Inter-Galactic Memo
To: Self-selected personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, crack political analyst
Re: Obama’s first week
Ha! You thought you’d have heard from me before now, didn’t you? Well, I’ve been doing my best to welcome the new president and allow him the benefit of the doubt. I am a great respecter of the office and have absolutely nothing against Obama personally, as I have stated in past.
But he is off to an uneven start, and it is always the oppositions job to point out flaws in plans, missteps, and poor fashion coordination.
In one of his first decisions as president, he decided to re-introduce federal funding for abortions, and advice on abortions (as well as other family planning choices) for Planned Parenthood outlets in other countries. In consecutive fits of partisan politics, Reagan banned the use of federal money for out-of-country abortions, Clinton un-banned it, and the Bush’s re-banned it. Now Obama feels it necessary to mess around in the affairs of other countries—something we never do. [insert sarcasm here]. Seriously though, in a time of economic stress, one could argue for spending what money we have here at home. Except for those two wars, obviously, and the normal foreign aid we spend every year. And tourism commercials.
Regardless of how we feel personally about abortion (and there’s only one right answer here . . .) what is the logic behind spending money for it overseas?
Let’s see how other countries feel about it.
“I think it’s a travesty!” Oleg P., Sweden. “We can fund our own abortions, thank you!” Jacques Chirac, France. “Abortions? We don’t need no stinkin’ abortions!” Carlos Baca, Mexico.
You get the drift, I’m sure. Gary Bauer had this to say about the abortion decision:
But despite his efforts, the reaction was brutal. Family groups accused him of plotting the "infanticide" of African children. Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, president of the American Values pressure group, said: "It is both sad and infuriating that in the same week President Obama extended new rights to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and began planning to release men whom we know have murdered Americans, he is preparing to sentence innocent children to death through abortion." (UK Telegraph)
Obama seems to be having a bit more trouble with his stimulus package as well. We quote the UK Telegraph:
He faces mounting criticism over his $825 billion economic stimulus plan, from Republican leaders who say the legislation has been drawn up without the input which Mr Obama had promised to allow them.
Apparently the assumption that ascension to the White House would bring the country together was a little short of the mark. Now he’s picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh. Presidents should completely ignore radio personalities—everyone knows that. But instead he said:
“You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Mr Obama said.
This was in response to Limbaugh’s statement that while he wished the new President well, he hoped his policies failed. My sentiments exactly. I can’t imagine why so many people thought everything would be wonderful and we would all discover consensus when Obama stepped into the Oval Office. Nothing has changed. Those of us who oppose socialism will continue to do so. Those of us who accept the various forms of socially democratic programs will love his ideas. Those of us who decry abortion will continue to do so. Those of us who believe that the Gitmo detainees are prisoners of war will continue to do so.
It seems that President Obama is not going to enjoy the traditional honeymoon of his first one hundred days, either. Again we quote the Telegraph:
The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: "I won. I'm the president."
Not exactly you’re “hope and change” kind of thing to say. But it’ll be fun to watch, won’t it?
After the pomp and circumstance of the inauguration (or, as one of my students misspoke—the “eggnoguration”) one would have thought we were in Shangri-la. I guess we’re not so lucky. We’re still here in the good ole US of A.
To be fair, the new President did say he wants to put a good amount of the stimulus package into science and tech companies, citing several studies that show money is generated faster and over a longer period from these kinds of ventures, so I’m happy about that. See, it isn’t all bad.
The point is, and it’s hard to believe I’m having to say this, conservatives and conservatism is not going to go away. We aren’t going to suddenly and miraculously see the “error of our ways” any more than liberals will. We are going to speak up and speak out. We are going to criticize when called for and praise when we can. The only difference I can think of, in fact, will be the lack of naked vitriol and hatred characterized by certain factions of the liberal movement during the Bush presidency. There won’t be a lot of that.
But I promise to be fair, and inject as much humor as I can find while we struggle to maintain out national identity. Anybody else feel like wearing a mask for the next four years?
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Custom Leather Purse.
An example of my leather work. This is a purse I made for my daughter-in-law for Christmas 08. The design is a custom job and the work is all done entirely by hand. The paint colors are custom mixed by me, and the staining is a five color-slash-step process. I would be happy to take orders for similar items. More to follow. With some luck I will be adding purses, belts, and other custom work as spec items for sale. See the "Purse" section of my blog site for future posts.
IGM Plutonium find
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Nuclear Engineer
Re: Plutonium find
There is an interesting tidbit at newscientist.com today. It seems that workers recently unearthed a battered old safe which had been buried in a pit at the Hanford, Washington nuclear facility. The safe, lost for at least fifty years, contained a glass jar with 400 ml of weapons-grade plutonium—99.96% pure, according to Jon Schwantes, project director. Careful research into the plants records, and precise analysis of the sample, indicates this batch of plutonium was the first ever produced at Hanover, which makes it the first sample of the element ever made in human history (as far as we know—the Atlanteans may very well have made some, as well as one of the Lost Tribes of Israel, most likely Rueben.)
Scientists are wondering why this first batch did not make it into either of the plutonium bombs used during WWII. Both the Trinity (test site) bomb and Fat Man (the Nagasaki bomb) were plutonium bombs, while Little Boy (Hiroshima) used U-239.
Although the site where the safe was found was contaminated, it was not from the plutonium, which was safe inside its unbroken container. While plutonium is one of the longer-lived isotopes (over 20,000 year half-life), it emits alpha-particles, which, according to Schwantes, are too large to penetrate skin or even a sheet of paper. The characteristics of radioactive isotopes in general are often misunderstood and this is a good example. The plutonium is dangerous when ingested, breathed into the lungs, etc. Even in a plain glass jar it poses no threat. An open jar, or broken, and all bets are off.
So, why did it do so much damage in Japan? Even the most efficient nuclear explosion only converts around 10 % of the fissionable or fusionable material to energy. The rest is atomized and sent into the atmosphere where it slowly returns to earth on the wind, or in rain, as fallout. It’s the fallout—or the actual explosion—that kills.
As the oldest known and purest example of plutonium in existence, the Hanover find will be kept and used as a standard reference.
The find is a good example of what is often done in ignorance. At the time of its extraction and purification (an extremely costly, complex, and time-consuming process) very little was known about radioactive interactions. It was a new science. The death of one of the scientists at Los Alamos, due to accidental exposure, had not yet occurred, and the radium scandal in Europe, and the Tuskegee “experiment” were still in the future. For whatever reason, they decided the best way to get rid of the sample was to bury it.
As I see it, this is yet another reason for the completion and certification of Yucca Mountain. Hanover, Oak Ridge, and many other sites still keep secrets like this one, as well as the things we know about. We need some place to put it. A facility specifically designed to store it safely seems far better than a glass jar in a tattered and forgotten safe. But that’s just me.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Nuclear Engineer
Re: Plutonium find
There is an interesting tidbit at newscientist.com today. It seems that workers recently unearthed a battered old safe which had been buried in a pit at the Hanford, Washington nuclear facility. The safe, lost for at least fifty years, contained a glass jar with 400 ml of weapons-grade plutonium—99.96% pure, according to Jon Schwantes, project director. Careful research into the plants records, and precise analysis of the sample, indicates this batch of plutonium was the first ever produced at Hanover, which makes it the first sample of the element ever made in human history (as far as we know—the Atlanteans may very well have made some, as well as one of the Lost Tribes of Israel, most likely Rueben.)
Scientists are wondering why this first batch did not make it into either of the plutonium bombs used during WWII. Both the Trinity (test site) bomb and Fat Man (the Nagasaki bomb) were plutonium bombs, while Little Boy (Hiroshima) used U-239.
Although the site where the safe was found was contaminated, it was not from the plutonium, which was safe inside its unbroken container. While plutonium is one of the longer-lived isotopes (over 20,000 year half-life), it emits alpha-particles, which, according to Schwantes, are too large to penetrate skin or even a sheet of paper. The characteristics of radioactive isotopes in general are often misunderstood and this is a good example. The plutonium is dangerous when ingested, breathed into the lungs, etc. Even in a plain glass jar it poses no threat. An open jar, or broken, and all bets are off.
So, why did it do so much damage in Japan? Even the most efficient nuclear explosion only converts around 10 % of the fissionable or fusionable material to energy. The rest is atomized and sent into the atmosphere where it slowly returns to earth on the wind, or in rain, as fallout. It’s the fallout—or the actual explosion—that kills.
