Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks: "How Common is Common Sense?"

The discussion topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City on Thursday, September 10, 2009, is "How Common is Common Sense?".

We are not sure who will be moderating yet since Bernard Roy has been experiencing health problems lately. I heard that he is now over in France for the summer (as he usually does), recuperating. So far this summer, Frank De Canio has done a great job of moderating our discussions. Try to imagine moderating a group of passionate New Yorkers!

We are hoping that enough people will attend to continue meeting through the summer. There were 14 people there this past Thursday for the disscussion of "Why is Time Important?". That was actually a great turnout for a summer session.

Catch up on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo! group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. By the way, the room has a great new air conditioner, so it is a welcome oasis on a hot or humid summer day.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Ted Kennedy's contribution to the ARPANET: the Interfaith Message Processor

My other eternal memory of Ted Kennedy is his famous contribution to ARPANET lore, the "Interfaith Message Processor." In all honesty, Ted did make a significant contribution (albeit non-technical) to the ARPANET, the forerunner of today's Internet. Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) was the major contractor for much of the ARPANET development. Being a big-deal government contractor and a Massachusetts-based company, BBN was championed in Washington, D.C. by Ted Kennedy and the other members of Massachusetts' congressional delegation.

Back in 1974/1975 (or so I recall) a few us from Stevens Institute of Technology drove up to Cambridge, MA to "visit" the famed AI lab at MIT one summer Saturday evening. A couple of the guys knew some people and had been there before. There was hardly anybody in the lab, we had the place to ourselves. We didn't do anything other print out some code, copy some LISP and assembler code onto tape, and take some copies of the infamous "AI Memos" from their storage room.

Mostly I just wandered around to see what all of their computer hardware was. They had old PDP-10 boxes from Digital Equipment Corporation with special virtual memory hardware and their homegrown ITS operating system.

Off in one corner was their ARPANET IMP. The IMP, Interface Message Processor, is the box that hooked their computers up to "the net".

Taped onto the front of the IMP was a clipping of some text that basically said that Senator Edward Kennedy was congratulating BBN on getting a big-deal contract for development of their... Interfaith Message Processor. We thought it was really funny. It let us technies feel infinitely more superior to a mere politician.

-- Jack Krupansky

Ted Kennedy is gone?

Time is certainly marching on. The oldtimers are dropping like flies. Is this fate telling us that they are no longer needed or a warning to the rest of us that we need to get our collective acts together? Probably the latter.

I was never a great fan of Ted's, but he did deserve a lot of respect for his public service.

I never met him personally, but I did see him a few times.

Back in the early 1980's I was working at Wang Loaboraties in Lowell, MA. Ted was on the board of directors since Wang was a big deal in Massachusetts at the time. I remember looking out the window and seeing Ted get out of his limo on one of his visits to the company.

I once saw Ted in a Senate hallway while walking to the public Senate Gallery. He was talking to some kids.

And once I saw him in a fancy seafood restaurant in downtown Washington, DC.

I wanted to check a detail on his Wikipedia page, but boy was I surprised how mean and viciously his page has been hacked. It is currently completely unusable. Oops... I just checked again and it has been restored, but maybe not for long. These idiots have no sense of decency or limit to their idiocy.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City on Thursday: "Why is time important?"

The discussion topic for the Cafe Philo in New York City on Thursday, August 27, 2009, is "Why is time important?".

We are not sure who will be moderating yet since Bernard Roy has been experiencing health problems lately. I heard that he is now over in France for the summer (as he usually does), recuperating. So far this summer, Frank De Canio has done a great job of moderating our discussions. Try to imagine moderating a group of passionate New Yorkers!

We are hoping that enough people will attend to continue meeting through the summer. There were 13 people there two weeks ago for the disscussion of "Why is intoxication so intoxicating?". That was actually a great turnout for a summer session.

Catch up on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. By the way, the room has a great new air conditioner, so it is a welcome oasis on a hot or humid summer day.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Antarctic sea ice extent in July still greater than the long-term average

A commenter on my post about the Arctic sea ice extent decreasing at a slower rate in August asks what is happening in the Antarctic. According to a piece from NOAA dated August 14, 2009 says:

Antarctic sea ice extent in July was 1.5 percent above the 1979-2000 average. July Arctic sea ice extent has decreased by 6.1 percent per decade since 1979, while July Antarctic sea ice extent has increased by 0.8 percent per decade over the same period.

Actually, that doesn't really say what happened in July itself, whether the rate of change changed faster or slower than recent months or compared to recent past years. It is worth noting that it is winter down there, so the sea ice extent should be increasing right now.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be the same semi-monthly sea ice report as there is for the arctic.

There is some concern about some specific ice "shelves" and glaciers, but the overall Antarctic sea ice extent has increased.

One question I would ask is whether the volume of ice shelf collapses and faster moving glaciers in Antarctica might actually be a source for the increase in antarctic sea ice as the ice over and attached to land migrates towards the sea. I simply do not know.

The NOAA article gives mixed data on global temperatures. On the one hand, they report a record high for global ocean temperature in July, while the global land temperature was only tied for ninth place (with 2003) for highest temperature in July, and the combined sea/land temperature in July was only the fifth highest on record.

-- Jack Krupansky

What is the relative cost of charging plug-in hybrid vs. non-plug-in hybrid electric vehicles?

The current crop of hybrid electric vehicles depends on the gasoline engine (and braking) to recharge the batteries. The coming generation of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles can also recharge the batteries by plugging into a normal electric receptacle. My question is what the cost differential is between paying for gas to do the charging on the go versus the hit to your electric bill to recharge at home overnight.

In the first case, you have the cost of gasoline and how much charging is accomplished per gallon of gasoline.

