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.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Friday, November 5, 2010
IGM Construction
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.
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.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
IGM: The Great Climate Change Debate
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
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
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
IGM Space, Not Competition
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, August 6, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)