As the oldest known and purest example of plutonium in existence, the Hanover find will be kept and used as a standard reference.
The find is a good example of what is often done in ignorance. At the time of its extraction and purification (an extremely costly, complex, and time-consuming process) very little was known about radioactive interactions. It was a new science. The death of one of the scientists at Los Alamos, due to accidental exposure, had not yet occurred, and the radium scandal in Europe, and the Tuskegee “experiment” were still in the future. For whatever reason, they decided the best way to get rid of the sample was to bury it.
As I see it, this is yet another reason for the completion and certification of Yucca Mountain. Hanover, Oak Ridge, and many other sites still keep secrets like this one, as well as the things we know about. We need some place to put it. A facility specifically designed to store it safely seems far better than a glass jar in a tattered and forgotten safe. But that’s just me.
Monday, January 12, 2009
IGM Say goodbye to librarians
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-librarian
Re: Say goodbye to “Librarian”
1-12-09, N. 069
According to News.scotsman.com, the city council of Edinburgh has decided to change the title of Librarian to “Audience Development Officers”. This is in order to reflect the changing times, responsibilities and skills Librarians now face. Apparently, the Librarians themselves, who were not consulted, are less than thrilled—to the tune of 95% of them voting to strike. Granted, they are disgruntled over other things as well, as the city shakes up the status quo. For one thing, they plan to install self-check in-and-out stations. I ask you, what self-respecting bibliophile will want to check out a book with a machine? People want to chat, to ask questions, interact. It’s not Smith’s or Home Depot., where we just want to get in and get out. Going to the library is an experience, a time-honored exchange of news and information, opinions and reviews. To say nothing of the entire Reference side of the building.
For a local opinion I went to the source. I asked Mrs. Lee, our very own Librarian, what she thought of the whole thing. She said, and I quote, “No you didn’t! I don’t know what you’re talking about. Stop making stuff up!” Which was less that helpful.
What could possibly be a more appropriate title for someone who works in a library, than Librarian? (Remember The Music Man? Marion, Madame Librarian? I loved that movie)
Personally, I think “Audience Development Officer” is a terrible replacement. I’m sure if we put our heads together we can do much better. Here are some suggestions:
Book Lender
Information and Technology Facilitator
Literary Engineer
Informational Text Specialist (Then we could have ranks; Specialist first class, specialist second class, etc.)
Book Monger
Computer Information and Application Specialist
Babysitter
Dewey Decimal Repository Engineer
Urban Camp Director
Master Story Teller
Human Knowledge Repository Curator
Feel free to come up with your own.
Librarians are some of the most important people in the civilized world. The knowledge to which they have ready access is not just staggering—it is the totality of knowledge. They are the guardians of human wisdom and folly. It’s too bad so few people realize this.
Well . . . you get the idea. In conclusion, I think the Edinburgh City Council is bonkers and should leave the title alone. It is perfect as it is.
To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-librarian
Re: Say goodbye to “Librarian”
1-12-09, N. 069
According to News.scotsman.com, the city council of Edinburgh has decided to change the title of Librarian to “Audience Development Officers”. This is in order to reflect the changing times, responsibilities and skills Librarians now face. Apparently, the Librarians themselves, who were not consulted, are less than thrilled—to the tune of 95% of them voting to strike. Granted, they are disgruntled over other things as well, as the city shakes up the status quo. For one thing, they plan to install self-check in-and-out stations. I ask you, what self-respecting bibliophile will want to check out a book with a machine? People want to chat, to ask questions, interact. It’s not Smith’s or Home Depot., where we just want to get in and get out. Going to the library is an experience, a time-honored exchange of news and information, opinions and reviews. To say nothing of the entire Reference side of the building.
For a local opinion I went to the source. I asked Mrs. Lee, our very own Librarian, what she thought of the whole thing. She said, and I quote, “No you didn’t! I don’t know what you’re talking about. Stop making stuff up!” Which was less that helpful.
What could possibly be a more appropriate title for someone who works in a library, than Librarian? (Remember The Music Man? Marion, Madame Librarian? I loved that movie)
Personally, I think “Audience Development Officer” is a terrible replacement. I’m sure if we put our heads together we can do much better. Here are some suggestions:
Book Lender
Information and Technology Facilitator
Literary Engineer
Informational Text Specialist (Then we could have ranks; Specialist first class, specialist second class, etc.)
Book Monger
Computer Information and Application Specialist
Babysitter
Dewey Decimal Repository Engineer
Urban Camp Director
Master Story Teller
Human Knowledge Repository Curator
Feel free to come up with your own.
Librarians are some of the most important people in the civilized world. The knowledge to which they have ready access is not just staggering—it is the totality of knowledge. They are the guardians of human wisdom and folly. It’s too bad so few people realize this.
Well . . . you get the idea. In conclusion, I think the Edinburgh City Council is bonkers and should leave the title alone. It is perfect as it is.
IGM Budget Cuts
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Human Resources Crypto-Specialist
Re: Budget cuts
1-10-09 No. 068
In case anyone hasn’t received that other memo, or has been living on Mars without a radio, we are in a recession and the government is threatening to drive the recession into a depression, because, you know . . . that’s what governments do.
Here is Nevada, where we depend on essentially three things for revenue, tourism, tourism and tourism, things are becoming a little iffy, just like most other places. Yes, we have mining, and ranching, but c’mon, how much can the government suck out of those two industries?
So the governor here in Nevada, a guy named Jim Gibbons (if that’s his real name) had been wracking his brain to come up with ways to cut half-a-billion dollars from the Nevada budget, without sending all of his constituents to the poor house. Everyone has been asked to make sacrifices. I believe in sacrifice. Especially when it’s for the common good. But there are some important guidelines when government is calling the shots, so that they don’t get carried away and start redistributing wealth or some other insane and counter-productive idea like that.
The first guideline is that sacrifice must be equitable. Everyone needs to pitch in more or less the same. It should hurt universally, so that it isn’t individually fatal.
Second; it should be effective. If we are going to give something up, we need to be confident that it will work, that whatever we do helps.
And third; government cannot reduce people’s income past the point where they start to bleed and have to move into Uncle Fester’s 1967 motor home.
Here in Las Vegas the school districts have been asked to reduce yearly budgets by around twenty percent. (I’m making that up. If anyone wants to look it up be my guest). Cut’s have been made everywhere. They have been valiant in their attempts to keep jobs while reducing everything else, and I offer kudos for trying.
Now, however, the Governor, Mr. Gibbons (if that’s who he really is) has decided to cut state employees paychecks by 6%. That is a lot of money. And naturally, it includes teacher’s salaries. I’ve been working for CCSD for 21 years now, and have topped out on the pay scale. Cutting my pay by around $4,000 is going to not only hurt, but require serious re-organization. Fortunately, my wife and I are empty-nesters, or the cut would be a disaster of the first order. But what about all those teachers who have only been here for a few years and make half what I do, and have families? A reduction in their pay is unconscionable—they will not be able to survive. Teachers will leave, en mass. I guess that will save a lot of money . . .
I am assuming that other state employees will get their cut in the form of reduced hours. Perhaps a four-day work week until things improve. This is a common practice in the private sector and works well in government as well, if it is feasible. Is the governor going to reduce teachers hours as well? (Remember rule one—equitability) Will we be given a four day work week? Have our day reduced by an hour or two? Or are we, as usual, expected to continue working the same hours (which includes a substantial number of free hours for most teachers—especially elementary) for a lot less money?
Teachers work under contract. Does the governor plan to break the contract? And I believe our state legislature passed a law that requires education to be “funded first”. How will he juggle this multi-challenge equation?
More importantly, I’d like to see the list of other things that are being cut by 6%. I can think of two areas that I’m guessing haven’t been touched, which, if reduced or eliminated would fill the coffers to overflowing. The first is social services. As much as we all like to give away substantial portions of our income to help the less fortunate through poorly-run, money-sucking programs, at times like these, belt-tightening should be across the board. Has Health and Human services been reduced by at least 6%?
The second, which has overlap with the first, is Illegal immigration. How much money would the state save if it stopped giving it away to people who are here illegally, are not citizens, and have no right to expect the same services and opportunities actual citizens receive? Don’t get me wrong. I love and admire our friends to the south. I do not blame them for coming here, wanting a better life, wanting those very services and opportunities to which the rest of us have access—I want them to have these things too. But not when there isn’t enough money to go around. Sometimes triage is in order and our government is not doing a very good job of it.
