Category: Uncategorized

Ken Hurley

“It’s a hoax” is manipulation when it is a lie. – kgh

“The unexamined life is not worth living.” If that were true we should have many more dead people. – kgh

Let me start with an old joke. A Catholic priest, a Baptist preacher, and a Rabbi meet up (in-person) every week and talk about religion and their respective places of worship. One week, they discussed how to convert people to their faith. Convert! They each agreed that people are easily manipulated and that to convert people was not a true test of religious leadership. However! To convert a bear from the wildness of the wilderness would be a true test. So, the three religious leaders agree to each go into the forest and try to convert an unsuspecting bear to their respective faith.

At their next meeting, the Catholic priest arrives with a cast on each arm and one on his leg. He wears a neck brace and has scratches all across his face. As he tells his story, he says, “Well, I went out into those woods and before long, I walked right up on a bear. I got the bear’s attention and started in on my homily. The bear didn’t respond well and attacked me. As we fought, I splashed holy water on the bear and baptized him on the spot. Immediately, the bear calmed down and was at peace.”

The Baptist preacher was up next. He was in a wheel chair with casts on both legs and an arm in a sling. “Similar to your experience Father, I too found a bear very quickly and began my sermon. The bear seemed to listen for a while but as I continued he grew more and more agitated. As I read passages from the Bible, the bear attacked me and we began wrestling on the side of a hill. Locked in a stalemate, we began rolling end over end down the steep hillside until we landed with a splash in a narrow stream. Right then, I dunked the bear underwater and baptized him in the name of Jesus. Immediately, the bear calmed down and was at peace.” The priest and the preacher look at the Rabbi, who is laid out on a stretcher in a full body cast, barely hanging on to life. The priest asks, “So, Rabbi, tell us your story.” The Rabbi is barely audible as the preacher and priest lean in close to hear. “Well, I too found a bear, and I don’t know what I could have done to convert him, but I do know that starting with a circumcision was a bad idea.”

One classic example of manipulation is known as gaslighting. The term “gaslighting” comes from the 1938 Patrick Hamilton play Angel Street (American title), which was later adapted into the film Gaslight (1944) in which a man (Charles Boyer) manipulates his newly wed wife (played by Ingrid Bergman) into madness through psychological torture so he can enrich himself by stealing from her. When he turns on the lights in the attic to search for her jewelry collection, and the gas lights dim downstairs, he tells her it’s all in her imagination. All sorts of subtle seemingly unexplainable things happen to her that gradually cause her to question her own memories, perceptions, and sanity. Have you ever been gaslighted?

Other forms of manipulation include: guilt-tripping, emotional blackmail, lying, withholding affection, playing the victim, love bombing, isolation, all designed to control or exploit someone by distorting their reality or exploiting their emotions for personal gain. Take a peek at the crazy tariffs used to manipulate foreign governments and the stock market. Especially, when they are inappropriately used to coerce global partners for political concessions. When tariffs create intentional market instability so the high-balanced players can buy low and sell high, it’s no wonder this leads to the charge of manipulating stock prices for strategic advantage.

Look at the Federal Reserve, which raises and lowers interest rates in an effort to manipulate the economy, which in turn manipulates the stock market.

The word “manipulation” often conjures images of puppeteers in shadows, Machiavellian schemes, and the deep desire to control the behavior of other people. Religion comes to mind. Manipulation is a word heavy with negative connotation, suggesting a violation of personal autonomy and a deceitful commandeering of another’s actions.

However, to understand manipulation solely as a mechanism of malice is to ignore its etymology and its pervasive, sometimes benign, presence in the human experience. The Latin manipulus means “a handful.” In French, the term originally referred to the skillful handling of objects as a master puppeteer would do. It is a word of craft, not cunning. In the mid-19th century it evolved to describe the shrewd management of people. Religion still comes to mind.

At its core, manipulation is the art of bypassing the conscious guard of the intellect to trigger the primal aspects of the psyche: fear, desire, guilt, and vanity. It is an interaction where one party perceives how another’s mind may think and seeks ways to instill their beliefs. The manipulator wants to redirect the energy of another. They identify an existing insecurity or aspiration in the subject and attach their own objective to it, making the victim believe that the manipulator’s goal is actually their own desire.

Hostage negotiators minimize threats by establishing trust through active listening, stalling for time to lower emotions, and using calm, empathetic communication to de-escalate crisis situations. They shift the focus from violence to problem-solving, often utilizing techniques like “tactical empathy” to make the hostage-taker feel heard, reduce their stress, and build momentum toward a peaceful surrender. That’s manipulation at its best. The manipulator knows something the victim does not, whether it is the true cost of an action, the real nature of a relationship, or a fabricated reality. By controlling the flow of information, the manipulator constructs a plan where the victim feels they are making a free decision, yet all available paths lead to the manipulator’s desired outcome. I am reminded that George Orwell’s 1984 (1949) presents manipulation on a large systemic scale. The Party does not just manipulate individuals, it manipulates reality itself. Through “Newspeak,” the government shrinks the vocabulary available to the populace, thereby shrinking the range of thinkable thoughts. If there is no word for “freedom,” the concept cannot be articulated or fought for. In 1984, manipulation transcends psychological trickery and becomes ontological control. The protagonist, Winston Smith, is not just tricked, he is rewired. The chilling conclusion is that he learns to love Big Brother, which shows that total manipulation does not just control action, it colonizes the personality. You know, like MAGA.

Current events are replete with examples of how technology has monetized influence. Social media platforms, driven by the profit imperative of the “attention economy,” utilize algorithms designed to manipulate user behavior. These systems are not neutral. They are optimized to maximize engagement, often by amplifying outrage, fear, and tribalism. The “Facebook Files” leaks and subsequent congressional hearings revealed that platforms were aware their algorithms could lead users down “rabbit holes” of misinformation and radicalization, yet the mechanisms remain because they are extremely profitable. Perhaps we should let robots vote like any other person, so the bots won’t have to manipulate elections through social networks.

The social media form of manipulation is subtle because it is invisible. Unlike a human con artist (Think Prez 47), an algorithm does not blink, stutter, or slur words. It simply feeds the user a stream of content that confirms their existing biases, which creates an echo chamber that feels like how the world should be. Furthermore, the rise of AI-generated content creates a problem of epistemology — you know, the study of how we know what we know. You know? When video and audio can be convincingly fabricated, the shared reality necessary for democracy begins to fracture. The manipulator no longer needs to persuade the audience that a lie is true; they only need to persuade the audience that nothing is true. Look how many lies we hear from the current administration every day. This geopolitical information warfare creates a cynicism that conditions much of the public into complacency. That’s unfortunate. It’s action — way beyond social media posts that make effective changes.

The word “manipulation” remains a test for our views on power, influence, and agency. It is a tool, and like any tool — from a hammer to a nuclear reactor — its moral weight is determined by the hands that use it.

Ultimately, the defense against malicious manipulation is not to shut out the world, but to cultivate critical awareness that can turn into meaningful action. Let’s ask: Who is framing this choice? What is being omitted? And, does this influence serve my growth, or does it merely serve the manipulator’s design? We are all manipulated in one way or another. Me, too. In recognizing the strings of the many puppeteer wannabees, we take steps toward cutting them, or at least, choosing which ones we allow to guide us.

What do you call a dog that manipulates dolls? A puppyteer. Did that access your inner smile?

We prefer not to call it manipulation. We prefer to think we are not manipulated. The negative connotations are too strong. We prefer to call it something artful. Like the art of persuasion. If I ever get some superpowers, I would include the art of persuasion, along with invincibility, of course.

​To know Amy is to know a perpetual state of high beta emotions. Amy operates at a vibrational frequency where the distinction between a minor inconvenience and a catastrophic failure is entirely lost. Most people move through life with a rheostat, dimming their emotional investment to suit the occasion. Amy has only a toggle switch, and it has been jammed in the “on” position since birth. Her passion is not a mood; it is a climate, one that is tropical, storm-prone, and exhausting to inhabit for anyone not acclimated to the heat. ​

This intensity, while occasionally charming in short bursts, metastasizes into something more volatile in all areas of her life. Amy works in marketing, a field that rewards enthusiasm but generally prefers it to be tempered by corporate stoicism. Amy is incapable of stoicism. In a Tuesday morning strategy meeting, when a colleague suggests a font change for a newsletter, Amy does not simply disagree. She launches a crusade. To her, Helvetica is not just a typeface; it is a symbol of modernist lazy thinking, a moral failing. She argues her point with the fervor of a defense attorney saving a client from the electric chair. Her voice trembles, her eyes glisten with the moisture of genuine belief, and the room falls into an uncomfortable silence. ​

Her colleagues are torn between awe and avoidance. There is something undeniably magnetic about a person who cares that much, who refuses to sleepwalk through their labor. Yet, working alongside her is like trying to build a house of cards inside a wind tunnel. Every email she sends is a manifesto. Every project is a magnum opus. She burns out interns not through malice, but through the sheer radioactive decay of her own expectations. She cannot conceive of a world where one simply “does the job.” For Amy, if you are not bleeding for the quarterly report, you are not really alive. ​

To be loved by Amy is to be the sole subject of a spotlight so bright it burns the retina. She loves with a devouring hunger. A casual Tuesday dinner is prepared with the complexity of a Michelin-starred audition. If her partner mentions an interest in astronomy, Amy will not just buy a book; she will research telescopes for three nights straight, losing sleep, planning a trip to the Atacama Desert, and structuring their next five years around stargazing.

