Experigraph

corporocybernautics - a trajectory of clauses - the delicate relation of aesthetic opposites (sight-sense - then speech) Act 1 is the Department of War. Act 2 is the National Security Act of 1947 (1). Act 3 is the USA Patriot Act (2). Napolitano provides the Coles Notes theoretical summary of the work, relating its relevance to philosophy, society and you as an individual contributive to that society. The heroics are open-ended and pointed outward, the plot entirely paradoxical in the perspectivisms of safety. More cogently, as Napolitano's character puts it during the crux of the rising action (you see, with this, any attempt to delineate a clear, linear plot will undoubtedly fail): "Homeland security starts with hometown security, and each of us plays a critical role in keeping our country and communities safe" Or, in live form (http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1291648380371.shtm and http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/10493.aspx):

"The items you are presenting do not represent the proper way to engage in a scientific discourse and we will not respond in this manner" (Reprint) What is interesting to me about this debate is not so much its specific content as how it acts out the trappings of officialized sciencese in a manner perfectly evacuative of all science. On the one hand you have the "renegade bloggers" using their namby-pamby web 2.0 gadgets, and on the other you have the hard scientists utilizing respected and established fora (Science mag) to rigorously communicate ideas. It just so happens that it is only the bloggers that are discussing science, those more selective with their venues are completely silent. This is not a case of a proper method of engaging in scientific discourse, it is a matter of either engaging or not, or worse, refusing to engage in the name of some as-yet-unsatisfactory linguistic milieu. The Wizard never speaks except from behind his/her curtain. Is there a