Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Carbon Credits
9-22-09
Something a friend said to me the other day has me thinking. He had his tongue planted firmly in his cheek, but came up with the germ of a brilliant idea having to do with carbon credits and the Cap and Trade plan which is coming down on us like a vengeful but “ultimately helpful” super-volcanic eruption.
He mentioned that he drives motorcycles mostly. A nice BMW touring bike and an ancient, restored Russian Military bike with a sidecar, also a BMW, I think. He gets, compared to most of us, really, really good mileage. In fact he told me the Russian bike is so old and underpowered, it doesn’t have a speedometer, it has a day-planner. (Ba-da-bing) He wanted to know why he couldn’t trade or sell his carbon credits. Good question. Why can’t he?
Folks, this is a ground-floor opportunity. Right now, there are no laws, guidelines or regulations concerning Cap and Trade and-or carbon credits. A lot of people probably have them and don’t realize it. Nita and I are big recyclers, and aggressive energy-efficiency czars in our own home. (I know, what a shock to learn that the conservative fascist recycles and conserves. Surprise.)
In the last few years we have doubled the insulation in our ceiling, put whirly-gig vents in the roof, replaced all the windows with high-efficiency, double-paned, gas-filled ones, replaced the leaky sliding glass door with nice insulated, double-paned, gas-filled French doors, have a new, energy efficient air-conditioner, and several other things. We only flush the toilet when someone does a dookie. “If it’s yellow it’s mellow . . . if it’s brown flush it down.” That’s our motto.
And we recycle everything. Twice a week we take all our garbage, organic, plastic, paper, glass, metal, wood, all of it, and put it in special containers. A private company comes around in big trucks and picks it up for us and takes it to a special place called a “land fill” where we pay them to dump it, store it, and cover it up. This is a communal operation because we believe in community, people helping people. When we all run out of everything, we can go out there and dig it up and voila! There it is, waiting to be recycled and re-used. (Unless it was biodegradable, in which case it’ll make great compost for our survival gardens.)
We drive fairly new vehicles, which, according to our annual “Smog tests,” are very efficient and burn very cleanly, especially compared to 30 or 40 years ago. I’ve been thinking about riding roller-blades to work, but I’d have to have them on my hands and feet, and knees and elbows and hips and who-knows-where-else, which would be cost-prohibitive. Or a bike, but the only ones that would hold me up would weigh more than the Bismarck, which sort of defeats the purpose.
Anyway, I’m sure we have scads of carbon credits. Probably most people do because we’re not huge, corrupt, money-hungry corporations out to destroy the planet. But probably lots of people don’t have any as well. Some people could use a few carbon credits. Remember, under the Cap and Trade philosophy, it doesn’t matter what the total amount of carbon being produced is, it only matters that the debit-credit balance sheet comes out even. Because, c’mon, everyone knows it’s a delusional scam, right?
So we should set up some kind of bank thingie, and start trading, beat the government and the global community at their own game. And by game, I mean disingenuous, star-chamber-conspiracy, global shell-game. That kind of game.
We could trade on Craig’s List and EBay. They could start up whole new sections for us. “The People’s Community Carbon Exchange.” And since no one has a clue what a carbon credit is, or looks like, or how much it weighs or what it’s worth, we can sort of make all that stuff up. Half of us will get rich and the other half will have the satisfaction of being able to pretend they did something meaningful for the planet. It’s win-win people. (Win-Win. That reminds me of a tattoo business I made up in one of my books. The great granddaughter of Steve Wynn, Who’s name is Wynn Kerkorian, owns the shop, but the tattoos—which are printed with a retrofitted Cat Scan machine and a commercial printing head with several hundred needles in it—all computer-controlled of course—are really inimical printed circuits which destroy the world. Metallic salts . . . look it up. Anyway the name of the parlor is Wynn-Wynn Tattoos.)
The advantage of this operation should be obvious. No pesky definitions, no regulations, no permission. It’s like LSD in the sixties before they made it illegal. Or the opposite of America, circa today.
So if you need to buy or sell some carbon credits, send me an email and I will set you up. I know people. (I plan to be a broker for the fledgling empire; they get money from both ends. And, unlike the government, I can be trusted to fleece you within reason and no more.)
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
IGM Interesting Quote
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Interesting Quote
9-20-09
It is Sunday afternoon and my brain just exploded because I was watching George Steponallofus interview President Obama. It was an accident—I was channel surfing. They were talking about race in politics and the President artfully side-stepped the issue, rightfully deciding that most Americans didn’t care about his race. But then it turned to Health Care Reform. George wanted to know why the President was having so much trouble with the reform
Obama seemed a little nonplussed as he answered. I can’t quote him because the transcripts won’t be out until tomorrow morning, but it went something like this:
“I’m not sure George. I think I’m making a modest proposal. I’m not suggesting any radical new programs or changes.” That’s when my brain exploded. (Don’t worry . . . I found most of the pieces and put it back together with a mixture of flour and water—I’m organic all the way. The glue will eventually disappear to be replaced by calcium carbonate, so there will be a little rigidity slipping into my thought processes, but they’re so rigid already you probably won’t notice.)
But he wasn’t done. Then he claimed that his reform wasn’t designed to add much in the way of expenditures.
Here’s the thing. I was paying attention, watching his body language. He was absolutely sincere. He really believes these proposals are “modest”, and that there is nothing radical going on at all. I believe that his sincerity is troubling. He doesn’t see it. His world view, his political and philosophical foundations, are so out of touch with mainstream America, (And when I say Mainstream America, I mean me) that he actually believes most of us are jake with the wholesale deconstruction of the culture and social landscape of this country.
Now, I know a lot of us like this guy. I have nothing against him, at least not like a did with Clinton or Carter, or Bush senior. I know a lot us are concerned about the welfare of the uninsured. So am I. I absolutely agree that change is needed.
But it is worrisome when the President refers to these draconian proposals as “modest”, insists nothing radical is going (when his friends and appointments are all self-confessed radicals of one sort or another) and then strongly implies that it won’t cost much. How is 2-3 trillion dollars “not much?” He blithely admitted that this new health-care was going to cost about thirteen percent of the income earned by someone making about $66,000 a year. 13 percent! And George said, “And that doesn’t include co-payments or prescriptions,” and they both smiled. Then; “you can see how people might view this as a big tax increase.” (I didn’t hear the answer because by then I was bending over and picking up pieces of brain and it was making me light-headed. Get it?) How is going from private-sector health care based on a hybrid capitalist-Federal oversight system to—let’s call it what it is—socialized, government-controlled, rationed health-care, a “modest proposal?”
Even the people over at Moveon.org should be able to see that he seriously misspoke. (But they won’t admit it because it goes against their official dogma).
Wouldn’t it have made more sense, and wouldn’t his supporters (as well as detractors) have felt better about his remarks, if he’d said something like; “you know George, it’s a huge mess. And it’s going to take a huge fix. We have to make major changes. It’ll take a lot of time and a lot of money, and when we come out the other side, yes, things will look different. But I was elected with a mandate. My job is to secure major changes and improvements in health care in this country and that’s what I’m going to do.”
