Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: The most popular president in the history of the world
5-24-10
I was reading an article on the latest Rasmussen report this morning. Some interesting trends are continuing, and growing stronger. It seems that President Obama’s popularity has slipped again, down to 44%. My my, that must sting to see that number while one is being the Most Popular President in the History of the World.
And, as if that weren’t bad enough, the much vaunted health care plan isn’t faring much better. An astounding 63% of the voting public is now in favor of repealing the bill. Already. Before it’s even seen the light of day. So much for “well, I suppose we should at least give it a try . . .”
But neither of these is the really interesting statistic. That award goes to the “Political Class,” which is what the pundits and pollsters call the body of our elected officials. 77% of those guys and gals are still strongly in favor of the health care bill, and believe it will be good for the country. One can’t help but wonder if there might be some connection to the fact that they are elected, and stand to gain a good deal of power and wealth—indirectly of course—through the thousands of pages of regulation. Some of us may be just a bit jaded over their motives, and be wondering if the Political Class might have a different opinion if they were subject to the same health care policy as the rest of us.
This is a good indication of the disconnect between us and them. It is remarkable, really. They are elected representatives, and it should be clear to even the most hopeful among us, that the representation is no longer happening. If it weren’t for the fact that I’m listening to my Doc Watson radio station on Pandora, I would probably be having another heart attack right now. Doc and the boys are powerfully soothing.
It will be interesting to watch the coming election unfold. Personally, I think Doc Watson would make a better President than Obama, and I’m thinking of starting a grass roots internet campaign. But then, I think any one of you would make a better president. Anybody want to run?
Monday, May 24, 2010
Friday, May 14, 2010
IGM The Dudley Do-right Theory
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Anthropologist
Re: The “Dudley Do-right” Theory
5-14-10
A recently released report from Evolution and Human Behaviour, a British humor magazine, has thinking people everywhere rolling in the aisles.
It seems a Doctor David Puts, from Pennsylvania State University, has a new theory about human development. I’m going to quote the good Doctor because I don’t want to be accused of making this up.
Winning a mate used to depend only on physical prowess and men with the strongest jawline and thickest skulls were better able to survive onslaughts from love rivals.
His theory is, as far as I can tell, that despite the fact that men and women are pretty close to the same size—unlike other animals— men are much stronger. This is because we spent a few million years fighting over females. Then in the same sentence, he indicates that the average size difference is “only” 15 %. Let’s see . . . I’m 6’4”, which is 76”. If I were 15% taller, I would be 87.4” tall, which is 7’ 3”. That’s a foot, give or take. You can ask around, if I were 7’3” tall (and a little younger) I’d be playing in the NBA. I’d be starting. Which means I’d be making several million dollars a year, which means I wouldn’t have to worry about attracting women, which means I wouldn’t have to fight other guys. I think we can agree that I have blown this guy out of the water. And I’m willing to meet him in the Octagon if he disputes my superiority.
Seriously, I have two problems with this guys theory . . . no, three.
One: The counter argument is that if we spent all our time beating each other’s brains out (and I admit that the chance of sex is totally a sufficient incentive for that), we wouldn’t have had to figure out how to negotiate and compromise, which means we would never have evolved to the point where we rise above the brute animals.
Two: If one pays even cursory attention to animal behavior, one observes that nearly all males posture, but they don’t actually fight. They lock horns, chase each other around, and establish dominance, but there is very little violence serious enough to lead to something as radical as bigger foreheads and jaws. Besides, lots of women prefer men who wear argyle, or play chess, or cross-dress. Fighting leads to death and death leads to extinction. Wow, how is it I’m not in charge of the Smithsonian or something?
3: Humans didn’t evolve from lower life forms, so the entire hypothesis is moot. Granted, we do evolve, but as I’ve said before, it’s probably more a backwards thing than forward. And even it were all true, evolution is supposed to be totally random, blind, with no agenda, including being indifferent to survival. Which would mean that there is no reason for any trait. Including Dudley Do-right jaws and Frankenstein foreheads. You know, now that I think of it, Patrick Ewing has both. And he played in the NBA. Coincidence? I think not.
To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Anthropologist
Re: The “Dudley Do-right” Theory
5-14-10
A recently released report from Evolution and Human Behaviour, a British humor magazine, has thinking people everywhere rolling in the aisles.
