Inter-Galactic Memo
Fr: W. Leavitt
To: The usual suspects
Re: Nebraska’s new law
Last July, Nebraska lawmakers tried to address a growing problem. They passed a law allowing parents to take a “child” to any hospital and abandon it. No questions asked, no legal repercussions. The law was intended to protect newborns and infants, who might otherwise end up dead and tossed in a dumpster—something which happens all too often.
This piece of legislation was well-intentioned, and I applaud the sentiment, but it was not well-considered. It is poorly worded, using the terms ‘child’ and ‘children’ instead of infant and/or newborn, and set the age limit at under 19. Since it went into law, at least 16 kids have been dropped-off, some of them teenagers.
We (and by we, I mean anyone who has been a parent longer than ten minutes) all know how difficult, challenging and stressful it can be to raise one or more children. Sometimes we just want to . . . drop them off somewhere, change our names and move away. But we don’t. There is no responsibility in all of human existence more sacred, profound and important that being a mom or dad. Most of us know this, and do whatever it takes to stick it out. It’s almost always worth it eventually, but there are no guarantees.
sometimes a parent finds themselves in an untenable situation. Lost, alone, at the end of their rope, with nothing left to give, to do, to believe. And sometimes kids accidentally have kids of their own and don’t know what to do. Which makes the hospital drop-off a wonderful idea.
But the law isn’t working the way it was supposed to. Government seems to be a continuing exercise in unintended consequences.
One man recently dropped all nine of his children off, ages 1 to 17. Sounds terrible doesn’t it? But his wife had died a few months previous, and he had to quit his job to take care of the kids, and one thing led to another. Talk about being at your wits end. It’s easy to pass judgment on something like this, but we all have different strengths and weaknesses, and varying levels of tolerance and expertise. The poor guy didn’t know what else to do, and there was the new law. At least the kids will be taken care of, I’m sure he was thinking, at least they will be fed and clothed and go to school. My heart goes out to the guy. But I have to ask myself, where was his support? Where was his family, his church, his friends? Maybe there weren’t any—who knows? Even though Nita and I are past all that—empty nesters—it is good to look back and know that we would never have had to face such a decision. Our extended family would have done whatever was necessary to see to it that our family stayed together. And, God forbid, if something should happen to one of our children, we would be right there to take over—as would the other sets of grandparents.
The problem with this scenario in Nebraska is not obvious. It isn’t people who can’t take care of their kids, it’s who should step in when they can’t—or won’t. In this case, government stepped in, which is almost always a mistake in these kinds of situations. We are losing the most important infrastructure of all—the network of family and friends, especially those with whom we attend religious services, and other private organizations designed to help in these kinds of circumstances. Over the decades we have been slowly inculcated with this idea that government will be there, that it is “their” job to take care of everything. And slowly, we have been sucked into that lie. It is this lie that was at the heart of the disaster in New Orleans during Katrina. It wasn’t the Governor or Mayor, and it wasn’t President Bush and his FEMA people (although it could have been handled better) it was this pervasive and crippling idea that government will always be there, can solve any problem—which they have been telling us now for far too long. This idea is why thousands of people sat and did nothing while the water rose and the dikes broke. They had been trained to do just that. And we see it elsewhere as well. In fires, earthquakes, floods, and in economic implosions. The government will take care of it, don’t worry.
Maybe we should rethink this trend. Maybe we should take care of it. A few people do. They drop what they are doing and go to where they are needed and stay until its fixed. Most of us don’t—can’t, to be realistic. But not because it’s impossible. We don’t or can’t because the system has been altered. Once upon a time it was done differently. I think the change began when President Roosevelt gave us the New Deal. I could be wrong. But FDR would have liked this new law— bring your unwanted children to a hospital, and we will take care of everything. It is humane, kind, and obviously comes from a place of compassion. But it is wrong. Not wrong as in immoral, but wrong as in a mistake. We have become a nation addicted to government at every level. And we need to kick the habit.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
IGM PETA and breast milk
IGM
This is about PETA and therefore does not deserve the usual heading and memo format. I have already blocked the source of this, although my brother might have sent a link with the story.
PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has released an official proclamation asking (at least I think they asked, but they do a good deal of strident demanding, whining, begging, coercing and confrontational harassing) Ben And Jerry (Of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream—my second favorite kind) to switch from cow’s milk to breast milk. That’s human breast milk.
I assume that in their deluded little world of “Planet Death to Humans” PETA thinks that milking cows is cruel and unusual. True, we are the only creature I know of which continues drinking milk past infancy, and uses the milk of another animal, and I can see some room for a lively debate on those points, but despite those caveats, how is it possible that a group of presumably sane people can come to such a desperately unsane conclusion?
I am familiar with the process of milking a cow. Not intimately, but I have tried it, and been around it off and on. Both my parents did a lot of it in their youth. I’ve never seen a cow behave as if it objected to the milking. Sometimes they kick or bolt, but that is usually because someone had cold hands, or squeezed where they shouldn’t have, or startled the animal. PETA will counter with the argument that commercial dairies lock the cow in a metal cage when they are hooked up to the automatic milking machine. I will counter the counter by saying “are you people complete morons?” They put them in the cages so they don’t wander off halfway through—that might be painful. So they are protecting them, not abusing them. Notice the cows don’t protest the process.
Now, let’s move on to the breast milk part of the proposal. Ben and Jerry’s is headquartered in Vermont. There are about 750,000 people in Vermont. (Yes, I looked it up) I can just picture every lactating female pumping her breasts every day to sell to an ice cream company. (To hell with the kid, we need the money.) I’m sure Ben and Jerry would be willing to pay for such a service. Considering the inconvenience, the stigma, and the tiny amount of milk from each session, I put the wholesale price of breast milk at around $100 an ounce. Probably more. Which would what—triple?—the price of their product. But even if every legal-age female adult in the state regularly sold their milk, (Which is possible, but that’s another story) they would be around a million gallons short. Now the price of breast milk rises to several thousand an ounce. But what woman would do it? Not even the members of PETA. Although Pamela Anderson could make serious bank if she did, and videotaped it.
Ben and Jerry’s response was precious. They essentially said, “What a wonderful and creative idea, but no thanks.”
So why the letter? Two reasons, which are always the same with PETA. The first is political agitation. The second is attention. PETA is, at its heart, a collection of people who believe they are sincere about their cause, but are really just a bunch of sad, pathetic, personality-challenged, socially-inept . . .
No, that’s not fair. They are well-intentioned. But ontologically misinformed. PETA can only happen in the screwed-up, humanist, Godless culture of Hubris Inc. Otherwise known as America, circa right now.
They weren’t serious about the breast milk. They were trying to make a point. As usual the point was ridiculous. Animals have no inherent rights. Which sort of puts the entire reason for PETA’s existence to rest. Only creatures with the ability to cognitively realize the concept of “rights” can have rights. Cogito Ergo sum. Whatever that means.
This is about PETA and therefore does not deserve the usual heading and memo format. I have already blocked the source of this, although my brother might have sent a link with the story.
PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has released an official proclamation asking (at least I think they asked, but they do a good deal of strident demanding, whining, begging, coercing and confrontational harassing) Ben And Jerry (Of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream—my second favorite kind) to switch from cow’s milk to breast milk. That’s human breast milk.
I assume that in their deluded little world of “Planet Death to Humans” PETA thinks that milking cows is cruel and unusual. True, we are the only creature I know of which continues drinking milk past infancy, and uses the milk of another animal, and I can see some room for a lively debate on those points, but despite those caveats, how is it possible that a group of presumably sane people can come to such a desperately unsane conclusion?