That’s what I would have said. And I don’t even own a teleprompter.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Interesting Quote
9-20-09
It is Sunday afternoon and my brain just exploded because I was watching George Steponallofus interview President Obama. It was an accident—I was channel surfing. They were talking about race in politics and the President artfully side-stepped the issue, rightfully deciding that most Americans didn’t care about his race. But then it turned to Health Care Reform. George wanted to know why the President was having so much trouble with the reform
Obama seemed a little nonplussed as he answered. I can’t quote him because the transcripts won’t be out until tomorrow morning, but it went something like this:
“I’m not sure George. I think I’m making a modest proposal. I’m not suggesting any radical new programs or changes.” That’s when my brain exploded. (Don’t worry . . . I found most of the pieces and put it back together with a mixture of flour and water—I’m organic all the way. The glue will eventually disappear to be replaced by calcium carbonate, so there will be a little rigidity slipping into my thought processes, but they’re so rigid already you probably won’t notice.)
But he wasn’t done. Then he claimed that his reform wasn’t designed to add much in the way of expenditures.
Here’s the thing. I was paying attention, watching his body language. He was absolutely sincere. He really believes these proposals are “modest”, and that there is nothing radical going on at all. I believe that his sincerity is troubling. He doesn’t see it. His world view, his political and philosophical foundations, are so out of touch with mainstream America, (And when I say Mainstream America, I mean me) that he actually believes most of us are jake with the wholesale deconstruction of the culture and social landscape of this country.
Now, I know a lot of us like this guy. I have nothing against him, at least not like a did with Clinton or Carter, or Bush senior. I know a lot us are concerned about the welfare of the uninsured. So am I. I absolutely agree that change is needed.
But it is worrisome when the President refers to these draconian proposals as “modest”, insists nothing radical is going (when his friends and appointments are all self-confessed radicals of one sort or another) and then strongly implies that it won’t cost much. How is 2-3 trillion dollars “not much?” He blithely admitted that this new health-care was going to cost about thirteen percent of the income earned by someone making about $66,000 a year. 13 percent! And George said, “And that doesn’t include co-payments or prescriptions,” and they both smiled. Then; “you can see how people might view this as a big tax increase.” (I didn’t hear the answer because by then I was bending over and picking up pieces of brain and it was making me light-headed. Get it?) How is going from private-sector health care based on a hybrid capitalist-Federal oversight system to—let’s call it what it is—socialized, government-controlled, rationed health-care, a “modest proposal?”
Even the people over at Moveon.org should be able to see that he seriously misspoke. (But they won’t admit it because it goes against their official dogma).
Wouldn’t it have made more sense, and wouldn’t his supporters (as well as detractors) have felt better about his remarks, if he’d said something like; “you know George, it’s a huge mess. And it’s going to take a huge fix. We have to make major changes. It’ll take a lot of time and a lot of money, and when we come out the other side, yes, things will look different. But I was elected with a mandate. My job is to secure major changes and improvements in health care in this country and that’s what I’m going to do.”
That’s what I would have said. And I don’t even own a teleprompter.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
IGM: Mary Travers
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Mary Travers
9-17-09
It is with a profound sense of loss and a quiet sense of personal satisfaction that I announce the death of Mary Travers. After a long and painful struggle with leukemia, she has finally won the battle at age 72. Loss because I will miss having her in the world, and satisfaction because of a life well-lived and one of the greatest gifts I have ever been given. The gift of music.
Many of you will not be familiar with Mary. She was the full-throated blonde in the folk trio, Peter Paul and Mary. They hit it big in the early sixties singing traditional folk songs, and then expanded their repertoire to include protest music, and uplifting songs about peace and love and stuff like that. They won five Grammys and maintained an active career well into the eighties, and accidently got rich. I have no idea how many albums they sold, but I have one or two of all of them. (And by album, I mean vinyl.)
I was probably fourteen or so when I first heard them, and they changed my life forever. Peter Paul and Mary remain the single biggest musical influence in my life. By the time I was in high school in the late sixties I was playing guitar and singing their songs, then jointly formed a trio (two guys and a girl) of my (our) own and we became PP&M clones. We eventually branched out a little and did Dylan (so did PP&M . . . so did everybody) and Donovan and other, less well know stuff—like the Sons of the Pioneers—including some of our own. We played the coffee house circuit between Baltimore and D.C. In some ways, that was the “best time of my life”, to quote Bryan Adams. It is difficult to describe the extent to which their music touched me, moved me, and still does today. Those beat-up, scratchy records are still the ones that get played the most, despite the size and breadth of my collection. My kids were all raised on folk music and classic rock and roll, but if you asked them, I think they would tell you the folk was their favorite when they were growing up. (Their kids have all been raised listening to Donovan’s “For Little Ones”, among others.) Their arrangements and harmonies, their passion and technical superiority affected me immensely, and informed my own brief career in the music business.
PP&M were socially conscious. They stood for principles. Not always shared by me, but they were sincere and consistent. They donated huge sums of money to causes and did nearly as many benefits as paying concerts. They were one of several acts who performed on the Mall in DC when MLK gave his famous “I have a dream” speech. It is one of the main disappointments of my life I never got to see them live, but in his later years Nita and I went to see Peter Yarrow at a small venue in Albuquerque. He was just out of prison for cavorting with under-aged groupies (he says they lied to him) but it was a great show. Now I never will.
Mary will be missed. Her oddly put-together face, the way she snapped her head and made her hair flop around when she wanted to emphasize something. Those bangs. That throaty, hard-driving voice of hers and her sense of humor. Late in their careers they made an album called Peter Paul and Mommy, a collection of tunes for children, which is an absolute gem. At one time I knew most of the songs on that album and wore out my guitar singing them to our kids and their friends.(“Daddy’s taking us to zoo tomorrow . . .”) In fact, doing some of those songs for my wife’s little nieces (Nita and I had just met) at dinner one night, was instrumental in her deciding to marry me.
Mary will never stop singing. One of the best things about technology is our being able to save—and savor—music and art into the eternities. Peter and Paul (Noel) will eventually die as well, sooner, later, who knows? And So will I. But until I do, I will be listening to their music, and, in that sense, keeping them alive forever.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Mary Travers
9-17-09
It is with a profound sense of loss and a quiet sense of personal satisfaction that I announce the death of Mary Travers. After a long and painful struggle with leukemia, she has finally won the battle at age 72. Loss because I will miss having her in the world, and satisfaction because of a life well-lived and one of the greatest gifts I have ever been given. The gift of music.
Many of you will not be familiar with Mary. She was the full-throated blonde in the folk trio, Peter Paul and Mary. They hit it big in the early sixties singing traditional folk songs, and then expanded their repertoire to include protest music, and uplifting songs about peace and love and stuff like that. They won five Grammys and maintained an active career well into the eighties, and accidently got rich. I have no idea how many albums they sold, but I have one or two of all of them. (And by album, I mean vinyl.)
I was probably fourteen or so when I first heard them, and they changed my life forever. Peter Paul and Mary remain the single biggest musical influence in my life. By the time I was in high school in the late sixties I was playing guitar and singing their songs, then jointly formed a trio (two guys and a girl) of my (our) own and we became PP&M clones. We eventually branched out a little and did Dylan (so did PP&M . . . so did everybody) and Donovan and other, less well know stuff—like the Sons of the Pioneers—including some of our own. We played the coffee house circuit between Baltimore and D.C. In some ways, that was the “best time of my life”, to quote Bryan Adams. It is difficult to describe the extent to which their music touched me, moved me, and still does today. Those beat-up, scratchy records are still the ones that get played the most, despite the size and breadth of my collection. My kids were all raised on folk music and classic rock and roll, but if you asked them, I think they would tell you the folk was their favorite when they were growing up. (Their kids have all been raised listening to Donovan’s “For Little Ones”, among others.) Their arrangements and harmonies, their passion and technical superiority affected me immensely, and informed my own brief career in the music business.