It seems a Doctor David Puts, from Pennsylvania State University, has a new theory about human development. I’m going to quote the good Doctor because I don’t want to be accused of making this up.
Winning a mate used to depend only on physical prowess and men with the strongest jawline and thickest skulls were better able to survive onslaughts from love rivals.
His theory is, as far as I can tell, that despite the fact that men and women are pretty close to the same size—unlike other animals— men are much stronger. This is because we spent a few million years fighting over females. Then in the same sentence, he indicates that the average size difference is “only” 15 %. Let’s see . . . I’m 6’4”, which is 76”. If I were 15% taller, I would be 87.4” tall, which is 7’ 3”. That’s a foot, give or take. You can ask around, if I were 7’3” tall (and a little younger) I’d be playing in the NBA. I’d be starting. Which means I’d be making several million dollars a year, which means I wouldn’t have to worry about attracting women, which means I wouldn’t have to fight other guys. I think we can agree that I have blown this guy out of the water. And I’m willing to meet him in the Octagon if he disputes my superiority.
Seriously, I have two problems with this guys theory . . . no, three.
One: The counter argument is that if we spent all our time beating each other’s brains out (and I admit that the chance of sex is totally a sufficient incentive for that), we wouldn’t have had to figure out how to negotiate and compromise, which means we would never have evolved to the point where we rise above the brute animals.
Two: If one pays even cursory attention to animal behavior, one observes that nearly all males posture, but they don’t actually fight. They lock horns, chase each other around, and establish dominance, but there is very little violence serious enough to lead to something as radical as bigger foreheads and jaws. Besides, lots of women prefer men who wear argyle, or play chess, or cross-dress. Fighting leads to death and death leads to extinction. Wow, how is it I’m not in charge of the Smithsonian or something?
3: Humans didn’t evolve from lower life forms, so the entire hypothesis is moot. Granted, we do evolve, but as I’ve said before, it’s probably more a backwards thing than forward. And even it were all true, evolution is supposed to be totally random, blind, with no agenda, including being indifferent to survival. Which would mean that there is no reason for any trait. Including Dudley Do-right jaws and Frankenstein foreheads. You know, now that I think of it, Patrick Ewing has both. And he played in the NBA. Coincidence? I think not.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
IGM Illegal Immigration
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Illegal Immigration
4/29/10
First of all, I’m writing this on my daughters Apple and it sucks. I can’t find anything, the fonts I use for memos aren’t available and the mouse has a tendency to fall apart at inopportune moments. At least spell check works . . . .
Today we’re talking about Illegal Immigration, which for those of us who might be confused, is defined as anyone entering the United States illegally, having no citizenship and therefore no standing. As you might have heard Arizona recently took the admittedly extreme step to enact its own law concerning this problem. Their reasoning is pretty straightforward; despite it’s own perfectly good laws, and decades in which to enforce them, the federal government has done nothing to alleviate, control, or in anyway take seriously the wholesale influx of people who are not Americans--most of whom are using Arizona like a superhighway.
Latino’s are protesting with marches and bus trips. As if only Hispanic people enter this country illegally. Right, mostly they do, but not all.
It is an interesting phenomenon. Personally, I am of two minds on the subject. On the one hand I empathize completely with anyone who has a desire to leave a bad situation and find a better one. If I lived south of the border and had a family, I would be trying to get here too. This is not intended to be a slur against the governments of Central America, but one can’t help but notice a certain lack of opportunity as well as a nearly complete economic vacuum down there.
On the other hand, they are breaking our law. It is a real law, not just a guideline, and it is causing serious problems. I won’t go into the statistics because the people who are outraged by Arizona’s recent limb-climbing have never paid attention to facts before, so why should we expect them to start now?
I live close enough to the border to have seen a little of the mayhem and violence going on. Some of the people coming across our border are very bad hombres, intent on living lives of criminal excess and causing untold damage to our society. How is it unacceptable to have some laws in place (and enforce them) to keep that element out? Granted,most of them are good, decent people looking for work but they are being rude. They are trespassing; coming in uninvited. We need to stop them and tell them to get in line like everybody else and wait their turn and fill out all the forms.
Several cities in California, starting with that cesspool that is San Francisco, are calling for boycotts. Gavin Newsom is threatening to not allow any “official travel” from his city to Arizona. Go get ‘em tiger! Others are climbing on that band wagon, full of righteous indignation and bereft of anything resembling intelligence.
