Inter-Galactic Memo
To: whomever
Fr: Leavitt
Re: Religious research
An article in ScienceDaily.com has me wondering who’s in charge around here. Apparently anthropologists have been stymied from studying religious behavior properly because of the nature of religious behavior. To quote:
ScienceDaily (Sep. 10, 2008) — without a way to measure religious beliefs, anthropologists have had difficulty studying religion. Now, two anthropologists from the University of Missouri and Arizona State University have developed a new approach to study religion by focusing on verbal communication, an identifiable behavior, instead of speculating about alleged beliefs in the supernatural that cannot actually be identified.
Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t this completely defeat the purpose of research into religious belief/behavior? It’s like saying “we know that nine-tenths of an iceberg is underwater, but we can’t see that part, so were going to study this little floating shard right here.
Isn’t religion about the heart and the spirit? Neither of which (in any empirical sense) have ever been quantified. Even the great religionists like Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, Smith, Wesley, Ansalm, etc., have a hard time even describing their experiences, much less defining and analyzing them.
Here’s a good example; St. Ansalm once described God as “That than which no greater can be conceived.” Which means nothing, essentially. He’s saying that God is beyond our ability to imagine, to comprehend in any way. Whatever we can’t conceive—that’s God. And he’s a Saint!
So here come some upstart boys from the University system deciding to circumvent this annoying problem by coming up with the idea to study the way religious people talk to one another. As if the vocal part of that communication will have anything relevant thing to say about the religious experience. Okay, I know—it will say something. But what? Any information or insight garnered from such a study is doomed to insignificance, to superficiality. but these guys will take whatever they get, and turn it into a major study, because that’s how academics get paid—by winning funding from grants. Never mind the relevance of the research.
Maybe I’m just a pessimist. I don’t understand my own belief. Nor do I pretend to understand some of the spiritual experiences I’ve had—but no one can tell me I didn’t have them or that they weren’t genuine. So good luck to Craig T. Palmer and Lyle B. Steadman. I hope they figure it all out. But I won’t be investing in the program.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Obama's real agenda
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: Anybody willing to listen
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Troubling revelation
You know how life goes along apace, nothing really happening, and then suddenly, from out of nowhere, you hear or read or see something that forces you to reevaluate, make hard decisions, despite wanting to just turn away and go back to the way it was? I hate it when that happens. But it does, and yesterday, it happened again.
I heard some very disturbing, potentially devastating news. A radio talk show host began to quote a story out of the current Investor’s Business Daily, a well-respected financial magazine.
The host began by asking a few callers if they had heard about “Trooper-gate”, the flap over Governor Palin’s involvement in the firing of an Alaska State Trooper. Which she was. The Trooper was Palin’s brother-in-law until recently. He was physically abuse to his ex-wife. Palin fired the guy who was over the Troopers because he was blocking her investigation. That guy said, and I quote;
“Let's be clear. Governor Palin has done nothing wrong and is an open book in this process.”
The callers knew all about it. The host was making a point. That being that no one had heard the other story concerning Senator and Mrs. Obama, which broke in a major financial publication and instantly went nowhere. The paper told us that Barak and Michelle Obama were involved in an organization called “Public Allies”, a social activism outfit in Chicago. Barak was a founder, and Michelle was the Executive Director. They have branches in about ten cities, but plan, when they get to the White House, to make this a nationwide movement of volunteer training and service. Sounds great. Naturally, they will pay for it with tax payers money to the tune of as much as 500 billion a year.
But that’s not the troubling part. Remember when Obama said, speaking to the America public, he would “never let us sit idly by again, never allow us to be unengaged”? This is what he meant. Public Allies is intended to be a “Universal, voluntary Public Service.” Let’s see . . . universal, that means everybody, and voluntary, that means . . . well, everybody again I guess. (Now that I think of it, that’s a great description of our income tax system; a universal, voluntary public service. Check the instructions in your tax form. It’s voluntary.)
According to some recent disaffected graduates from the program, here is what they learned in the training seminars from Public Allies:
A graduate of the 2005 Los Angeles class, Nelly Nieblas, says “it's just a lot of talk about race. It's a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, a lot of talk about isms and phobias.”
