THE INTER-GALACTIC MEMO

A Note from Aubrey

2011-02-01T10:32:00.001-08:00

I am so sorry to give you this information via email, we are unable to call everyone and unsure if everyone has gotten the news. Please forgive this format.
Early Friday morning (January 28th) Wayne passed away in his sleep.
It was very sudden and completely unexpected, in fact we all had a great time together on Thursday evening, he was joking and happy.

In order to allow those who would like to remember him with us we are trying to get the word out asap.

We will be having a funeral and burial service in Palmyra NY on Friday February 4th at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints Palmyra chapel, 10:00 am.
Burial immediately following the service will take place at the Palmyra Village cemetery.

A memorial service to celebrate Wayne's memory will take place in Las Vegas Nevada on Saturday February 12th at 3:00 pm at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day saints chapel on Sloan and Alcott. After we will have a party with pizza popcorn and pink lemonade to send him off enjoying the things he loved..... to the end.

His obituary will run in the Las Vegas Review Journal Wednesday February 2nd.

We love you all, your thoughts, love and prayers are felt. This has been very hard and we know it wont be easy to get on without such a large presence.

For good or ill there will be no more IGM's coming your way.

Love,
Aubrey (Wayne,s Daughter)

2011-01-31T13:36:00.000-08:00

Palmyra: Wayne Allen Leavitt formerly of Las Vegas, NV died on January 28, 2011 at age 61. Predeceased by his parents Max V. & Marba Rose Leavitt. Survived by his wife Nita; children, Aubrey (Greg) Hannig, Jessica (Matthew) Rasmussen, Grah (Julie) Leavitt, Chani Leavitt (Scott Thompson); 10 grandchildren; siblings, Janice (James) Voorhies, Maxine (Steve) Whitney, Newell Leavitt; 14 nieces & nephews. Friends are invited to attend his Funeral Service 10AM Friday at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Palmyra Ward, followed by his burial at Palmyra cemetery. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to Habitat for Humanity, 755 Culver Rd., Rochester, NY 14609 in his memory. Arrangements by McGuire/Hargrave & Murphy Funeral Home.

There will be a memorial service held in Las Vegas Nevada the following weekend.

IGM Aaron Sorkin: Genius, Elitist Snob

2010-12-09T09:01:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Aaron Sorkin; Genius, Elitist Snob
12-9-2010

Let me say at the beginning that I think Aaron Sorkin is a creative genius. He created and wrote West Wing, which I consider to be one of the best television series of all time—it featured a liberal, democratic president and very progressive staff and cabinet, and I still loved it. He’s done several other shows as well, all of them noted for their intelligent, fast-paced dialog and fascinating characters.
So when I add that he appears to be a disingenuous, small-minded, hate-motivated bed-wetting elitist, you can tell it is with love and concern.
Recently Sorkin took Sarah Palin to task over her “Reality show” in which she shot a caribou. He described the incident as the “first moose ever killed for political gain.” Apparently, Sorkin is not sufficiently well-acquainted with the natural world that he can distinguish a caribou from a moose. Having seen both, I can assure you this failure is troubling on several levels.
I am not what I would describe as a Palin fan. I harbor no animosity towards her, and find most of the mindless criticisms and caricatures offensively motivated by irrational feelings of sour grapes—which is odd when one considers she lost—but I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which I would vote for her. However, Sorkin’s diatribes seem both pointless and ill-conceived. I imagine spittle flying from his lips while he so causally uses his gift as character assassination.
For example, he refers to the footage of Palin killing the caribou as a “snuff film.” He’s in the movie business. He should know better. The term snuff film has a specific definition, and it is vile enough that to use it as he did speaks volumes to his own bigotry. For those of you who might not know, a snuff film is any movie in which a human being is actually killed—murdered—for the pornographic content and for profit. By definition, this can only occur with humans. We can argue until the cow comes home (hopefully unharmed) about the morality of killing animals, but murder for sexual prurience and profit cannot be ascribed to the killing of animals under any circumstances. (Unless there is a new fetish of which I am unaware.) To accuse Palin—or anyone else—of such a thing is mean-spirited and small-minded.
Sorkin goes on to say the following:
He described Palin as "deranged", a "witless bully" and a "phony pioneer girl". He also said The Learning Channel, the US cable network, "should be ashamed of itself" for broadcasting her "truly awful reality show".
He does make one valid point—as far as I can tell all reality shows are “truly awful.” Personally, I see no evidence she is deranged. And from what vast left field does he get “witless bully?” “Phony pioneer girl” is the worst though. Mrs. Palin grew up hunting and fishing, and that can be, and has been, easily and thoroughly proven. Her lifestyle has been—comparatively speaking—one of a semi-rugged, outdoors, independent woman. I get the sense that Sorkin may be secretly envious of her masculinity—a trait which he is obviously lacking. Like most people who haven’t the stomach to hunt, he tries to turn it into a venal act. Which is nonsense of the highest order. Let’s put both in the wilderness with a rifle, a knife, some matches and fishing line, and see who comes out smelling like a rose, shall we?
Palin, not the sort to run and hide, shot back.

"Unless you've never worn leather shoes, sat upon a leather chair or eaten meat, save your condemnation.”

Sorkin, in a fascinating display of unconscious guilt, manages to step right into her obvious point. He retorts:

"I eat meat, chicken and fish, have shoes and furniture made of leather ... I'm able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical,"

Seriously, he might as well just admit he wants to have sex with his mother while he’s at it.
There are in fact important distinctions between Palin and Sorkin, but he has managed to completely miss them. He hates her politics. He hates her lifestyle, her independence and lack of sophistication. He hates her celebrity and popularity. In his perfect world someone like Sarah Palin would not even exist. In my perfect world, I would rather never have seen a single episode of West Wing if it meant never having to listen to this kind of drivel. I like my drivel better.

IGM Denver International Airport

2010-12-08T06:44:00.001-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Denver International Airport
12-5-2010

Is anyone else curious about the history of the Denver International Airport? I think it’s time for a little old-fashioned paranoia.
Once upon a time the city of Denver had a perfectly nice, functional, modern airport called Stapleton. Remember? Then, suddenly, without much warning and against massive protests from the locals, who said things like “but we already have one!” And “that’s a helluva lot of money for something we don’t need!” the state, and the federal government (Congress was in collusion) announced the new one. We were all told it would be the best, most efficient, statest-of-the- art airport in the whole world. It was rammed through in record time despite all the protests.
The new airport is smaller than Stapleton. Fewer gates, terminals, runways, etc. And it is built under a tent. But the land it is on takes up half of Colorado. It cost five times what it was supposed to. People complain constantly of the place making them sick—headaches, stomach problems. They complain of odd vibrations and high-frequency sounds. The super-modern baggage-handling system sends luggage into the Wickenburg Triangle with depressing regularity. Entire construction teams were routinely fired as soon as they finished their part of a project and new ones were brought it. The upshot of that was no one had any idea what the overall plan was, or what the blue-prints looked like. (Except the big bosses.) The heavily-fenced property is under ridiculously overkill security measures. And there are dozens of concrete formations dotting the unused land, which resemble mini-cooling towers, or air vents.
Remember that scene in Independence Day when Judd Hirsch tells the President (As they enter the underground sections of Area 51) “you don’t really think they spent five hundred dollars on a toilet seat, a thousand on a hammer do you?”
No one wanted that airport built. It wasn’t needed. It was so far over budget that they could have built five or six of them. And they took ten times the land they could possibly have ever needed. Does that suggest anything to anyone?
OF COURSE IT DOES! Obviously, there is a huge underground base of some kind down there, probably with aliens living in secret luxury. Or preserved in big bottles. Odds are tunnels connect it to Cheyenne Mountain and Area 51. Maybe others.
As you know our government has dozens of secret bases like this, scattered around and under the country, doing all kinds of nefarious but cool research on things like the 19th chromosome of the human genome, element 115, anti-gravity, alien technology, light, immortality, genetic engineering for super-soldiers, and why Barbie remains so popular.
I think it’s time we ask congress to fess up and share some information. Our government is up to something. The deficit, the rate of spending, and the disappearance of hundreds of billions of dollars is not an accident, and not the result of poor book-keeping. They’re UP TO SOMETHING. I mean, c’mon . . . thirteen trillion? Really? That’s a lot of toilet seats.
Here’s a clue. Years ago John and Dever and I went to Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, and spent the weekend. (Nothing Brokeback was going on) When the Ranger asked us if we had a good time, John said yes, but we were disappointed to not have seen any UFO’s. The Ranger apologized, saying the “machine was broken.” True story. I think it speaks for itself. You should take the trouble to visit Chaco Canyon, the premier Anasazi site in the country. And when I say trouble, I mean it, but it’s well-worth the effort. It’s probably more other-worldly than Stonehenge. And I’m pretty sure there is a tunnel underneath it leading to the Denver International Airport.

Thanks to Rhani at Anomalies-Unlimited. Check the site out.

IGM The Writing Process

2010-11-08T19:19:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: The Writing Process
11-8-2010

There is a writer, I know of—I’m a fan—who writes backwards. He’s a famous one, with awards, and millions of books sold, and even an academy award for a screenplay. But how does he write backwards? He explained it in one of his novels, through a character who is also a writer. He has to have the last sentence, has to hear it and feel it, before he can start. And then he writes backwards, so the first sentence is the last one he writes. And it takes him a long time. Years. He’s only written twelve books in his career. I’ve written more than twice that in the last ten years. And he has this strange habit of writing sentences, or fragments of sentences, and tacking them up on a board where he can see them and think about them. I guess when he has enough sentences he can write a paragraph, and then a chapter—backwards. Once he knows the whole story, and is familiar with the characters, he can start writing, filling in. That’s what he says at least.
It was nice to find out that this technique was an accident; just the way he started doing it and it became a habit, and then a process. At first he thought it was an immature phase, but it turned out to be the way he writes.
I’m pretty insecure about my writing, and it is a little comforting to discover that famous writers sometimes feel that way too, and wonder if their ‘method’ might be off kilter or out of bounds. It doesn’t bother me that this writer is much better than I am. He writes, I write, we both do our best and hopefully get what we are looking for out of the experience.
On the other hand, my ‘method’ is so different from his, and from any other method I’ve read about, that my insecurities come raging forward again, and I worry that I’m missing something, that my writing is hampered or limited by my method, or lack thereof.
The truth is, I don’t have a method that I am aware of, based on any known and accepted process used by professional writers.
I start writing when it feels like the right time to start. Sometimes I’ve had the idea for months or years, and sometimes I’ve had the idea for five minutes. And a few times—two that I remember for sure—I’ve started with no idea in mind at all.
I’ve started several with only a title because I liked the way it sounded and knew something would come if I began writing. Car Dancing and Evil Alien Artifact were both written that way. For Car Dancing, I had the title and a one sentence description of the main character. For Artifact, all I had was the title, which was a throw-away line from That 70’s Show, and a vague idea that I wanted to do a send-up of sci-fi stories. Another book was worse. I started The Seaweed Bar and Grill with no title, no plot, no characters and not a single idea as to what it might be about. That was on purpose; I had just finished reading a book by Thomas Pynchon and took it as a challenge to try and write something blind, because it felt like that’s what he did—even though I knew this wasn’t true. He’s just a genius and can do things like that. So I just put my fingers on the keyboard and started, and things came, and a few pages later the title magically appeared (although I didn’t know it at the time). It’s one of my favorites. I have no idea if it’s any good or not. I was trying to see if it was possible to write with no pre-conceived ideas, and make the story entirely character driven, rather than by plot. I guess it is.
I never plot anyway. I don’t know how. That is the secret of my ‘method.’ I’ve never taken a writing class. I’ve never attended a writers conference, or gone to a writers workshop, or joined a writers group, either real or virtual. As a writer, I have three things going for me. One, I love doing it, and always have. It comes easy. Two, I’ve read thousands of books across a wide range of types, styles, authors, genres and subjects. And three, I have a pretty good imagination. But I don’t know process. I don’t know how to plot a story—I’m not sure I even know what that means. I don’t know how to build a character. And I don’t know how to write backwards. For me, knowing the end of a story, and what will happen in each chapter and in what order, before I start, would ensure that I never start. Why write it if I know how it’s going to end? At some point in the writing, I usually figure it out, but sometimes that doesn’t happen until I’m on the last page. I knew how Car Dancing would end by the time I was half way through, and I spent the last half trying to prevent it, change it, but I couldn’t. Stories and characters are powerful. Inevitable.
In other words, I’m an ignorant writer. Or an innocent one. But good or bad, talented or a hack, I love it. Nothing makes me any happier than sitting there, typing away, caught in a continuing moment of discovery. I start at the beginning and characters show up as I need them, and things happen that surprise me, shock me, make me happy and sad and angry. I’m telling myself a story I haven’t heard before, and that’s my method. I have an audience of one.
Now I’ve written at least thirty books, and can’t stop. I don’t want to stop. I read things writers have said about writing and I don’t get it. For them it is a struggle, a horrible, lonely, excruciating experience. For me it’s just the opposite. I love everything about it, can’t wait to go somewhere everyday and write. I love how every time I sit down, not know what’s going to happen, something comes. And I never get writers block—I just work on something else, or don’t write that day. The only thing I worry about now is this: since my heart attack, I worry about having enough time to get them all out and onto paper. I’m working on it though; unlike my backwards-writing hero, I write pretty fast. Probably because I don’t know what I’m doing.

IGM Construction

2010-11-05T18:36:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Construction
11-4-2010

Nita and I did something different today. We got up really early (see, already different) dressed in layers because it was chilly and drizzling, and drove into Rochester. A good-sized city which has not escaped the “downturn.” We avoid Rochester.
We made our way to one of the worst neighborhoods in the city, where every third house is abandoned and boarded up, even the pets are armed, and met several people we didn’t know—and a few we did—to build a house. Yep . . . Habitat for Humanity.
Our Stake (an ecclesiastical entity which consists of several congregations) has formed a partnership with the Third Presbyterian Church of Rochester to raise both money for, and donate time to, the construction of several houses.
Small, unassuming homes in which owners invest their own sweat-equity, move in and begin paying the mortgage. Indentured servitude (volunteers) keeps the price down. The plan is 100 new homes that will resurrect the neighborhood—take it to a tipping point where interest will turn to investment and a rebirth will occur.
Why would we do that, you might ask? Well, we’re retired. Most people go to work all day every day. It’s hard to say no. And it is a legitimately good cause. So far, we are a veritable PSA for Habitat and charity work, right? Now for the splash of reality.
Remember when I said it was raining? Not hard, but long enough to soak the ground. And it was cold. Upstate New York is like, fifteen feet from the arctic circle.
One house is up and they are hanging sheetrock. That wasn’t our house, that was just where we met. Then we drove a few blocks to the other house. And when I say house, I mean a large, rectangular hole in the ground, bordered by piles of mud, with a concrete footing and a huge pile of gravel at the bottom.
I looked at the supervisor, one-half of a identical twin team, and said:
“We’re unskilled volunteer labor. What are we going to do with a hole in ground? Fill it?” Well, sort of, it turns out.
The wooden forms were still in place. They are held in place by big nails the size of small spears which have been pounded into the ground with industrial pile-drivers and then nailed to the 2x12 forms—below the ground line. I don’t know how they did that. Our first job was pulling the forms, which meant pulling the two-foot spikes, which meant finding and pulling the nails . . . you get the picture. We were covered in mud after fifteen minutes. But we got the forms pulled. Then it was time to lay a black plastic pipe covered in fabric around the outside edge of the footing. It’s for drainage I’m told. But the key word here is drain. Which means the tubing (About 6 inches in diameter) has to start low then steadily ascend to the other end, or vice-versa. Whatever. Which means digging. Then shoveling gravel over it to hold it in place, then spreading the huge pile of gravel (Left over from those stables Hercules cleaned) into an even layer of gravel instead of a pile of gravel. That was when I went into a fugue state. I would move two or three shovels-full of gravel, and then wake up a few minutes later having gone bye-bye. I was exhausted to the point of . . . well, a few times I idly entertained the possibility that I was closing in on another heart attack. My body was resting whether I wanted to or not. But we finished the gravel while I joked about working harder than everyone else.
Did I mention the wall forms? Next to the giant hole were stacks of steel and something-else modular forms, two by eight feet and very heavy. They needed to be in the hole. Apparently this was a good job for unskilled volunteers. So four of us began to relocate the forms. We made six stacks about five feet high. Then one of the supervisors had the clearly inappropriate idea of taking us from unskilled to semi-skilled volunteers. He showed Nita and another guy how to assemble the forms. They made four corner sections. We had to carry them to the corners and stand them up. Then he showed us how to attach the two-foot sections together. They wanted us to make walls! The forms were for the concrete basement walls. So five of us began assembling wall-forms.
Oh, I forgot. Somewhere in there the Roach Coach showed up (How do they always find us?). I bought a Pepsi, Nita fed me two tuna sandwiches (with potato chips inside—yum!) along with half a banana and several Ibuprofen. I was a new man. It is scary how much better caffeine can make you feel. I wasn’t exactly a human dynamo—mostly I stopped feeling like an imminent heat attack, but I managed to find a groove and work steadily-if-not-heroically until quitting time. I am happy to say we got the entire outside half of the form built—all the way around the footing. Wow!
Truthfully—we had a blast. I’d attach a photo of the wall in the giant hole, but I don’t know how to get it off my phone. (Newell, you may now invoke the “Dork” word.) Neither of us have been that dirty in decades. We all had not just a sense of accomplishment, but a sense that it meant something as well. Some family, the working poor, with whom most of us can identify and/or sympathize, will get a new home in a few months. We interacted with several people from the very scary neighborhood, and they all were glad we were there and told us so. I feel this reduces the chance of being shot on the job. Which is good, because we’re going back. Tomorrow. I recommend it.
This evening, neither of us can move, and everything hurts. But it’s a “good” hurt, in the same sense that Vegas heat is a “dry” heat.

IGM: The Great Climate Change Debate

2010-09-15T08:26:00.001-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: The Great Climate Change Debate
9-15-2010
Link: http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

I suppose I’ve written a dozen pieces on this topic by now. And today I feel vindicated. A good friend sent me a link to a website put up by Burt Rutan. I could write an IGM just about Burt—he’s one of my heroes. Burt is an aeronautical engineer and a living legend. If I were given to hyperbole—and I am—I would say that in the last 30 or 40 years he has been responsible for more true innovation in the aviation industry than all the giant conglomerates combined. You know those vertical tips at the end of nearly every wing in the commercial airline industry? Burt Rutan. Space Ship One—the first private vehicle to take a human into space? Burt Rutan. He is a genius of the first order, and a maverick—probably why I like him so much. Burt decided to look into the whole “Global Warming-Climate Change” issue from the viewpoint of an aeronautical engineer as opposed to a scientist. Why?

My focus is on an Engineering Approach – where
data are critical and there are consequences for
being wrong; not the Scientist approach – where a
theory is the product and it can be right or wrong
without repercussions.

In other words, airplane designers are held to incredibly high, rigorous standards because when they are wrong, people die. The engineers and pilots rely heavily on accurate meteorological and climate data, which inform their designs and innovations. They must have good data.
So Burt decided to study the contentious issue for himself. I have looked at about 10% of the site so far, and it is blowing me away. Why? Because everything I have been saying for years—all the way back to the Ozone Scare of the 70’s—from a completely common-sense standpoint, using very little research—turns out to be true. And this guy did his homework. His research is comprehensive and thorough. He is brutally honest and frank while remaining professional and polite. And he does not equivocate. He interprets the data from the viewpoint of an engineer, whose life—and the lives of millions of others (and that is literally true) depends on his being right.
I am putting the link in this IGM, and I sincerely hope you at least go to it and scan the information. It is chock-full of graphs and raw data, but he explains it all simply and informally. Anyone still in the Human-Caused Climate-Change camp, or anyone with lingering doubts, absolutely needs to review this information. You owe it to yourselves.
When you get to the site you will be given two choices; a PDF version, and a PowerPoint version. I clicked on the PDF version and read it. It looks like this: Adobe pdf version - 3.7 megabytes
It will take a while, so don’t hurry. I haven’t tried it yet, but the PowerPoint version might be fun. it is vitally important that as many people as possible see this information. Pass it on if you feel like it.
At the end of this memo is a very brief synopsis of his conclusions. But we need to read the critique itself to understand why he makes these observations, comes to these conclusions, and makes these recommendations. The countries of the world—including our own—are about to bankrupt the planet, permanently cripple the global economy, and increase the death-rate and poverty exponentially, based on spurious data and self-serving agendas. It is vital that we prevent this from happening, and being informed is how we do it. We’ve all heard about the 2,500 scientists who signed the petition claiming global warming is a real, immediate, and relevant threat. How many of us have heard about the 31,000 scientists who signed a petition espousing the opposite point of view? You will find that in this report.
Who are we going to believe? That’s what it comes down to. For myself, I choose the world-class, brilliant engineer/innovator over the room-temperature IQ, career politician tobacco farmer.

By Burt Rutan:

Observations
• The only “evidence” that humans cause global warming comes from computer models. The creator of the model can make it show whatever he wants, by adjusting parameters.
• Man has not demonstrated an ability to change global temperatures, nor to forecast future climate conditions.
• It would be desirable to have more atmospheric CO2 than present, to increase crop yields and forest growth. This would save tens of millions of lives next century.
• The warming experienced in the last century and the warming expected in the next, did not and will not cause a net increase in extinctions or weather calamities.
• We do not know the important stuff - what causes the dangerous drop into the major ice ages or what causes the cyclic return to the brief interglacial warm periods.
• Is the debate over? "It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.”
Conclusions
• The CAGW agenda is supported with deceptively altered science. In spite of recent, human-caused atmospheric CO2 increases, there is nothing out of the ordinary happening with our climate.
• Climate Change is real. The earth has been naturally warming since the “Little Ice Age”, with cooling cycles.
• Fossil fuel use adds a small % to an important trace gas, that is not only beneficial, but is the essence of life itself.
• We cannot burn fossil fuels to prevent the next ice age; the greenhouse gas effect is far too weak for that.
• Current fuels will become naturally constrained by cost as they become scarce. Government taxes are not required.
• If Man, in the future, achieves a capability to change global temperatures, he will likely use that technology to warm the planet, not to cool it.
• Manmade global warming is over. It existed only in the minds of grant-seeking scientists and academics, ratings-obsessed media and opportunistic eco/political-activists.

Recommendations
• Recognize that, in terms of cost and human lives, the Government efforts to constrain use and increase the cost of energy are orders of magnitude more important than the certification of a new airliner.
• We cannot assure airline public safety by using a computer model to predict airline safety; we must do extensive testing under real conditions and pay attention to all the results.
• Require an engineering task as rigid as the certification of an airliner. Apply that task to the “theory of climate modification by man”. Mandate that “engineering certification” be done before governments can impose taxes, fees or regulations to constrain our use of any product to fuel our energy needs.
• Engineers do listen to scientists and use their work to help them plan the testing/validation needed to complete their certification goals. However, using scientists to direct airliner certification, would be as disastrous as scientists proposing theories to direct National or World energy policy.

Link: http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

IGM Space, Not Competition

2010-08-24T17:15:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Space, Not Competition, drives Evolution
8-24-2010

There is another intriguing story this evening in Daily Tech.com. It seems some upstart PhD candidate at the University of Bristol is turning paleontology on its ear with a “renegade theory” that has the entire club in an uproar.
Sarda Sahney, after re-examining the fossil record (really? All of it? I’m impressed) with several other people, including her senior advisor, is proposing that the driving force behind evolution is available space, rather than competition. Ever since Darwin, scientists have assumed that competition among species is what pushed the changes in species. But Ms. Sahney believes otherwise.

Here comes our second relevant quote of the day!

Ms. Sahney and her group's principle investigator, Professor Mike Benton, examined the fossil record and came to the conclusion that organisms made the biggest leaps when they were exposed to an uncolonized space -- somewhere devoid of competition.

Without going into any detail as to how this process might work, (because, I’m guessing, they have no idea) she sees the increase in time and safety presented by areas empty of other species, as the prime mechanism for large and faster evolutionary jumps. Of course lots of other paleontologists and evolutionary biologists don’t agree. It is risky and unpopular to take any path contrary to Darwin. Professional suicide in fact. (Watch “Expelled” by Ben Stein.)

So now we have the big debate, which will no doubt rage for years. Space or competition. Which in return, I suppose, comes down to pressure, or lack of pressure.
But I’m going to propose a third alternative. I have developed a brave and radical new theory. And why not? I have just as much chance of being right as they do. They may be basing their ideas on one—one-one hundred thousandth of the available fossil record, but I’m basing mine on practical logic. Which is a special and rarified branch of logic having to do with things like balanced meals, rights-of-way, common sense, and UFOlogy.
Here goes. Changes in species occur from neither competition nor empty areas devoid of other species. alterations occur as the result of annual design changes similar to clothing or automobiles. Yearly demographic studies are made which followed trends in popularity, practicality, and cultural considerations. Committees will meet and brain-storm the next models, approve the best ideas, and send them on to marketing. Marketing will look at yearly sales reports, geological and long-term climate trends, and approve or disapprove the new batch of prototypes. Final designs would be sent to tooling and manufacturing, where the new models would be put together, built, made, created, brought to life, recorded, and given stamps of approval from various and sundry government agencies.
From there the new models would be crated and shipped to their chosen locations, released, monitored for quality assurance, and forgotten. A huge wrap party is held, and then the whole process starts over again.
As a side note, the delivery vehicles used, look like massive versions of Douglas DC-8’s. They arrive here after a journey of dozens of light years from an auxiliary industrial complex in the Galactic Confederacy. The CEO of the Earth Fauna and Flora Manufacturing Corporation, or EFFMC, is the former tyrant-ruler Xenu. During his tenure as CEO design considerations were bases primarily on Thetan aesthetics.
Hey, it could happen.

2010-08-24T09:58:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Acidic Oceans
8-24-2010

Well, they’re at it again. Some fool-hardy scientists, more full of themselves than a bloated mosquito, have released findings from yet another research project involving Computer Models. This time we are being warned that the oceans are becoming more acidic and IT’S OUR FAULT!

Here’s the relevant quote:
According to this research, a decrease in pH means an increase in acidity. In 1750, the global mean ocean surface pH was at 8.2, and now it is at 8.1. If carbon dioxide emissions are not cut, the researchers' simulations predict that the pH could decrease to as low as 7.7 by 2100. On the other hand, if carbon dioxide emissions are controlled, the simulations predict that the pH won't fall below 8.0 by 2100. Research indicates that there will be an emissions peak in 2016, then it will decrease by five percent each year after.

Fascinating. No, really. Translated, it means “we know next to nothing about ocean acidity and it’s phases, but this model makes it sound as if we do.” I wonder how many factors they were able to program into their model. 10? 50? 100? And I wonder how they chose these factors? By committee? The head of the project? An RPG die? These are important questions because we know on the face of it that the vast majority of factors involved in a process as complex and lengthy as this one, remain undetected, unthought-of, and unknown.