In the second case you have the cost per kilowatt-hour of your residential electricity as well as the charging efficiency. How much of each kilowatt-hour actually end up in the batteries of your vehicle?

I am not enough of an engineer to know the answer.

My hunch is that at least overnight, charging from "the grid" will be cheaper, as well as having no local carbon-based emmissions.

Any engineers out there?

-- Jack Krupansky

The PolicySpeak Disaster for Health Care

George Lakoff, Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at UC Berkeley, Author, and blogger for The Huffington Post has an interesting post entitled The PolicySpeak Disaster for Health Care on what he believes are communications mistakes that have been committed by the Obama administration when selling people on health care reform. It is a very long and detailed post, so I am not going to try to summarize it with accuracy here in any detail. He starts out:

Barack Obama ran the best-organized and best-framed presidential campaign in history. How is it possible that the same people who did so well in the campaign have done so badly on health care?

...

What has been going wrong?

...

The answer is simple and unfortunate: The president put both the conceptual framing and the messaging for his health care plan in the hands of policy wonks. This led to twin disasters.

The PolicyList Disaster

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Howard Dean was right when he said that you can't get health care reform without a public alternative to the insurance companies. Institutions matter. The list of what needs reform makes sense under one conceptual umbrella. It is a public alternative that unifies the long list of needed reforms... one idea, properly articulated, takes care of the list: An American Plan guarantees affordable care for all Americans. Simple. But not for policy wonks.

The policymakers focus on the list, not the unifying idea...

The PolicySpeak Disaster

PolicySpeak is the principle that: If you just tell people the policy facts, they will reason to the right conclusion and support the policy wholeheartedly.

...

To many liberals, PolicySpeak sounds like the high road: a rational, public discussion in the best tradition of liberal democracy. Convince the populace rationally on the objective policy merits. Give the facts and figures. Assume self-interest as the motivator of rational choice. Convince people by the logic of the policymakers that the policy is in their interest.

But to a cognitive scientist or neuroscientist, this sounds nuts. The view of human reason and language behind PolicySpeak is just false. Certainly reason should be used. It's just that you should use real reason, the way people really think. Certainly the truth should be told. It's just that it should be told so it makes sense to people, resonates with them, and inspires them to act. Certainly new media should be used. It's just that a system of communications should be constructed and used effectively.

The good professor details what he believes is a flawed model of how people reason:

What Is Reason Really Like?

PolicySpeak is supposed to be reasoned, objective discourse. It thus assumes a theory of what reason itself is -- a philosophical theory that dates back to the 17th Century and is still taught.

Over the past four decades, cognitive science and neuroscience have provided a scientific view of how the brain and mind really work. A handful of these results have come into behavioral economics. But most social scientists and policymakers are not trained in these fields. They still have the old view of mind and language.

The old philosophical theory says that reason is conscious, can fit the world directly, is universal (we all think the same way), is dispassionate (emotions get in the way of reason), is literal (no metaphor or framing in reason), works by logic, is abstract (not physical) and functions to serve our interests. Language on this view is neutral and can directly fit, or not fit, reality.

The scientific research in neuroscience and cognitive science has shown that most reason is unconscious. Since we think with our brains, reason cannot directly fit the world. Emotion is necessary for rational thought; if you cannot feel emotion, you will not know what to want or how anyone else would react to your actions. Rational decisions depend on emotion. Empathy with others has a physical basis, and as much as self-interest, empathy lies behind reason.

Ideas are physical, part of brain circuitry. Ideas are constituted by brain structures called 'frames' and 'metaphors,' and reason uses them. Frames form systems, called worldviews.

All language is defined relative to such frames and metaphors. There are very different conservative and progressive worldviews, and different words can activate different worldviews. Important words, like freedom, can have entirely different meanings depending on your worldview. In short, not everybody thinks the same way.

As a result, what is taken as "objective" discourse is often worldview dependent. This is especially true of health care. All progressive writing supporting some version of health care assumes a progressive moral worldview, in which no one should be forced to go without heath care, the government should play a role, market regulation is necessary, and so on.

Those with radical conservative worldviews may well think otherwise: that everyone should be responsible for their own and their family's health care, that the government is oppressive and should stay out of it, that the market should always dominate, and so on.

Overall, the foundational assumptions underlying PolicySpeak are false. It should be no wonder that PolicySpeak isn't working.

Ultimately, he claims to know what to do to fix the problem, but then suggests why progressives are not receptive to such a fix:

They may find it hard to comprehend framing, metaphor, and narrative as the way reason really works -- as what you need to do to communicate truth. Instead, they may well think of framing as merely manipulation and spin, as the mechanism that the right wing uses to communicate lies.

I'll try to summarize:

• Lists of features don't "sell" people on anything of importance.
• Traditional, classical, 17th century "reasoning" doesn't sell people.
• Ignore recent advances in neuroscience and cognitive science at your peril.
• Framing is essential.
• Metaphor is essential.
• Narrative is essential.
• Empathy and emotion are essential.
• Tools do not lose their validity just because "the other side" uses them against you.

I actually do not agree with everything he says and I believe that the Obama administration really is following the optimum path given the realities called Washington and America, but many of his ideas do have merit, at least in an abstract sense on paper. In truth, I believe that the Obama administration is in fact already following the essence of a lot of his advice even if not to the degree and specificity that he would prefer.

-- Jack Krupansky

Arctic sea ice decline slowed in August

The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported in its mid-monthly Arctic Sea Ice News that the rate of melting of Arctic sea ice declined in the first half of August. The report says:

During the first half of August, Arctic ice extent declined more slowly than during the same period in 2007 and 2008. The slower decline is primarily due to a recent atmospheric circulation pattern, which transported ice toward the Siberian coast and discouraged export of ice out of the Arctic Ocean. It is now unlikely that 2009 will see a record low extent, but the minimum summer ice extent will still be much lower than the 1979 to 2000 average.