I am familiar with the process of milking a cow. Not intimately, but I have tried it, and been around it off and on. Both my parents did a lot of it in their youth. I’ve never seen a cow behave as if it objected to the milking. Sometimes they kick or bolt, but that is usually because someone had cold hands, or squeezed where they shouldn’t have, or startled the animal. PETA will counter with the argument that commercial dairies lock the cow in a metal cage when they are hooked up to the automatic milking machine. I will counter the counter by saying “are you people complete morons?” They put them in the cages so they don’t wander off halfway through—that might be painful. So they are protecting them, not abusing them. Notice the cows don’t protest the process.
Now, let’s move on to the breast milk part of the proposal. Ben and Jerry’s is headquartered in Vermont. There are about 750,000 people in Vermont. (Yes, I looked it up) I can just picture every lactating female pumping her breasts every day to sell to an ice cream company. (To hell with the kid, we need the money.) I’m sure Ben and Jerry would be willing to pay for such a service. Considering the inconvenience, the stigma, and the tiny amount of milk from each session, I put the wholesale price of breast milk at around $100 an ounce. Probably more. Which would what—triple?—the price of their product. But even if every legal-age female adult in the state regularly sold their milk, (Which is possible, but that’s another story) they would be around a million gallons short. Now the price of breast milk rises to several thousand an ounce. But what woman would do it? Not even the members of PETA. Although Pamela Anderson could make serious bank if she did, and videotaped it.
Ben and Jerry’s response was precious. They essentially said, “What a wonderful and creative idea, but no thanks.”
So why the letter? Two reasons, which are always the same with PETA. The first is political agitation. The second is attention. PETA is, at its heart, a collection of people who believe they are sincere about their cause, but are really just a bunch of sad, pathetic, personality-challenged, socially-inept . . .
No, that’s not fair. They are well-intentioned. But ontologically misinformed. PETA can only happen in the screwed-up, humanist, Godless culture of Hubris Inc. Otherwise known as America, circa right now.
They weren’t serious about the breast milk. They were trying to make a point. As usual the point was ridiculous. Animals have no inherent rights. Which sort of puts the entire reason for PETA’s existence to rest. Only creatures with the ability to cognitively realize the concept of “rights” can have rights. Cogito Ergo sum. Whatever that means.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
IGM Conflicting Theories
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: People with nothing better to do
Fr: W. Leavitt (who had nothing better to do)
Re: Scientists with nothing better to do . . . . .
There are two semi-fascinating articles on Physorg.com today. One, coming to us from Oxford, that ancient repository of theoretical brilliance and degenerate buggery, claims that Dark Matter (remember that? We’ve talked about it before) does not exist. It had to happen, right?
In order to explain the phenomenon they’ve been seeing, the boys (and girls I assume) at Oxford say that it is more likely we (the earth, Milky Way, local group) just happen to be in an area of the universe that is “a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low.” Well, that makes sense. Occam comes to the rescue again.
In other words, I guess, instead of there being a hundred times more matter than we see out there, we live in a place that is unusually low in matter. The rest of the universe has lots more, which accounts for the motion of galaxies, etc.
Just two doors down from that article is another from NASA. Scientists there have found a new, very small motion in distant galactic clusters. Not individual galaxies mind you—not enough mass in just one—but in clusters of hundreds of galaxies that are gravitationally connected. They have decided ( I imagine them voting on napkins in the break room) that "The clusters show a small but measurable velocity that is independent of the universe's expansion and does not change as distances increase." In other words, there is apparently something beyond the known (visible) universe. A great deal more mass, which is exerting its own, independent influence on the visible universe as a whole.
What's more, this motion is constant out to at least a billion light-years. "Because the dark flow already extends so far, it likely extends across the visible universe," Kashlinsky says.
The finding flies in the face of predictions from standard cosmological models, which describe such motions as decreasing at ever greater distances.
Now, that’s interesting. In order to make such an effect constant over a billion light years, there would have to be a lot of matter out there beyond what we can see. Much more than in that part of the universe we can see. And how would the effect of that matter not decrease over distance? They don’t know. Neither do I, but I have a theory.
So on the one hand, and at the same time, we have a group of very capable, educated people claiming Dark Matter may not exist after all, that we just live in a relative empty region of space, (which would make the Copernican concept of the universe in error) and on the other hand we have a similar group claiming that not only does Dark Matter exist, but that even more of it must be beyond our ability to detect it, beyond the known universe. Actually, the stuff we can’t see—which has to be much more massive than the entire visible universe—could be regular matter, like dirt and pet dander. Nobody knows. Unlike dark matter which we can’t see because its invisible, and currently undetectable, we can’t see that other stuff because it’s just too far away.
So now we have people suggesting that the big bang might not have happened, that the universe is infinite, and that matter and energy are therefore infinite. Hey, that sounds a lot like a religious claim. Specifically, the Christian concept of the universe. “No beginning, no end, stars without number,” all that stuff. See? Science and religion can live together after all.
To: People with nothing better to do
Fr: W. Leavitt (who had nothing better to do)
Re: Scientists with nothing better to do . . . . .
There are two semi-fascinating articles on Physorg.com today. One, coming to us from Oxford, that ancient repository of theoretical brilliance and degenerate buggery, claims that Dark Matter (remember that? We’ve talked about it before) does not exist. It had to happen, right?
In order to explain the phenomenon they’ve been seeing, the boys (and girls I assume) at Oxford say that it is more likely we (the earth, Milky Way, local group) just happen to be in an area of the universe that is “a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low.” Well, that makes sense. Occam comes to the rescue again.
In other words, I guess, instead of there being a hundred times more matter than we see out there, we live in a place that is unusually low in matter. The rest of the universe has lots more, which accounts for the motion of galaxies, etc.
Just two doors down from that article is another from NASA. Scientists there have found a new, very small motion in distant galactic clusters. Not individual galaxies mind you—not enough mass in just one—but in clusters of hundreds of galaxies that are gravitationally connected. They have decided ( I imagine them voting on napkins in the break room) that "The clusters show a small but measurable velocity that is independent of the universe's expansion and does not change as distances increase." In other words, there is apparently something beyond the known (visible) universe. A great deal more mass, which is exerting its own, independent influence on the visible universe as a whole.
What's more, this motion is constant out to at least a billion light-years. "Because the dark flow already extends so far, it likely extends across the visible universe," Kashlinsky says.
The finding flies in the face of predictions from standard cosmological models, which describe such motions as decreasing at ever greater distances.
Now, that’s interesting. In order to make such an effect constant over a billion light years, there would have to be a lot of matter out there beyond what we can see. Much more than in that part of the universe we can see. And how would the effect of that matter not decrease over distance? They don’t know. Neither do I, but I have a theory.
So on the one hand, and at the same time, we have a group of very capable, educated people claiming Dark Matter may not exist after all, that we just live in a relative empty region of space, (which would make the Copernican concept of the universe in error) and on the other hand we have a similar group claiming that not only does Dark Matter exist, but that even more of it must be beyond our ability to detect it, beyond the known universe. Actually, the stuff we can’t see—which has to be much more massive than the entire visible universe—could be regular matter, like dirt and pet dander. Nobody knows. Unlike dark matter which we can’t see because its invisible, and currently undetectable, we can’t see that other stuff because it’s just too far away.
So now we have people suggesting that the big bang might not have happened, that the universe is infinite, and that matter and energy are therefore infinite. Hey, that sounds a lot like a religious claim. Specifically, the Christian concept of the universe. “No beginning, no end, stars without number,” all that stuff. See? Science and religion can live together after all.
Monday, September 22, 2008
IGM Cold War close call
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: The known universe
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: An old and spooky story
I was watching something on the History Channel tonight, about engineering disasters, and they mentioned a few close calls during the cold war, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it jogged a memory.
My father told me this story years ago. It happened circa 1963. This was the one year we actually lived in Las Vegas, even though I was born here. (Until we moved here to teach.) As far as I know it is still highly classified, but dad is gone, so who cares? Dad had been stationed to Thule Air Force Base, in Thule Greenland, well above the Arctic Circle, as chief of security. He was OSI back then. Thule was part of the new Early Warning System being built as a deterrent against a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union.