Some of the activities the volunteers will be involved in will be, rallying and protesting for “Justice and Equality”, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail, and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare programs. While there is no doubt they do some good work in communities, and that many of the individuals are sincere about their service, a lot of them don’t like the indoctrination atmosphere in the seminars and mandatory retreats where the recruits are told that “individual salvation depends on collective salvation”. "Don't go into corporate America, work for the community, be social workers, shun the money culture."
Now comes the part that drew a line I will not cross.
A Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes heterosexism as a negative byproduct of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege.
Someone is going to attempt to make your children believe that heterosexuality is an ism. The ugly specter of politicizing sexuality raises its head once again. First of all, two seconds of idle reflection will reveal the outrageous (and purposeful) flaw in such a statement. The people making these incendiary statements are humanists, by and large, who believe that we are organisms like any other living thing on the planet. What happened to 100 million years of evolution? If one is a Darwinist, one accepts that we evolved to become what we are. Heterosexuality is our method of reproduction, which according to their own propaganda, is our only reason for existence—to reproduce! But here comes the Public Allies—remember, Barak is a founder and Michelle the Executive Director—telling us that heterosexism is a product of Capitalism? White Supremacy? Male dominated privilege? Are you paying attention to this? If that’s the case—and it clearly isn’t—then what does that say about homosexism? Which has nothing to do with reproduction. I’m sure someone will want to declare that I’m misreading their pamphlet, that heterosexuality and heterosexism are two different things. They will claim that heterosexism is a learned bias towards heterosexuality, which they will equate with homophobia. But we can’t have it both ways. Is our reproductive system learned or natural? This should mean that homosexuality, by their own logic ,must be a product of something as well, rather than the natural result of genetics we have been lead to believe. Does this mean that if cultures were something other than “Patriarchal” we would not have reproduced? This is nonsense. This is the worst kind of dialectic, and it sounds familiar. This kind of rhetoric comes straight out of radical Marxism.
We have seen this before—when people conspire to alter the landscape by speaking from both sides of their mouth, saying one thing, while meaning another. That is the definition of “Dialectic Materialism”, the system Marx used to indoctrinate the proletariat. It is the same kind of duplicitous dreck the Nazi’s used to bamboozle Chamberlain, who famously came back to England crowing about “peace in our time” while Hitler invaded Poland.
Okay, I know many of you don’t believe a word of this. I’ve probably offended the sensibilities of a few people, and I apologize. But ladies and gentlemen, I am not wrong. Vote for this man at your own peril. As for me, I am not going to be on the wrong side of this. I am not going to have to sit there when I’m eighty and have my grandchildren stick their fingers in my face and scream at me “you knew back then! And you did NOTHING!” Because that sounds familiar as well.
I do not know Barak Obama. I do not—cannot—know his heart. But I don’t think he is evil or conspiring. I think he has an agenda, as does every politician, that he wants to lead the country in a specific direction based on what he has leaned and internalized—his values and standards, his ideology, his core beliefs. I believe the same of John McCain. But I believe (and this has been reinforced by the Public Allies story) that Obama is essentially a socialist, which I have claimed before. I don’t believe espousing socialism, or communism, makes a person evil, or bad. But I do strongly disagree with the tenets of both. I believe that anyone in this country is welcome to think of themselves as a socialist or a communist, a Nazi, a Utopian, a Bokonanist, an atheist, a religionist, a pagan . . . pretty much whatever they choose if it isn’t illegal or immoral, and I don’t see socialism as either. However, in this country, our system of government is based on the idea of a Republic, a limited form of democracy, the idea that the individual is sacrosanct, that the state exists for the benefit of the individual, that a free market, unfettered by state control, will lead to better lives and livelihoods. These ideals are the antithesis of socialism. It makes no sense for someone to try and change our heritage, our legacy, our Endowment, to the opposite of what it is. If someone insists on living a socialist life where wealth is distributed according to the interests of the state, should they not go found their own country? Their own government? Or immigrate to a country already set up to mirror their beliefs? If a person wants universal health care and the redistribution of wealth and the absolute acceptance of every lifestyle on an purely egalitarian basis, should they not relocate the Canada or Sweden or France? Why the strident insistence that we change this country? What is the purpose of this desperate attempt to remake America in the image of the former Soviet Union? Does Obama still believe—despite solid evidence to the contrary—that his system is superior? Can anyone possibly be that naive? Or selfish? Or is it simply that no one believes these accusations? The truth is, everyone who votes for Obama this November, will be voting for a socialist state and the death of America as we know it. Whether that will actually happen is another issue, because a lot of people won’t want to let it happen once they finally understand what’s happening. And we still have Congress and the Judicial to act as a balance to whatever the executive branch tries to do. I’m just astounded at the number of people who either do not get this, or are on board with it. Obama only has your best interest at heart if you actually want your freedom and independence to be restricted, actually want your money to be taken away and given to someone else, and actually want your country to be handed over to the globalists, it’s sovereignty diminished, it’s power stripped, and it’s Constitution rewritten to reflect the Communist Manifesto. I guess a lot of people want to be taken care of. Well, I do too, but not by the state.