The chart of Arctic Sea Ice Extent show that 20007 was far below the 1979-2000 average, 2008 was not quite as bad as 2007, and so far 2009 is not as bad as 2008 at this point in the season. 2009 is on track to still be significnantly worse than the long-term average, but I would simply point out that we haven't set a new record for two years now. There is about a month to go before the melting reverses.

Technically, the center is not measuring "melting" per se, but is analyzing satellite images to estimate the area of the sea surface that is at least 15% covered by sea ice. This roughly translates into melting, but not in a necessarily precise manner.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks: "Why is time important?"

The discussion topic for the Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks, Thursday, August 27, 2009, is "Why is time important?".

We are not sure who will be moderating yet since Bernard Roy has been experiencing health problems lately. I heard that he is now over in France for the summer (as he usually does), recuperating. So far this summer, Frank De Canio has done a great job of moderating our discussions. Try to imagine moderating a group of passionate New Yorkers!

We are hoping that enough people will attend to continue meeting through the summer. There were 13 people there last week for the disscussion of "Why is intoxication so intoxicating?". That was actually a great turnout for a summer session.

Catch up on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. By the way, the room has a great new air conditioner, so it is a welcome oasis on a hot or humid summer day.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City tonight: "Why is intoxication so intoxicating?"

The discussion topic for the Cafe Philo in New York City tonight, Thursday, August 13, 2009, is "Why is intoxication so intoxicating?". I suggested the topic.

I also wrote up some notes on the topic.

We are not sure who will be moderating yet since Bernard Roy has been experiencing health problems lately. I heard that he is now over in France for the summer (as he usually does), recuperating. So far this summer, Frank De Canio has done a great job of moderating our discussions. Try to imagine moderating a group of passionate New Yorkers!

We are hoping that enough people will attend to continue meeting through the summer. There were 15 people there two weeks ago for the disscussion of "Is lying wrong?". That was actually an amazing turnout for a summer session.

Catch up on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. By the way, the room has a great new air conditioner, so it is a welcome oasis on a hot or humid summer day.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Why is intoxication so intoxicating? - rev 4

My suggested topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City today, Thursday, August 13, 2009, is "Why is intoxication so intoxicating?" I intended it as a fairly open-ended question, not intending to focus solely on drinking or solely on the physiological phenomenon of intoxication. It is not my intent to fully answer the question here, but to simply highlight some of the directions the question could go in.

Generally, I was thinking not so much about the specific physiological effects of intoxication per se, but the general effects in your conscious mind, regardless of whether the person is excited, stupefied, euphoric, enthusiastic, frenzied, giggly, sad, withdrawn, or loses their inhibitions. Whatever. The full range.

I would suggest that the state of intoxication is a matter of degree, so that a person could be partially intoxicated, or even only slightly intoxicated. In fact fully intoxicated or totally intoxicated or completely intoxicated might mean paralysis or loss of consciousness. I would simply suggest the term really intoxicated for a severe degree of intoxication that is short of total intoxication in that the person can still move a around at least a little and still even talk a little.

We engage in many pleasant and satisfying experiences in life, but many of them do not rise to the level of overwhelming us in the sense of intoxication, which can be characterized with terms such as:

• Ecstasy
• Euphoria
• Great excitement
• Compelling
• Overwhelming
• Irresistible
• Extreme calm
• Elation
• Exhiliration

I was not intending to limit the topic to alcohol or drugs as the agent of intoxication, but any substance or activity or sensory input which can take your mind to an intensely satisfying state, including:

• Music, both vocal and instrumental 
• Art
• Poetry
• Prose
• Creativity - writing, art, composing music, poetry, etc.
• Dance
• Theater and other performances (even distinct from the role music might play)
• Performing - acting, artistic, singing, etc.
• Crowds, mobs, and other gatherings 
• Athletic activity, including running or even hiking and walking
• Exercise
• Food
• Power - the infamous "power trip"
• Politics, both politicians themselves and their operatives
• Ideas
• Beauty
• Sex
• Religion, spirituality, awe of a deity
• Church
• Prayer
• Meditation
• Yoga
• Community, fellowship
• Scenery
• Nature
• Dramatic weather, water conditions
• Television
• Shopping
• Combat, fighting, killing
• Selling
• Coping with dramatic emergency response
• Drama
• Hobbies
• Games
• Puzzles, such as Sudoku
• Competition
• Children - experiencing their growth and success
• Work - that you truly enjoy and find deeply satisfying, workaholics
• Inspiration
• Aspiration
• Driving, flying, skydiving, scuba diving, skiing
• Obsessions
• Chocolate
• Travel
• Learning
• Teaching
• Dancing
• Jokes
• Comedy
• Cartoons
• Humor
• Fashion
• Lifestyle
• Money
• Precious metals such as gold, silver, and platinum
• Precious stones
• Lying
• Storytelling
• Confidence scams
• People watching
• Voyeurism
• Stalking
• Fishing
• Hunting
• Reading pulp fiction - the infamous "page turners"
• Internet
• Truth
• Success
• Lottery
• Winning
• Closing deals
• Love
• Infatuation
• Desire
• Lust
• Gossip
• Idleness
• Daydreaming
• Breaking laws (or rules)
• Sugar
• Cookies
• Television
• Cell phones
• Texting
• Vacation
• Lying on the beach
• Lying in the sun
• Computer programming
• Saving lives
• Trekkies
• Pride
• Accomplishment
• Achievement
• Award
• Compliment
• Peer acknowledgement
• The Big City - NYC, et al
• Bright Lights
• Movies
• Life itself
• Fraud - Madoff fits in here somewhere
• Confidence schemes
• Listening - rapt attention
• Guns, knives, other weapons - sense of "power"
• What else?

