Commentary - Humor - Nonsense - Sarcasm - Satire - Whimsy
On the Road with DR. EVIL
Vol. II, No. 5, 30 April, 2000
A
Missive of Irregular Frequency and Questionable Worth
LITERARY
RESEARCH
I subscribe to THE NEW REPUBLIC. TNR is a weekly opinion zine devoted primarily to politics, commentary and book reviews. I enjoy it - probably because it's contributors ARE so strongly opinionated. A recent issue contains an article about philosopher Allan Bloom, the personality behind Saul Bellow's novel, "Ravelstein." Ravelstein dies of AIDS . I noticed that the acronym was printed in upper case letters, but only as tall as the lower case ones, and wondered if this was common practice in the publishing industry - and why? In other articles I found NATO, WASPS, NAFTA, and FARC (for Armed Forces of Colombia) - also in little upper case letters. If the acronyms are typical, they will be pronounced rather than spelled out. (That last one probably should not be used in mixed company.) The practice must be to use the smaller upper case letters if it is typically pronounced. But then I found CNBC - all little upper case letters. Try pronouncing that one. Then, in other articles I found GOP, HRC (Human Rights Commission), DNA, NRA, DLC (Democratic Leadership Council), HMO, CIA, NRP (Israel's National Religious Party), PLO, IMF, MIT, U.N., etc., all full-size upper case and one with periods. They pretty much follow the pattern of full size upper case - no pronouncing. Periods would appear to be included to be sure that, if it is reasonably pronounceable, no one will try. For example, it would be a downer for such a prestigious organization as the United Nations to have people going around referring to "un" rather than U.N. I assume no one pronounces GOP "gop" or MIT "mit." So, just because a set of initials CAN be pronounced, doesn't mean that it should be. Then I saw a reference to the Philadelphia Organization of Old Pugilists. Why didn't the writer use the obvious acronym? Just kidding.
It sure is great being retired and having time to research really important matters for a change.
THE
SECOND OPINIONI went to the Cleveland Clinic a couple of weeks ago to have my eyes checked out and I was reminded again of the potential for being misled by the oft recommended "second opinion." If the second opinion agrees with the first one, that's reasonable indication that we have a reliable diagnosis - perhaps not so much so if the news is bad, but certainly "YES" if the news is good. But what if the first and second diagnoses are in disagreement - one good news and one bad. If the first one is a bad-news diagnosis and the second good, we would likely accept the second and praise that doctor and castigate the first. What do we do if the first one is a good-news one, but we are still concerned and go for a second and the second turns out to be bad. WOW!! Now we have a problem. Do we go for two out of three? If three diagnoses yield a good - bad - good, we'd likely accept the two goods and (more or less) happily go our way, but there would be some lingering doubt. If we get a bad - good - bad, would we go for the best three out of four? Pretty soon we would have to consult a statistician.
PLANETARY
ALIGNMENT This May 3 through 5 has been designated "World Illumination Days," calling for a global meditation on the 5th between 8:41 to 9:41 PDT. This 60 minute period is the "Key Flashpoint." That's because, on that date we will be treated to a "Grand Planetary Alignment." Earth and Moon will be aligned on one side of the Sun and Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn will be more or less aligned in that order on the other side of the Sun. So, we won't see the latter five. But the effect on Earth is expected to be dramatic. Actually if we were able to draw a line from the center of the Sun to Saturn on this occasion, we would see that Mercury is about 20 degrees off-line from the Sun, Venus 30 degrees from Mercury, Mars about 45 degrees the other way from Venus, and so on. Not that great for a "grand" alignment. And these variances are with regard to one plane, obviously one in which Earth makes a best-fit case. How about their apparent alignment in other planes? May 5th is considered a "magnificent metaphysical portal of opportunity to make manifest all the growth and healing of the past cycle in our lives and in the world." It turns out that there have been all kinds of alignments in recent years. On January 28th, 1998, we had one involving Venus, Mercury, Sun, Neptune, Uranus, Jupiter, and Mars lined up in that order. Notice that Mars would appear to be further from the Sun than Neptune. Hmmmm! I guess it doesn't matter that they are out of order. But what does that say for alignment? Other such stellar events occurred 18 times between 1929 and 1997. It's frightening, to think that Earth could have been demolished on any of those occasions. Why is it that the possible effect on other planets is never mentioned? Hmmmm! Some alignments involve the minimum necessary three planets, such as Jupiter, Venus and Mars in December 1997. I guess two planets don't make much of an alignment.
Would you believe that there are 4471 related web sites on Lycos? One site warns us to "Get ready! Prepare like you have never prepared for anything before."
What I want to know is, "Will it make my hair grow back?"
See you at the next rest stop.
Dr. Evil
Why yes, I'm Evil.
