The Charlotte News
Tuesday, August 5, 1941
Site Ed. Note: The fifth part of the formula for saving gas stated in the first piece, we think, is an excellent suggestion, even if a little difficult in the rain and snow. The other four aren't bad either.
We saw yesterday, however, where they have now developed a ten-minute chargeable, 180-mile range electric sports car with 700 h.p., which goes 0 to 60 in four seconds--the Lightning. V-rrrooom. It's not due until 2010 and so the price tag remains a mystery. If it's anything like the $100,000 Tesla, however, it is little more than a pipe dream for most of us. But, we tend to think that what must be done can be done, and what can be done ultimately will be done. All we really need is a well-balanced 100 h.p. sports car or sedan or station wagon with like chargeability and range, within the reasonably affordable sphere of the ordinary consumer, and which looks acceptable on the road--the Mho. For now, all they seem to want to produce are odd and awkward looking little boxes on four wheels, with scant charm to the mass market--by design. The storms in the midwest attest to the stupidity of this continued strategy, of seeing no evil, while trying to push off all those nicely streamlined, jet-propelled rocket trucks on the marketplace.
We note again a charming letter from Waverly Rudisill of Iron Station. By way of defeating the concept of a common God worshipped by Jews and Christians, the Wave posits: "Judaism is defined by one to be an ethical monotheism. There is nothing supreme in that. Ethical is a prescribed relation of material decay. 'Mono' is a numerical adjective; 'the' is an article and is classified with an adjective. 'Ism' gives it the abstraction. There is nothing supreme in that."
We had to read through it a couple of times to appreciate what the Wave was attempting to say with all of this fancified elucidation he must have got from some great, thick old leather-bound book. Somewhere, however, we had missed that article he mentioned, so deep with profundity was his exegesis of the phraseology. Moreover, as to the decaying material, we still cannot quite fathom his depths as to the relation he suggests to ethics--unless we are to assume he relates ethics somehow to tooth care. (Diamonds again? We don't know. Perhaps, he should read the rest of War and Peace.)
If we thought he was simply trying to be funny, we might at least smirk a little at the gesture, even if so hidden away as to be permanently encapsulated within the Wave's cranial repository. But, that does not appear.
Then it hit us, as to the article at least to which he refers: the word is actually pronounced, according to the Wave, mono-the-ism. Just as, presumably, to him, deism would be de-ism. And, of course, communism would be common-ism. Well, we could go on.
The Wave, no doubt, favored something akin to poly-the-ism, as in "poly want the cracker?"
We won't even begin to investigate his pronunciation of pan-the-ism, or what he might evirtuate for us to slicker up its meaning.
The-ology would naturally be the study of "the", the primary article, being one attested only through faith. (For, candidly now, except perhaps within the evanescences of the augments, which, as we know, amount to nothing anyway, have you ever seen the material manifestation of a the? Not just the effect impelled or the impact on the mind or matter exerted by the the, nor merely its symbolic representation, regardless of medium of expression, but rather the the, itself, as a manifest, integral entity? No, you have not, have you?)
But, then, what would he make of dox-ology? Ah, by Jove, you see, now we see--dox, yes, the relation to decaying material. There, now, very elementary.
His letters, as the editors suggest, do, however unwittingly, provide insight to some of the problem through time.
Incidentally, in answer to the query elsewhere on the page: We don't know precisely. But maybe it was Forester?
The case of Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934), as commented upon by Raymond Clapper, held that price fixing by the government of milk sold by retailers to the public did not violate either Due Process or Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment. A conviction of a retailer who sold two quarts of milk and a five-cent loaf of bread for 18 cents, when the established rate was no more or less than 9 cents per quart for milk, was therefore affirmed, the regulation having fallen within the purview of the proper police powers of the state. The tension here established by the Constitution is the prohibition against government interference with contracts, which prevails provided that contracts are not constructed so as to do harm to society at large. As milk is a necessary part of the diet, and because of the peculiar state of the economy in 1931 and 1932, resulting in higher production costs than return to dairy farmers, plus the particularly perishable nature of milk in the marketplace preventing long-term storage, it was deemed by the Court a part of the government's power to protect public consumption by assuring a profitable market for milk from producer to distributor to retailer to consumer. Thus, price controls were upheld as reasonable in such crucial industries where an unfettered free marketplace might otherwise cause substantial harm to the public's ability to afford the commodity, or for the producer and distributor to make a fair profit from it.
Of course, while all of that, viewed systemically, is sound in theory, it nevertheless chafes the sensibilities to realize that a storekeeper in 1933, likely confronted with mothers struggling to feed their families in the throes of the Depression, merely wished to make it easier on his customers to afford bread and milk, was then prosecuted for that noble sentiment. Where does individuality fit with the systemic urges of economy? Must it always be sublimated to accommodate the whole, even if in so doing the individual is demeaned beyond dignity and recognition as a human being? If so, aren't we a bunch of Commies, Mr. Justice Roberts?
Anyway, got klim?
Come to think on it--price controls on a Tesla. Now there's a thought.
Links-Date -- Links-Subj.