Intoxication might be intentional or it could be inadvertent, but I was thinking about what drives or motivates a person to consciously desire and then decide to pursue any activity which could lead to intoxication. In addition to clinical maladies such as addiction and alcoholism, "reasons" for seeking intoxication include:

• Escape
• Cope with stress
• Moderate the impact of the real world - turn down the "volume"
• Exaggerate the real world - turn up the "volume"
• Boredom
• Depression
• Excitement
• Celebration
• Relax
• Free from inhibitions
• Bonding with peers
• Experience something beyond and out of the daily experiences of this world
• Fear
• To get "recharged", presumably when feeling "drained" of inergy due to the "demands" of modern life
• Shiny objects, especially new and novel experiences
• Distractions - anything that "takes your mind off" what you are supposed to be focused on
• The news - media can affect you much as a "drug"
• Aspirations - conceptual planning for the future
• Inspiration - sensory input that spurs a contemplation of a better life
• Obsessive-compulsive disorder
• Drinking the Kool-Aid
• Cults
• Extremism
• Arrogance
• Tobacco
• Coffee
• Influence, as in "under the influence" - could be personal persuasion as much as chemical
• Constructive activity
• What else?

A person might specifically seek the state of intoxication or maybe they are simply seeking to get away from one or more aspects on the world that they normally experience when they are not intoxicated.

We could examine the impact of intoxication on a person's mind, even after the state of intoxication "wears off." A person might seek intoxication solely for the experience while in that state of mind, or quite possibly for mental effects that might persist even when the person is no longer intoxicated.

Typically, intoxication degrades performance, with the exception of a modest intoxication which can moderate excessive inhibitions that might usually by themselves inhibit performance. But, conceptually, couldn't there be some forms of performance that might be enhanced by intoxication, either during intoxication, or after the return to a "normal" state of mind?

If intoxication can degrade individual performance, but yet so many people pursue intoxication, is performance overrated and not so much a driver in our society as we might have thought? Do we really have that much "free" time? Or, is the pursuit of intoxication a huge drag precluding significant social progress. Or, maybe there is too much "change" potential in society and intoxication might be a great sponge to soak up excess energy that might have been otherwise been channeled into more destructive urges.

I have to mention Timothy Leary's classic contribution, "Turn on, tune in, drop out." According to the Wikipedia, in his autobigraphy he says that by "turn on" he meant to "go within to activate your neural and genetic equipment. Become sensitive to the many and various levels of consciousness and the specific triggers that engage them. Drugs were one way to accomplish this end." And by "tune in" he meant "interact harmoniously with the world around you - externalize, materialize, express your new internal perspectives." In short, the drive here was to gain access to "your new internal perspectives" and then to express them. By "drop out" he meant "an elective, selective, graceful process of detachment from involuntary or unconscious commitments" and "self-reliance, a discovery of one's singularity, a commitment to mobility, choice, and change." Or at least this is what he apparently meant. He also laments that "Unhappily my explanations of this sequence of personal development were often misinterpreted to mean 'Get stoned and abandon all constructive activity'." So, his focus was on personal development, not the physiological and mental dysfunction that many of us associate with intoxication. Back to my question, the motivation in this case to repeat the intoxication process would be ongoing personal development.

There is also the question of what factors are in play at the threshold between a normal desire for intoxication and an unhealthy addiction. What causes a person to cross that threshold. For that matter, if intoxication really is so intoxicating, what keeps people from crossing that threshold?

I think there are three components or phases to "intoxication": 1) the immediate feeling of the physiological effects of intoxication, 2) lingering after-effects that we feel are "intoxicating" psychologically even though the physiological effects have "worn off", and 3) after even the psychological effects have vanished, the memories of what those two phases were like and the "intoxicating" desire to repeat them. In fact, my personal intent with the original question is my interest in the latter, what is driving the desire to repeat the original experience. In this nomenclature, although the first phase may be quite short (minutes or hours), the second might be a bit longer (hours, days, weeks, months), and the third phase could in fact be... forever. That would all vary based on the activity and even the person. It is this whole multi-phase process that is... "intoxicating", not just the rather short period of peak physical/physiological impact.

And finally (not really), if intoxication is so intoxicating, why do so many people avoid it? Somehow, do they manage to find some other path to a state of mind that they find even more satisfying than some external agent of intoxication? Or, maybe they simply find life itself to be intoxicating enough that the "artificial" forms of intoxication are less than desirable to them?

Then there are my usual evolutionary questions:

• Do animals (and maybe even plants) experience intoxication similar to the way we do?
• Did early man experience intoxication in the same way as we do?
• Even earliest man?
• Or was there some discrete evolutionary step?
• Was our current metabolic experience of intoxication something developed (evolved) to cope with the increasing socialization of human activity? Or maybe an evolutionary step that enabled that socialization?

One final thought, is it possible that intoxication is simply necessary to preserve our sanity in the modern world/society, a way to cope with the complexity of modern life? Put another way, maybe intoxication is a process that enables very complex social structures, and maybe intoxication is simply another physiological process somewhat analogous to sleep.

Another final thought... maybe intoxication is simply a way to adjust reality so that reality can cope better with your own mood. From a relative perspective, intoxication changes the world to better match your "needs." Or at least that is one perspective on it.

-- Jack Krupansky

Why is intoxication so intoxicating? - rev 3

My suggested topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City this coming week, Thursday, August 13, 2009, is "Why is intoxication so intoxicating?" I intended it as a fairly open-ended question, not intending to focus solely on drinking or solely on the physiological phenomenon of intoxication. It is not my intent to fully answer the question here, but to simply highlight some of the directions the question could go in.