Seriously, what is Arizona supposed to do? Turn off the lights and hand the keys over to the hordes clawing their ways across the border? Should they allow the drug cartels to win? Give them free reign to kidnapping and murder, and let them supply drugs to our youth? (and not so youthful). Before we go spouting off about how evil Arizona is, maybe we should visit a few emergency rooms in Tucson or Phoenix. Or visit a welfare office in that state. Arizona is being destroyed by the crushing weight of it’s illegals and the fed’s unwillingness--or inability--to do anything about it.
So here’s what I’m going to do. I am announcing my own boycott of any city or other entity that boycotts Arizona. I have no plans to visit California anyway because of the rampant ignorance, stupidity, and smugness infesting that worthy state, but I feel like taking a stand on principle. So Gavin, you moron, I will not be visiting San Francisco while you are mayor. (The upside to that is that I won’t be accosted by the hordes of panhandlers which have become the city’s official mascot.)
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Illegal Immigration
4/29/10
First of all, I’m writing this on my daughters Apple and it sucks. I can’t find anything, the fonts I use for memos aren’t available and the mouse has a tendency to fall apart at inopportune moments. At least spell check works . . . .
Today we’re talking about Illegal Immigration, which for those of us who might be confused, is defined as anyone entering the United States illegally, having no citizenship and therefore no standing. As you might have heard Arizona recently took the admittedly extreme step to enact its own law concerning this problem. Their reasoning is pretty straightforward; despite it’s own perfectly good laws, and decades in which to enforce them, the federal government has done nothing to alleviate, control, or in anyway take seriously the wholesale influx of people who are not Americans--most of whom are using Arizona like a superhighway.
Latino’s are protesting with marches and bus trips. As if only Hispanic people enter this country illegally. Right, mostly they do, but not all.
It is an interesting phenomenon. Personally, I am of two minds on the subject. On the one hand I empathize completely with anyone who has a desire to leave a bad situation and find a better one. If I lived south of the border and had a family, I would be trying to get here too. This is not intended to be a slur against the governments of Central America, but one can’t help but notice a certain lack of opportunity as well as a nearly complete economic vacuum down there.
On the other hand, they are breaking our law. It is a real law, not just a guideline, and it is causing serious problems. I won’t go into the statistics because the people who are outraged by Arizona’s recent limb-climbing have never paid attention to facts before, so why should we expect them to start now?
I live close enough to the border to have seen a little of the mayhem and violence going on. Some of the people coming across our border are very bad hombres, intent on living lives of criminal excess and causing untold damage to our society. How is it unacceptable to have some laws in place (and enforce them) to keep that element out? Granted,most of them are good, decent people looking for work but they are being rude. They are trespassing; coming in uninvited. We need to stop them and tell them to get in line like everybody else and wait their turn and fill out all the forms.
Several cities in California, starting with that cesspool that is San Francisco, are calling for boycotts. Gavin Newsom is threatening to not allow any “official travel” from his city to Arizona. Go get ‘em tiger! Others are climbing on that band wagon, full of righteous indignation and bereft of anything resembling intelligence.
Seriously, what is Arizona supposed to do? Turn off the lights and hand the keys over to the hordes clawing their ways across the border? Should they allow the drug cartels to win? Give them free reign to kidnapping and murder, and let them supply drugs to our youth? (and not so youthful). Before we go spouting off about how evil Arizona is, maybe we should visit a few emergency rooms in Tucson or Phoenix. Or visit a welfare office in that state. Arizona is being destroyed by the crushing weight of it’s illegals and the fed’s unwillingness--or inability--to do anything about it.
So here’s what I’m going to do. I am announcing my own boycott of any city or other entity that boycotts Arizona. I have no plans to visit California anyway because of the rampant ignorance, stupidity, and smugness infesting that worthy state, but I feel like taking a stand on principle. So Gavin, you moron, I will not be visiting San Francisco while you are mayor. (The upside to that is that I won’t be accosted by the hordes of panhandlers which have become the city’s official mascot.)
IGM Animal Rights
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Animal Rights
4-30-10
Here comes another bout of intellectual constipation from academia. A story in the UK Telegraph is reinforcing the idea that professors are dodo-heads and Brits in particular are peculiar. (No offense Jessica and Matt).