Finally, let me revisit an incredibly unpopular idea that would generate billions in additional income for the state. Before we start talking about reducing state salaries, we need to give up the posturing concerning Yucca Mountain—a foregone conclusion—and demand that the feds pay Nevada for letting them put their nuclear garbage in our backyard, while removing all the fake roadblocks to opening the site. Why shouldn’t the fed have to pay a lease? Say two or three billion dollars a year, half of which would go to education? Maybe add a built-in COLA clause as well.
Has Mr. Gibbons forgotten that we recently took a huge hit in the stock market? Which means everyone’s retirement package has been reduced by about 30%. Teachers retirement is based on a percentage of their last three years annual pay. If he (the alleged Gov. Gibbons) adds insult to injury by reducing salaries 6%, that means our retirement will have been hit with a double-whammy which would last the rest of our lives—at a time when we would be the most vulnerable. The state wants to give us the gift that keeps on giving—screw us now and screw us later.
What about environmental programs? Slash them. How about Ethnic Diversity programs? Eliminate them. How much money does the state spend on things in which it has no business being involved? When income goes down, you have to reduce outgo to match. Period.
In short (I guess it’s too late to say that, isn’t it?), until the governor can satisfy us that his cost-cutting is fair and across the board, and he is doing everything in his power to reduce wasteful and unnecessary spending, and that he is willing to cut useless or redundant programs altogether, he will have to find someone else to pick on. Teachers, I am sure, are tired of being the brunt of everyone’s axe-wielding reduction fantasies. I know I am.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Human Resources Crypto-Specialist
Re: Budget cuts
1-10-09 No. 068
In case anyone hasn’t received that other memo, or has been living on Mars without a radio, we are in a recession and the government is threatening to drive the recession into a depression, because, you know . . . that’s what governments do.
Here is Nevada, where we depend on essentially three things for revenue, tourism, tourism and tourism, things are becoming a little iffy, just like most other places. Yes, we have mining, and ranching, but c’mon, how much can the government suck out of those two industries?
So the governor here in Nevada, a guy named Jim Gibbons (if that’s his real name) had been wracking his brain to come up with ways to cut half-a-billion dollars from the Nevada budget, without sending all of his constituents to the poor house. Everyone has been asked to make sacrifices. I believe in sacrifice. Especially when it’s for the common good. But there are some important guidelines when government is calling the shots, so that they don’t get carried away and start redistributing wealth or some other insane and counter-productive idea like that.
The first guideline is that sacrifice must be equitable. Everyone needs to pitch in more or less the same. It should hurt universally, so that it isn’t individually fatal.
Second; it should be effective. If we are going to give something up, we need to be confident that it will work, that whatever we do helps.
And third; government cannot reduce people’s income past the point where they start to bleed and have to move into Uncle Fester’s 1967 motor home.
Here in Las Vegas the school districts have been asked to reduce yearly budgets by around twenty percent. (I’m making that up. If anyone wants to look it up be my guest). Cut’s have been made everywhere. They have been valiant in their attempts to keep jobs while reducing everything else, and I offer kudos for trying.
Now, however, the Governor, Mr. Gibbons (if that’s who he really is) has decided to cut state employees paychecks by 6%. That is a lot of money. And naturally, it includes teacher’s salaries. I’ve been working for CCSD for 21 years now, and have topped out on the pay scale. Cutting my pay by around $4,000 is going to not only hurt, but require serious re-organization. Fortunately, my wife and I are empty-nesters, or the cut would be a disaster of the first order. But what about all those teachers who have only been here for a few years and make half what I do, and have families? A reduction in their pay is unconscionable—they will not be able to survive. Teachers will leave, en mass. I guess that will save a lot of money . . .
I am assuming that other state employees will get their cut in the form of reduced hours. Perhaps a four-day work week until things improve. This is a common practice in the private sector and works well in government as well, if it is feasible. Is the governor going to reduce teachers hours as well? (Remember rule one—equitability) Will we be given a four day work week? Have our day reduced by an hour or two? Or are we, as usual, expected to continue working the same hours (which includes a substantial number of free hours for most teachers—especially elementary) for a lot less money?
Teachers work under contract. Does the governor plan to break the contract? And I believe our state legislature passed a law that requires education to be “funded first”. How will he juggle this multi-challenge equation?
More importantly, I’d like to see the list of other things that are being cut by 6%. I can think of two areas that I’m guessing haven’t been touched, which, if reduced or eliminated would fill the coffers to overflowing. The first is social services. As much as we all like to give away substantial portions of our income to help the less fortunate through poorly-run, money-sucking programs, at times like these, belt-tightening should be across the board. Has Health and Human services been reduced by at least 6%?
The second, which has overlap with the first, is Illegal immigration. How much money would the state save if it stopped giving it away to people who are here illegally, are not citizens, and have no right to expect the same services and opportunities actual citizens receive? Don’t get me wrong. I love and admire our friends to the south. I do not blame them for coming here, wanting a better life, wanting those very services and opportunities to which the rest of us have access—I want them to have these things too. But not when there isn’t enough money to go around. Sometimes triage is in order and our government is not doing a very good job of it.
Finally, let me revisit an incredibly unpopular idea that would generate billions in additional income for the state. Before we start talking about reducing state salaries, we need to give up the posturing concerning Yucca Mountain—a foregone conclusion—and demand that the feds pay Nevada for letting them put their nuclear garbage in our backyard, while removing all the fake roadblocks to opening the site. Why shouldn’t the fed have to pay a lease? Say two or three billion dollars a year, half of which would go to education? Maybe add a built-in COLA clause as well.
Has Mr. Gibbons forgotten that we recently took a huge hit in the stock market? Which means everyone’s retirement package has been reduced by about 30%. Teachers retirement is based on a percentage of their last three years annual pay. If he (the alleged Gov. Gibbons) adds insult to injury by reducing salaries 6%, that means our retirement will have been hit with a double-whammy which would last the rest of our lives—at a time when we would be the most vulnerable. The state wants to give us the gift that keeps on giving—screw us now and screw us later.
What about environmental programs? Slash them. How about Ethnic Diversity programs? Eliminate them. How much money does the state spend on things in which it has no business being involved? When income goes down, you have to reduce outgo to match. Period.
In short (I guess it’s too late to say that, isn’t it?), until the governor can satisfy us that his cost-cutting is fair and across the board, and he is doing everything in his power to reduce wasteful and unnecessary spending, and that he is willing to cut useless or redundant programs altogether, he will have to find someone else to pick on. Teachers, I am sure, are tired of being the brunt of everyone’s axe-wielding reduction fantasies. I know I am.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
IGM Give me my kidney!
Inter-galactic Memo
To: All potential organ-donors/recipients
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-ethicist
Re: common courtesy
1-9-09, No. 067
A recent news story has me thinking. I purposely did not glean the details because the headline was enough to make me nauseous.
It seems (as you might have read) that a man selflessly donated one of his kidney’s to his wife after two previous attempts failed. So far this is a wonderful and poignant story of everlasting love and devotion. Now, however, while in the muck and mire of an acrimonious divorce, the man (a doctor, I believe) is demanding his kidney back. This may be a first. Even if it’s not, it is certainly a new low.
The important question is not whether or not he should be asking for an organ back—he shouldn’t. It is why and how an adult human being, educated, experienced, and supposedly intelligent, cannot think their way to what should be an obvious conclusion.
Let’s assume that he is hurting and angry, and in the right—his awful, manipulating, haranguing, money-spending, sex-denying wife is solely responsible for his misery and their divorce. Hypothetically. In what mind-twisted, self-absorbed, irrational, hate-filled world is it acceptable to demand an implanted organ back?
Now, because of this idiot, someone (can you say “Congress”?) will be forced to enact legislation laying out new rules for organ donation, i.e., once implanted in someone else, the organ belongs to the new recipient and it becomes a matter of finders-keepers. No Indian-Givers in the world of organ exchange. (While the author is aware of the sensitive nature and politically-incorrect usage of the term “Indian-Giver”, using it seemed appropriate in this case, and is not intended as a negative comment on the lending practices of Native Americans).
This episode is a perfect example of what I like to refer to as “legislation through litigation”, in which frivolous lawsuits, sans content, inevitably lead to another “thou shalt not” law.