PP&M were socially conscious. They stood for principles. Not always shared by me, but they were sincere and consistent. They donated huge sums of money to causes and did nearly as many benefits as paying concerts. They were one of several acts who performed on the Mall in DC when MLK gave his famous “I have a dream” speech. It is one of the main disappointments of my life I never got to see them live, but in his later years Nita and I went to see Peter Yarrow at a small venue in Albuquerque. He was just out of prison for cavorting with under-aged groupies (he says they lied to him) but it was a great show. Now I never will.
Mary will be missed. Her oddly put-together face, the way she snapped her head and made her hair flop around when she wanted to emphasize something. Those bangs. That throaty, hard-driving voice of hers and her sense of humor. Late in their careers they made an album called Peter Paul and Mommy, a collection of tunes for children, which is an absolute gem. At one time I knew most of the songs on that album and wore out my guitar singing them to our kids and their friends.(“Daddy’s taking us to zoo tomorrow . . .”) In fact, doing some of those songs for my wife’s little nieces (Nita and I had just met) at dinner one night, was instrumental in her deciding to marry me.
Mary will never stop singing. One of the best things about technology is our being able to save—and savor—music and art into the eternities. Peter and Paul (Noel) will eventually die as well, sooner, later, who knows? And So will I. But until I do, I will be listening to their music, and, in that sense, keeping them alive forever.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
IGM Dissent
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Dissent
I’m going to steal a subject from Jay Nordlinger who wrote a nice piece in the current National Review. It has to do with the place of dissent in America, both today and throughout history. We should all be able to recall with hardly any drugs at all, the many, many references to dissent in one form or another during the former reign of George W. Bush. People with moderate to liberal leanings were fond of claiming that dissent was “the highest form of patriotism.” They were saying this mostly because they were doing a lot of dissenting, albeit, disguised as whining.
I’m not sure that the spirit of that now-trite phrase is true. Certainly we have a tradition of dissent in this country, from all sides and ideologies. But it could be argued that most of it stems from sour grapes rather than any passionately felt principle. (I would cite Joan Baez as an exception to that rule. While she was very critical of our involvement in the Vietnam war, she turned right around after the North Vietnamese took over and slammed the new regime for human rights abuses, which engendered a good deal of abuse aimed at her from the anti-war movement here at home. I’m sure there are other examples. I’m sure you’re one of them.)
So, do you think “dissent is the highest form of patriotism?” I have my doubts. As always, one has to weigh the validity of a given position both in its context and historically, which takes a little time. At the time of the Colony’s trouble with England, a good forty percent or more of the fledgling country disagreed with the dissenters who signed the Declaration of Independence. Time has shown them ( the signatories) to have been on the right side of the issue and most of us today applaud what they did.
In a more timely example, many people today are protesting (another word for dissent) what they believe to be outdated and punitive copyright laws, especially where “intellectual property” is concerned. In this case, I belong to the status quo, believing that an artist’s right to his or her property and whatever monetary remuneration might be theirs, to be sacrosanct. My son and his generation dissent from this view, believing that the new world of universal access demands new values, laws, and new ways to benefit. It is difficult to predict who might be right, and I do not claim to have any prescient insight into the debate. I just think we should be paid for our work, and that government should protect it. My son’s beliefs, which include open-sourced sharing of everything electronic, might turn out to be valid and workable. I await histories verdict.
But when it comes to politics and ideologies, dissent becomes another matter. One cannot help but notice a trend on Capitol Hill. We see people from both sides of the aisle stridently criticizing this or that policy, bill, decision or haircut, and then refuse to say a word about the same offenses when someone on “their side” is caught with fingers in the same cookie jar. Odd how it was the “height of patriotism” to bash President Bush (of whom I am no particular fan), but now that the shoe is on the other foot, dissent has become the “strident cacophony of rabble-rousing fringe elements from the far right of gun-toting, religious zealots.” (That’s not a quote from anyone, I just made it up, but things often have a heightened sense of importance when we wrap them in quotation marks.) It was “patriotic” to protest our involvement in Iraq, to protest just about every word out of the mouths of Carl Rove and Dick Cheney, but now that Van Jones and Tim Geithner and their ilk are in play, anyone who dares question their motives or qualifications or professional histories, is considered mentally defective and instantly branded a malcontent, a fringer, or, even worse, an “angry white man.” But the dissent going on now is valid. There are serious questions being asked about policy and the wholesale re-direction of America. Questions about how large and intrusive a government should be, about intrusions into the private sector, and decisions that have traditionally been up to individuals or the various states. The gathering surge of middle America is far from organized, (at least in the sense of the professional organizing that has been the hallmark of the Democrat party for decades) but it is gaining. It is a valid reaction of fear and suspicion to a less than forth-coming administration. One hopes that reason and rectitude and civility will be maintained, and so far, for the most part, it has. We recall with fondness the many instances where these laudable traits were thrown to the wind by those of a more “progressive” bent. Political memory is so selective.
Now, I am neither angry nor, technically, white. (As an Entity of Extra-Terrestrial Origin, or EETO, I cannot be considered genetically Caucasian, or any other earthly racial type.) But I do share some of the indignation felt by the more conservative among us. Happily, I do so with a smile and an intact sense of humor. How else does one approach the Janeane Garofalo’s and Howard Dean’s of the world?
When Albert Einstein wrote his famous letter to the president, it was out of a sense that America could be trusted to vouchsafe the new energy source, while other countries could not. It was patriotism. When he protested the development of the H-bomb, and the rapid escalation of nuclear arms, (despite their inevitability, of which he was well aware) I believe he was being patriotic as well. When Sergeant York and Audie Murphy won their medals, I believe their sense of patriotism rose above that of any dissent. When my father won two Distinguished Flying Crosses for mercilessly bombing Japan (despite his personal feelings) and helping to defeat an implacable enemy and shorten a world war, I believe his patriotism rose above those who protested the violence and death, while ignoring the ruthless, inhumane and brutal atrocities perpetrated by our enemies. But that’s just me. There are other positions in that debate. As always, only history will tell.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Dissent
I’m going to steal a subject from Jay Nordlinger who wrote a nice piece in the current National Review. It has to do with the place of dissent in America, both today and throughout history. We should all be able to recall with hardly any drugs at all, the many, many references to dissent in one form or another during the former reign of George W. Bush. People with moderate to liberal leanings were fond of claiming that dissent was “the highest form of patriotism.” They were saying this mostly because they were doing a lot of dissenting, albeit, disguised as whining.
I’m not sure that the spirit of that now-trite phrase is true. Certainly we have a tradition of dissent in this country, from all sides and ideologies. But it could be argued that most of it stems from sour grapes rather than any passionately felt principle. (I would cite Joan Baez as an exception to that rule. While she was very critical of our involvement in the Vietnam war, she turned right around after the North Vietnamese took over and slammed the new regime for human rights abuses, which engendered a good deal of abuse aimed at her from the anti-war movement here at home. I’m sure there are other examples. I’m sure you’re one of them.)
