The Scourge of the Electorate: A Verbal North Korea

Political Correctness: A Contradiction in Terms

Whenever we hear the word spoken - even in passing, inappropriately used to describe esoterically interpersonal qualms that become too widespread for our taste - we experience an almost immediate subconscious flinch. This lets us all know that we have encroached upon the prime breeding grounds of controversy. Why should we react in such a way to a subject that innately requires the involvement of the citizen? Our forefathers and elders have instructed us to evade colloquial politics at all costs, lest disagreement and opposition should occur among ourselves and those whom we love. 

Our ancestors were right about one thing - civilizational discussions will indeed incur polarization and expose various elements of intersectionality. Yet they may have been speaking too casually. Recommending that the politis should shun and even curse what congenitally requires individual contribution is a disgrace. Of course, there are occasions and settings better suited for paltering of this kind; a banal and platitudinous fact that is rehearsed far too often for my liking. Once again, censorious and cowardly behaviour are not only exalted but encouraged by those who admire civic irresponsibility and insularity. There is an antidote to this affliction, one that is easily accessible should an objective perception of reality be taken. 

If you assume, rather rationally, that politics are by definition divisive and sectarian, the consequential fright and shock are neutralized. Sobriety allows us not only to experience our dissent realistically, but perhaps even to enjoy the resulting chicanery. 

The stool-pigeons and sops who have advocated and enthusiastically practiced political correctness have fallen prey to their own constrictive vices. Being so recommending of Orwellianism and censorship has exacerbated the state of their already poverty-stricken vocabulary. Thus, the patented leftist recipe of combined verbal-blacklisting and unlettered simplicity have resulted in the all too foreseeable and pathetic catastrophe; using words where they don't belong. Ironic, seeing that is the very crime of which they accuse those whose opinions are unappealing to them. 

Everyone recognizes the natural absurdity of demanding people to eviscerate their lexicon; especially to safeguard the hurt feelings of individuals who were brave enough to conquer their tragedy in the first place. It's an insult to a wheel-chair ridden chap to presume that he can survive depression, drastically adapt his lifestyle, confront a myriad of new limitations and obstacles, but that he draws the line at using the wrong adjective to describe his inert legs. Hopefully I wasn't too abrasive in assuming that my fictional character's gender was male; then again, the washroom to which he assigns himself may dictate otherwise.  

I would like to think that our handicapped demographic has more courage and self-respect than to allow the sensitivity police to ventriloquize their nomenclature needs. Particularly from the activists who think that being politically correct is anything other than using words which best convey your social and economic allegiances. Expecting questions of governance and wealth distribution among the pubic to be universal in response is asinine; mandating people to speak in a unilateral tone after discovering that plain fact, is pure folly. 

Come over to the dark side. Our language is much clearer and brighter - capable of enlightening your lugubrious and querulous hearts both intellectually, and morally. 

Signed,

Darth Hadrianus 

Rape of Reason: The Eternity of Our Discontent

Racial Misappropriation: The Rights of Objectivity - A Critique of Neo-liberal Politics

As will be evident to some of you, I have borrowed my title from Thomas Paine's Rights of Man. Not only to remind us all of the fairness and correctitude to which every honest person is entitled, but to preserve the sanctity of political equity and to ensure that the free press maintains some sense of ethics in its dissemination of knowledge. 

In one of my recent city escapades, I found myself falling prey to the efforts of the advertising campaigns that I have repeatedly scorned. Written on a poster hoisted just above the median of the subway tracks read the following: "What do you call a Muslim woman who flies an airplane? - A pilot." This boring and cliched attempt at anti-joke solemnity and righteousness were enough to disappoint me, yet the worst had yet to come. Written somewhat stolidly and aridly underneath in fine print was "Racism stops here." Simultaneously, I felt one of the most potent mixtures of contempt, nausea, and disbelief that I have ever experienced. Bear in mind, comrades, that I own and have read the Book of Mormon.