When he arrived, the military was installing a new radar system, state of the art—experimental in fact, that was supposed to increase our warning time by at least ten minutes. I guess someone back then thought ten minutes made a difference. The antenna for this system was a slightly curved rectangular web of steel about the size of a football field, and they had two or three of them. As dad tells it, he was awakened one morning around two AM with the news that they had a double-secret, class-one, gold-star emergency. (Okay, I made that part up). At that point protocol took over and dad arrived at the nerve center of the operation, a beyond-top secret control center for the radar installation. As OSI station chief, he was in charge of locking down the base and making sure no one was leaking information. (who you gonna tell four hundred miles north of the arctic circle, an Eskimo?)
The scientists were testing the new radar, a full-power run-up prior to going on-line, when they began to receive multiple signals coming over the north pole. Needless to say, it put them in a panic. There were dozens of signals. The eggheads told the commander the signatures of the signals were strikingly similar to those of an ICBM. But since they were still calibrating the installation, they could not be sure what was happening. Dad recalled that you could have cut the tension with a knife. People were shouting, running, doing everything they could to interpret the signals. Back then we had between 20 and 30 minutes before the nukes began to hit their targets. Everyone in the room was desperately trying to figure out what was going on, how many missiles? where were they coming from? and how long did they have before it was “too late”.
I can’t imagine what it must have felt like. Dad told me that with about three minutes left before we had to launch our own missiles, some of the engineers figured out the mystery. The new radar system was more powerful than they had calculated, by an exponential factor. What they were seeing on their screen was the moon, rising over the ice of Greenland’s interior. For some reason that I’m sure Mister Sammons would know, the moon was coming in as multiple signals.
They called off the alert, re-calibrated the array, and everyone went to the Officers Club and got wasted. Except dad, because he was Mormon. By the way, at the officers club you could choose ice cubes dating from last week to 100,000 years ago, pulled from core samples in the ice.
If there is a point to this story, which as far as I know has never been made public, it is that we have no idea what is happening out there, on any given day. The world is nothing like what we hope, or believe, or dream it is.
To: The known universe
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: An old and spooky story
I was watching something on the History Channel tonight, about engineering disasters, and they mentioned a few close calls during the cold war, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it jogged a memory.
My father told me this story years ago. It happened circa 1963. This was the one year we actually lived in Las Vegas, even though I was born here. (Until we moved here to teach.) As far as I know it is still highly classified, but dad is gone, so who cares? Dad had been stationed to Thule Air Force Base, in Thule Greenland, well above the Arctic Circle, as chief of security. He was OSI back then. Thule was part of the new Early Warning System being built as a deterrent against a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union.
When he arrived, the military was installing a new radar system, state of the art—experimental in fact, that was supposed to increase our warning time by at least ten minutes. I guess someone back then thought ten minutes made a difference. The antenna for this system was a slightly curved rectangular web of steel about the size of a football field, and they had two or three of them. As dad tells it, he was awakened one morning around two AM with the news that they had a double-secret, class-one, gold-star emergency. (Okay, I made that part up). At that point protocol took over and dad arrived at the nerve center of the operation, a beyond-top secret control center for the radar installation. As OSI station chief, he was in charge of locking down the base and making sure no one was leaking information. (who you gonna tell four hundred miles north of the arctic circle, an Eskimo?)
The scientists were testing the new radar, a full-power run-up prior to going on-line, when they began to receive multiple signals coming over the north pole. Needless to say, it put them in a panic. There were dozens of signals. The eggheads told the commander the signatures of the signals were strikingly similar to those of an ICBM. But since they were still calibrating the installation, they could not be sure what was happening. Dad recalled that you could have cut the tension with a knife. People were shouting, running, doing everything they could to interpret the signals. Back then we had between 20 and 30 minutes before the nukes began to hit their targets. Everyone in the room was desperately trying to figure out what was going on, how many missiles? where were they coming from? and how long did they have before it was “too late”.
I can’t imagine what it must have felt like. Dad told me that with about three minutes left before we had to launch our own missiles, some of the engineers figured out the mystery. The new radar system was more powerful than they had calculated, by an exponential factor. What they were seeing on their screen was the moon, rising over the ice of Greenland’s interior. For some reason that I’m sure Mister Sammons would know, the moon was coming in as multiple signals.
They called off the alert, re-calibrated the array, and everyone went to the Officers Club and got wasted. Except dad, because he was Mormon. By the way, at the officers club you could choose ice cubes dating from last week to 100,000 years ago, pulled from core samples in the ice.
If there is a point to this story, which as far as I know has never been made public, it is that we have no idea what is happening out there, on any given day. The world is nothing like what we hope, or believe, or dream it is.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
IGM Obama in Iraq
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: Those interested in the current political landscape
Fr: Leavitt
Re: Troubling situation with Iraq
Following this memo is the actual article from the New York Post. I figured a lot of you won’t want to take the time to read it, but I didn’t want anyone thinking I was making this up.
The gist of it is this: According to quotes from the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, Senator Obama lobbied the Iraqi government to delay troop-withdrawal negotiations until after the election. This while publicly demanding immediate troop withdrawals for months. Apparently—and I’m going out on a limb here—this was in an effort to make it appear as if Obama’s new administration stepped in and saved the day—after the election. Obama also insisted that the delay be undertaken in order to allow congress to be involved in the status of US troops.
"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.
Congress has nothing to do with the prosecution of a foreign war. They can vote to fund it or not and that is all. I’m at a loss as to why Obama thinks Congress should be involved. The only possible reason for this is again, to delay the negotiations until Bush is out.
Obama has been claiming for years that the presence of troops in Iraq is illegal. While in Iraq he suggested that rather than let the “weakened Bush administration” reach an accord, we should seek an extension of the UN Mandate, thus admitting that the US is in Iraq under the formally recognized and legal UN mandate and sanctions against Iraq. He suddenly remembered the UN. Now that’s its in his best interest, the war is no longer “illegal”. (For those of us with only a remedial understanding of things; the war was never illegal. We went under the auspices of the UN Mandate.) Obama even tried to get the military to delay the withdrawals. They declined.
Obama has been pushing for troops to be taken out of Iraq and placed in Afghanistan for months, claiming that was always “where the real war was”. Now he is trying to convince Petraeus to delay that very transfer. Things that make you go h-m-m-m-m-m.
Mark Levin mentioned on his radio show that Obama has violated the Logan Act. This Act, first put into effect in 1799, forbids any unauthorized citizen from negotiating with a foreign government. Unless authorized by the Executive Branch, Senators have no such authority—that’s why we have Ambassadors. Said violation is a felony. No one has ever been prosecuted for this, which is why Jimmy Carter is not in prison.
Senator Obama is pretty confident. In fact, he believes he’s already in the White House. The arrogance is stunning. He rivals my brother.
Now, we all know nothing is going to happen because of any of this. The media will ignore it, Obama’s people will deny it anyway, and we will all blithely believe him. After all, it is Barack Obama—the anointed one. And I’m the last person to demand an investigation or prosecution. I just don’t think this recent faux pas warrants the fuss. But it does speak to the man’s personality, and honor. What he did is clearly dishonorable, if only technically illegal, and if McCain had done it, I would be every bit as amused and disappointed. And you would be hearing about it from every media outlet on the planet.
New York Post: 9-15-08
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."
"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.
Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.
While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.
Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.
By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.
Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.
Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.
According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.
Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.
Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.
Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."
Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."
Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.
Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.
Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.
To: Those interested in the current political landscape
Fr: Leavitt
Re: Troubling situation with Iraq
Following this memo is the actual article from the New York Post. I figured a lot of you won’t want to take the time to read it, but I didn’t want anyone thinking I was making this up.