Let’s be nice and give them 100 factors. This is a lot for a computer model, but they’re getting better at it all the time. Now let’s estimate (a technical term meaning “speculate”) that there are actually 10,000 +or -. I’m guessing it is more likely to be greater by a factor of ten, but that’s just me being cynical. How accurate a picture are we likely to get with a ratio like that?

Here’s a handy analogy. One hundred reasons (evidences) to commit murder are probably sufficient for a conviction, and are all the police would bother discovering. But for a forensic psychologist, or sociologist, enough digging, research, experimenting and hypotheses would likely reveal a lifetime of complex interconnections and decision-paths leading up to the murder, which would offer a completely new and different story. Much more thorough, and useful, from a predictor standpoint, as well as medical, in terms of treatment and prognosis. But she probably still did it.

Once again, I have no complaint with modeling complex systems on cool Macs, with those sleek design features. They are a useful tool, a powerful weapon in the arsenal of science. But they are not reality. Not the real thing. And they do not inform to the extent that they should be substituted for reality, especially by really smart people who should know better.

The modeling is fine. It should be combined with lots of other things in order to make educated guesses on the way to that elusive goal of “actually knowing.” And it’s okay to come and say, “hey, this is what we’re studying, and this is why, and this is what we think might be happening, but it could be this as well.” Instead, the preferred method these days is to release the findings prematurely, and in isolation, to some faction of the press, in this case usually an online geek-parade like Daily Tech. (I love Daily Tech.) One wonders what the actual motive is for such behavior. It is hardly professional. Has little to do with the scientific method. Is often politically-motivated. Absolutely inappropriate. And smacks of a new kind of über-geek narcissism.

And as long as they keep having the bad taste of doing it this way, I’m going to keep calling them on it. (Until I’m proven completely wrong by a precocious ten-year old.)

2010-08-18T13:13:00.001-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Ground Zero Muslim Center
8-16-2010

President Obama has had a few things to say about this proposed (and when we say “proposed,” we mean “foregone conclusion) Islamic Studies Center near Ground Zero, in New York. Here is a good sampling:

"As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country," Obama said in remarks at a White House dinner celebrating the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. "That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances," he said. "This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable."

See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/president-obama-backs-muslim-center-near-ground-zero/19593495/?icid=sphere_copyright

I have to agree with him this time. He is absolutely right. This is America, and we have a sacred trust, and obligation, to hold the 1st Amendment sacrosanct. We cannot equivocate on this.
The Republicans are blasting the President on his statements, but the criticism rings hollow to my ears—after all, it’s an election year.

They are yelling at the wrong person. Obama, were he an actual American, and real President, would have found himself caught between the rock and the hard place on this issue. As president, he would rightfully have had to take just the stand that he has, and suffered the unpopularity and polling hits, content to be on the right side of the issue. As an American, he might have been conflicted, upset, even disgusted at the dilemma. But he is not—as far as I am concerned—a “real” American, nor a “real” President. (well, I might have to rethink that last one—he does live in the White House).
Because of who he is, (rather than who he portrays himself to be), I don’t think he had one second’s problem taking this stand, and making these statements. In fact, there are a lot of people, Obama apparently included, who believe Islam should have additional rights over those guaranteed by the Constitution. Rights no one else seems to have.

The President has shown no real evidence that he is a religious man. Which is fine. (And please don’t mention Rev. Wright’s “church.” That place is to religion what pornography is to sex.) But if he is religious, we can be confident that he is Muslim. (Which is fine as well, but I wish he’d be upfront about it). And he is still the wrong one to be yelling at. The conservative pundits have it wrong. (Or maybe they’re being cagey. Maybe they’re yelling at him because they think he’s being duplicitous and using his high office to further the cause of Islam. None of which is relevant to my thesis.)

No, the people the Republican’s should be yelling at are the Muslim’s who made the proposal. They have the right to worship when, where, and how they please. But the proposal itself is beyond the pale of bad taste. It is the single most insensitive thing I have ever heard of, with the possible exception of the Holocaust. They should not have asked. Having asked, New York had the right to deny it. They didn’t. They fast-tracked it—despite the fact that the same committee has been keeping a Greek Orthodox Church waiting 9 years for permission to effect repairs to damage caused by the 9-11 collisions.

They aren’t yelling at the Muslims who want to build at ground zero because they are afraid. They are afraid because a lot of Muslim’s (not all, by any stretch) are insane as measured by western standards. Of course, now that all values, standards, cultures, and civilizations are equal, there’s nothing anyone can do on that front.
They are afraid that extremist jihadists will come and kill them, and their families, and then kill a few thousand innocents just because. Remember—it is better to be dead than an infidel. No one wants a Muslim mad at them. So they are yelling at the President. It’s kind of like how we yell at Iran because we know North Korea is listening.

The fact that the proposal hasn’t been withdrawn is provocative. Just as the proposal itself was provocative. I do not for a moment think it was made innocently, out of a desire for peace and reconciliation. If that were the case, the Ground Zero Muslim Center would have been taken off the table long before now.

So what should we do? Nothing. As Americans, they have the same rights you and I do. But remember, this thing will be a blight to most Americans. An insult too extreme to be ignored, or suffered. And once finished, and open, security will cost millions. Not just internally, but think about all the money NYC will have to pay out every year protecting the place from people less genteel and sophisticated than you and I.
I hope America gives the place a chance to prove it’s sincerity as a place of peace, hope, and brotherhood. And I hope they do prove it. Really.
But I’m not holding my breath.

2010-08-06T20:03:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: A New Sensibility
8-6-2010

We drove over to a big, brand new Good Will store today (yes, we shop at thrift stores) and we saw two reserved parking spaces we had never seen before. They were not for handicapped cars, (I think it’s irresponsible to let handicapped cars on the road anyway) instead, they were for environmentally aware cars-slash-people. The ink was green, and it said:

Preferred Parking
Parking for Environmentally Friendly and/or fuel efficient vehicles only.

Took me completely by surprise. But it did elicit one or two questions. Like . . . who decides which vehicles are friendly to the environment? What is the minimum allowable level of friendliness? And what is the criteria (if any) for fuel-efficiency in this particular parking lot?

I did not see an attendant standing by to offer helpful consultation as to who might qualify for these coveted spots, so close to the entrance to a thrift store. I did not see a list of acceptable makes and models, which would have been helpful. Nor did I see a comprehensive list of attributes and characteristics which would render a given person acceptable.

We were driving a 2007 Dodge Grand Caravan. It has a six cylinder engine and gets around 20 MPG. I doubt that would qualify. But we had 6 people in it, which brings passenger MPG up to 120. Do you suppose that would qualify?

I didn’t really want to park in one of the spaces anyway, because I can’t think of anything more pretentious and disingenuous than setting aside parking places for such meaningless, unquantifiable reasons. I mean, think about it—there is no discernable criteria involved in the message. As close as anyone could get is something like; “If you think of yourself as an environmentalist, or if you drive a hybrid, or electric car, or gas or diesel engine that gets pretty good mileage, or if you really like trees and clean air, or if you believe in Gaia, or are maybe pagan—but only the good kind—or you think the stock holders of BP should be taken out and shot, or you liked “Free Willy”, or “Ferngully”, or are really sad about Katrina, or think Obama and Biden are doing enough for the planet, or you believe in only wearing natural fibers, or are a vegan, or . . . well, you get the picture. All of the above please feel free to petition for an environmental parking space. (Hey, shouldn’t such a space be grass, rather than paved? And if it is grass, should anyone really be driving on it?)

Here’s what bothers me about this. Someone had to have had the idea to do this, and their internal censor must have actually let it pass. Not only that, they had to have talked to someone else about it, and everyone had to have agreed it was a good idea—not in the sense that there was any kind of reasoning for it—because clearly, as written, there was not—but because it would make everyone involved in creating the policy “feel good” about themselves, as well as whoever decided to park in a space. It’s all about feeling good these days. Remember when it was about being good, or doing good? Now . . . all we gotta do is feel good, and we’re part of the in crowd.
I saw this happen in the public schools too. For years the growing focus was on kids feeling good, until finally, every minute of instruction time was geared towards the students “feeling good” about themselves, until there was no academic rigor left, no scholarship, no sense of achievement—no need in a world where feeling good about oneself is the ultimate goal.
And now we can do it while we park our cars. Feel special. Feel exclusive. As long as we are kowtowing to the PC world of the newest sensation, the latest craze . . . the self-esteem addict.
It’s a brave new world boys and girls.

IGM Settling IN

2010-08-03T16:26:00.001-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All Personnel

Fr: W. Leavitt

Re: Settling In

8-3-2010

Nita and I took a walk today. I may have mentioned to some of you that Aubrey (and now we) lives a ten-minute walk from the Palmyra Temple. I estimated that from looking at Google Earth, but I missed by a little. We walked to the Temple this morning and it took 25 minutes . . . but it was a pretty country road with so much green it hurt the eyes, and wonderfully old and quaint homes lining the lane—which is actually a state highway, but you can’t tell to walk along it.
The Temple is beautiful. Small, compared to many others, but set on a grassy hill, with the usual immaculate grounds full of dazzling flowers. A Nita paradise.
And since the Joseph Smith farm was a few hundred feet away, which meant the Sacred Grove was right around the corner as well, we walked over there and into the forest to meander the paths and see if we could feel some residual spirit still lingering from the Visitation. Maybe. How would I know?
We walked around the grove for an hour, and at some point the spirit backed-off in order to let sweaty exhaustion take center stage. By the time we found our way out, I was so tired I called Aubrey and asked her to come rescue us—which she did. Good girl, Aub.
I have been chastised for not mentioning how beautiful it is here—and it is, truly. But I am not recovered yet from my marathon trip, nor am I acclimated to the elevation, humidity, and flora-induced claustrophobia, so my appreciation is lackluster at best. Maybe it will improve this fall. I’m not optimistic though—everyone knows I have a huge, raging bias against all things eastern.
We’re supposed to be here though. I have no doubt of that. Now I just have to figure out why.
Our cottage is wonderful. Aubrey and Greg took it down to the floorboards and studs and fixed, upgraded, or replaced everything. Way too much work and money spent, but we love it. Small, but cozy. And we live ten feet from them, connected by an enclosed “breezeway,” and their house is big and old—1870 I’m told. The light in their house is buttery, and their kitchen-dining area is the kind one envisions for the Celestial Kingdom; all about family and love and modern conveniences. And they have a new dog—Meggie—a Australian Shepherd, and she is wondrously alive and happy. Newell, you would love her.
So I guess we’re really here. I know we’re supposed to be, but I wish I knew why.

IGM Wives and Daughters

2010-07-28T21:46:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All Personnel

Fr: W. Leavitt

Re: Wives and Daughters

7-8-2010

I have three daughters, and a son. This will be mostly about my wife and daughters, but I promise to say something nice about Grah in the future. It will be easy to do.

For forty years, off and on, at random moments, I will catch a glimpse of Nita, and she will take my breath away. My heart jumps in my chest. It still happens. She surpasses my understanding. Her beauty is inextricably tied to who she is, and her character cannot help but shine through into the outer world.

This is not always the case with human beings. (I will use Lindsey Lohan as exhibit A).

Perhaps I am able to see something no one else does. Although she has always been well-regarded by males, who have hovered around her with silly, surreptitious and hopeless longing.

And ever since my daughters became young women, and now simply women, the same thing happens, occasionally, when I look at them. It amazes me how much a momentary glance can speak so much of them to me. I see dedicated mother, and caregiver, student, teacher, artist, devoted wife (and girlfriend), and so many other things.

I see good. Honor, integrity, sacrifice—all the same things I have always seen in Nita. And in my daughters, the gestalt of these traits combine to create a rare kind of beauty often missing in the faces of women internationally known for a different, and lesser, kind of splendor.

Each has her own peculiar aspect. A radiance, an ethereal, inner glow that manifests with a turn of the head, in a stray beam of light, or a gentle shadow.

Aubrey, with decades of wisdom and love beyond her years in her eyes. A kind of celestial countenance shining through.

Jessica with that naturally blonde hair, that skin, and those eyes, with a mother’s love burning eternally in them.

Chani, with her crazy make-up and hair color of the week, that sparkle, that elfin smile.

And Nita, with . . . everything. Forever eyes. A whole set of smiles only I ever see. A tenderness and dedication beyond reason, beyond imagination.

A man should not be allowed such fortune; it is unfair to those with lesser beauty in their lives. But there it is, and nothing I can do about it.

And already I can see the same exquisite grace growing like a special blessing in my granddaughters. Naomi, the Gelfling Princess, Ellie, the wide-eyed gypsy-girl, Caroline, my perfect little shadow, with a smile that defines mischievous, Salem, the dark-eyed gift from another dimension, Cecily, whose beauty is so radiant, and intense, she retains its perfection even when frowning, or crying, or angry, and Tesla, so small and new, and already extraordinary, with the same other-worldly looks of her sister.

When—no, if—I find myself in a personal interview with Heavenly Father, the first thing I will ask Him is, why me? What did I do to deserve such singular people in my life, to be so well-loved by such completely beautiful women and girls? I don’t have a clue, but it must have been something pretty good.

IGM Connectivity

2010-07-10T21:42:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All Personnel

Fr: W. Leavitt

Re: Connectivity

6-19-10

Has anyone else noticed the radical speed with which our culture is allowing itself to be changed by emerging technology? We are in the midst of so much upheaval, from so many fronts, that I suspect most people are not comprehending the nature of the paradigm shifts. Plural. And neither do I.
Today, for the first time in known human history (I include that caveat because we have no idea what the level of technical civilization was prior to the Flood) we are in a state of unending, consistently mind-boggling, emergent technology. We have no time to assimilate, consider, or become familiar with implications before we are again inundated with the next wave. And as far as I can tell, no one is monitoring any of this, other than a few über techno-geeks writing for obscure online magazines. And my son.
What brought this situation to my admittedly scattershot attention, was a recent event on my Facebook account.

In fact, let me regress for a moment. I am a 60 year old American male, one of the last people born in the 40’s. I was old enough to remember the first television we ever got. I am one of the last of the Beatles and Beach Boys generation. And I have a Facebook account.

Back to the future.
So, a few days ago, I got an email, inviting me to be ‘friends’ with someone. Most of us have experienced that annoying little game. (How many times have you received friend requests from people you do not know?)
It took me a minute. Her name was familiar, but did not ring any bells for a moment. Then it hit me. René. She was my first girlfriend when I went to Glen Burnie High School, in Glen Burnie, Maryland, in 1966-68. For those of us addicted to calculation (which does not include me), that is 44 years ago. And now we are in a position to reconnect. I almost always say yes to friend requests . . . and I don’t even know why. To be polite? Maybe it had something to do with that song, Walk Away René, which was popular when we were going steady. (Who did that? Was it the Left Bank?)
In the old world, people we knew half-a century ago, would be long-gone, forever and properly relegated to the obscure past, half memory, half fiction. In no sense are any of us the same people we were at seventeen, even though that kid still lurks in the hinterlands of our subconscious. So why bother?
I think the reason may be deceptively simple; because we can. Because technology makes it too easy. We do it, and don’t even question why. Well, some of us do. A lot of us. And for my childrens generation, it is much worse. They are immersed in the world of cyberspace. My grandchildren will no doubt be living in Tron.
So I clicked on the SUBMIT button, or whatever it is, and let René back into my life, if only peripherally. I liked René. She was cute, and insecure. A little too skinny—could’a used a few pounds . . . And she broke up with a senior to go with me. And then I broke up with her. Why? Who knows? I was young and stupid, and insensitive. And I took things like girlfriends very seriously, despite my total lack of cool, and my ultimate cluelessness. I was the only high school jock in history who wasn’t popular—not that I cared.

Another regression: I didn’t ‘date’. I was terrified of girls, and mesmerized by the mystery at the same time. Consequently, I either had a ‘girlfriend’, with whom I was hopelessly in love, or nothing at all. I didn’t do casual. I fantasized about marrying every one of them, and living happily ever after, in a cave, while I protected them from dragons and evil boys. Oh, what? Like you didn’t?

Back to the future.
So what do we talk about? How many bases we got to? (Just one—repeatedly.) Obama? Religion? Our lives? And what possessed her to ask in the first place? What kind of morbid curiosity would compel someone to reconnect with a high school boyfriend after all this time? (well, other than Gloria, who seems to make a habit of it. ) It’s not like I stayed in the area, or that we kept in touch. I haven’t seen, or talked to, or much thought about René for over forty years. Which is not meant to be a criticism, I was just getting on with my life, as I’m sure she has been. And admittedly, I’m sure I posses that same morbid bent. I’m still looking for Kay.

The point: Everything is changing, before our eyes. Connectivity is becoming a proper noun. I Googled Gadianton Robbers last night, and only got to Gadian—before the suggestions popped up and Gadianton Robbers was the first one. That’s a pretty obscure reference, and Google not only had it, but had it number one. Go ahead, try to Google something that doesn’t hit. Try and find a name on Facebook. (XKCD has a great cartoon about that. I’d send it with this IGM if the content wasn’t questionable.)
As an example, did you know that most photocopy machines (post about 2003) now have hard-drives in them? It speeds up the process. The first scan sends all the info to the hard drive, which then sends it to the copy brain, making it unnecessary to scan again and again, saving time. Think about all the documents you’ve scanned as a matter of course. All the personal information. Copy machines are storing it all. Who has access to it? No wonder people are trying to opt out of the grid, get off the net.
I can’t help but wonder where it’s all going to lead. Of course, it’s all fodder for a writer of speculative fiction, good and bad, but still . . . what happens when everything we are, and everything we know, and think, and do, is public knowledge, accessible to everyone? And how will it change the social dynamic when we all have ten thousand friends, and have not met any of them?

IGM The NASA Islam Connection

2010-07-06T12:17:00.001-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: The NASA Islam connection
7-6-2010

In a surprise move right out if the old “Bat-**** insane” playbook, President Obama has given a brave new mandate to the new head of NASA. According to an article in Google News, which quotes the new space boss, Obama told him in no uncertain terms that NASA’s number one priority now, will be improving relations with Muslims, and Islamic nations.

I don’t know about you, but when I read something like that, I experience a moment of severe cerebral short-circuiting.
“What? . . . . I mean . . . WHAT?”

But then, after I thought about it for a moment, it made perfect sense. Because, what else would NASA be doing, right? After all, they are the National Space and Aeronautic Administration, which puts them at the forefront of relations-building with nations and cultures which can barely figure out a flush toilet, much less conceive a need for, and design, a commode that works in zero gravity.

The obvious question I suppose, is, why would Obama list such a thing as a priority at all, much less for NASA, the least likely of all government agencies to have anything to do with our relations with Islam? Is it possible the President has a soft spot for Islam? Could it be that he considers himself a Muslim? Lots of people have been making that claim lately, and this certainly bolsters that radical possibility. Not that being Muslim in any way disqualifies him from being President—that’s not what this country is about.

Here’s the thing: Contrary to popular belief, and Charlie Rangel, NASA’s annual budget is miniscule. Things like this need to be put into some kind of perspective. Human and Social Services, as an example, spends NASA’s budget about every nine days. With that in mind, who in their right mind would task the National Space agency to spend hundreds of millions of its very limited budget, building good relations with Muslim—or any other—countries? I mean, seriously . . . . . how are they supposed to even do something like that?
“And this is a spacesuit . . . it’s air tight!”
“Behead the infidel!”

I’m not suggesting that good, or better, relations with Islam is a bad, or unnecessary thing. On the contrary, I’m sure improvements in that area would be wonderful. What I am suggesting, is that it might be less than appropriate for a high-tech, scientific organization, which does things in space, for America, to be our good-will ambassador to third-world countries. Don’t we already have agencies and organizations designed for just such things?
One wonders what the President has in mind. Maybe we can partner with Afghanistan to put poppies in orbit. Or go in with Iran to help them improve their long-range ballistic missile program, or accelerate their nuclear ambitions, or even give them a heads up on superior, heat-resistant and ablative material so they can make better tents.

I mean, if this is a good idea, why not task the Bureau of Indian Affairs to get together with the people of Indonesia and the Sudan and do little compare-and-contrast sessions on culture and religious traditions? Muslims would love that, right?

The next thing we know, someone from NASA is going to say the wrong thing, or misinterpret some innocent Jihadist remark, and we will find ourselves with a Fatwa against astronauts, and all “devil-spawned” satellites. Then we’ll be in a pickle. We’ll have to put the entire NASA program in orbit, just to keep it safe. And that will work, because one thing we can count on is that the current iteration of Islam will never have the technical, cultural, or philosophical wherewithal to get off the ground, much less into space.

IGM YouTube

2010-06-21T12:41:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All Personnel

Fr: W. Leavitt

Re: YouTube

6-21-2010

I spend an inordinate amount of time watching YouTube videos, listening to music. Mostly, I go for stuff I already know, memory lane, as it were, but I’ve been known to venture off into uncharted territory as well. I never intend to spend that much time. I always have a specific video or song in mind, but as I’m listening/watching, that damn string of useful suggestions to the right of the screen beckons me like a Siren, and I click on another, and another, and suddenly it’s like whoa! Here’s a suggestion for someone else, and I haven’t heard that one in forever, or yikes! I didn’t know those two people ever sang together, etc., etc., and before I know it I’ve been up half the night, lost in a kind of musical reverie.

Sometimes I run across a real gem, hitherto unknown to me. Like when I looked for David Wilcox because I wanted to hear The Eye of the Hurricane song, and discovered this insane Canadian of the same name—a middle-aged madman, blues guitarist of extraordinary talent. Most of the new ones, however, come from my children, and most of those from Chani, because she is CONNECTED. I get my fix of weird from Grah, who finds stuff so esoteric that even the internet is surprised. Like The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets, or Depapepe. (Is that right? I’m not online right now.) I listen to a lot of Chani’s stuff, with her band, Rubik’s Hotel, and some Crowd of Small Adventures, and Hungry Cloud, because my second cousin (or first cousin once-removed, I can never remember), Jack Wilcox, the Human String Bean, fronts them both. (For those of you lucky enough to have seen Thor at the Bus Stop, Jack is the Milk Strider.)

A few nights ago, I got an itch to hear “In My Room,” by the Beach Boys. It maybe my favorite song by them. So I got on YouTube and found it and listened, and loved it again, and then how could I not listen to “Little Deuce Coup, and then there was “Surfer Girl,” Brain Wilson’s favorite of his melodies, and on it went, "Good Vibrations", "Be True to Your School", until I found an interview with Brain. Brian Wilson is one of my hero’s, and a universal cautionary tale. I listened to an interview from the 60’s, with Mike Douglas, and then a long one from the 90’s. Brain is fried. His mind is gone, his brain burned to a crisp—which he readily admits in the second interview. Drugs, and poor mental health, combined to destroy one of the most creative and brilliant musical minds of our century. Oh, he’s still articulate, in his own way (and by that I mean he was never articulate), but he has trouble concentrating, and is the king of non-sequiturs. He wanders, and has a tendency to protect himself by breaking into song at odd moments.

Here’s this perfectly normal California kid, with a gift from God, who at 16 puts together a band of his brothers, a cousin, and a family friend, and somehow brings normally talented teenagers up to the levels of greatness by the time he is 19. And they let him, They listen to him, because his brain is on fire with melodies, and harmonies, and arrangements both manically complex, and angelically sophisticated. Then—because of issues with an overbearing and physically abusive father, his own innate emotional instability, DRUGS, and a manipulative, greedy, despicable, Svengali-like therapist—he is brought down into a living hell for decades. And through all of it, he manages to write and arrange—and produce—some of rocks most enduring anthems. He couldn’t perform live, though. Six months after their first big hit, which I believe was “Surfin’ USA,” he was home in bed, where he stayed for three years. In the interview with Douglas, Brain sounds like a PSA against drugs. He describes the many times he took (among others) LSD, and how wonderful it was, but what it did to him as well. He was very frank, very candid. Then, in the newer interview, the guy asks him if he ever took LSD. Brian says “oh sure,” and goes into some random, wandering diatribe, then suddenly stops. “At least I think I did,” he says, then looks off into space. “Maybe not . . . I’d have to ask somebody.” He looks at the camera. “I don’t remember.”

I probably listened to 30 songs that night, thinking about all of this, dismayed, and amazed at what he did, what he went through, and curious about what might have been under different circumstances. Then, towards the end of the long interview, he mentioned his two older daughters, Carnie, and Wendy, whom he barely knew while they were growing up, and I was off into a search for Wilson Phillips.
As you may recall, they were a female trio from the 90’s with a few good hits. Carnie and Wendy were Brian’s girls, and the other one, Chynna, was the younger daughter of Papa John and Michelle Phillips, who founded the Mama’s and the Papa’s. How she survived her father’s bizarre lifestyle is anyone’s guess. But those girls could sing. It was top-notch pop music, with a legacy unparalleled in music history. Nothing profound, but “hold on just one more day,” is a fine sentiment for a song, evoking all kinds of possibilities. I listened to all the stuff of theirs available, watching them, trying to imagine the dynamics in which they had grown-up, and were formed, and the serendipity that might have brought the unlikely pairing to fruition.

Maybe the reason I spend so much time doing that, reading about all these people, listening to them, and wondering about them, is because of the emotions it makes me feel. Music—even obviously commercial music—has a strong effect on me. Musicians fascinate me. What they do is so hard, and requires so much time and commitment before anything can really begin. I know just enough about that to make me particularly susceptible to the struggle, and the miracle of talent at that level. Hell, even the 1910 Fruit Gum Factory had talent. And although it makes me nauseous to admit it, even the Rolling Stones have talent.

We often marvel at how easy and effortless they make it look. But most of us don’t delve deeply enough to discover the years of sacrifice, of obsessive practice, repetition, and compulsive dedication it takes to be one of the great ones. Eddie Van Halen says he locked himself in his bedroom with one of Eric Clapton’s albums, and a guitar, and didn’t come out for three years—essentially his adolescence—until he could play every note of every song perfectly. You wanna see extreme skill? Go to Youtube and call up a band called Dragonforce. You won’t like them. They are a “speed metal” band, “shredders,” but they have a unique sound. Watch part of a video, listen to the drums and the lead guitars. It is impossible to play that fast, much less complex arrangements that fast, that perfectly, for that long. I can’t even describe the speed. You have to experience it. It makes one wonder where the limit is. What can’t humans do? Remember the 5 minute mile? The unbreakable barrier? Now housewives run faster than that, in sneakers, on concrete. And usually really ugly outfits . . . . nothing personal, housewives.

Sometimes people wonder how I can possibly know some of the stuff I do. Especially about music. First of all, I don’t know all that much compared to someone who really does. It’s easy to impress people who don’t know anything about something. And second of all, I can’t help it. I remember it. (Actually, my memory is terrible, chaotic. Except in a few narrow areas. ) I’ve read the back of every album I’ve ever owned (a lot), I’ve read countless articles, books, biography’s, I watch documentaries endlessly, heck, I used to subscribe to Rolling Stone—who does that? and I was a music major for a while. And now that YouTube is around, well . . . it’s even worse. I get to see them too. Ultimately, it comes down to curiosity.