Now ask yourselves, why did no one pick up this Alliance story? They can’t have missed it. Where’s NBC on this? Or Keith Olberman? Or anybody? But we know all about Bristol Palin’s indiscretion, don’t we.
Lastly, I have said several times how unhappy I am with the choices this election. I am not a McCain guy. I have been vacillating between not voting at all or writing someone in. But this latest revelation has galvanized me. I will vote for John. At this point I am not willing to gamble with Obama’s ideas of change. So yes, if it means four more years of the same old thing, I will settle for that. But I don’t think it will be the same. I think it will be interesting. And at least I can be confident that I will still have an America when McCain is finished.
To: Anybody willing to listen
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Troubling revelation
You know how life goes along apace, nothing really happening, and then suddenly, from out of nowhere, you hear or read or see something that forces you to reevaluate, make hard decisions, despite wanting to just turn away and go back to the way it was? I hate it when that happens. But it does, and yesterday, it happened again.
I heard some very disturbing, potentially devastating news. A radio talk show host began to quote a story out of the current Investor’s Business Daily, a well-respected financial magazine.
The host began by asking a few callers if they had heard about “Trooper-gate”, the flap over Governor Palin’s involvement in the firing of an Alaska State Trooper. Which she was. The Trooper was Palin’s brother-in-law until recently. He was physically abuse to his ex-wife. Palin fired the guy who was over the Troopers because he was blocking her investigation. That guy said, and I quote;
“Let's be clear. Governor Palin has done nothing wrong and is an open book in this process.”
The callers knew all about it. The host was making a point. That being that no one had heard the other story concerning Senator and Mrs. Obama, which broke in a major financial publication and instantly went nowhere. The paper told us that Barak and Michelle Obama were involved in an organization called “Public Allies”, a social activism outfit in Chicago. Barak was a founder, and Michelle was the Executive Director. They have branches in about ten cities, but plan, when they get to the White House, to make this a nationwide movement of volunteer training and service. Sounds great. Naturally, they will pay for it with tax payers money to the tune of as much as 500 billion a year.
But that’s not the troubling part. Remember when Obama said, speaking to the America public, he would “never let us sit idly by again, never allow us to be unengaged”? This is what he meant. Public Allies is intended to be a “Universal, voluntary Public Service.” Let’s see . . . universal, that means everybody, and voluntary, that means . . . well, everybody again I guess. (Now that I think of it, that’s a great description of our income tax system; a universal, voluntary public service. Check the instructions in your tax form. It’s voluntary.)
According to some recent disaffected graduates from the program, here is what they learned in the training seminars from Public Allies:
A graduate of the 2005 Los Angeles class, Nelly Nieblas, says “it's just a lot of talk about race. It's a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, a lot of talk about isms and phobias.”
Some of the activities the volunteers will be involved in will be, rallying and protesting for “Justice and Equality”, handing out condoms, bailing criminals out of jail, and helping illegal aliens and the homeless obtain food stamps and other welfare programs. While there is no doubt they do some good work in communities, and that many of the individuals are sincere about their service, a lot of them don’t like the indoctrination atmosphere in the seminars and mandatory retreats where the recruits are told that “individual salvation depends on collective salvation”. "Don't go into corporate America, work for the community, be social workers, shun the money culture."
Now comes the part that drew a line I will not cross.
A Public Allies training seminar in Chicago describes heterosexism as a negative byproduct of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy and male dominated privilege.