​However, the flip side of this adoration is a devastating sensitivity. Because she invests so heavily, the return on investment must be equally high. A forgotten text message is not a lapse in memory, it is a betrayal of the narrative she has constructed. A slightly distant tone on the phone triggers an inquisition into the structural integrity of the relationship. There are no minor arguments in Amy’s home. Every disagreement escalates to a referendum on their souls. Her partners often leave, not because they don’t love her, but because they are simply tired. They crave the safety of the lukewarm, the peace of not mattering quite so much.​ Even in solitude, Amy finds no respite from herself. Her hobbies are not pastimes, they are obsessions. When she took up gardening, she did not plant a few petunias. She waged war on the local soil composition. She tested pH levels daily, sourced heirloom seeds from obscure European distributors, and wept openly when a frost killed her hydrangeas. She seeks meaning in the weave of a rug, the tannins of a cheap wine, the silence of an empty room.​

Amy’s life is a testament to the double-edged sword of passion. On one hand, she experiences the world with a vividness that most people will never know. She tastes more flavor in a single bite of bread than others do in a banquet. She feels the texture of existence. But the cost is a life without insulation. She lacks the protective layer of apathy that allows the rest of us to endure traffic jams, rude waiters, and mediocrity. She is a raw nerve ending walking through a world of salt.​

At a gathering of mutual friends Amy was introduced to Tex and they began to date. You’ve heard that opposites attract? Well, get this . . .

For Tex the world does not sing. It vibrates at measurable frequencies. He perceives life as a relentless sequence of biological, physical, and chemical interactions, each capable of being dissected, labeled, and filed away. Tex is a man of profound intellect and terrifying stoicism, a figure carved from marble and logic. Yet, his plight was not that he could not understand the world, but that he understood it too well. His constant analytical reasoning, a blade he kept perpetually sharp, had effectively severed his tendons connecting him to the capability of the joy that Amy exuded so easily.

One early autumn morning they were watching the sunrise over the Atlantic, a spectacle that drew crowds to the beach. As the sun rose above the horizon, painting the sky in dramatic hues of violet, crimson, and burning gold, Amy gasped. Her pupils dilated in response to the aesthetic grandeur. She felt a sense of cosmic connection, a fleeting brush with the divine. A grand new day was beginning. ​

Tex, however, stood rigid and felt nothing. His mind, an autonomous engine of deconstruction, immediately went to work. He did not see a painting; he saw Rayleigh scattering. He saw the physics of light particles colliding with atmospheric molecules, the shorter blue wavelengths scattering away to leave the longer red wavelengths visible. He calculated the angle of refraction and noted the particulate matter in the air — likely pollution from the industrial sector to the west — that intensified the redness. To him, the sunrise was not a poem. It was a physics equation regarding the rotation of a rock near a ball of gas. The awe was stripped away, peeled back to reveal the sterile mechanics beneath. Without the mystery, there was no wonder; without wonder, there was no joy.

Tex and Amy attended his younger sister’s wedding, a chaotic, joyous affair, brimming with champagne and tearful toasts. Tex was like an anthropologist studying a primitive tribe. When the bride and groom danced, gazing into one another’s eyes with that terrifying vulnerability that defines new marriage, Amy wept. She saw two souls uniting.

​Tex saw evolutionary biology at play. He saw oxytocin and vasopressin flooding the neural pathways of the couple, chemicals designed by millions of years of natural selection to facilitate pair-bonding for the sake of offspring survival. He deconstructed the ritual of the wedding itself — a performative social contract intended to signal resource pooling and genetic stability to the community. When Amy and Tex looked at the smiling faces of the guests, she saw happiness. He saw the “Duchenne smile,” analyzing the contraction of the zygomatic major muscle and the orbicularis oculi to determine which smiles were genuine and which were socially mandated. The laughter of the room was joyful for Amy. But for Tex, just a rhythmic expulsion of air, a primate signal of safety. By reducing the human experience to its biological nuts and bolts, Tex rendered it meaningless. Amy loved love and Tex could explain the mechanism of love.

Tex wanted to feel. He admired Amy for her incredible ability to feel deeply. He was not a robot. He was a man trapped inside a laboratory of his own making. There were late nights when he would sit in his minimalist apartment, listening to Vladimir Horowitz play Rachmaninoff’s Concerto #3, desperate to be moved. He would close his eyes, waiting for the swell of the crescendo to lift his spirit. But before the emotion could take root, the analyst would step in. Minor key, his mind would whisper. Diminished fifths creating tension, resolving to the tonic to release dopamine. He anticipated the mathematical patterns of the harmony. He understood the acoustics of the recording hall. The music ceased to be art and became a blueprint.

​This hyper-rationality created a formidable wall of stoicism. Grief was merely the brain’s resistance to a change in homeostasis. Anger was a sympathetic nervous system response to a threat. He remained calm in crises, the eye of every hurricane, useful and dependable.

​By insulating himself from the seemingly illogical nature of pain, he had also insulated himself from the seemingly illogical nature of joy. Joy, by its definition, requires a suspension of disbelief. It requires surrendering to the moment, forgetting the mechanics, and allowing oneself to be swept away by the belief that this moment matters. It requires a person to look at a sunset and ignore the particulate matter, to look at a lover and ignore the evolutionary imperative. ​One rainy Tuesday, Tex stood at a bus stop where a toddler in a yellow raincoat was stomping in a puddle, shrieking with pure, unadulterated delight. The water splashed muddy streaks onto the girl’s pants. But she didn’t care.

​For a second, Tex felt a crack in the marble. A ghost of a smile tugged at his lip. He watched the child and felt a strange, warm pressure in his chest. But then, the reflex kicked in. The habit was too strong. His mind noted her lack of inhibition due to an undeveloped prefrontal cortex. He calculated the surface tension of the water. He predicted the probability of the mother scolding the child for the mess.

​The moment collapsed. The warmth evaporated. The smile died before it truly lived. Tex boarded his bus, the efficient, stoic observer, moving through a world of vibrant color that he could only see in grayscale.

​In the end, we watch Amy, a shortened form for Amygdala. And Tex, a shortened form for Prefrontal Cortex, with a mixture of reasoned emotional amazement. We know that both Amy and Tex live within each of us. The Amygdala (emotion) and Prefrontal Cortex (logic) must communicate effectively for meaningful decisions to happen. The separation of emotion and reason is a false dichotomy that has misled us for too long. There is no reason versus emotion. They are a team. Even if the balance between the two is like a teeter totter — a balanced integration of the two faculties is necessary for a healthy, humane, reasonably joyous life. While facts are essential for navigation, it is emotion that fuels the engine of change.

Ken Hurley

Theology is the effort to explain the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing. – H.L. Menken

Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? – Jules Feiffer

… one man’s rubbish may be another’s treasure. – John Francis Campbell

Polonius asks Hamlet, “What do you read, my lord?” Hamlet replies, “Words, words, words”

Ahh, the F-word.

When was the most recent time you spoke or heard the word: Floccinaucinihilipilification? This is the longest F-word I know. Not as popular as my favorite F-word, fun. Included with fun is another F-word that can have many meanings, differentiated by inflection, some of which actually fall into the category of fun: Fu*k. (Asterisk provided by the generosity of the Christian Nationalist’s Society of Global Punctuation Censorship.)** I made it up. There’s lots of F-words. According to my last count, there’s nearly 12,000 F-words in the English language.

The English language can be a bundle of contradictory lexiconical wonders. Among them, few are as delightfully unwieldy and intellectually provocative as floccinaucinihilipilification. Say it with me: Floccinaucinihilipilification. Good! You sassy sesquipedalian. Floccinaucinihilipilification takes some practice to say aloud. Floccinaucinihilipilification is an intimidating long word, yet with a deceptively simple meaning: The act of estimating something as worthless. Like this piece of chit you’re reading. It’s the conscious or unconscious dismissal of something as insignificant, trivial, or of little consequence.