The gist of it is this: According to quotes from the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, Senator Obama lobbied the Iraqi government to delay troop-withdrawal negotiations until after the election. This while publicly demanding immediate troop withdrawals for months. Apparently—and I’m going out on a limb here—this was in an effort to make it appear as if Obama’s new administration stepped in and saved the day—after the election. Obama also insisted that the delay be undertaken in order to allow congress to be involved in the status of US troops.
"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.
Congress has nothing to do with the prosecution of a foreign war. They can vote to fund it or not and that is all. I’m at a loss as to why Obama thinks Congress should be involved. The only possible reason for this is again, to delay the negotiations until Bush is out.
Obama has been claiming for years that the presence of troops in Iraq is illegal. While in Iraq he suggested that rather than let the “weakened Bush administration” reach an accord, we should seek an extension of the UN Mandate, thus admitting that the US is in Iraq under the formally recognized and legal UN mandate and sanctions against Iraq. He suddenly remembered the UN. Now that’s its in his best interest, the war is no longer “illegal”. (For those of us with only a remedial understanding of things; the war was never illegal. We went under the auspices of the UN Mandate.) Obama even tried to get the military to delay the withdrawals. They declined.
Obama has been pushing for troops to be taken out of Iraq and placed in Afghanistan for months, claiming that was always “where the real war was”. Now he is trying to convince Petraeus to delay that very transfer. Things that make you go h-m-m-m-m-m.
Mark Levin mentioned on his radio show that Obama has violated the Logan Act. This Act, first put into effect in 1799, forbids any unauthorized citizen from negotiating with a foreign government. Unless authorized by the Executive Branch, Senators have no such authority—that’s why we have Ambassadors. Said violation is a felony. No one has ever been prosecuted for this, which is why Jimmy Carter is not in prison.
Senator Obama is pretty confident. In fact, he believes he’s already in the White House. The arrogance is stunning. He rivals my brother.
Now, we all know nothing is going to happen because of any of this. The media will ignore it, Obama’s people will deny it anyway, and we will all blithely believe him. After all, it is Barack Obama—the anointed one. And I’m the last person to demand an investigation or prosecution. I just don’t think this recent faux pas warrants the fuss. But it does speak to the man’s personality, and honor. What he did is clearly dishonorable, if only technically illegal, and if McCain had done it, I would be every bit as amused and disappointed. And you would be hearing about it from every media outlet on the planet.
New York Post: 9-15-08
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."
"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.
Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.
While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.
Obama has made many contradictory statements with regard to Iraq. His latest position is that US combat troops should be out by 2010. Yet his effort to delay an agreement would make that withdrawal deadline impossible to meet.
Supposing he wins, Obama's administration wouldn't be fully operational before February - and naming a new ambassador to Baghdad and forming a new negotiation team might take longer still.
By then, Iraq will be in the throes of its own campaign season. Judging by the past two elections, forming a new coalition government may then take three months. So the Iraqi negotiating team might not be in place until next June.
Then, judging by how long the current talks have taken, restarting the process from scratch would leave the two sides needing at least six months to come up with a draft accord. That puts us at May 2010 for when the draft might be submitted to the Iraqi parliament - which might well need another six months to pass it into law.
Thus, the 2010 deadline fixed by Obama is a meaningless concept, thrown in as a sop to his anti-war base.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and the Bush administration have a more flexible timetable in mind.
According to Zebari, the envisaged time span is two or three years - departure in 2011 or 2012. That would let Iraq hold its next general election, the third since liberation, and resolve a number of domestic political issues.
Even then, the dates mentioned are only "notional," making the timing and the cadence of withdrawal conditional on realities on the ground as appreciated by both sides.
Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.
Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."
Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."
Obama has given Iraqis the impression that he doesn't want Iraq to appear anything like a success, let alone a victory, for America. The reason? He fears that the perception of US victory there might revive the Bush Doctrine of "pre-emptive" war - that is, removing a threat before it strikes at America.
Despite some usual equivocations on the subject, Obama rejects pre-emption as a legitimate form of self -defense. To be credible, his foreign-policy philosophy requires Iraq to be seen as a failure, a disaster, a quagmire, a pig with lipstick or any of the other apocalyptic adjectives used by the American defeat industry in the past five years.
Yet Iraq is doing much better than its friends hoped and its enemies feared. The UN mandate will be extended in December, and we may yet get an agreement on the status of forces before President Bush leaves the White House in January.
Abortion Revisited
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: The usual
Fr: Leavitt
Re: Roe V Wade, redux
I apologize at the outset. It is not my intent to offend anyone. This debate is never going to go away, but some of us just can’t leave it alone. I am sincere when I ask for someone else’s viewpoint. If you consider yourself to be a “radical” feminist, you might want to pass this one by. I assure you, it’s nothing personal.
I’ve been reading a lot of stuff on Moveon.org recently, hoping to find some insightful information, opinions, or ideas contrary to my own—or at least new to me. I was reading a list of “Ten Things you need to know about John McCain”. In this bulleted list, they label Senator McCain as opposing a woman’s right to choose, which is accurate, but disingenuous. McCain has stated that he unequivocally opposes Roe v Wade and believes it should be overturned. At Moveon, no one ever says someone is pro-life. They say a person is anti-choice, painting the Senator as a Neolithic throw-back to patriarchal chauvinism.
This is knowingly skewing what pro-life people are about. We call that Spin. John McCain does not oppose a woman’s right to choose and neither do I. What we oppose is abortion. But the liberal left has done a good job of making people believe we hate women, want to make them chattel again and deprive them of their unalienable rights.
Any woman should have the right to choose an abortion if she is that selfish, weak, afraid, lazy, ambivalent, depressed, terrified, strong, independent, arrogant, or indifferent to life. That isn’t the issue. The issue is this: The fact that a woman may choose to abort her unborn offspring (see how I’m doing some spinning of my own here? I could have just said fetus and changed the whole tone of my point) does not obligate the government to facilitate that choice. Period. This is the difference between “Rights” and “Entitlement.” A woman has the right to chose, and to seek assistance. The government has no obligation to ensure that assistance; but only to see that the choice is not trifled with. A doctor has the right to assist or not to assist. The government’s job is not to facilitate the practical exploitation of rights. Its job is to see to it that those rights are not denied, and that the application of those rights is equitable, and that’s all. In other words, to stay out of the way.
Reversing Roe v Wade would have no affect on a woman’s right to choose. None. (Unless abortion was made illegal again, which I do not believe is likely or necessary.) That idea, inculcated by the more strident Feminists and the liberal left, is specious. Such a reversal might affect the convenience of getting an abortion, and the cost, but not the choice to have one. The two are not the same. The choice is the purview of government; the procedure is up to the individual and her physician. Abortion, as ugly and inhumane as it is, should not be illegal (at least not until we grow up as a people and see the error of our ways). But it should certainly not be guaranteed and funded by government. Such a position is outrageous and detrimental to the orderly continuation of society. If such were the case, there would be plenty of doctors willing to do the procedure, for a fee. Limited access to the procedure in no way inhibits the right to chose, as long as access is legally available. And let’s not even talk about the supposed “unfair advantage” this places on women, or the “unfair disadvantage.” The fact that an individual woman might not be able to afford the procedure and might have to go ahead and have her baby has nothing to do with anything. She should literally have thought about that before she had sex. Sex isn’t a right either, by the way, in case someone was under the erroneous impression that such was the case. We are guaranteed the “pursuit of happiness,” not happiness itself. Now that I think of it, we are guaranteed “life” as well. It seems a reasonable and practical matter that the life of an unborn fetus would fall under that guarantee.
The real issue here is a woman’s choice. And many of us are determined to keep that choice pure and unfettered, even at the cost of sacrificing another life. But I have never understood why this particular choice is so important to women. Seriously. What is it about it that makes the entire subject so intense, the debate so passionate? I understand the “we have the right to make decisions about our own bodies” argument, and I agree. But at the cost of another life? Really? I would love it if someone—preferably a reasonable someone—would email me and explain the fundamental aspects of this—the way it really is. The why. What’s at stake.