Someone is going to attempt to make your children believe that heterosexuality is an ism. The ugly specter of politicizing sexuality raises its head once again. First of all, two seconds of idle reflection will reveal the outrageous (and purposeful) flaw in such a statement. The people making these incendiary statements are humanists, by and large, who believe that we are organisms like any other living thing on the planet. What happened to 100 million years of evolution? If one is a Darwinist, one accepts that we evolved to become what we are. Heterosexuality is our method of reproduction, which according to their own propaganda, is our only reason for existence—to reproduce! But here comes the Public Allies—remember, Barak is a founder and Michelle the Executive Director—telling us that heterosexism is a product of Capitalism? White Supremacy? Male dominated privilege? Are you paying attention to this? If that’s the case—and it clearly isn’t—then what does that say about homosexism? Which has nothing to do with reproduction. I’m sure someone will want to declare that I’m misreading their pamphlet, that heterosexuality and heterosexism are two different things. They will claim that heterosexism is a learned bias towards heterosexuality, which they will equate with homophobia. But we can’t have it both ways. Is our reproductive system learned or natural? This should mean that homosexuality, by their own logic ,must be a product of something as well, rather than the natural result of genetics we have been lead to believe. Does this mean that if cultures were something other than “Patriarchal” we would not have reproduced? This is nonsense. This is the worst kind of dialectic, and it sounds familiar. This kind of rhetoric comes straight out of radical Marxism.
We have seen this before—when people conspire to alter the landscape by speaking from both sides of their mouth, saying one thing, while meaning another. That is the definition of “Dialectic Materialism”, the system Marx used to indoctrinate the proletariat. It is the same kind of duplicitous dreck the Nazi’s used to bamboozle Chamberlain, who famously came back to England crowing about “peace in our time” while Hitler invaded Poland.
Okay, I know many of you don’t believe a word of this. I’ve probably offended the sensibilities of a few people, and I apologize. But ladies and gentlemen, I am not wrong. Vote for this man at your own peril. As for me, I am not going to be on the wrong side of this. I am not going to have to sit there when I’m eighty and have my grandchildren stick their fingers in my face and scream at me “you knew back then! And you did NOTHING!” Because that sounds familiar as well.
I do not know Barak Obama. I do not—cannot—know his heart. But I don’t think he is evil or conspiring. I think he has an agenda, as does every politician, that he wants to lead the country in a specific direction based on what he has leaned and internalized—his values and standards, his ideology, his core beliefs. I believe the same of John McCain. But I believe (and this has been reinforced by the Public Allies story) that Obama is essentially a socialist, which I have claimed before. I don’t believe espousing socialism, or communism, makes a person evil, or bad. But I do strongly disagree with the tenets of both. I believe that anyone in this country is welcome to think of themselves as a socialist or a communist, a Nazi, a Utopian, a Bokonanist, an atheist, a religionist, a pagan . . . pretty much whatever they choose if it isn’t illegal or immoral, and I don’t see socialism as either. However, in this country, our system of government is based on the idea of a Republic, a limited form of democracy, the idea that the individual is sacrosanct, that the state exists for the benefit of the individual, that a free market, unfettered by state control, will lead to better lives and livelihoods. These ideals are the antithesis of socialism. It makes no sense for someone to try and change our heritage, our legacy, our Endowment, to the opposite of what it is. If someone insists on living a socialist life where wealth is distributed according to the interests of the state, should they not go found their own country? Their own government? Or immigrate to a country already set up to mirror their beliefs? If a person wants universal health care and the redistribution of wealth and the absolute acceptance of every lifestyle on an purely egalitarian basis, should they not relocate the Canada or Sweden or France? Why the strident insistence that we change this country? What is the purpose of this desperate attempt to remake America in the image of the former Soviet Union? Does Obama still believe—despite solid evidence to the contrary—that his system is superior? Can anyone possibly be that naive? Or selfish? Or is it simply that no one believes these accusations? The truth is, everyone who votes for Obama this November, will be voting for a socialist state and the death of America as we know it. Whether that will actually happen is another issue, because a lot of people won’t want to let it happen once they finally understand what’s happening. And we still have Congress and the Judicial to act as a balance to whatever the executive branch tries to do. I’m just astounded at the number of people who either do not get this, or are on board with it. Obama only has your best interest at heart if you actually want your freedom and independence to be restricted, actually want your money to be taken away and given to someone else, and actually want your country to be handed over to the globalists, it’s sovereignty diminished, it’s power stripped, and it’s Constitution rewritten to reflect the Communist Manifesto. I guess a lot of people want to be taken care of. Well, I do too, but not by the state.