Years ago, all the schools in the district used chain nets on outdoor rims for basketball. The chains were heavy and did not foul in the wind, and lasted forever. District rules of course prohibited hanging on the rim, jumping up and grabbing the chain-net, or otherwise abusing the “net”. One weekend some kid, while messing around and showing off, (here at Chap, as it turns out) jumped up to touch the rim, caught his hand in the net—in other words being a typical teen-ager—and ripped a finger to shreds coming down. A quick lawsuit later and all the chain-nets in the entire county came down. (Shooting at only a rim is much less effective.) I’m sure we all remember the woman who burned herself on McDonalds coffee and sued for several million dollars. Or the man who sued the dry-cleaner for over a million dollars because his pants were ruined. (He recently lost, by the way).
In each case, these people should have been able to process their situation and conclude that legal action was inappropriate, since they were either at fault, or whatever occurred did not rise to the level of official legal action, or even a mild tantrum. Now Congress will no doubt pass a law delineating what can and cannot be done after an organ implant. All because of one guy’s childish, irrational, decision.
If anyone wonders why we have all these laws cinching us tighter and tighter into straight-jackets of behavior, this is the reason. Lawmakers are forced to react to the lowest behavior imaginable, usually in isolated cases. The better able we are, as individuals, to police ourselves and make rational, common sense-decisions based on some kind of value-system, the fewer laws and rules are necessary. We see this process in microcosm here at school, where “one bad apple” consistently ruins the experience for the rest of the kids.
The proper response to the man who wants his kidney back, is to slap him in the face, throw a glass of cold water at him, and remind him that he is an adult, not a child, and that kind of petulant, self-serving narcissism will not be tolerated. Then send him to the corner for a time-out.
To: All potential organ-donors/recipients
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-ethicist
Re: common courtesy
1-9-09, No. 067
A recent news story has me thinking. I purposely did not glean the details because the headline was enough to make me nauseous.
It seems (as you might have read) that a man selflessly donated one of his kidney’s to his wife after two previous attempts failed. So far this is a wonderful and poignant story of everlasting love and devotion. Now, however, while in the muck and mire of an acrimonious divorce, the man (a doctor, I believe) is demanding his kidney back. This may be a first. Even if it’s not, it is certainly a new low.
The important question is not whether or not he should be asking for an organ back—he shouldn’t. It is why and how an adult human being, educated, experienced, and supposedly intelligent, cannot think their way to what should be an obvious conclusion.
Let’s assume that he is hurting and angry, and in the right—his awful, manipulating, haranguing, money-spending, sex-denying wife is solely responsible for his misery and their divorce. Hypothetically. In what mind-twisted, self-absorbed, irrational, hate-filled world is it acceptable to demand an implanted organ back?
Now, because of this idiot, someone (can you say “Congress”?) will be forced to enact legislation laying out new rules for organ donation, i.e., once implanted in someone else, the organ belongs to the new recipient and it becomes a matter of finders-keepers. No Indian-Givers in the world of organ exchange. (While the author is aware of the sensitive nature and politically-incorrect usage of the term “Indian-Giver”, using it seemed appropriate in this case, and is not intended as a negative comment on the lending practices of Native Americans).
This episode is a perfect example of what I like to refer to as “legislation through litigation”, in which frivolous lawsuits, sans content, inevitably lead to another “thou shalt not” law.
Years ago, all the schools in the district used chain nets on outdoor rims for basketball. The chains were heavy and did not foul in the wind, and lasted forever. District rules of course prohibited hanging on the rim, jumping up and grabbing the chain-net, or otherwise abusing the “net”. One weekend some kid, while messing around and showing off, (here at Chap, as it turns out) jumped up to touch the rim, caught his hand in the net—in other words being a typical teen-ager—and ripped a finger to shreds coming down. A quick lawsuit later and all the chain-nets in the entire county came down. (Shooting at only a rim is much less effective.) I’m sure we all remember the woman who burned herself on McDonalds coffee and sued for several million dollars. Or the man who sued the dry-cleaner for over a million dollars because his pants were ruined. (He recently lost, by the way).
In each case, these people should have been able to process their situation and conclude that legal action was inappropriate, since they were either at fault, or whatever occurred did not rise to the level of official legal action, or even a mild tantrum. Now Congress will no doubt pass a law delineating what can and cannot be done after an organ implant. All because of one guy’s childish, irrational, decision.
If anyone wonders why we have all these laws cinching us tighter and tighter into straight-jackets of behavior, this is the reason. Lawmakers are forced to react to the lowest behavior imaginable, usually in isolated cases. The better able we are, as individuals, to police ourselves and make rational, common sense-decisions based on some kind of value-system, the fewer laws and rules are necessary. We see this process in microcosm here at school, where “one bad apple” consistently ruins the experience for the rest of the kids.
The proper response to the man who wants his kidney back, is to slap him in the face, throw a glass of cold water at him, and remind him that he is an adult, not a child, and that kind of petulant, self-serving narcissism will not be tolerated. Then send him to the corner for a time-out.
IGM Economics
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: homo sapiens
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-homo sapiens
Re: economics
According to the Daily Telegraph today, the Bank of London has lowered its interest rate to 1.5 percent, the lowest in its 315 year history. Wow, that’s an old bank.
Experts are saying however (and this applies to us,) that the rate-cut will not help rank and file citizens. Apparently it’s not the interest rate, however low, that will help people survive—it is the amount of money available to loan, and in England at least, there isn’t any.
Sounds familiar, eh? Over here, on the “other side of the pond” we face the same dilemma; interest rates have fallen, thanks to the Fed, but banks are not lending any money. I don’t know if they don’t have any or are just being tight, but the outcome is the same. Obama says he’s going to fix that, and as we speak (according to unnamed sources) the presses are running full-bore, printing as much as a trillion dollars as part of a massive new incentive program. Big rebates to tax-payers. Of course, over 30 % of adult Americans don’t pay any taxes, and they will receive the same rebate as everyone else, which makes a good portion of this “incentive” a re-distribution of wealth program, exactly as promised. The incentive, in other words, is for people not to work, create, or produce, but to wait for their dole check instead. Yippee!
Most of us, I believe, are in favor of some kind of welfare program to take care of the infirm, the elderly, and others who legitimately are not able to care for themselves. I know I am. In most cases, for example, I would rather pay the bills for unwed and single mothers than have them in the workforce which necessitates someone else caring for their children. (Not everyone agrees with me, but there is a good deal of evidence that mothers and fathers, in almost all cases, are better suited to care for their own children, and do a better job of it, than even the best surrogates—what a shock.)
But I have a problem with the government paying annual stipends to the indolent. Especially when the money raises our deficit every year. What do we do with the indolent then? Let nature take its course? I think we would be amazed at how many people are suddenly able to work when all sources of free money dry up. As for the rest . . . maybe some private organizations will want to help them. Other wise I guess they will die. Everything does . . . eventually.
To: homo sapiens
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-homo sapiens
Re: economics
According to the Daily Telegraph today, the Bank of London has lowered its interest rate to 1.5 percent, the lowest in its 315 year history. Wow, that’s an old bank.
Experts are saying however (and this applies to us,) that the rate-cut will not help rank and file citizens. Apparently it’s not the interest rate, however low, that will help people survive—it is the amount of money available to loan, and in England at least, there isn’t any.
Sounds familiar, eh? Over here, on the “other side of the pond” we face the same dilemma; interest rates have fallen, thanks to the Fed, but banks are not lending any money. I don’t know if they don’t have any or are just being tight, but the outcome is the same. Obama says he’s going to fix that, and as we speak (according to unnamed sources) the presses are running full-bore, printing as much as a trillion dollars as part of a massive new incentive program. Big rebates to tax-payers. Of course, over 30 % of adult Americans don’t pay any taxes, and they will receive the same rebate as everyone else, which makes a good portion of this “incentive” a re-distribution of wealth program, exactly as promised. The incentive, in other words, is for people not to work, create, or produce, but to wait for their dole check instead. Yippee!
Most of us, I believe, are in favor of some kind of welfare program to take care of the infirm, the elderly, and others who legitimately are not able to care for themselves. I know I am. In most cases, for example, I would rather pay the bills for unwed and single mothers than have them in the workforce which necessitates someone else caring for their children. (Not everyone agrees with me, but there is a good deal of evidence that mothers and fathers, in almost all cases, are better suited to care for their own children, and do a better job of it, than even the best surrogates—what a shock.)