So, do you think “dissent is the highest form of patriotism?” I have my doubts. As always, one has to weigh the validity of a given position both in its context and historically, which takes a little time. At the time of the Colony’s trouble with England, a good forty percent or more of the fledgling country disagreed with the dissenters who signed the Declaration of Independence. Time has shown them ( the signatories) to have been on the right side of the issue and most of us today applaud what they did.
In a more timely example, many people today are protesting (another word for dissent) what they believe to be outdated and punitive copyright laws, especially where “intellectual property” is concerned. In this case, I belong to the status quo, believing that an artist’s right to his or her property and whatever monetary remuneration might be theirs, to be sacrosanct. My son and his generation dissent from this view, believing that the new world of universal access demands new values, laws, and new ways to benefit. It is difficult to predict who might be right, and I do not claim to have any prescient insight into the debate. I just think we should be paid for our work, and that government should protect it. My son’s beliefs, which include open-sourced sharing of everything electronic, might turn out to be valid and workable. I await histories verdict.
But when it comes to politics and ideologies, dissent becomes another matter. One cannot help but notice a trend on Capitol Hill. We see people from both sides of the aisle stridently criticizing this or that policy, bill, decision or haircut, and then refuse to say a word about the same offenses when someone on “their side” is caught with fingers in the same cookie jar. Odd how it was the “height of patriotism” to bash President Bush (of whom I am no particular fan), but now that the shoe is on the other foot, dissent has become the “strident cacophony of rabble-rousing fringe elements from the far right of gun-toting, religious zealots.” (That’s not a quote from anyone, I just made it up, but things often have a heightened sense of importance when we wrap them in quotation marks.) It was “patriotic” to protest our involvement in Iraq, to protest just about every word out of the mouths of Carl Rove and Dick Cheney, but now that Van Jones and Tim Geithner and their ilk are in play, anyone who dares question their motives or qualifications or professional histories, is considered mentally defective and instantly branded a malcontent, a fringer, or, even worse, an “angry white man.” But the dissent going on now is valid. There are serious questions being asked about policy and the wholesale re-direction of America. Questions about how large and intrusive a government should be, about intrusions into the private sector, and decisions that have traditionally been up to individuals or the various states. The gathering surge of middle America is far from organized, (at least in the sense of the professional organizing that has been the hallmark of the Democrat party for decades) but it is gaining. It is a valid reaction of fear and suspicion to a less than forth-coming administration. One hopes that reason and rectitude and civility will be maintained, and so far, for the most part, it has. We recall with fondness the many instances where these laudable traits were thrown to the wind by those of a more “progressive” bent. Political memory is so selective.
Now, I am neither angry nor, technically, white. (As an Entity of Extra-Terrestrial Origin, or EETO, I cannot be considered genetically Caucasian, or any other earthly racial type.) But I do share some of the indignation felt by the more conservative among us. Happily, I do so with a smile and an intact sense of humor. How else does one approach the Janeane Garofalo’s and Howard Dean’s of the world?
When Albert Einstein wrote his famous letter to the president, it was out of a sense that America could be trusted to vouchsafe the new energy source, while other countries could not. It was patriotism. When he protested the development of the H-bomb, and the rapid escalation of nuclear arms, (despite their inevitability, of which he was well aware) I believe he was being patriotic as well. When Sergeant York and Audie Murphy won their medals, I believe their sense of patriotism rose above that of any dissent. When my father won two Distinguished Flying Crosses for mercilessly bombing Japan (despite his personal feelings) and helping to defeat an implacable enemy and shorten a world war, I believe his patriotism rose above those who protested the violence and death, while ignoring the ruthless, inhumane and brutal atrocities perpetrated by our enemies. But that’s just me. There are other positions in that debate. As always, only history will tell.
IGM Carbon Emissions
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Carbon emissions
9-14-09
Here’s a provocative headline: (Physorg.com)
Australia overtakes US as biggest polluter
Wow. That’s big news. We have cities with more people than Australia, but they’re a bigger polluter. It turns out to be misleading. (Didn’t see that coming, did you?).
The article goes on to say that Australia’s per capita production of carbon dioxide has surpassed our own. Which means that at 20.58 tons of CO2 per year, per person, they are at the top of the list of 185 countries. Of course, we still produce more CO2 than Australia. (And China produces five times as much as we do, but only at a rate of 5.4 tons per person. They just have lots of persons.)
I was curious what my personal contribution was so I looked it up. According to the list I found, we are at about 19 tons per person as of 2006. We were at 19 tons in 1990 as well, so we are doing an excellent job of holding the line. This is in contrast with say, Qatar, which went from 25.2 to 56.2 tons in the same time period. This can be seen as a mark of progress as well, but I doubt anyone would have the bad taste to say as much.
So . . . what’s the point? I mean, who cares? I’m responsible for 19 tons of carbon dioxide. Of course, I didn’t personally put that much out (that would be a lot of exhaling, and I would have had to drive about eight million miles) but someone thinks this is a useful statistic. I don’t. 19 tons times 300,000,000 people comes to 5,700,000,000 tons, or 5.7 billion for the US. Sounds like a lot doesn’t it? However, the total percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is .02. Humans contribute around 3% of that. Yet somehow, it is our (humanities) .006% that is destroying the planet. Yeah, I know, it’s all about tipping points. I looked at several other lists from various sources. They differ by as much as 100%. Which kinda makes me suspicious of the accuracy and precision of any of them. They were probably all generated by highly sophisticated computer models. Like the one that predicted the rain forests would be gone by 1990. Here’s a thought: Our heart rate and breathing go way up when we exercise. If we all stopped exercising, or otherwise exerting ourselves, we could reduce CO2 emissions by as much as 20% (by my calculations, which means I made it up). But that would mean no more sex . . . . hey, it’s all about sacrifice, right?
Anyway, I just wanted to apologize for my 19 tons. I will try and do better.
(Dave, I kept it to one and a half pages . . . just for you.)
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Carbon emissions
9-14-09
Here’s a provocative headline: (Physorg.com)
Australia overtakes US as biggest polluter
Wow. That’s big news. We have cities with more people than Australia, but they’re a bigger polluter. It turns out to be misleading. (Didn’t see that coming, did you?).
The article goes on to say that Australia’s per capita production of carbon dioxide has surpassed our own. Which means that at 20.58 tons of CO2 per year, per person, they are at the top of the list of 185 countries. Of course, we still produce more CO2 than Australia. (And China produces five times as much as we do, but only at a rate of 5.4 tons per person. They just have lots of persons.)
I was curious what my personal contribution was so I looked it up. According to the list I found, we are at about 19 tons per person as of 2006. We were at 19 tons in 1990 as well, so we are doing an excellent job of holding the line. This is in contrast with say, Qatar, which went from 25.2 to 56.2 tons in the same time period. This can be seen as a mark of progress as well, but I doubt anyone would have the bad taste to say as much.