Generally, I was thinking not so much about the specific physiological effects of intoxication per se, but the general effects in your conscious mind, regardless of whether the person is excited, stupefied, euphoric, enthusiastic, frenzied, giggly, sad, withdrawn, or loses their inhibitions. Whatever. The full range.

I would suggest that the state of intoxication is a matter of degree, so that a person could be partially intoxicated, or even only slightly intoxicated. In fact fully intoxicated or totally intoxicated or completely intoxicated might mean paralysis or loss of consciousness. I would simply suggest the term really intoxicated for a severe degree of intoxication that is short of total intoxication in that the person can still move a around at least a little and still even talk a little.

We engage in many pleasant and satisfying experiences in life, but many of them do not rise to the level of overwhelming us in the sense of intoxication, which can be characterized with terms such as:

• Ecstasy
• Euphoria
• Great excitement
• Compelling
• Overwhelming
• Irresistible
• Extreme calm

I was not intending to limit the topic to alcohol or drugs as the agent of intoxication, but any substance or activity or sensory input which can take your mind to an intensely satisfying state, including:

• Music, both vocal and instrumental 
• Art
• Poetry
• Prose
• Creativity - writing, art, composing music, poetry, etc.
• Dance
• Theater and other performances (even distinct from the role music might play)
• Performing - acting, artistic, singing, etc.
• Crowds, mobs, and other gatherings 
• Athletic activity, including running or even hiking and walking
• Exercise
• Food
• Power - the infamous "power trip"
• Politics, both politicians themselves and their operatives
• Ideas
• Beauty
• Sex
• Religion, spirituality, awe of a deity
• Church
• Prayer
• Meditation
• Yoga
• Community, fellowship
• Scenery
• Nature
• Dramatic weather, water conditions
• Television
• Shopping
• Combat, fighting, killing
• Selling
• Coping with dramatic emergency response
• Drama
• Hobbies
• Games
• Puzzles, such as Sudoku
• Competition
• Children - experiencing their growth and success
• Work - that you truly enjoy and find deeply satisfying, workaholics
• Inspiration
• Aspiration
• Driving, flying, skydiving, scuba diving, skiing
• Obsessions
• Chocolate
• Travel
• Learning
• Teaching
• Dancing
• Jokes
• Comedy
• Cartoons
• Humor
• Fashion
• Lifestyle
• Money
• Precious metals such as gold, silver, and platinum
• Precious stones
• Lying
• Storytelling
• Confidence scams
• People watching
• Voyeurism
• Stalking
• Fishing
• Hunting
• Reading pulp fiction - the infamous "page turners"
• Internet
• Truth
• Success
• Lottery
• Winning
• Closing deals
• Love
• Infatuation
• Desire
• Lust
• Gossip
• Idleness
• Daydreaming
• Breaking laws (or rules)
• Sugar
• Cookies
• Television
• Cell phones
• Texting
• Vacation
• Lying on the beach
• Lying in the sun
• Computer programming
• Saving lives
• Trekkies
• Pride
• Accomplishment
• Achievement
• Award
• Compliment
• Peer acknowledgement
• The Big City - NYC, et al
• Bright Lights
• Movies
• Life itself
• Fraud - Madoff fits in here somewhere
• Confidence schemes
• Listening - rapt attention
• What else?

Intoxication might be intentional or it could be inadvertent, but I was thinking about what drives or motivates a person to consciously desire and then decide to pursue any activity which could lead to intoxication. In addition to clinical maladies such as addiction and alcoholism, "reasons" for seeking intoxication include:

• Escape
• Cope with stress
• Moderate the impact of the real world - turn down the "volume"
• Exaggerate the real world - turn up the "volume"
• Boredom
• Depression
• Excitement
• Celebration
• Relax
• Free from inhibitions
• Bonding with peers
• Experience something beyond and out of the daily experiences of this world
• Fear
• What else?

A person might specifically seek the state of intoxication or maybe they are simply seeking to get away from one or more aspects on the world that they normally experience when they are not intoxicated.

We could examine the impact of intoxication on a person's mind, even after the state of intoxication "wears off." A person might seek intoxication solely for the experience while in that state of mind, or quite possibly for mental effects that might persist even when the person is no longer intoxicated.

Typically, intoxication degrades performance, with the exception of a modest intoxication which can moderate excessive inhibitions that might usually by themselves inhibit performance. But, conceptually, couldn't there be some forms of performance that might be enhanced by intoxication, either during intoxication, or after the return to a "normal" state of mind?

If intoxication can degrade individual performance, but yet so many people pursue intoxication, is performance overrated and not so much a driver in our society as we might have thought? Do we really have that much "free" time? Or, is the pursuit of intoxication a huge drag precluding significant social progress. Or, maybe there is too much "change" potential in society and intoxication might be a great sponge to soak up excess energy that might have been otherwise been channeled into more destructive urges.

There is also the question of what factors are in play at the threshold between a normal desire for intoxication and an unhealthy addiction. What causes a person to cross that threshold. For that matter, if intoxication really is so intoxicating, what keeps people from crossing that threshold?

And finally (not really), if intoxication is so intoxicating, why do so many people avoid it? Somehow, do they manage to find some other path to a state of mind that they find even more satisfying than some external agent of intoxication? Or, maybe they simply find life itself to be intoxicating enough that the "artificial" forms of intoxication are less than desirable to them?