But I have a problem with the government paying annual stipends to the indolent. Especially when the money raises our deficit every year. What do we do with the indolent then? Let nature take its course? I think we would be amazed at how many people are suddenly able to work when all sources of free money dry up. As for the rest . . . maybe some private organizations will want to help them. Other wise I guess they will die. Everything does . . . eventually.
IGM Another Bailout?
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: all currently employed personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-employed
Re: Another bailout
Well, the latest bailout request is the most outrageous as well. In fact, it’s beyond the pale. Larry Flint (Legendary publisher of Hustler, and international guardian of bad taste) and other representatives of the “Adult Film and publishing industry”, are asking for $5 billion to shore up their plummeting sales. In other words, the Porn industry wants free money too.
Anyone else have a problem with that besides me?
Here’s the way I see it. All of the actors in the “business” get paid, essentially, to have sex. By definition, that makes them all prostitutes and gigolo’s, both of which are illegal, at least in this country. The rest of them—the producers, directors, etc., facilitate the end product, which makes them pimps—also illegal.
To be fair, it is a big business. I read once that the porn industry brings in more money annually than professional baseball, football, and basketball combined. Makes you stop and think, don’t it?
But is it a legitimate business? If the mafia (which controls a large percentage of prostitution in this country) asked for a bailout, should we give it to them? I say No! (Sorry, the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt overcame me for a moment there.) There is nothing legitimate about the porn industry, not morally, not ethically and not economically.
If we see the government taking this request seriously, we can be sure the end of our way of life is not far behind, and deservedly so.
Notice I am not calling for the destruction of the porn industry by “whatever means necessary”, or any kind of official censorship. That’s not governments job. Although I have spent years censoring Porn privately, in our home. I disallow it, preach against it, and have taught my kids about the dangers, pitfalls, and harm it can produce. But to do anything to help such a depraved and prurient endeavor would make us, as a country, morally bankrupt. So watch the news.
To: all currently employed personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-employed
Re: Another bailout
Well, the latest bailout request is the most outrageous as well. In fact, it’s beyond the pale. Larry Flint (Legendary publisher of Hustler, and international guardian of bad taste) and other representatives of the “Adult Film and publishing industry”, are asking for $5 billion to shore up their plummeting sales. In other words, the Porn industry wants free money too.
Anyone else have a problem with that besides me?
Here’s the way I see it. All of the actors in the “business” get paid, essentially, to have sex. By definition, that makes them all prostitutes and gigolo’s, both of which are illegal, at least in this country. The rest of them—the producers, directors, etc., facilitate the end product, which makes them pimps—also illegal.
To be fair, it is a big business. I read once that the porn industry brings in more money annually than professional baseball, football, and basketball combined. Makes you stop and think, don’t it?
But is it a legitimate business? If the mafia (which controls a large percentage of prostitution in this country) asked for a bailout, should we give it to them? I say No! (Sorry, the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt overcame me for a moment there.) There is nothing legitimate about the porn industry, not morally, not ethically and not economically.
If we see the government taking this request seriously, we can be sure the end of our way of life is not far behind, and deservedly so.
Notice I am not calling for the destruction of the porn industry by “whatever means necessary”, or any kind of official censorship. That’s not governments job. Although I have spent years censoring Porn privately, in our home. I disallow it, preach against it, and have taught my kids about the dangers, pitfalls, and harm it can produce. But to do anything to help such a depraved and prurient endeavor would make us, as a country, morally bankrupt. So watch the news.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
IGM DUI
Intergalactic Memo
To: Everyone who indulges in adult beverages
Fr: A life-long tea-totaller (no, really)
Re: Drinking and driving
Well, the latest in a long and illustrious line of celebrities has been arrested for DUI. Sam Sheppard, a well-known and respected (including by me) actor, writer and, I believe, director, got caught in Normal Illinois doing 16 over the limit at 2 in the morning. Does it seem to you that Hollywood seems to get a bum rap when it comes to this peccadillo? Isn’t it just because they’re famous and their picture gets plastered all over the news and internet?
Well it’s not. The reason it seems that way, is because so many people in Hollywood (and the rest of the country) regularly drink alcohol. And the truth is, people who drink know they are going to be driving later (except you obviously, because you’d never do something like that . . .) and most of them don’t care, especially after they’ve been drinking a while. Now, I don’t drink and never have. So I’m just the none to point a finger or two at people who do, and then drive.
Case in point: I live in Las Vegas Nevada. Most people know that Vegas is a party town—that’s why people come here. And a good portion of the people who live here have high-stress jobs in the “gaming” and “hospitality” and “entertainment” industries, primarily because they have to deal with dill-weeds like you, who come here with the express purpose of being obnoxious in order to pay back all those homies who are obnoxious to you, at your job, and these locals drink too, as a way to deal with their own stress.
My brother and I did the math one day (which means we talked about it for three minutes, arrived at the same conclusions, and promptly declared the numbers statistically accurate) and realized that in Vegas, approximately 25% of everyone on the road at any given time, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, are legally impaired. One in four. It’s a crap-shoot just getting up in the morning. (Get it? Crap-shoot?)
Now some people take a philosophical attitude towards the entire situation, reminding us that alcoholism is a disease, that these people are sick and need help, and that criminalizing them is counter-productive. Of course, most people who drink are not alcoholics, so they don’t fall under that umbrella of ill-conceived pity. And disease-wise, someone with, say, tuberculosis, or HIV, or Hepatitis B don’t go out and kill other people as a result of their illness.
Have you ever wondered why, if law-enforcement was really serious about cracking down on DUI, they don’t park around the corner from all the bars and casinos and pubs and restaurants in town, then wait for people to pull out of the parking lot, and then test them? Someone comes out of a bar and gets into the driver’s seat of a vehicle, I’d say that was probable cause. The reason they don’t of course, is because there would be no room in the jails, and the police, the lawyers and the judges would be swamped beyond their capacities. And because a good majority of the police, lawyers and judges would be in the jails along with everybody else.
People who drink sometimes drive. Some of them drive routinely, and I’m sure some people wouldn’t think of driving unless they were good and drunk. It’s dangerous out there. No one admits it, but everybody does it. And they do it because they don’t feel impaired, and because it’s a huge inconvenience to plan ahead; find a designated driver, remember to call a cab . . . whatever. And once you’re high, all that stuff flies out the window of memory anyway. So what’s the answer to a nation of irresponsible drinkers deep in denial? Unfortunately it’s not more AA meetings, or therapists, or de-tox centers. The only thing that will work in this situation is to make you so terrified of the consequences that you aren’t willing to risk being caught. Period.
I’m calling for national regulations with mandatory sentences—no leeway.
First DUI: $10,000 fine and six months in jail.
Second DUI: $50,000 fine and five years in prison.
Third DUI: License revoked for life, another $50,000 fine and another five years in prison.
Anyone caught driving with a license suspended for DUI, has to move to Canada. Permanently.
If you are DUI and involved in an accident, your sentence is the same as the First DUI.
If you are DUI and involved in an accident with injuries, same as the second DUI.
If you are DUI and involved in an accident with one or more fatalities, same as the second DUI and you are tried for second-degree murder.
Harsh? You bet. But easily solved. Don’t drink and drive.
“Wait a minute! You can’t try someone for second-degree murder because someone was killed in an accident! It was an accident! They didn’t mean to do it!”
I disagree. Everyone who has ever been involved in an accident while under the influence, was sober when they started drinking. That means they were able to make decisions, knew right from wrong, and understood the possible consequences of their actions. Then they went to a restaurant and had a few beers with dinner and drove home—and killed somebody. They were sober when they got in the car. They were impaired when the left the restaurant, or bar, or casino, or Elks club—whatever. But they knew what they were doing when they started, and were not willing to be responsible and make sure they didn’t hurt someone while under the influence. There is no excuse, ever, for drinking and driving. There are too many other ways to die on America’s road without adding alcohol to the mix.
“Sure, easy for you to say—you don’t drink!” That’s right boys and girls. And that’s the point. I don’t drink. I never have. Not once. And I know lots of other people who don’t drink. But I don’t know anyone who drinks, who hasn’t gotten behind the wheel of an automobile while impaired—which is tantamount to saying “Gee! let’s see who we can kill today!”