Now ask yourselves, why did no one pick up this Alliance story? They can’t have missed it. Where’s NBC on this? Or Keith Olberman? Or anybody? But we know all about Bristol Palin’s indiscretion, don’t we.
Lastly, I have said several times how unhappy I am with the choices this election. I am not a McCain guy. I have been vacillating between not voting at all or writing someone in. But this latest revelation has galvanized me. I will vote for John. At this point I am not willing to gamble with Obama’s ideas of change. So yes, if it means four more years of the same old thing, I will settle for that. But I don’t think it will be the same. I think it will be interesting. And at least I can be confident that I will still have an America when McCain is finished.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The Big Eruption
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All humans everywhere
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Big Bang
I had an epiphany recently, and thought I would share it with the seven people who semi-regularly read my memos.
Actually, the idea came to me as I was working on my latest epic sci-fi novel, entitled Fusion, but I’ve been thinking about it and have decided it isn’t just a bunch of technical gibberish, but a viable theory concerning the origins of the universe. (And no, it isn’t 42).
A brief review of the Big Bang theory: According to cosmologists around the world, the original singularity was a point of infinite density and was infinitely small. This description is a literal one, rather than metaphoric, necessary in order to explain the existence of all this matter and energy. You, for example. At some point, this became too much for the singularity, and it exploded, releasing whatever was in there, which, as it expanded and cooled, became matter and energy. Or, as Douglas Adams put it; “first there was nothing; then even that exploded.” Here is my epiphany: If the singularity contained infinite density, how could it have stopped? In other words, once it began, in cannot end. It was (is) an eruption, not an explosion. It continues to this day. We have solved several thorny problems in one fell swoop. First, the inexplicable acceleration of the expansion of the universe, currently explained by “dark matter” of which there is no physical evidence whatsoever. More matter is no longer needed to explain the expansion. The continued eruption of the primordial plasma is pushing the universe further and further out at all times.
This explains the shape and rotation of galaxies as well. The continued eruption allows for infinitely more matter and energy than was previously calculated. We do away with the predicted heat death of the universe, which was always a kind of pessimistic prediction anyway.
“Well why can’t we see it if it’s still erupting?” You might ask. Excellent question. The universe is calculated to be around 15 billion years old (since the Big Eruption began.) As we know, light travels in a vacuum at 300,000 KPS. (186,000 MPS) This means the singularity, wherever it is, must be approximately 15 billion light years away. We do not have any instrumentation that is able to see, or sense, at such a distance.
Further, if the singularity still exists (which it does, spewing exotic plasma), then the universe has a center—something scientists have been denying for years. This is assuming the eruption was more or less equal at all points and formed a sphere as it expanded.
Another thought occurred to me as I was hallucinate—I mean pondering these things. There is quite a controversy over the shape of the universe. Some think this, some think that, Einstein thought it was saddle-shaped. I believer the universe can have no shape. Here’s why. As we all know, shape is “the quality of a distinct object or body in having an external surface or outline of specific form or figure”. But how do we perceive an external surface without referents? A positive shape must be perceived as the obverse of a negative shape. Space and time are created by the Big Eruption, which means there is nothing outside of it. No negative space. Consequently, there is no referent by which we would be able to determine a shape for the universe. It just is. Some will say “no, gravity pulls the mass of the universe into a definable shape.” But I will counter, compared to what? Where is the negative space by which the positive space of the universe can be recognized?
I’m sure that all of you are, as am I, greatly relieved to have all of this finally put to rest. I have run this by Mr. Sammons, who (surprisingly) gave it his stamp of approval as, and I quote; “as viable as any other theory”.
All of this is, of course, predicated on the belief that the Big Bang ever happened at all, which, as you know, I categorically reject as a possibility.
To: All humans everywhere
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: Big Bang
I had an epiphany recently, and thought I would share it with the seven people who semi-regularly read my memos.
Actually, the idea came to me as I was working on my latest epic sci-fi novel, entitled Fusion, but I’ve been thinking about it and have decided it isn’t just a bunch of technical gibberish, but a viable theory concerning the origins of the universe. (And no, it isn’t 42).