The etymology of floccinaucinihilipilification itself is a study in linguistic amusement. The word is a combination of four Latin words: floccus (a tuft of wool), naucum (a trifle), nihilum (nothing), and pilus (a hair). These words, when combined, create a sense of diminishing value, of reducing something to a collection of insignificant fragments. The very construction of the word, with its daunting length and seemingly arbitrary assemblage of Latin roots, ironically mirrors the process it describes: the act of rendering something seemingly complex as inconsequential. Authors often use this phenomenon to explore themes of power, perspective, and the subjective nature of value. In Shakespeare’s Hamlet, in his famous soliloquy, “To be or not to be,” Hamlet contemplates the value of life itself, struggling with the perceived worthlessness of his own existence in the face of suffering and injustice. The act of questioning existence is a way of considering its worth or worthlessness.

Characters with immense privilege often floccinaucinihilipilify the concerns of the less fortunate, dismissing their struggles as insignificant. Take a peek at the current President of the United States as an example. Consider also the portrayal of wealth and status that Charles Dickens wrote about when he critiqued the indifference of the wealthy towards the plight of the poor. In Oliver Twist, the characters representing the upper class seem to floccinaucinihilipilify the poor’s desire for a bit more than the basics, ignoring their pleas for food, shelter, and compassion. The characters in Dickens’s novels, like many others, are often used to show class divides and social injustice.

In contrast, there are storied characters who refuse to floccinaucinihilipilify the seemingly trivial. They recognize the inherent value in small acts of kindness, in the beauty of everyday life, and the importance of human connection. The protagonists in many coming-of-age novels often find profound meaning in insignificant experiences, such as a first kiss, a shared laugh, or a moment of quiet reflection. They reject the very essence of floccinaucinihilipilification. Great Expectations, Catcher in the Rye, Call Me By Your Name, to name a few literary examples. Science also provides a good opportunity to study floccinaucinihilipilification. Yay, science! In the context of scientific progress and the dissemination of knowledge, floccinaucinihilipilification abounds. Groundbreaking scientific discoveries have often been met with skepticism and dismissal. New ideas and theories, often challenged by established paradigms, are initially considered worthless, only later to be recognized as revolutionary. Consider the heliocentric model of the solar system, proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus. Nick’s theory challenged the long-held geocentric model and was initially met with widespread resistance. Many people floccinaucinihilipilified Nick’s ideas, dismissing them as heretical or even nonsensical. It was only through the persistent efforts of other scientists like Galileo Galilei, who provided empirical evidence supporting the heliocentric model, that the scientific community gradually accepted the validity of Copernicus’s findings.

The process of peer review, a cornerstone of scientific inquiry, can be seen as a formalized form of floccinaucinihilipilification. Before a scientific paper is published, it typically undergoes rigorous scrutiny by other scientists in the same field. They evaluate the methodology, the data, and the conclusions, often challenging the authors’ assumptions and interpretations. This process, while essential for maintaining the integrity of scientific knowledge, can also lead to the dismissal of valuable research, particularly if it challenges existing paradigms or is based on incomplete evidence. Floccinaucinihilipilification can also be understood as a psychological defense mechanism, a way of protecting oneself from anxiety, fear, or overwhelming emotions. By dismissing something as insignificant, individuals can avoid confronting difficult truths or acknowledging uncomfortable realities. “The Fox and the Grapes” is a classic Aesop fable about a hungry fox who sees a bunch of ripe grapes hanging high on a vine. After many failed attempts to jump and reach them, the fox gives up and walks away, muttering that the grapes were probably sour anyway. The phrase “sour grapes” comes directly from this fable. The fox dismissed the grapes as sour in his effort to rationalize and accept his own failure.

A person who struggles with addiction might floccinaucinihilipilify the concerns of their loved ones, dismissing their warnings as exaggerated or unwarranted. Similarly, a person facing a serious illness might floccinaucinihilipilify the severity of their condition, downplaying their symptoms and refusing to seek medical attention. By minimizing the importance of the situation, they may be attempting to reduce their anxiety and maintain a sense of control. Individuals may floccinaucinihilipilify the opinions of others, dismissing their perspectives as ignorant, irrelevant, or uninformed. This can be a way of protecting one’s ego by maintaining a sense of inflated superiority. It can also contribute to the formation of echo chambers, where individuals are primarily exposed to information that confirms their existing beliefs, reinforcing their tendency to floccinaucinihilipilify alternative viewpoints.

Life events are full of moments where we engage in floccinaucinihilipilification. We might dismiss a stranger’s plea for assistance as a ploy for money, or we may dismiss concerns about climate change. We also can use it to justify our own bad choices. Consider the context of war. Many soldiers, experiencing the horrors of combat, might choose to floccinaucinihilipilify the value of their own lives, as a means of coping with the constant threat of death. Similarly, politicians and military leaders may floccinaucinihilipilify the human cost of war, downplaying the suffering of civilians and the loss of life characterized as “collateral damage.” These actions can be seen as attempts to dehumanize the enemy and to justify the horrors of war.

The concept of floccinaucinihilipilification, while seemingly complex, underscores a fundamental aspect of human psychology and social behavior that, when recognized, helps humans become more aware of their own biases. We can learn to approach the world with greater empathy, humility, and a willingness to appreciate the value of things and other stuff, no matter how seemingly insignificant they might be. You know, “stop and smell the roses” sort of a thing.

I wonder if it’s time to throw away my pet rock? Speaking of worthless trivial matters, aka floccinaucinihilipilification, when you are not looking at it, this sentence is in French. If this sentence were in Greek, it would say something else. And finally… .siht ekil ti gnidaer eb d’uoy ,werbeH ni erew ecnetnes siht fI. And now we reach the eagerly anticipated terminus. So to conclude, finally (again), I’d like to acknowledge my favorite George Gerschwin fan, composer, pianist, and sharp-witted curmudgeon, Oscar Levant, who was able to discourse interminably on the subject of his own greatness. On one occasion, he subjected Aaron Copeland to a lengthy but floccinaucinihilipilible diatribe. Unable to stand it anymore, Copeland got up to leave. “Why Aaron, you’re becoming such an egomaniac. You used to be able to listen to me all night.” Levant is the same man who told us that he was thrown out of a psychiatric ward for depressing the other patients. True.

Ken Hurley

Donate a kidney, you’re a hero. Donate three kidneys? People start asking questions.

From the beautiful lyrics in The Wind Beneath My Wings, Bette Midler sings, “Did you ever know that you’re my hero?” I didn’t. Although, little ol’ me has been called a hero more than once. Not because I acted with courageous bravery without regard for my personal safety — but because I returned a purse. I was walking home on 72nd Street in NYC when I nearly tripped over a large leather bag whose contents was scattered around it. I examined it, put the contents back in the bag, and walked home with the bag. Included with all the other personal belongings was a wallet with a driver’s license and credit cards. No cash. No phone number. I mailed the bag and contents to the address on the license with a personal note. About three weeks later I received a huge bouquet of flowers and a personal note that read, “Thank you! Thank you! Thank You! You are my hero. You have restored my faith in humanity. – Nancy”

Well, clearly that act is not heroic. Just seemed like the right thing to do.

Do we need heroes? Yes.

Why is this a perennial question? I don’t know, but it is a debate that surfaces whenever individuals and societies struggle with a sense of moral decay, political turmoil, and existential anxieties. Umm, like, now. A true hero offers hope, is a source of inspiration, and a tangible embodiment of shared societal values. Not Trump and his childish memes that portray him as heroic. True heroes do not think of themselves as heroes. Other people label them as heroes. The notion of heroism is complex, prone to manipulation (Trump again), and often overshadowed by the flaws and limitations of the humans who embody heroic traits.

The human desire for heroes seems ingrained in our psychology. Heroes provide a sense of meaning and purpose, and show us that extraordinary acts of courage and selflessness are possible. This aspirational quality is central to the hero’s appeal. They are not merely individuals — they are symbols of hope and human potential.

This need for heroes is often reflected in song lyrics. For example, in Queen’s, We Are the Champions, the lyrics proclaim: “I’ve paid my dues / Time after time / I’ve done my sentence / But committed no crime.” This speaks to a struggle, the perseverance to be a champion. There are dozens more. Here are a few: Heroes by David Bowie: A classic about finding strength and connection in a difficult world. My Hero by Foo Fighters: A tribute to an everyday hero, celebrating their strength and impact. Holding Out for a Hero by Bonnie Tyler: A powerful 80s anthem about waiting for a larger-than-life hero. And, We Don’t Need Another Hero by Tina Turner: A song from the Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome soundtrack that questions the need for heroes.

The rise of heroic figures has often coincided with periods of crisis or upheaval. In times of war or civil strife, leaders like Nelson Mandela and Volodymyr Zelensky emerged as symbols of resilience and defiance. These individuals, through their courage and leadership, became larger-than-life figures, representing the collective will of their people. Their actions elevate their persona to the status of heroes.