Sometimes I feel like Roe v Wade is the result of an inferiority complex; that women were kept in thrall for so long that they reacted without really thinking this through and realizing all the ramifications. I could be wrong . . . Maybe as a male I just don’t get it. Apparently some men do, right? Or at least agree with the principle. But I would never try to limit or restrict a woman’s right to choose. And that declaration is in no way incompatible with finding Roe v Wade a poor decision.
And of course, as I have claimed before, the real choice a woman makes (and a man) is to engage in that activity by which a human female becomes pregnant. That is where the actual morality of the situation lies. Once she (and he) have elected to have sex, it is clearly incumbent on them to accept responsibility for the (biologically inevitable) outcome.
The position of the Bloogers at Moveon, and the morally-bankrupt feminist movement is strictly political. They purposefully ignore the existence of the fetus, making the entire debate about the woman and her “rights”. But having access to government-funded abortions is an entitlement, not a right. And I haven’t said a word about the rights of the fetus, while clearly running logical rings around my opponents.
To: The usual
Fr: Leavitt
Re: Roe V Wade, redux
I apologize at the outset. It is not my intent to offend anyone. This debate is never going to go away, but some of us just can’t leave it alone. I am sincere when I ask for someone else’s viewpoint. If you consider yourself to be a “radical” feminist, you might want to pass this one by. I assure you, it’s nothing personal.
I’ve been reading a lot of stuff on Moveon.org recently, hoping to find some insightful information, opinions, or ideas contrary to my own—or at least new to me. I was reading a list of “Ten Things you need to know about John McCain”. In this bulleted list, they label Senator McCain as opposing a woman’s right to choose, which is accurate, but disingenuous. McCain has stated that he unequivocally opposes Roe v Wade and believes it should be overturned. At Moveon, no one ever says someone is pro-life. They say a person is anti-choice, painting the Senator as a Neolithic throw-back to patriarchal chauvinism.
This is knowingly skewing what pro-life people are about. We call that Spin. John McCain does not oppose a woman’s right to choose and neither do I. What we oppose is abortion. But the liberal left has done a good job of making people believe we hate women, want to make them chattel again and deprive them of their unalienable rights.
Any woman should have the right to choose an abortion if she is that selfish, weak, afraid, lazy, ambivalent, depressed, terrified, strong, independent, arrogant, or indifferent to life. That isn’t the issue. The issue is this: The fact that a woman may choose to abort her unborn offspring (see how I’m doing some spinning of my own here? I could have just said fetus and changed the whole tone of my point) does not obligate the government to facilitate that choice. Period. This is the difference between “Rights” and “Entitlement.” A woman has the right to chose, and to seek assistance. The government has no obligation to ensure that assistance; but only to see that the choice is not trifled with. A doctor has the right to assist or not to assist. The government’s job is not to facilitate the practical exploitation of rights. Its job is to see to it that those rights are not denied, and that the application of those rights is equitable, and that’s all. In other words, to stay out of the way.
Reversing Roe v Wade would have no affect on a woman’s right to choose. None. (Unless abortion was made illegal again, which I do not believe is likely or necessary.) That idea, inculcated by the more strident Feminists and the liberal left, is specious. Such a reversal might affect the convenience of getting an abortion, and the cost, but not the choice to have one. The two are not the same. The choice is the purview of government; the procedure is up to the individual and her physician. Abortion, as ugly and inhumane as it is, should not be illegal (at least not until we grow up as a people and see the error of our ways). But it should certainly not be guaranteed and funded by government. Such a position is outrageous and detrimental to the orderly continuation of society. If such were the case, there would be plenty of doctors willing to do the procedure, for a fee. Limited access to the procedure in no way inhibits the right to chose, as long as access is legally available. And let’s not even talk about the supposed “unfair advantage” this places on women, or the “unfair disadvantage.” The fact that an individual woman might not be able to afford the procedure and might have to go ahead and have her baby has nothing to do with anything. She should literally have thought about that before she had sex. Sex isn’t a right either, by the way, in case someone was under the erroneous impression that such was the case. We are guaranteed the “pursuit of happiness,” not happiness itself. Now that I think of it, we are guaranteed “life” as well. It seems a reasonable and practical matter that the life of an unborn fetus would fall under that guarantee.
The real issue here is a woman’s choice. And many of us are determined to keep that choice pure and unfettered, even at the cost of sacrificing another life. But I have never understood why this particular choice is so important to women. Seriously. What is it about it that makes the entire subject so intense, the debate so passionate? I understand the “we have the right to make decisions about our own bodies” argument, and I agree. But at the cost of another life? Really? I would love it if someone—preferably a reasonable someone—would email me and explain the fundamental aspects of this—the way it really is. The why. What’s at stake.
Sometimes I feel like Roe v Wade is the result of an inferiority complex; that women were kept in thrall for so long that they reacted without really thinking this through and realizing all the ramifications. I could be wrong . . . Maybe as a male I just don’t get it. Apparently some men do, right? Or at least agree with the principle. But I would never try to limit or restrict a woman’s right to choose. And that declaration is in no way incompatible with finding Roe v Wade a poor decision.
And of course, as I have claimed before, the real choice a woman makes (and a man) is to engage in that activity by which a human female becomes pregnant. That is where the actual morality of the situation lies. Once she (and he) have elected to have sex, it is clearly incumbent on them to accept responsibility for the (biologically inevitable) outcome.
The position of the Bloogers at Moveon, and the morally-bankrupt feminist movement is strictly political. They purposefully ignore the existence of the fetus, making the entire debate about the woman and her “rights”. But having access to government-funded abortions is an entitlement, not a right. And I haven’t said a word about the rights of the fetus, while clearly running logical rings around my opponents.
Friday, September 12, 2008
IGM Religious Research
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: whomever
Fr: Leavitt
Re: Religious research
An article in ScienceDaily.com has me wondering who’s in charge around here. Apparently anthropologists have been stymied from studying religious behavior properly because of the nature of religious behavior. To quote:
ScienceDaily (Sep. 10, 2008) — without a way to measure religious beliefs, anthropologists have had difficulty studying religion. Now, two anthropologists from the University of Missouri and Arizona State University have developed a new approach to study religion by focusing on verbal communication, an identifiable behavior, instead of speculating about alleged beliefs in the supernatural that cannot actually be identified.
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this completely defeat the purpose of research into religious belief/behavior? It’s like saying “we know that nine-tenths of an iceberg is underwater, but we can’t see that part, so were going to study this little floating shard right here.
Isn’t religion about the heart and the spirit? Neither of which (in any empirical sense) have ever been quantified. Even the great religionists like Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, Smith, Wesley, Ansalm, etc., have a hard time even describing their experiences, much less defining and analyzing them.
Here’s a good example; St. Ansalm once described God as “That than which no greater can be conceived.” Which means nothing, essentially. He’s saying that God is beyond our ability to imagine, to comprehend in any way. Whatever we can’t conceive—that’s God. And he’s a Saint!
So here come some upstart boys from the University system deciding to circumvent this annoying problem by coming up with the idea to study the way religious people talk to one another. As if the vocal part of that communication will have anything relevant thing to say about the religious experience. Okay, I know—it will say something. But what? Any information or insight garnered from such a study is doomed to insignificance, to superficiality. but these guys will take whatever they get, and turn it into a major study, because that’s how academics get paid—by winning funding from grants. Never mind the relevance of the research.
Maybe I’m just a pessimist. I don’t understand my own belief. Nor do I pretend to understand some of the spiritual experiences I’ve had—but no one can tell me I didn’t have them or that they weren’t genuine. So good luck to Craig T. Palmer and Lyle B. Steadman. I hope they figure it all out. But I won’t be investing in the program.
