and industries, driving innovation, creating jobs, stimulating a burgeoning space economy. This could help to offset the economic challenges facing our planet and create a more resilient and interconnected global society fostering international cooperation and collaboration. The challenges of sending humans to live on other planets would require the combined efforts of nations around the world, bringing together people from diverse cultures and backgrounds to work towards a common goal. By working together on such a monumental task, we could bridge political divides, promote cultural exchange, and build bonds of friendship that transcend national boundaries.
      The exploration and colonization of other planets could also inspire future generations and ignite a sense of wonder and curiosity about the universe. Perhaps similar to the early exploration of the “New World,” which sparked a spirit of adventure, desperation, and discovery. 
      Despite the many potential benefits of colonizing other planets, there are also enormous challenges and ethical concerns, which include exploitation, sovereignty, environmental considerations, resource depletion, ecosystem disruption, and cost. The cost of sending humans to colonize other planets is astronomical. Not as simple as Ralph Kramden's often repeated line, “Bang, zoom, you're going to the moon, Alice!” Space colonization requires substantial investments in technology, infrastructure, research, and political will. Additionally, the long distances involved in interplanetary travel would pose serious health risks to astronauts, including exposure to cosmic radiation and the physiological effects of extended spaceflight. A bit different from life on Earth, space is always trying to kill you. But, what about propagation in space? That's an experiment waiting to happen. Any volunteers?
      The idea of colonizing other planets raises other important questions about our responsibility first on Earth and second to the space environment. We do not want to trash space as we've done to our streets and oceans. However, we should not lump all humans as if they are all careless, selfish litterbugs. Many work to pick up the trash others leave behind. So, we need to develop a Space Waste Truck to reclaim all the mess we've left in orbit.
      We do have international Treaties already in place that are intended to safeguard human efforts in space. The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) has several main tenets which over 100 nations have signed onto. Known as The Outer Space Treaty, or, more specifically, “Treaty  on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.” The treaty is the foundation of international space law for signatory nations. The treaty presents principles for space exploration and operation including:  1) Space activities are for the benefit of all nations, and any country is free to explore orbit and beyond.  2) There is no claim for sovereignty in space; no nation can “own” space, the Moon, or any other body.  3) Weapons of mass destruction are forbidden in orbit and beyond, and the Moon, the planets, and other celestial bodies can only be used for peaceful purposes.  4) Any astronaut from any nation is an “envoy of mankind,” and signatory states must provide all possible help to astronauts when needed, including emergency landing in a foreign country or at sea.  5) Signatory states are each responsible for their space activities, including private commercial endeavors, and must provide authorization and continuing supervision.  6) Nations are responsible for damage caused by their space objects and must avoid contaminating space and celestial bodies.
      The treaties also have authority over the billionaire “billionauts” private corporations – Elon, Richard, and Jeff. Are there others?
      Despite the many formidable and daunting challenges, the potential benefits of pursuing interplanetary colonization  outweigh the risks and difficulties.  
      By expanding our presence beyond Earth, or as Stephen Hawking said, “spreading out,” we can help ensure the survival of our species, advance our knowledge of the universe, stimulate technological innovation, foster international cooperation, and maybe even inspire future generations to go where no one has gone before.
      Space sex, anyone?

::::::::

Oh dearest me. How I pine fondly for the days of yesteryear when polemical, vitriolic, diatribes were offered with wit, charm, a sweet dash of sorghum, and a tad of sarcasm. The days when a mindful and clever response to such an affront would be seen by the upper class and the classless, the educated and the illiterate, the Kings and the jesters as a delightful touché.
      My sole gentle soul yearns for the days when a curmudgeonly recipient of such mental sharpness would recognize the tongue in one’s cheek. The days when insults and dubious expressions were presented with a considered array of fan and flury yet would not end a worthy exchange of human verbal dribble. The days when dexterous lingual surprises were met with suitable intellectual ability and emotional stability to maintain tasteful human connections.
     I have been around longer than forever. Sweary acronyms and initialisms have been around a long while too. However, I’ve learned when it comes to humans — it is often just another SNAFU¹.
     Some of my memorable summers were spent in Strafford and London to assist the prolific Jacobean writer, the Bard of Avon, the great William Shakespeare (anagram for “I am a weakish speller”), where he penned hundreds of brilliant, witty barbs often repeated with joyful jolly by those who heard them. Here’s a small sample of my favorites:

“Thou art a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy worsted-stocking knave; a lily-liver’d, action-taking, whoreson, glass-gazing, superserviceable, finical rogue; one-trunk-inheriting slave; one that wouldst be a bawd in way of good service, and art nothing but the composition of a knave, beggar, coward, pandar, and the son and heir of a mongrel bitch.” (King Lear, Act 2, Scene 2)

“Thou art a boil, a plague sore, an embossed carbuncle in my corrupted blood.” (King Lear, Act 2, Scene 4)