It’s like the people who think I’m a pretty good musician. I know better. They usually only think that because they aren’t one at all. I think we all experience that. Yeah, I write better than people who don’t write, but I’m not kidding myself. I’m no Mark Helprin or Cormack McCarthy. I’m not even Larry McMurtry or Tom Clancy, or Anne Rice. Such is the nature of talent, of “the gift”. It is an infinite spectrum, a river into which we are all dipped, like Achilles. Some are dipped deeper than others. And like Achilles, something about the experience often renders us tragic, as well as gifted. Look at Brian Wilson.

IGM The Perception of Reality

2010-06-18T19:59:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All Personnel

Fr: W. Leavitt

Re: The Perception of Reality

6-18-10

I've been thinking about a statement one of my responders made, concerning the recent series of guest blogger contributions, and how some of us reacted. The statement was;

"The problem isn't corporate America, it is corrupt government."

Some of us took umbrage with that. But could it be possible that it isn’t either-or, but that they are both right? That the problem is corporate America, and corrupt government? At which point, the next question should be; "which fosters which?" Is one responsible for the other? If we look at a family metaphor, in which the behavior of the parent is modeled by the child, we could argue that the private sector takes its cues from the government. On the other hand, if a government is weak enough, it will kowtow to the pressure and demands of corporations. It isn't difficult to find examples of either. We need look no further than Mexico to see what can happen when powerful companies (in this case an Oligarchy) run roughshod over the government. Now, with drug cartels, it is even worse.
But what if government and corporate America are the same thing? Can a case be made for such a cabal? We may be assuming that one entity maintains a higher level of ethics that the other. Some of us think big business is more moral, and some of us think government is more moral. But what if neither can be considered moral? What if our situation is on a par with the Book of Mormon, where the Gadianton robbers become more powerful than the government, and have infiltrated the government at all levels? What if criminals sit in the "judgment seat," and we have essentially become them? And how do we know?
On the other hand, is it possible, in any kind of practical way, to assign concepts of morality to non-corporeal, non-sentient entities, which exist only in a legal sense? Can a government be moral or immoral? Can a corporation? Or can such considerations only be assigned to human beings, who work in and for these organizations? Is there a tipping point at which too many amoral or immoral people render the organizations behavior immoral?
Could a case be made for sufficient corruption, greed, and ineptitude on the part of both systems? For example, the entire country is divided as to where to place the blame for the BP oil spill. Is it a corporate or government responsibility? How would each of us answer this question: would the oil spill be more likely to not have happened if BP were more ethical, or if the government were bigger--exercised greater control and oversight?
Can presumed authority overcome dedicated greed?
Can corporate ethics overcome governmental corruption? I repeat my question from an earlier IGM; why did BP have no reliable and effective contingency plan in place for such an event? And, conversely, why did the government not require such a plan and/or technology? And if government did require it, why did they not know it was not in place and functioning?
We could chose from far too many examples besides the oil spill, but why bother?
How do our mind-sets gravitate to one set of assumptions or another? What is the process?
And if everything happens more or less in a causative vacuum, how would we ever arrive at any kind of explanation? Of course, perhaps it doesn't work that way. Maybe the world isn't ruled by coincidence and randomness. Maybe there is no such thing as a coincidence. But if that is true, how do we trace the inevitable pattern of necessary events which lead to all other events? Is all that really just a matter of opinion?
It might be interesting to take some kind of poll, find out where we agree and disagree on specific issues, and basic principles. And remember, issues and principles are not the same thing. Issues have no principles; but principles define and control issues. The oil spill is a perfect example. Was the explosion and resultant spill the result of a failure of issues or of misapplied principles? Does that even make sense?
And we need to remember that it appears as if the application of principles to specific issues can be wildly divergent, even when we adhere to the same basic principles. For example, we all believe in the necessity of laws, and protecting the public interest, and the necessity of incarceration for people who violate said laws and interests. But how we deal with the specific issues involved is often varied. Some of us accept the concept of the death penalty, some do not. Some insist on rehabilitation, and others insist that rehabilitation is ineffective and largely useless. Look at how we argue over such fundamental things like the Bill of Rights. There is no disagreement on their importance and desirability, but get more than three people together and how we interpret those Rights, and apply them, is all over the map. Why is that?
To quote Steve Stills, “there’s something happening here . . .” But do any of us agree as to what is happening, and why it’s happening?

And for those of you who have no idea what a Gadianton Robber is, I guess you’re just going to have to read the Book of Mormon. How sly is that?

--
You don't use science to show that you're right; you use science to become right.
XKCD

IGM A Positive Experience

2010-06-01T11:39:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: A Positive Experience
6-1-10

This month Nita and I will be celebrating our 40th wedding anniversary. (No applause, please. But feel free to send money.) As you can imagine, I have been wracking my brain to think of an idea worthy of her, and the big 4-0. Most of my anniversary attempts have been on the order of,
“happy anniversary, honey, how about dinner and a movie?” Or even more likely, "hey, wasn't it our anniversary last month?"
Although once, a few years ago, I surprised her with a weekend trip to Zion National Park, and that was a huge success. Except it was a valentine’s present, and we went to the Park in Feb. But it was still awesome—we had the place pretty much to ourselves.
So I have to at least top that, right?
Then it hit me. I knew the perfect gift. Let me now include a little background;
Years ago, Nita and I started to go to a bluegrass festival held every fall in Logandale, NV. A good friend of ours (he was a Bishop at the time) was in a bluegrass band, and they were very good, and we loved going to hear them play. So one day he invited us to come to the festival, and we did, and listened to good music for eight hours a day for two days. We were hooked. By the way, the band is called “The Warburton’s”, and several years ago they took the top prize at the very prestigious Wolftrap International Bluegrass something-or-other. They are two brothers, a sister, and a good friend. (I just looked, and couldn’t find them on Youtube, so I’ll have to email Kelly and yell at him.) You’ve gotta hear “Lehi Roller Mills,” a song Marty, the leader, wrote about summer employment in a misspent youth.
Anyway, ever since, Nita has been in love with the mandolin, and has fantasized about playing one. As far back as the early 70’s, she loved the sound of Joni Mitchell’s lap dulcimer, and I was always going to make one for her (from a kit), but never have.
So this morning I bought her a mandolin. I have been looking online all week, searching the internet, emailing people, trying to get some ideas as to what brand to buy, how much to spend, etc. Well, I found a place called the Mandolin Store, and it is in, of all places—are you sitting down?—The Wickenburg TRIANGLE. That’s right, the tiny little store is in the city of Wickenburg, AZ.
But that’s not why I called you all together this morning. I did that, so I could tell you about the wonderful experience I had dealing with Dennis, at the Mandolin Store. It was all via email, other than this morning, when he called to get a credit card number. (I used yours, Leah) I told him what I was looking for, and that I had this one in mind, on his website, and that I knew nothing about mandolins—mando’s to the initiated. He was incredibly helpful, and patient, and knowledgeable.
When I am communicating via the internet, I always write to everyone as if we are long-lost friends; very informal, very personal, and chatty. (No! Really?) Most people no doubt think I’m from Mars when I do that (close, but no cigar), and ignore it. Dennis, picked it right up and gave it back. I told him all about my heart attack and surgery, and how our 40th was coming up and my wife has always wanted a mandolin. He told me happy anniversary, and all about having to move a bunch of furniture over the long weekend, and how he wouldn’t be able to get to the mandolin until today. It was fun; it felt just like it should have. He told me he had one of the model I was looking at, and that for my budget, it was far and away the best pick. (What an eye, huh?) But then he told me he had 4 new ones coming in, and he’d be happy to wait a few days, so he could sample them all and choose the best one for me. He assured me he would have the mandolin “set up” for beginners, and pick out a book and CD he thought would be appropriate for a 60-year old madwoman.
From beginning to end, it was a positive, life-affirming, loads of fun experience. The kind we see all too rarely.
So . . . if you do a Google search for The Mandolin Store, Dennis should come up. If you click on the site, you will see a photo of the tiny little building with the Arizona desert in the background. Dennis sells other things too, like guitars and banjos, and does repairs. Check him out, say hello, and if you’re ever in the market for an acoustic instrument, give him a chance to win you over.
And if you’re ever passing through Wickenburg, stop in and say hello—I know I will. But be careful . . . because the place might have vanished into the arcane and mysterious depths of the dreaded, Wickenburg Triangle!
Now don’t tell Nita about any of this! She doesn’t get the mando until June 13th. Happy anniversary, baby.

IGM The Most Popular President in History

2010-05-24T09:10:00.000-07:00

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?

IGM The Dudley Do-right Theory

2010-05-14T18:27:00.000-07:00

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.

IGM Illegal Immigration

2010-05-02T09:27:00.001-07:00

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.)

IGM Animal Rights

2010-05-02T09:19:00.000-07:00

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.

IGM a complaint

2010-04-02T14:37:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: A complaint
4-2-10

One of the great things about having a blog is being able to complain about something anytime you want. Actually, most blogs are not much more than a series of complaints in various styles, and mine is no exception. Today, I want to complain about my keyboard. All keyboards for that matter.
I have owned 3 laptops in my life. The first one changed my life and ever since it has been imperative that I not only have one with me at all times, but that it always works. I have managed the first part pretty well, but part two has been problematic.
Right now I am typing on my Toshiba Satellite something-or-other. I have also owned a Dell, and a Fujitsu. Here’s how it all started:
Several years ago Nita and I were at my parents house and I was sitting next to dad. He told me it was great to see me and that I didn’t come over enough, which was true. Shortly before that I had started writing seriously and spent most of my time at home in front of the PC, and I told him that while I wanted to visit more often, it was difficult to pull myself away from the writing, which I explained to him and he nodded and agreed that he could see how it could be a problem. I told him that what I needed was a laptop and then I could be sitting right there next to him, visiting, and working on whatever book I was writing. Incredibly, he thought about that, nodded—accepting the wisdom of such an arrangement—and said “what the hell, let’s get you one.”
Needless to say I procured dads credit card and got on-line right then and there and ordered a Dell laptop because two of my nephews were currently working for Dell. Despite that, I received no discount. From then on, the laptop went with me everywhere, in a back pack. And I mean everywhere. If I had ten minutes in the dentists waiting room I wrote. I began frequenting—and when I say frequenting I mean haunting—various eating establishments where they let me hang around for hours nursing a soda while working on whatever novel I had going.
But here’s the thing: Other than surfing the web, the only thing I use a laptop for is writing, and I do a lot of it. Since the main feature of a laptop is its keyboard, and since keyboards are ostensibly designed for typing, one might assume that manufacturers would design and build keyboards robustly enough to withstand oh . . . say, typing on it. This turns out not to be the case. As I type 5 letters are worn completely off their keys. A,S,E,C . . . and the T,L, the ‘period/greater-than key, the left shift key and the spacebar are all going fast. Not to mention the return button. In fact, the spacebar is in imminent danger of being worn completely through. This has occurred on all three laptops I have owned, and in less than 3 years in every case.
I am not a touch typist. My wife is. I have to look at the letters in order to hit them. She does not. In fact, she has no idea what letter is where on a keyboard—she’d never even heard of the term QWERTY before! She is a touch typist who works from muscle-memory, and she is very good, not to mention fast. I know where every letter is and could draw a diagram of the keyboard from memory, but I can’t hit them without being able to look at them.
The point of this is that it is a nuisance bordering on catastrophe when the identifying letter has been worn away from the key I need. I have to remember, look for it, or I type the wrong one.
I’m wondering if anyone else out there has experienced this problem, regardless of brand? Am I alone? Am I a freak, abusing my keyboards with my constant and apparently brutal finger-slamming? Or are the manufacturers universally cheap? The girl at Best Buy’s tech help window assured me they had never seen such a thing before, but she could have been lying. She was cute enough for such behavior.
It is my opinion that letters wearing off is a design flaw of the most obvious and fundamental kind. How hard would it be to emboss the letter down into the plastic key and then paint it? I mean, c’mon! Even I thought of it!
Toshiba won’t even talk to me about it. They cleverly do not provide an email address for complaints, or even customer service. And I find it interesting and suspicious that we never had this problem with typewriters. (For those of you under thirty, the typewriter was a mechanical device which, when its keys were pressed down, printed directly onto the paper.)
Well . . . I feel better. But writing this memo has worn off the rest of the T key.

IGM Climategate . . .

2010-02-15T12:27:00.001-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Climategate . . . again

I know, I know, it’s beginning to sound like a broken record. But I just can’t leave it alone.
A story is circulating around the UK, but getting no airplay here, that may be the death knoll for global warming, esp. the anthropomorphic kind.
Professor Phil Jones, one of the principals on the IPCC, admitted publically a few days ago that there has been no warming of the global climate in fifteen years. Further, he told a press conference that the medieval period of AD 800 to 1300 was warmer than any highs in the last two hundred years or so. They are still arguing as to whether this was a local (Europe and North America) phenomenon or truly global.
In a stunning revelation, Jones admitted that the reason he had not come forth with critical data, pursued by the freedom of information act, is because he has lost a lot of it. Including the data that gave us Al Gore’s infamous “hockey stick graph.”
As if all this wasn’t enough, an even more embarrassing revelation has recently seen the light of day: It seems that the “apparent” rise in global temps was due to poor placement of data gathering stations. John Christy, an atmospheric prof at the University of Alabama (and former lead writer for the IPCC) said:

“The apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development.”

To reinforce that confession of what can only be described as professional incompetence, Ross McKitric, University of Guelph in Canada, had been invited to review the IPCC report. His conclusion?

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialization and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias.”

Remember the report that the Andes were losing their snow pack and in imminent danger of drying up? (Well, you probably don’t but it was reported . . .) Turns out the reporting station wasn’t giving the researchers the data they wanted—which was support for the melting idea—so they moved the station halfway down the mountain where the data would be affected by the warmer and wetter Amazon basin. That isn’t incompetence; it’s disingenuous at best and criminal at worst.
The funniest thing to have happened recently—as far as Climategate goes—is this: Donald Trump (Admittedly a non-entity in the GCC debate) has called for the Nobel committee to take back Al Gore’s Nobel Prize. The Donald is a little slow on the uptake, but he is a shrewd player and politician. If he is calling for Gore’s head, then the climate really has changed. Yours truly has been calling for Gore’s metaphorical beheading since the day he was awarded the thing. If Trump is going public then he thinks Gore is already doomed and the world’s opinion has reached a tipping point. The only people still clueless are a few cranky (i.e., liberal) politicians and the Obama administration, which is doggedly keeping its head in the cool sand of willful ignorance.

NOTICE

2010-01-28T17:59:00.000-08:00

FYI: On December 8th, I had a heart attack and emergency triple by-pass surgery. As a result I have not posted in a while, but I am feeling better and slowly getting back on my feet. I look forward to regaling you all with pointless drivel once again, and thanks for coming back now and then.
Wayne

IGM I'm back

2009-12-19T09:47:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: I’m back . . . .
12-19-09

I’m back. Back from the brink, back from almost being an ex-human, at best a Zombie and at worst some nameless corpse lying in St James Infirmary.
Having read my daughters less-than-respectful announcement  concerning my recent run of bad luck, I wish to set the record straight.
I was in fact kidnapped, and whisked to the Planet Zorg where I was tortured by mean Zorgians who ride T-Rex’s bare-back—that’s how mean they are.
The Zorgians, having coalesced into doctors, nurses and relatives, will be getting theirs. That’s all I have to say about that.
A quick update will have to suffice for the moment since being conscious for more than a 5 minute stretch brings on bouts of coughing violent enough to have created the word “lunger.”
It was the worst and best experience I have ever had. The worst because I almost died, and the best because I didn’t.
I am learning about muscles I didn’t know I had, all of which I apparently abused during my enforced incarceration. I am learning what “weak as a kitten” means. Our kitten, Frankie, routinely beats me not only at fly-batting now, but chess and Monopoly as well.
I believe I am learning the things this experience is meant to be teaching me. This is good and bad news for some of you. Good in that I am still teachable, bad in that I will be coming to some of your houses to pass along messages from the other side.
I am going to keep a journal for the next 6 months or so, and then maybe write a book, which I will call The Heart Attack. So keep those coupons if you prayed for me; they can be redeemed for a free copy.
One quick anecdote. (I was in a coma for about five days, so this comes from my daughter, Jessica.)
At some point—which she counts as blessed because it was the first time I looked up and recognized anyone—I asked her if she had any idea how many people were praying for me. She told me no, how many?
“About a hundred million,” I apparently answered. I laughed with everyone else when she told us the story, but now that I’ve had time to think about it, I believe my estimate was correct. I felt them. All my ancestors were helping, and all the people on this side as well.
There is a wonderful funeral scene in The Thirteenth Warrior where a woman is chanting her husband’s death.
“Lo, there do I see my Father,” she intones as she is raised above the waiting bier.
“Lo, there do I see my Mother.”
“Lo, there do I see my brothers and my sisters and the line of my people back to the beginning. They call to me, and bid me join them in Valhalla.”
That’s what it felt like to have the powers of Heaven called down and my spirit told to stay, it was not my time. Like it was all of them.

IGM Nobel Prize

2009-10-10T19:49:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Nobel Prize
10-09-09

Which do we suppose was more inevitable? That the President would win the Nobel Peace Prize, or that I would comment on it? (Actually, I don’t think there are levels of inevitability—a thing either is or isn’t.) The Nobel committee is an autonomous organization and is free to choose anyone they want for any prize they want to award. As unbelievable as it is, they do not consult with me on these matters. Obama is the third President to be so honored, but the others had managed to do something first. Even the President’s supporters are stumped as to the choice, stumbling over themselves to let us know that it is the great hope and promise for a better, more peaceful world for which the President was selected. Jimmy Carter, another winner, came out first thing this morning to assure us all that it is the hope Obama engenders that makes him such a good candidate. Lech Walesa, another winner (for being instrumental in freeing Poland and the Eastern Bloc—an actual achievement) made a statement this morning saying that the prize for Obama was premature.
It would be possible, without a great deal of effort, to be critical of this choice. I would never do such a thing, but others are piling it on with gusto. But if I had known that all you had to do was talk about doing great things, make promises about doing great things, I would have been vying for the Prize years ago. Watch: “I hereby promise to do everything in my power and spend every waking minute (unless I’m playing basketball or vacationing or pitching Chicago for the Olympics or campaigning for re-election, etc.,) to make the world a better, more peaceful place . . . oh, and do away with all nuclear weapons.” There, now can I have my $250,000? C’mon, I promised! What more do you want?
This sounds a lot like some of my students who want to know why they are failing.
“Because you have an F on all your assignments,” I tell them.
“But I did them all! I should be passing!” Or; “because you haven’t done any assignments.” “but I come to class every day!”
This is the new idea of awarding potential rather than actual work in order to protect the sacrosanct concept of “self-esteem”. I guess Norway has jumped onboard.
Remember the good old days when merit was based on achievement? Boy, I miss all that.
If the Nobel Committee wanted to award a Peace Prize to someone, they should pick a person with a lifetime of commitment, effort, success, and achievement. I nominate Joan Baez. She has been consistently speaking out for peace and non-violence for fifty years, giving hundred of concerts as fund raisers, visiting the oppressed—sometimes at great personal risk—and enduring the ire of her fellow activists when she goes off-reservation in order to remain consistent with her principles. She is far more eligible than the President.
Obama has been President for nine months. So far he has managed to build an international cult of personality, and spend a gazillion virtual dollars. He talks a good game. And he has made a lot of grandiose promises about hope and change. But so far, he hasn’t actually accomplished anything noteworthy. (Unless you count that cool photo op with Air Force One over New York City or losing the bid for the Olympics.) I hope he accomplishes great things for this country, I really do. But I agree with Lech; this award is premature.

BTW---The deadline for nominations was last February, which means Obama had been President for less than a month when he was nominated. Go figure.

IGM: Brilliant Idea

2009-10-10T19:48:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Brilliant Plan
10-09-09

I was having a conversation with a colleague (who will remain nameless in order to avoid prosecution) the other day. She (or he!) mentioned something a friend’s teacher-father told her/him years ago. The teacher thought if all the teachers at a school could choose five students and “take them out” at the beginning of the year, he thought he might be able to endure an entire career of facing adolescents.
Hmmmmmm . . . I think there might be some merit to this tongue-in-cheek fantasy. Let us reason together:
Let’s say we waited until the official count in September and then had a day during which every teacher could submit five names of problem children to be removed. Three weeks would be plenty of time to ascertain existing and potential problems. We could all have a two or three-tiered list of five kids each. If two or more teachers submitted the same name, that kid would be snatched and we would be allowed to submit another student from the next tier. Say we had 80 teachers. That would be 400 students; ostensibly the worst discipline problems in the building. Class sizes would be reduced and leveling would be simpler. Time and money spent on discipline and all its attendant challenges would plummet. The consumption of anti-depressants, anti-anxiety and anti-psychotic drugs would be drastically reduced, turn over would go down . . . there’s no down-side! Think of the money we’d save.
I suppose we don’t have to actually shoot them. We could expel them for the year and let them try again next year. Oh, and this might be effective; anyone sent home during the “Teacher day of Deliverance” would be expected to pay tuition from then on, having abrogated their right to a free education due to inappropriate and unacceptable behavioral issues. Whatever the Community College is charging should suffice. Now, all you teachers out there sit back and relax, close your eyes for a moment and think about that handful of students who are causing you such pain and misery. Imagine them gone, the class quiet and reasonably well behaved, learning taking place. Would not, in this one case, the end justify the means?
Okay, open your eyes again. Welcome back to reality.

This message was brought to you by Prozac—the “teachers choice.”

Igm Bid for the Olympics

2009-10-06T16:35:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: The bid for the Olympics
10-06-09

Well, President Obama did his best. He flew Air Force One (along with the two Air Force heavy-lifters, a dozen automobiles, a few helicopters and about a hundred people) over to Denmark in order to show the IOC how serious we all were about getting Chicago into the games. That’s what we all wanted, right? Actually, I didn’t even know Chicago was in the running so I may not have been as enthusiastic as the President might have hoped.
There has been some talk—criticism even, if you can believe it—about whether or not stumping for an Olympic bid is worthy of his time and attention. Nonsense. What else has he got to do? Health Care is tanking, he’s ignoring Afghanistan, and Michelle apparently has all the clothes and hamburgers she needs. So by all means, why not make a bid for a City—not the country mind you, just one of its cities.
But here’s the unbelievable part; he didn’t get it. The leader of the free world flies his (admittedly impressive) entourage all the way to Copenhagen, talks to hundreds of people, wines and dines them, explains why he should get things his way, and after all that, he loses.
Here’s what I think happened, and I assumed it would pan out this way the moment I heard what he was doing. The President goes out of his way to curry favor with the IOC, lending the prestige of his office and his personal cache to the effort. This had to be seen as a blatant attempt to pressure the committee into doing his bidding, and would inevitably become a pissing contest. The IOC had to save face, show the world in no uncertain terms that it was not the toady of the United States. The moment Obama paid any attention to the selection process, Chicago was doomed. It was the worst thing he could have done for the effort, and I’m surprised no one mentioned this at the time. It was poorly conceived and poorly executed. At this point a lesser person would make some kind of cheap shot about this kind of thing becoming a trend with this administration, but not me. It’s a tough job requiring high levels of skill, intelligence, wisdom and experience. I’m sure the President will develop these traits eventually.
Still, I can see how it would be tempting to go to bat for one’s home town, or even adopted hometown. There is a certain amount of pride involved, and I have to ask myself the question; if I were President would I do the same for Las Vegas, which is where I was born? And I have to be honest. The answer is no, absolutely not. Such a stunt would be unseemly and distracting, especially in the midst of war, severe economic challenges and domestic debates of national importance.

IGM Carbon Credits

2009-09-22T21:03:00.001-07:00

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.)

IGM Interesting Quote

2009-09-20T16:36:00.000-07:00

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.

IGM: Mary Travers

2009-09-17T16:34:00.001-07:00

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.

IGM Dissent

2009-09-15T21:57:00.002-07:00

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.

IGM Carbon Emissions

2009-09-15T21:57:00.001-07:00

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.)

IGM ALIS

2009-09-15T21:55:00.000-07:00

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.

IGM Solar Roadways

2009-09-15T21:53:00.000-07:00

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.)

IGM Mikey

2009-09-09T20:57:00.001-07:00

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.

IGM Global warming strategy

2009-09-09T20:51:00.001-07:00

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.

IGM Pithy quotes at the Expense of Religion

2009-08-22T22:10:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic-Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Pithy quotes at the expense of religion
August 22, 2009

Here is a quote I found on my Google homepage this morning. It is from Stephen Weinberg, arguably one of the most brilliant Physicists this country has ever produced. I have been reading his stuff or reading about him for thirty years. He was one of the three people who unified the Weak Force and the electromagnetic force, (a “really big deal”) and many other things. The quote:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
- Steven Weinberg

Well, it’s pithy. And I’m sure he has genuine feelings about the subject, but it is always surprising when ostensibly intelligent people say patently ridiculous things. This statement is so obviously and purposefully a raging oversimplification, falsehood and deception that one staggers at its ignorance—especially in the light of an IQ hovering in the stratosphere. It is duplicitous and inaccurate.

Let’s turn it around, shall we?

With or without science, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes science.

How do ya like me now, Stevie?

I can name just as many egregious abuses in the name of “science” and research (especially if one includes alchemy) as he can religion. And who would even argue that good people do bad things? Or that bad people occasionally do good things? That should be so obvious that a pithy aphorism hardly seems necessary. But Steve felt strongly enough about this that he offered an inaccurate, provocative statement I’m sure he knew to be misleading. No doubt, like approximately everyone who feels this way, he had one or more negative experiences with religion. Well who hasn’t you sheep-dip swilling, emotional pauper?

This memo is not the place to list the intentional and accidental abuses of science over the centuries. But they exist. Why? Because people are Human. For those religionists out there, we call that Mortal, or Fallen. For Weinberg to suggest that there is some kind of division—a quantifiable demarcation—by which we can determine who is good and who is evil, is monstrous.
“Everybody who goes to church, stand over here. Okay, you guys are the only ones who ever do evil things.”
To suggest that only through the religious experience can evil be perpetrated on the world is really beyond the pale. If I were the Science Czar (and under Obama there is one) I would give Steve a long Time-Out. Bad boy! I would send him to a re-education camp like that modified drive-in in Red Dawn where Charlie Sheen fails to rise to the level of acting again. In fact, now that I think of it, let’s mention some of those real re-education camps, concentration camps, etc., of the last century. Hitler comes to mind, and his cadre of Third Reich scientists who came up with the Final Solution. How about Mao, and Pol Pot, Stalin and the Gulags? The North Korean regime? The North Vietnamese? The list goes on. All good little atheists, doing their things not only without the benefit of religion, but as various attempts to eradicate it. But hey, they only murdered 300 million people between them, give or take, so what’s the big deal? (That’s the population of the US, by the way.)
And yes, I can mention Jim Jones as well, and the Spanish Inquisition (which no one ever expects) and the Salem witch trials and Ireland, and on and on. So what?
The problem is this. Weinberg says something mildly humorous, stating what sounds like some kind of revealed truth, and doesn’t have the guts, or character, to think about the consequences. What if some redneck from Alabama read that? Lacking the IQ of most Opossums, he might feel as if he’d had an epiphany and abandon his snake-charming church forever. (You see what I did there? It’s so easy.)