I am sorry if the following salad of letters sounds like I am spelling this out for you, but since it is so obviously and readily taken for granted, I feel compelled to not only scrutinize what has been deemed to be inscrutable, but to sneer at it. For the last time, Islam is not characterized by race; it is not a religion of the brown-skinned oppressed, let alone a liberation theology for those who are politically and morally subjugated. Albania, Bosnia Herzegovina, Turkey and Lebanon are just a few examples that come to mind to subvert the idea of a complexion-based faith. In addition, seeing as the left is so concerned with respecting the religion of peace, they ought to know, that any effort to make sects and denominate the faith by tribe contradict its fundamental tenets. The chapter and verse currently escape me, but a quote not unlike the following reads in the Qur'an: "behold, we have made you in different likenesses and appearances that you may recognize each other". Consequently, to separate Muslims as a part of one ethnicity undermines Islam's claims to universality. As such, sectarianism (which is palpably and ironically ignored by the schools of Sunni, Shia, and Sufi) is by definition profane. If you are so encumbered with the task of protecting this alleged cringing and defenseless Western minority, it may be an aid to familiarize yourself with its dogma. Although, intellectual dishonesty seems to be a newly confected virtue among neo-liberals; not unlike the tawdry appeal of faith ipso facto. 

Aside from how the mullahs in Iran treat the people and how the youth (who comprise nigh 50% of the population) hate them, languishing in their desires to simply be able to hold someone's hand in public who isn't an immediate relative, there remains the necessity for investigation of politically and historically Islamic depravity and crime against the Americas. If you think Shia Islam mistreats its own faith-based adherents, imagine what it has in store for you.

Between the decades of 1750 to 1820, it is estimated by historians that upward of 1.5 million European and American slaves were captured by members of the vulgarly labelled "barbary states" - today known as Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and Libya. When Thomas Jefferson and James Madison visited the shores of Tripoli in 1788, seeking an ounce of rationality or justification for North Africa's behavior, the clerics' chilling response declared "because the Qur'an says we can. You are infidels, fit to be treated as cattle and beasts of burden." A flotilla was deployed in retaliation to this wickedness, and the Muslims fleets were attacked. It also worth mentioning, that prior to these events the nascent United States of America had had no quarrel with the Islamic world. A sentiment that cannot be echoed today.

Ordinary reason and sincerity are repulsed by the intellectual laziness, mendacity, and hysteria fueled by mob opinion and the media at large. Do not be dissuaded by repeated appeals to pathos and pseudo-intellectual movie-theatre commercials in social discourse. This is a mental surrender, and a surrogate for the illogical values that have depredated our planet since time immemorial, ad nauseam. Don't be a hypocrite, my fellow skeptics and disbelievers. See through the thin veil of benevolence that emotional politics purport to offer, and demand truth ubiquitously. 

Thanks,

A disgruntled adeist 

How the "Left" has Become Reactionary: The Decline and Collapse of the University

The Hypocritic Oath

It does not take much perusal or examination to notice the recent and popular state of identity politics. Poor marketing campaigns and fantastically unlettered commercials metastasize, leaving most of their audience ecstatic and frenetic. Why is this? I submit, not so humbly, that the proliferation of these advertisements inadvertently (or potentially deliberately) contributes to the stupefaction of the public.

I don’t wish to sound like a snob, but I am astounded by the overwhelming consensus on uber-inclusivity. It cannot be that, dear comrades, our nation is made up of stupid and mindless cogs. I refuse to endorse such a heinous and unfounded proposition. However, I do think that one sentence could refute the apparent confidence of our society’s nascent faith – one of the beginnings of human emancipation is the ability to laugh at authority. Ironically, this motto would probably be hypocritically espoused and even marketed by those who occupy what I like to call, the alt-alt right. We have all at least heard of if not seen the hilariously inflammatory campaign taken up by one Mr. Milo Yiannopoulos, professional provocateur and Senior Editor of Breitbart News. Although at times crass (this shouldn’t be offensive to anyone, considering he admittedly tries to stir up the crowd; analogous to those who have children and then become shocked and terrified when their rugrats misbehave) his method of conveyance and media have been at times referred to as “the alt-right”. Classifying these people as a part of a neo-conservative movement would be ill-advised. Even though a portion of his audience could be labelled so, a decent number are skeptics and dissidents from the hate speech horde. The luridly obtuse and frumpy character of trigglypuff has circulated through various social media platforms, providing those who have any sense of intellectual and dialectical honesty with a sense of consternation and irritation. 