Let’s also remember the epic fictional heroes in Homer’s Odyssey, Virgil’s Aeneid, the knights of King Arthur’s court, Robin Hood, and my favorite superhero – Superman!

Literature provides a space to explore the virtues of courage, loyalty, and self-sacrifice without leaving the comfort of my favorite easy chair. The struggles, and their flaws (they always have flaws – kryptonite, a heel) make these heroes relatably human. The flawed hero, such as Achilles, whose rage leads to tragedy, or Hamlet (a hero?) maybe. His indecisiveness and confusion delays his revenge and gets lots of people killed. Yet he offers a nuanced perspective on heroism, showing the complexities of human nature.

Scientists who discover life-saving vaccines, environmental activists fighting for climate justice, athletes who overcome adversity to achieve athletic excellence, people who fight in the streets protesting ICE, are potential candidates for the coveted title of hero. Ordinary people performing extraordinary acts is one definition of heroism. The individuals who assist others in moments of crisis, the whistleblowers who expose corruption, and the community organizers who work to improve their neighborhoods, seem to embody heroic qualities. Even though they would likely tell us they are not heroic, but just doing what seems right.

However, the need for heroes has its drawbacks. The idealization of individuals can lead to a dangerous cult personality. (MAGA) When we elevate individuals to a heroic status, we often overlook their flaws and their limitations. This can lead to blind faith in leaders, a susceptibility to manipulation, and a failure to critically examine their decisions and motivations. Dictators and demagogues who can cultivate a cult of personality and capitalize on the public’s need for a hero, demonstrate the dangers of unchecked power and unquestioning loyal devotion. (Tired of Trump as an example?) When we attribute social change solely to the actions of a single individual, we may overlook the contributions of the countless others who play a vital role in achieving human progress. This can lead to a sense of disempowerment, a feeling that our individual actions are insignificant and meaningless in the face of heroic leadership. The belief that a single savior (Jesus, Mohammed, L Ron Hubbard) will solve all our problems can also lead to inaction, preventing us from taking responsibility for our own lives and communities. Another potential drawback is the distortion of reality. Heroic narratives often simplify complex events, portraying individuals in either/or, yes/no, black or white, right or wrong terms, ignoring the nuances and complexities of human behavior. The tendency to romanticize the past and to attribute extraordinary qualities to historical figures can create unrealistic expectations. This focus on “great people” can easily obscure the importance of the average Joe. Like lil’ ol’ me.

The value of heroes lies in their potential to inspire us to be better versions of ourselves. Heroes are not gods, but guides, who remind us of the power of human potential. They can be a valuable source of motivation and inspiration that provides us with models of courage, resilience, and compassion. But the skeptical humans (Hello there!) must never relinquish their critical faculties that enable discerning truths from myths. We should hold our heroes accountable by asking probing questions like, “Exactly where did you get that cape?” We need heroes, but we need to understand that the hero within us is often more powerful than the hero we put on a pedestal.

Remind me to tell you next time about the years I was called a savior. Jeezus Christ.

Ken Hurley

Let’s demolish the Statue of Liberty and build a condo tower on Liberty Island and call it Ballroom Plush. The Statue of Liberty is a National Landmark. Liberty Island is federally owned by the United States government and is managed by the National Park Service. As is the White House a National Landmark and the land it sits on is federally owned. No developer, president or other, has the unilateral legal authority to build an outhouse or anything on federal land or desecrate a National Landmark, much less demolish it, without an extensive rigorous review and approval for architectural compatibility, environmental concerns, historical preservation, and more. 18 U.S. Code § 1361 makes it a federal crime to willfully injure or damage federal property, with penalties including fines and up to ten years in prison for damage over $1,000. The National Capital Planning Commission is the primary agency responsible for coordinating the review process for the White House. The NCPC is headed by a Trump appointee. As of this writing, it is closed due to the government shutdown.

The ballroom project was announced and construction began with the demolition of the East Wing without permits, public comment, agency review, or explicit prior approval from the NCPC for the building phase. The head of the NCPC claimed that demolition did not require the commission’s approval, only the future construction. Another tedious and hurtful smack in the face from Trump to the people. The claim of funding paid by private donors would more accurately be stated as paid by big corporate funding to grovel for favor with the president. If this weren’t legal, we could rightfully call it bribes. The President and all associated with the desecration and demolition of the White House deserve to face the penalties associated with 18 U.S. Code § 1361. However, there is a kick. The exception is that the White House is exempt from certain requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which means a presidential administration doesn’t have to follow the same public review processes as other federal agencies. As of this writing, no legal action has been taken relative to the shocking demolition. Just a wide backlash of criticism, two thumbs down, and loud boos.

And the bunker beneath the ballroom? The Presidential Emergency Operations Center is located beneath the East Wing. Built during World War II, the facility has been updated and serves as a shelter and command center for the president and staff during emergencies. We need a bigger bunker with golden chandeliers and golden toilets, golden communications, so we can drop golden bombs. The floor of the ballroom is the ceiling of the bunker. No photos allowed of the excavation. No photos? We’ll see. Or, maybe not.

Will Trump be president again in 2028? Some people claim the country needs Trump to stay in office, especially because they believe he is a vehicle of Divine Providence. The 22nd Amendment be damned.

There is a reason that fascist regimes strongly embrace the dominant religion of the country and start to use religious language and images. A tyrant who believes that they’re on a mission from God is deadly dangerous. People have used the certainty of God being on their side as an excuse to exterminate their enemies. You can claim heresy and actually kill others when you believe that your mission is of God; or if you can convince people that it is, it gives you the excuse to say that if you don’t support me, then you’re against God. If you’re against God – that’s your peril – because I have the right to live my life according to God’s commands, which include eradicating you. Think Inquisitions. A myopic moron can see that this administration has no truck for the Constitution. In fact, as 2028 nears, it seems they plan to completely disregard the Constitution. It’s easy to use “emergency” powers to disrupt the elections. They know they cannot win fairly. Hitler used emergency powers to suspend civil liberties, the freedom of the press, the freedom to protest, and due process. It allowed for indefinite detention without being charged with an offense, and they were able to use those emergency powers to proclaim that they were trying to save the country, save elections, and protect law and order. There were no free and fair elections in 1933 Germany. It was manipulated by fear and propaganda and Hitler had control of the government.

Let’s not allow ourselves to fall into the trap that the conservative right is stupid. Ok, some of them are heavily indoctrinated. Many of them are actually stupid, meaning incapable of learning. But their leadership, in particular, is not stupid. They are calculated. They lie with smiling ease. While we have allowed ourselves to get baited into cultural rules and distractions — they have been laser focused, and they’ve been able to overturn Roe, remove equal opportunity in the workforce, rewrite history books, take rights away from women, gut the Civil Rights Act, put ICE on the streets, military in our cities — and now, they’re building the fascist world in which they want to live. Next up — the Constitution. They told us who they are, and they are efficient enough to get it done. If we want to be effective activists and fight back, we’re in for a long painful slog, decades of correction to fix this mess. Let’s not make the mistake of believing that the enemy is stupid. They cheat. They lie. They’re cruel. They’re deadly. But they’re not stupid.

Ken Hurley

I'd horsewhip you if I had a horse. – Groucho Marx

Brevity is the soul of lingerie. – Dorothy Parker

I remember the last time I walked onto a stage to a standing ovulation like it was never. I oozed an aura of marination that radiated as I held some scribbled paper notes in my hand that turned out to be tearable. I was bound to be bound to my commitment to offer a few short remarks, regardless of how riddled with distinction my notes were or how I felt the audience couldn't even read at a fifth-grade level. I had a tailor do some altercations to my best suit so I would look good in front of the kindergarteners. I was asked to address my words to a young crowd of fidgetbusters who, after they heard my address, sought redress and sanctioned me to address why dresses are impotence. I wanted to bolt fast from there, but my feet felt as if they were held fast and bolted to the stage. One of the little cherubs sitting up front pointed out the pencil I was holding had no point to it. Another yelled, “Like your speech!”     

This may be punbelievable but the kids loved paronomasia, even if none of them could spell it, pronounce it, or knew what it means. Yet they seemed to instinctively recognize a parody on actual substance which one day may become a meme.     

After my diabolical with the munchkins, I walked to see my friend Barry Barista, a bone-vide gastronome who works in a bakery. I kneaded something delicious and I knew Barry was not one to loaf around. Barry's bakery was open, a haven of sweets, where treats abound and your taste buds meet. Barry Barista is a master of dough, who always welcomes you in, with a friendly "Hello!" I dough think I've ever seen a batter foray of treats. I found what I came for and I wasn't scone anywhere. Barry poured both of us a brew-tiful cup of steamy piping hot lava, which helped percolate our thoughts as we were raisin a toast‐ed egg sandwich to accompany a chocolate croissant. Egg-cellent!       