Lots of people hate religion, and/or want nothing to do with it. That’s fine. Who cares? We can’t all be perfect. Besides, without them there wouldn’t be a Law of Opposition. But it gets really old when self-appointed arbiters of reality don’t even come close to their chosen goals. Weinberg is a physicist. His life-long pursuit has been to discover and describe “reality”, truth. And he says something like this? It kind of puts him in the same camp as Rowland and Molina, the “Hole in the Ozone” scamps. (Two more scientists who managed to do evil). Weinberg has been one of my heroes for years, but now I’m going to have to relegate him to “really-smart moron” status. It’s almost like scientists didn’t like Believers, or felt superior to them. But that couldn’t be right. Right?

IGM Death

2009-08-16T19:10:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, former semi-guitar player
Re: A death
August 13, 2009

It is with profound sadness that I am announcing the death of the true father of Rock and Roll, and electric music in general. Earlier today, Les Paul died. Les invented the solid body electric guitar and in so doing changed everything. Not only did he invent it, he perfected it. I have played a few electric guitars, although I’ve never own one. Most of them are adequate. And despite my awe and appreciation for the two Fender icons; the Stratocaster and the Telecaster, the Les Paul Custom, by Gibson, was is and will always be, the best production electric guitar in the world. Just watch concert footage from the last fifty years and you’ll see what I mean. I sort of accidently got to see Led Zeppelin in concert in 1967 or 8, I think. Jimmy Page was playing a Les Paul. He used a violin bow a lot that night. And he was so loaded on heroine he could barely stand. But he made that guitar sing. It was incredible. A once in a lifetime thing. Maxine probably remembers.

Here is a story that is tangentially connected to this memo:
Once, many years ago, a young man and his wife, both sporting straight, long, blonde hair and prescription John Lennon glasses, were working in the food service industry in NYC, having run away together from the Dakotas. They were hippies, I guess . . . or close enough that it didn’t matter. Dan and Mary decided—who knows why or even how—to start a rock and roll band, despite neither of them knowing anything about music. They were living in poverty—a cold-water flat with little or no furniture—but they were young and in love and recently married . . . and truth be told not overly bright. They saved every dime they made except for rent and food and in two years took their loot to a pawn shop in Harlem, and bought everything anyone might need to start a genuine rock and roll band. Bass, guitars, trap set, PA with a mixer, microphones and stands, cables, amps—everything, picked up an old, beat up step-van, loaded it with their booty and headed west.

It is one of those mysteries of the universe how they ended up in Hobbs, New Mexico. I think they might have been heading for LA and ran out of gas. I met them when I came home from school one afternoon to find the van in our driveway and one of my roommates showing the hapless couple around.
(For a full account of this episode in my life, read Westbury: Chronicles of a Suburban Commune, by yours truly.) They were already moved in and the living room full of gear. For me, it was like ten Christmases all at once.

Obviously, one of the guitars was a 1956 Les Paul Custom with a gold-flake finish. Since I was the only person in the “House” (Which we referred to simply as Westbury—the name of the street) who knew anything about music, or guitars or amps or anything else, I got to play it at will for the better part of two years. It was an experience I will never forget. It was so easy to play all you had to do was look at it and it would make chords. It never went out of tune, and even back then (69-70), the electronics could make it sound like anything. That guitar doubled the quality of my playing just by being in my hands. I can’t explain it.

Even then I knew about Les Paul. He was a famous guitar player, producer, record exec. He played with everybody. Every electric guitar ever made traces its ancestry straight back to that first one Les made in his garage. Look what he started. Think of the legacy this man has. Think about all the (contemporary) music you’ve loved and listened to all these years and what it would sound like without those awesome guitar riffs and relentless rhythms, those screaming, crying, mischievous leads and breaks and effects. Les crossed all boundaries, infected all genre.

We will be hearing from the Rock greats for a few days, as their sound bites invade the story-hungry media, the internet, blogs, “entertainment shows”, etc. Clapton, Page, Satriani, Malmsteen, Vai, Chesney, Paisley, Stills, Young, Gill, Methany, Skaggs, Frey, Walsh, Wilson, Lee, Messina, Rhodes, Vanhalen, Robertson, Townsend, those guys from Dragonforce . . . . I could name pickers for pages. But none of them will feel a debt, or gratitude or loss any more than I do. John, you know what I mean.
Not many people get to say they changed the whole world. But Les Paul did.

Alaska Vacation

2009-08-16T19:09:00.001-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt Veteran Tourist
Re: Our vacation
07-03-09

As some of you know (fine, a good many of you were there actually . . .) Nita and I went on a vacation recently. For the last ten days to be precise. Since almost no one wants to hear anything about it, I will now give a detailed account of our travels.

First let me say that two of our nieces, Leah and Lanissa, made all of the arrangements, beginning months ago, perhaps more than a year ago, and through an unending and daunting process of negotiations, phone calls, emails, web-surfing, and bargain-hunting, booked flights, arranged transportation, booked passage aboard the Diamond Princess (a cruise ship bigger than Rhode Island), found and booked day trips including trains, fishing charters, glacier-hopping, National park visiting, motels, cabins, and on and on, down to the very last detail, and then, in a feat not equaled since Queen Elizabeth took off all her make-up, remembered it all, kept track of all of us, and managed not to kill anyone. All this for 26 people. All arriving at different times, from different directions, and for various reasons. Nobel Prize? Academy Award? Is there a lifetime achievement award for free-lance travel agents?

The first bit was Herculean in nature. We left Las Vegas (and heat venturing playfully into “Inferno” range) about 5:30 PM and flew to Denver, where we met several others of our party, mostly relatives plus a few friends, boarded another plane and headed for Anchorage, where we arrived at about 1:30 AM, their time. The first little glitch arrived with us. Nita’s suitcase went to some regional airfield in Fargo instead of Alaska. I was incensed, she shrugged and borrowed things for two days.
The Goddess Twins got us all into three rented vehicles at that ungodly hour (it had just gotten dark) and we drove nearly 6 hours through rain and forest and bogs and a Moose-sighting, on a two-lane hiway, all the way to Denali National Park, where we checked into our cabins, took a short nap, and then went sightseeing. And did we ever see some sights. By then we had had 2 hours of sleep in the last 30. Piece of cake.

A word about the cabins at Denali. The place was called The Crows Nest. Each cabin rested on a unique but interesting angle, varying from about 6 to maybe 15 degrees, and all in different directions. They were “Quaint” according to Leah, one of the Goddesses, whose world-view differs somewhat from my own. The cabin experience came perilously close to “camping”, a pastime of which I was once a devote, but am now long-since recovered.

Despite being sleep-deprived and having seen darkness for only 3 hours, we drove into the park, did a turn around the visitors center, then drove out to Savage River and took a long hike down and back through one of God’s best ideas. It was beautiful. Everything about Alaska is different than down here in the lower forty-eight. The Flora and Fauna, the mountains, the rocks—everything. It is unique.
The food was excellent wherever we ate in the little village. Our breakfast was in a café, on a wooden floor older than the last ice-age, and it slanted even more than the cabins. I sat on the down-hill side which made it easier to drink my milk. We did another half-day of sightseeing, which included three huge Caribou quite close to us, and some bears far away on a river—according to the less than reliable single men in our group—then headed back to Anchorage. We stopped for Pizza at Angela’s Haven, the address of which—and I am not making this up—is mile marker 117, Park Hiway, Alaska.
On a side note, we almost tossed my brother-in-law, James, out on his ear several times for various misdemeanors, mostly having to do with inappropriate puns and spontaneous conversations with random Alaskans, but cooler heads prevailed.

Back in Anchorage, we got to our motel—where Nita’s luggage was waiting for us—which allowed me to stop working on my hit list—and met the other half of our party, including Maxine (my little sister) and her husband Steve, his parents, two of their daughters and various hangers-on. (You know who you are). We spent a riotous night reading and sleeping in endless daylight, got up the next morning and boarded the cruise ship Diamond Princess. Everyone immediately purchased no-limit soft drink cards then went to find the food trough. Turns out the entire ship is a food trough.
We all got settled, went to eat again, did the safety muster, then went to eat again. This became a recurring theme throughout the voyage. Go do something, preferably for no more than an hour, then go eat again.
Then, disaster struck. The Coke mix at the buffet was unacceptably weak and flat. Now, I can put up with a lot. I am willing to sacrifice and compromise when necessary. But no one messes with my cola. Everyone agreed—it was bad. I filled out one of those suggestion-slash-info cards with a strongly worded protest. Nothing happened. Every spigot in the place was pouring brown water for the entire trip! I will be letting the Coca Cola corporation know about this travesty.

The ship headed for Skagway. The weather was chilly, misty, foggy, rainy, overcast and drab. Coming from Las Vegas, I loved every minute of it. I saw some dolphins or Orca’s at the far-reach of visibility, while standing on the promenade deck, enjoying the overcast and misty evening, but just their curving backs shrouded in fog. After such an exciting moment, I instantly headed up to find more food, then began looking for friends and family in order to regale them with my intrepid sea-stories.
The trip to Skagway was a two-day venture in the open ocean. Pacific ocean. Very large body of water. Many people were sick. The boat rocked back and forth like an autistic polar bear. Neither Nita nor I were bothered in the slightest. It was fun. We took advantage of so many people staying in their rooms to find and consume even more food.

We woke on the second morning to find Skagway like a gleaming gem, a bright present on Christmas Morning. Our first foray off-ship took us on a historic train-ride following the route about a million gold-stampeders took to the Yukon. A word here about the train ride. The scenery was breath-taking. High, steep mountains, the gray-green rivers full of glacial silt, tracks going over high trestles and along precipitous ledges. Really quite the thing for a morning outing. Except the train was very slow—it took over two hours to go twenty miles (and 3,000 vertical feet) and then, at the top of an isolated, deserted, long-abandoned mountain pass, we stopped, the engine slid onto a siding and went to the back of the train which then became the front, we all reversed our seat-backs, and we went back down as slowly as we had gone up. The point of this mild rebuke is, of course, there were no snacks. Not a vending machine in sight. We didn’t even get off the car. Why would someone take a train all the way up a mountain and then just go back down again? Imagine the missed opportunities for profit-making ventures! No gift shop, no quaint benches shaped like dogsleds, no coin-driven telescopes with which to see the remains of the thousands of horses and mules killed by the recalcitrant wanna-be miners when the animals could not carry their obscenely heavy loads any further. Nothing but a hiway in the distance with buses and RV’s heading for Whitehorse and parts east and south. (Nita and I have almost been to Whitehorse, but that’s another story). I managed to assuage my disappointment at the lack of even a small casino atop the mountain by purchasing a commemorative ball cap from the White Pass railroad, with the year emblazoned on the side (2009) which is the 50th anniversary of Alaska’s statehood. They can only be purchased on the train and only this year, so I have quite a prize. The downside of course is that I can’t eat it.
We arrived back in Skagway, walked through the town (a ten minute foray along one board-walked street) and then I skulked back to the ship, feeling somehow cheated, and drowned my sorrows in a fine meal at the buffet followed by more food that evening at the swank International Room.
From Skagway, we kept to the Inside Passage, which offers much calmer waters, until we arrived at Glacier Bay National Park. The Princess steamed up the fiords as we oohed and ahed (very sincerely) at glaciers everywhere, coming at us from all sides of the ship. It is difficult to describe not just the wild beauty, but the grandeur and majesty of natures ice-cube trays. (That’s an inside joke for my siblings—think Thule). The trip up the fiords took a while, but every inch of it was breathtaking.
Finally we arrived at the head of a bay where two tide-water glaciers meet the ocean. The Marjorie Glacier, and the Pacific International, both wandering for miles back into the mountains , both more than a mile across at their faces, one white and eerily blue, the other camouflaged in black dirt and rocks. The ship stayed for two hours, as close as it could get, while we watched ice calve from the face, otters play, icebergs wander, and a massive river of silt and water boil from beneath the Marjorie into the bay. It was magnificent.
We steamed back out, which looked much like the trip in, but reverse, and headed for Juneau and more food. The next morning we arrived in Juneau and walked around the town for a while, sampling fudge and ice cream, talking to the locals, and taking in the atmosphere, which was wonderful. Then we got on a small shuttle bus and drove out to the Mendenhall Glacier, which is only a few miles from town. Wow. That’s really all one can say. While there, we all got to star at a mamma brown bear and her two tree-hugging cubs. A ranger told us she likes to hang around there at the park.
After that, back to town where we got on a boat with fifty other people and headed out into the bay for whale-watching. After half an hour of wake-producing speed we slowed where several other similar boats were loitering and the Captain told us Killer Whales had been spotted in the vicinity earlier. This was a rare event—normally the tours don’t even look for them. And then, just a few dozen yards away . . . there they were, an entire Pod, at least six or seven, maybe an eighth-mile away, rising, blowing their sprays into the air, the adult male arching like a bow, its six foot dorsal shining black and wet and glorious, the others around it and behind it, again and again, coming up, blowing, doing a few loopy moves on the surface, then diving and coming up somewhere else. Very, very cool.
We left and sped to another part of the bay to yet another gaggle of boats, waited, saw plumes of air and water appear, and then the huge, arching, Quasimodo-backs with their odd shape and huge blow-holes—Humpback Whales hunting, feeding on herring. Unsurpassed for coolness. They were too soon gone, and it was back to the ship and another night of merry-making, endless card games, shows, comedians, music . . . and food. Glorious food. And for me, television. I’m not much of a party goer.

The boat traveled as we slept and we arrived in Ketchikan around 11 AM the next morning. Some of us went into town to shop while five intrepid American males and one guy from Scotland braved the open waters for the thrill of salmon fishing. Six brave men against the unrelenting dangers and the terrible deeps of the Inside Passage. (Okay, according to the depth finder we never got into water deeper than 200 feet, but that’s still pretty scary.) With four lines in the water at all times, we rotated by prearranged numbers. When one line began to shiver, the next guy in the rotation would grab the pole and begin the terrible, magnificent, puissant struggle with the wild fish. Naturally, while we all caught our limits (6) I caught the most fish by tonnage, plus everyone caught Pinks but me. I caught two enormous Coho’s, three or four times the size of the Pinks. (Oh, and Steve caught a nice Coho, but that’s hardly worth mentioning in the light of my own spectacular success. You can see how unimportant it is by the parentheses.) We split the fish 3 ways (William, from Scotland, couldn’t take his home) and are having them processed and shipped home. It will be the most expensive fish we will ever eat. We never understood a word William said, so thick was his brogue, but we kept him talking all afternoon because we all loved to listen to him. (Actually, he was a wonderful gentleman. He was the veteran of the group, having done the salmon thing before, as well as halibut.)

We arrived back at the ship, had seven or eight quick slices of pizza, and then we compared notes with the women, at which time we determined by unanimous proclamation to have won the day, and all went down and aft for a wonderful dinner.
At some point my wife did laundry while I watched television. The next two days were spent on the open seas, making the long, last leg of our journey, heading to Vancouver, British Columbia. (I did a report on British Columbia in the 6th grade. My research indicated, among other things, that enough lumber had been harvested from the province to make a road four inches thick and 28 feet wide that would loop around the equator 27 times. That would have been circa 1962-ish). This was our second time in British Columbia, but that is another story as well. I spent most of the two days working on a book I’m writing.

That night several of our group went to the karaoke bar and made complete fools of themselves while I continued to work on my novel. We all met in the International Room for one last gourmet meal. I ordered two entrées, a steak and a nice piece of Barramundi, which was the best thing I ate the entire cruise. The staff brought out huge platters of Baked Alaska and formed a conga line, dancing their way around the room—I’m not sure why. We tried to eat the dessert but there was just too much of it, so we ordered apple pie and sorbet as well. Oh, and somewhere in there we all sang happy birthday to Rob, one of our dangerously unmarried men, which was a completely humiliating experience. I don’t think Rob liked it much either.
One last breakfast and they shoved down ramps and into chutes like cattle into a stockyard and we were of f the boat and in Canada. Some of us caught a shuttle to the airport and others to a motel— again, all neatly arranged by the Travel Goddesses. We took a little walk—about a million miles—to find a post office that was “just around the corner” in order to exchange our (real) money for some Canadian fun money, but it was Saturday and they were closed. No one wanted to walk all the way back, so, for fun, and because of Leah’s lamentable emotional problems, we took the bus-ride from hell into downtown Vancouver to tour a “classical Chinese Garden”. I suppose it was very nice, but at that point I would have been more impressed with the comforting embrace of the Grim Reaper. The ride back was better. We spent our last night in International Land, had a fine breakfast at the motel café, and a few of us at a time took the shuttle to the airport to meet various flights. Our shuttle was the last one and our driver was a fine Persian man named Essi, who is an accomplished musician. (I know—I Googled his website). We were not allowed to eat on the trip to the airport. Fortunately it only lasted seven minutes. The flight back was pretty cool, if you enjoy being stuffed into aluminum cans the size of . . . well, aluminum cans. But We had great views of Mt. Rainer, and Mt. Hood, then Mt. St. Helens. I could see where the eruption tore the mountain apart and where the lahars flooded down into the valleys below like the fates own judge. California was on fire, but it’s August and California is always on fire then.
When we arrived in Vegas, our luggage had taken a vacation of its own, no doubt to Hawaii. (We got it back the next day.)
All things considered, it was a smashing success and everyone had a good deal of fun and collected—I’m sure—several priceless memories. I know I did. I just can’t remember what they are . . . Which reminds me of that great Groucho Marks line; “I’ve had a wonderful evening . . . but this wasn’t it.”

2009-08-16T19:09:00.000-07:00

IGM New Stupidity Record

2009-06-25T10:25:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: New Stupidity Record

This one will be short.
In an unprecedented display of willful ignorance, stupidity, ideologically-Dadaist-dialectic, and self-character assassin, the Honorable Representative Barney Frank (D, MA), just sent a letter to Fanny Mae and Freddie Mack, asking them to loosen lending regulations. Current regs, according to the official Bizzaro-World poster boy, may be “too onerous” and he (and some attorney) are asking the lending institutions to “make appropriate adjustments.” (For those of you who’ve been in a coma for a few years, he and his cohorts did this once already, several years ago, which brought on the real estate/housing bubble, it’s consequent bursting, and helped fuel the currently raging recession.)
How soon we forget, eh?

In a related story, US citizens from around the country are saying that if Frank is re-elected yet again by the brain-dead state of Massachusetts, plans to put the state up for sale will be implemented. (Dubai is making back-channel inquiries).
Personally, I say we give the thing away. It’s not worth anything as is, and it is substantially smaller than the county I live in. We won’t miss the real estate. Besides, who’s gonna pay money for a state that keeps electing Frank and Kennedy?

IGM Judicial Racism

2009-05-26T21:02:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel (especially wise Latina women)
Fr: W. Leavitt, white male
Re: Judicial Racism
6-26-09

While pursuing the Drudge Report this evening and watching a Scrubs rerun, I came across a particularly disturbing quote from an ostensibly intelligent woman. Here’s the quote:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.

And who belongs to this vapid, vaporous, valueless vitriol? No, not Jennifer Lopez, nor Jessica Alba, nor Cameron Diaz, and it wasn’t Harry Reid ( who is neither a woman nor Latina, but he is the king of saying stupid things) and it isn’t even Carla, that fun-loving heart-of-gold nurse on Scrubs who is Dominican, thank you very much, not Puerto Rican.
It was Obama’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotamayor.
I know knowing else about her, nor, at this point, do I care to. How is it that people of a certain, shall we say . . . persuasion? Can get away with this kind of crap? For that matter, how is it that someone who has espoused this sentiment—in public no less—is even nominated for a position more responsible than Federal Emergency Response Nose-Picker?
Which characteristic are we to believe will give her the superior life experiences apparently genetically withheld from “white males?” Or would it be both “woman” and “Latina?” And how does one make such a comparison? Her life experiences versus, mine, or yours or anyone else’s? How do we judge relative merit for such a tenuous, internal, subjective evaluation? Whew! Good thing we’ll have someone on the bench with just those skills. Because according to Sotamayor her future colleagues ain’t got it. Except maybe Thomas—she wasn’t clear on the status of black males.
At this point we hardly need to mention that other quote she gave us when talking about the court;
“this is where policy is made.”
Really? The courts? And here I thought that was what congress was for. I can’t wait for the Supreme Court to set more policy. It has worked out so well in the past, don’t you think?
In a civilized society, where politically correct extremism was not the order of the day, she would get her face slapped for such an outlandish, offensive, and utterly racial statement. Sure, the same goes for me too, but when do I ever say anything outlandish or offensive?
Now, someone might be upset over my evaluation of Miz Sotamayor’s foolishness, claiming I’m over-reacting, or not playing nice. Please. I’m not cutting her one ounce of slack. She said it, she deserves to be hammered for it. No one cuts me any slack. You people are ruthless! You don’t see all the replies I get. (It’s okay though. I can take it. In fact I love it.)
And let’s not make the mistake of believing that only certain, very rare people have what it takes to sit on that bench. I publicly challenge Sonia right now to a duel. Give me a nice office, a six-figure salary and a couple of law clerks from BYU (just to make it fair), and my best buddy Dever, and I will write opinions on all the cases the court sees while she is sitting on it. We’ll let the audience of “American Idol” decide who writes the better opinion. No contest. And mine would be funny too.
But seriously, someone—preferably a white male—should hire an attorney (Female and Latina) and sue this woman for defamation, slander and racial profiling, not to mention a possible hate-crime. Obviously I won’t because, you know, I just don’t care, and I wouldn’t be believable. But someone with a good reputation, someone involved and passionate, sincere and caring. I’m thinking Mr. Blood. You go big guy. Git ‘er!

IGM Shaky-Pants Dems

2009-04-26T12:05:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Political Analyst
Re: Shaky-Pants Dems
4-26-09

It turns out that the House Democrats scheduled a high-profile global warming hearing for the 24th, at which they brought in the Big Gun, Al “Shaky Pants” Gore, to testify before some committee or other. Al’s an international expert on global warming, as we all know, since he spent half his life learning how to grow tobacco and then became a Senator so he could invent the Internet. It’s a good thing we have dedicated, knowledgeable people like Mr. Gore to scare the pants off us. Al was to the guest celebrity and testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee last Friday.
Representative Joe Barton (Rep-Texas), ranking Committee member apparently didn’t get the memo about curtailing free speech and invited someone from the other side of the debate to appear as well, so as to get an even-handed report. Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science adviser to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was asked to come and deliver an opposing view with mitigating evidence, which seemed appropriate and sensible to everyone involved. Until he actually showed up. Monckton was not informed of the decision to refuse his testimony until after he had arrived in DC.

“The House Democrats don't want Gore humiliated, so they slammed the door of the Capitol in my face,” Monckton told Climate Depot in an exclusive interview. “They are cowards.”

This is the Limey talking now, not me. And it’s not like Lord Monckton is a stranger to Washington; he has testified before, as well as at the dreaded IPCC. He is a well-respected expert, especially on the political and economic issues related to climate change.
I guess he didn’t have a very good opinion of Gore’s decision to not allow a dissenting voice. I say this because of the following quotes.

“The Democrats have a lot to learn about the right of free speech under the US Constitution. Congress Henry Waxman's (D-CA) refusal to expose Al Gore's sci-fi comedy-horror testimony to proper, independent scrutiny by the House minority reeks of naked fear,” Monckton said from the airport Thursday evening.

That’s pretty funny, a Brit lecturing us on the Constitution. Or was he just lecturing the Democrats?

Waxman took the brunt of Monckton’s ire since he was the one who made the announcement.
But my favorite Monckton quote is this one:

“Waxman knows there has been no 'global warming' for at least a decade. Waxman knows there has been seven and a half years' global cooling. Waxman knows thttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifhat, in the words of the UK High Court judge who condemned Gore's mawkish movie as materially, seriously, serially inaccurate, 'the Armageddon scenario that he depicts is not based on any scientific view,'” Monckton explained.

That’s just good fun, isn’t it? Of course, the Republicans are just as bad. If the tables were turned we can be sure they would be nixing someone for daring to disagree with the party line. I just like it when someone else picks on poor old AlGore. I’m sure he’s a nice man—well, harmless at least—even if he is a pompous wind-bag and narcissistic demagogue. Now-a-days, no one but the worst of the rabid libs will even listen to him. Conservatives laugh at Al while Liberals are embarrassed by him. Except for the usual suspects, like Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Waxman, et al.
Meanwhile, the climate will continue to fluctuate with little notice of us humans. And we will continue to adjust. It’s a wonderful life, ain’t it?

IGM Domestic Terrorism

2009-03-20T21:04:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, neophyte domestic terrorist
Re: Domestic terrorism

Jay Nixon, Governor of Missouri, recently issued a secret report to law-enforcement and related agencies in his state, through the Missouri Information Analysis Center, which smears about two-thirds of the population of the country, naming them (us, me) as potential domestic terrorists.
The list includes: Ron Paul supporters, people who have knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, and people who display political bumper stickers as potential domestic terrorists.
The MIAC report specifically describes supporters of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, and Bob Barr as “militia” influenced terrorists, [and] the so-called patriot movement and other political activist organizations opposed to the North American Union and the New World Order.
Interestingly, the governor failed to mention Jihadists, Islamic Radicals, Bader Meinhoff, the Golden Path, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the KKK, the Black Panthers, the IRA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and about two hundred others—I checked.
Do you believe this guy? According to Jay’s definition, I am a domestic terrorist on nearly every count. I own guns, I own gold, we display the flag on every appropriate occasion, I like Ron Paul, I have a nodding acquaintance with the Constitution, I understand that I am in fact a member of Nevada’s militia, I oppose both the North American Union and the New World Order, I belong to a “fundamentalist” religious organization, I listen to talk radio (while not mentioned in the report, I feel this was merely an oversight) and I like the occasional bumper sticker—my favorite of which is “I loathe and despise redundancy,” which I saw stuck to both sides of a bumper. Nice, huh?
I am surprised to find myself on a secret list, if not by name then certainly by temperament. I think of myself as pretty patriotic, then find out that the “patriot movement” is on the list. Bother. Now all of you will have to watch me night and day, which makes your jobs harder since you were already tasked to watch for anything unusual, out of the ordinary, or swarthy.
My one consolation is that I am in good company, which includes George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the other founders, all of whom were radicals, insurgents, and treasonous. They were not terrorists, however. Not in the sense of my own above mentioned list which only includes people who kill innocents at random for the purpose of causing actual terror.
The Governor is one of many well-intentioned idiots who have misplaced his sanity in favor of political correctness. I am confident that the Bush administration did not prevent several dozen actual, active, terrorist plots from occurring in this country over the last seven years by keeping a sharp eye on flag-waving, bumper-sticker wearing, constitutionalists. But that’s just me.

