Wednesday, February 23, 2022

Punitive Globalism

© 2022 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

“Oil” has found itself under the heel of vindictive globalists who stridently insist that the world is on the verge of an extinction-level event, a "climataclysm", if you will. For them, a measured response is simply out of the question; it's much too late for anything other than a radical redirecting of policies and behaviors  a resetting of the global trajectory. One could be forgiven for suspecting ulterior motives. And now, the rational sector would like to offer the following prescription: nix the blueprint for the destruction (and humbling) of the U.S. and other prosperous nations  the punitive leveling of "playing fields"– and deselect the plan's architects, the big-picture illuminati who can’t see the trees for the forest. Mute the voices incessantly shrieking "CLIMATE CHANGE!" as if the Apocalypse were due the Tuesday after next. Panic is a lead-footed driver with no sense of direction, and it goes without saying, feigned panic to manipulate "unenlightened" masses is morally repugnant. In the United States, increase our fossil fuel production until we’ve, once again, reached a point of self-sufficiency; i.e., until we've regained our energy independence. Then, institute a policy of inverse reciprocity, where the gains made in “green energy” production are offset by commensurate reductions in the production of fossil fuels. In so doing, we can maintain the balance necessary to ensure both our energy independence and our security, while intelligently advancing toward that most noble globalist vision of averting "The Climataclysm". Lastly and above all else, attempt honesty!

Saturday, October 2, 2021

Justice and the American Temperament

 © 2021 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

There is concern as to what Special Council John Durham can (or will be permitted to) accomplish in his investigation. More specifically, there is a palpable sense of urgency that the culpable be held to account. The audacious and egregious, even criminal acts, perpetrated by the elite of our ruling class, intelligence agencies, military, media, social networking sites, et al – often in seeming coordination – feel indicative of systemic decay, and the players, like a necrotizing bacterium that has evolved resistance to our most potent antibiotics. They are the upper tier "untouchables". My expectation is that Clinton campaign attorney, Michael Sussman, will, in the extreme, endure brightly reddened wrists, despite being one of too many lawyers who should be confronting bars that cannot be passed (Kevin Clinesmith being another case in point). One could be forgiven for thinking that, with regard to the U.S. Constitution, these are a “people apart” – “AMINOs”, if you will: Americans In Name Only. They flout the rules, our laws, and basic morality with seeming impunity, and therein lies the rub. The belief that there will be no justice, no commensurate level of accountability, has altered the American personality. Where there was once passing anger, there is now a perpetual state of low-level rage, and perhaps, for the unstable among us, a yearning to personally exact “justice”. The danger is obvious, even to us, the lowly citizenry.

Sunday, December 8, 2019

How Can Anyone Support President Donald Trump?

© 2019 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

Question: How is it possible for people to support President Trump, given all of his corrupt misdeeds over the last three years? 

Answer: Please don’t take this as an endorsement of President Trump. It is not! Nor is it an expression of sympathy or affinity for the man. It is merely my attempt to make sense of the thoughts and feelings of those of an ostensibly pro-Trump standpoint. 
I suspect that many (if not most) of the President’s supporters believe that his conduct and character are deeply flawed. Some, perhaps, feel they are condemnable; he is, at times, a loathsome bully who, most probably, has breached the law on an occasion or two. Still, they reason: There has been a move afoot since day-one of his tenure – a move perpetrated by an elite of a nature far more pernicious and repugnant than anything Donald Trump has exhibited – to dispose of him like a couple of hundred pounds of putrid, orange-tinged meat. And so, in response to an attempt at disenfranchisement by their venomous and vile betters, they bitterly, stridently, spitefully, and steadfastly hold to their seemingly untenable position. In their view, President Donald Trump is vastly the lesser of two evils, the "relatively-good Samaritan". He is the bullied bully who has become the beneficiary of profound resentment.