Barry asked, “What do you call a lazy kangaroo? A pouch potato! He said before I could blink-a-wlink. So my reply was, “What do you call a fish with no eyes? Fsh. It felt like a bread new day. Then it was time for a slice of fruit-filled delight, so apple-ing and berry delicious, a crusty beautiful sight. Just before it was too late but after it was just in time, Barry belted out in a masterful Broadway baritone voice, “Girl On Fire!” A troubadorable performance.      

The word "paronomasia" derives from the Greek words "para" (beside) and "onoma" (name). Essentially, it means "beside the name," or "near the name," referring to the sonic proximity of words the foundation upon which a pun is built, which creates a cognitive dissonance that the listener or reader must resolve. Even, if not only occasionally, leading to amusement, confusion, or a moinful groin.       

Homophones — words that sound the same but have different meanings like, A bicycle can't stand on its own because it's too tired.      

Homographs, words spelled the same but with different pronunciations and meanings, also provide ground for puns. The famous line, "Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." More subtly, puns can employ words that are homonyms, meaning they sound and are spelled the same, but have different meanings. For example, I'm reading a book about anti-gravity. It's impossible to put down! Or, A bat flew out of a cave and hit a ball.       

Consider the famous pun: Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything! Similarly, a joke that says, I used to hate facial hair, but then it grew on me.      

Of course, delivery is key. Most of this type of paronomastic jibbitty-jabber is best said aloud. Timing, inflection, and the overall tone of the interaction play a crucial role in the success of the pun. Puns rely on ambiguity, pattern recognition, cognitive fluency, and a degree of social intelligence — which is not needed while reading this piece of chit.      

It goes without saying, so I will write it. While some people a-door puns and other wordplay, not everyone thinks puns and wordplay are punny. I'm told some strange people find them tiresome, predictable, and even irritating. Some individuals may be less sensitive to the subtle nuances of language, while other strange people may find the cognitive effort required to decipher a pun too demanding.     

To paraphrase some words of the Sweet Swan of Avon, I offer: “Why did Puck cross the road? He saw someone he knew Oberon the other side.” And, “Did you hear about the chicken who walked out of a production of Hamlet? He heard somebody threaten to murder most fowl.” And finally, I have been Bard from making any more Shakespearean puns, regardless how puntastic they might be. You're welcome.       Paronomasia not only includes puns, but double entendres, paraprosdokians, spoonerisms, malapropisms, homographs, homophones, megaphones, and more. One of those words is not like the others.       

See you later, elevator.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Ken Hurley

We have US troops on the ground in US cities under false pretenses. We have a president who sees insurrectionists everywhere except in Washington D.C. on January 6th, 2021. He reminds me of the 19th century children’s story, “Chicken Little,” where a chicken believes the sky is falling after an acorn hits her head and needlessly spreads fear and panic to other farm animals.

We have universities defunded under false pretenses. Other Universities and Colleges under serious threats of physical violence because they serve minority students. Media outlets coerced into compliance. Newspapers sued. Comedic political commentators suspended or canceled. Open threats of more to come including prosecution by the DOJ of those deemed to be foes of 47. Boats and lives destroyed by the US military in international waters without reasons supported by evidence. ICE with their face masks, body armor, firearms, and no sense of humanity as they sweep people off the streets. The death of DEI. History books re-written. Artwork removed. “Improper ideology” removed from the Smithsonian Institution. Healthcare standards eroded. Indiscriminate pardons of all January 6th insurrectionists. How many wars does 47 claim he stopped? The tally is uncertain but it includes the “Armenian-Cambodian” conflict. Ahh, but the good news — autism is cured and we learned how to pronounce Acetaminophen! The escalator mystery is being escalated into a thorough investigation by the US Secret Service in an effort to get to the bottom of the up escalator alleged sabotage. Plus, our relationships with the United Nations General Assembly couldn’t be more divertingly ludicrous thanks to the offensively cringeworthy speech from 47. Wait, that’s not good news. Lies. Daily lies. Lots of lies. It’s nearly impossible to keep pace with all the lies.

Pedos are dangerous. Wealthy, powerful, pedos are deadly dangerous. If the Epstein files did not incriminate any wealthy, powerful, individuals you’d think there would be good reason to release the files in an effort to quell speculation. If the files do incriminate wealthy, powerful, individuals there would be reason to hide them so the guilty can remain unscathed. Those who may be criminally implicated by the content of the files should be brought before the courts to determine their rightful fate.

I can admire articulate people who have the skills to captivate, motivate, educate, persuade, entertain, grow and retain a large audience. There are many, including politicians, self-help gurus, comics, musicians, authors, religious leaders, and to some extent, Charlie Kirk. While I can respect their skill sets for the reasoning I just mentioned, when applicable, I can also despise sophistic messaging as horrible, harmful, hateful, fallacious and bad for humanity.

Charlie Kirk was a professional political performance operative bought by wealthy conservatives whose divisiveness created content tailored to the MAGA base at the expense of those he denigrated and marginalized. He did not debate. He ambushed. Mostly young unsuspecting, ill-prepared, college crowds that were used to assure he would look masterful. The exploited “opponents” never had a chance. Mr. Kirk seemed adroitly adept in the final video edits created by his team. His assassination is horrific political violence and not the America we should aspire toward. Was Charlie’s assassination another in a long line of “lone gunmen”? Look at the violence from which we came. Would he have been killed if we were not living in tarnished Trump America? And, the top brass? They’re silent.

We need more peacemakers.

We are witnessing unprecedented contemptible actions from the pompous man who occupies the White House who openly says, “I couldn’t care less” about finding ways to unite we, the people. At Charlie Kirk’s memorial service 47 repeated, “I hate my opponents.” His divisive rhetoric was said amongst a revival tent atmosphere of Christian Nationalists who would likely welcome the second coming of Jim Crow Jesus. There were others who used their eulogy, in part, to call for militant political retribution, similar in tone and words to Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi Party. When you have a moment, compare Goebbels 1932 speech in tone and rhetoric, “The Storm is Coming,” to Stephen Miller’s “eulogy” where he angrily points his finger and repeatedly yells about enemies, evil, and the dark side as Miller shouts, “We are the storm. You are nothing… you are wickedness. You are jealousy. You are envy. You are nothing! … God is on our side!” The “You” he referenced seemed to galvanize the adherents in the audience. They need an enemy to unite their group and provide a target to focus their animosity. The enemy Stephen Miller delivered is “You.”

The following exchange happened on September 10, 2025, between Charlie Kirk and an audience member:

ATTENDEE: Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?

KIRK: Too many. [Applause]

ATTENDEE: In America, it’s five. Now, five is a lot, right, I’m going to give you — I’m going to give you some credit. Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?

KIRK: Counting or not counting gang violence?

Those were Mr. Kirk’s last words. According to Gun Violence Archive, there have been close to 4000 mass shootings in the US since 2014. Mostly carried out by white men in their 30s and almost none by trans people. In 2023, Mr. Kirk used his platform to respond to an audience question with the following, “You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.”

Children shot. Teachers shot. Concert goers shot. Club patrons shot. Movie goers shot. Grocery shoppers shot. Worshipers shot. People shot in nearly every type of venue where people gather. When people on the liberal progressive side get gunned down, the Bible toting conservative side shrugs and calls it the price of freedom. They repeat, “It’s too soon to discuss meaningful gun laws. Let’s offer our thoughts and prayers and move on.” They believe the Second Amendment is actually God-given. But when people on the Bible toting conservative side are killed from gun violence, then that’s one death “too many.” That’s political posturing and hypocritical maneuvering masquerading as righteous morality. Yet, the censorious conservatives who support “God-given” gun rights are still unwilling to engage in meaningful gun law reforms.

It is widely reported that Mr. Kirk said, “I can’t stand the word empathy, actually. I think empathy is a made-up, new age term that — it does a lot of damage.” Of course, I disagree. I suspect Jesus of the Bible would too. Charlie’s actions and statements towards many marginalized members of society demonstrate that he did not show empathy toward them but showed a callous indifference toward them, if not outright contempt, in the name of his religion. I despise the heinous act that took Mr. Kirk’s life. I also have felt empathy for his family.

There is no moral foundation in religion that can not be found outside religious tradition and throughout secular morality. This is why Humanists and Freethinkers are important for an authentic ethical approach to understanding a vision for an improved version of humanity. The preferred conclusion regarding the morality of an action ought to be determined by its real world results which would maximize benefit and minimize harm; not from someone’s man-made holy text crafted by powerful men thousands of years ago who saw an opportunity to control the population to their benefit. Amazingly, we see this same phenomenon again today — powerful men using religion to control the population and curry political favors. One example: Vice President Vance began hosting the Charlie Kirk Show five days after his assassination.

