for 8 April 1998. Updated every WEEKDAY.

Another Nutty Reference-Laden
Email

I'll be the first one to admit
that TV could use a whole lot
of improvement.
Advertisements in particular
are just insulting and even
demeaning. But all of this
needs to be put in some
perspective.... When Animals
Attack is exactly what I hope
to see more of on TV. Jerry
Springer, too. They're REAL,
in a way that all these
redundant, canned laughter
sitcoms just aren't....

I mean who would take Family
Matters, with those insipid
twins, over a bear-mauling?
Or some dude pounding his
brother's head in on national
TV in front of a screaming
audience (I like boxing,
too). I don't know about your
priorities brother, but count
me out!

Maybe Mr. BLUEMACH could get
together with the guy who
defended Ellen and the two of
them can delight together in
their mutual superiority
while watching Seinfeld
reruns. They can just leave
us non-progressive,
non-liberal, non-lesbian
types to our flatulence and
fat jokes.

Honestly though, I am less
offended by Jerry (although
my friend wants to kill him)
than I am by "Brothers from
Another Planet" or, really,
the entire Dubba Dubba WB
network.

Joseph Hammerman

Ellen! Bear mauling! How wacky
of you!

But how can you possibly think
that "the WB" is more
offensive than Jerry?

Haven't you seen Significant
Others?

Yes, that's a joke. It's
already been cancelled,
actually.

Another Angry Rwandan Chimes
In

Good day Sucksters,

I'm an avid reader of your
daily pucker and I hail from
Rwanda of all places. I'm
glad that your president came
here on Wednesday with his
sacks of money because, God
knows, we need it. His facade
of concern wouldn't have
earned him a nomination for a
Oscar in my books, though. I
think even Travolta could
have pulled off a better
skit, brought the same bags
of cash, and left with an
even better-looking chick.

Us Africans really dig Bill
because polygamy is legal,
and hey, nothing beats a good
knob polishing on a hot day -
right? I'm sure Museveni
didn't mind the paparazzi
opening the Fornigate file in
Uganda. After all, what could
be a better marketing gimmick
for AIDS awareness in the
new, capitalist Uganda?
People would decorate the
country with Life Guard
condoms if they were endorsed
by the honorable....
Democracy is hard to come by
here, but Billy dealt it out
unflinchingly. Hats off to
him for dealing with the mosh
pits in Ghana. He insists it
was concern for his well
wishers up front, but if we
look at the pictures closely,
it's clear he was ready to
pinch a loaf. Us "headhunting
savages" in Rwanda had much
to celebrate during his
two-hour visit. We decided to
spare his neck because of
those CIA, USMC, SWAT, and SS
SOBs, though. I hear they're a
force to be reckoned with.

Anyways, I can personally
guarantee that alla dem
niggaz back home is gon big
up dat cracka mofo when he
done come back. If he had
another term, the brothaz
that take time to vote would
give him mad props. Word to
your motherland.

Dan Haguma

Hey, be fair. Bill's got one
of the best facades of
concern around.

Cracka Mofos of Suck

Another Chucklehead Speaks
Out

You wouldn't be the same Huck
who played, and for all I
know still plays, saxophone
and various other instruments
in The Chuckleheads, would
you? If so, hi! I know who
you are, and you may know
vaguely who I am. I went to
college with you. I loved
your band. We once had
breakfast together at Alpha
Delt and you touched my
bellybutton. It wasn't
exactly a high point for me,
but I do remember it fondly.

If you are a different Huck
entirely, which certainly
seems likely, hi! The main
reason I thought you might be
That Other Huck is that he
was a very funny person, and
so are you. I enjoyed
thesuck.net bundles. Thanks for
brightening up my day, even
if you never did touch my
bellybutton.

Name Withheld To Protect The
Flirtatious

Having your bellybutton
touched obviously was a high
point for you, since you
remember it so well, and so
fondly. However, you
apparently aren't aware of
the fact that people who
write for Suck don't have
lives, let alone skills like
playing saxophone or various
other instruments.
Furthermore, people who write
for Suck are not known to be
in bands that people "love,"
nor are they known to have
breakfast at places called
"Alpha Delt." Additionally,
people who write for Suck are
not known to touch
bellybuttons unprompted,
unless you count Carl, and we
all know Carl doesn't count.

One thing's for certain: This
other Huck of which you speak
is not, actually, nearly as
funny as he might seem to
you, who are seemingly still
in the throes of passion from
the aforementioned intimate
bellybutton-touching
interlude. Keep in mind that
titillating memories such as
yours can lead to delusions
of grandeur regarding
otherwise worthless, crusty
frat boys.

Those Darn Scientists

Claiming that the scientific
endeavour "has torn down each
edifice to build the next" is
untrue. (Newtonian principles
exist as a subset of
Einsteinian physics.
Relativity and quantum theory
were first unified by Dirac.
Maxwell's equations still
hold true even with a virtual
particle interpretation of
forces.) Only constructions
demonstrated to be false or,
better yet, highly improbable
are "torn down." A more
accurate statement is that
such "edifices" are
abandoned.