“If you spend word for word with me, I shall make your wit bankrupt.” (Two Gentlemen of Verona, Act 2, Scene 4)

“Your brain is as dry as the remainder biscuit after voyage. (As You Like It, Act 2, Scene 7)

“You are as a candle, the better burnt out.” (Henry IV Part 2, Act 1, Scene 2)

These “21st Century” humans seem giddy when they accelerate an unfortunate degradation of effective human communication evident by the charge some humans believe “bad letters” stifle the overbearing, pedant, sneering recipient of “bad letters”. This lamentable conundrum remains a self-imposed human obstacle to collaborative progress.
      Are you familiar with the expression, “There are no bad words only bad letters”? If not, wait for it. Soon to be the howling rage amongst the fragile, timid, and indignant humans who would quit a conversation because “bad letters” were used rather than stay on point to seek reconciliation.
      WTF² Humans‽‽
      I remain astonished. WTAF³ is wrong with the GD⁴ MF⁵ humans? And by “human” I mean the English-speaking kind. Mostly the overly sensitve, ineffectual, pseudointellectual Americans who get tongue tied trying to put a meaningful sentence together on a visit to the laundermat while they salivate for another opportunity to display self-righteous indignation. The type of human who claims they’re “woke” but can’t take a joke. The easily frightened human who believe their time on Earth is horribly unpleasant because things do not go their way. The type of human who fights to change the world but not themselves. The zombified somnambulists who see injustices everywhere even though foggy eyes. You know, the sample of humans in America the Canter Poll⁶ says are increasing in number faster than the population of Gwagwalada.
      Even I (the one, the only, God of Imagination) cannot fathom how the popular Roman letters A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Z and sometimes Y are deemed offensive by the unenlightened.
      It is clear some humans still do not know what WTF references. Other humans understand what WTF references and are grateful for using only the letters. There are other humans who don’t understand why the letters WTF need to be used instead of the actual words. There are other humans who are offended by the letters and their usage.
      So, my dearest and lovely Mistakes, letters that replace English words deemed offensive by some humans are now offensive too? OMFG⁷? Get over yourselves for God’s sake. WTF is a harmless expression. The thoughts and messages accompanying the letterful expression are what matter.
      Remember the Wisconsin Tourism Federation? These folks thought their initials WTF were not suitable for tourism. I disagreed. I told them it could be turned into a marketing coup! Since humans rarely heed my suggestions the folks at the Wisconsin Tourism Federation changed their name to the Tourism Federation of Wisconsin. Quite cheesy, I’d say.
      I once hoped for a common-sense approach to the English language that  included entertainingly, witty use of grammar, syntax, spelling, phraseology, character, subject, and tone; without opposing petulance by juvenile self-appointed judges of effective communicative standards who seek the punitive for the speaker. My hope for levity within invectives amongst the humans is greatly diminished by the sense and insensibilities of the few. Typically FUBAR⁸.
      Well, WTF is one of my favorite American human expressions. Right up there with Jesus H. Christ and Holy S(***)⁹. Dubs TEEEE eff! Nothing Romeo would say, I’m sure.
      I am aware the letters used are matters of personal preference. I am not fond of the C-letter or the N-letter. But, WTF remains a favorite of mine! If only the low-key and high-strung would accept Earth is a small place where the shanannagins are usually not about you.
     I’m not encouraging a careless disregard for situational decency nor do I wish to minimize the significance of eloquent civil discourse. But when the recipient terminates a dialog because WTF or other renowned initialisms showed their serifs, the problem is with the recipient not the speaker.
     To communicate, one must be able to speak with an ability understand the topic and stay on topic. Effective communication seeks reconciliation. One can not effectively communicate when one must tip-toe around the ultrasensitive because they feel another offense coming their way they prefer did not exist.
      WTF should not be an impediment to dialog. To those who champion the disuse of “bad letters” may I offer an oberservation going back as far as the beginning of human fancy? Please remove your heads from your blind spots, loosen up, and let life pass through you. Still, it remains your choice when to meet the challenges of life as a brick wall, a gentle filter, or neither. 
     The rapidity by which humans are devolving into their prideful “Cancel Culture” will eventually yield the cancellation of humans themselves!
     I used to spit tabacky. Can’t do that anymore. Why? It’s disgusting!
     Oh dearest me. Too many humans have yet to cross the longest yard — the slave prison of their own mind.
     There are oodles of people who believe they are good yet suffer a deep “Woe is me” misery because they have good intentions but dopey actions.
      Huffy puffy indignation is a feeling born from a troubled mind regarding unfair treatment, blameworthy attributions, and a violation of percieved social norms. One purpose of indignation is to help aghast humans feel good about themselves. It provides the toe-tapping, hands on hip, nose in the air folks an imaginary lofty perch from where their sense of moral superiority may rest. It is facinating to watch how something as simple as a few spicy letters can create an intense emotional state of mind which leads to unpleasnt reactive indignation. To wallow with indignation over preferable reconciliation is a crooked path toward the declination of humans willfully serving humans. There is no trophy for those who suffer most.
     However, there is an abundance of affrontation within the human creation that beg for human service. “Bad letters” is not one of them.
     I am hopeful more humans will enbrace acceptance, understanding, celebration, camaraderie, trust, and a desire to be of service to the rest. Always remember, you fail when you quit. Rumors suggest some actually learn from this.
     Your one precious life. What will you do with your one precious life? Will calmness, forbearance, and patience triumph over annoying, acrimonious, aggrevation? Will indignation, anger, and a troubled mind give way to kindness, understanding, and love? The time is now to recognize joyful gratitude that is yours as you pass through life. Especially, if you are one of those kind and effortful souls reading another of my silly little rants. Anyway, it is up to the humans to decide how much exasperating indignation you wish to endure.
     I’ll end this wary numenesque rant with another quote from one of my preferred humans, you know, the great Bard himself, “For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” – Hamlet: Act II, scene 2.
     FWIWTFGN¹⁰.