Howard Zinn titled his memoir, You Can’t Be Neutral On A Moving Train, which is a metaphor that suggests passivity and silence in the face of oppressive social injustices are a form of complicity. The “train” of events can move faster than a Japanese bullet train in an unwanted direction. According to Zinn, to not actively oppose injustice is to accept and even collaborate with it.

You want to change the direction of the train? The easy answer is to “vote the bastards out.” However, suppose the 2024 election was rigged but in favor of the sitting administration? When has 47 ever done a selfless action, above board, with integrity, honesty, and an eye to serve humanity? He told us the election was rigged. He has the resources to make it happen. It is a serious challenge to accept that 47 won all seven swing states with a vote tally just outside the margin of error to trigger a mandatory recount. Voting machines can be compromised after they leave the manufacturer through physical access and vulnerabilities in the supply chain. Threats can be introduced during the programming or storage stages, or through poor security procedures. Enter Elon Musk who has even more resources than 47. As you know, Mr. Musk was an integral part of the 2024 election campaign. Crazy? Maybe. If it is true — it can happen again.

The mid-terms are coming. It can get much worse unless the mid-term vote is overwhelmingly in favor of “voting the bastards out.” I’ll leave it to you to decide which bastards.

What’s next? Martial law? When martial law is in effect, the military’s authority replaces that of the civilian government, typically during times of war, rebellion, or natural disaster. However, not intended for fake, made up, or manufactured wars, rebellions, or natural disasters. We should not be governed by lies.

When I was a child I thought those Spanish Fighting Bulls were dumb for chasing red flags — but look at us — it seems there are red flags everywhere. In the chaotic clamor, it seems no matter which direction we charge, there’s a different red flag waving in our face. Now is not the time to shut down. Now is the time to stay alert and engage. Mr. Kirk is another warning. You are the response. The difficulty for a peacemaker is how to effectively engage with people who openly declare you as the enemy.

I appreciate you and all those who help create a place where we can work together with a common purpose and hopefully slow the train and change its direction.

###

Ken Hurley

Sometimes good is good enough. – kgh

Perfection is the enemy of progress. – Winston Churchill

Ok, I get it, the notion of “perfection” is subjective, meaning what one person considers perfect, another might think is a roaring disaster. However, some objects, methods, and ideas are widely considered so incredibly well-conceived that they approach a level of perceived perfection given their specific function. For example, the Swiss Army Knife is praised for its design and functionality as the perfect pocket knife. The cast-iron skillet is praised as a durable and long-lasting pan that actually improves with use. The Zippo Lighter is a simple design that is praised for largely being unchanged since its invention in 1933. While a perfect storm is a weather phenomenon, the phrase is also used metaphorically to describe a disastrous situation created by a powerful confluence of improbable unfortunate factors. And my favorite, the perfect pump — when you stop pumping gasoline at the exact amount you predicted. It’s a good feeling. Some may think snowflakes are perfect, with their symmetrical beauty and the fact that no two are identical. I’ve been told the human body is a perfect creation. But I disagree. I think men should have the ability to lactate — from the end of their pinky finger. Several famous musicians are known to possess perfect pitch, an ability to identify or recreate musical notes without any external reference. Some of the most well-known examples include: Mariah Carey, Ella Fitzgerald, Mozart, Beethoven, Freddie Mercury, and Charlie Puth.

Art and music require a certain level of technical skill. Although I think the true beauty of art lies with its imperfections, its emotional depth, and its ability to connect with the human experience. Creating some form of art can be a powerful experience for the artist and the enthusiasts who use their time to appreciate or reject what they’ve experienced. The effort to connect with humans is a powerful motivator. Yet an obsession with perfection can lead to uninspired artistic work that lacks the spontaneity and authenticity that make art and music so compelling. Think Rembrandt and Bob Ross. I have a friend who thinks the recordings of Pink Floyd are “perfect” — but the recordings of Pink? Meh.

In baseball, Phil Niekro, nicknamed “Knucksie,” was known for his knuckleball pitch. He had a perfectly imperfect pitch. It was slow and wobbly, but batters struggled to hit it. Also in baseball, a perfect game occurs when a pitcher retires every batter they face in a nine-inning game without allowing any opposing player to reach base by any means, including hits, walks, hit batsmen, or errors. It’s considered a flawless performance. Out of over 350,000 games ever played in baseball, there have only been 24 perfect games. The fans and team are thrilled! However, baseball also has its fair share of errors. I have a friend who named her cat Feck so she could say, “Purr Feck”. And there is Ed Sheeran’s love song, “Perfect,” about finding a soulmate and the joy of being with someone who makes you feel complete, even though they have imperfections. Land sakes alive! There is even a book titled, The Perfectionist’s Guide to Losing Control by the psychotherapist Katherine Morgan Schafler, in which she argues that we’ve been looking at perfectionism all wrong, suggesting you don’t have to stop being a perfectionist to be healthy. Have you ever met a curmudgeon? A termagant? I have. Too many. Have you met a genuinely happy perfectionist? I have not.

Perfectionists tend to get cranky quickly when things do not happen in a manner they expect in their perfect little minds. What? Little minds? There are many people who are known to be perfectionists who have achieved astonishingly great success: Steve Jobs, Stanley Kubrick, Michael Jackson, Leonardo Da Vinci, to name a few. There is nothing wrong with trying to be a perfectionist, just as there is nothing wrong with folly. Florenz Ziegfeld knew this well.

Perfection is an enticing lure found in a human desire to strive for something better. It’s sort of like hope or a wish, in that it offers us a goal. We humans are typically inclined to seek order and control in some manner or other. Perfection offers a seductive promise of achieving these goals. A promise often broken. It suggests a state of mastery, where errors and imperfections are eliminated, and everything functions flawlessly. It’s an ideal that can be particularly appealing to humans who struggle with insecurity, anxiety, and a greater need for validation. To achieve perfection, or even strive for it, can provide a temporary sense of control and validation — which can reinforce self-esteem. The pursuit of perfection can also be a powerful motivator, driving individuals to push themselves to their limits and achieve remarkable accomplishments. Athletes often dedicate their lives to achieving peak physical performance. Their training regimes, dietary habits, and mental preparation are meticulously crafted to minimize errors and maximize performance. Ask Novak Djokovic.

The Olympic gold medalist, the record-breaking marathon runner, the ballet dancer executing the perfect plié – these individuals embody the relentless pursuit of physical perfection. However, this striving can also lead to burnout, injury, and a distorted self-image. The pressure to be perfect can be immense, leading to psychological distress and a relentless focus on flaws and imperfections. Sometimes good is good enough. As Toba Beta said in Master of Stupidity, “Practice doesn’t make perfect. Practice reduces the imperfection.”

Engineers, scientists, and designers strive to create machines and systems that operate with maximum efficiency, reliability, and safety. The development of the airplane, for example, involved decades of iterative improvements, each aiming to perfect aerodynamics, engine performance, and safety features. Similarly, the creation of computer software involves a constant quest to eliminate bugs, improve functionality, and create a seamless user experience. The desire for perfection drives innovation and technological advancement, leading to breakthroughs that transform our lives. However, the relentless pursuit of technological perfection can also have unintended consequences, such as environmental damage, job displacement, and the creation of complex systems that are difficult to control and understand. Remember the disastrous plight of the 737 Max, the Challenger explosion, or the windblown collapse of the suspension bridge nicknamed “Galloping Gertie” (the Tacoma Narrows Bridge). It finally swayed and bounced to its complete failure in 1940. How often has your computer crashed?

In Oscar Wilde’s, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Dorian seeks eternal youth and beauty, striving for a kind of physical perfection. He makes a pact that will allow his portrait to age while he remains eternally youthful. However, this pursuit of physical perfection leads to moral corruption and ultimately destruction. Flaubert’s Madame Bovary portrays a woman obsessed with romantic ideals and a life of luxury, striving for a kind of perfect happiness. This pursuit of an idealized life led her to debt, disillusionment, and ultimately, suicide. The destructive consequences of unrealistic expectations and the inability to accept the imperfections of life can have severe consequences.

Some Christians acknowledge their imperfections but believe they will go to heaven — if they truly believe. Freethinkers acknowledge their imperfections too — have a laugh and don’t pretend they have a ticket to a make-believe land.

The limitations of perfection are significant. The problem with perfection is that it is unattainable. Human beings are inherently imperfect, and our capacity for error, vulnerability, and fallibility is an undeniable part of our existence. The relentless pursuit of perfection can lead to disappointment, frustration, and a sense of failure. When we set unrealistic goals and expectations, we inevitably set ourselves up for disappointment.