Dr. Brett Mills, a senior lecturer from the University of East Anglia (sounds like a brain aneurism) has decided, in an ill-advised public announcement, that “wildlife documentaries invade animal privacy rights.”
Now I know some of you are already reacting with near-religious fervor at the well-meaning headline, having completely side-stepped the whole issue of rational thought, and I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings; but people who rely only on their feelings are bound to have them hurt. Right?
Anyone who knows me knows that I love animals. I have had cats living in my homes since I was a kid, and the one dog we had became a beloved member of the family. I like animals in general. I Think they are endlessly entertaining, fascinating, and beguiling. I have had experiences with animals, domesticated and wild, that are so special to me that I seldom share them. Newell knows what I mean. He and I have hunted and killed mule deer, but we have rescued several as well. Depends on the circumstances. Have you ever held a wild, days-old fawn in your arms? Or had a humming bird land and rest on your finger? It engenders awe and love.
When it comes to assigning human characteristics to animals, I fall somewhere in the middle. I have no doubt that animals can “think,” at least within the sphere of their various levels of intelligence, but I do not believe they have mystical powers of reason or are capable of what we call “abstract thought.”
Anyway, Dr. Mills insists that animals have innate rights to privacy and that our cameras and microphones invade and deny those rights. He waffles a bit in his statement—probably trying to evade criticisms like mine—when he says:
“We can never really know if animals are giving consent, but they often do engage in forms of behavior which suggest they’d rather not encounter humans, such as running away or building a burrow.”
Well duh. He’s absolutely right about never knowing if they are giving consent or not. (Except for those animal psychics—they probably know.) And, yes, I too have noticed that often animals would rather not encounter humans—especially wild animals. Hell, even our German Shepard occasionally wanted to be left alone. But is he seriously suggesting that animals run away or dig burrows because they are trying to maintain their rights?
“Uh-oh . . . here comes a human. I better dig a quick hole in the ground because, you know, I really don’t want to interact today.”
One wonders if this guy is familiar with concepts like “instinct” or “learned behavior”, neither of which necessarily have anything to do with volitional thought.
PETA spends a lot of time pushing animal rights, as if the non-humans of the world posses and maintain inalienable rights similar to our own. In fact they stridently insist upon our accepting and respecting said rights, and animal equality in general. But we all know how rational the rank and file PETA member is, don’t we? (No offense intended to anyone who might be a member. But c’mon! You have a brain; try using it.)
The point is—and I have harped on this before—animals have no rights. They cannot have rights. Here’s why, and I think even Professor Mills might be able to understand the argument. A right is an abstract concept which does not exist in the natural, or physical world. It exists solely in a mind capable of conceiving it, holding it before itself and comprehending the intellectual characteristics and components of the idea behind the right. I have the inalienable right to personal freedom only because I am able to conceive of, accept, and “own” that right. An animal, regardless of our feelings towards it, is not capable of this kind of abstract, complex thinking. We don’t even have any compelling evidence that animals are even self-aware. They do not give themselves names (Watership Down to the contrary)—we do that. (Although a few primates have shown evidence of being able to learn the idea of personal identity—but only after humans have intervened and taught it to them. Even then there is no proof.) Only an entity capable of creating such an idea as a “Right” can be said to posses that right. In which case most humans fall well short of such a goal, since most of them entirely misconstrue what should be a fairly straightforward concept. Notice How many people believe they have a “right” to cable TV.
The only rights animals are subject to are the ones we decide to give them. And even then they do not “posses” a right in the same sense we are able to.
I believe that we (humans) have been given a charge to “have dominion” over the animals because they cannot do such a thing and we can. It is our privilege and responsibility to husband the animals. But they are not our equals in any sense. However, an enlightened society treats animals with as much respect as is reasonably possible—even while we kill and butcher them. Because one thing animals are is a food source. There is no moral or ethical difference between killing an animal and killing a plant. Life is life. But there is a difference if we kill a fellow human. The reasons we kill one or the other, and our ability to think abstractly about it, create morality out of necessity.
In conclusion, Professor Mills is a magonga-head. Maybe he’s thinking with his endocrine system, because he sure ain’t using his brain. Animals cannot posses a right they cannot imagine and define—and communicate to others. And all the wishing in the world will not make it so. Aller M’naller.
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Animal Rights
4-30-10
Here comes another bout of intellectual constipation from academia. A story in the UK Telegraph is reinforcing the idea that professors are dodo-heads and Brits in particular are peculiar. (No offense Jessica and Matt).