Struggling with BLII, “Bad Letter” Induced Indignation? Call: 1 (800) 555- WTAF (9823)

NOTES:
1. Situation Normal All Fucked Up
2. What The Fuck
3. What The Actual Fuck
4. God Damn
5. Mother Fucking
6. Predates Gallup
7. Oh My Fucking God
8. Fucked Up Beyond All Recognition
9. Censored
10. For What It’s Worth Time For God’s Nap

Got rants? Please direct them to this human: Ken Hurley at Kenhurley88@gmail.com

###

The Christian Nationalists are a real threat to American democracy. Led by a convicted fraudster, convicted felon, known liar, and twice-impeached former president who desperately wants a return stay in the White House as a dictator with complete immunity. It would be unbelievable if this were fiction. But it is true.
Number 45 evokes similarities with the multi-headed serpent, Hydra. There are so many people who thought 45 would be finished by now. Hercules thought he could remove the deadly serpent with one swipe of his sword. But with each slice that removed one ugly head, two heads grew back. In 2024, we thought today’s version of the serpent would be long gone by now. We are amazed as to why the modern day Hydra remains in the public eye. Our last great hope to dispatch the menacing serpent remains with our votes. Vote accordingly. Please, vote while conscious.
Number 45 was indicted in Florida on felony charges for mishandling top secret documents at Mar-a-Lago. He was indicted in Washington D.C. on felony charges for plotting to overturn the 2020 election as a leader of the MAGA morons at the start, middle, and end of the deadly, riotous insurrection in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. In New York, on May 30, 2024, a jury found Trump guilty of falsifying 34 invoices and Trump Organization general ledger entries to hide a $130,000 hush money payment to Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign to avoid allegations of extramarital sexual encounters in an effort to illegally influence the 2016 election. He was indicted in Georgia on felony charges for violating the state’s anti-racketeering law by scheming to illegally overturn his 2020 election loss. Yet, the Christian Nationalists embrace this man as if he is a MAGA messiah.
Christian nationalism is a selfish, misguided ideology that claims America was founded as a Christian nation. That America should be a Christian nation today. That America should be a Christian nation in the future. They want to obliterate all notions of separation between Church and State. That notion is historically inaccurate and theologically blasphemous. Make no mistake, though, their threat is real, as evidenced by those who stormed the U.S. Capitol, killing police officers while carrying crosses and signs that read “Jesus Saves.” Then there are the U.S. Supreme Court’s religiously-biased, ultra-conservative majority, our Speaker of the House, and too many members of Congress. Let’s also remember the Christian Nationalist billionaires who fund and work toward dismantling our public education system in another effort to thwart democracy. These people extol the Bible as the literal word of God. They worship power. They want more power.
Humanists and Freethinkers reject the claim that the Bible is the word of God; we’re convinced the book contains many errors and dangerous teachings, having been written and rewritten over a long cruel period of time by ignorant, unenlightened, superstitious, and fearful men. Not one woman is credited with contributing her free thoughts to the “good book.”
Let’s note that the Bible does not mention abortion or gay marriage, but it does go on and on about forgiving debt, liberating the poor, and healing the sick. Like student debt forgiveness, universal healthcare, and an assurance that each person would be clothed, fed, and housed.
America was clearly founded as a secular nation. The United States Constitution is clearly secular. America is a blended society inhabited by people, cultures, lifestyles, and religions from around the world. To claim America is a Christian nation is at best willful ignorance, or at worst a blathering, blatant, manipulative, harmful lie that seeks to treat as insignificant, or worse, remove from society, all those who do not share Christian beliefs.
Would you like some motivation? Shortly before Easter, 45 entered into a new business arrangement where he is likely collecting royalties from sales of the Bible. Watch here: https://youtu.be/noezEB6BKno?feature=shared

Please vote to rid ourselves of the serpent.