To: whomever
Fr: Leavitt
Re: Religious research
An article in ScienceDaily.com has me wondering who’s in charge around here. Apparently anthropologists have been stymied from studying religious behavior properly because of the nature of religious behavior. To quote:
ScienceDaily (Sep. 10, 2008) — without a way to measure religious beliefs, anthropologists have had difficulty studying religion. Now, two anthropologists from the University of Missouri and Arizona State University have developed a new approach to study religion by focusing on verbal communication, an identifiable behavior, instead of speculating about alleged beliefs in the supernatural that cannot actually be identified.
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this completely defeat the purpose of research into religious belief/behavior? It’s like saying “we know that nine-tenths of an iceberg is underwater, but we can’t see that part, so were going to study this little floating shard right here.
Isn’t religion about the heart and the spirit? Neither of which (in any empirical sense) have ever been quantified. Even the great religionists like Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, Smith, Wesley, Ansalm, etc., have a hard time even describing their experiences, much less defining and analyzing them.
Here’s a good example; St. Ansalm once described God as “That than which no greater can be conceived.” Which means nothing, essentially. He’s saying that God is beyond our ability to imagine, to comprehend in any way. Whatever we can’t conceive—that’s God. And he’s a Saint!
So here come some upstart boys from the University system deciding to circumvent this annoying problem by coming up with the idea to study the way religious people talk to one another. As if the vocal part of that communication will have anything relevant thing to say about the religious experience. Okay, I know—it will say something. But what? Any information or insight garnered from such a study is doomed to insignificance, to superficiality. but these guys will take whatever they get, and turn it into a major study, because that’s how academics get paid—by winning funding from grants. Never mind the relevance of the research.
Maybe I’m just a pessimist. I don’t understand my own belief. Nor do I pretend to understand some of the spiritual experiences I’ve had—but no one can tell me I didn’t have them or that they weren’t genuine. So good luck to Craig T. Palmer and Lyle B. Steadman. I hope they figure it all out. But I won’t be investing in the program.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Obama's real agenda
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: Anybody willing to listen
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Troubling revelation
You know how life goes along apace, nothing really happening, and then suddenly, from out of nowhere, you hear or read or see something that forces you to reevaluate, make hard decisions, despite wanting to just turn away and go back to the way it was? I hate it when that happens. But it does, and yesterday, it happened again.
I heard some very disturbing, potentially devastating news. A radio talk show host began to quote a story out of the current Investor’s Business Daily, a well-respected financial magazine.
The host began by asking a few callers if they had heard about “Trooper-gate”, the flap over Governor Palin’s involvement in the firing of an Alaska State Trooper. Which she was. The Trooper was Palin’s brother-in-law until recently. He was physically abuse to his ex-wife. Palin fired the guy who was over the Troopers because he was blocking her investigation. That guy said, and I quote;
“Let's be clear. Governor Palin has done nothing wrong and is an open book in this process.”
The callers knew all about it. The host was making a point. That being that no one had heard the other story concerning Senator and Mrs. Obama, which broke in a major financial publication and instantly went nowhere. The paper told us that Barak and Michelle Obama were involved in an organization called “Public Allies”, a social activism outfit in Chicago. Barak was a founder, and Michelle was the Executive Director. They have branches in about ten cities, but plan, when they get to the White House, to make this a nationwide movement of volunteer training and service. Sounds great. Naturally, they will pay for it with tax payers money to the tune of as much as 500 billion a year.
But that’s not the troubling part. Remember when Obama said, speaking to the America public, he would “never let us sit idly by again, never allow us to be unengaged”? This is what he meant. Public Allies is intended to be a “Universal, voluntary Public Service.” Let’s see . . . universal, that means everybody, and voluntary, that means . . . well, everybody again I guess. (Now that I think of it, that’s a great description of our income tax system; a universal, voluntary public service. Check the instructions in your tax form. It’s voluntary.)
According to some recent disaffected graduates from the program, here is what they learned in the training seminars from Public Allies:
A graduate of the 2005 Los Angeles class, Nelly Nieblas, says “it's just a lot of talk about race. It's a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, a lot of talk about isms and phobias.”
Some of the activities the volunteers will be involved in will be, rallying and protesting for “Justice and Equality”, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail, and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare programs. While there is no doubt they do some good work in communities, and that many of the individuals are sincere about their service, a lot of them don’t like the indoctrination atmosphere in the seminars and mandatory retreats where the recruits are told that “individual salvation depends on collective salvation”. "Don't go into corporate America, work for the community, be social workers, shun the money culture."
Now comes the part that drew a line I will not cross.
A Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes heterosexism as a negative byproduct of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege.
Someone is going to attempt to make your children believe that heterosexuality is an ism. The ugly specter of politicizing sexuality raises its head once again. First of all, two seconds of idle reflection will reveal the outrageous (and purposeful) flaw in such a statement. The people making these incendiary statements are humanists, by and large, who believe that we are organisms like any other living thing on the planet. What happened to 100 million years of evolution? If one is a Darwinist, one accepts that we evolved to become what we are. Heterosexuality is our method of reproduction, which according to their own propaganda, is our only reason for existence—to reproduce! But here comes the Public Allies—remember, Barak is a founder and Michelle the Executive Director—telling us that heterosexism is a product of Capitalism? White Supremacy? Male dominated privilege? Are you paying attention to this? If that’s the case—and it clearly isn’t—then what does that say about homosexism? Which has nothing to do with reproduction. I’m sure someone will want to declare that I’m misreading their pamphlet, that heterosexuality and heterosexism are two different things. They will claim that heterosexism is a learned bias towards heterosexuality, which they will equate with homophobia. But we can’t have it both ways. Is our reproductive system learned or natural? This should mean that homosexuality, by their own logic ,must be a product of something as well, rather than the natural result of genetics we have been lead to believe. Does this mean that if cultures were something other than “Patriarchal” we would not have reproduced? This is nonsense. This is the worst kind of dialectic, and it sounds familiar. This kind of rhetoric comes straight out of radical Marxism.
We have seen this before—when people conspire to alter the landscape by speaking from both sides of their mouth, saying one thing, while meaning another. That is the definition of “Dialectic Materialism”, the system Marx used to indoctrinate the proletariat. It is the same kind of duplicitous dreck the Nazi’s used to bamboozle Chamberlain, who famously came back to England crowing about “peace in our time” while Hitler invaded Poland.
Okay, I know many of you don’t believe a word of this. I’ve probably offended the sensibilities of a few people, and I apologize. But ladies and gentlemen, I am not wrong. Vote for this man at your own peril. As for me, I am not going to be on the wrong side of this. I am not going to have to sit there when I’m eighty and have my grandchildren stick their fingers in my face and scream at me “you knew back then! And you did NOTHING!” Because that sounds familiar as well.