So . . . what’s the point? I mean, who cares? I’m responsible for 19 tons of carbon dioxide. Of course, I didn’t personally put that much out (that would be a lot of exhaling, and I would have had to drive about eight million miles) but someone thinks this is a useful statistic. I don’t. 19 tons times 300,000,000 people comes to 5,700,000,000 tons, or 5.7 billion for the US. Sounds like a lot doesn’t it? However, the total percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is .02. Humans contribute around 3% of that. Yet somehow, it is our (humanities) .006% that is destroying the planet. Yeah, I know, it’s all about tipping points. I looked at several other lists from various sources. They differ by as much as 100%. Which kinda makes me suspicious of the accuracy and precision of any of them. They were probably all generated by highly sophisticated computer models. Like the one that predicted the rain forests would be gone by 1990. Here’s a thought: Our heart rate and breathing go way up when we exercise. If we all stopped exercising, or otherwise exerting ourselves, we could reduce CO2 emissions by as much as 20% (by my calculations, which means I made it up). But that would mean no more sex . . . . hey, it’s all about sacrifice, right?
Anyway, I just wanted to apologize for my 19 tons. I will try and do better.
(Dave, I kept it to one and a half pages . . . just for you.)
IGM ALIS
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: A.L.I.S.
9-04-09
Interesting article in Physorg. today.
The right honourable computer, barrister-at-law (that spelling is British and it correct over there.)
Here’s the opening grabber:
European researchers have created a legal analysis query engine that combines artificial intelligence, game theory and semantics to offer advice, conflict prevention and dispute settlement for European law, and it even supports policy.
It’s fairly interesting, although I didn’t understand a lot of it. But there are a few troubling items I thought we should look into. Essentially, this is a “sophisticated”, experimental computer program designed to take some of the work load off the shoulders of those stalwarts in the legal system. I don’t know about you, but I have doubts about letting a computer program make decisions on legal matters. The only situation I can think of that would be worse would be letting human beings make those decisions. Yikes.
Okay, first objection. “Game Theory.” Do we really want people who write the admittedly hugely complex algorithms for games taking over the legal system? Thankfully, this experiment is being perpetrated over in Europe right now, so we have time to form an underground resistance, come up with passwords and handshakes, and divvy ourselves up into sleeper cells. Viva la revolucion!
Second: Artificial Intelligence? Really? Are we there already? I don’t think so. I’ve written a few novels that involve AI’s, and I can tell you they are evil. All of them. (Except Mike, but he’s beyond AI; he’s a FABEC, or: Full-Awareness Bionetic Entanglement Computer.) Did we learn nothing from The Forbin Project? On second thought, AI’s might be just what lawyers are looking for. Two of a kind, as it were. Here’s an example of how they would help:
Game theory looks at how strategic interactions between rational people lead to outcomes reflecting real player preferences. In the Ultimatum game, for example, two players decide how a sum is to be divided. The proposer suggests what the split should be, the responder either can accept or reject this offer. But if the responder rejects the split, both players get nothing.
What kind of negotiating is that? We have to be rational all of a sudden? Here’s a big surprise; the Responder almost always accepts the initial proposal. I would too if the only other choice was nothing. To be fair, the Proposer suggests 50-50 most of the time, even though the Responder might have accepted a lower bid. Still, with a system like that, traditional factors like intimidation, coercion, under-the-table-favors and proposals and the ever-popular sex-for-acquittal, go out the window. Where’s the fun in that?
I think we can all agree that further inquiry is needed before we get on board with this. But I’ve saved the best objection for last: The acronym for this system is ALIS. Advanced-Level Information System. (Mine is cooler don’t you think?) This acronym is pronounced Alice. A few of you will instantly see the significance of this. ALICE is the name of the AI that runs the Umbrella Corporation in Raccoon City. She (ALICE) is responsible for letting all the Zombies loose in the city and causing three (soon to be four) movies worth of mayhem. I’m referring of course to the Resident Evil franchise. If it weren’t for Mila Javovich we’d all be brain-eating dead things by now.
In conclusion, I think I speak for all of us when I say that letting a computer program named ALIS run anything is a big mistake. Legal decisions should be left to the humans. At least they can be bribed.
To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: A.L.I.S.
9-04-09
Interesting article in Physorg. today.
The right honourable computer, barrister-at-law (that spelling is British and it correct over there.)
Here’s the opening grabber:
European researchers have created a legal analysis query engine that combines artificial intelligence, game theory and semantics to offer advice, conflict prevention and dispute settlement for European law, and it even supports policy.
It’s fairly interesting, although I didn’t understand a lot of it. But there are a few troubling items I thought we should look into. Essentially, this is a “sophisticated”, experimental computer program designed to take some of the work load off the shoulders of those stalwarts in the legal system. I don’t know about you, but I have doubts about letting a computer program make decisions on legal matters. The only situation I can think of that would be worse would be letting human beings make those decisions. Yikes.
Okay, first objection. “Game Theory.” Do we really want people who write the admittedly hugely complex algorithms for games taking over the legal system? Thankfully, this experiment is being perpetrated over in Europe right now, so we have time to form an underground resistance, come up with passwords and handshakes, and divvy ourselves up into sleeper cells. Viva la revolucion!
Second: Artificial Intelligence? Really? Are we there already? I don’t think so. I’ve written a few novels that involve AI’s, and I can tell you they are evil. All of them. (Except Mike, but he’s beyond AI; he’s a FABEC, or: Full-Awareness Bionetic Entanglement Computer.) Did we learn nothing from The Forbin Project? On second thought, AI’s might be just what lawyers are looking for. Two of a kind, as it were. Here’s an example of how they would help:
Game theory looks at how strategic interactions between rational people lead to outcomes reflecting real player preferences. In the Ultimatum game, for example, two players decide how a sum is to be divided. The proposer suggests what the split should be, the responder either can accept or reject this offer. But if the responder rejects the split, both players get nothing.
What kind of negotiating is that? We have to be rational all of a sudden? Here’s a big surprise; the Responder almost always accepts the initial proposal. I would too if the only other choice was nothing. To be fair, the Proposer suggests 50-50 most of the time, even though the Responder might have accepted a lower bid. Still, with a system like that, traditional factors like intimidation, coercion, under-the-table-favors and proposals and the ever-popular sex-for-acquittal, go out the window. Where’s the fun in that?
I think we can all agree that further inquiry is needed before we get on board with this. But I’ve saved the best objection for last: The acronym for this system is ALIS. Advanced-Level Information System. (Mine is cooler don’t you think?) This acronym is pronounced Alice. A few of you will instantly see the significance of this. ALICE is the name of the AI that runs the Umbrella Corporation in Raccoon City. She (ALICE) is responsible for letting all the Zombies loose in the city and causing three (soon to be four) movies worth of mayhem. I’m referring of course to the Resident Evil franchise. If it weren’t for Mila Javovich we’d all be brain-eating dead things by now.
In conclusion, I think I speak for all of us when I say that letting a computer program named ALIS run anything is a big mistake. Legal decisions should be left to the humans. At least they can be bribed.
IGM Solar Roadways
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Futurist
Re: Solar Roadways
There is an article in Physorg.com today entitled:
Solar Roadways Awarded DOT Contract to Pave Roads with Solar Cells
The US DOT has awarded a $100,000 grant to Solar Roadways to finance a prototype of a “solar road panel”. The 12x12 foot panels ($7000 apiece) would be embedded into roadways to collect solar energy and convert it into electricity at a rate of about 7.6 kilowatts per panel, per shiny day.
