Not What Said

Ice Cream Day. Been a bit of a week. Tuesday to toothist for update on my jaw aligning mouthpiece. Check. Friday to the eye guy about my ORF degeneracies. Check. Saturday FD SCP off with one of her commerce looter chums to get a break from me – Responsible Adult on Friday – and being unengaged due to contract kerfuffles. Check. 

So now all I have to do is muddle about a bit until Thursday when I get to visit the pump mechanic for that annual grrr brrr. Film at Eleven.

Meantime, its tab hawg’in’ time. I ran across this photo: [Link]

yesterday and was rather taken with it. It’s a bit of a novelty. First of all, we don’t have any pictures of Anaximander or Isaac or any of the really old timers abusing students, so we have to be satisfied with this one of Albert. It really shows up what a stercus lecturer I am. Albert is rather relaxed, he is wearing comfortable clothes, apparently no belt, which also indicates confidence and being relaxed, and he has only written one equation on the board. No need to justify himself to the brats.The only up-tight thing about him are his shoes. And he has this really listening look on his face.

The most relaxed thing about my lecture style was that I would pull down my tie and roll up my right sleeve above the elbow. Learned the latter from John David Jackson. If you get chalk dust on your shirt you (a) won’t notice it, and (b) will transfer it to your coat and pants, which are probably darker and the chalk dust will SHOW! Which shows how not-relaxed both he and I are while lecturing. 

Along that azimuth – the Albert one – I ran across an article quoting one of Albert’s letters where he explains what he means when he uses the word “God”. That’s a topic of some debate between christianists, who don’t read, nor think, Einstein, and those who do. But the real meat is an article [Link] entitled “You Cannot Be A Republican And A Christian”. I gave this a bit of thought. Why Republican and not politician. I suspect that’s because Democrat politicians don’t wrap themselves in religion like Republican politicians do. And it’s patently obvious from a bit of observation that no politician is a Christian. Christianist maybe, but not Christian. 

That is, if by Christian you mean someone who practices the precepts of the New Testament of “The” Bible. It is obvious, under observation, that almost everyone who professes to be a Christian, isn’t. It’s not that they aren’t good people, in the main, but they aren’t what they say they are. Which is OK. After all, I claim to be a physicist and I ain’t a very good one. Admittedly.

Observation is key. I say that because the easiest, fastest way to determine is someone who says they are a Christian is, is to watch them drive a motorcar. If they drive a pickup truck, you probably don’t have to watch them. 

Then, I noticed an article [Link] in the Register entitled “PayPal freezes 400-job expansion in North Carolina over bonkers religious freedom law”. I have to admit to spending a bit thinking about the word ‘Bonkers”. I consulted my built-in dictionary – one of the true advantages of FOSS and LINUX,

bonkers     adj 1: informal or slang terms for mentally irregular; “it used to drive my husband balmy” [syn: balmy, barmy, bats, batty, bonkers, buggy, cracked, crackers, daft, dotty, fruity, haywire, kooky, kookie, loco, loony, loopy, nuts, nutty, round the bend, around the bend, wacky, whacky]

Mentally Irregular. Does that mean irregular as in digestive irregularity but mental, or irregular in the scientific or maths sense of lacking any symmetry or order? Maybe both?

But certainly none of these words have any association with Christianity. 

I have to admit to being confused. I thought religious freedom meant the freedom to believe as you wanted so long as you didn’t hurt other people (or property?) and didn’t impose your delusions beliefs on others. And clearly what is being done in Nawth Carolinia is both. So religious freedom, which the law claims to protect, is really abolished there. Gee, they must be using Lester Sprague DeCamp’s definition. 

And if religious freedom is gone, can the others survive either? Probably not. This is about tyranny, not right.