I too have had to deal with this tone and the poisonous effort of those who willingly want to commit cultural and political suicide. I once participated in a group known as the Off-Campus Community during the latter years of my undergraduate career. Being bestowed with the seemingly hollow title of "Don", I was responsible for guiding and presiding over a number of students by providing them with academic assistance, moral and emotional support, and organizing various events to ensure a balance of socializing and leisure amidst the hurdles of university life. Seemingly benevolent and helpful upon first glance, it only took a brief stint in the society to recognize its shortcomings and fatuity. Splayed pridefully on the north side was the code of conduct. A subliterate collection of burblings and bungling commandments that were supposed to govern over the nature of every single interaction that took place within those four walls. I hope I don't have to elucidate what is disturbing about a total solution. Ironic, it seems all too plain to me, that monolithic morality is by definition an oxymoron. Morality and ethics are not learned by pronouncements - they are eternally reasoned and reconsidered to suit a developing society and its citizens. Something that these group members would have stumbled upon, had they not derided and abjured the value of free inquiry in an effort to spare hurt feelings. 

The first of these concoctions read more or less like the following: "One must simultaneously make every effort to avoid offending anyone, and be sure to tolerate everyone's opinion". They considered this moronic precept to be something of considerable honor and perhaps even innovative. It takes only a short acquaintance with this order, to realize how this prevents anyone from being able to speak; abhorrently, it contemns discourse and the underrated result of disagreement. There is something sinister about this impulse. Why on earth would anyone want to avoid contention and controversy at all costs? It demonstrates that the apparent uniformity and conviction of this preachment, are more than likely a mask for a much more justifiable insecurity. Psychoanalyzing it further, it's palpably suggestive of the invertebrate nature of its proponents, and their desire to create another aspect of life in which to spurn human interaction. Much more horrifying and slanderous, this conduct operates in direct contrast to the intended purpose of a university; the Hellenic brilliance of anyone being able to discuss any idea at any time, regardless of how strong the speakers' predilection to offense-taking is.  

Evidently, as is the nature of totalitarianism, the principle of anti-antinomy is self-destructive. The chinks in its apparent armor proved to comprise more of the structure than the panoply itself. I couldn't get this simple point across to my colleagues and as such I was forced with no other choice but to resign. They continued their campaign of censorship with prideful promotion. This tendency forces one to reflect upon the obvious fact, that the society members express a creepy compulsion to be liked by everyone. I need not describe how boring and stultifying this sentiment is, but there is one thing of which I am sure; I have always in the very least been suspicious of someone who is universally praised and celebrated. Our world is beautifully and fortunately composed of dissenting individuals who necessitate opposition for growth - anyone who denies or profanes this requirement is either too diffident of their own convictions and social worth, or too stupid and unreconstructed to see how this is an axiom of life. Hence, I have no time or inkling to speak with anyone whose every waking impulse is to preserve pacifism. In short, I have never heard anyone say that their penchant for silence, obedience, or obsequity lead to innovation and progression. Albeit a rudimentary and paltry form, universities do make up a polity. If there is any hope of persistence and improvement, uniformity must be avoided and no opinion can be prohibited. 

As Alexander Hamilton said in his address to the people of the state of New York in 1847: "One flaw that religion and politics share is the effort to make proselytes by force and coercion". Truer words never spoken, but here is an M.S original: fossilized philosophy will forever remain the enemy of societal evolution.

Arrogantly submitted, 

The anti-don

Soporific Seizing: How I think Epileptic Awareness Should be Spread

Not on my Watch

I take so few occasions to discuss this matter privately, let alone publicly. 