Now, you want to talk about Jay-walking, or speeding a little on the Interstate, or taking a pencil home from work, or having inappropriate thoughts about you-know-who, or deciding not to give a buck to that guy on the corner, I’m just as guilty as anybody else. But when it comes to DUI . . . I’m clean.
(My wife says this was too “in your face” and mean. I think killing people because a person is lazy and selfish is a lot meaner.)
To: Everyone who indulges in adult beverages
Fr: A life-long tea-totaller (no, really)
Re: Drinking and driving
Well, the latest in a long and illustrious line of celebrities has been arrested for DUI. Sam Sheppard, a well-known and respected (including by me) actor, writer and, I believe, director, got caught in Normal Illinois doing 16 over the limit at 2 in the morning. Does it seem to you that Hollywood seems to get a bum rap when it comes to this peccadillo? Isn’t it just because they’re famous and their picture gets plastered all over the news and internet?
Well it’s not. The reason it seems that way, is because so many people in Hollywood (and the rest of the country) regularly drink alcohol. And the truth is, people who drink know they are going to be driving later (except you obviously, because you’d never do something like that . . .) and most of them don’t care, especially after they’ve been drinking a while. Now, I don’t drink and never have. So I’m just the none to point a finger or two at people who do, and then drive.
Case in point: I live in Las Vegas Nevada. Most people know that Vegas is a party town—that’s why people come here. And a good portion of the people who live here have high-stress jobs in the “gaming” and “hospitality” and “entertainment” industries, primarily because they have to deal with dill-weeds like you, who come here with the express purpose of being obnoxious in order to pay back all those homies who are obnoxious to you, at your job, and these locals drink too, as a way to deal with their own stress.
My brother and I did the math one day (which means we talked about it for three minutes, arrived at the same conclusions, and promptly declared the numbers statistically accurate) and realized that in Vegas, approximately 25% of everyone on the road at any given time, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, are legally impaired. One in four. It’s a crap-shoot just getting up in the morning. (Get it? Crap-shoot?)
Now some people take a philosophical attitude towards the entire situation, reminding us that alcoholism is a disease, that these people are sick and need help, and that criminalizing them is counter-productive. Of course, most people who drink are not alcoholics, so they don’t fall under that umbrella of ill-conceived pity. And disease-wise, someone with, say, tuberculosis, or HIV, or Hepatitis B don’t go out and kill other people as a result of their illness.
Have you ever wondered why, if law-enforcement was really serious about cracking down on DUI, they don’t park around the corner from all the bars and casinos and pubs and restaurants in town, then wait for people to pull out of the parking lot, and then test them? Someone comes out of a bar and gets into the driver’s seat of a vehicle, I’d say that was probable cause. The reason they don’t of course, is because there would be no room in the jails, and the police, the lawyers and the judges would be swamped beyond their capacities. And because a good majority of the police, lawyers and judges would be in the jails along with everybody else.
People who drink sometimes drive. Some of them drive routinely, and I’m sure some people wouldn’t think of driving unless they were good and drunk. It’s dangerous out there. No one admits it, but everybody does it. And they do it because they don’t feel impaired, and because it’s a huge inconvenience to plan ahead; find a designated driver, remember to call a cab . . . whatever. And once you’re high, all that stuff flies out the window of memory anyway. So what’s the answer to a nation of irresponsible drinkers deep in denial? Unfortunately it’s not more AA meetings, or therapists, or de-tox centers. The only thing that will work in this situation is to make you so terrified of the consequences that you aren’t willing to risk being caught. Period.
I’m calling for national regulations with mandatory sentences—no leeway.
First DUI: $10,000 fine and six months in jail.
Second DUI: $50,000 fine and five years in prison.
Third DUI: License revoked for life, another $50,000 fine and another five years in prison.
Anyone caught driving with a license suspended for DUI, has to move to Canada. Permanently.
If you are DUI and involved in an accident, your sentence is the same as the First DUI.
If you are DUI and involved in an accident with injuries, same as the second DUI.
If you are DUI and involved in an accident with one or more fatalities, same as the second DUI and you are tried for second-degree murder.
Harsh? You bet. But easily solved. Don’t drink and drive.
“Wait a minute! You can’t try someone for second-degree murder because someone was killed in an accident! It was an accident! They didn’t mean to do it!”
I disagree. Everyone who has ever been involved in an accident while under the influence, was sober when they started drinking. That means they were able to make decisions, knew right from wrong, and understood the possible consequences of their actions. Then they went to a restaurant and had a few beers with dinner and drove home—and killed somebody. They were sober when they got in the car. They were impaired when the left the restaurant, or bar, or casino, or Elks club—whatever. But they knew what they were doing when they started, and were not willing to be responsible and make sure they didn’t hurt someone while under the influence. There is no excuse, ever, for drinking and driving. There are too many other ways to die on America’s road without adding alcohol to the mix.
“Sure, easy for you to say—you don’t drink!” That’s right boys and girls. And that’s the point. I don’t drink. I never have. Not once. And I know lots of other people who don’t drink. But I don’t know anyone who drinks, who hasn’t gotten behind the wheel of an automobile while impaired—which is tantamount to saying “Gee! let’s see who we can kill today!”
Now, you want to talk about Jay-walking, or speeding a little on the Interstate, or taking a pencil home from work, or having inappropriate thoughts about you-know-who, or deciding not to give a buck to that guy on the corner, I’m just as guilty as anybody else. But when it comes to DUI . . . I’m clean.
(My wife says this was too “in your face” and mean. I think killing people because a person is lazy and selfish is a lot meaner.)
Saturday, January 3, 2009
IGM Religious Mitigation of Human behavior
Intergalactic Memo
To: Discerning readers everywhere
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Psychologist
Re: New theory of Religious relevance.
I found a fascinating article at Physorg.com today. Here is the title:
Religion may have evolved because of its ability to help people exercise self-control
Whew! This is just in time, eh? Religion is taking some serious hits these days. Without this kind of cutting-edge research, all us believers would be out of luck, nowhere to go, belittled and de-relevantized into a corner.
Professor of Psychology, Michael McCullough of the University of Miami has come to the rescue. He heroically evaluated 8 decades of research (this is called secondary research, because he just read old studies) in order to come to the conclusion that Religion has a mitigating effect on human behavior. Really? Gosh, who’d have ever seen that coming? I wonder what he pulls down a year . . . because I figured this out when I was fifteen. I expect most everyone does. It would have been nice to be bringing in that kind of money as a teenager.
One wonders what Professor McCullough was thinking prior to the study? That religion was only good for boring songs and baptismal font salesmen? Let’s see what the study reveals:
He found persuasive evidence from a variety of domains within the social sciences, including neuroscience, economics, psychology, and sociology, that religious beliefs and religious behaviors are capable of encouraging people to exercise self-control and to more effectively regulate their emotions and behaviors, so that they can pursue valued goals.
Do I detect a pattern here? First of all he used the social sciences, listing Neuroscience, economics, psychology, and sociology. I suppose these disciplines are useful as conversation starters at cocktail parties, or to evaluate pseudo-trends among large populations of human beings (which, by definition renders any conclusions irrelevant), but not much else.
Let’s see if we can get to the heart of the matter here. First of all, I will concede that religion does indeed evolve over time, as well as devolve, mutate, change, diminish, and increase, in strange, unpredictable and funny ways. Anyone with any sense knows that it started out as a rock-solid set of well-designed and perfectly-conceived rules and guidelines, offered as a gift from Deity to mankind, which then quickly fell into the pattern of all things touched by humans. Still, we managed to maintain a few of the best of the rules in all the mish-mash of cruel, useless, ridiculous ones; Rules like don’t shed innocent blood, don’t break promises, don’t steal things, don’t cheat on your spouse, maintain a high standard of personal ethics, forgive your enemy, always have hope, be charitable, loving, positive, humble and obedient to God’s will.
Those are pretty good rules. I think a precocious five year-old would be able to figure out that trying to live by them would help a person exercise self-control. In fact I know one or two who have. The governing principle behind all of these religious strictures is this:
If you want to be truly free, don’t let yourself do whatever you want whenever you want. Adopt some standards. Accept some values, embrace limitations. Pretty simple, and very self-explanatory.