Your praise and condemnation
of technological achievements
such as vaccines and H-bombs
are value judgments that can
change according to
circumstance. Is a vaccine
ethically good when it causes
a lethal allergic reaction in
a child? Is the hydrogen bomb
morally bad when it can be
argued that its existence
among the superpowers was the
seed for the longest period
without war known by Europe?
The applications of science
can be used for any number of
ends - I would argue that has
little to do about whether or
not science or the universe
is subjective.

As for E. O. Wilson, if I
recall, Dawkins and Gould
both chide him for his belief
in progress as an ultimate
aim in biology. The same
complaint should be made for
physics. New paradigms arise
when current models are
inadequate. Admitted,
different interpretations
become vogue, but that
implies the field is ready
for a killer application, as
it were.

Simon Adkins

Yep. Good call - "abandoned"
is a better choice than "torn
down."

But I don't think I really
praise or condemn
"technological achievements
such as vaccines and
H-bombs." The applications of
science are useful and not
useful, positive and
negative, and all that, but
mostly I was just poking fun
at E. W.'s argument that
science could find the way to
the absolute, to some end
point at which everything is
understood and it all fits
together neatly. Judging by
the contents of my inbox -
and by the results of my
"what does Leslie think" test
(she's a biologist, and a
personal friend - an exciting
combination!) - not many
scientists buy his argument
either. But if I read your
message correctly, you don't
buy it either, and don't need
to hear it from me again....

Ambrose Beers

I liked your piece on science,
but what really bothers me
are those on the "other side"
who would overthrow
scientific method and replace
it with completely relative
knowledge.

Science is often wrong, but it
has built-in methods to
correct itself. Scientists
are not usually ivory-tower,
dispassionate observers, but,
like most of us, human in
their concerns.

The really valuable part of
science is the scientific
method. This is the device
that has given us our
technology, both the good and
bad parts. Should this be
traded for so-called
"relative knowledge," where
any "truth" is equally valid?

Because the results are not
always perfect or consistent,
do we then decide to throw
out the method? Because
journalistic sources can be
wrong, do we just make up the
facts, or do we just try
harder?

Dale Craig

With regard to your question -
"Because the results are not
always perfect or consistent,
do we then decide to throw
out the method?" - a short,
simple answer:

Nope.

Because the results are not
always perfect or consistent,
we ... recognize that the
results are not always
perfect or consistent. It's
entirely possible to respect
science and enjoy the
technology (and the ideas)
that it produces without
going and treating it like
high, flawless religion. I'm
actually fairly certain that
most scientists fully
understand what science can
and can't be asked to do. So,
yes, you're right: Scientists
are like most of us, human
in their concerns.

And Ed Wilson is a dork.

Ambrose Beers

I really liked your column
today.

I wonder if E. O. Wilson has
just been diagnosed with
terminal cancer and wants to
tidy things up before he
exits?

That essay might actually make
some sense if it were to be
presented as an example of
the damage caused by
chemotherapy - you may just
be on to something.

Ambrose Beers

All right, I guess I can
overlook this column's lack
of a response to the Academy
Awards last night, but was
that an argument for god or
against science?

If it was an argument for god,
then you were wise to frame
it so obliquely, rarely if
ever actually mentioning god,
because whether or not
science has its shit
together, anyone with a hint
of a spark between their
neurons has figured out that
any traditional concept of
god, gods, or spirituality
makes about as much sense as
Robin Williams' acceptance
speech for Good Will
Hunting.

But the very fact that science
does change so rapidly, that
it tears down its own
edifices and then rebuilds
them based upon new theories
and information, in itself
indicates the ability of this
movement to adapt every facet
of itself as necessary. The
point of this is, there is no
way we now can suppose what
science will discover ten
years from now, or 100 or a
1,000. But no matter how much
time passes, the models of
god will stay exactly the
same, as is their way,
probably making
proportionately less sense
than they do now.

Certainly the current models
of the universe as proposed
by science leave much to be
desired; the best
descriptions of string theory
I have heard play out about
as intelligently as a David
Letterman gag: "Them's little
strings in there!" But it is
a ludicrous assumption that
the current morass of
non-agreement science is in
will continue indefinitely.
We are in a social and
technological adolescence,
with no way of predicting how
it all will turn out. But
when the answers do come, if
they do, they will come from
science.

Keep up the good work.

Warmest regards,

Patrick Burke, Los Angeles

Regarding the Academy Awards,
one thought comes to mind:
That Ashley Judd shore is
purty! Sorry I can't offer
anything more.

And the current morass of
non-agreement science is in
will not, of course, continue
indefinitely; it'll shift
from one thing to another.
Isn't the kind of cool thing
about science the fact of its
relentless questioning, the
there's-always-another-thing-
to-figure-out part?
Said morass of non-agreement
means that scientists are
skeptical, thoughtful people.
They can make some awfully
bad choices around the way
their work is applied, but -
E. O. Wilson aside,
apparently - they seem to
recognize this and don't
pretend to be on the glide
path to whole and perfect
knowledge.

Ambrose Beers