2009-03-19T17:44:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt Crypto-Planetologist
Re: Malthusism . . . again

Food and energy shortages will create 'perfect storm', says Prof John Beddington
Here we go again. This is the headline in the UK Telegraph today. Professor Beddington is predicting doom and gloom over yet another resource-crisis.
The demand for resources will create a crisis with dire consequences, Prof Beddington predicts.
He gives us until 2030 before the ceiling collapses.
Demand for food and energy will jump 50 per cent by 2030 and for fresh water by 30 per cent, as the global population tops 8.3 billion, he is due to tell a conference in London.
This is exactly what Thomas Malthus told the British Government in the early 1800’s. His theory is famous and is being proven wrong consistently. The idea simply will not die. Basically, both Malthus and his latest acolyte, Beddington, preach the same gospel; that rising populations will always outstrip our ability to grow food, find potable water and mine resources. And yet, since the industrial revolution, the exact opposite has consistently occurred. None of these prophets of doom—and there have been a lot of them—have ever taken into consideration the other side of the coin. Only R.B. Fuller had bothered to do that, and his conclusions have proven accurate since the thirties. They are this: Humans will always, through innovation and discovery, find ways to be more efficient in all they do. His thesis is that as organisms, our role in the universe is order, organization, which is anti-entropic and allows us to continually do ever-more with ever-less. Moore’s law is the perfect example; every 18 months integrated circuits go through another revolution, doubling the number of transistors, increasing speed and efficiency, and dropping in price. During Malthus’s time one farmer could feed about ten people. Today—in the First World, one farmer feeds thousands, in the States its hundreds of thousands. The planet has enormous stores of fresh water—we just have to have the will to go after it. We plant more trees than we harvest every year, worldwide. And on and on. Fuller does not abolish the many challenges we face any more that Malthus predicts our demise from them, but the fact is, as a species, we face them and are geniuses at overcoming them.
There are things that could destroy us, destroy life. Catastrophic events beyond our control, like errant comets and gamma ray bursts within a thousand light years. (but they would have to be aimed right at us) Political posturing, bickering, and partisanship can certainly do it, but lack of resources never will. We have the whole solar system to exploit, and yes, that is the correct word—look it up. Nuclear holocaust will not do it—there are not enough bombs in the world to destroy human life, much less all life, despite the continuing rhetoric contrary to that opinion. One major volcanic eruption has more destructive force than the entire arsenal of nuclear weapons. And personally, I don’t think radical changes in the global climate will ever destroy us either. It could get bad, change things, kill millions, but we’d survive and eventually thrive again.
Despite centuries of being proven wrong, the naysayers like Malthus and Ehrlich and their ilk still insist on spouting their silly nonsense, and they make names for themselves and often lots of money from it. But the human race prevails. The human experience continues to validate itself, despite everything we try that screws things up. Think positive. Be reasonable. Be a good influence in your sphere and husband the resources for which you are responsible. If we all do that we will create a veritable paradise. And we will do it without having to compromise our standards of living—maybe our willful pursuit of hedonistic pleasure, but that won’t be a bad thing, will it?

IGM The spendulus Package, AIG, etc

2009-03-19T17:42:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, sore loser
Re: AIG, the spendulus package, other oddities

I had something in mind when I started this, but the sheer magnitude of topics, the plethora of criticisms available, makes it difficult to know where to begin. So I’ll just do what I always do; write whatever comes to mind. I suppose we’ve all been following this AIG bonus story and how congress and the president are screaming about the money being given away to employees after AIG received billions of dollars in bail-out money. Fair enough. I have always been skeptical of the sums of money given to CEO’s and top executives. It makes one suspicious that rather than being a reward for excellent work, it is just a system for spreading the wealth—which is a plank in the current administrations platform. They just don’t like it when they don’t get their cut. It should be done ‘democratically’, not through a good-old-boy system. It looks like Ed Libby is doing his best to save that company, but with all this help from the government AIG is doomed.
I do have a problem or two with the current righteous indignation being displayed by some of the people on Capitol Hill. Barney Frank is calling for investigations, indictments, and is working on a bill that would require those at AIG receiving bonuses to return it—as if Congress has any right to do such a thing in the private sector—like it or not, AIG has done nothing illegal, or even unusual. Another bill, already endorsed by our own Harry “dingy harry” Reid, would require a tax on all corporate bonuses of 90%--yes someone is actually introducing that. And you though the whole “socialism” thing was just hyperbole.
By the way, everyone knew three months ago that AIG, long before they were given bail-out money, was going to be handing out the bonuses—bail-out or not—because they told everyone about it and that they were contractually obligated to do so. Remember contracts? Remember how upset we were when the state of Nevada decided to cut our salaries this year despite our contract? So now they are all lining up to posture about their indignation. This almost rises to the level of hypocrisy . . . .
And what about all those people (3 that I know of) who were working for Fanny and Freddie and got their shares of 100 million dollars in bonuses before they were tagged to be part of the current administration? Shall we mention Barney and Harry and Chris and Nancy again, and how they were knowingly culpable in propping up Freddie and Fanny long after it was known—and they had been warned—that those lending institutions were going to fail? (We will not mention that criminal Bush and his administrations repeated attempts to get someone to do something about the impending bursting of the bubble).
Then we have our President comparing Tim Geitner to our first Sec Tres., Alexander Hamilton. That took guts. Isn’t Geitner the one who couldn’t figure out what he owed taxes on? And got that huge bonus from Freddie and/or Fanny? Who else would you pick to run the Treasury? Al Capone comes to mind; at least he’s dead and couldn’t do any damage.
All this outrage and anger and name-calling by congress is laughable. They caused the problem in the first place, and are making it worse now. It takes a lot of chutzpah to shoot someone in the head in front of witnesses, then call a press conference demanding an investigation and vowing to find out who is responsible. And I’m going to go out on a limb here and predict that passing a law requiring a 90% tax on bonuses isn’t going to help fix the problem.
A new poll has more people saying they would vote Republican over Democrat for the first time in over two years—that didn’t take long. It’s only by two points, but the change is significant all things considered. Congress had better watch their backs, if you know what I mean. And now they’re crying over all the pork in the spendulus package—you know, the one nobody had time to read—demanding investigations, etc., when it’s their pork. Is anyone else reminded of the Keystone Cops in all of this? It’s going to be fun watching what is rapidly becoming the country’s most amateurish leadership in history as they continue to break their own records for incompetence and ignorance. Not that any of us are keeping score.

IGM Pending Environmental Doom

2009-03-19T17:40:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic-Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Glaciologist
Re: Pending Environmental Doom

In an article last night I found an interesting claim. It was on some site called Yourstateline.com, which I’ve never heard of and probably didn’t want to, but the headline intrigued me. It says:

Rise in Sea Temp Could Melt W. Antartic Ice Sheet

The more astute among us will notice they misspelled ‘Antarctic’. We all misspell stuff all the time but one would think that a commercial website headline might have been spell-checked.
The first line of the article says the following: (Oslo) -- A nine degree rise in sea temperature could melt the West Antarctic ice sheet.
Naturally my curiosity was piqued since no one has been talking about multi-degree ocean-temp. rises since Al “Captain Planet” Gore and his spurious documentary debut. I thought, “do these people know how long a nine-degree spike in ocean temperature would take?” Then they told me—the process would take “thousands of years”. So . . . what’s the point of telling us that? This is a non story. Yes, if the Antarctic ice cap were to melt (thousands of years from now due to a completely hypothetical warming trend) it would change the landscape of the planet and rearrange the coastlines globally. So what? Geologically speaking, that happens all the time.
But then the entire debacle-of-a-story became clear in the last line of the brief “article.”

The nine degree trigger for collapse is based on a computer model.

They do love their computer models, don’t they? (Actually, I do too, I just can’t help making fun of them when they take this stuff so seriously.)
Anyway, take a breath and relax. There is no imminent danger of the Ross Ice Shelf disappearing. At least not for the next four years—it wouldn’t dare vanish on Obama’s watch.

IGM Quantum Consciousness

2009-03-14T18:43:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Cybernetic-Quantum Physicist
Re: Quantum Consciousness

We are all very excited around here because of a recent announcement from Roger Penrose (who I believe is a Nobel Laureate in Physics) and anesthesiologist Stuart Hamerhoff, whom I’ve never heard of but is apparently a gas-passer. These too illuminates have come up with a theory about human consciousness they call Orchestrated Objective Reduction” which involves research into why we are conscious, self-aware (a relative term at best) individuals. I will not attempt to explain the theory. It is complicated. However, the article in Physorg.com has provided a handy paragraph by way of explanation which I will here include. Only Mr. Sammons and Mr. Isle and Mr. Phillips—and of course Mrs. Bhagat—have a hope of understanding it.
The theory suggests that microtubules, which are structural components inside cells, might function as cellular quantum computing elements. Inside the microtubules, coherence among quantum superpositions is maintained until the wave function collapses. Normally, a wave function collapses due to a measurement (i.e., interaction of the system and its environment), but here the collapse is postulated not to occur until the quantum superpositions become physically separated within spacetime geometry, called “objective reduction.” When an area of quantum coherence collapses, an instant of consciousness occurs.
Remember those wonderful days of yesteryear, when science suggested with confidence bordering on hubris that the human brain was irreducible, and that no comparison could be made to something as mundane as a computer, etc.? Now we have “cellular quantum computing elements” cropping up in our heads. Good grief. We go on with another incomprehensible quote:
The physical cause of the coherent activity within the microtubules, as Penrose and Hamerhoff suggest, could be Fröhlich condensates. Proposed by physicist Herbert Fröhlich in 1968, Fröhlich condensates are similar to Bose-Einstein condensates in that both are systems with the unique collective property of macroscopic quantum coherence. In Fröhlich condensation, several vibrating oscillators can achieve a highly ordered condensed state, vibrating in resonance. Specifically, nearly all the vibrations occur in-phase at the Fröhlich condensate’s lowest frequency.
They tell us all this in order to tell us this: It turns out that the Fröhlich Condensate is not a candidate for this theory because after forty years of trying really hard, no one has managed to make or find one. They require high temperatures in order to exist. I was afraid to find out how high. (Bose-Einstein requires absolute zero.)
I have been aware of the Bose-Einstein condensate for years because it has become a staple of sorts in science fiction novels. I may have mentioned it a few times in some of my own in fact. It is a fifth state of matter—solid, liquid, gas, plasma, and condensate. Never heard of the Fröhlich condensate until today, which is very exciting except for it not currently existing. What is fascinating here is the attempt to explain consciousness in terms of quantum computing components. Sadly, yet another theory has failed. I’m sure it comes as no surprise that I have an alternative one ready and waiting.
Let us suppose, for the sake of our discussion, that there is a substance, or material in the universe which contains, as an inherent aspect or characteristic, consciousness, or intelligence. We will call this material “spirit”. On some level currently unknown, but sans “cellular quantum computing elements” , this material entity connects with the corporeal human body. While this “spirit” material is physical—actual substance—it is of a nature so refined that it cannot as yet be detected with current technology. It is this form, complete and independent its own right, that contains consciousness and imbues the brain and body with its intelligence as well as its animation. The “spirit” material exists prior to, and independent of, the corporeal body and enters or connects with the body some time prior to birth, which is why researches are having such a difficult time finding what we call “mind.” The material requires neither extreme heat or cold to exist. If we were to replace our term “spirit” with a more secular-sounding label, such as “ectoplasmic construct” or “entangled-Foam Matrix” or “trans-dimensional condensate”, scientists would gleefully add my theory to the others already accepted—despite no evidence whatsoever—by the scientific community. Many fine grants could be won, experiments could be added to the schedule for the LHC, and another generation of researches living off the governments teat would be able to earn a living in their chosen fields. This would help to stimulate the economy and bring us back to our rightful place at kings of the hill in the world of R&D. Now I ask you; where’s the down-side to this?

IGM The Big Stem-cell Anouncement

2009-03-14T18:42:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel

Fr: W. Leavitt, Crack political hack (I just liked the way that sounded)

Re: The Big Stem-Cell announcement

Well, the big day has finally arrived; President Obama reversed Bush’s Executive Order which forbade using federal money for fetal stem-cell research. Lots of people cheering, lots of people booing. Most people have no clue either way, having long ago glued ear-buds into their heads and followed the Guru Leary’s advice, albeit in a different idiom than Tim envisioned.
So according to the latest Executive Order, federal money can now be used for fetal stem cell research. All is well in the universe again.
We might want to clarify a few things however. According to countless headlines, some people seem to think there was a ban on stem-cell research, or at least a ban on fetal stem-cell research. You know, because that mean, election-stealing, Bible-thumping George Bush hated sick people, remember?
Actually, there was a ban on using federal money for the research, that was all. There was no ban, ever, on fetal stem-cell research, which has been underway and going strong for years in labs that don’t use federal money. There has been no shortage of either money or research in these labs. Billions have been spent and will continue to be, either donated, or in R&D money from private-sector corporations.
So why the big fanfare about the end of the ban? Obama is making it sound like some kind of dam will be breaking and now new funding will be flooding the halls of research labs everywhere. New miracle cures (his word) are right around the corner now. Michael J Fox will be back on television by summer, and the lady down the street will be out of her wheel chair and turning cartwheels in a few hours.
Can you say dis-in-gen-u-ous? Fetal stem cell research has been going strong for well over a decade now. No earth-shaking news to report. No breakthroughs. Progress is being made. Michael (whom I just love, he’s so talented, don’t you think?) will have to stay retired a tad longer.
So what did President Bush’s ban accomplish? Well, for one thing, it forced scientists to be creative. I’ve been following this for several years now and at least three times a year we’ve had an announcement of a breakthrough in alternative methods of finding, using, or producing viable, un-differentiated stem cells. So we have about a dozen sources besides a fetus.
Well then, what’s the big deal about the reversal of the ban? A couple things actually. One is the aforementioned propaganda blitz, making Obama look like the Great Liberator, freeing science which had been shackled by the mean, nasty Bush. Nonsense. Another is the left’s irrational attachment to abortion as a symbol of equality, solidarity, and women’s rights. A commitment to non-fetal stem-cell research would have been seen by the left as a weakening of the mantra that easy access to an abortion is a fundamental right, which will tolerate no threat to its primacy. Nothing can be allowed to weaken the necessity of abortion. Fetal stem-cell research is of paramount importance to the left. It gives scientific and medical validity to the practice of abortion. Never mind that it is completely unnecessary for the research to continue.
And no one anywhere would ever have the poor taste to question the mighty and hallowed halls of science, right? They have all the answers! They never get it wrong! (Except for that thing about the arrowheads, and the whole ozone scare, and anthropomorphic green-house gassing, and eugenics, and don’t forget major parts of Newtonian physics, and all those announcements about having discovered all there is to discover, oh, and the impossibility of flight and . . . well you get the point) Why, who in their right mind would ever suggest that fetal stem-cell research might someday ‘progress’ to fetus-farming? Not me! I certainly can’t envision women getting pregnant again and again in order to let doctors abort their fetus and purchase it for the labs, can you? Actually, we already have a name for that. It comes from that classic sci-fi novel, Dune, where clones are custom-engineered and grown by the Bene Tleilax in Axlotl Tanks, which are assumed for three books to be high-tech apparatus of some kind, but turn out to be human females in permanent coma’s, their bodies attached to nutrient lines and monitoring devices. Don’t think it can happen? Watch.
Once again, the politicians in power are doing the old Texas Side-Step. Remember Roosevelt promising us up one side and down the other that the new social security number would never be used for anything other than social security issues? Absolutely never for identification purposes? Or how Nixon promised he would never escalate the Viet Nam war? Or bomb North Viet Nam? Or Cambodia? Or Jimmy Carter promising he had a set? And now they’re promising us that abortions will never be turned into an industry. No, no, no! the fetus will never become a commodity. Shall we start a betting-pool in honor of President Obama? I’m putting ten bucks on 2015 as the year abortion companies, whose purposes will be the wholesale harvesting of otherwise viable fetuses, are traded on Wall Street.

IGM Snubbing England

2009-03-14T18:40:00.000-07:00

Inter-galactic Memo
To: American citizens

Fr: W. Leavitt, American Citizen

Re: Snubbing England

In the Middle of the nineteenth century England sent one of its premier warships, the HMS Resolute, on and exploratory mission into the Arctic. If you are unfamiliar with the story you should read it or watch one of several documentaries. It’s an extraordinary story of heroism, privation and human endurance. The Captain of the Resolute eventually made it back to England and was court-martialed for leaving a perfectly good ship stuck in the ice. Sometime later the ice gave way enough that the US Navy was able to free the Resolute and tow it back to England as a gift, a symbol of reconciliation for the less-than-cordial relations over the last several decades. Queen Elizabeth determined to have the timber salvaged from the Resolute and had two desks made from some of the wood. One is in Buckingham Palace, the other was a gift to the President of the United States. It has been resting in the Oval Office for years. Those of us who remember the photo of John Kennedy Jr, peeking into a hidden compartment of his father’s desk might recall this story. That was the desk from the Resolute. The symbolism of loyalty and fidelity between two great allies is not only obvious, but important in perpetuity.
Goodness, why am I telling this story? Because of England’s recent visit to America, specifically Gordon (the Prime Minister) Brown’s visit to the White House. Not only was the Obama White House not prepared for such a visit, they did not know how to be prepared. They apparently have no idea what a state visit means, or the definition of what a traditional and important ally might be. This is England, mind you, not Sri Lanka or Lichtenstein. These are the people with whom we secured the victory in WWII, and who have stood by us ever since. One would expect a proper welcome at the very least, but Obama couldn’t put one together with the resources and expertise of his fledgling administration. No press conference, no state dinner, no official welcome. Mostly it was the local equivalent of “hey, how’ ya doin’? What’d ya say your name was?”
Brown came bearing gifts. He gave the President a set of pens made from the wood of the Resolute, symbolizing our continuing relationship and the importance Great Britain puts on it. Diplomatic gifts are a fine art at these rarified levels. They are heavy with symbolism, and convey much that is unspoken between peoples.
The President gave Brown a basket—that’s basket—of DVD’s of American movies. I’m sure it was a thoughtfully chosen collection which typifies the best of our movie industry. Never mind that England has its own robust industry of equal quality, creativity and professional traditions.
Mrs. Brown brought a collection of custom designed and made cloths for the Obama girls from some of England’s premier designers.
Mrs. Obama gave the Brown’s a couple models of Marine One, the Presidential Helicopter. I’m sure they have a crate of them in the basement somewhere.
Let’s recap, shall we? A set of pens from the Resolute, with the attendant symbolism one would expect at this level, and designer clothes, verses a bunch of DVDs (which are the wrong format for England—the Brown’s will not be able to watch them without substantial effort) and a couple Helicopter Models.
Alright—I’m sitting down. Feel free to get back to me and explain how all this is equitable and justified behavior for our Head of State.
Then, to add insult to injury Obama struck again. England presented President Bush with a bust of Winston Churchill shortly after 9-11. Again, this gift was one of two in the world, and carried significant symbolism carrying England’s commitment to stand with us in dire times. Barak told Brown he could take it back, we didn’t want it anymore. He actually stuck it in a box and insisted that Brown take it back with him, even after the Prime Minister carefully explained the significance of the gift and tried desperately to convince the President to keep it, or put it in a museum. This does not bode well for our relationship with Great Britain. Remember Obama assuring us that part of the change he was bringing with him was a new era of relations with our allies and the countries of the world? Strike One Mister President.
Does anyone wonder how England is reacting to all this? I did. Let’s take a look. H-m-m-m-m . . . oh my! Can you say that in print? Here’s a headline from the Telegraph today:

Barack Obama 'too tired' to give proper welcome to Gordon Brown
So what did the President do to salve over the mishandling of the visit.? Again, we go to the source:
Mr Obama rang Mr Brown as he flew home, in what many suspected was an attempt to make amends.
Are you serious? He called him after he left like a thirteen-year old kid? But it just gets better and better. Let’s see what a high-ranking Administration official had to say when questioned about the slight.
The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.
The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." The apparent lack of attention to detail by the Obama administration is indicative of what many believe to be Mr Obama's determination to do too much too quickly.
I hope everyone is reading this correctly. These excerpts are written with massive doses of that polite restraint and understatement for which the English are famous. They are pissed. And rightfully so. Putin will get a better reception than this. So would Chavez I expect, if the President could figure out how to invite the guy over without inciting riots all over his new playground. And that’s what it is folks, a playground for an unskilled, overwhelmed, panicked kid. This administration is proving every day that it has no idea what the presidency is about, or how to run an official greeting, much less a country. Obama is “overwhelmed” after a month in office. And that’s according to his own staff.
The American source said: "Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.
"That was the gamble these guys made at the front end of this presidency and I think they're finding it a hard thing to do everything."
Say what you will about Bush (and I have), but it is unlikely that Obama will face anything like 9-11 on his watch, and everything that came with it from that day forward. I’d love to borrow Mr. Peabody’s Way-Back machine and insert President Obama into that classroom in Florida and watch him react when the Secret Service tells him that we are under attack and thousands of innocent citizens are dead. I no longer hold out any hope that this man has the mettle to take the reins and guide this country. And it only took a month. Granted, he does have a nasty recession to deal with, and the whole melt-down thing, as a gift from the previous administration. Isn’t he doing well with the solution? Printing two trillion dollars of fiat currency? Isn’t it interesting that while 60% of those polled are still giving the President good ratings (a slight drop), only 41% think his policies are going in the right direction to bring the country back to an even keel? What do you make of that?
Naturally I will continue to pray for him and his family, and that the current administration will be up to the challenge, despite the obvious fact that they were not, and are not, prepared. And I will support every policy that makes sound sense to me—as soon as I hear about one.

IGM The Many Faces of Global Warming

2009-02-24T17:56:00.001-08:00

Inter-Galactic-Memo

To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Professional rabble-rouser
Re: The Many faces of Global Warming

An article in Dailynews.com should have us all concerned. Apparently the glaciers in China are receding at an “alarming” rate. We quote the article:

A three-year study, to be used by the China Geological Survey Institute, shows that glaciers in the Yangtze source area, central to the Qinghai-Tibet plateau in south-western China, have receded 196 square kilometres over the past 40 years.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that while 196 square kilometers is a lot of ground, the actual drop over the last forty years has been from 1,247 SK to 1,041 SK. So there’s still a good deal of ice, which is a good thing. However, several other headlines, all from the same site, are cause for concern. To wit:
Hundreds Of Antarctic Peninsula Glaciers Accelerating As Climate Warms

Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, Or Stagnating

Melting Glaciers On The Tibetan Plateau

World's Glaciers Continue To Shrink, According To New CU-Boulder Study

And there are others. Greenland’s glaciers appear to be melting at accelerated rates as well, but the interior of that continent is rapidly increasing in ice, which makes for an over-all balance of the amount of ice.
But researchers just announced (confessed) that a glitch in their equipment failed to add a piece of Arctic ice the size of California to their annual survey. That’s probably relevant.
It’s interesting to note that in spite of all this melting, the sea-levels have shown no appreciable rise. Perhaps someone could get a grant and figure out where all the water is going. Mr. Isle, I’m going to delegate that to you.
And on the other hand we have this from England:

The recommendation that the UK cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 per cent* is “total madness based on false science” said Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction long range forecasters.
“There is no evidence that Carbon dioxide has ever controlled, is controlling or will ever control world temperatures or climate and I challenge the promoters of this nonsense to produce evidence to justify their policies - or drop them, just as 13 world scientists** have similarly challenged the UN.

This mention of 13 scientists is in reference to the following:

13 world scientists wrote** to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in July asking for evidence to justify UN Climate Change policy and calling for the UN’s climate committee (IPCC) to be made accountable. Tim Yeo MP** (chair of the Parliament Environment Audit Committee) was also written to in July. Neither have acknowledged or replied.

So, mostly I’m reporting that we still have absolutely no consensus on climate change. Except that it is. Which we already knew. Because it always does. Change I mean.

IGM Big Sting Ray

2009-02-24T17:55:00.001-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-marine biologist
Re: Record-breaking Stingray

The U.K. Telegraph has a story this morning of a massive, 55 stone ray (that’s 770 pounds to us Yanks) in the Mekong River. It was 7 feet long and 7 feet wide. Holy mackerel! That’s a big fish. It shattered the previous record for a fresh water fish (46 stone catfish) set in 2005. And all this guy was trying to do was tag rays for research. It took him several hours to finally lift the beast off the bottom of the river. 13 men finally lifted it onto the boat, reminding the scientist of that line of Jaws; “we’re gonna need a bigger boat.”
There was a throwaway line at the end of the article which I will now quote for you, and then critique.

Although its numbers are unknown, experts believe the population has dwindled by 20 per cent over the last 10 years, making the possibility of extinction extremely high.

Let’s see now, what could possibly be wrong with that statement? Hmmmmmm? If the number of rays is unknown, how can they estimate a decline? And again, if the number is unknown, how can a possible 20% decrease over the last ten years (a meaningless guess) point to the possibility of extinction being extremely high? Does this come under that well-known scientific principle called “wishful thinking?” We all know that species heading for extinction translate to big cash in the form of grants. Based on the logic of the above quote, there could be 100 billion rays in existence. A 20% decrease would leave 80 billion. Yep, that’s the brink of extinction alright. See, because if we don’t know how many of something there are, it becomes difficult to project rates-of-loss. Yet another example of crisis by fiat. Boy, am I glad I’m here to ferret out all this stuff for me.

IGM Obama, Oscars, Nano-radio

2009-02-24T17:54:00.000-08:00

Inter-galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, raconteur
Re: Random Notes

President Obama was in Illinois the other day, speaking at a Caterpillar assembly plant. He was defending his stimulus (spendulus) package to the unionized employees. During the speech he poked a little good-natured fun at Illinois’ new Representative, 27 year old Aaron Schock. He mentioned Schock’s tender age (re: inexperience) and assured the assembly that the congressman would fall in line with his policies. Later, young Aaron told reporters that he had spoken to hundreds of the Caterpillar employees and not one of them asked him to support the stimulus package. So much for inexperience.

You may have noticed a certain lack of comment on the Academy Awards from me. An interesting phenomenon is occurring. Years ago I was glued to the tube on Oscar night. I made sure I had seen all the contenders for best picture, director and actor. Now I could not care any less. I have not seen any of the nominated movies. I don’t know what they were (even now) and with the exception of what I’ve heard on the radio, I don’t know or care who won what. Congrats to Slumdog though for taking the cake. Maybe I’ll watch it now. I find Hollywood becoming more and more irrelevant every day. Possibly because we are forced to hear every ill-conceived and uninformed word to come out of their privileged mouths, and watch their apparently valueless lives paraded in front of us. (Is that being judgmental?) Now, before everyone jumps down my throat for generalizing, let me just say that I know I’m generalizing. I’m sure there are many fine individuals in the movie industry. But what fun is it to point that out?