Dr. Brett Mills, a senior lecturer from the University of East Anglia (sounds like a brain aneurism) has decided, in an ill-advised public announcement, that “wildlife documentaries invade animal privacy rights.”
Now I know some of you are already reacting with near-religious fervor at the well-meaning headline, having completely side-stepped the whole issue of rational thought, and I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings; but people who rely only on their feelings are bound to have them hurt. Right?
Anyone who knows me knows that I love animals. I have had cats living in my homes since I was a kid, and the one dog we had became a beloved member of the family. I like animals in general. I Think they are endlessly entertaining, fascinating, and beguiling. I have had experiences with animals, domesticated and wild, that are so special to me that I seldom share them. Newell knows what I mean. He and I have hunted and killed mule deer, but we have rescued several as well. Depends on the circumstances. Have you ever held a wild, days-old fawn in your arms? Or had a humming bird land and rest on your finger? It engenders awe and love.
When it comes to assigning human characteristics to animals, I fall somewhere in the middle. I have no doubt that animals can “think,” at least within the sphere of their various levels of intelligence, but I do not believe they have mystical powers of reason or are capable of what we call “abstract thought.”
Anyway, Dr. Mills insists that animals have innate rights to privacy and that our cameras and microphones invade and deny those rights. He waffles a bit in his statement—probably trying to evade criticisms like mine—when he says:
“We can never really know if animals are giving consent, but they often do engage in forms of behavior which suggest they’d rather not encounter humans, such as running away or building a burrow.”
Well duh. He’s absolutely right about never knowing if they are giving consent or not. (Except for those animal psychics—they probably know.) And, yes, I too have noticed that often animals would rather not encounter humans—especially wild animals. Hell, even our German Shepard occasionally wanted to be left alone. But is he seriously suggesting that animals run away or dig burrows because they are trying to maintain their rights?
“Uh-oh . . . here comes a human. I better dig a quick hole in the ground because, you know, I really don’t want to interact today.”
One wonders if this guy is familiar with concepts like “instinct” or “learned behavior”, neither of which necessarily have anything to do with volitional thought.
PETA spends a lot of time pushing animal rights, as if the non-humans of the world posses and maintain inalienable rights similar to our own. In fact they stridently insist upon our accepting and respecting said rights, and animal equality in general. But we all know how rational the rank and file PETA member is, don’t we? (No offense intended to anyone who might be a member. But c’mon! You have a brain; try using it.)
The point is—and I have harped on this before—animals have no rights. They cannot have rights. Here’s why, and I think even Professor Mills might be able to understand the argument. A right is an abstract concept which does not exist in the natural, or physical world. It exists solely in a mind capable of conceiving it, holding it before itself and comprehending the intellectual characteristics and components of the idea behind the right. I have the inalienable right to personal freedom only because I am able to conceive of, accept, and “own” that right. An animal, regardless of our feelings towards it, is not capable of this kind of abstract, complex thinking. We don’t even have any compelling evidence that animals are even self-aware. They do not give themselves names (Watership Down to the contrary)—we do that. (Although a few primates have shown evidence of being able to learn the idea of personal identity—but only after humans have intervened and taught it to them. Even then there is no proof.) Only an entity capable of creating such an idea as a “Right” can be said to posses that right. In which case most humans fall well short of such a goal, since most of them entirely misconstrue what should be a fairly straightforward concept. Notice How many people believe they have a “right” to cable TV.
The only rights animals are subject to are the ones we decide to give them. And even then they do not “posses” a right in the same sense we are able to.
I believe that we (humans) have been given a charge to “have dominion” over the animals because they cannot do such a thing and we can. It is our privilege and responsibility to husband the animals. But they are not our equals in any sense. However, an enlightened society treats animals with as much respect as is reasonably possible—even while we kill and butcher them. Because one thing animals are is a food source. There is no moral or ethical difference between killing an animal and killing a plant. Life is life. But there is a difference if we kill a fellow human. The reasons we kill one or the other, and our ability to think abstractly about it, create morality out of necessity.
In conclusion, Professor Mills is a magonga-head. Maybe he’s thinking with his endocrine system, because he sure ain’t using his brain. Animals cannot posses a right they cannot imagine and define—and communicate to others. And all the wishing in the world will not make it so. Aller M’naller.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)