The pursuit of perfection can also lead to procrastination, due to the fear of making mistakes. Failing to meet our own impossibly high standards can prevent us from taking risks, trying new things, and pursuing our goals. The perfectionist may spend hours planning and preparing, afraid to start a project until everything is “perfect.” This procrastination can ultimately lead to a loss of time and opportunity. The fear of imperfection can stifle creativity and innovation, preventing individuals from sharing their work or expressing themselves authentically.

Another significant drawback of the pursuit of perfection is its potential to damage mental health. Perfectionism is often associated with anxiety, depression, and other mental health disorders. The constant self-criticism and the fear of failure can be incredibly debilitating. The pressure to be perfect can lead to chronic stress, burnout, and a diminished sense of well-being. The relentless pursuit of an unattainable ideal can leave individuals feeling inadequate, unworthy, and deeply unhappy. Ever meet a truly happy perfectionist? I haven’t.

Turns out that being human is rife with mistakes. Failure is a part of the learning process, and that embracing our imperfections is essential for personal growth and authentic expression. Thomas Edison was asked why he failed so many times before he successfully invented the light bulb. He replied, “That was not failure, I just found 10,000 ways that didn’t work.” The pursuit of excellence, of striving to improve and grow, is a worthy goal, but it’s good to balance it with self-compassion, acceptance, and a recognition of our inherent fallibility.

When I was ten years old I mowed lawns to earn money. As I finished each lawn, I liked to step back, extend my arm straight, close one eye, stick my thumb in the air as if I were an artist assessing whatever artists assess when they look at their thumb and say, “Poyfect!” Or is it spelled “Poifect”?

We still seek, as Gouverneur Morris wrote in the preamble to the Constitution, “a more perfect Union.” It’s all an attempt to achieve something a little bit better.

However, you don’t want to hear your surgeon say, “Oops!”###

Ken Hurley

Kushim was a weathered man with calloused hands and skin the color of ochre clay baked by the sun. His life was lived in the open, evidenced by the rounded etched lines around his eyes, deepened by squinting in an effort to focus. A network of scars crisscrossed his arms and legs, signs of his encounters with predators and the unforgiving terrain. His hair was thick and matted, the shade of dried river reeds, often tangled with leaves and twigs. His stature was short and stocky, but his frame was powerfully built. His shoulders were broadened by years of hunting. His shaggy hirsute chest expanded with each deep, deliberate breath. His eyes were his most striking feature. They were a startling shade of deep amber, unnervingly bright, at night even fluorescent, which held a depth of gaze that suggested an innate wisdom far beyond his years — a conscious awareness that pierced time itself.
. Kushim was descended from original members of the Homo sapiens clan, a small, tightly-knit tribe that roamed fertile valleys and arid deserts. However, he was unlike any other member of his tribe. He possessed a gift, a curse, a burden — the ability to see the future, to witness events yet to come. Events came to him in dreams, in flashes of visions that assaulted his waking and sleeping mind. He saw vast swaths of land aflame, metal behemoths roaring across the plains, figures shrouded in strange garments raising weapons that spat fire and death. He saw structures of immense scale, built of stone and shaped with an unbelievable precision. He saw the advent of writing, the wheel, and sophisticated irrigation systems. He saw the effort to govern by democracy. He witnessed the slow, inexorable march of civilizations yet to be. He saw their rise and fall, their triumphs and tragedies, all swirling before his eyes like dust devils in a summer storm.
. His gift (or curse) made him an outcast. He was not fully present in his own time. While others hunted and gathered, he would often wander away, his gaze affixed on an unseen horizon. While the tribe gathered around a communal fire, sharing stories and laughter, Kushim retreated to a solitary space, sketching strange, otherworldly images onto cave walls. Images born from the visions that tormented his mind. His tribe was wary of the unknown and considered him to be touched by spirits. Sometimes Kushim was venerated, but more often he was feared. The tribe relied on his predictions of weather patterns and animal migrations, but they kept a respectful distance, unsure of the totality of his capabilities. Kushim saw a vast, rolling plain, dotted with enormous, grey beasts with ivory tusks. Then, a smaller, yet fearsome creature appeared — a hunter, wielding a spear riding another beast. Kushim knew this was the future. The ability for humans to harness their surroundings. He saw the hunter destroy the mammoth grey beast.
. He returned to his tribe, his heart heavy with the knowledge of what was to come. He warned them of a harsh winter — a severe climate change — when the mammoth beasts would all disappear, when game would become scarce. He told them of a time of great suffering. His tribe scoffed, they always did, but as the seasons changed, the mammoths vanished — a chilling harbinger of future events.
. Years passed. Kushim, now older, his body a bit more withered with the passage of time as his visions continued. His mind watched as civilizations blossomed and collapsed. He saw the rise of Egyptians, their stone pyramids reaching towards the heavens. He witnessed the construction of the Great Wall of China, a serpent of stone winding across the landscape, a monument to the power of empires. He saw the grandeur of the Roman Empire, its legions marching across continents, its aqueducts and roads transforming the world.
. He saw the birth of Christianity, the spread of its teachings across the globe, the doubts, conflicts, and a vibrant Freethought movement that followed. He saw the fall of Rome, the descent into the Dark Ages. He saw fragmented kingdoms, the rise of feudalism, the dominance of the Church, the Crusades, the Black Death, and the creation of the Magna Carta. He predicted a renaissance of classical culture, great artistic works, and intellectual flourishing. He predicted an invention that would revolutionize the dissemination of written knowledge.
. One evening, huddled near a dwindling fire, Kushim felt another powerful wave of visions. This time, they were a particularly chaotic, swirling kaleidoscopic series of unstoppable images. He saw a man, a shepherd named Muhammad, spreading his faith across Arabia, and then the rise of a massive empire that was very close to his home. He knew, with a certainty that chilled his heart, that this Empire would reach the lands of his tribe and bring centuries of conflict and wars.
. The images then became even more startling. Kushim saw ships sailing across vast oceans. He saw them come to the shores of a new world, a world that they would conquer and colonize, and where they would exploit indigenous populations. He saw these ships being used in horrifying but profitable slave trading.
. He saw the construction of immense metal birds that would travel at great speeds across the sky — machines that could destroy cities. He saw the Great War, a terrible conflict that would bring about the death of many.
. Then came a period of peace but with more human hardship. Kushim saw the Great Depression and all of the suffering that it brought.
. Kushim saw the rise of a little mustached man named Charlie that made the world laugh. He saw another little mustached man named Adolf who would instigate the murder of millions and made the world fight. He saw fire rain down on cities, the end of many lives, the end of empires, and the obliteration of two Asian cities with the push of a button.
. He saw the Cold War, a long, tense standoff between two opposing powers. He saw lots of cardigan sweaters, too. He saw the race for space, the invention of computers, the ever-accelerating pace of technological change. He saw the emergence of new diseases, new threats, and new possibilities.
. Kushim’s visions were often too analytical for him to believe. He saw strong similarities between American President 7 and the first American Felon President 47. Both had confrontational, combative, and racist personalities, yet appealed to a populist style. President 7 would use federal force to implement the Indian Removal Act and implement the Nullification Crisis. President 47 would use federal force to disregard laws and oversee illegal deportation of thousands, while delighting in dismantling much of the federal government that served him so well.
. His visions, once fragmented and unclear, were becoming clearer, more intense. The future, once a distant and indistinct prospect, was drawing closer. He knew his time was running out. One day, he sat at the mouth of a cave. He chose a spot that was drenched in sunlight. He then took his flint stone and struggled to scratch images on the stone cave wall.
. He collapsed to the ground, his strength failing, his breath shallow. He saw one final image — a group of people in a strange, advanced place who discovered his drawings and studied them with great interest, in awe of Kushim’s last etching that depicted lots of life elsewhere in a multiverse.
. As the sun set, bathing the cave in a warm, golden light, Kushim drew his last breath. His physical body was gone, but his visions, etched in stone, remained. The stone writer was no more, but his prophetic legacy describing the burdens and joys of the future would live on. Preserved for centuries. Not on a hard drive, not in the cloud — but etched in stones on a cave wall. He was, finally, a part of the history he predicted.
. Kushim — that is his story.