Often, I find it only fitting to contemn and deride people's efforts to express their grievances in response to a condition or disease with which they are afflicted, simply because it is always saturated with pathos. I have lived with my disorder for nigh 20 years, and I would find it contemptible to go out of my way to try to elicit emotional responses of sympathy and pity. I mention this not to slander those who have had the courage to share their stories with others, but because I often feel as though their demonstrations are counter-productive; invariably evoking the very cheap compassion and compathy they claim to dislike and spurn.

Recently, I watched a TED lecture on the subject of epilepsy and the experiences of a young woman who was so burdened. I won't disclose her name or personal history, but I will say (as someone who is probably more qualified to judge it) that her presentation was not only uninformative and tiresome, but down-right nauseating. I am not a prolific student of the art of rhetoric, (despite my Aristotelian efforts to do so) and I readily acknowledge the distinction between the tone, delivery and communicative style of speech versus print. Nonetheless, I felt as though she squandered her time on the main stage. Attempting to slowly and laboriously convey her story, she made a fellow sufferer's eyes glaze over. As I assumed, at one point, she inevitably broke down into tears before a vast and captive audience. While that does in a subtle way infuriate me, I do my best to empathize with the overwhelmingly potent influence of emotion. My criticism and distaste is derived from the ensuing events - and her meretricious sobbing. Once she gathered herself and re-established some semblance of stability, her performance's quality declined. Not inconceivable, but to my taste, a waste of her own time and the audience's. 

I found it to be a crying shame that such a person spent nearly twenty minutes on an issue rarely broached or discussed, and other than garnering temporary and tawdry sympathy, achieved so little. I can honestly recognize the unpopularity of my perspective, but as someone who shares her disability and who also has a penchant for the art of dialectic and conversation, I feel vindicated in expressing my disdain. Needless to say, I am doubly aggrieved. I think it is an outright exposition of duplicity and hypocrisy when people say they evade any opportunity to speak about their malady due to the uncomfortable sorrow with which it is met, only to deliver their story in such a maudlin way once they do.

I don't know about my fellow epileptics, but I wouldn't want the few chances I have to increase awareness about our condition besmirched by a whimpering explanation; appropriately followed by simpering remarks. I am already fed up with the plaintive and petulant culture that is fulminating in our society - I won't have our case for attention and scientific focus expounded with querulous infancy. One cannot control the emotional response of their audience upon reception, but they can tune the key of their own song. 

I may be alone in this campaign, but I feel as though our cause would be much better met and respected if it were explained with sobriety and rationality. Axiomatically I am biased by professional interests and propensities, so I don't take any objections in this vein too seriously. 

As Thomas Paine said in his Age of Reason, John Milton said in his Areopagitica, and John Stuart Mill in his essays On Liberty, free expression and inquiry are essential for the polity not only because of their right to profess their own thoughts, but not to be deprived of the ability to hear everyone else's; especially those in a small dissident minority. For, as we all can intuit, it must have taken any defector from an overwhelming consensus quite some time to muster their opinion. On those grounds, I beseech you to not only consider my own, but to value and perhaps prefer logos to pathos. Much more truth, comprehension, and progression are sure to follow if we do.

Thanks, a garrulous gadfly 

Jesus-in-the-Middle: How One Foible Rabbi Corrupted Geopolitics

A Reflection on Israeli-Palestinian Relations and their Theological Implications

The ultimate irony. A quality without which none of us could survive or thrive, a prevalent paradox has gone completely unnoticed due to prejudice and ignorance. Could it be that I, a layman and novice in the political fold, has stumbled upon one of the most incongruous and self-contradictory principles in Evangelical American-Israeli foreign policy? While I'd like to once again assert my own novelty to the subject matter, I cannot resist proffering my opinion. 

Jesus of Nazareth, known almost ubiquitously under different titles of authority and relevance, is indirectly influencing the cartography and allegiances of Middle-Eastern society. Alliances fashioned, ideologies fossilized, conspiracies contrived; enmity established. Why and how does he do this from beyond the grave. No, Abrahamic monotheists, I am not conceding the definite existence of this eccentric preacher or his eschatological involution. Don't throw your arms about in an ecstatic stupor. Turn your eyes to the following - an essential meditation. 