Then there are my usual evolutionary questions:

• Do animals (and maybe even plants) experience intoxication similar to the way we do?
• Did early man experience intoxication in the same way as we do?
• Even earliest man?
• Or was there some discrete evolutionary step?
• Was our current metabolic experience of intoxication something developed (evolved) to cope with the increasing socialization of human activity? Or maybe an evolutionary step that enabled that socialization?

-- Jack Krupansky

Great idea: Require all Wall Street bonuses to be paid with "toxic" assets

Various people are complaining about Wall Street bonuses and how "banks" are still carrying so much in "toxic" assets on their books at uncertain valuations, so I have the solution to all of these problems:

For the foreseeable future, until the value of these toxic assets goes to zero, require all Wall Street bonuses to be paid in the form of these toxic assets that are on the firm's books.

Give these bozos a taste of their own medicine. Yeah!!

The beauty of this approach is that lets management balance discounting of the value of the toxic assets on the one hand and the willingness of the bozos to accept such assets on the other hand.

In truth, a lot of sharp financial gurus would in fact accept a lot of these assets if only the discount was steep enough.

Of course banks don't want a steep discount because that decimates their capital. Somewhere in the middle is a balance that both sides can accept. The bozos certainly won't get as steep a discount as they would want, but that is probably okay with the American people, the taxpayers, the people who bailed out these bozos.

So, what do you think? Great idea, or am I being too unkind to the bozos on Wall Street?

I really think this could work.

-- Jack Krupansky

Why is intoxication so intoxicating? - rev 2

My suggested topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks, Thursday, August 13, 2009, is "Why is intoxication so intoxicating?" I intended it as a fairly open-ended question, not intending to focus solely on drinking or solely on the physiological phenomenon of intoxication. It is not my intent to fully answer the question here, but to simply highlight some of the directions the question could go in.

Generally, I was thinking not so much about the specific physiological effects of intoxication per se, but the general effects in your conscious mind, regardless of whether the person is excited, stupefied, euphoric, enthusiastic, frenzied, giggly, sad, withdrawn, or loses their inhibitions. Whatever. The full range.

I was not intending to limit the topic to alcohol or drugs as the agent of intoxication, but any substance or activity or sensory input which can take your mind to an intensely satisfying state, including:

• Music, both vocal and instrumental 
• Art
• Poetry
• Prose
• Creativity - writing, art, composing music, poetry, etc.
• Dance
• Theater and other performances (even distinct from the role music might play)
• Performing - acting, artistic, singing, etc.
• Crowds, mobs, and other gatherings 
• Athletic activity, including running or even hiking and walking
• Exercise
• Food
• Power - the infamous "power trip"
• Politics, both politicians themselves and their operatives
• Ideas
• Beauty
• Sex
• Religion, spirituality, awe of a deity
• Church
• Prayer
• Meditation
• Yoga
• Community, fellowship
• Scenery
• Nature
• Dramatic weather, water conditions
• Television
• Shopping
• Combat, fighting, killing
• Selling
• Coping with dramatic emergency response
• Drama
• Hobbies
• Games
• Puzzles, such as Sudoku
• Competition
• Children - experiencing their growth and success
• Work - that you truly enjoy and find deeply satisfying, workaholics
• Inspiration
• Aspiration
• Driving, flying, skydiving, scuba diving, skiing
• Obsessions
• Chocolate
• Travel
• Learning
• Teaching
• Dancing
• Jokes
• Comedy
• Cartoons
• Humor
• Fashion
• Lifestyle
• Money
• Precious metals such as gold, silver, and platinum
• Precious stones
• Lying
• Storytelling
• Confidence scams
• People watching
• Voyeurism
• Stalking
• Fishing
• Hunting
• Reading pulp fiction - the infamous "page turners"
• Internet
• Truth
• Success
• Lottery
• Winning
• Closing deals
• What else?

Intoxication might be intentional or it could be inadvertent, but I was thinking about what drives or motivates a person to consciously desire and then decide to pursue any activity which could lead to intoxication. For example:

• Escape
• Cope with stress
• Moderate the impact of the real world - turn down the "volume"
• Exaggerate the real world - turn up the "volume"
• Boredom
• Depression
• Excitement
• Celebration
• Relax
• Free from inhibitions
• Bonding with peers
• Experience something beyond and out of the daily experiences of this world
• What else?

A person might specifically seek the state of intoxication or maybe they are simply seeking to get away from one or more aspects on the world that they normally experience when they are not intoxicated.

We could examine the impact of intoxication on a person's mind, even after the state of intoxication "wears off." A person might seek intoxication solely for the experience while in that state of mind, or quite possibly for mental effects that might persist even when the person is no longer intoxicated.

Typically, intoxication degrades performance, with the exception of a modest intoxication which can moderate excessive inhibitions that might usually by themselves inhibit performance. But, conceptually, couldn't there be some forms of performance that might be enhanced by intoxication, either during intoxication, or after the return to a "normal" state of mind?

If intoxication can degrade individual performance, but yet so many people pursue intoxication, is performance overrated and not so much a driver in our society as we might have thought? Do we really have that much "free" time? Or, is the pursuit of intoxication a huge drag precluding significant social progress. Or, maybe there is too much "change" potential in society and intoxication might be a great sponge to soak up excess energy that might have been otherwise been channeled into more destructive urges.

There is also the question of what factors are in play at the threshold between a normal desire for intoxication and an unhealthy addiction. What causes a person to cross that threshold. For that matter, if intoxication really is so intoxicating, what keeps people from crossing that threshold?

And finally (not really), if intoxication is so intoxicating, why do so many people avoid it? Somehow, do they manage to find some other path to a state of mind that they find even more satisfying than some external agent of intoxication? Or, maybe they simply find life itself to be intoxicating enough that the "artificial" forms of intoxication are less than desirable to them?

