He watercourse no mingle,
Dwell with the earth,
Angel of Canaan
Go on the rise
No whereupon do Mohammad
Spelvin Deluxe: Ball: Turtle
You ejaculate within minutes of penetration.

Hot on the heels of OJ Simpson’s recent cashing in on a book and a Fox show, the Brooklyn Brothers are interested in selling the story of that other unsolved crime of a previous century: Namely IF the Brooklyn Brothers were Jack the Ripper. Fortunately, up until this moment few people have accused our small 21st century New York agency of killing five prostitutes in Victorian, England - probably why we’ve remained at liberty for so long - however, in exchange for a bag full of cash, we’d be delighted to explain how we would have done it IF indeed we were the Jack the Ripper. Which we’re not. No siree.

The decline and fall of the Roman empire, according to Gibbons, was down to a loss of civic virtue and the growing influence of Christianity. In short, the Romans had become soft and flabby; and their reward was no longer in conquest but in heaven.

Some time back, when its attention was on its lawsuits and not on its business, Microsoft also became soft and flabby. By the time it settled its various battles, Gates’ narrow focus on ‘a computer on every desk’ became fuzzy. First, everything on the internet had to have a Microsoft version. Then every device needed to run Microsoft software: PDAs, Phones, Game consoles, and now music.

Zunes seems like the counterpunch of an aging heavyweight boxer who swings giant roundhouse blows that seldom connect. The company itself is still dangerous. It can still knock you out. But most people can nimbly avoid getting struck.

Microsoft is the George Foreman of technology (though not as likeable) and unless it re-invents itself (what about a Microsoft grill?), its decline will be assured as Mike Tyson’s. Perhaps Microsoft’s only consolation is that eventually the iPod will also suffer a similar fate. After all, after the Romans came the Vikings; you only to have to look at Sweden’s current sphere of influence to see how well they fared.

Will Keith Olbermann offer greater insight into the human condition than Salinger - who has not published since 1965? Does Lou Dobbs discuss weightier issues than Arthur Rimbaud - whose entire literary output was squeezed into four thin volumes?

Fortunately, quantity of opinion is no guide to quality of thinking.

But in an age when everybody and anybody (Bill O’Reilly) can publish or broadcast, where every industry and its subset has its own battery of columnists, commentators and experts, how do we separate the wheat from the chafing?

In the internet-fueled-democracy the sine qua non is that self-determination is invariably better than someone else deciding for us. But what qualifications do we have to judge what is important other than our own prejudices and preconceptions? Unless we’re an expert electrician, few of us attempt to rewire the house. What makes us think we are better editors than a professional with a global remit and historical perspective?

The irony of writing this in a blog, by the way, is not lost on the author. Though with this particular blogger there is no equivocation: your time here would be far better spent reading Rimbaud’s A Season in Hell.

The trouble with theoretical science is it’s getting quasi-religious. Ironically, but perhaps not coincidentally, this is happening just as religion, in its efforts to gain acceptance in the classroom, increasingly disguises itself as quasi-scientific.

The problem is not with the religious. They are happy to live without tangible evidence - that’s the gap called faith you leap over when you’re headed into the arms of God. But scientists should know better.

Yet all over the known universe scientists are busy hypothesizing.

Quantum physicists posit theories of parallel universes without one iota of proof that the strings that they are supposed to be made of even exist. Astronomers base universal laws on dark matter without ever spotting a molecule of it. Even Stephen Hawking, in an effort to regain the ascendancy in black hole theory, poses solutions rather than proves them.

Of course, it’s axiomatic that science needs its dreamers but without the necessary proof all science is fiction.

What scientists seem to have forgotten is it is entirely reasonable not to know everything. Although “We Don’t Know Yet” would probably not be a NY Times bestseller or a PBS special, it is far more verifiable than most current theories. Nor should we be ashamed of our ignorance. We’ve only really been thinking objectively since the Enlightenment – a little under 300 years. Einstein’s answer to whether God exists - “I cannot prove he doesn’t” - is not only an eloquent response but a human one – it reminds us of the limitations of our knowledge.

In the end, a world full of ambiguity is a far more interesting place to live than one where we know all the answers.

The Brooklyn Brothers categorically deny the testing of any nuclear weapons this week. We remain committed to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty of 1968. Our nuclear program, and the attending vast stocks of enriched uranium, is intended solely for the generation of energy designed to loosen ConEd’s stranglehold on the city’s power supply. Last week’s ejection of several United Nations inspectors from our offices was an issue of Brooklyn Brothers security and not a sign of a change in the intent of our nuclear program.