While I do not advocate even more romanticizing of Islam, the theological tenets of Christianity and Islam are more similar to each other than to their Jewish counterpart. Christian fundamentalists and Jewish fanatics have celebrated their coalition in hopes of having the messiah return. The fact that that verb is employed should be enough to raise suspicion. Traditional Jewish scripture (among many other incompatibilities) has two fundamental problems with Christian theology: Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, and the concept of a revenant messiah. 

Saul of Tarsus who purportedly encountered Jesus on the road to Damascus in a vision (much more symptomatic of an epileptic seizure; take it from someone who knows) proclaimed that one need not have their humanity and salvation contingent upon the nature of their moral conduct and beneficence on this earth - so long as you believe and accept the doctrine of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice, you live under grace and will be acceded into paradise. Apart from the obviously appalling Christian actions that have since been performed based off of this absurd premise, it is completely irreconcilable with the precepts of the Pentateuch and other Judaica. In addition, the more relevant issue pertains to the idea of a messiah (aside from being labeled divine) who will need to come back to earth because his initial efforts were unsuccessful. Per Jewish canon, the messiah will unite all the chosen people in the holy land and reign having established peace on earth - with slight cultural preference and advantage to the children of Abraham, of course. Among many other accurate and cogent objections, this would discredit the Nazarene's claims to religious authority in this world. Yet, smarmy ecumenicism reigns supreme and the coalescence of theocratic nutbags persists. 

Conversely, the Islamic tradition does believe in the return of the Messiah; specifically, Jesus son of Mary. While there have been plenty discrepant accounts and needless sources of theological disagreement about this man's provenance and power, he remains a salient character in both faiths. Portions of the Hadith describe scenarios in which all Jews will be targeted and discriminated (putting it mildly). Fatuous stories about the end of days, when Jews will attempt to hide behind flora to escape the wrath of an omnipotent creator, only for trees to betray them and decry their location to the all foreseeing monoglot - Allah. This hardly seems benevolent or sensitive to the Jews, and probably more congruous with the age-old spirit of Christian antisemitism. After all, it was only recently that the cosmological accusation of deicide was revoked by the Catholic Church; from some Jews. 

In short, both of these parties wish for the second visitation of this inanely ascetic priest. One would think that this would shift evangelical sympathies to the Arabs, thereby persecuting Israelis. I am compelled to mentioned that I do not desire the subjugation or blacklisting of any tribe; an opinion not so common among messianic zealots. 

It is my position that this ordeal would have been settled and a compromise would have been reached much sooner if the nature of the conflict had been purely secular. There is no solution as long of the parties of god maintain a veto on public affairs, a plain fact that continues to elude political leaders and figureheads.

Not wanting to make light of the situation, I humbly submit this to you

A perfidious primate

Yet Another Reason Why Trump is an Ignoramus

The Backward Triplets

I assure you, this is not another boring attempt to make jeers at the current American commander in chief or at previous GOP candidates who gave it the good old college try; this is a clever attempt. 

I admit, democrats and perpending republicans have had a knack for making excessively rudimentary and tedious remarks about some less than competent conservative leaders. While the same could be said for democratic representatives, I feel as though it is more pertinent to address the criticisms of recent figures who are dialed a little bit further to the right of the compass. 

They're redundant. They're unrefined. They're tawdry. Yet for some reason, notions like that of George W. Bush's eyes being so close together that he could use a monocle, still find their target and have their way on our diaphragm. Sure, some are more highbrow (and I use that term loosely) such as his instantaneous comfort and conviction of Putin's righteousness and moral integrity - due to Vladimir's all too convenient sporting of his grandmother's crucifix upon their first convergence. A consolation I cannot imagine experiencing. Alas, I'd accuse myself of striking a far too vulnerable and putrid corpse if I reverted to mocking Mr. "I traded in Jack Daniel's for Jesus"; yet another solace I cannot fathom taking.