A team of crack researchers from Berkeley has done something interesting. They are able to make actual radios from a single nanotube of carbon. A real radio. One that receives, transmits, modulates frequency (changes channels) and can be heard on real speakers. All on a tube of carbon atoms that would fit nicely inside an average-sized human cell. With no moving parts, no additional parts (other than the electrodes at either end to provide power) and no magic. If you would like to hear a radio the size of a virus play “Layla” go to www.sciam.com/nanoradio and they’ll play it for you. Of course we’ll have to take their word that it isn’t an IPod Nano playing the tune . . . get it? Nano?

Most of you would be surprised—nay, shocked—to find out how many people are still waiting for the President to produce a valid birth certificate. Some people (not me) are wondering why he spent millions of dollars to have a bunch of attorneys NOT show a certificate. Let’s see . . . several million dollars, fifteen dollars . . . hmmmmm. I think I would have produced the certificate. And that thing on the internet is not a birth certificate. It’s a copy of a live birth form even I could have forged. Wouldn’t it be ironic of it turned out we had a foreigner leading the country? We would have to undo everything he did, said and signed. What a mess that would be, huh? It would be hard to tell the difference between then and now though. I’m just saying . . . .

More and more “experts” are coming out of the woodwork and questioning much of the new administration’s plans for healing the economy. Many of them are saying that doing nothing and letting the whole mess heal on its own would be faster and less damaging than what is being proposed. So if that happens, and the Obama camp takes credit for the fix, how will we know the difference? We already know the Democratic party caused the mortgage crisis (Dodd, Frank, Pelosi, et al) by insisting nothing was wrong and blocking repeated attempts by the GOP to stave off the current mess, then blamed it on the Bush administration which warned us and tried to get congress to do something, so it isn’t likely they will step up and admit it when their great plan doesn’t work.
More to come.

IGM Greenland Snuggie Blanket

2009-02-18T19:29:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-glaciologist
Re: Greenland Snuggie-Covers

According to an article in the London Telegraph this morning, a “Glaciologist” named Jason Box, from Ohio State University who is concerned—as we all are—about the shocking rise in sea levels, has come up with a clever idea to slow or even stop the melting of Greenland’s glaciers.
As a responsible pseudo-journalist I checked out the facts online. According to Wikipedia, that bastion of spurious information, sea levels have been rising about 1.8mm annually for the last century. That’s just under two millimeters per year. Which comes to about one-fourth meter ever fifty years. Other estimates vary by as much as 20 meters (see An Inconvenient Truth), which is well within accepted parameters for global warming enthusiasts and catastrophic climate-change watch-dogs. As we all know, forty centimeters per hundred years is cause for alarm. Why, at that rate, half of Florida is now inundated by the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Who knew?
But Jason is here to rescue the situation. He and an intrepid team of experts (which makes a total of four people) are spreading special white, polypropylene blankets designed to cover 10,000 square meters of ice, over a “real” glacier in Greenland! Apparently this is off-the-shelf technology used in the Alps to save summer ski runs. They are testing the blankets resilience in the fierce Arctic winters and gathering data on how well the ice is insulated. Good for them—and I mean it.
But I have a couple thoughts. Not worries, not concerns really, just idle speculation. Let’s see if we can follow the logic here. According to Jason we are in the midst of “a climate catastrophe and glaciers are the epicentre of that problem.” (In England that’s how they spell epicentre—no one knows why.) According to every single person on the planet studying the problem, with the irrelevant exception of several thousand of them, We, us, human beings, are at the “epicentre” of the global warming catastrophe. We have inadvertently caused what is happening. The question can be asked; if we are the problem, exactly how much sense does it make for us to meddle further, without really knowing what we’ve done or are doing, to try and fix the problem? One recalls, in a moment like this, the famous words of the Hippocratic Oath; “first, do no harm.” As I have mentioned before, it is absolute folly to think we understand the dynamics of what is happening—even if we are involved. All these people constantly pound into our heads how fragile the environment is, how delicate the balances are, and how easily tipping points of one kind or another can be reached. Despite all this, Jason wants to cover the glaciers and stop the melting. Of course, glaciers have been melting and freezing for eons, even when we weren’t helping. Why, scientists actually surmise that the “Little Ice Age” of the eighteenth century was caused by humans burning wood for heat and cooking all over the planet. And we modern folks are dumping much more into the air and water than they did, right? So why exactly are we causing warming while they caused cooling? (That’s a legitimate question, by the way—I sincerely want to know. I know Sammons knows, and I know Isle will maniacally research it until he knows).
Is it not plausible to assume we will exacerbate the problem by increasing our meddling? What’s wrong with the idea the Gaia will fix it through natural means? What if the global climate systems are already evolving, have changed in response to our presence and are in the process of making adjustments and corrections on their own? And what if, as we meddle, we interrupt these changes and adjustments and send the entire system into a nose-dive? I’m just saying . . . .
The other thought. (two a day are plenty, don’t you think?) Let’s revisit that fragile-ecology idea. We have been inundated with the delicate nature and balance of the systems. We used to think it took centuries of bad luck to trigger an ice-age. Now, because of our superior understanding, we know it can happen within a few years, some say one or two. Which leads me to ask the following: If we cover all the glaciers (except the ones in Glacier National Park, because they’re already gone) with insulating, reflective blankets, what’s to stop that from taking us over the admittedly crumbling precipice into a full-fledged ice age? Just a couple years of accumulating ice is enough. Now someone will answer, “the warming will prevent runaway glaciations, resulting in no net loss or gain." Really? But if we let the ice build for a few years, that will decrease the ambient temperature (remember that spurious idea about an “average global temperature”?) which will stop the warming trend in its tracks, send it over the edge, and cover the planet in ice. Well, not the whole planet, but all the fun parts where food grows. Assuming there is a warming trend. And assuming we know anything about cooling trends. It’s a bit of a sticky wicket, wot?
Besides, what will we do with a few million square kilometers of non-biodegradable polypropylene once we are done and have to roll it all back up? Anybody think of that? (Imagine a brief “cha-ching” gesture here).
In conclusion, I want to thank my parents for having the foresight to create me, my wife for the tolerance necessary not to eliminate me, the academy for remaining loyal to the ancient tradition of bribery, and all those scientists for keeping life interesting. I will cherish this delusion always.

IGM Dr. Doom

2009-02-10T21:10:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-environmentalist
Re: The Environment, again . . .

My old nemesis, Paul Ehrlich, is back in the news. Despite the fact that every one of his major and dire predictions turned out to be wrong, he is now the Bing (endowed, as you know, by Chandler Bing) Professor of Population Studies at Stanford, where he continues his endless warnings and predictions of the environments’—and humanities—impending demise. In yet another fit of professional pessimism consistent with his entire career, Ehrlich has announced in a recent paper that the discovery, since 1993, 0f 408 new species of mammals, is no cause for celebration. Paul just can’t seem to find any joy in life.
I was going to offer several quotes to strengthen my cause, but Paul is just too depressing. And frankly, I had trouble making sense of his thesis. I’m not claiming he did a poor job—I often have trouble understanding technical data, especially if it involves any kind of statistical analysis. And his work seems to be mostly statistical based on some kind of innate fragility in given ecologies. If I’m reading him right, more variety of species in an ecology makes the ecology even more susceptible to changes in, or loss of, those species. He also said something about some kind of virus, but I wisely ignored all that. At any rate, more species means a more fragile ecology which is more susceptible to our (humanities) evil machinations.
I have long claimed, based on no data whatsoever, that the environment, as a totality, is robust, not fragile. It’s main characteristic, like everything else, is change. Organisms respond to stimulus (stress) and either evolve or die. Certainly things can happen that are detrimental, and I understand the idea that small changes can snowball into large effects. So do you. And that’s my point—I suspect environmentalists are losing the forest for studying the trees. There is too much specificity, too much specialization. No one is becoming a generalist, other than Bill Bryson maybe, and far too many good researchers are willing to depend on the dreaded computer model to assist them in formulating their theories. Science is trying to understand the inter-relationships of the species found in a given ecology, and then uncover the secrets of the relationships between ecologies. This is a wonderful—if daunting—goal. But with the hubris only science seems to engender, (okay, and religion) they consistently believe they are five minutes from figuring it all out. I’ve lost count of how many times a famous scientist has publically stated that we have discovered all there is to know. The last one said it in this new century.
Ehrlich depends almost entirely on models and statistical data, refusing to look at the common-sense, day-to-day evidence around him. I.e., we’re not dead. We haven’t bred ourselves into extinction. We haven’t gone cannibal, like over-crowded mice do. We haven’t run out of resources, or water, or air, or land. In fact we are improving all of those, slowly, fitfully sometimes, but overall things are getting better. Paul’s books won’t sell if his predictions don’t happen. And despite none of them ever coming true, he continues to wear blinders and predict imminent doom. I wonder, with a lingering sense of humor tinged with consternation, who listens to this guy? To quote God in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, “It’s like those miserable psalms . . . they’re so depressing.”

IGM Fairness Doctrine

2009-02-07T18:01:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Special adjunct-liaison-senior assistant to Crypto-Editorial Factions of the Conservative Think-Tank, “Founders Party”.
Re: The Fairness Doctrine

I’m sure we are all familiar with the “Fairness Doctrine”, a policy of the FCC introduced in 1949. (The year I was born, not coincidently). As originally conceived, the Doctrine was set up to require broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing “controversial matters of public interest” and to “airing contrasting views regarding those matters”. Without going into hours of mind-numbing details only Mr. Isle (or my son) could appreciate, suffice it to say that the Doctrine has enjoyed various levels of interest, interpretation, and enforcement over the years. There have been a few lawsuits, most of them silly, citing the doctrine, but by and large, the FCC has ignored its own policy because it was voluntarily followed by most broadcasters, without the need for rigorous enforcement. On the other hand, the courts have warned on several occasions, that if the Doctrine ever showed signs of limiting or stifling free speech, they would not hesitate to do away with it.

The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.

The Doctrine carried less and less relevance over the years, as technology changed and other sources of information and opinions came on-line. (The internet, bloggers, non-traditional news agencies such as Canada’s “Naked News”, etc.)
Eventually, it was revoked in increments, and finally altogether, by the Reagan Administration. This revocation wasn’t even a blip on the political radar at the time, but recently, the Fairness Doctrine is rearing it’s outdated head again as a sorely-needed leveling agent championed by several prominent Democrats, of a, shall we say ‘liberal’ bent?
The recent upsurge in interest by such stalwarts of liberty as Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senator Jeff Bingham (Dem, NM), Richard Durbin (Dem, Il), and Senator Debbie Stabenow (Dem. MI) bears an interesting resemblance to Joe McCarthy of the infamous “Red-Baiting” hearings. The transparent nature of this call for a renewed Doctrine is clearly designed to silence or at least weaken, the very popular and successful wave of conservative talk-shows across the nation. It should be mentioned that, in comparison to the top five or six radio talk shows whose formats are geared toward political and cultural topics, there are no successful shows with liberal content. None. This is not to say that people aren’t trying. Air America is the liberal showcase network, starring, among others, the fearless Al Franken, author of such best sellers as Rush Limbaugh is a Big Idiot and other observations, and Lies and the Lying Liars who tell Them: A Fair and Balanced look at the Right. Granted, Al has a flair for book titles, and is a great comic writer, and skit actor. He made a name for himself on SNL, where he was able to take advantage of his particular vocal tone and inflection, which in a comedy skit was funny, but as a radio talk-show host and political candidate is like having to listen to a thousand fingernails being pulled mercilessly down an ancient blackboard for hours at a time. I mean, have you listened to this guy? He should have been recruited as an interrogator at Gitmo. Except that would have constituted torture.
George Soros has injected millions of dollars into Air America, but not even he could save it. No one listened. There are lots of liberal talk shows out there, if you have a radio powerful enough to pull them in, but they are hard to find otherwise. Why do you suppose that is?
As some of you probably know, radio shows, even talk-shows, are designed and aired as profit-making enterprises. They sell time and commercials to businesses, who then advertise on the show, paying large amounts of money for the privilege. Naturally, these private-sector, blood-sucking profit-hungry outfits like to advertise on shows with large audiences. The more people listening, the more likely a few of them are to buy soap, as it were. The liberal shows are having a hard time selling soap. The conservative shows are selling so much soap the entire country is floating away on right-wing bubbles.
And this is why the Democrats are crying to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. Not because they are interested in fairness, or equality, or equal time for all viewpoints (which the fairness doctrine was never intended to address), but because they are angry that the people of this country are so ignorant they would rather listen to Rush and Sean and Glenn and Laura, and Tammy and Mike and the Savage Nation than they would Al Franken or any other liberal—even one who sounds like an actual human being. How dare they! (We).
The new policy would require equal time for opposing viewpoints, which , as mentioned previously, the original Doctrine was never intended to do. It is a straight-forward attempt to stifle the political right, and nothing more. Which is fine, if that’s your thing. What it would do in practice however, is destroy the talk-show format and drive it off the air. You can’t force people to listen to opposing viewpoints, even if you make it available . . . even if you make it mandatory. Advertisers will not pay for shows that have no audience. Air America (Al Franken) has been subsidized from the moment of its inception because they could not generate an income stream the traditional way. And still can’t. It’s kind of like a private-sector experiment in Public Radio, which by the way, doesn’t exist. (I mean Public Radio as a concept. Call me, I’ll explain.) I like Public Radio. Especially Car Talk. And All Things Considered and Market Talk and Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me. But I don’t give them any money because I don’t believe in subsidizing things that should be able to generate their own income.
I digress. The reason Rush Limbaugh is number one and makes millions of dollars a year, is the same reason Jerry Springer was successful—because people watched (listen). The format is not the same, and the content is not even similar, but the bottom line is—money. People like his show, they listen to it. If the government insists on going through the sham of “equal time” and force Rush or anyone else to devote half their air-time to liberal pundits who, famously, have no sense of humor and don’t get irony, then one of two things will happen. One, Rush (or Glenn or Sean) will simply close down the show and retire, which is what this entire shell-game is about, or Two, they will ignore the mandate, keep the format which works and brings in incredible profits, and let the whiners take their case to the courts where such suits are likely to fail because of Second Amendment considerations. Personally, I’m betting they will force the issue and ignore any such policy. No one has to listen to a show they don’t like. It isn’t Rush’s fault that liberals can’t stay on the air with their ever-so-precious message. And it isn’t about truth or facts or anything like that. Besides, how would such a policy deal with bloggers and similar internet sites? Is the Democratic Congress going to monitor every one of the ten-gazillion bloggers and demand equal time? What about talk-shows that don’t offer political content? How will they police people like Art Bell, and George Noory, who talk[ed] about anything, from UFO’s to ghosts, to Kirlian photography to Atlantis? What about Gordene Mackenzie and Nancy Nangeroni, who have the only radio show in America devoted solely to transsexual and transgender issues? How is the left going to respond to the demand for equal time for the religious right on that show?
This new iteration of the Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than a gag being placed over the mouths of a few people by other people who don’t like what they’re saying and especially don’t like how many people are listening. It’s a bad idea whose time is long gone. If the liberals are serious about the second amendment (as they very publically claim to be) they will find an effective way to get their own message out, not try to silence the other guys.

IGM Freedom Vs. Security

2009-02-04T19:21:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Special Agent
Re: Privacy vs. security

Several states, with Oregon in the lead (no surprise there) are considering requiring the installation of GPS technology in all vehicles registered in the state. They want to track the mileage (not to mention destinations) of the vehicles in order to tax the drivers, based on miles traveled. It seems the tax revenue is down because people are driving less and purchasing cars that get better mileage, which lowers the tax collected on fuel as well. Should be a good thing, right? But not to tax-and-spend liberals. As a reward for their subjects—I mean citizens—doing all the right things, they want to add another tax. I confess, I’m not surprised. But there is an ancillary problem I find even more unsettling. Along with knowing each and every mile your car accrues, someone, somewhere will have the ability to know, and tell someone else, everywhere you go— if you live in Oregon, or one of the other states thinking about initiating the program. But c’mon, how likely is it that once a few sign on, every other state will say, “hey, good idea!”?
I will assume we all know about, or have, OnStar®, the mega-cool technology offered by GM. It knows where you are (if you’re in your car) and if you have a wreck—and will call you to see if you need help. It will tell you where the car is if you misplace it. It will unlock your car for you if you leave the keys in it.
But it will also turn the engine off and disable the ignition. Did you know that? Who would do that? Not GM. Think of the legal implications, not to mention trust issues. But the government would, for any number of reasons. And they could get a court order to force GM (or anyone else with the technology) to do pretty much anything.
Let’s play a game, shall we? Can anyone think of a situation where they might do that? Suspicion of drugs, or other crimes? What if you fit a Perps description? What if people were fleeing an area because of some kind of disaster, or better yet, impending or imagined disaster, like Godzilla attacking Newark, and the government didn’t want everybody leaving and clogging the roads so they remotely shut off every engine on the road (because they can identify every vehicle and where it is) even though you are on your way to visit your dying father who is in Hospice? Ha! Not so cute now, huh?
Or someone decides, based on an algorithm in some computer deep in the bowels of Central Traffic Control, that too many people are heading for Washington DC to do touristy things, and Senator Harry “Whorehouse” Reid doesn’t want to smell their ripe, unwashed selves, and they find themselves on the side of the road trying to talk to the car’s computer which is telling them, “hey, talk to Dingy Harry, we didn’t do it!”
It’s good to feel secure. I want my wife to have OnStar for all kinds of reasons (but she isn’t buying the argument that we need a Hummer 2 to get it). We have grandkids. What about car-jackings? Locked out, ran out of gas, leak in the radiator, two-year old manages to break his arm while securely strapped into his five-point car-seat—hey, it could happen; obviously you haven’t met Grahson Ender Leavitt.
But there is a line we all have to walk, with freedom on one side and security on the other. It is impossible to have all of both, or even most of both. It’s like the philosophical equivalent of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which, as you know, says with mathematical certainty, that the more we know about the location of an electron, the less we can know about its spin. The more security we demand, the less freedom we possess, and vice-versa. Quite the conundrum, eh?
I suggest you all run out and read The Humanoids, by Jack Williamson. It’s an old sci-fi novel which is probably out of print, but you can find it. This very dilemma we’re talking about is the crux of the novel. What do we choose? What is most important to us? What is the inevitable conclusion of perfect security?
In all cases, the less government intrusion into our lives, the better. Read the founding fathers. This is the one and only thing they all agreed on. Even the ones who wanted a strong central government.
If your state starts making noise about taxing the miles you drive by putting GPS in your vehicle, run, do not walk, to the Legislature and start cracking heads together . . . figuratively, obviously.

IGM Obamas First Week

2009-01-24T23:58:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: Self-selected personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, crack political analyst
Re: Obama’s first week

Ha! You thought you’d have heard from me before now, didn’t you? Well, I’ve been doing my best to welcome the new president and allow him the benefit of the doubt. I am a great respecter of the office and have absolutely nothing against Obama personally, as I have stated in past.
But he is off to an uneven start, and it is always the oppositions job to point out flaws in plans, missteps, and poor fashion coordination.
In one of his first decisions as president, he decided to re-introduce federal funding for abortions, and advice on abortions (as well as other family planning choices) for Planned Parenthood outlets in other countries. In consecutive fits of partisan politics, Reagan banned the use of federal money for out-of-country abortions, Clinton un-banned it, and the Bush’s re-banned it. Now Obama feels it necessary to mess around in the affairs of other countries—something we never do. [insert sarcasm here]. Seriously though, in a time of economic stress, one could argue for spending what money we have here at home. Except for those two wars, obviously, and the normal foreign aid we spend every year. And tourism commercials.
Regardless of how we feel personally about abortion (and there’s only one right answer here . . .) what is the logic behind spending money for it overseas?
Let’s see how other countries feel about it.
“I think it’s a travesty!” Oleg P., Sweden. “We can fund our own abortions, thank you!” Jacques Chirac, France. “Abortions? We don’t need no stinkin’ abortions!” Carlos Baca, Mexico.
You get the drift, I’m sure. Gary Bauer had this to say about the abortion decision:

But despite his efforts, the reaction was brutal. Family groups accused him of plotting the "infanticide" of African children. Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, president of the American Values pressure group, said: "It is both sad and infuriating that in the same week President Obama extended new rights to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and began planning to release men whom we know have murdered Americans, he is preparing to sentence innocent children to death through abortion." (UK Telegraph)

Obama seems to be having a bit more trouble with his stimulus package as well. We quote the UK Telegraph:
He faces mounting criticism over his $825 billion economic stimulus plan, from Republican leaders who say the legislation has been drawn up without the input which Mr Obama had promised to allow them.
Apparently the assumption that ascension to the White House would bring the country together was a little short of the mark. Now he’s picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh. Presidents should completely ignore radio personalities—everyone knows that. But instead he said:

“You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Mr Obama said.

This was in response to Limbaugh’s statement that while he wished the new President well, he hoped his policies failed. My sentiments exactly. I can’t imagine why so many people thought everything would be wonderful and we would all discover consensus when Obama stepped into the Oval Office. Nothing has changed. Those of us who oppose socialism will continue to do so. Those of us who accept the various forms of socially democratic programs will love his ideas. Those of us who decry abortion will continue to do so. Those of us who believe that the Gitmo detainees are prisoners of war will continue to do so.
It seems that President Obama is not going to enjoy the traditional honeymoon of his first one hundred days, either. Again we quote the Telegraph:

The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: "I won. I'm the president."

Not exactly you’re “hope and change” kind of thing to say. But it’ll be fun to watch, won’t it?
After the pomp and circumstance of the inauguration (or, as one of my students misspoke—the “eggnoguration”) one would have thought we were in Shangri-la. I guess we’re not so lucky. We’re still here in the good ole US of A.
To be fair, the new President did say he wants to put a good amount of the stimulus package into science and tech companies, citing several studies that show money is generated faster and over a longer period from these kinds of ventures, so I’m happy about that. See, it isn’t all bad.
The point is, and it’s hard to believe I’m having to say this, conservatives and conservatism is not going to go away. We aren’t going to suddenly and miraculously see the “error of our ways” any more than liberals will. We are going to speak up and speak out. We are going to criticize when called for and praise when we can. The only difference I can think of, in fact, will be the lack of naked vitriol and hatred characterized by certain factions of the liberal movement during the Bush presidency. There won’t be a lot of that.
But I promise to be fair, and inject as much humor as I can find while we struggle to maintain out national identity. Anybody else feel like wearing a mask for the next four years?

Custom Leather Purse.

2009-01-21T18:17:00.000-08:00

An example of my leather work. This is a purse I made for my daughter-in-law for Christmas 08. The design is a custom job and the work is all done entirely by hand. The paint colors are custom mixed by me, and the staining is a five color-slash-step process. I would be happy to take orders for similar items. More to follow. With some luck I will be adding purses, belts, and other custom work as spec items for sale. See the "Purse" section of my blog site for future posts.

IGM Plutonium find

2009-01-21T18:15:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Nuclear Engineer
Re: Plutonium find

There is an interesting tidbit at newscientist.com today. It seems that workers recently unearthed a battered old safe which had been buried in a pit at the Hanford, Washington nuclear facility. The safe, lost for at least fifty years, contained a glass jar with 400 ml of weapons-grade plutonium—99.96% pure, according to Jon Schwantes, project director. Careful research into the plants records, and precise analysis of the sample, indicates this batch of plutonium was the first ever produced at Hanover, which makes it the first sample of the element ever made in human history (as far as we know—the Atlanteans may very well have made some, as well as one of the Lost Tribes of Israel, most likely Rueben.)
Scientists are wondering why this first batch did not make it into either of the plutonium bombs used during WWII. Both the Trinity (test site) bomb and Fat Man (the Nagasaki bomb) were plutonium bombs, while Little Boy (Hiroshima) used U-239.
Although the site where the safe was found was contaminated, it was not from the plutonium, which was safe inside its unbroken container. While plutonium is one of the longer-lived isotopes (over 20,000 year half-life), it emits alpha-particles, which, according to Schwantes, are too large to penetrate skin or even a sheet of paper. The characteristics of radioactive isotopes in general are often misunderstood and this is a good example. The plutonium is dangerous when ingested, breathed into the lungs, etc. Even in a plain glass jar it poses no threat. An open jar, or broken, and all bets are off.
So, why did it do so much damage in Japan? Even the most efficient nuclear explosion only converts around 10 % of the fissionable or fusionable material to energy. The rest is atomized and sent into the atmosphere where it slowly returns to earth on the wind, or in rain, as fallout. It’s the fallout—or the actual explosion—that kills.
As the oldest known and purest example of plutonium in existence, the Hanover find will be kept and used as a standard reference.
The find is a good example of what is often done in ignorance. At the time of its extraction and purification (an extremely costly, complex, and time-consuming process) very little was known about radioactive interactions. It was a new science. The death of one of the scientists at Los Alamos, due to accidental exposure, had not yet occurred, and the radium scandal in Europe, and the Tuskegee “experiment” were still in the future. For whatever reason, they decided the best way to get rid of the sample was to bury it.
As I see it, this is yet another reason for the completion and certification of Yucca Mountain. Hanover, Oak Ridge, and many other sites still keep secrets like this one, as well as the things we know about. We need some place to put it. A facility specifically designed to store it safely seems far better than a glass jar in a tattered and forgotten safe. But that’s just me.

IGM Say goodbye to librarians

2009-01-12T18:44:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-librarian
Re: Say goodbye to “Librarian”

1-12-09, N. 069

According to News.scotsman.com, the city council of Edinburgh has decided to change the title of Librarian to “Audience Development Officers”. This is in order to reflect the changing times, responsibilities and skills Librarians now face. Apparently, the Librarians themselves, who were not consulted, are less than thrilled—to the tune of 95% of them voting to strike. Granted, they are disgruntled over other things as well, as the city shakes up the status quo. For one thing, they plan to install self-check in-and-out stations. I ask you, what self-respecting bibliophile will want to check out a book with a machine? People want to chat, to ask questions, interact. It’s not Smith’s or Home Depot., where we just want to get in and get out. Going to the library is an experience, a time-honored exchange of news and information, opinions and reviews. To say nothing of the entire Reference side of the building.
For a local opinion I went to the source. I asked Mrs. Lee, our very own Librarian, what she thought of the whole thing. She said, and I quote, “No you didn’t! I don’t know what you’re talking about. Stop making stuff up!” Which was less that helpful.
What could possibly be a more appropriate title for someone who works in a library, than Librarian? (Remember The Music Man? Marion, Madame Librarian? I loved that movie)
Personally, I think “Audience Development Officer” is a terrible replacement. I’m sure if we put our heads together we can do much better. Here are some suggestions:
Book Lender
Information and Technology Facilitator
Literary Engineer
Informational Text Specialist (Then we could have ranks; Specialist first class, specialist second class, etc.)
Book Monger
Computer Information and Application Specialist
Babysitter
Dewey Decimal Repository Engineer
Urban Camp Director
Master Story Teller
Human Knowledge Repository Curator

Feel free to come up with your own.
Librarians are some of the most important people in the civilized world. The knowledge to which they have ready access is not just staggering—it is the totality of knowledge. They are the guardians of human wisdom and folly. It’s too bad so few people realize this.

Well . . . you get the idea. In conclusion, I think the Edinburgh City Council is bonkers and should leave the title alone. It is perfect as it is.