It amuses me that someone takes himself so seriously that he has written a paper for a “prestigious” Journal, the Psychological Bulletin, presenting this information as news, as insightful, and as something that only a professional like himself could ever have figured out. And he gets paid for this! America; what a country!
To: Discerning readers everywhere
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Psychologist
Re: New theory of Religious relevance.
I found a fascinating article at Physorg.com today. Here is the title:
Religion may have evolved because of its ability to help people exercise self-control
Whew! This is just in time, eh? Religion is taking some serious hits these days. Without this kind of cutting-edge research, all us believers would be out of luck, nowhere to go, belittled and de-relevantized into a corner.
Professor of Psychology, Michael McCullough of the University of Miami has come to the rescue. He heroically evaluated 8 decades of research (this is called secondary research, because he just read old studies) in order to come to the conclusion that Religion has a mitigating effect on human behavior. Really? Gosh, who’d have ever seen that coming? I wonder what he pulls down a year . . . because I figured this out when I was fifteen. I expect most everyone does. It would have been nice to be bringing in that kind of money as a teenager.
One wonders what Professor McCullough was thinking prior to the study? That religion was only good for boring songs and baptismal font salesmen? Let’s see what the study reveals:
He found persuasive evidence from a variety of domains within the social sciences, including neuroscience, economics, psychology, and sociology, that religious beliefs and religious behaviors are capable of encouraging people to exercise self-control and to more effectively regulate their emotions and behaviors, so that they can pursue valued goals.
Do I detect a pattern here? First of all he used the social sciences, listing Neuroscience, economics, psychology, and sociology. I suppose these disciplines are useful as conversation starters at cocktail parties, or to evaluate pseudo-trends among large populations of human beings (which, by definition renders any conclusions irrelevant), but not much else.
Let’s see if we can get to the heart of the matter here. First of all, I will concede that religion does indeed evolve over time, as well as devolve, mutate, change, diminish, and increase, in strange, unpredictable and funny ways. Anyone with any sense knows that it started out as a rock-solid set of well-designed and perfectly-conceived rules and guidelines, offered as a gift from Deity to mankind, which then quickly fell into the pattern of all things touched by humans. Still, we managed to maintain a few of the best of the rules in all the mish-mash of cruel, useless, ridiculous ones; Rules like don’t shed innocent blood, don’t break promises, don’t steal things, don’t cheat on your spouse, maintain a high standard of personal ethics, forgive your enemy, always have hope, be charitable, loving, positive, humble and obedient to God’s will.
Those are pretty good rules. I think a precocious five year-old would be able to figure out that trying to live by them would help a person exercise self-control. In fact I know one or two who have. The governing principle behind all of these religious strictures is this:
If you want to be truly free, don’t let yourself do whatever you want whenever you want. Adopt some standards. Accept some values, embrace limitations. Pretty simple, and very self-explanatory.
It amuses me that someone takes himself so seriously that he has written a paper for a “prestigious” Journal, the Psychological Bulletin, presenting this information as news, as insightful, and as something that only a professional like himself could ever have figured out. And he gets paid for this! America; what a country!
IGM Israel and Hamas
Intergalactic Memo
To: Anyone willing to read a rant by a seriously fed-up guy
Fr: A seriously fed-up Crypto-guy
Re: Palestine
As many of you know, we are currently in our semi-annual cease-fire violation over in Gaza. And once again, like clock-work, the “global community” whatever that is, has come together, whatever that means, to denounce Israel for daring to bomb the innocent Palestinians who were only firing rockets into Israel, which, come on, let’s face it, is like a rite of passage for Palestinians.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind if everyone denounced Israel for the violence, as long as they denounced Hamas in the same breath for theirs. But no one ever does, do they? At least not officially. (And I know all about how far back the animosity goes. So what?)
A brief and overly-simplified history lesson: There has never, in the long history of the world, been a nation called Palestine. The word is derived from a roman term, Palistina, which referred to the entire region now known as Israel, the West Bank, and parts of Jordan and Syria.
The term Palestine in modern times was used to refer to the area where “Palestinians” lived prior to 1948. These were dispossessed people from several countries in the area, including Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and of course, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, who were kicked out of wherever they were living and sort of squatted in what is now Israel, which at the time belonged to no one.
After WWII, and despite impossible odds, a handful of Jewish refugees, armed with nothing but chutzpah and nothing-left-to-lose, invaded a not-country, sparsely populated with a disparate collection of disorganized and constantly squabbling cast-offs, and grabbed a toe-hold. Their dream was a homeland for the survivors of the Russian Pogroms and the Nazi Death Camps and nothing was going to stop them. People have been arguing ever since who has the better claim to the land. Personally, I say Israel does. Two reasons: One, Yahweh gave it to them, and two, they had been living there for what? Six thousand years, off and on?
Some people will discount the Yahweh claim, but no one else (i.e. the Palestinians) have ever claimed a God gave them the land. (For an excellent recounting of that time in history, read Exodus, by Leon Uris. Also see: Refiner’s Fire, by Mark Helprin)
Since shortly after 1948, Israel has existed as an internationally recognized, sovereign nation, which has managed to not only survive, but thrive, despite the fact that they are literally surrounded by people who hate them and claim on a daily basis that they will kill them all. And of course, they are outnumbered about twenty to one by all those hate-spewing people. (It didn’t help that in 1967 Israel not only defeated but humiliated the Arab world in the shortest, most lop-sided war in modern history. Despite the fact that Egypt hit them with a “surprise attack”.)
On the other hand, Hamas, the legally elected Palestinian government which is recognized by no one, not even Cuba, (okay, I made that up. I have no idea who Cuba recognizes, but it sounded good didn’t it?) has, instead of investing in schools and roads, and hospitals and things like that for their people (like Israel has done), spends all their time plotting to kill all the Jews, and firing rockets into Israel at random intervals, with no aiming mechanisms.
Lest we dismiss the media bias inherent in the problem, let us remember that until a few years ago, news agencies consistently referred to Palestinian settlements as “Refugee Camps”, which is how they started out after the Jews moved in and relocated them, even though they have been autonomous and often thriving cities for decades.
Oh, now that I think of it, Hamas is recognized for something. They are universally recognized as a terrorist organization. And yet the “global community” consistently calls Israel the terrorists. Go figure.
Here’s how it works over there. And this is a matter of public record, so let’s not go blathering about “biased opinions”.
Tempers flare, and someone, usually the USA, or France, or the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, steps in and attempts to negotiate a peace agreement. Remember Yasser Arafat and Jimmie Carter? Israel and Palestine sign the agreement. Sometimes even the PLO and or Hamas sign as well. Then, sometime later, rockets begin landing in Israel again, fired by Hamas. Usually Israel displays extraordinary patience and negotiates another cease-fire, which is then promptly broken by Hamas. Every now and then Israel gets fed up with this, after losing a few dozen innocent citizens and launches an attack on terrorist leaders, headquarters, etc. Despite the fact that the Palestinians start the violence every time, and despite the fact that Israel has consistently declared its desire for peace and an end to violence while Hamas and other similar organizations have just as consistently screamed for Israel’s destruction and the death of all Jews, everywhere. So, yeah, I can see how everyone would point the finger at Israel.
Israel is protecting itself. Why is that so hard for so many people to accept? They do not want to hurt innocent Palestinians—and there are some. But they have a right to defend themselves. “Well what about the Palestinians rights!” Some will declare. "They have a right to a homeland too!” Okay, they’re not an actual “people”, they’ve never had a homeland, or a country, but let’s be charitable and agree. Why not give them one where their own people live? Arabs. Why? Because Egypt won’t take them. (They’re not strictly Arab anyway.) Syria won’t take them. Jordan refuses to take them. Lebanon won’t take them. The Saudi’s? No. Iraq? Nope. Iran? C’mon, be serious. Besides, Iranians aren’t Arab either. They’re Persians. No one will accept the Palestinians. Why not? Because then Islam would have no reason to foment aggression against Israel. Then the Arab states would have no overt reason to hate Israel. It would all have to come out into the light of day, and the Global Community would be exposed for what it is. A bunch of sycophantic wanna-be’s, jealous of freedom, independence, success and Hi Def television.