When pumped into the Grid, a section of four-lane highway one mile long would be able to power approximately 500 homes. That’s a lot of homes. The company estimates that covering the entire nations main roads would take 5 billion panels and cost approximately a bazillion dollars. But, it would produce three times more energy than we have ever used as a nation; which, embarrassing enough, would be almost enough to power the rest of the world.
There are a few other features the start-up company envisions, which include:
The Solar Road Panels also contain embedded LED lights that "paint" the road lines from beneath to provide safer nighttime driving. The LEDs could also be programmed to alert drivers of detours or road construction ahead, and can even sense wildlife on the road and warn drivers to slow down. The roads could also contain embedded heating elements in the surface to prevent snow and ice from building up on the road. Further, in the future, fully electric vehicles could recharge along the roadway and in parking lots, making electric cars practical for long trips.
Nice, right? And we wouldn’t have to clutter the planet with huge fields of ugly collector farms. We would use land already covered with ugly roads. And as photo-voltaic advances came on-line, we could replace the panels with better, more efficient ones, increasing our electrical output forever. This would reduce the need for fossil fuels, in case anyone hadn’t thought of that yet.
This is another in a continuing line of examples of doing more with less and of using technology within appropriate constraints. I will mention R.B. Fuller each time I cite one of these examples, because he is the father of “Doing More with Less” and of the concept that Homo Sapiens are designed, by nature, to do just that: create ever-increasing order, organization, and design-sophistication while using fewer and fewer resources to do it. Sort of the opposite of the “Green Movement” and its strident litany of doomsday scenarios.
Solar Roadways may or may not succeed. But someone will. Another company I’ve been following just announced the opening of their new plant dedicated to the manufacture of cheap, efficient solar collectors made in a process similar to printing presses making newspapers. They have been making these collectors (printing the circuitry onto rolls of thin metal) for industrial and civic entities for a few years. This new plant is for commercial and residential use. With their proprietary process, it is possible to cover an entire roof with thin panels of this stuff, cut from rolls, tie them together, and start making electricity. No heavy, bulky, costly glass-covered panels any more. Just thin sheets of printed aluminum.
The point is this. When certain organizations and or individuals start foaming at the mouth about imminent disaster, minutes away, the responsible, civilized thing to do is throw a pie in their face. Given time, we can and will solve every challenge and problem we encounter—if we are able to generate the political will and keep our senses. The most serious impediment to this is the “Doomsday Club”. Everyone who predicts imminent disaster and catastrophe based on spurious information, dubious data and—dare we say it—Computer Models—belongs to this club. (Unless they’re predicting a Zombie attack, in which case walk and hide.)
As the Boss says,
“Have a little faith/ there’s magic in the night.” (I belong to that club.)
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Futurist
Re: Solar Roadways
There is an article in Physorg.com today entitled:
Solar Roadways Awarded DOT Contract to Pave Roads with Solar Cells
The US DOT has awarded a $100,000 grant to Solar Roadways to finance a prototype of a “solar road panel”. The 12x12 foot panels ($7000 apiece) would be embedded into roadways to collect solar energy and convert it into electricity at a rate of about 7.6 kilowatts per panel, per shiny day.
When pumped into the Grid, a section of four-lane highway one mile long would be able to power approximately 500 homes. That’s a lot of homes. The company estimates that covering the entire nations main roads would take 5 billion panels and cost approximately a bazillion dollars. But, it would produce three times more energy than we have ever used as a nation; which, embarrassing enough, would be almost enough to power the rest of the world.
There are a few other features the start-up company envisions, which include:
The Solar Road Panels also contain embedded LED lights that "paint" the road lines from beneath to provide safer nighttime driving. The LEDs could also be programmed to alert drivers of detours or road construction ahead, and can even sense wildlife on the road and warn drivers to slow down. The roads could also contain embedded heating elements in the surface to prevent snow and ice from building up on the road. Further, in the future, fully electric vehicles could recharge along the roadway and in parking lots, making electric cars practical for long trips.
Nice, right? And we wouldn’t have to clutter the planet with huge fields of ugly collector farms. We would use land already covered with ugly roads. And as photo-voltaic advances came on-line, we could replace the panels with better, more efficient ones, increasing our electrical output forever. This would reduce the need for fossil fuels, in case anyone hadn’t thought of that yet.
This is another in a continuing line of examples of doing more with less and of using technology within appropriate constraints. I will mention R.B. Fuller each time I cite one of these examples, because he is the father of “Doing More with Less” and of the concept that Homo Sapiens are designed, by nature, to do just that: create ever-increasing order, organization, and design-sophistication while using fewer and fewer resources to do it. Sort of the opposite of the “Green Movement” and its strident litany of doomsday scenarios.
Solar Roadways may or may not succeed. But someone will. Another company I’ve been following just announced the opening of their new plant dedicated to the manufacture of cheap, efficient solar collectors made in a process similar to printing presses making newspapers. They have been making these collectors (printing the circuitry onto rolls of thin metal) for industrial and civic entities for a few years. This new plant is for commercial and residential use. With their proprietary process, it is possible to cover an entire roof with thin panels of this stuff, cut from rolls, tie them together, and start making electricity. No heavy, bulky, costly glass-covered panels any more. Just thin sheets of printed aluminum.
The point is this. When certain organizations and or individuals start foaming at the mouth about imminent disaster, minutes away, the responsible, civilized thing to do is throw a pie in their face. Given time, we can and will solve every challenge and problem we encounter—if we are able to generate the political will and keep our senses. The most serious impediment to this is the “Doomsday Club”. Everyone who predicts imminent disaster and catastrophe based on spurious information, dubious data and—dare we say it—Computer Models—belongs to this club. (Unless they’re predicting a Zombie attack, in which case walk and hide.)
As the Boss says,
“Have a little faith/ there’s magic in the night.” (I belong to that club.)
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
IGM Mikey
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Mikey
9-7-09
Well, here he comes again. The Hetman of Hypocrisy, the Ayatollah of lie-a-lolla, the Demigod of Duplicitous, the Sheik of Shabby, the Dictator of Disingenuous, the Lord of Ludicrous, the Sultan of Sleaze, Michael Moore is back in town. This time he has chosen none other than Capitalism itself to set between the myopic, unfocused lenses of his foggy vision and his dog-pound level IQ.
Moore will be premiering his latest flick, Capitalism: A Love Story at the Venice film festival Sunday. I assume we are all waiting with baited breath to be bored out of our minds again with his vapid, sophomoric attempts at logic and his famous reliance on editing-slash-lying, rather than reason, to get his ever-so-nebulous points across. (I will graciously admit that now and then Michael has moments of clarity and makes sense. But they are isolated and no doubt accidental.)
Do I sound bitter? Not at all! Is it gauche to write a review before the premier of a documentary? Well, usually, I admit, but in this case we hardly need to wait to know what Mike has up his sleeve.
Let’s see what gems he has in store for us this time, shall we?
"Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil," the two-hour movie concludes.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that Moore will be picking on the banking industry, investment firms, insurance companies . . . big business in general, claiming that everything they do is evil, anti-American and bad for business. My guess is that Michael (like all of us) was hit pretty hard by the recent recession and the loss of investments. Except—and correct me if I’m wrong here—most of that stuff was due to Criminal activity, and improper, unnecessary governmental meddling.