Saturday, April 28, 2018

Freedom of the Press

© 2018 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

It has been reported that the U.S. news media - "the press" - has blamed President Donald Trump for the diminishment of its freedom. I would posit, however, that the U.S. press is not less free, that it is not the pitiable victim of our truth-averse president; it is incarcerated, bounded by its own biases, purposes, and allegiances. It has become pathological in its vindictiveness, obsessive in its single-minded pursuit of an objective; namely the destruction of "THE ACCIDENTAL PRESIDENT". Its peripheral vision has blackened through atrophy and its movements are so conjoined as to appear orchestrated. The American press myopically perceives and bemoans a freedom fading in a barrage of "withering criticism" leveled by a crass and belligerent president, while it misses what is, in essence, a prison of its own making: nonobjectivity.

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Impossible?

© 2016 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

A few years back, in a conversation I’d had with a young, self-assured Chemical Engineer, the matter of extraterrestrial visitation arose. His position was clear from the outset: interstellar distances are so vast as to render such visitation impossible. Notwithstanding the obvious and begged question “Is this trip really necessary?”, my suspicion was (and remains) that this is a perspective shared by most Physicists, Astrophysicists, and Astronomers. From my perspective, however, “unfathomable” and “impossible” are not synonymous. One may not know how, or even if, interstellar travel is possible; one does not therefore know that it is not. A lack of evidence of possibility is not evidence of impossibility.
 
We seem desperate for certainty, so much so that we cling to our models of the world, of reality. We are, seemingly, bedazzled by them, as if they are a form of jewelry with gemstones so filled with light, so precisely cut and finely polished, that there appears nothing else worthy of a turn of the gaze.
I am reminded of a simple, though remarkable, toy called The Levitron. In a sense, it is the physical embodiment of an answer to the question “Using ordinary permanent magnets, how does one stably levitate one such magnet above another?” The problem is one whose solution most in the scientific realm characterize as “relatively simple”; yet, until late in the twentieth century, the consensus among physicists as to the prospect for permanent magnet levitation could be summed up in a word: Impossible! In 1983, a heedless and most tenacious tinkerer named Roy M. Harrigan realized the impossible and patented what was to become known as the first spin-stabilized magnetic levitation device the prototypic Levitron  employing essentially nothing more than permanent magnets. And, as if to furnish a line of cosmic poetry with an exclamation point, in 1984, a college drop-out named Joseph Chieffo, unwitting as to Harrigan’s brilliant, but still obscure, invention, produced his own distinct, spin-stabilized permanent-magnetism-induced levitation device. History is replete with seemingly impossible discoveries by inspired pioneers who are simply too passionate and intuitively attuned to be impressed by “impossibility”.   

Saturday, June 27, 2015

Genius - Installment V - On the Nature of Genius

© 2014 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

Genius is inspired action, compelled by passion, by love. It is realized through engagement–a kind of melding–with an idea, a domain, or, most profoundly, the whole of existence. Genius can be manifested in a burst of illumination or creation, or in a trickling, sustained endeavor that may or may not yield a "work of genius". An extraordinary "intelligence quotient" is not requisite for the existence of genius; nevertheless, such quantity may reflect a narrow band or hue (or narrow bands or hues) of the spectrum of genius in that what underlies said quantity may, in fact, be passion–passion for numerical relationships and manipulation, for linguistic or symbolic expression, or the like; or for a subsuming domain that requires (and, through such connection, passionately embraces the development of) fluency in such domains. We sometimes refer to one as "a genius", but as has been said, genius is action, and as some who have "earned" the appellation might attest, such action is only as great as the self is small. That  is to say, the action that is genius is impersonal. Uncontrollable, it flows fitfully from a tap in the vastness that is intelligence.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

On the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, The Guess Who, and The Moody Blues