Then there are my usual evolutionary questions:

• Do animals (and maybe even plants) experience intoxication similar to the way we do?
• Did early man experience intoxication in the same way as we do?
• Even earliest man?
• Or was there some discrete evolutionary step?
• Was our current metabolic experience of intoxication something developed (evolved) to cope with the increasing socialization of human activity? Or maybe an evolutionary step that enabled that socialization?

-- Jack Krupansky

Air cooler blasts out ice cooled air and uses 96% less electricity than a window air conditioner!

Sometimes I actually like to read email spam because the claims are so hilarious. Today was the first time I had ever gotten a pitch for the "The Cool Surge eco-friendly air cooler":

The Cool Surge(R) eco-friendly air cooler blasts out ice cooled air, but uses about 96% less electricity than a typical window air conditioner. That way, you can stay cool for just pennies a day.

Sounds great! Of course, 96% less electricity seems a bit too good to be true.

So, I cut and pasted the first part of the sentence and googled it and quickly spotted a blog post that points out:

So essentially what the machine does is blow air over an icepack that you freeze in your freezer. This is nothing but an attempt to bilk poor people and people on fixed incomes out of money. They hope to take advantage of the ever rising energy prices to blind people to the laughable nature of any sort of cooling claims. You can buy a cheap window fan (that at least partial vents the heat from the fan) for 30 $$$ at a hardware store  and a freeze pack or 2 at your local grocery store for under 5 $$$. They want 300 $$$ PLUS shipping for their unit. What a joke. If you have ever taken your lunch to work with an ice pack in it, you know how well your cooler has to be insulated to make it work well. Try that in a house.

That's great. They were so careful to say "ice cooled air", expecting (correctly) that most people (including me) would read that as "ice cold air." Of course, no sane person would want to feel 32-degree air anyway.

Here is the description from the Cool Surge web site:

The Cool Surge portable air cooler is a work of engineering genius from the China coast so advanced that no windows, vents or freon are required. It's as easy to use as a baby's vaporizer and even includes two sets of the reusable glacier ice blocks. That gives you a total of eight hours of extra cooling power. It uses the same electricity as a light bulb, yet it blasts out ice cooled air. The hi-efficiency motor cools the air around the unit so you'll instantly feel cool and refreshed. The 3 cooling levels and auto shut off timer put all the comfort controls at your fingertips. It's so impressive that all transactions less shipping are backed by a full year limited warranty and a 30-day satisfaction guarantee.

It does sound so "eco-friendly" with its "reusable glacier ice blocks."

Now, be careful to read the fine print... "gives you a total of eight hours of extra cooling power." But what if it is hot more than eight hours? Hmmm... 24 divided by eight is three, meaning you would need three of these units or six sets of those "reusable glacier ice blocks" if you live in a climate where you need A/C 24/7 to survive all day, plus the freezer capacity for all of those "reusable glacier ice blocks."

The FAQ is "useful":

HOW DOES THE COOL SURGE WORK?

It is a work of engineering genius that blasts out ice cooled air but only uses the same electricity as a 60 watt light bulb on the standard setting.

It's as easy to use as a baby's vaporizer and even includes the extra cooling power of 4 reusable glacier ice blocks. The glacier packs last 4-6 hours and are freezable and reusable.

Gee, that's a very helpful answer!

Here's another very important question and the "useful" answer:

HOW MUCH WILL THE COOL SURGE COOL A ROOM?

It depends on several factors including the size of the room, the humidity level, the room temperature on any given day, what type of windows, is the sun shining right into the room, how high the ceilings are...

Those are their ellipses. Actually, honestly, they did given the technically correct engineer's answer (and we know their engineer(s) was a "genius"): It all depends. No sane engineer would ever claim otherwise. If they had marketing answer this question they would say "A lot!". And the sales team would helpfully and cheerfully respond "All of it!"

Here's the real catch... At a cost of $356, that is $176 more than I paid for my window air conditioner. $176 will buy me a lot of electricity. And of course they do not alert you to the fact that you have to pay the cost of electricity for your freezer to "reuse" those "reusable glacier ice blocks." Unless... if you live in a place where the winters are very cold and you have an ice house, you could buy and freeze a zillion of those "reusable glacier ice blocks" and not pay a dime for freezing them.

The spam I got offered to sell me the Cool Surge for a $119 discount or $297 discount for two units that are "nearly perfect." The email says:

These units have minor, hard-to-find imperfections that keep us from selling them at regular prices, but they function perfectly saving you a ton compared to A.C. costs.

One other little nit to pick... a of the primary function and value of A/C is to remove humidity so that you feel cooler than if the humidty were higher. The Cool Surge has no such capability, other than the small amount of condensation that might form on the "reusable glacier ice blocks". After all, if it did remove humidity to the extent that a window A/C does you would end up with a large puddle of water on the floor or have to frequently drain a pan to accumulate the water.

-- Jack Krupansky

Why is intoxication so intoxicating?

My suggested topic for the next Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks, Thursday, August 13, 2009, is "Why is intoxication so intoxicating?" I intended it as a fairly open-ended question, not intending to focus solely on drinking or solely on the physiological phenomenon of intoxication. It is not my intent to fully answer the question here, but to simply highlight some of the directions the question could go in.

Generally, I was thinking not so much about the specific physiological effects of intoxication per se, but the general effects in your conscious mind, regardless of whether the person is excited, stupefied, euphoric, enthusiastic, frenzied, giggly, sad, withdrawn, or loses their inhibitions. Whatever. The full range.