Frederick Nietzsche: “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”  
                     _  _  _ 
Ken Hurley

I do not know his first name. He was known to me as Mr. Monster. The abysmal shadow who lived under my bed was only heard at night. His legend was exacerbated by stories told to me of the things Mr. Monster would do if my behavior did not change. My imagination would run wild with fear of Mr. Monster. I was four years alive.
      In the mystical realm of childhood fears, there may dwell a creature of imagined terror, a sinister entity that lurks within the unsuspecting innocence of a child's mind. You may know him by a different name. Boogeyman, perhaps? 
      The eerie horror of Mr. Monster embodies the essence of darkness. His form is a shifting mass of ebony tendrils that writhe and twist with malevolence. His eyes are twin orbs of obsidian, gleaming with a desire to inflict evil that pierces through the veil of my dimly lit bedroom night.
     Mr. Monster is a nightmarish terror in the shape of a human. His sleek, sinuous body slithers noiselessly through the shadows. His movements are silent as the whisper of a ghostly breeze. The air would grow cold and heavy in his presence, sending shivers cascading down my spine if I dared to glance at his dreadful visage.
      Mr. Monster's skin is a tenebrous rubicund of inky blackness, adorned with grotesque checkerboard patterns that seem to contort and pulse of their own accord. His fingers are sharp talons as deadly as a rattler's fang. Mr. Monster's breath is a noxious miasma, suffocating and foul, casting a sickly pall over my small room. His hair is a stiff orangey gray that grew all across his pale leathery body. 
     I was frightened.
     Yet, it is not the physical form of Mr. Monster that inspires the most dread, but the insidious nature of his presence. His abomination fed upon my fears, drawing strength from unseen terrors that plagued my effort at happy dreams. Mr. Monster delighted in weaving nightmares, twisting my innocent thoughts into phantasmagoric horrors that frolicked at the edge of reality.
      Mr. Monster is a master of deception, able to cloak himself in the shadows of my mind. He offered dark promises of eternal torment, sowing seeds of doubt and despair in the fertile soil of my naive and gullible innocence.
      But despite his fearsome power, Mr. Monster was not invincible. One only needs to become brave enough to face the darkness that lurks beneath the bed, armed with the light of courage and the sword of a preferred imagination. It is in the realm of dreams that the true battle with Mr. Monster is fought, where the power of belief can banish even the most malevolent of monsters.
      Mr. Monster remains a cautionary tale heard in hushed voices by those who dare not glance beneath their bed after the lights go out. His presence serves as a reminder of the fragility of youth and the ever-present shadow that lurks at the edge of perception, waiting to pounce on the unwary, the unprepared, and the uninformed.
    But for those who dare to face their fears head-on, to stare into the abyss and refuse to flinch, Mr. Monster is nothing more than a figment of the imagination. A mere specter of darkness that fades with the light of dawn. Even the most fearsome of monsters can be vanquished with simple acts of courage, kindness, and a steadfast heart.
      According to Nietzsche, when we rail against either a literal or metaphorical monster, we risk becoming like the monster, embodying callous cruelty, violent viciousness … and likely, loving it.
      Nietzsche's ideological viewpoint provides a sense of cosmic skepticism, where everything is uncertain and everything should be questioned. Even the concept of good and evil is subjective. During Nietzsche's time, established moral theories were routinely questioned by the philosopher, and many consider his doctrine as an important counterpoint to the practices and moral values once taken for granted.
      Throughout history, humans have often struggled with the dichotomy of good and evil, finding themselves pitted against the ideals and people they despise. The idea that individuals, societies, and  nations can become the embodiment of that which they abhor is a sentiment that pervades humanity. Does humanity have a propensity to become the monsters we despise? Is it possible for an individual to become the thing they detest? Yes. 
      Adolf Eichmann was responsible for the deaths of millions during the Holocaust. Eichmann's misguided, ill-informed perception told him to implement  the genocidal “Final Solution to the Jewish Question.” His goal was to rid the world of what he thought to be a “monstrous” blight in society, while he manifested within himself a vile evil he used to eradicate his perceived “monsters.” His thirst for power, his implementation of discriminatory policies, his quest for a “Master Race,” led to unspeakable atrocities which underscore the way an individual can become the embodiment of the “monstrous” figures they revile. Eichmann's inhumanity raises questions about the nature of evil and the human capacity for cruelty, and suggests that under certain circumstances, too many humans have the potential to become the monster they hate. Eichmann's despicable actions demonstrate how individuals can become complicit in evil deeds when they dehumanize others and prioritize loyalty to a destructive ideology over the essence of morality. Or, was Eichmann "Born This Way” as Lady Gaga sings.
      Consider Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, where Victor Frankenstein, driven by his desperation to achieve greatness, creates a monster that ultimately displays his darkest fears and desires. Frankenstein rejects his creature, leading the monster to seek vengeance and perpetrate acts of violence. The tragic story of Frankenstein and his monster speaks to the dangers of unchecked ambition and the dehumanization of others. Frankenstein's rejection of his creation mirrors society's ability to ostracize and create an “us vs. them” mentality, ultimately perpetuating cycles of alienation and conflict. The novel is a poignant reminder of how individual actions rooted in fear and hatred can have far-reaching consequences, suggesting there is a thin line between humane humanity and mob monstrosity.
      Similarly, in William Golding's Lord of the Flies, the young boys, initially motivated by a desire for order and civilization, descend into savagery, ultimately becoming the beasts they feared. 
     Then there's Robert Louis Stevenson's, Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Dr. Jekyll uses savvy science to change his physical and mental appearance to the point where he is masked as an entirely different monstrous being, known as Mr. Hyde. The phrase "Jekyll and Hyde" is now used in the vernacular to refer to people with an outwardly good but sometimes shockingly monstrous inward personality.
      A similar concept may be seen as nations grapple with the idea of becoming that which they despise. The United States prides itself on being a beacon of freedom and democracy. However, throughout its history, the United States has engaged in actions that contradict these values, such as the Trail of Tears, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and the use of torture in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. In the name of national security and the fight against terrorism, the U.S. government authorized the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” that violated basic human rights and international law, and created more monstrous terror.
      There are plenty of world leaders like Joseph Stalin, Kim Jong-un, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Vladimir Putin, and to a lesser extent, 45 and Netanyahu, who have wielded power through tactics of intimidation, censorship, and violence, mirroring the tyranny they claim to oppose. These authoritarian rulers prey on fear and insecurity to justify their oppressive actions, creating a culture of silence and compliance that stifles opposition and dissent. The parallels between these despotic regimes and the monsters they claim to fight against highlight the insidious nature of power and the ease by which individuals and governments can descend into tyranny. There may only be a small difference between liberation and oppression, which underscores the importance of virtuous vigilance and reliable resistance in the face of dictatorial authoritarianism. Which reminds me of what Lord Acton said, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
     Politicians often campaign against corruption, authoritarianism, and oppression, only to succumb to these vices once in power. Leaders who rise to power on promises of change and reform too often become ensnared in the trappings of authority, leading to the autocracy and injustice they once rallied against. It is a chilling reminder that those who abhor tyranny can themselves become tyrants when provided with the means and opportunity.
      It is evident that the concept of becoming the monsters we hate resonates deeply within humanity, manifesting at the individual, societal, and national levels. Have you ever been shunned, ostracized, or felt marginalized? Have you ever made anyone feel the same? Do we spank a child to teach there will be no hitting in this house? Do we kill via capital punishment to teach killing humans is bad? Do we bomb countries to teach bombing is unforgivable? Are these steps toward becoming Mr. Monster? 
      Acknowledging this tendency is crucial in guarding against the harmful allure of power, fear, and prejudice. As society strives for humane progress, it is imperative to confront the possibility of becoming the monsters we hate. Failure to do so may lead us straight to the prison of our own spiteful, vengeful, retaliatory malevolence. 
      I recognize that one person's concept of a monster may be another person's concept of a friend. However, tonight, before you fall asleep, please check under your bed. If Mr. Monster is hiding there, say hello and give him a hug. He needs it.