Ken Hurley

Boundaries aren’t all bad. That’s why there are walls around mental institutions. ― Peggy Noonan

Walls work. I went to China last week and I did not see a single Mexican. – Jimmy Carr

The meanest and toughest hombre in the West, Yosemite Sam, a bungling antagonist to Bugs Bunny, has both guns drawn point-blank range at Bugs, “Start walking, you doggon long-eared galoot,” his graveled voice bellows.
. Bugs Bunny: “Hey, you can’t talk to me like that. Them’s fightin’ words.” Bugs Bunny challenged Yosemite Sam by drawing a line in the sand with his foot.
. “I dare you to step over this line,” admonished Bugs.
. “OK, I’m a-steppin.“ Yosemite Sam could not resist the challenge.
. Bugs drew another line, “I dare you to step over this line.”
. “OK, I’m a-steppin.“
. “This line.”
. “This line.”
. “That one.”
. “This one.”
. “That one.”
. Bugs drew dozens of lines in the sand, each of which was crossed by Yosemite Sam. The last line drawn by Bugs was at the edge of a cliff. Yosemite Sam stepped over the line and fell off the cliff, to be squished into his hat. Bad things can happen when we go too far and cross the line. This scene is from the classic cartoon Bugs Bunny Rides Again (1948).
. A line in the sand is a boundary. Boundaries are often invisible lines we draw to protect our physical space, emotional well-being, and autonomy. Boundaries can be physical, emotional, communicative, time-oriented, financial, respectful, or lines drawn on a map.
. Boundaries are fundamental to human interaction. They help define our relationships, shape our identities, and can provide a sense of freedom from fear that may lead to a more peaceful coexistence. It can be a challenge to set boundaries, even when we know certain boundaries are essential for humans to successfully coexist.
. The human desire to break boundaries is equally compelling. The desire to break, cross, transcend boundaries can stem from a variety of motivations, ranging from rebellion, the pursuit of freedom, dictatorial control, to a natural human yearning for intimacy and connection.
. Sometimes, breaking boundaries can be a necessary act of defiance, a way of challenging oppressive systems and asserting one’s autonomy. Take a peek at our Declaration of Independence and our fight for civil rights. American Revolutionaries deliberately broke the King’s rule. Civil rights activists deliberately challenged the established boundaries of racial segregation laws. The acts of breaking these boundaries were initially illegal and disruptive, but turned out to be essential for creating the United States of America and achieving needed steps toward social justice.
. The desire to break boundaries can be a catalyst for intimacy and human connection. There is a delicate balance between respecting each other’s boundaries and finding ways to transcend them in an effort to create a shared sense of space and understanding. Sometimes, boundaries are intentionally removed to establish a deeper connection that allows for greater vulnerability and intimacy. It takes an agreement among two or more people to mutually decide which boundaries they are comfortable with removing.
. Emotional boundaries include our feelings, thoughts, and vulnerabilities, and are essential for maintaining good psychological health. These boundaries dictate what information we share, how we allow others to influence us, and how we manage our emotional responses to interpersonal dynamics. They protect us from emotional exploitation, manipulation, and the potentially overwhelming emotional demands of others. Healthy emotional boundaries allow us to be authentic in our relationships while safeguarding our sense of self. Someone with strong emotional boundaries can say “no” to requests that deplete their energy, to express their needs clearly, and maintain a level of emotional distance when necessary to protect their well-being.
. Conversely, those with weak emotional boundaries may find themselves overwhelmed by other people’s emotions, taking on their problems as their own, and sacrificing their own needs for the sake of others. They might struggle to assert their own opinions or feel constantly responsible for the feelings of others.
. The desire to break boundaries can also be destructive. Individuals may cross boundaries for selfish reasons, to manipulate or control others, or to inflict harm. This can manifest in various forms, from emotional abuse and manipulation to physical violence and sexual assault, to deploying the military for use against U.S. citizens. The desire to break societal boundaries, laws, and social norms, can lead to crime, social disorder, and deadly violence.
. The physical boundaries we draw around our bodies, personal space, and possessions, are more tangible lines and are important too. These boundaries encompass our right to physical autonomy, to control our physical space, and to determine who has access to our bodies and our belongings. They are essential for safety, privacy, and a sense of personal security. Physical boundaries can be as simple as knocking before entering a room, respecting personal space, or refusing unwanted physical contact. Establishing and maintaining these boundaries is particularly important for women and marginalized groups who are often subjected to unwanted physical contact or violations of their personal space. Healthy physical boundaries assert our right to control our bodies and our physical environment, preventing unwanted intrusion and ensuring a sense of safety and control.
. In the geopolitical realm, boundaries have a different significance. National borders define the territorial limits of states, delineating their sovereignty and defining their relationships with other nations. These boundaries are often the subject of fierce contention, as nations compete for resources, influence, and power. The history of warfare is a history of the violation and redrawing of geopolitical boundaries. The ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East are rooted in disputes over territorial boundaries and political influence.
. Imperialism is a systematic attempt to expand national boundaries to exert control over other territories. The desire of President 47 to break the sovereign boundaries of Canada and Greenland may be motivated by a personal ego that knows no boundaries.
. The increasingly interconnected nature of our world has blurred traditional geopolitical boundaries. Globalization, the free flow of information, and the speed of social media have created a more fluid interconnected global ability to communicate. This has led to increased cultural exchanges, a greater sense of economic interdependence, and shared information which transcends national boundaries.
. However, this creates new challenges, such as cyber warfare, the spread of misinformation, disinformation, not knowing if it is real or AI, and a diminished sense of national sovereignty. The conflict surrounding immigration and international trade are shaped by differing views on how to manage and adapt to evolving geopolitical boundaries.
. Comedy can offer the opportunity to break boundaries while delivering a few good laughs. Richard Pryor was known for defying mainstream comedy conventions and openly discussing taboo topics like sex, race, and drugs. “I was just on the Today show and they told me how wonderful I was, and I walk out into the reality of America and I can’t get a cab.” Joan Rivers unapologetically challenged norms in a male-dominated field. “I wish I had a twin, so I could know what I’d look like without plastic surgery.” George Carlin was known for his controversial and thought-provoking routines on language, politics, and social issues, often challenging authority and societal norms. “If crime fighters fight crime and firefighters fire, what do freedom fighters fight?” and “The American dream — you have to be asleep to believe it.” Lenny Bruce pushed the boundaries of stand-up comedy with his explicit language and commentary on politics, religion, and social issues, leading to legal battles and his arrests. “If Jesus had been killed twenty years ago, Catholic school children would be wearing little electric chairs around their necks instead of crosses.” Dave Chappelle is recognized for his insightful and often controversial comedy addressing race, culture, and society. “To what extent do I have to participate in your self image?” Louis C.K. created his own controversy in his personal life but his stand-up has been known for its raw honesty and introspective humor on a wide range of topics. “I’m broke. You ever get so broke that the bank starts charging you money… for not having enough money?” Sarah Silverman is known for her provocative and often satirical approach to sensitive issues like religion, politics, and sexuality. “Everything seems crazy when you’re not used to it. That’s why so many comics make fun of Scientology, because like… well because it’s a batshit crazy religion. But it’s no more batshit crazy than every single religion, it’s just new… Scientology is weird because it’s new. It feels weird in our ear holes to hear people worshiping a guy named Ron. We know Rons in our life. He had to change his name to L. Ron because there was another Ron Hubbard in the Writers Guild. That’s how recent this religion is.” Ricky Gervais is known for his satirical and often dark humor, targeting societal norms, religion and celebrity culture. “Same-sex marriage is not a gay privilege, it’s equal rights. Privilege would be something like gay people not paying taxes. Like churches don’t.”
. For a long time it was thought that no human could run a mile in less than four minutes, until Roger Bannister showed up. Bannister was the first person to run a mile in under four minutes. He broke a psychological and physical barrier that was widely considered impossible. He ran a mile in 3 minutes 59 seconds 71 years ago.
. Jackie Robinson broke the Major League Baseball color barrier when he started at first base for the Brooklyn Dodgers on April 15, 1947. Also in 1947, Chuck Yeager became the first person to break the sound barrier when he flew the experimental Bell X-1.
. Icebreakers are often used in corporate or large group settings designed to facilitate breaking or at least softening certain personal boundaries. Icebreakers are games like Two Truths and a Lie, designed to help members get to know each other better and focus on sharing personal information such as names, hobbies, and life events, in an effort to form a cohesive team.
. A formerly feral cat adopted me a few years ago. I named him Shorty due to his short tail.. He’s an indoor/outdoor cat. The veterinarian suggested I establish a boundary for Shorty and keep him inside because there are fleas, ticks, big dogs, bad humans, rabies, and coyotes on the loose who would harm Shorty if given the opportunity. I briefly considered the vet’s suggestion. However, that is a boundary I feel would be unfair to Shorty. So, Shorty is living his best life.
. Drawing the line, establishing boundaries, breaking barriers, entering new frontiers, or playing with ice breakers, can get a person some attention. Sometimes wanted attention and sometimes not. It does seem that boundaries are essential for maintaining individual well-being, healthy relationships, and dealing with the complexities of the social and geopolitical world. The choices we make to respect or violate boundaries shape how we interact with each other. While established boundaries are key to building and keeping stable relationships, the motivations to both make and break boundaries are key to a life of freedom, peace, and intimacy. In other words — knock before entering.
. After being provoked or wronged due to his self-styled boundaries, Bugs Bunny is fond of hurling this tart retort, “Of course, you realize this means war!”
. “What a maroon!” But a delightful maroon.
:::::::::::::::::::::