I was not intending to limit the topic to alcohol or drugs as the agent of intoxication, but any substance or activity or sensory input which can take your mind to another state, including:

• Music
• Art
• Poetry
• Prose
• Theater and other performances (even distinct from the role music might play)
• Crowds, mobs, and other gatherings 
• Athletic activity, including running or even hiking and walking
• Food
• Power
• Ideas
• Beauty
• Sex
• Religion, spirituality, awe of a deity
• Prayer
• Meditation
• Yoga
• Community, fellowship
• Scenery
• Television
• Shopping
• What else?

Intoxication might be intentional or it could be inadvertent, but I was thinking about what drives or motivates a person to consciously desire and then decide to pursue any activity which could lead to intoxication. For example:

• Escape
• Cope with stress
• Moderate the impact of the real world - turn down the "volume"
• Exaggerate the real world - turn up the "volume"
• Boredom
• Depression
• Excitement, including celebration
• Relax
• Free from inhibitions
• Bonding with peers
• Experience something beyond and out of the daily experiences of this world
• What else?

A person might specifically seek the state of intoxication or maybe they are simply seeking to get away from one or more aspects on the world that they normally experience when they are not intoxicated.

We could examine the impact of intoxication on a person's mind, even after the state of intoxication "wears off." A person might seek intoxication solely for the experience while in that state of mind, or quite possibly for mental effects that might persist even when the person is no longer intoxicated.

Typically, intoxication degrades performance, with the exception of a modest intoxication which can moderate excessive inhibitions that might usually by themselves inhibit performance. But, conceptually, couldn't there be some forms of performance that might be enhanced by intoxication, either during intoxication, or after the return to a "normal" state of mind?

There is also the question of what factors are in play at the threshold between a normal desire for intoxication and an unhealthy addiction. What causes a person to cross that threshold. For that matter, if intoxication really is so intoxicating, what keeps people from crossing that threshold?

And finally (not really), if intoxication is so intoxicating, why do so many people avoid it? Somehow, do they manage to find some other path to a state of mind that they find even more satisfying than some external agent of intoxication? Or, maybe they simply find life itself to be intoxicating enough that the "artificial" forms of intoxication are less than desirable to them?

Then there are my usual evolutionary questions:

• Do animals (and maybe even plants) experience intoxication similar to the way we do?
• Did early man experience intoxication in the same way as we do?
• Even earliest man?
• Or was there some discrete evolutionary step?
• Was our current metabolic experience of intoxication something developed (evolved) to cope with the increasing socialization of human activity? Or maybe an evolutionary step that enabled that socialization?

-- Jack Krupansky

Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks: "Why is intoxication so intoxicating?"

The discussion topic for the Cafe Philo in New York City in two weeks, Thursday, August 13, 2009, is "Why is intoxication so intoxicating?". I suggested the topic.

We are not sure who will be moderating yet since Bernard Roy has been experiencing health problems lately. I heard that he is now over in France for the summer (as he usually does), recuperating. So far this summer, Frank De Canio has done a great job of moderating our discussions. Try to imagine moderating a group of passionate New Yorkers!

We are hoping that enough people will attend to continue meeting through the summer. There were 15 people there two weeks ago for the disscussion of "Is lying wrong?". That was actually an amazing turnout for a summer session.

Catch up on preparatory online discussions in the Yahoo group for Cafe Philo NYC.

As usual, the meeting will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. in the back room at Bamiyan Restaurant (Afghan food) at the northwest corner of Third Avenue and 26th Street in New York City. In exchange for free meeting space, it is expected that each attendee will purchase a minimum of $5 of food or drink. By the way, the room has a great new air conditioner, so it is a welcome oasis on a hot or humid summer day.

There is also usually some number of attendees who go across the street to McCormack's Bar for drinks and food and extended discussion after Cafe Philo, but not limited to the scheduled discussion topic.

There are a number of small groups in the U.S. and Europe who meet regularly to discuss topics related to philosophy. Some of these groups go by the name "Cafe Philo." There is one here in New York City that meets every two weeks, every other Thursday. It is organized and moderated by Bernard Roy, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Ramapo College of New Jersey. Each meeting focuses on a specific topic which was suggested and voted on by the participants at the last meeting.

Also, there is an online discussion forum for the NYC Cafe Philo at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nycafephilo/

There is also a new web site for NYC Cafe Philo:  www.nycafephilo.org.

I have been attending the NYC Cafe Philo off and on since 2004. Previously I had attended the Cafe Philo in Washington, D.C. starting in 2001.

-- Jack Krupansky

Made my Kiva micro-loan for the month of August

I made a new micro-loan through Kiva for the month of August. My intention is to make a new micro-loan every month, if possible, from repayments for past micro-loans. Repayments in July were more than enough to fund this latest micro-loan (and one for September as well.)

This one was for a young married man, with children, in Palestine who cleans carpets. It is a 20-month micro-loan for a total of $1,500, of which I lent $25. The money is to be used to buy cleaning supplies.  The micro-loan was already disbursed to the micro-entrepreneur on July 16, 2009 by the local partner. Kiva is raising funds to essentially buy that loan from the local partner.

Two of my micro-loans are delinquent. One is actually just due to the field partner experiencing difficulty with transferring the money back to Kiva due to some new local government requirement. I suspect that the other is also experiencing some local problem and is already 75% repaid. Both are in central Africa.

Here is my Kiva public lender page: http://www.kiva.org/lender/JackKrupansky

Note: This is all real and good, but these micro-loans do not net any interest to us micro-lenders. Kiva's fine print:

Lending to the working poor through Kiva involves risk of principal loss.
Kiva does not guarantee repayment nor do we offer a financial return on your loan.

Still, at least we know our money is really helping somebody better their lives in a visible way rather than put the money in a bank account or money market fund where who knows what it helps to pay for or what good it does and for only a few pennies of profit in our pockets.

-- Jack Krupansky