::::::

Ken Hurley

Faith?!‽ Faith is something that nobody in his right mind would believe!  – Archie Bunker

Music is what makes poetry lyrical. – kgh

During “March Madness”, I root for April.  – kgh

When you bury the hatchet, be sure to bury it where it will do the most good.  – kgh

We are all on the spectrum.  – kgh

Philosophers tend to complicate  simple concepts.  – kgh

Whenever anyone tells you, “I’m only going to say this once!” Don’t believe them.  – kgh

Childlike and Childish describe different adults. One playful, open, and truthful. The other childish.  – kgh

Impulse is the enemy of success; yet a vibrant, rhythmical pulse is why we dance.  – kgh

Don’t expect applause. Unless your work is entertainment. Even then, don’t expect applause.  – kgh

It is the naps you don’t take that you regret most.  – kgh

If you don’t vote, you surrender to those who do vote. That’s not rebellious. Remember, VOTE WHILE CONSCIOUS!  – kgh

America: Louder than any other country!!!  – kgh

Inhumanity is human.  – kgh

Why don’t hunters hang the heads of their dead dogs on the wall?  – kgh

Is uncured bacon sick?  – kgh

Chewing the fat with someone is actually disgusting.  – kgh

The “free market” is for those who have a few dollars to spend.  – kgh

I support the 3rd Amendment!  – kgh

We need ‘THE ‘CRAZIES’! They’re a big reason we get involved.  – kgh

We’re all full of shit. That’s why we poop daily!  – kgh

You’re allowed to discriminate in America as long as Religious Liberty is your excuse. Remind me, what is liberating about religion?  – kgh

We don’t need to know the meaning of life for life to have meaning.  – kgh

Today I accidentally bumped into a Trump supporter. So, I backed up and did it again.  – kgh

What kind of city would have a downtown but not an uptown?  – kgh

Stay away from negative people. Negative people have a problem for every solution.  – Albert Einstein? Or who?