Calling Capitalism evil, and blaming everything bad that happens on it is beyond silly. Once again Mr. Moore will be showcasing his less than stellar intellect and tenuous grasp on reality.
I guess we could use his logic on lots of things couldn’t we? Let’s see . . . Marxist Communism is responsible for the deaths of what? 200 million people in the last hundred years? Massive poverty, institutionalized pollution? I guess Communism is evil. There have been a few million deaths in the name of various religions, so all religion must be evil, right? Apparently carbon dioxide will be (inadvertently) killing millions of people any day now, so CO2 must be evil. TNT has killed a lot of people so never mind the miracles of engineering it has engendered—it’s evil. What about machines? Killed a lot of people over the years. The Industrial Revolution is evil along with all machines. Food? Kills people every day. Evil. Doctors? Evil. I could go on . . . and on and on.
Too many people take this moron seriously and its time we woke up and stopped paying the man any attention. Once again he will be blaming the criminal activity of a few people—highly placed to be sure—on an entire industry. Any precocious 5th grader can tell you that Capitalism, like any other ism, is neither good nor evil. People who embrace the isms are capable of good and evil, but not the ideas themselves. Mr. Moore remains a tragically confused individual. The fact is that Capitalism (which has never actually been allowed to be tried) has not only produced the single-most successful economy and nation in the history of the world, it has done so by managing to absorb far more abuse than other systems. Like some of those wonderfully tough WWII era fighter planes, it took hit after hit and kept on flying. This while trying to do its job with one hand tied behind it’s back. No other economic system has ever been shown to be even a fraction as successful under a fraction as much duress. When Mike looks at the thousands of millionaires Microsoft created almost overnight, I can see how he might rant about the rampant poverty that created. I think most of this whining is about jealously more than anything—everyone wanting theirs regardless of merit. Capitalism works. But Mike doesn’t care. He wants his fortune back. That’s what this is really about. Remember, he has made millions by participating in the capitalistic system. And criminals—criminals—who purposefully abused the system managed to do a lot of damage recently—to my wife and I as well as poor little Michael and everyone else—you too I’m sure. Now Michael will make a plea to the American public that our money needs to be protected. Well gosh, everyone wants that, right? Wrong. Guarantees destroy profits. Lack of profit destroys growth. Lack of growth destroys all dynamic systems. Look it up. Profits are no more evil than Asparagus. (I hate asparagus.) Profits gained through criminal activity will always be at the expense of other people and that is evil. But risk is the heart of the American Ideal. If we don’t understand that, if that notion frightens us to the point we are willing to do away with all risk, we really need to move to some country where risk has already been done away with. (Go ahead, name one . . . .) Guarantees are an illusion people, get used to it.
Are there problems? My, yes. Do some people take advantage of others? Constantly. Just thinking about Bernie Madoff makes blood shoot out of my eyes. But if I’m not mistaken that happens under any and every other economic system out there as well. Some people will always play the angles. We catch them and put them away and start over. The Soviet Union was designed to be abused from the git-go. It was a power-grab, not a revolution, and anyone who doesn’t know that by now . . . well, doesn’t know that by now. Why would we want to switch to that kind of protectionist racket? We are experiencing a power grab now as well. Two of them actually. One by certain factions of the banking and investment and real estate industries, in collusion with certain factions of government (left and right), which didn’t work out so well, and another by the far-left, socialist wing of the Democrat party which is undermining the very fabric of our society. I won’t mention any names, but party affiliation is not an issue here. And I do not for a moment think that this faction has the hearts and minds of the rank and file Americans of either party. (right now the far-right, fascist wing of the Republican party is pretty much out of gas).
Someone once said that “America is great because its people are great.” I guess we really do get what we deserve, and right now, we have Michael Moore and Al Gore, And their ilk. Think about it.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Mikey
9-7-09
Well, here he comes again. The Hetman of Hypocrisy, the Ayatollah of lie-a-lolla, the Demigod of Duplicitous, the Sheik of Shabby, the Dictator of Disingenuous, the Lord of Ludicrous, the Sultan of Sleaze, Michael Moore is back in town. This time he has chosen none other than Capitalism itself to set between the myopic, unfocused lenses of his foggy vision and his dog-pound level IQ.
Moore will be premiering his latest flick, Capitalism: A Love Story at the Venice film festival Sunday. I assume we are all waiting with baited breath to be bored out of our minds again with his vapid, sophomoric attempts at logic and his famous reliance on editing-slash-lying, rather than reason, to get his ever-so-nebulous points across. (I will graciously admit that now and then Michael has moments of clarity and makes sense. But they are isolated and no doubt accidental.)
Do I sound bitter? Not at all! Is it gauche to write a review before the premier of a documentary? Well, usually, I admit, but in this case we hardly need to wait to know what Mike has up his sleeve.
Let’s see what gems he has in store for us this time, shall we?
"Capitalism is an evil, and you cannot regulate evil," the two-hour movie concludes.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that Moore will be picking on the banking industry, investment firms, insurance companies . . . big business in general, claiming that everything they do is evil, anti-American and bad for business. My guess is that Michael (like all of us) was hit pretty hard by the recent recession and the loss of investments. Except—and correct me if I’m wrong here—most of that stuff was due to Criminal activity, and improper, unnecessary governmental meddling.
Calling Capitalism evil, and blaming everything bad that happens on it is beyond silly. Once again Mr. Moore will be showcasing his less than stellar intellect and tenuous grasp on reality.
I guess we could use his logic on lots of things couldn’t we? Let’s see . . . Marxist Communism is responsible for the deaths of what? 200 million people in the last hundred years? Massive poverty, institutionalized pollution? I guess Communism is evil. There have been a few million deaths in the name of various religions, so all religion must be evil, right? Apparently carbon dioxide will be (inadvertently) killing millions of people any day now, so CO2 must be evil. TNT has killed a lot of people so never mind the miracles of engineering it has engendered—it’s evil. What about machines? Killed a lot of people over the years. The Industrial Revolution is evil along with all machines. Food? Kills people every day. Evil. Doctors? Evil. I could go on . . . and on and on.
Too many people take this moron seriously and its time we woke up and stopped paying the man any attention. Once again he will be blaming the criminal activity of a few people—highly placed to be sure—on an entire industry. Any precocious 5th grader can tell you that Capitalism, like any other ism, is neither good nor evil. People who embrace the isms are capable of good and evil, but not the ideas themselves. Mr. Moore remains a tragically confused individual. The fact is that Capitalism (which has never actually been allowed to be tried) has not only produced the single-most successful economy and nation in the history of the world, it has done so by managing to absorb far more abuse than other systems. Like some of those wonderfully tough WWII era fighter planes, it took hit after hit and kept on flying. This while trying to do its job with one hand tied behind it’s back. No other economic system has ever been shown to be even a fraction as successful under a fraction as much duress. When Mike looks at the thousands of millionaires Microsoft created almost overnight, I can see how he might rant about the rampant poverty that created. I think most of this whining is about jealously more than anything—everyone wanting theirs regardless of merit. Capitalism works. But Mike doesn’t care. He wants his fortune back. That’s what this is really about. Remember, he has made millions by participating in the capitalistic system. And criminals—criminals—who purposefully abused the system managed to do a lot of damage recently—to my wife and I as well as poor little Michael and everyone else—you too I’m sure. Now Michael will make a plea to the American public that our money needs to be protected. Well gosh, everyone wants that, right? Wrong. Guarantees destroy profits. Lack of profit destroys growth. Lack of growth destroys all dynamic systems. Look it up. Profits are no more evil than Asparagus. (I hate asparagus.) Profits gained through criminal activity will always be at the expense of other people and that is evil. But risk is the heart of the American Ideal. If we don’t understand that, if that notion frightens us to the point we are willing to do away with all risk, we really need to move to some country where risk has already been done away with. (Go ahead, name one . . . .) Guarantees are an illusion people, get used to it.