© 2014 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

Perhaps it's personal, those glaring omissions. Or maybe it's simply a matter of us not "getting it". Take, for example, the Canadian band The Guess Who, with its seemingly interminable string of memory-etching ballads and rockers: These Eyes, Laughing, Undun, No Time, American Woman, No Sugar Tonight/New Mother Nature, Share The Land, Hand Me Down World, Bus Rider, Albert Flasher, Rain Dance...; maybe it just never rose to the level of musicality and renown worthy of the Hall's recognition. And maybe The Guess Who's front-man, the profoundly gifted Burton Cummings, for all of his pianistic virtuosity and what is perhaps the most mellifluous and tunefully explosive voice to have ever graced rock and roll...maybe, in the arcane proceedings and deliberations that are the induction process, his exceptionality counts as nothing more than extraneous ornamentation. If so, then so it is for the band's counterbalance, world class guitarist Randy Bachman, the other half of the brilliantly innovative, woefully short-lived Bachman-Cummings compositional collaboration. But surely the Hall's modus operandi is to exercise exceptionally nuanced and unbiased judgment, a level of discernment commensurate, as one would expect, with notably lofty standards  standards that were plainly on display in its induction of, say, Green Day, Rush, Beastie Boys, Abba, and Blondie, each and all at the exclusion of The Guess Who. There is cause for doubt. Consider another supernally talented group, The Moody Blues. As is the case with The Guess Who, this band, according to the Hall, doesn't pass muster, and thus, still resides in the exurbs of Halldom; this, despite their giving genesis to a genre that melded classical music with rock and roll and yielded a number of stunningly gorgeous entries on their laundry list of wildly popular melodic gems. Call me a rock-sheltered hayseed, but the exclusion of The Moody Blues from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in favor of the noted, pronouncedly less contributive, less notable entrants is, well, somewhat irrational. It would seem the Hall's admission criteria are years overdue for an evolutionary spurt  a particularly radical one if it has been using criteria that weigh more heavily on what's "cool" or palatable to present-day popular tastes, or the Hall's personal likes (or dislikes) ...on anything that deemphasizes that which matters most: the quality of the music. And while it is granted that any estimation as to that quality will invariably and in large part entail subjective means, quality is the one criterion that warrants the Hall's considered efforts to shape and exercise such means. But mutative progression aside, one would hope that, in the near term, the Hall would, at the very least, right what needs righting concerning the two rock and roll marvels at issue. I can think of at least one scenario that would satisfy the avenging poet within: the Hall issues a groveling apology and, by way of a monetary mea culpa, pays The Guess Who and The Moody Blues for the privilege of admitting them retroactively, setting their dates of entry at twenty-five years subsequent to the release of their respective first records. But who heeds the poets?




The Moody Blues







The Guess Who




Saturday, August 3, 2013

Delicate Balance: The Threshold Of American Revolution

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

We Americans, as a whole, are a fairly adaptive lot. While there is much that makes us hot under the collar, we tend to take the wide-angled view and note that things are rarely so bad as to warrant anything more than the occasional rant. When confronted with news of the latest scandal or crisis and the implicit or explicit message that we’ve again been robbed of our wealth or our liberty, we commonly observe “We’ve been screwed again”, ingest antacids, and carry on with lives less fair, less full. What is it that allows us to suffer the manifold indignities and the diminishment of life and self at the exacting of agents of injustice? Is it that we are sufficiently comfortable, satisfied, and thus, disinclined to stir the pot lest we become scalded through our righteous agitation? Are we too contented to face systems of seemingly impenetrable, laminar complexity to right what are obvious and profound wrongs? My suspicion is that the searing, tensing affronts and injustices wrought by the immorality of our spiritually barren, feckless "leaders" and the "movers and shakers" who retain them–these perfidies that we have come to expect and to which we have become inured, that we assimilate and adapt to–are indeed counteracted by comforts, pleasures, and trappings that are balm in the lives of “ordinary Americans”. We will continue to endure the bursting of bubbles, the scandals, the crises, the inequities, iniquities, and mendacities symptomatic of our condition–the condition of an America on the gurney–as long as there is the soothing and the balance. Is there a breaking point at which we say (and mean) enough is enough? Most probably, but the noted agents of injustice have become remarkably skilled in their art, ever refining, ever testing and stretching the limits of our adaptability, and, it is hoped, ever regardful of our modulus of elasticity and that which constitutes the delicate balance.