I do not know Barak Obama. I do not—cannot—know his heart. But I don’t think he is evil or conspiring. I think he has an agenda, as does every politician, that he wants to lead the country in a specific direction based on what he has leaned and internalized—his values and standards, his ideology, his core beliefs. I believe the same of John McCain. But I believe (and this has been reinforced by the Public Allies story) that Obama is essentially a socialist, which I have claimed before. I don’t believe espousing socialism, or communism, makes a person evil, or bad. But I do strongly disagree with the tenets of both. I believe that anyone in this country is welcome to think of themselves as a socialist or a communist, a Nazi, a Utopian, a Bokonanist, an atheist, a religionist, a pagan . . . pretty much whatever they choose if it isn’t illegal or immoral, and I don’t see socialism as either. However, in this country, our system of government is based on the idea of a Republic, a limited form of democracy, the idea that the individual is sacrosanct, that the state exists for the benefit of the individual, that a free market, unfettered by state control, will lead to better lives and livelihoods. These ideals are the antithesis of socialism. It makes no sense for someone to try and change our heritage, our legacy, our Endowment, to the opposite of what it is. If someone insists on living a socialist life where wealth is distributed according to the interests of the state, should they not go found their own country? Their own government? Or immigrate to a country already set up to mirror their beliefs? If a person wants universal health care and the redistribution of wealth and the absolute acceptance of every lifestyle on an purely egalitarian basis, should they not relocate the Canada or Sweden or France? Why the strident insistence that we change this country? What is the purpose of this desperate attempt to remake America in the image of the former Soviet Union? Does Obama still believe—despite solid evidence to the contrary—that his system is superior? Can anyone possibly be that naive? Or selfish? Or is it simply that no one believes these accusations? The truth is, everyone who votes for Obama this November, will be voting for a socialist state and the death of America as we know it. Whether that will actually happen is another issue, because a lot of people won’t want to let it happen once they finally understand what’s happening. And we still have Congress and the Judicial to act as a balance to whatever the executive branch tries to do. I’m just astounded at the number of people who either do not get this, or are on board with it. Obama only has your best interest at heart if you actually want your freedom and independence to be restricted, actually want your money to be taken away and given to someone else, and actually want your country to be handed over to the globalists, it’s sovereignty diminished, it’s power stripped, and it’s Constitution rewritten to reflect the Communist Manifesto. I guess a lot of people want to be taken care of. Well, I do too, but not by the state.
Now ask yourselves, why did no one pick up this Alliance story? They can’t have missed it. Where’s NBC on this? Or Keith Olberman? Or anybody? But we know all about Bristol Palin’s indiscretion, don’t we.
Lastly, I have said several times how unhappy I am with the choices this election. I am not a McCain guy. I have been vacillating between not voting at all or writing someone in. But this latest revelation has galvanized me. I will vote for John. At this point I am not willing to gamble with Obama’s ideas of change. So yes, if it means four more years of the same old thing, I will settle for that. But I don’t think it will be the same. I think it will be interesting. And at least I can be confident that I will still have an America when McCain is finished.
To: Anybody willing to listen
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Troubling revelation
You know how life goes along apace, nothing really happening, and then suddenly, from out of nowhere, you hear or read or see something that forces you to reevaluate, make hard decisions, despite wanting to just turn away and go back to the way it was? I hate it when that happens. But it does, and yesterday, it happened again.
I heard some very disturbing, potentially devastating news. A radio talk show host began to quote a story out of the current Investor’s Business Daily, a well-respected financial magazine.
The host began by asking a few callers if they had heard about “Trooper-gate”, the flap over Governor Palin’s involvement in the firing of an Alaska State Trooper. Which she was. The Trooper was Palin’s brother-in-law until recently. He was physically abuse to his ex-wife. Palin fired the guy who was over the Troopers because he was blocking her investigation. That guy said, and I quote;
“Let's be clear. Governor Palin has done nothing wrong and is an open book in this process.”
The callers knew all about it. The host was making a point. That being that no one had heard the other story concerning Senator and Mrs. Obama, which broke in a major financial publication and instantly went nowhere. The paper told us that Barak and Michelle Obama were involved in an organization called “Public Allies”, a social activism outfit in Chicago. Barak was a founder, and Michelle was the Executive Director. They have branches in about ten cities, but plan, when they get to the White House, to make this a nationwide movement of volunteer training and service. Sounds great. Naturally, they will pay for it with tax payers money to the tune of as much as 500 billion a year.
But that’s not the troubling part. Remember when Obama said, speaking to the America public, he would “never let us sit idly by again, never allow us to be unengaged”? This is what he meant. Public Allies is intended to be a “Universal, voluntary Public Service.” Let’s see . . . universal, that means everybody, and voluntary, that means . . . well, everybody again I guess. (Now that I think of it, that’s a great description of our income tax system; a universal, voluntary public service. Check the instructions in your tax form. It’s voluntary.)
According to some recent disaffected graduates from the program, here is what they learned in the training seminars from Public Allies:
A graduate of the 2005 Los Angeles class, Nelly Nieblas, says “it's just a lot of talk about race. It's a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, a lot of talk about isms and phobias.”
Some of the activities the volunteers will be involved in will be, rallying and protesting for “Justice and Equality”, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail, and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare programs. While there is no doubt they do some good work in communities, and that many of the individuals are sincere about their service, a lot of them don’t like the indoctrination atmosphere in the seminars and mandatory retreats where the recruits are told that “individual salvation depends on collective salvation”. "Don't go into corporate America, work for the community, be social workers, shun the money culture."
Now comes the part that drew a line I will not cross.
A Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes heterosexism as a negative byproduct of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege.
Someone is going to attempt to make your children believe that heterosexuality is an ism. The ugly specter of politicizing sexuality raises its head once again. First of all, two seconds of idle reflection will reveal the outrageous (and purposeful) flaw in such a statement. The people making these incendiary statements are humanists, by and large, who believe that we are organisms like any other living thing on the planet. What happened to 100 million years of evolution? If one is a Darwinist, one accepts that we evolved to become what we are. Heterosexuality is our method of reproduction, which according to their own propaganda, is our only reason for existence—to reproduce! But here comes the Public Allies—remember, Barak is a founder and Michelle the Executive Director—telling us that heterosexism is a product of Capitalism? White Supremacy? Male dominated privilege? Are you paying attention to this? If that’s the case—and it clearly isn’t—then what does that say about homosexism? Which has nothing to do with reproduction. I’m sure someone will want to declare that I’m misreading their pamphlet, that heterosexuality and heterosexism are two different things. They will claim that heterosexism is a learned bias towards heterosexuality, which they will equate with homophobia. But we can’t have it both ways. Is our reproductive system learned or natural? This should mean that homosexuality, by their own logic ,must be a product of something as well, rather than the natural result of genetics we have been lead to believe. Does this mean that if cultures were something other than “Patriarchal” we would not have reproduced? This is nonsense. This is the worst kind of dialectic, and it sounds familiar. This kind of rhetoric comes straight out of radical Marxism.
We have seen this before—when people conspire to alter the landscape by speaking from both sides of their mouth, saying one thing, while meaning another. That is the definition of “Dialectic Materialism”, the system Marx used to indoctrinate the proletariat. It is the same kind of duplicitous dreck the Nazi’s used to bamboozle Chamberlain, who famously came back to England crowing about “peace in our time” while Hitler invaded Poland.
Okay, I know many of you don’t believe a word of this. I’ve probably offended the sensibilities of a few people, and I apologize. But ladies and gentlemen, I am not wrong. Vote for this man at your own peril. As for me, I am not going to be on the wrong side of this. I am not going to have to sit there when I’m eighty and have my grandchildren stick their fingers in my face and scream at me “you knew back then! And you did NOTHING!” Because that sounds familiar as well.
I do not know Barak Obama. I do not—cannot—know his heart. But I don’t think he is evil or conspiring. I think he has an agenda, as does every politician, that he wants to lead the country in a specific direction based on what he has leaned and internalized—his values and standards, his ideology, his core beliefs. I believe the same of John McCain. But I believe (and this has been reinforced by the Public Allies story) that Obama is essentially a socialist, which I have claimed before. I don’t believe espousing socialism, or communism, makes a person evil, or bad. But I do strongly disagree with the tenets of both. I believe that anyone in this country is welcome to think of themselves as a socialist or a communist, a Nazi, a Utopian, a Bokonanist, an atheist, a religionist, a pagan . . . pretty much whatever they choose if it isn’t illegal or immoral, and I don’t see socialism as either. However, in this country, our system of government is based on the idea of a Republic, a limited form of democracy, the idea that the individual is sacrosanct, that the state exists for the benefit of the individual, that a free market, unfettered by state control, will lead to better lives and livelihoods. These ideals are the antithesis of socialism. It makes no sense for someone to try and change our heritage, our legacy, our Endowment, to the opposite of what it is. If someone insists on living a socialist life where wealth is distributed according to the interests of the state, should they not go found their own country? Their own government? Or immigrate to a country already set up to mirror their beliefs? If a person wants universal health care and the redistribution of wealth and the absolute acceptance of every lifestyle on an purely egalitarian basis, should they not relocate the Canada or Sweden or France? Why the strident insistence that we change this country? What is the purpose of this desperate attempt to remake America in the image of the former Soviet Union? Does Obama still believe—despite solid evidence to the contrary—that his system is superior? Can anyone possibly be that naive? Or selfish? Or is it simply that no one believes these accusations? The truth is, everyone who votes for Obama this November, will be voting for a socialist state and the death of America as we know it. Whether that will actually happen is another issue, because a lot of people won’t want to let it happen once they finally understand what’s happening. And we still have Congress and the Judicial to act as a balance to whatever the executive branch tries to do. I’m just astounded at the number of people who either do not get this, or are on board with it. Obama only has your best interest at heart if you actually want your freedom and independence to be restricted, actually want your money to be taken away and given to someone else, and actually want your country to be handed over to the globalists, it’s sovereignty diminished, it’s power stripped, and it’s Constitution rewritten to reflect the Communist Manifesto. I guess a lot of people want to be taken care of. Well, I do too, but not by the state.
