I need to continue with thoughts very much in the same vein as yesterday's post, and they are prompted by a quote of the local district attorney cited recently in the local newspaper. The district attorney was explaining why he would not be responding to the preliminary autopsy report and the likelihood that he would be filing charges in a particular case. I most certainly appreciate and applaud his reticence to speak before he has all the facts and the input of others, but I am rattled by his explanation. "...I'm not comfortable talking about it [autopsy report]. It goes from the pathologist to the coroner to a cop to me, and black might be turned into white by the time it goes through that,..." What is unclear might be made clearer by this process or shades of gray will hopefully become black and white--to continue with the same figure of speech. But black becoming white? I assume and certainly hope that the pathologist, who performed the autopsy was an experienced forensic pathologist, who was very aware of the importance of his or her work and the potential impact of his or her science and judgment. We can certainly expect the report to be thoughtful and disciplined and, taken in concert with the other investigators' reports, to provide for a coherent account of the event and supports the district attorney's decision to file or not file charges.



If black is capable of becoming white, are known facts driving this case? If not, what is? A quote from James K. Galbraith comes to mind: [persons in positions of authority] "...trust their own system of beliefs and their affinities of politics and class," rather than a reasoned examination of the circumstances guided by intellectual honesty tempered by a degree of personal humility. I posit that we are all subject to such narrowness of vision, which is not vision at all, but a form of intellectual blindness. The challenge that each of us faces is to refuse to be take this easy way out.

I can only hope that an honest read of the facts guides the local district attorney. And that intellectual honesty is my regular partner.

So the gentleman referenced in the entry of the 26th claims that a sneezing cow is a lot funnier than a coughing cow. I find myself trying to visualize what a sneezing cow would look like. What do I come up with? How about a 1,100 pound short-haired holstein-colored cat caught in a sneezing fit? Even if that ain't funny, one would be hard pressed not to stop and take note of what is erupting in the corner by the calf pen.

What we appear to have here is an application of poetic license, which goes by any number of names depending upon the context, for example, artistic license. "All is fair in love and war" also comes to mind. License allows us to step outside of the norm or the "rules" and to claim legitimacy for the stance that we then take. The simple juxtaposition of love and war make me uneasy. War, it seems, always works outside of the rules; the difference is who is held accountable. From Noam Chomsky's perspective only the loser is held accountable. Right now I am not able to come up with a descriptor or qualifier for love, to develop this thought any further.

If we can easily claim an exception or an exemption, that is, to exercise license, are there really any rules? If not, what is it that guides human behavior, if there is a guide at all? I need to separate guiding principles from norms of behavior. That leaves me with the distinction between universal principles and very specific, variable, and even conflicting norms.

As I write this entry, I find myself listening over and over to "Somewhere Out in Mud Brook" by Michael Perry and the Long Beds. I don't know what it is about the tune. Mud Brook is a real place--some distance south of the home place and east of Highway 40. The tune could well be describing a real McCoy. The character spoken of in the tune has found a way, that works for him, to sort through the universal principle/specific norm conundrum. Ah! The Sage of Mud Brook.

It has to be a red letter day when Michael Perry answers one's email. I am hesitant to reply to his reply; I don't want him to come to the conclusion that I just might be an electronic stalker. Oh, by the way, I am still waiting for Mika Brzezinski to respond to one of my emails--I only sent her one. Maybe Mika plays hard to get. Should I be flooding her inbox with lots of emails? No. I'd rather have an occasional exchange of emails with Michael.