Thomas Jefferson's Original Gravestone Lessons Lost?

Courtesy of Jenni Feathers
 

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Smoke and Mirrors

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*

Legend has it that in the 3rd century B.C., Greek polymath Archimedes invented what has been called the “death ray” or, alternatively, the “heat ray”. The purpose of this Flash Gordonesque-sounding device was to burn and destroy enemy ships from afar using focused rays of sunlight. For Archimedes, “father of mathematical physics”, the reasoning would have been relatively simple: sunlight, reflected from the concavity of a parabolic mirror of relatively sizeable surface area, converges upon a comparatively small, suitably remote, area of quite combustible material, generating intense heat and, ultimately, fire. Whether this “weaponization” of the sun truly occurred is still, in the year 2225 A.A., the subject of debate and experimentation.

The sun set on Archimedes in the year 212 B.C. His legendary ray, however, has since evolved. In 1984, the year of "Big Brother", Archimedes’ “heat ray” was updated by your Anonymous CFO. Below is a depiction of “SOLAR”–Sunlight Optimization through L-Angled Reflection–in Archimedean setting.

Please note that SOLAR was conceived purely as an exercise in inventive thinking, without knowledge of the legend of the “burning-glasses” of Archimedes; moreover, there have been no ships set ablaze as a consequence.



Monday, July 8, 2013

Genius - Installment IV - The Slow Genius

© 2013 – J C, An Anonymous CFO. All rights reserved*


Albert Einstein, regarded by many as the quintessential genius, was known as a “slow thinker”. Most probably the appellation alluded to the “mechanics” of his thinking, not the underlying neurophysiological processes. This installment on Genius will attempt a glimpse of the problem-solving mechanics and the collective personality of Einstein and others who, in the author’s view, are reasonably (albeit oxymoronically) characterized as “slow geniuses”. 

Slow geniuses are of a type less inclined to seek the shortest distance between two points than to search for meaning in the space, points, and movement along the traverse. They fixate, not so much on solution as essence, seeking holistic resonance where most would contentedly settle for the interrogative’s bottom line; for them, the question is no less significant than the answer. They are often vague, intuitive gropers who are not averse to “winging it”. Frequently, and perhaps, at times, injudiciously, they will jettison their bags of scholarly tools lest they impede entry into those narrow, pitchy spaces–places within which may exist curled dimensions of meaning hitherto uncharted.

The thought processes of the slow genius may seem strange or disorderly, or obsessively redundant; but the appearance of one following one’s “gut” can be deceiving. Employing feedback looping, this genius examines and reexamines points in question with what, to the casual observer, would appear a Rain Man-like tolerance for monotony. Our genius is looking for chinks in a seemingly ironclad understanding, with or without benefit of the subtly different light of a recent insight. Occasionally, a hairline crack is revealed, though, more often than not, it is proven a mere craze. There are, however, occasions where, under seemingly serendipitous circumstances, such flaws are found to propagate deep beneath the surface. The slow genius understands that any such flaw might be part of a network, and that, as a consequence, the present clarity-impeding barrier could succumb to a well-placed, thoughtfully nuanced nudge, shattering under the weight of its own illogicality.  
The characteristic “slowness” of the slow genius may be innate, or it may be something into which he or she has grown through years of creative pursuit. This is one who is, at times, ambivalent: resentful of his or her relative inability to “think on one’s feet”–particularly under social circumstance–but one who is undyingly, deeply grateful for a most profound gift. Invariably it is the gift–the light of one illumined–that burns away the fog of mixed emotion.


Albert Einstein