Now ask yourselves, why did no one pick up this Alliance story? They can’t have missed it. Where’s NBC on this? Or Keith Olberman? Or anybody? But we know all about Bristol Palin’s indiscretion, don’t we.
Lastly, I have said several times how unhappy I am with the choices this election. I am not a McCain guy. I have been vacillating between not voting at all or writing someone in. But this latest revelation has galvanized me. I will vote for John. At this point I am not willing to gamble with Obama’s ideas of change. So yes, if it means four more years of the same old thing, I will settle for that. But I don’t think it will be the same. I think it will be interesting. And at least I can be confident that I will still have an America when McCain is finished.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The Big Eruption
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All humans everywhere
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Big Bang
I had an epiphany recently, and thought I would share it with the seven people who semi-regularly read my memos.
Actually, the idea came to me as I was working on my latest epic sci-fi novel, entitled Fusion, but I’ve been thinking about it and have decided it isn’t just a bunch of technical gibberish, but a viable theory concerning the origins of the universe. (And no, it isn’t 42).
A brief review of the Big Bang theory: According to cosmologists around the world, the original singularity was a point of infinite density and was infinitely small. This description is a literal one, rather than metaphoric, necessary in order to explain the existence of all this matter and energy. You, for example. At some point, this became too much for the singularity, and it exploded, releasing whatever was in there, which, as it expanded and cooled, became matter and energy. Or, as Douglas Adams put it; “first there was nothing; then even that exploded.” Here is my epiphany: If the singularity contained infinite density, how could it have stopped? In other words, once it began, in cannot end. It was (is) an eruption, not an explosion. It continues to this day. We have solved several thorny problems in one fell swoop. First, the inexplicable acceleration of the expansion of the universe, currently explained by “dark matter” of which there is no physical evidence whatsoever. More matter is no longer needed to explain the expansion. The continued eruption of the primordial plasma is pushing the universe further and further out at all times.
This explains the shape and rotation of galaxies as well. The continued eruption allows for infinitely more matter and energy than was previously calculated. We do away with the predicted heat death of the universe, which was always a kind of pessimistic prediction anyway.
“Well why can’t we see it if it’s still erupting?” You might ask. Excellent question. The universe is calculated to be around 15 billion years old (since the Big Eruption began.) As we know, light travels in a vacuum at 300,000 KPS. (186,000 MPS) This means the singularity, wherever it is, must be approximately 15 billion light years away. We do not have any instrumentation that is able to see, or sense, at such a distance.
Further, if the singularity still exists (which it does, spewing exotic plasma), then the universe has a center—something scientists have been denying for years. This is assuming the eruption was more or less equal at all points and formed a sphere as it expanded.
Another thought occurred to me as I was hallucinate—I mean pondering these things. There is quite a controversy over the shape of the universe. Some think this, some think that, Einstein thought it was saddle-shaped. I believer the universe can have no shape. Here’s why. As we all know, shape is “the quality of a distinct object or body in having an external surface or outline of specific form or figure”. But how do we perceive an external surface without referents? A positive shape must be perceived as the obverse of a negative shape. Space and time are created by the Big Eruption, which means there is nothing outside of it. No negative space. Consequently, there is no referent by which we would be able to determine a shape for the universe. It just is. Some will say “no, gravity pulls the mass of the universe into a definable shape.” But I will counter, compared to what? Where is the negative space by which the positive space of the universe can be recognized?
I’m sure that all of you are, as am I, greatly relieved to have all of this finally put to rest. I have run this by Mr. Sammons, who (surprisingly) gave it his stamp of approval as, and I quote; “as viable as any other theory”.
All of this is, of course, predicated on the belief that the Big Bang ever happened at all, which, as you know, I categorically reject as a possibility.
To: All humans everywhere
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Big Bang
I had an epiphany recently, and thought I would share it with the seven people who semi-regularly read my memos.
Actually, the idea came to me as I was working on my latest epic sci-fi novel, entitled Fusion, but I’ve been thinking about it and have decided it isn’t just a bunch of technical gibberish, but a viable theory concerning the origins of the universe. (And no, it isn’t 42).
A brief review of the Big Bang theory: According to cosmologists around the world, the original singularity was a point of infinite density and was infinitely small. This description is a literal one, rather than metaphoric, necessary in order to explain the existence of all this matter and energy. You, for example. At some point, this became too much for the singularity, and it exploded, releasing whatever was in there, which, as it expanded and cooled, became matter and energy. Or, as Douglas Adams put it; “first there was nothing; then even that exploded.” Here is my epiphany: If the singularity contained infinite density, how could it have stopped? In other words, once it began, in cannot end. It was (is) an eruption, not an explosion. It continues to this day. We have solved several thorny problems in one fell swoop. First, the inexplicable acceleration of the expansion of the universe, currently explained by “dark matter” of which there is no physical evidence whatsoever. More matter is no longer needed to explain the expansion. The continued eruption of the primordial plasma is pushing the universe further and further out at all times.
This explains the shape and rotation of galaxies as well. The continued eruption allows for infinitely more matter and energy than was previously calculated. We do away with the predicted heat death of the universe, which was always a kind of pessimistic prediction anyway.
“Well why can’t we see it if it’s still erupting?” You might ask. Excellent question. The universe is calculated to be around 15 billion years old (since the Big Eruption began.) As we know, light travels in a vacuum at 300,000 KPS. (186,000 MPS) This means the singularity, wherever it is, must be approximately 15 billion light years away. We do not have any instrumentation that is able to see, or sense, at such a distance.
Further, if the singularity still exists (which it does, spewing exotic plasma), then the universe has a center—something scientists have been denying for years. This is assuming the eruption was more or less equal at all points and formed a sphere as it expanded.
Another thought occurred to me as I was hallucinate—I mean pondering these things. There is quite a controversy over the shape of the universe. Some think this, some think that, Einstein thought it was saddle-shaped. I believer the universe can have no shape. Here’s why. As we all know, shape is “the quality of a distinct object or body in having an external surface or outline of specific form or figure”. But how do we perceive an external surface without referents? A positive shape must be perceived as the obverse of a negative shape. Space and time are created by the Big Eruption, which means there is nothing outside of it. No negative space. Consequently, there is no referent by which we would be able to determine a shape for the universe. It just is. Some will say “no, gravity pulls the mass of the universe into a definable shape.” But I will counter, compared to what? Where is the negative space by which the positive space of the universe can be recognized?
I’m sure that all of you are, as am I, greatly relieved to have all of this finally put to rest. I have run this by Mr. Sammons, who (surprisingly) gave it his stamp of approval as, and I quote; “as viable as any other theory”.
All of this is, of course, predicated on the belief that the Big Bang ever happened at all, which, as you know, I categorically reject as a possibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)