I’m trying to think but nothing happens.  – Curly

Rudyard Kipling wrote in his 1893 collection of short stories titled Many Inventions, and I quote, “He wrapped himself in quotations – as a beggar would enfold himself in the purple of Emperors.” 

      When used effectively, quotations offer an unparalleled ability to encapsulate complex emotions, ideas, and experiences into a few succinct words. They can inspire, console, and provoke, leaving an indelible imprint on those who read, hear, and speak them. 

     Quotes can also devolve into the public domain of trite and cliche platitudes which become overused figurative language. Once upon a time we thought “pretty as a picture,” “old as the hills,” “sharp as a tack,” and “smart as a whip” were cutting edge and clever ways to turn a phrase.

      As found in Luke 12:48 as updated, rewritten, edited, and fabricated by the King James team, “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much of him they will ask the more.” A similar notion but more concisely put was told to Spiderman: “With great power comes great responsibility.” And so it is with the proper use of quotes. 

     Misquotes and misattributions are the result of human error and sometimes the intentional  dissemination of misinformation through various mediums. Misquotes can alter the meaning and intent of the original quote, leading to a distorted understanding of the author’s message. 

      For example, humans often misquote Thomas Jefferson when he wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This famous sentence from the Declaration of Independence is often misquoted as, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by our Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” To substitute “our” for “their” greatly alters the intended meaning. The parisology of “their Creator” leaves the interpretation up to the reader as to what type of creator there might be, including the possibility that their Creator is no more than just mom and dad. Which is, of course, sufficient. Jefferson, as the author, actually separated himself from the group to which he was referring when he wrote these words, “they are endowed by their Creator.” He could have written, “we are endowed by our creator.” But he didn’t. The use of “they” leaves open to each individual all possibilities regarding a belief system. Which, of course, would also include the rights of disbelievers, skeptics, atheists, and agnostics. To misquote with “our” makes the quote a presumptive collective of believers by the obfuscation of the intentional vagueness of the original quote.

      Humans on social media have exacerbated misquotes and intentional disinformation, by carelessly failing to verify the text and attribution. False and misattributed quotes have become rampant, leading to a dilution of the original source’s impact and a blurring of historical accuracy. Since information can be propagated at the speed of light, the importance of fact-checking the content and an accurate citation is essential.

      Furthermore, quotes can be manipulated and weaponized to serve certain agendas, leading to their misuse or claims of misuse. The extraction of quotes out of context or the deliberate misinterpretation of their meaning can be employed to deceive, manipulate, or incite discord.

    Then there is Trump, who said on March 16, 2024, “If I don’t get elected it’s gonna be a bloodbath. A bloodbath for the country and that’s the least of it … If this election isn’t won, I’m not sure that you’ll ever have another election in this country.” Trump subsequently told us that his words were taken out of context. Do you believe him when he says his words were taken out of context? I do not. 

      An example of a misattribution of a quote is, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,” as if it were said by Voltaire. The statement was actually made by the writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall in her biography of Voltaire, where she summarized his beliefs. Despite its misattribution, the quote continues to be cited as Voltaire’s, which perpetuates the error.

      Why are quotes valuable? The answer is found in their ability to transcend time, culture, and language. A well-crafted quote possesses the power to resonate with individuals from disparate backgrounds, fostering a sense of unity and understanding. They can serve as beacons of hope, embolden movements for change, and provide solace in times of adversity.

      When quotes are used responsibly, they can become instruments of enlightenment and empathy, fostering constructive dialogue and amplifying voices that might otherwise go unheard. The essence of a meaningful quote lies not only in the arrangement of words, but in the depth of emotion and experience it encapsulates. Since I mentioned “the arrangement of words,” I would like to attribute all the words you are reading now to the dictionary. I simply rearranged them.

      I am reminded of the profound impact of a quote from Bob Marley, who said, “The truth is, everyone is going to hurt you. You just got to find the ones worth suffering for.” This quote transcends its origins and resonates with individuals across generations, imparting wisdom and solace in the face of human vulnerability and resilience.

       The realm of quotations spans human experience, wisdom, and inspiration. While misquotations, misattributions, and the misuse of quotes present significant challenges, their value remains undiminished. It is incumbent upon us, as stewards of words, punctuation, and quotations, to approach the utilization of “quotes” with discernment, integrity, and respect for their origins. For in the delicate dance of words (“Oh, jeez, ‘delicate dance of words’, really‽” said I) lies the potential to shape minds, heal hearts, and ignite enduring change, and an occasional giggle.