I digress. The all too ironic and salient title that I have chosen refers to another yokel, one Mr. Hitchens described as being sexually inferior to the Iron Lady, and being of mild use to a low-rate porn director. Lewd perhaps, but Hitchens wasn't known to exchange incisive humour for boring tact. Ms. Palin, for all her charming inefficacy and stupidity, is as you guessed it, not my cup of tea. Sorry, that joke was cheap and overdone. Nonetheless, her efforts to inculcate her views on public education seemed to be a vain one. Had she been successful, the outcome on society may indeed have resembled the results of lethal injection. An unabashed creationist, this former campaigning tea party representative encouraged and advocated the teaching of pseudo-science to children in place of evolutionary biology. If you thought Ken Hamm was alone in his crusade, you've yet to reckon with this female counterpart who subscribes to dino-human co-existence. 

While I am not one who tries to stretch humour and coincidence beyond their breadth, I find the linguistic irony here to be palpable. Palin, when transliterated and translated literally means backward or reverse in Ancient Greek (whether or not this has been maintained in the modern tongue, I do not know). A simple, lucid, and poignant description of not only Sarah's perception of reality and understanding of natural history, but of the trajectory of her goals for American literacy and international image. I present you with this old diatribe because I fear that we are at risk of a recrudescence of exalted ignorance south of the border. Mr. Trump is contemplating pulling out of the Paris climate deal; something which former President Barack Obama reasonably endorsed. 

Here is the ultimate irony - Pope Francis, the most recent aging virgin to represent the vicar of Christ on earth, purportedly besought Trump to reconsider his decision behind closed doors during his visit to the Vatican last week. This to me was the most important element and occurrence during the president's international tour, for, despite my personal convictions about the incompatibility of science and faith, Francis is doing his duty as a human to repudiate scientific ignorance trying to dilapidate the minds of youth. Once again, irony rears its impertinent head; for if Francis could extend his efforts to vindicate the maltreatment of children a bit further, he may find some of his colleagues facing trial and the much needed dissolution of his state's sovereignty and infallibility. I suppose one must recognize and cherish minor victories of this kind wherever they appear, and hope that justice will eventually prevail. Until then, the harboring of appalling pederasts in special sinecures and shielding of criminals from secular prosecution will unfortunately continue. 

I come to a close. While Trump has not been indicted for child molestation, openly expressed a privileging of mythology over science (debatable, I know), or illogically exchanged whisky for Methodism, he is demonstrating a similar tendency - the championing of injustice, irrationality, and stultification. In its own way, a hallmark of depredation and trespassing sacred borders.

Yours truly, a polemic mammal

Modern Skepticism Does Poetry?!

Some May Call it Click-bait

"So too in the waning days, does the heart feel compunction for its persistent folly"

- Adrian Giorgio, circa 1:30 pm May 4th, 2017

Pacé, poets. This is what I could muster. For quite some time I spurned your arcane methods as an incitement of unreason, and blatant demonstrations of emotional flailing. I have since abandoned that primitive mentality in favour of a perspective that I feel will provide me with a greater sense of majesty and bliss. As such, I'll add rather superfluously that the above quotation is an M.S original; ironic, seeing as its charming inefficacy may appear to be paralyzing to readers for different reasons. That is not an attempt at flippancy or cruelty toward the medically afflicted, merely an observation whose relevance can hardly be called negligible. 

Toward this discipline I formerly ascribed the axiom "The sleep of reasons brings forth monsters"; the dastardly stuff that recommends turning off the mind to achieve happiness. Once again, humanity wishes to rescind and discard the most precious endowment we have ever developed, in favour of an alleged utopia of mindlessness. For I asserted that a mode of writing whose literary goals were often intentionally oblique and vague, to not only be a waste of time and ink, but to do a gross disservice to the reader. Although I do maintain that poetry is in many ways esoterica, seeing as a layman like me would require a slog of annotations and commentary on the author's intentions and convictions in their piece - an opinion that I've learned is overwhelmingly unpopular among modern poetic circles. 

I now know that my perception is probably more reflective of a lack of refinement and understanding, and should probably provoke me to study and appreciate the medium further. Thus, I will rely on the help and zeal of my contemporaries who excel in this way - yes, that is an outright evocation of you, Ms. Goltsis. 