Several years ago my adult niece and nephew went to Israel for a semester. We talked about their experiences while they were there. It was clear that they had some problems with Israelis in general and enjoyed the company of the Palestinians more, and were sympathetic to their situation. Palestinians are considered second-class citizens in Israel. They are not trusted, and this is evident in everyday life. I sympathize as well. But what is a country to do in the face of years of suicide bombers killing people, destroying property? How should they respond to decades of incendiary rhetoric and violent uprisings? What should they do about years of random missile and mortar attacks on innocent citizens? Israel does not do, and never has done, these kinds of things to their enemies. (With the possible exception of the Masad, but that is individual kidnappings and assassinations of known terrorists.) The Palestinian governments have proven time and again that they are incapable of eradicating these terrorist elements from their midst. The reason is as sad as it is obvious; most Palestinians are sympathetic to Hamas and its Jihad against Israel. If Israel gave in and ceded their land to the Palestinians, and moved en mass into the Sinai, nothing would change. The Palestinians (Islam) would continue to cry for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews. Despite the fact that there are many Palestinians who believe in peace and tolerance.
I am not suggesting that Israel is perfect. Nor that it has no culpability in some of what has happened over there. But I am declaring unequivocally, that compared to the Palestinians (Hamas), Israel clearly, absolutely, owns the moral and political high ground in this on-going struggle. So someone tell me why the rest of the world continues to pretend that the Palestinians are the victims? No, on second thought don’t. I won’t be able to sustain a pretense of interest.
The initiation of violence is never justified. It is well past time that freedom-loving people stand up and condemn any and all terrorist activity. To do otherwise, including doing nothing, is a tacit approval of terrorism. Period.
And please, whatever you do, don’t respond with nit-picky, technical corrections to my historical facts. Everyone knows I make them up. Even then they’re close enough.
To: Anyone willing to read a rant by a seriously fed-up guy
Fr: A seriously fed-up Crypto-guy
Re: Palestine
As many of you know, we are currently in our semi-annual cease-fire violation over in Gaza. And once again, like clock-work, the “global community” whatever that is, has come together, whatever that means, to denounce Israel for daring to bomb the innocent Palestinians who were only firing rockets into Israel, which, come on, let’s face it, is like a rite of passage for Palestinians.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind if everyone denounced Israel for the violence, as long as they denounced Hamas in the same breath for theirs. But no one ever does, do they? At least not officially. (And I know all about how far back the animosity goes. So what?)
A brief and overly-simplified history lesson: There has never, in the long history of the world, been a nation called Palestine. The word is derived from a roman term, Palistina, which referred to the entire region now known as Israel, the West Bank, and parts of Jordan and Syria.
The term Palestine in modern times was used to refer to the area where “Palestinians” lived prior to 1948. These were dispossessed people from several countries in the area, including Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and of course, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, who were kicked out of wherever they were living and sort of squatted in what is now Israel, which at the time belonged to no one.
After WWII, and despite impossible odds, a handful of Jewish refugees, armed with nothing but chutzpah and nothing-left-to-lose, invaded a not-country, sparsely populated with a disparate collection of disorganized and constantly squabbling cast-offs, and grabbed a toe-hold. Their dream was a homeland for the survivors of the Russian Pogroms and the Nazi Death Camps and nothing was going to stop them. People have been arguing ever since who has the better claim to the land. Personally, I say Israel does. Two reasons: One, Yahweh gave it to them, and two, they had been living there for what? Six thousand years, off and on?
Some people will discount the Yahweh claim, but no one else (i.e. the Palestinians) have ever claimed a God gave them the land. (For an excellent recounting of that time in history, read Exodus, by Leon Uris. Also see: Refiner’s Fire, by Mark Helprin)
Since shortly after 1948, Israel has existed as an internationally recognized, sovereign nation, which has managed to not only survive, but thrive, despite the fact that they are literally surrounded by people who hate them and claim on a daily basis that they will kill them all. And of course, they are outnumbered about twenty to one by all those hate-spewing people. (It didn’t help that in 1967 Israel not only defeated but humiliated the Arab world in the shortest, most lop-sided war in modern history. Despite the fact that Egypt hit them with a “surprise attack”.)
On the other hand, Hamas, the legally elected Palestinian government which is recognized by no one, not even Cuba, (okay, I made that up. I have no idea who Cuba recognizes, but it sounded good didn’t it?) has, instead of investing in schools and roads, and hospitals and things like that for their people (like Israel has done), spends all their time plotting to kill all the Jews, and firing rockets into Israel at random intervals, with no aiming mechanisms.
Lest we dismiss the media bias inherent in the problem, let us remember that until a few years ago, news agencies consistently referred to Palestinian settlements as “Refugee Camps”, which is how they started out after the Jews moved in and relocated them, even though they have been autonomous and often thriving cities for decades.
Oh, now that I think of it, Hamas is recognized for something. They are universally recognized as a terrorist organization. And yet the “global community” consistently calls Israel the terrorists. Go figure.
Here’s how it works over there. And this is a matter of public record, so let’s not go blathering about “biased opinions”.
Tempers flare, and someone, usually the USA, or France, or the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, steps in and attempts to negotiate a peace agreement. Remember Yasser Arafat and Jimmie Carter? Israel and Palestine sign the agreement. Sometimes even the PLO and or Hamas sign as well. Then, sometime later, rockets begin landing in Israel again, fired by Hamas. Usually Israel displays extraordinary patience and negotiates another cease-fire, which is then promptly broken by Hamas. Every now and then Israel gets fed up with this, after losing a few dozen innocent citizens and launches an attack on terrorist leaders, headquarters, etc. Despite the fact that the Palestinians start the violence every time, and despite the fact that Israel has consistently declared its desire for peace and an end to violence while Hamas and other similar organizations have just as consistently screamed for Israel’s destruction and the death of all Jews, everywhere. So, yeah, I can see how everyone would point the finger at Israel.
Israel is protecting itself. Why is that so hard for so many people to accept? They do not want to hurt innocent Palestinians—and there are some. But they have a right to defend themselves. “Well what about the Palestinians rights!” Some will declare. "They have a right to a homeland too!” Okay, they’re not an actual “people”, they’ve never had a homeland, or a country, but let’s be charitable and agree. Why not give them one where their own people live? Arabs. Why? Because Egypt won’t take them. (They’re not strictly Arab anyway.) Syria won’t take them. Jordan refuses to take them. Lebanon won’t take them. The Saudi’s? No. Iraq? Nope. Iran? C’mon, be serious. Besides, Iranians aren’t Arab either. They’re Persians. No one will accept the Palestinians. Why not? Because then Islam would have no reason to foment aggression against Israel. Then the Arab states would have no overt reason to hate Israel. It would all have to come out into the light of day, and the Global Community would be exposed for what it is. A bunch of sycophantic wanna-be’s, jealous of freedom, independence, success and Hi Def television.
Several years ago my adult niece and nephew went to Israel for a semester. We talked about their experiences while they were there. It was clear that they had some problems with Israelis in general and enjoyed the company of the Palestinians more, and were sympathetic to their situation. Palestinians are considered second-class citizens in Israel. They are not trusted, and this is evident in everyday life. I sympathize as well. But what is a country to do in the face of years of suicide bombers killing people, destroying property? How should they respond to decades of incendiary rhetoric and violent uprisings? What should they do about years of random missile and mortar attacks on innocent citizens? Israel does not do, and never has done, these kinds of things to their enemies. (With the possible exception of the Masad, but that is individual kidnappings and assassinations of known terrorists.) The Palestinian governments have proven time and again that they are incapable of eradicating these terrorist elements from their midst. The reason is as sad as it is obvious; most Palestinians are sympathetic to Hamas and its Jihad against Israel. If Israel gave in and ceded their land to the Palestinians, and moved en mass into the Sinai, nothing would change. The Palestinians (Islam) would continue to cry for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews. Despite the fact that there are many Palestinians who believe in peace and tolerance.
I am not suggesting that Israel is perfect. Nor that it has no culpability in some of what has happened over there. But I am declaring unequivocally, that compared to the Palestinians (Hamas), Israel clearly, absolutely, owns the moral and political high ground in this on-going struggle. So someone tell me why the rest of the world continues to pretend that the Palestinians are the victims? No, on second thought don’t. I won’t be able to sustain a pretense of interest.
The initiation of violence is never justified. It is well past time that freedom-loving people stand up and condemn any and all terrorist activity. To do otherwise, including doing nothing, is a tacit approval of terrorism. Period.
And please, whatever you do, don’t respond with nit-picky, technical corrections to my historical facts. Everyone knows I make them up. Even then they’re close enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)