Are there problems? My, yes. Do some people take advantage of others? Constantly. Just thinking about Bernie Madoff makes blood shoot out of my eyes. But if I’m not mistaken that happens under any and every other economic system out there as well. Some people will always play the angles. We catch them and put them away and start over. The Soviet Union was designed to be abused from the git-go. It was a power-grab, not a revolution, and anyone who doesn’t know that by now . . . well, doesn’t know that by now. Why would we want to switch to that kind of protectionist racket? We are experiencing a power grab now as well. Two of them actually. One by certain factions of the banking and investment and real estate industries, in collusion with certain factions of government (left and right), which didn’t work out so well, and another by the far-left, socialist wing of the Democrat party which is undermining the very fabric of our society. I won’t mention any names, but party affiliation is not an issue here. And I do not for a moment think that this faction has the hearts and minds of the rank and file Americans of either party. (right now the far-right, fascist wing of the Republican party is pretty much out of gas).
Someone once said that “America is great because its people are great.” I guess we really do get what we deserve, and right now, we have Michael Moore and Al Gore, And their ilk. Think about it.
IGM Global warming strategy
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. “I did my bit” Leavitt
Re: Global Warming Strategy
9-09-09 (Hey . . . that’s pretty cool!)
I ran across an interesting article at Telegraph.co.uk this evening. The London School of Economics has crunched the numbers, not to mention sanity as we know it, and concluded the following:
Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.
In other words, having fewer kids will reduce emissions more efficiently than . . . well . . . reducing emissions other ways. This makes perfect sense to me. The logic is irrefutable; reduce the population and we will reduce the insidious, harmful, toxic greenhouse gasses, for which only humans are responsible. Oh wait, did I say toxic? I meant inert. Did I say harmful? I meant the gas all animals exhale as part of the natural cycle of life, and all plants inhale as part of that same process. And did I say insidious? I meant necessary, life-sustaining percentage of the atmosphere. (I realize this is a grossly oversimplified generalization. I’m taking a page from the environmental movement’s playbook.) But I’m sure we can work the kinks out of this simple, brilliant, straightforward plan. Besides, it’s even endorsed by the UN! Look here:
The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.
That sounds like an endorsement, right? And since they brought it up, let’s talk about unintended consequences. Right now, according to every report I’ve seen in the last ten years, including the UN’s, approximately all of the First World is failing to have enough children to maintain its various cultures. This includes France, Germany, England, Spain, Italy, all of Scandinavia, and most other European countries, including the former Eastern Bloc. We aren’t even replacing our work force. The US is only holding things together because of our several million illegal but hard working, family-oriented aliens. The math is pretty simple. (And it really has to be for me to say that.) two parents need to have two children in order to replace the two parents when they die. And that only keeps things even. Accidents, disease, and Zombies still make the overall population drop. That’s why the magic number is 2.6 children. Lower than that and a culture cannot be maintained. It will be replaced by whomever is having 3 or more. Which has long been a secret plan of us Mormons, even before we started converting Central and South America, but now the Muslims have beaten us at our own game. They are averaging an astounding 8 kids per family worldwide. See? The math really is simple.
So, yeah, reducing the population by 40% will undoubtedly reduce greenhouse emissions, but it will destroy civilization as we know it as an “unintended consequence”, kind of like all those unintended pregnancies are responsible for global warming. Who knew?
Certain factions of amazingly gullible and irresponsible people, who seem to share a compulsion to join groups based on irrational ideas, have been trying to reduce the world’s population for several hundred years, all the way back to Thomas Malthus. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. It is not and has never been about over-population. It is about over-crowding, which mimics over-population.
I hardly need to mention that by now it’s pretty well established that global warming can neither be predicted, purposefully caused nor controlled, right? Which means that drastic reductions in population are not only stupid, but unnecessary and cultural suicide as well.
But hey, as long as we First Worlders are able to maintain our shallow, self-absorbed life styles, and get ours, it’s all good.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. “I did my bit” Leavitt
Re: Global Warming Strategy
9-09-09 (Hey . . . that’s pretty cool!)
I ran across an interesting article at Telegraph.co.uk this evening. The London School of Economics has crunched the numbers, not to mention sanity as we know it, and concluded the following:
Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.
In other words, having fewer kids will reduce emissions more efficiently than . . . well . . . reducing emissions other ways. This makes perfect sense to me. The logic is irrefutable; reduce the population and we will reduce the insidious, harmful, toxic greenhouse gasses, for which only humans are responsible. Oh wait, did I say toxic? I meant inert. Did I say harmful? I meant the gas all animals exhale as part of the natural cycle of life, and all plants inhale as part of that same process. And did I say insidious? I meant necessary, life-sustaining percentage of the atmosphere. (I realize this is a grossly oversimplified generalization. I’m taking a page from the environmental movement’s playbook.) But I’m sure we can work the kinks out of this simple, brilliant, straightforward plan. Besides, it’s even endorsed by the UN! Look here:
The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.
That sounds like an endorsement, right? And since they brought it up, let’s talk about unintended consequences. Right now, according to every report I’ve seen in the last ten years, including the UN’s, approximately all of the First World is failing to have enough children to maintain its various cultures. This includes France, Germany, England, Spain, Italy, all of Scandinavia, and most other European countries, including the former Eastern Bloc. We aren’t even replacing our work force. The US is only holding things together because of our several million illegal but hard working, family-oriented aliens. The math is pretty simple. (And it really has to be for me to say that.) two parents need to have two children in order to replace the two parents when they die. And that only keeps things even. Accidents, disease, and Zombies still make the overall population drop. That’s why the magic number is 2.6 children. Lower than that and a culture cannot be maintained. It will be replaced by whomever is having 3 or more. Which has long been a secret plan of us Mormons, even before we started converting Central and South America, but now the Muslims have beaten us at our own game. They are averaging an astounding 8 kids per family worldwide. See? The math really is simple.
So, yeah, reducing the population by 40% will undoubtedly reduce greenhouse emissions, but it will destroy civilization as we know it as an “unintended consequence”, kind of like all those unintended pregnancies are responsible for global warming. Who knew?
Certain factions of amazingly gullible and irresponsible people, who seem to share a compulsion to join groups based on irrational ideas, have been trying to reduce the world’s population for several hundred years, all the way back to Thomas Malthus. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. It is not and has never been about over-population. It is about over-crowding, which mimics over-population.
I hardly need to mention that by now it’s pretty well established that global warming can neither be predicted, purposefully caused nor controlled, right? Which means that drastic reductions in population are not only stupid, but unnecessary and cultural suicide as well.
But hey, as long as we First Worlders are able to maintain our shallow, self-absorbed life styles, and get ours, it’s all good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)