I now come to the pivotal moment: my exegesis and prescription of interpreting this work's introduction. The impression that I am referring to matters of romance and the mysteries of love is a position that I would expect to follow axiomatically upon anyone's reception. Yet, rather unsurprisingly, that is not my aim. I suppose that is somewhat ironic and hypocritical, seeing as I am being intentionally deceptive, beguiling and forcing the reader to perceive a surfeit of understandings. Nonetheless, I arrive at my explanation. As one approaches death and meanders about old age, I am given to understand that excessive reminiscence and rumination necessarily ensue. In doing so, one begins to review and recount the nature and source of all their personal lifelong convictions, and eventually arrive at those of the politically philosophical realm. I would propose that an onslaught of personal criticism and upbraiding would follow, revealing to oneself how often they fashioned alliances based off of an emotional whim rather than rational consideration. This to me sounds, as mildly as I can put it - displeasing. Dissuaded by demagogy, glibness, and hysteria, (tools so fanatically employed by politicians) one arrives at the potentially devastating conclusion that they frequently sought refuge in the false security of consensus. Pumped up by howling rallies, an innate and irresistible urge to secure sodality with other primates, and a tawdrily
misguiding compulsion to protect social face. Finally reaching the inevitable epiphany that, they too, had fallen prey to this constrictive mammalian shortcoming - credulity. Oh what they could have accomplished, if they had only rejected the falsely enticing allure of impulse.

Maybe a bit condescending, but bear in mind that I thoroughly believe this applies to me as well. I'd like to include an example of one of my recent errors in judgment, and I shall attempt to quote it as best as I can from memory. The Hitch tangled with Heston on a mini-debate concerning the productivity and necessity of the Gulf War in 1991:

Hitch: "I have a question for Mr. Heston. Can he provide counterclockwise the neighbouring 
countries that share a border with Iraq?"
Heston: "Why yes I can, although I think those borders are soon to be quite flexible..."
Hitch: "-It wouldn't take a minute..."
Heston: "...Let me come to your comment. Kuwait, Bahrain, Turkey, Russia, Iran"
Hitch: "Right, so you have no idea where it is in other words. You have no idea where the country is on the map, and you're in favor of bombing it, on the whim of a president! This is the kind of instantaneous barbarism..."
Mediator: "I-I am not sure that the instantaneous command of the geography of a region... (Heston chuckles in the background)"
Hitch: "Oh I don't know I feel if you're in favour of bombing a country you might pay it the complement of knowing where it is" (words ensue)
Heston: "Our veto of the nuclear arms pact, has to do with our fear of Soviet nuclear weapons. You don't agree? You seem rather extreme, Mr. Hitchens"
Hitch: "Oh comon, this is insulting. That's as true Mr. Heston, as your supposition that Bahrain, which is an island, shares a common border with Iraq... I don't see why, Reganite hacks of this kind, are consulted for their opinion... (accusations by Heston of ad hominem attacks as opposed to rational discussion follow, as well as wasting valuable network time and dishing out high-school geography lessons and views)
Hitch: "Keep your hair-piece on"

As entertaining as that excerpt and exchange was, and as much as it initially buttressed my sympathies with Hitchens, I know see how cheap my first conviction was. Although Christopher does have a point about Heston's clueless nature, and how consulting his opinion on such matters is about as pertinent as deferring to a Catholic Bishop for advice on sexual prowess, Hitchens could have demonstrated more evidence for his stance as opposed to clever jeers and rhetoric. I am not well informed enough to have a position on this topic, but I certainly know that I don't want to be swayed by humour and wit. Unfortunately, I did find myself prematurely dialed well to the left of this kerfuffle; undoubtedly due to my reverence for Hitchens and his spell-binding charisma. 

In short, as beautiful and as valuable as human emotion and empathy can be, their offerings should not be considered so respectable in pressing intellectual matters - a concept that, despite having been stated plainly time and time again, remains foreign to humans.

Make of my passage what you will primates, as poetry so inherently demands.