IGM Budget Cuts

2009-01-12T18:42:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: All Personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Human Resources Crypto-Specialist
Re: Budget cuts
1-10-09 No. 068

In case anyone hasn’t received that other memo, or has been living on Mars without a radio, we are in a recession and the government is threatening to drive the recession into a depression, because, you know . . . that’s what governments do.
Here is Nevada, where we depend on essentially three things for revenue, tourism, tourism and tourism, things are becoming a little iffy, just like most other places. Yes, we have mining, and ranching, but c’mon, how much can the government suck out of those two industries?
So the governor here in Nevada, a guy named Jim Gibbons (if that’s his real name) had been wracking his brain to come up with ways to cut half-a-billion dollars from the Nevada budget, without sending all of his constituents to the poor house. Everyone has been asked to make sacrifices. I believe in sacrifice. Especially when it’s for the common good. But there are some important guidelines when government is calling the shots, so that they don’t get carried away and start redistributing wealth or some other insane and counter-productive idea like that.
The first guideline is that sacrifice must be equitable. Everyone needs to pitch in more or less the same. It should hurt universally, so that it isn’t individually fatal.
Second; it should be effective. If we are going to give something up, we need to be confident that it will work, that whatever we do helps.
And third; government cannot reduce people’s income past the point where they start to bleed and have to move into Uncle Fester’s 1967 motor home.
Here in Las Vegas the school districts have been asked to reduce yearly budgets by around twenty percent. (I’m making that up. If anyone wants to look it up be my guest). Cut’s have been made everywhere. They have been valiant in their attempts to keep jobs while reducing everything else, and I offer kudos for trying.
Now, however, the Governor, Mr. Gibbons (if that’s who he really is) has decided to cut state employees paychecks by 6%. That is a lot of money. And naturally, it includes teacher’s salaries. I’ve been working for CCSD for 21 years now, and have topped out on the pay scale. Cutting my pay by around $4,000 is going to not only hurt, but require serious re-organization. Fortunately, my wife and I are empty-nesters, or the cut would be a disaster of the first order. But what about all those teachers who have only been here for a few years and make half what I do, and have families? A reduction in their pay is unconscionable—they will not be able to survive. Teachers will leave, en mass. I guess that will save a lot of money . . .
I am assuming that other state employees will get their cut in the form of reduced hours. Perhaps a four-day work week until things improve. This is a common practice in the private sector and works well in government as well, if it is feasible. Is the governor going to reduce teachers hours as well? (Remember rule one—equitability) Will we be given a four day work week? Have our day reduced by an hour or two? Or are we, as usual, expected to continue working the same hours (which includes a substantial number of free hours for most teachers—especially elementary) for a lot less money?
Teachers work under contract. Does the governor plan to break the contract? And I believe our state legislature passed a law that requires education to be “funded first”. How will he juggle this multi-challenge equation?
More importantly, I’d like to see the list of other things that are being cut by 6%. I can think of two areas that I’m guessing haven’t been touched, which, if reduced or eliminated would fill the coffers to overflowing. The first is social services. As much as we all like to give away substantial portions of our income to help the less fortunate through poorly-run, money-sucking programs, at times like these, belt-tightening should be across the board. Has Health and Human services been reduced by at least 6%?
The second, which has overlap with the first, is Illegal immigration. How much money would the state save if it stopped giving it away to people who are here illegally, are not citizens, and have no right to expect the same services and opportunities actual citizens receive? Don’t get me wrong. I love and admire our friends to the south. I do not blame them for coming here, wanting a better life, wanting those very services and opportunities to which the rest of us have access—I want them to have these things too. But not when there isn’t enough money to go around. Sometimes triage is in order and our government is not doing a very good job of it.
Finally, let me revisit an incredibly unpopular idea that would generate billions in additional income for the state. Before we start talking about reducing state salaries, we need to give up the posturing concerning Yucca Mountain—a foregone conclusion—and demand that the feds pay Nevada for letting them put their nuclear garbage in our backyard, while removing all the fake roadblocks to opening the site. Why shouldn’t the fed have to pay a lease? Say two or three billion dollars a year, half of which would go to education? Maybe add a built-in COLA clause as well.
Has Mr. Gibbons forgotten that we recently took a huge hit in the stock market? Which means everyone’s retirement package has been reduced by about 30%. Teachers retirement is based on a percentage of their last three years annual pay. If he (the alleged Gov. Gibbons) adds insult to injury by reducing salaries 6%, that means our retirement will have been hit with a double-whammy which would last the rest of our lives—at a time when we would be the most vulnerable. The state wants to give us the gift that keeps on giving—screw us now and screw us later.
What about environmental programs? Slash them. How about Ethnic Diversity programs? Eliminate them. How much money does the state spend on things in which it has no business being involved? When income goes down, you have to reduce outgo to match. Period.
In short (I guess it’s too late to say that, isn’t it?), until the governor can satisfy us that his cost-cutting is fair and across the board, and he is doing everything in his power to reduce wasteful and unnecessary spending, and that he is willing to cut useless or redundant programs altogether, he will have to find someone else to pick on. Teachers, I am sure, are tired of being the brunt of everyone’s axe-wielding reduction fantasies. I know I am.

IGM Give me my kidney!

2009-01-10T11:05:00.001-08:00

Inter-galactic Memo

To: All potential organ-donors/recipients
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-ethicist
Re: common courtesy
1-9-09, No. 067

A recent news story has me thinking. I purposely did not glean the details because the headline was enough to make me nauseous.
It seems (as you might have read) that a man selflessly donated one of his kidney’s to his wife after two previous attempts failed. So far this is a wonderful and poignant story of everlasting love and devotion. Now, however, while in the muck and mire of an acrimonious divorce, the man (a doctor, I believe) is demanding his kidney back. This may be a first. Even if it’s not, it is certainly a new low.
The important question is not whether or not he should be asking for an organ back—he shouldn’t. It is why and how an adult human being, educated, experienced, and supposedly intelligent, cannot think their way to what should be an obvious conclusion.
Let’s assume that he is hurting and angry, and in the right—his awful, manipulating, haranguing, money-spending, sex-denying wife is solely responsible for his misery and their divorce. Hypothetically. In what mind-twisted, self-absorbed, irrational, hate-filled world is it acceptable to demand an implanted organ back?
Now, because of this idiot, someone (can you say “Congress”?) will be forced to enact legislation laying out new rules for organ donation, i.e., once implanted in someone else, the organ belongs to the new recipient and it becomes a matter of finders-keepers. No Indian-Givers in the world of organ exchange. (While the author is aware of the sensitive nature and politically-incorrect usage of the term “Indian-Giver”, using it seemed appropriate in this case, and is not intended as a negative comment on the lending practices of Native Americans).
This episode is a perfect example of what I like to refer to as “legislation through litigation”, in which frivolous lawsuits, sans content, inevitably lead to another “thou shalt not” law.
Years ago, all the schools in the district used chain nets on outdoor rims for basketball. The chains were heavy and did not foul in the wind, and lasted forever. District rules of course prohibited hanging on the rim, jumping up and grabbing the chain-net, or otherwise abusing the “net”. One weekend some kid, while messing around and showing off, (here at Chap, as it turns out) jumped up to touch the rim, caught his hand in the net—in other words being a typical teen-ager—and ripped a finger to shreds coming down. A quick lawsuit later and all the chain-nets in the entire county came down. (Shooting at only a rim is much less effective.) I’m sure we all remember the woman who burned herself on McDonalds coffee and sued for several million dollars. Or the man who sued the dry-cleaner for over a million dollars because his pants were ruined. (He recently lost, by the way).
In each case, these people should have been able to process their situation and conclude that legal action was inappropriate, since they were either at fault, or whatever occurred did not rise to the level of official legal action, or even a mild tantrum. Now Congress will no doubt pass a law delineating what can and cannot be done after an organ implant. All because of one guy’s childish, irrational, decision.
If anyone wonders why we have all these laws cinching us tighter and tighter into straight-jackets of behavior, this is the reason. Lawmakers are forced to react to the lowest behavior imaginable, usually in isolated cases. The better able we are, as individuals, to police ourselves and make rational, common sense-decisions based on some kind of value-system, the fewer laws and rules are necessary. We see this process in microcosm here at school, where “one bad apple” consistently ruins the experience for the rest of the kids.
The proper response to the man who wants his kidney back, is to slap him in the face, throw a glass of cold water at him, and remind him that he is an adult, not a child, and that kind of petulant, self-serving narcissism will not be tolerated. Then send him to the corner for a time-out.

IGM Economics

2009-01-10T11:03:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: homo sapiens
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-homo sapiens
Re: economics

According to the Daily Telegraph today, the Bank of London has lowered its interest rate to 1.5 percent, the lowest in its 315 year history. Wow, that’s an old bank.
Experts are saying however (and this applies to us,) that the rate-cut will not help rank and file citizens. Apparently it’s not the interest rate, however low, that will help people survive—it is the amount of money available to loan, and in England at least, there isn’t any.
Sounds familiar, eh? Over here, on the “other side of the pond” we face the same dilemma; interest rates have fallen, thanks to the Fed, but banks are not lending any money. I don’t know if they don’t have any or are just being tight, but the outcome is the same. Obama says he’s going to fix that, and as we speak (according to unnamed sources) the presses are running full-bore, printing as much as a trillion dollars as part of a massive new incentive program. Big rebates to tax-payers. Of course, over 30 % of adult Americans don’t pay any taxes, and they will receive the same rebate as everyone else, which makes a good portion of this “incentive” a re-distribution of wealth program, exactly as promised. The incentive, in other words, is for people not to work, create, or produce, but to wait for their dole check instead. Yippee!
Most of us, I believe, are in favor of some kind of welfare program to take care of the infirm, the elderly, and others who legitimately are not able to care for themselves. I know I am. In most cases, for example, I would rather pay the bills for unwed and single mothers than have them in the workforce which necessitates someone else caring for their children. (Not everyone agrees with me, but there is a good deal of evidence that mothers and fathers, in almost all cases, are better suited to care for their own children, and do a better job of it, than even the best surrogates—what a shock.)
But I have a problem with the government paying annual stipends to the indolent. Especially when the money raises our deficit every year. What do we do with the indolent then? Let nature take its course? I think we would be amazed at how many people are suddenly able to work when all sources of free money dry up. As for the rest . . . maybe some private organizations will want to help them. Other wise I guess they will die. Everything does . . . eventually.

IGM Another Bailout?

2009-01-10T11:00:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

To: all currently employed personnel
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-employed
Re: Another bailout

Well, the latest bailout request is the most outrageous as well. In fact, it’s beyond the pale. Larry Flint (Legendary publisher of Hustler, and international guardian of bad taste) and other representatives of the “Adult Film and publishing industry”, are asking for $5 billion to shore up their plummeting sales. In other words, the Porn industry wants free money too.
Anyone else have a problem with that besides me?
Here’s the way I see it. All of the actors in the “business” get paid, essentially, to have sex. By definition, that makes them all prostitutes and gigolo’s, both of which are illegal, at least in this country. The rest of them—the producers, directors, etc., facilitate the end product, which makes them pimps—also illegal.
To be fair, it is a big business. I read once that the porn industry brings in more money annually than professional baseball, football, and basketball combined. Makes you stop and think, don’t it?
But is it a legitimate business? If the mafia (which controls a large percentage of prostitution in this country) asked for a bailout, should we give it to them? I say No! (Sorry, the ghost of Teddy Roosevelt overcame me for a moment there.) There is nothing legitimate about the porn industry, not morally, not ethically and not economically.
If we see the government taking this request seriously, we can be sure the end of our way of life is not far behind, and deservedly so.
Notice I am not calling for the destruction of the porn industry by “whatever means necessary”, or any kind of official censorship. That’s not governments job. Although I have spent years censoring Porn privately, in our home. I disallow it, preach against it, and have taught my kids about the dangers, pitfalls, and harm it can produce. But to do anything to help such a depraved and prurient endeavor would make us, as a country, morally bankrupt. So watch the news.

IGM DUI

2009-01-04T21:35:00.000-08:00

Intergalactic Memo

To: Everyone who indulges in adult beverages
Fr: A life-long tea-totaller (no, really)
Re: Drinking and driving

Well, the latest in a long and illustrious line of celebrities has been arrested for DUI. Sam Sheppard, a well-known and respected (including by me) actor, writer and, I believe, director, got caught in Normal Illinois doing 16 over the limit at 2 in the morning. Does it seem to you that Hollywood seems to get a bum rap when it comes to this peccadillo? Isn’t it just because they’re famous and their picture gets plastered all over the news and internet?
Well it’s not. The reason it seems that way, is because so many people in Hollywood (and the rest of the country) regularly drink alcohol. And the truth is, people who drink know they are going to be driving later (except you obviously, because you’d never do something like that . . .) and most of them don’t care, especially after they’ve been drinking a while. Now, I don’t drink and never have. So I’m just the none to point a finger or two at people who do, and then drive.
Case in point: I live in Las Vegas Nevada. Most people know that Vegas is a party town—that’s why people come here. And a good portion of the people who live here have high-stress jobs in the “gaming” and “hospitality” and “entertainment” industries, primarily because they have to deal with dill-weeds like you, who come here with the express purpose of being obnoxious in order to pay back all those homies who are obnoxious to you, at your job, and these locals drink too, as a way to deal with their own stress.
My brother and I did the math one day (which means we talked about it for three minutes, arrived at the same conclusions, and promptly declared the numbers statistically accurate) and realized that in Vegas, approximately 25% of everyone on the road at any given time, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, are legally impaired. One in four. It’s a crap-shoot just getting up in the morning. (Get it? Crap-shoot?)
Now some people take a philosophical attitude towards the entire situation, reminding us that alcoholism is a disease, that these people are sick and need help, and that criminalizing them is counter-productive. Of course, most people who drink are not alcoholics, so they don’t fall under that umbrella of ill-conceived pity. And disease-wise, someone with, say, tuberculosis, or HIV, or Hepatitis B don’t go out and kill other people as a result of their illness.
Have you ever wondered why, if law-enforcement was really serious about cracking down on DUI, they don’t park around the corner from all the bars and casinos and pubs and restaurants in town, then wait for people to pull out of the parking lot, and then test them? Someone comes out of a bar and gets into the driver’s seat of a vehicle, I’d say that was probable cause. The reason they don’t of course, is because there would be no room in the jails, and the police, the lawyers and the judges would be swamped beyond their capacities. And because a good majority of the police, lawyers and judges would be in the jails along with everybody else.
People who drink sometimes drive. Some of them drive routinely, and I’m sure some people wouldn’t think of driving unless they were good and drunk. It’s dangerous out there. No one admits it, but everybody does it. And they do it because they don’t feel impaired, and because it’s a huge inconvenience to plan ahead; find a designated driver, remember to call a cab . . . whatever. And once you’re high, all that stuff flies out the window of memory anyway. So what’s the answer to a nation of irresponsible drinkers deep in denial? Unfortunately it’s not more AA meetings, or therapists, or de-tox centers. The only thing that will work in this situation is to make you so terrified of the consequences that you aren’t willing to risk being caught. Period.
I’m calling for national regulations with mandatory sentences—no leeway.
First DUI: $10,000 fine and six months in jail.
Second DUI: $50,000 fine and five years in prison.
Third DUI: License revoked for life, another $50,000 fine and another five years in prison.

Anyone caught driving with a license suspended for DUI, has to move to Canada. Permanently.

If you are DUI and involved in an accident, your sentence is the same as the First DUI.
If you are DUI and involved in an accident with injuries, same as the second DUI.
If you are DUI and involved in an accident with one or more fatalities, same as the second DUI and you are tried for second-degree murder.

Harsh? You bet. But easily solved. Don’t drink and drive.
“Wait a minute! You can’t try someone for second-degree murder because someone was killed in an accident! It was an accident! They didn’t mean to do it!”
I disagree. Everyone who has ever been involved in an accident while under the influence, was sober when they started drinking. That means they were able to make decisions, knew right from wrong, and understood the possible consequences of their actions. Then they went to a restaurant and had a few beers with dinner and drove home—and killed somebody. They were sober when they got in the car. They were impaired when the left the restaurant, or bar, or casino, or Elks club—whatever. But they knew what they were doing when they started, and were not willing to be responsible and make sure they didn’t hurt someone while under the influence. There is no excuse, ever, for drinking and driving. There are too many other ways to die on America’s road without adding alcohol to the mix.
“Sure, easy for you to say—you don’t drink!” That’s right boys and girls. And that’s the point. I don’t drink. I never have. Not once. And I know lots of other people who don’t drink. But I don’t know anyone who drinks, who hasn’t gotten behind the wheel of an automobile while impaired—which is tantamount to saying “Gee! let’s see who we can kill today!”
Now, you want to talk about Jay-walking, or speeding a little on the Interstate, or taking a pencil home from work, or having inappropriate thoughts about you-know-who, or deciding not to give a buck to that guy on the corner, I’m just as guilty as anybody else. But when it comes to DUI . . . I’m clean.
(My wife says this was too “in your face” and mean. I think killing people because a person is lazy and selfish is a lot meaner.)

IGM Religious Mitigation of Human behavior

2009-01-03T21:29:00.000-08:00

Intergalactic Memo

To: Discerning readers everywhere
Fr: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Psychologist
Re: New theory of Religious relevance.

I found a fascinating article at Physorg.com today. Here is the title:
Religion may have evolved because of its ability to help people exercise self-control
Whew! This is just in time, eh? Religion is taking some serious hits these days. Without this kind of cutting-edge research, all us believers would be out of luck, nowhere to go, belittled and de-relevantized into a corner.
Professor of Psychology, Michael McCullough of the University of Miami has come to the rescue. He heroically evaluated 8 decades of research (this is called secondary research, because he just read old studies) in order to come to the conclusion that Religion has a mitigating effect on human behavior. Really? Gosh, who’d have ever seen that coming? I wonder what he pulls down a year . . . because I figured this out when I was fifteen. I expect most everyone does. It would have been nice to be bringing in that kind of money as a teenager.
One wonders what Professor McCullough was thinking prior to the study? That religion was only good for boring songs and baptismal font salesmen? Let’s see what the study reveals:
He found persuasive evidence from a variety of domains within the social sciences, including neuroscience, economics, psychology, and sociology, that religious beliefs and religious behaviors are capable of encouraging people to exercise self-control and to more effectively regulate their emotions and behaviors, so that they can pursue valued goals.
Do I detect a pattern here? First of all he used the social sciences, listing Neuroscience, economics, psychology, and sociology. I suppose these disciplines are useful as conversation starters at cocktail parties, or to evaluate pseudo-trends among large populations of human beings (which, by definition renders any conclusions irrelevant), but not much else.
Let’s see if we can get to the heart of the matter here. First of all, I will concede that religion does indeed evolve over time, as well as devolve, mutate, change, diminish, and increase, in strange, unpredictable and funny ways. Anyone with any sense knows that it started out as a rock-solid set of well-designed and perfectly-conceived rules and guidelines, offered as a gift from Deity to mankind, which then quickly fell into the pattern of all things touched by humans. Still, we managed to maintain a few of the best of the rules in all the mish-mash of cruel, useless, ridiculous ones; Rules like don’t shed innocent blood, don’t break promises, don’t steal things, don’t cheat on your spouse, maintain a high standard of personal ethics, forgive your enemy, always have hope, be charitable, loving, positive, humble and obedient to God’s will.
Those are pretty good rules. I think a precocious five year-old would be able to figure out that trying to live by them would help a person exercise self-control. In fact I know one or two who have. The governing principle behind all of these religious strictures is this:
If you want to be truly free, don’t let yourself do whatever you want whenever you want. Adopt some standards. Accept some values, embrace limitations. Pretty simple, and very self-explanatory.
It amuses me that someone takes himself so seriously that he has written a paper for a “prestigious” Journal, the Psychological Bulletin, presenting this information as news, as insightful, and as something that only a professional like himself could ever have figured out. And he gets paid for this! America; what a country!

IGM Israel and Hamas

2009-01-03T21:21:00.000-08:00

Intergalactic Memo
To: Anyone willing to read a rant by a seriously fed-up guy
Fr: A seriously fed-up Crypto-guy
Re: Palestine

As many of you know, we are currently in our semi-annual cease-fire violation over in Gaza. And once again, like clock-work, the “global community” whatever that is, has come together, whatever that means, to denounce Israel for daring to bomb the innocent Palestinians who were only firing rockets into Israel, which, come on, let’s face it, is like a rite of passage for Palestinians.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind if everyone denounced Israel for the violence, as long as they denounced Hamas in the same breath for theirs. But no one ever does, do they? At least not officially. (And I know all about how far back the animosity goes. So what?)
A brief and overly-simplified history lesson: There has never, in the long history of the world, been a nation called Palestine. The word is derived from a roman term, Palistina, which referred to the entire region now known as Israel, the West Bank, and parts of Jordan and Syria.
The term Palestine in modern times was used to refer to the area where “Palestinians” lived prior to 1948. These were dispossessed people from several countries in the area, including Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and of course, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, who were kicked out of wherever they were living and sort of squatted in what is now Israel, which at the time belonged to no one.
After WWII, and despite impossible odds, a handful of Jewish refugees, armed with nothing but chutzpah and nothing-left-to-lose, invaded a not-country, sparsely populated with a disparate collection of disorganized and constantly squabbling cast-offs, and grabbed a toe-hold. Their dream was a homeland for the survivors of the Russian Pogroms and the Nazi Death Camps and nothing was going to stop them. People have been arguing ever since who has the better claim to the land. Personally, I say Israel does. Two reasons: One, Yahweh gave it to them, and two, they had been living there for what? Six thousand years, off and on?
Some people will discount the Yahweh claim, but no one else (i.e. the Palestinians) have ever claimed a God gave them the land. (For an excellent recounting of that time in history, read Exodus, by Leon Uris. Also see: Refiner’s Fire, by Mark Helprin)
Since shortly after 1948, Israel has existed as an internationally recognized, sovereign nation, which has managed to not only survive, but thrive, despite the fact that they are literally surrounded by people who hate them and claim on a daily basis that they will kill them all. And of course, they are outnumbered about twenty to one by all those hate-spewing people. (It didn’t help that in 1967 Israel not only defeated but humiliated the Arab world in the shortest, most lop-sided war in modern history. Despite the fact that Egypt hit them with a “surprise attack”.)
On the other hand, Hamas, the legally elected Palestinian government which is recognized by no one, not even Cuba, (okay, I made that up. I have no idea who Cuba recognizes, but it sounded good didn’t it?) has, instead of investing in schools and roads, and hospitals and things like that for their people (like Israel has done), spends all their time plotting to kill all the Jews, and firing rockets into Israel at random intervals, with no aiming mechanisms.
Lest we dismiss the media bias inherent in the problem, let us remember that until a few years ago, news agencies consistently referred to Palestinian settlements as “Refugee Camps”, which is how they started out after the Jews moved in and relocated them, even though they have been autonomous and often thriving cities for decades.
Oh, now that I think of it, Hamas is recognized for something. They are universally recognized as a terrorist organization. And yet the “global community” consistently calls Israel the terrorists. Go figure.
Here’s how it works over there. And this is a matter of public record, so let’s not go blathering about “biased opinions”.
Tempers flare, and someone, usually the USA, or France, or the Albuquerque Chamber of Commerce, steps in and attempts to negotiate a peace agreement. Remember Yasser Arafat and Jimmie Carter? Israel and Palestine sign the agreement. Sometimes even the PLO and or Hamas sign as well. Then, sometime later, rockets begin landing in Israel again, fired by Hamas. Usually Israel displays extraordinary patience and negotiates another cease-fire, which is then promptly broken by Hamas. Every now and then Israel gets fed up with this, after losing a few dozen innocent citizens and launches an attack on terrorist leaders, headquarters, etc. Despite the fact that the Palestinians start the violence every time, and despite the fact that Israel has consistently declared its desire for peace and an end to violence while Hamas and other similar organizations have just as consistently screamed for Israel’s destruction and the death of all Jews, everywhere. So, yeah, I can see how everyone would point the finger at Israel.
Israel is protecting itself. Why is that so hard for so many people to accept? They do not want to hurt innocent Palestinians—and there are some. But they have a right to defend themselves. “Well what about the Palestinians rights!” Some will declare. "They have a right to a homeland too!” Okay, they’re not an actual “people”, they’ve never had a homeland, or a country, but let’s be charitable and agree. Why not give them one where their own people live? Arabs. Why? Because Egypt won’t take them. (They’re not strictly Arab anyway.) Syria won’t take them. Jordan refuses to take them. Lebanon won’t take them. The Saudi’s? No. Iraq? Nope. Iran? C’mon, be serious. Besides, Iranians aren’t Arab either. They’re Persians. No one will accept the Palestinians. Why not? Because then Islam would have no reason to foment aggression against Israel. Then the Arab states would have no overt reason to hate Israel. It would all have to come out into the light of day, and the Global Community would be exposed for what it is. A bunch of sycophantic wanna-be’s, jealous of freedom, independence, success and Hi Def television.
Several years ago my adult niece and nephew went to Israel for a semester. We talked about their experiences while they were there. It was clear that they had some problems with Israelis in general and enjoyed the company of the Palestinians more, and were sympathetic to their situation. Palestinians are considered second-class citizens in Israel. They are not trusted, and this is evident in everyday life. I sympathize as well. But what is a country to do in the face of years of suicide bombers killing people, destroying property? How should they respond to decades of incendiary rhetoric and violent uprisings? What should they do about years of random missile and mortar attacks on innocent citizens? Israel does not do, and never has done, these kinds of things to their enemies. (With the possible exception of the Masad, but that is individual kidnappings and assassinations of known terrorists.) The Palestinian governments have proven time and again that they are incapable of eradicating these terrorist elements from their midst. The reason is as sad as it is obvious; most Palestinians are sympathetic to Hamas and its Jihad against Israel. If Israel gave in and ceded their land to the Palestinians, and moved en mass into the Sinai, nothing would change. The Palestinians (Islam) would continue to cry for the destruction of Israel and the death of all Jews. Despite the fact that there are many Palestinians who believe in peace and tolerance.
I am not suggesting that Israel is perfect. Nor that it has no culpability in some of what has happened over there. But I am declaring unequivocally, that compared to the Palestinians (Hamas), Israel clearly, absolutely, owns the moral and political high ground in this on-going struggle. So someone tell me why the rest of the world continues to pretend that the Palestinians are the victims? No, on second thought don’t. I won’t be able to sustain a pretense of interest.
The initiation of violence is never justified. It is well past time that freedom-loving people stand up and condemn any and all terrorist activity. To do otherwise, including doing nothing, is a tacit approval of terrorism. Period.
And please, whatever you do, don’t respond with nit-picky, technical corrections to my historical facts. Everyone knows I make them up. Even then they’re close enough.