      But, don’t quote me.

: : : : : : : : : : :

Inspired by the exchange between Puddy and Elaine from "The Burning" episode of Seinfeld (1998). Written by Jennifer Crittenden as follows:

ELAINE: Oh, so you're pretty religious?
PUDDY: That's right.
ELAINE: So, is it a problem that I'm not pretty religious?
PUDDY: Not for me.
ELAINE: Why not?
PUDDY: I'm not the one going to Hell.
                     _  _  _
I've driven on the highway to Hell, commonly referred to in Michigan as county road D32, just Northwest of Ann Arbor. It's true. I've been to Hell and back. Hell, Michigan. So, when asked, “Is Hell a physical place?” Yes.       
      One day I hope to visit Hell, Norway, an itty-bitty village in Stjørdal. My next visit to Grand Cayman Island will include a stop at Hell, just west of Rum Point. Now that Turkmenistan is finally open again for visitors, I would enjoy a brief swing through the Doors of Hell, as the locals call it, aka the Darvaza Gas Chamber. I've also enjoyed viewing Rodin's Gates of Hell, in both Philly and Paris, inspired by Dante Alighieri's The Divine Comedy, Inferno, 3.1 – 9, as follows:

Through me the way into the suffering city,
Through me the way to the eternal pain,
Through me the way that runs among the lost.
Justice urged on my high artificer;
My Maker was Divine authority,
The highest Wisdom, and the primal Love.
Before me nothing but eternal things
Were made, and I endure eternally.
Abandon every hope, who enter here

The Divine Comedy is an epic poem which takes the reader on a journey through Hell, depicting the various levels of torment that sinners endure according to the severity of their transgressions. Dante's depiction of Hell is a moral allegory, highlighting the consequences of human actions and the nature of “divine” justice. If only the so-called divine justice were meted out by The Divine Miss M, or the drag queen, Divine, it might be good for a few chuckles.     Who wants to embrace an unhealthy gloomy state of mind? Not me. Nor do I have a morbid interest in death. I have zero desire to receive agonizing punishment for a split-second, much less an eternity. But I am fascinated with the fantastical imaginings, thoughts, and fears that are associated with the concept of hell, which apparently still influences millions, if not billions of humans around this little space ball of a planet.       
      The concept of Hell has been a deeply ingrained part of human culture for centuries. Hell is usually portrayed as a place of punishment, retribution, and despair. Hell offers powerful and enduring symbolism that reflects humanity's fears, moral dilemmas, and a quest for justice. Albeit a quest for justice in the afterlife, if not found in the current life. And, the Cuckoos are not only birds.     
      I highly recommend the television series, After Life (2019 – 2022) created, written by, and starring, the well-known funny atheist, Ricky Gervais, who shows us another way to deal with grief and difficult human psychological situations. Here's one memorable dialogue exchange between Kath (Diane Morgan) and Tony (Ricky Gervais):