IGM Word deletions

2008-12-09T17:40:00.001-08:00

Intergalactic-Memo

To: Interested parties
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: The non-existent pogrom on religion

There is an interesting article in the London Telegraph this morning. The headline reads:

Words associated with Christianity and British history taken out of children's dictionary
It seems that a venerable British children’s dictionary has been systematically deleting words that have anything to do with England’s Christian heritage, as well as it’s ancient past. They are replacing the “old, outdated words” with word which reflect Britain’s role in the twenty-first century.
Oxford University Press has removed words like "aisle", "bishop", "chapel", "empire" and "monarch" from its Junior Dictionary and replaced them with words like "blog", "broadband" and "celebrity". Dozens of words related to the countryside have also been culled.
According to some unnamed nitwit, the changes are being made to reflect the fact that England is a “modern, multicultural, multi-faith society.” Which is true, but the implication in his remarks is that by virtue of their contemporary identity, England’s historical identity is somehow irrelevant, which is, of course, nonsense. One wonders why the editors would not add new words and expand the dictionary, rather than delete perfectly good words relevant to England’s rich, and famously cookoo history.
Lisa Sanders, a concerned mother and therefore no one important or qualified, has done an exhaustive comparison of old and new editions of the dictionary and is “horrified” at the number and quality of words deleted. She says it is clear that England’s Christian heritage is being eradicated. More importantly, a rich collection of descriptive words like “buttercup”, “heather” and “sycamore”, as well as “bishop”, “Chapel”, “Empire” and “Monarch” are being purged from the English language.
It’s sad. The human mind is capable of inputting and storing an infinite supply of words. (my own personal theory). Language is everything. It provides us with civilization, culture, and all the wonderful ideas theories and discoveries by which we grow and progress. To simply delete a portion of it is criminal. Certainly words fall out of favor, and die natural deaths bases on the “evolution” of cultures and movements, but that is different, unless the deaths are the result of Political Correctness, which is as artificial and mindlessly bigoted as this current debacle in England. In fact, one could argue that the deletion program currently underway on the Children’s Dictionary is part and parcel with the worst instincts of our own childish attempt to remake the world based on an irrational fantasy of utopian nonsense.
To my mind, words cannot become useless. To believe so is tantamount to believing that humans can be useless. This is a concept that seems to be gaining favor in some circles, and one which I categorically reject.
Perhaps someone is making the argument that the deletions are merely a matter of necessary expediency—that it is simply too expensive to continue to add words and their definitions forever. That one I get. But it’s still a shame. And it’s still curious that the majority of words being disappeared are religious (Christian) in nature. Oh, and having to do with the Monarchy. I have no interest in Monarchies at all. But The language they engendered is often beautiful. I’d hate to lose the rich variety and colorful, descriptive lexicon just because there isn’t room, or it costs to much, or someone considers them inappropriate in today’s “society”.

IGM Ted Turner

2008-12-09T17:38:00.000-08:00

Inter-galactic Memo

TO: Interested parties
FR: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Analyst
Re: Ted Turner

Over the weekend Ted Turner made a few interesting comments on “Meet The Press” or “Face the Nation” or one of those pundit shows. Tom Brokaw was interviewing Mister Turner about a few things, one of which (the one I heard) was a revisit of Turner’s original remarks concerning Vladimir Putin. They met when Putin was an assistant to the Mayor of St. Petersburg.
Now, I have nothing against Ted. He seems like a pretty harmless blowhard most of the time, with an inflated sense of his own importance, based, I’m sure, on some pretty spectacular achievements, like winning the America’s Cup, Founding CNN (which used to be an excellent news-gathering organization), building cable television into the giant it is today and establishing TCM (Turner Classic Movies) which runs great films 24-7 for free, without commercials. Oh, and famously donating One billion dollars to the UN.
That being said, it is clear he is not the sharpest tool in the shed. He married Jane, after all. But what he said in his interview with Brokaw speaks to that wacky sense of out-of-touchness we’ve come to expect from a certain faction of our elite power-brokers. Brokaw mentioned that now, several years after his initially meeting Putin, many people find the man frightening. (Ted originally described Putin as having “Soulful eyes” and being someone he could trust and do business with.) Brokaw countered that many people now see “shark’s eyes” [my words] that say nothing more than K-G-B, and asked Ted to talk about that, in relation to our own FBI, say, or CIA. Turner could have said a lot of things, several of which would have been acceptable. Instead, he jumped all over the chance to lend moral equivalence to one of the most notorious and violent organized syndicates in modern history. “Well, the KGB is just like the FBI isn’t it?” Ted asked. “It’s just people doing their jobs, honorable work. The KGB has an honorable tradition. Putin should be proud that he worked for the KGB (actually he ran it) just like an FBI agent should be proud.
H-m-m-m-m-m . . . .let’s see . . . . unwarranted arrests, government-sanctioned torture, falsifying evidence, trials with no jury, imprisonment without representation or notification, the Gulags of course, international espionage, terrorism, and regime-control, mind-control experiments, covert microwave beaming at foreign embassies, a still-unexplained attempt to overthrow Afghanistan, well, you get the idea, right?
Now, I will admit there might be some similarities to our own CIA (except when the CIA does those kinds of things they are the exception rather than the rule), and the KGB activities can always be excused as normal behavior for government agencies, but comparing what they do (did) to what the FBI does is just ignorant. Someone of Turner’s stature should really know better than that. It’s like Sarah Palin not knowing Africa is a continent, right? Oh, wait, that turned out to be a completely false story leaked by McCain people.
Ted tried to convince us that the KGB can somehow be accepted into that great mish-mash of “doing business” by which all organizations and governments operate by claiming moral equivalence. All these group do the same kinds of things, which somehow makes the means by which they function honorable across the board. I could do a relevant and accurate contrast between our CIA and the KGB, but I won’t because too many people would be outraged by my making unflattering comparisons, and would argue about how evil the CIA is and how benevolent the KGB is. Everybody’s a critic. Let me just say that the FBI is nothing like the KGB. Their mandates are not even similar, and despite occasional lapses into over-zealousness, (Waco, Ruby Ridge) the FBI is a positive force in the world, while the KGB (was) a purely negative force. The FBI isn’t even a law-enforcement agency, it is an investigative branch of the Treasury Department which “borrows” it’s authority to make arrests from the US marshals. For Ted to make such a faux pas on national television is, unfortunately, par for the course. I mean, he is the guy who gave a billion dollars to the UN, arguably the most corrupt and ineffective organization in history. But to excuse Putin as just one of the boys, doing his patriotic duty, is like excusing Cain because “everybody was doing it.” Putin is a despot. He is a power-hungry, world-domineering wanna-be emperor who feels nothing but disdain for the standards and values of the West. And someone needs to remind people like Ted that this is the case. Except he won’t take my calls.

IGM Human Sexuality

2008-11-03T19:29:00.000-08:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

FR: W. Leavitt—famed Human Sexuality Expert
To: Everyone who isn’t a famous HSE
RE: Human Sexuality . . . duh

Before we start, let me list my credentials and assure my reading public that as always, I will treat this subject with the utmost care, respect and appropriate circumspectness. Assuming that’s an actual word.

Credentials: I have been a licensed professional since 1970, which is when Nita and I married. For 38+ years I have maintained that status without having my license revoked or having to renew. I have read Masters and Johnson’s ground-breaking works; Human Sexuality and Human Sexual Response, the Kinsey Report, Shere Hite’s Hite Report: A National Study of Female Sexuality, and The Hite Report on Male Sexuality, The Kama Sutra, Nancy Friday’s Secret Garden, The joy of Sex by Alex Comfort, and several issues of Penthouse Variations. I have also written a substantial number of essay’s and opinions as part of my own on-going, not-for-publication series on sexual behavior.

Now then. Two stories only a day apart have come to my attention. The first is a report on a new study which indicates that 40% of adult women confess to sexual problems, mostly to do with libido. The second, found this morning in Google News, suggests a link between the burgeoning access to sexual images and behavior on television and teen pregnancy. I suppose everyone needs a hobby, and creating research projects and national polls about self-evident phenomenon is as good as any.
The first item, sexual problems for females, seems to have little merit. Unless the report reaches the other 60% who can then admit, in a fit of sisterly solidarity, that they too face challenges as part of being a human being. This would of course, be a wholly unexpected and explosive revelation.
We need to keep in mind in situations like these, that polls really don’t mean much. The major result of any poll is the gathering of information about people who are willing to participate in polls, without any criteria at all as to what might be true and accurate, or false and inaccurate. I know it may come as a shock to many of you layperson’s out there, (did you get that sly innuendo?) but people have been known to actually make things up when responding to polls.
In that spirit, let’s take a poll. Everyone for whom this 40% reporting problems is a surprise, raise your hands. See what I mean?

Womens bodies are endlessly complex (and endlessly fascinating). This complexity centers around child-bearing and all the changes which occur during the many phases from conception to breast feeding. Add the stresses of contemporary life, and it is a miracle so many of them avoid being institutionalized. Naturally, their main problem, around which all others revolve, is men. If I were a woman, and had to deal with me as a mate, I’d have problems too. Oops, have I said too much?
Most of the complaints –or concerns—have to do with lack of libido, lack of time, lack if interest and lack of strength. Many of these can be easily solved with increases of drugs and alcohol. The last one is easily fixed by engaging in more—and more strenuous—sex. And most men aren’t offended at all if women fake it. Really, we don’t mind.
Men, it is well known, are simpler creatures. They only have one problem, by and large (at least to which they will openly confess) and that is women. If women would just solve their main problem, men would have no complaints at all. Alas, things are never so simple.

The other report, that teenage pregnancy is affected by rampant scenes of outlandish sexual behavior which is passed-off as culturally acceptable, rises to a new level of “who didn’t know that?” Verification is a wonderful thing, but really . . . do we need to verify the rising sun each morning? (unless it doesn’t, and then what’s the point?)
We need to report as well that the poll was conducted over the phone and the pollsters spoke directly to teenagers. H-m-m-m, let’s see now, phones . . . teenagers . . . phones. Anyone detecting a polling anomaly here? Adolescents are evolutionarily –predisposed to do anything to stay on a phone. They will lie, cheat, steal, and lie again in order to never hang-up. Are pollsters really so gullible as to think they can discern anything from teenage responses?
Pollster: “Do sexy TV shows make you want to have sex and get pregnant?”
Teenage girl: “Yes! Totally! Is that the right answer? And, Janie, my girlfriend? She watches “Sex in the City” and she has sex all the time. Plus they have those cute costumes on “Dancing With the Stars”, and some of the dances are pretty hot, you know, and most of my friends have already had a baby from watching that show, and my boyfriend, Ron? He keeps asking me to watch “One Tree Hill” with him, while we drink some wine and take X which sounds so grown-up, don’t you think? Anyway . . .”
Pollster: “Never mind . . . .”

In conclusion, I think we have done some really great brainstorming on solving many of women’s sexual problems, as well as determining that polls are run by gullible idiots.

IGM Special Edition

2008-10-23T19:05:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
Special Edition

Fr: W. Leavitt Crypto-Paleo-geologist
To: All interested parties
Re: New, superior theory

The Treadmill Theory of Geological Relocation: A creative extrapolation of the Plate Tectonic Theory©

Abstract:
In 1973 Dr Stefan Peiterson of the Danish Polytechnic Institute for Geological Research introduced a radical and provocative new theory to explain not only the movement of continental plates, but the mysterious archeological evidence of displaced artifacts of an Atlantean culture found in the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico.
Famed Amateur Archeologist, William Hidden, Associate Professor of Franchise-Commerce at the University of New Mexico, had stunned the world with his discovery of ruins and artifacts outside of Wickenburg Arizona which hinted at a coastal, sea-faring race, fifty thousand years before the advent of Native American cultures. Hidden, universally reviled for his discoveries and spectacular interpretation of the evidence, endured a life of professional persecution and ridicule until Dr Peiterson announced his Theory of Geological Relocation, sometimes referred to as the “What goes around comes around” theory.
The theory explains the true nature of plate-dynamics as well as the existence of Hidden’s artifacts thousands of miles from the Atlantic Ocean, which is the traditional location of all Atlantean theories.
The basic aspects of the theory are these: Plates turn back on themselves, similar to the ubiquitous treadmills in health clubs, thus allowing every point of longitude on a given continent to be revisited by a given piece of land, and at a given (estimatable) sequence of repeatable times based on geological eras.
It is commonly believed that continental plates are able to move about on the mantle, rubbing against each other, often one plate sliding or being forced (subduction) under another, causing seismic events, volcanoes, and other phenomena. According to Dr. Peiterson’s brilliant conclusions the plates not only rub against each other, but because of the treadmill effect, with a lubricating interior of magma and large, mountain-sized naturally forming ball bearings of primordial stone, [see attached diagram] the crustal plate is turned on itself, dives deep into the mantle where it continues moving in the opposite direction until it reemerges right where it was a million years ago, give or take. As an example, in a million years, Charlotte, North Carolina will have moved to approximately where Albuquerque New Mexico is today, while Albuquerque will be deep in the interior of the earth, upside down, as it were, moving back to the east coast. Thus we see that the area around Wickenburg AZ was once on the east coast of the North American continent and in a position to have been populated by colonists from the mother country of Atlantis.

For further details on this and other matters relating to the Wickenburg Phenomenon, look for the up-coming book by W.A. Leavitt and D.P. Langholf, tentatively titled The Wickenburg Triangle Exposed.
Also: The Wickenburg Phenomenon Research Society of Holbrook Arizona, The Flint Michigan Golden Years Winnebago Travel Club Newsletter, the Michelin Truckers Guide to the Southwest, and the Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. special edition: Medicine Wheels, Then and Now, The College of Hamburger Knowledge, and The Journal of the Criminally Insane, a scholarly journal published by the Miskitonic Institute of Providence Rhode Island.

Sorry, I could not figure out how to put the diagram in.

IGM Giant Snakes

2008-10-23T19:03:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

FR: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Zoologist
TO: Everyone who has the misfortune of not being me
RE: Sweet vindication

In science news this morning we have a report from Columbia. The partial remains of a fossilized serpent were found in a coal mine there. The remains indicate a distant relative of the Boa Constrictor and scientists believe the specimen was at least forty feet long, perhaps longer. They estimate it weighed in excess of one ton. This is great news. I’m sure we have all seen those wonderful movies about giant snakes, like Anaconda, not to mention the seven or eight sequels. The Sci-Fi channel airs at least one movie a month about a giant snake (probably because the CGI is already in place which makes the movie cheaper to film.)
Those of us who have dedicated our lives to investigating imaginary flora and fauna are greatly relieved to finally have proof of the giant snake. This prehistoric creature was big enough to swallow a full grown human, which right away makes it cooler than lots of other things. It is unfortunate that the snake appears to have not been poisonous, but we can’t have everything.
Most giant snake movies take place in the Amazon basin, where the Anaconda lives, because it is the biggest snake alive today. We have always been sure there are larger examples living in the deepest recesses of the swampy jungle and now we have demonstrably speculative evidence of that very thing. So the next time you see a movie with giant, man-eating snakes, don’t pass it off as sophomoric nonsense. We now have absolute proof that it is possible that there are giant snakes living in the sewers of New York City.

IGM X-rays

2008-10-23T19:02:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo

Fr: W. Leavitt
To: Interested parties
Re: New source of X-rays

This is such a great story. Dateline: Physorg.com. A team of scientists from UCLA have accidentally discovered a new source of X-Rays. Are you ready? It’s Scotch Tape™. To quote Dave Berry, “I’m not making this up.”
Peeling tape from a roll of Scotch releases tiny bursts of X-rays that are powerful enough to take images of bones in fingers and hands, researchers have found.
Best of all, they have no idea why. The story is that years ago Russian scientists noticed an unusual effect when pulling sticky tape at just the right speed—it releases radiation.
The UCLA boys and girls tried it a few times and actually got images of their finger bones. So they set up an experiment and peeled the tape (at 1.18 inches per second) in a vacuum and were able to measure the amount of radiation. It was indeed enough to create images. Boy, those science guys . . . I’ll bet they had more fun engineering a device that peels tape at precisely 1.18 ips than they did having sex that one time.
There is a theory, which is called triboluminescence, which occurs when two contacting surfaces move relative to each other.
The impact of this will be, of course, devastating to the public, especially school teachers, who pull miles of scotch tape per year. Who knew we were irradiating ourselves on a daily basis? Pretty cool, huh?
But not to worry. There is a little known and often ridiculed phenomenon called Hormesis. This idea suggests that, since we evolved in a radioactive environment (everybody knows that right? Much more radioactive in the past than now), a small amount of naturally occurring background radiation is necessary for our overall health. Hormesis is real, and can be experimentally verified on plants as well as mice and Liberals. So don’t worry when you peel that tape (Scotch Magic tape doesn’t work) and get a dose—it’s good for what ails you. And at a time interval of a billionth of a second per burst, at 100 milliwatts, it would take several thousand miles of tugs to do any damage, which, even then, would only be statistical.
"It is a discharge process," said Camara. "It is not clear exactly what mechanism is taking place, but electrons are plainly flying from one side to the other at very high speed and when they hit the other side and they stop, X-rays are emitted.

Someday, this may lead to cheaper and safer X-ray machines. But don’t hold your breath.

IGM The Next Big Bail-out

2008-10-03T20:11:00.000-07:00

Intergalactic Memo
To: All thinking creatures

Fr: W. Leavitt

Re: The next big bailout

I was watching Glen Beck interviewing Ted Nugent earlier, which is one of my favorite things to do, when one of those 30 second news breaks came on with the commercials.
The bodiless voice told us that Governor Schwarzenegger has asked the Feds for a 7 Billion dollar emergency loan. He says its necessary to meet payroll—especially teachers—and if they don’t get it the state will be out of cash in a month. Schools will close. Public Safety (police and fire) will be put on emergency minimum shifts, etc.
It occurred to me—because, you know, I think about this stuff—that this was an admission of some kind. But it is not really a mystery. Here’s why:
When it comes to levying and collecting taxes, California is one of the top three states. They take in more money every year than 90% of the countries on earth. Look it up. Their budget is in the hundreds of billions, possibly over a trillion by now. You can look that up too if you want, but I’m not going to.
So, if they take in more money than France or Germany or Italy or Greece or Norway or Sweden, etc, etc, where did all the money go? How could they possibly not have enough to even meet payroll? I thought about it for a few seconds and the answer came to me as a voice from somewhere above me. Well, a little above, and to the left and behind me, like, over my shoulder from somewhere in the kitchen, but it was there, I swear it.
It is two-fold. I will expose them Socratically. First, how does California collect so much money? From where does it come? They collect it in the form of one of the most egregious, outrageously anti-capitalistic, anti-liberty and independence tax systems in the history of the world. They are sucking dry the teat that feeds them. Which is for-profit business. The private sector.
The people who work for business are being killed as well, but not to the extent businesses are. The money goes directly into that huge bureaucratic dumpster affectionately called entitlements. Welfare. Social programs. Special Ed, No Child Left Behind (which Congress neglected to fund, leaving it up to the states), Head Start, Lunch Programs, Section 8 Housing, and on and on. Notice that not one of these items I mentioned sounds in any way wrong, or mean-spirited, or unnecessary. But California can’t afford it all. And that is always the problem with well-meaning but hopelessly clueless, emotionally-driven people. (You know—liberals.) They insist on biting off more than the rest of us can chew. They refuse to set limits, preferring to live in a dream world where the money will always come from somewhere. But the money comes from people’s pockets. People who hire millions of other people. And eventually, the ones who believe—erroneously—that taxing profit out of existence is a good thing, manage to do it. Then the business closes, the jobs vanish, the tax revenues dry up, and California finds itself bankrupt. Again.
Which brings us to the second reason. At some point, the people who generate most of the revenue that goes for all the entitlements, decide they’ve had enough. They close their business and move to another state, or country, or go to work as an employee, still paying taxes, but not quite as much. We experienced this a few years ago when thousands of business relocated to Nevada from California, and hundreds of thousands of people moved along with them, which artificially inflated the real estate, which made it necessary for Congress to force the banks to loan money to everybody, which . . . well, you get my point. All that money California thought they had, and would always be there, vanished. I would have told them it would happen for a lousy million. Tax-free obviously.
California literally brought this on themselves. And they have to be bailed out. And it will come out of your (our) pockets . . . as always. And the next time some moron proposes a feel-good government program, we will forget all about not having enough to pay for everything, and do it all again. Oh wait—they just did.

IGM Nebraska Law

2008-09-28T16:25:00.000-07:00

Inter-Galactic Memo
Fr: W. Leavitt
To: The usual suspects
Re: Nebraska’s new law

Last July, Nebraska lawmakers tried to address a growing problem. They passed a law allowing parents to take a “child” to any hospital and abandon it. No questions asked, no legal repercussions. The law was intended to protect newborns and infants, who might otherwise end up dead and tossed in a dumpster—something which happens all too often.
This piece of legislation was well-intentioned, and I applaud the sentiment, but it was not well-considered. It is poorly worded, using the terms ‘child’ and ‘children’ instead of infant and/or newborn, and set the age limit at under 19. Since it went into law, at least 16 kids have been dropped-off, some of them teenagers.
We (and by we, I mean anyone who has been a parent longer than ten minutes) all know how difficult, challenging and stressful it can be to raise one or more children. Sometimes we just want to . . . drop them off somewhere, change our names and move away. But we don’t. There is no responsibility in all of human existence more sacred, profound and important that being a mom or dad. Most of us know this, and do whatever it takes to stick it out. It’s almost always worth it eventually, but there are no guarantees.
sometimes a parent finds themselves in an untenable situation. Lost, alone, at the end of their rope, with nothing left to give, to do, to believe. And sometimes kids accidentally have kids of their own and don’t know what to do. Which makes the hospital drop-off a wonderful idea.
But the law isn’t working the way it was supposed to. Government seems to be a continuing exercise in unintended consequences.
One man recently dropped all nine of his children off, ages 1 to 17. Sounds terrible doesn’t it? But his wife had died a few months previous, and he had to quit his job to take care of the kids, and one thing led to another. Talk about being at your wits end. It’s easy to pass judgment on something like this, but we all have different strengths and weaknesses, and varying levels of tolerance and expertise. The poor guy didn’t know what else to do, and there was the new law. At least the kids will be taken care of, I’m sure he was thinking, at least they will be fed and clothed and go to school. My heart goes out to the guy. But I have to ask myself, where was his support? Where was his family, his church, his friends? Maybe there weren’t any—who knows? Even though Nita and I are past all that—empty nesters—it is good to look back and know that we would never have had to face such a decision. Our extended family would have done whatever was necessary to see to it that our family stayed together. And, God forbid, if something should happen to one of our children, we would be right there to take over—as would the other sets of grandparents.
The problem with this scenario in Nebraska is not obvious. It isn’t people who can’t take care of their kids, it’s who should step in when they can’t—or won’t. In this case, government stepped in, which is almost always a mistake in these kinds of situations. We are losing the most important infrastructure of all—the network of family and friends, especially those with whom we attend religious services, and other private organizations designed to help in these kinds of circumstances. Over the decades we have been slowly inculcated with this idea that government will be there, that it is “their” job to take care of everything. And slowly, we have been sucked into that lie. It is this lie that was at the heart of the disaster in New Orleans during Katrina. It wasn’t the Governor or Mayor, and it wasn’t President Bush and his FEMA people (although it could have been handled better) it was this pervasive and crippling idea that government will always be there, can solve any problem—which they have been telling us now for far too long. This idea is why thousands of people sat and did nothing while the water rose and the dikes broke. They had been trained to do just that. And we see it elsewhere as well. In fires, earthquakes, floods, and in economic implosions. The government will take care of it, don’t worry.
Maybe we should rethink this trend. Maybe we should take care of it. A few people do. They drop what they are doing and go to where they are needed and stay until its fixed. Most of us don’t—can’t, to be realistic. But not because it’s impossible. We don’t or can’t because the system has been altered. Once upon a time it was done differently. I think the change began when President Roosevelt gave us the New Deal. I could be wrong. But FDR would have liked this new law— bring your unwanted children to a hospital, and we will take care of everything. It is humane, kind, and obviously comes from a place of compassion. But it is wrong. Not wrong as in immoral, but wrong as in a mistake. We have become a nation addicted to government at every level. And we need to kick the habit.

IGM PETA and breast milk

2008-09-28T01:00:00.000-07:00

IGM
This is about PETA and therefore does not deserve the usual heading and memo format. I have already blocked the source of this, although my brother might have sent a link with the story.
PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has released an official proclamation asking (at least I think they asked, but they do a good deal of strident demanding, whining, begging, coercing and confrontational harassing) Ben And Jerry (Of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream—my second favorite kind) to switch from cow’s milk to breast milk. That’s human breast milk.
I assume that in their deluded little world of “Planet Death to Humans” PETA thinks that milking cows is cruel and unusual. True, we are the only creature I know of which continues drinking milk past infancy, and uses the milk of another animal, and I can see some room for a lively debate on those points, but despite those caveats, how is it possible that a group of presumably sane people can come to such a desperately unsane conclusion?
I am familiar with the process of milking a cow. Not intimately, but I have tried it, and been around it off and on. Both my parents did a lot of it in their youth. I’ve never seen a cow behave as if it objected to the milking. Sometimes they kick or bolt, but that is usually because someone had cold hands, or squeezed where they shouldn’t have, or startled the animal. PETA will counter with the argument that commercial dairies lock the cow in a metal cage when they are hooked up to the automatic milking machine. I will counter the counter by saying “are you people complete morons?” They put them in the cages so they don’t wander off halfway through—that might be painful. So they are protecting them, not abusing them. Notice the cows don’t protest the process.
Now, let’s move on to the breast milk part of the proposal. Ben and Jerry’s is headquartered in Vermont. There are about 750,000 people in Vermont. (Yes, I looked it up) I can just picture every lactating female pumping her breasts every day to sell to an ice cream company. (To hell with the kid, we need the money.) I’m sure Ben and Jerry would be willing to pay for such a service. Considering the inconvenience, the stigma, and the tiny amount of milk from each session, I put the wholesale price of breast milk at around $100 an ounce. Probably more. Which would what—triple?—the price of their product. But even if every legal-age female adult in the state regularly sold their milk, (Which is possible, but that’s another story) they would be around a million gallons short. Now the price of breast milk rises to several thousand an ounce. But what woman would do it? Not even the members of PETA. Although Pamela Anderson could make serious bank if she did, and videotaped it.
Ben and Jerry’s response was precious. They essentially said, “What a wonderful and creative idea, but no thanks.”
So why the letter? Two reasons, which are always the same with PETA. The first is political agitation. The second is attention. PETA is, at its heart, a collection of people who believe they are sincere about their cause, but are really just a bunch of sad, pathetic, personality-challenged, socially-inept . . .
No, that’s not fair. They are well-intentioned. But ontologically misinformed. PETA can only happen in the screwed-up, humanist, Godless culture of Hubris Inc. Otherwise known as America, circa right now.
They weren’t serious about the breast milk. They were trying to make a point. As usual the point was ridiculous. Animals have no inherent rights. Which sort of puts the entire reason for PETA’s existence to rest. Only creatures with the ability to cognitively realize the concept of “rights” can have rights. Cogito Ergo sum. Whatever that means.