KATH: If you don't believe in heaven and hell, and all that, then why don't you just go around raping and murdering as much as you want?
TONY: I do.
KATH: What?
TONY: I do go around raping and murdering as much as I want, which is not at all.
LENNY: Because he's got a conscience. 
KATH: What? If death is just the end, then what's the point?
TONY: What's the point in what?
KATH: Living. You might as well just kill yourself. 
TONY: So if you're watching a movie and you're really enjoying it
KATH: Yeah
TONY: And someone points out there's an end eventually. Do you just say ah forget it, what's the point? And just turn it off?
KATH: No, cause I can watch it again.
TONY: Well, I think life is precious 'cause you can't watch it again. I mean, you can believe in an afterlife if that makes you feel better. Doesn't mean it's true. But once you realize you're not gonna be around forever, I think that's what makes life so magical. One day you'll... eat your last meal, smell your last flower, hug your friend for the very last time. You might not know it's the last time. So that's why you should do everything you love with passion, you know? Treasure the few years you've got because... that's all there is. [The end.]
      Religions have played a central role in shaping the concept of Hell, offering a variety of beliefs and traditions that continue to have strong sway on cultural and social narratives and influence over religious morality. In Christianity, Hell is depicted as a realm of eternal punishment for the damned, where sinners face separation from God and endure excruciating suffering. The vivid descriptions of Hell in the Bible have had a profound impact on literature and art, shaping the portrayal of Hell as a place of fiery torment and spiritual anguish. See the Dutch Renaissance artist, Hieronymus Bosch, who started work on his triptych of Hell in 1490 titled, The Garden of Earthly Delights.      
      Which reminds me of the time an atheist dies and goes to hell. Surprised? The devil welcomes him and says: "Let me show you around." They walk through a beautiful park with fountains, public artwork, roses in bloom, and lush green trees. When they arrive at a huge palace, the devil says, "This is your house now, here are your keys." The atheist is skeptical but happy and thanks the Devil. The Devil says, "No need to thank me, everyone gets a nice place to live in when they come here." The Devil shows the atheist a garage full of beautiful cars. Some antique, some brand new state of the art. "These are your cars now," and hands the atheist all the car keys.     
      Again, the atheist tries to thank the Devil, but the Devil says, "Everyone here gets cool cars here. How would you drive around without having cars?"      
      They walk back out to the beautiful park where there are birds chirping, squirrels playing, and spring flowers everywhere. They arrive at a fountain, where the most beautiful woman the atheist has ever seen is seated on a marble bench. Their eyes meet each other's gaze and bingo — love at first sight! The atheist is happier than he's ever been. The Devil says, "Everyone gets to have their soulmate here. We don't want anyone to be lonely."      
      As they walk further, the atheist notices a high foreboding fence. He peeks through to the other side and is stunningly shocked. He sees people in pools of lava, screaming in agonizing pain, while little drooling clawed demons stab them with their tridents. Other demons are skinning people alive, heads are spiked, horrors everywhere he looks. It all smelled like sulfur and death. Terrified, the atheist stumbles backwards, and asks the Devil "What is happening there‽" The Devil just shrugs and says: "Those are the Christians, I don't know why, but they prefer it that way."      
      Islamic Hell is no walk in the park. Described in intricate detail in the Quran, portraying a realm of punishment for those who have rejected the teachings of Islam and committed grave transgressions. The vivid descriptions of Hell in Islamic eschatology portray a severe and uncompromising vision of retribution and suffering, in an attempt to reflect the importance of moral accountability and piety in Islamic beliefs.      
      In Eastern traditions, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism,  the concept of Hell is also present, yet with different interpretations and implications. In Buddhist cosmology, the concept of Naraka represents a realm of suffering and retribution for those who have committed offenses, emphasizing the karmic consequences of immoral actions and the potential for spiritual redemption through ethical conduct and enlightenment. Karma is the boomerang cause-and-effect belief that suggests patience, they'll get their just due, eventually.
     Similarly, Hinduism and Jainism presents a complex cosmology of realms, including the concept of Naraka, where souls undergo tormented purification that leads to atonement for their negative karmic debts, before being reborn into the cycle of samsara where, if they choose, they can play the popular video game also called, Naraka.      
      The Myth of Er appears at the end of Plato's The Republic, where Plato offers a philosophical allegory which presents a vivid depiction of the afterlife, including the concept of Hell as a realm of posthumous judgment and retribution. Plato delves into profound questions about the nature of justice and the importance of leading a virtuous life in the pursuit of a fulfilling existence beyond death. It seems likely that religiosity took its cue from Plato.      
      Jean-Paul Sartre also explored the concept of Hell in his 1944 play, No Exit, which presents a compelling portrayal of Hell as a manifestation of eternal psychological torment, where the characters are dead yet aware they are trapped in a confined room and forced to confront the consequences of their past actions and relationships through a series of conversations and bickering where one character, Joseph Garcin declares, "Hell is other people.” This existentialist interpretation of Hell explores the themes of personal responsibility, freedom, and the relentless anguish of self-awareness and self-examination, offering a harsh reflection on the human condition.     Suppose hell is not a fiery pit of torment, but a divergence point in the multiverse where one's actions are confronted with a parallel universe which leads to an eternal existence of regret and suffering? 
     The idea of Hell as a consequence of our choices in a branching reality can be a fascinating thought experiment that merges the realms of science and speculative fiction.     
      There actually is hell on Earth. Wars. Torture. Starvation. Natural disasters, diseases, certain in-laws, robocalls, and more.      
      Let's note that in the Seinfeld episode referenced above, Elaine complains to Jerry that according to her boyfriend Puddy, she's going to Hell. Jerry reminds Elaine that she doesn't believe in hell. Frustrated, she agrees but retorts, “But Puddy does!” Jerry further explains that Puddy's remarks are more of a relationship problem than a final destination of the soul.
      The concept of Hell spans a wide spectrum of cultural, intellectual, and religious expressions, reflecting humanity's enduring struggles with judgment, morality, and the nature of the so-called afterlife. Which all stems from human imagination. Through diverse literary, comedic, philosophical, and religious works, Hell has been portrayed as a potent symbol with multifaceted interpretations and implications. Whether as a moral allegory, a platform for satire, a subject of intellectual inquiry, a religious doctrine, or just reading this, the concept of Hell continues to captivate and provoke contemplation on the complexities of human existence, the consequences of our actions, and the quest for moral and spiritual redemption.      
     Bloody hell. Like a Bat Out of Hell I have no Sympathy for the Devil, yet I hear there is a special place in Hell if you like to travel.  Remember what Winston Churchill said, “If you're going through Hell, keep going.”
###