A brief review of the Big Bang theory: According to cosmologists around the world, the original singularity was a point of infinite density and was infinitely small. This description is a literal one, rather than metaphoric, necessary in order to explain the existence of all this matter and energy. You, for example. At some point, this became too much for the singularity, and it exploded, releasing whatever was in there, which, as it expanded and cooled, became matter and energy. Or, as Douglas Adams put it; “first there was nothing; then even that exploded.” Here is my epiphany: If the singularity contained infinite density, how could it have stopped? In other words, once it began, in cannot end. It was (is) an eruption, not an explosion. It continues to this day. We have solved several thorny problems in one fell swoop. First, the inexplicable acceleration of the expansion of the universe, currently explained by “dark matter” of which there is no physical evidence whatsoever. More matter is no longer needed to explain the expansion. The continued eruption of the primordial plasma is pushing the universe further and further out at all times.
This explains the shape and rotation of galaxies as well. The continued eruption allows for infinitely more matter and energy than was previously calculated. We do away with the predicted heat death of the universe, which was always a kind of pessimistic prediction anyway.
“Well why can’t we see it if it’s still erupting?” You might ask. Excellent question. The universe is calculated to be around 15 billion years old (since the Big Eruption began.) As we know, light travels in a vacuum at 300,000 KPS. (186,000 MPS) This means the singularity, wherever it is, must be approximately 15 billion light years away. We do not have any instrumentation that is able to see, or sense, at such a distance.
Further, if the singularity still exists (which it does, spewing exotic plasma), then the universe has a center—something scientists have been denying for years. This is assuming the eruption was more or less equal at all points and formed a sphere as it expanded.
Another thought occurred to me as I was hallucinate—I mean pondering these things. There is quite a controversy over the shape of the universe. Some think this, some think that, Einstein thought it was saddle-shaped. I believer the universe can have no shape. Here’s why. As we all know, shape is “the quality of a distinct object or body in having an external surface or outline of specific form or figure”. But how do we perceive an external surface without referents? A positive shape must be perceived as the obverse of a negative shape. Space and time are created by the Big Eruption, which means there is nothing outside of it. No negative space. Consequently, there is no referent by which we would be able to determine a shape for the universe. It just is. Some will say “no, gravity pulls the mass of the universe into a definable shape.” But I will counter, compared to what? Where is the negative space by which the positive space of the universe can be recognized?
I’m sure that all of you are, as am I, greatly relieved to have all of this finally put to rest. I have run this by Mr. Sammons, who (surprisingly) gave it his stamp of approval as, and I quote; “as viable as any other theory”.
All of this is, of course, predicated on the belief that the Big Bang ever happened at all, which, as you know, I categorically reject as a possibility.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
An Anti-Christ?
Last fall—I don’t remember when—I mentioned to my wife, while watching a pundit extol the virtues of Barak Obama, that he had all the major characteristics of the fabled Anti-Christ mentioned prominently in the Bible— mostly in the book of Revelations. I was being facetious, tongue-in-cheek, having a little fun with the guy because I found him a bit of a popinjay, and she asked me what I meant.
Well, I said, he came out of nowhere, is a bit of a mystery, he has at least a twenty for charisma—people love him and don’t know why—and he’s taking the country by storm. He is seen as a savior by many, as America’s last, great hope. And no one knows anything about him. Or something like that. She gave it a moment’s thought, said I see what you mean, gave me her approving, that’s-a-good-boy smile, and went back to something or other. Dishes probably.
Since then, I have heard and read several other people make the same comparison, although with a little more serious intent than my own good-natured jab. I didn’t for a moment think Obama might be that infamous scion of doom, and I still don’t. I think he’s just another power-grabbing Marxist feeding an elegant line of bull to gullible people who desperately want someone to run their lives for them. He doesn’t measure up to the Anti-Christ. But it got me thinking.
The notion, silly as it may be, is out there now, in the multiverse, the blogosphere, where people often take such notions seriously. This means that a good number of people are aware of the idea, and whether or not anyone believes it (and you can bet many a conspiracy dooms-dayer does), apparently we’ve all accepted the idea and gone on with our lives. And therein lies the problem. An Anti-Christ is a pretty big deal—in the abstract at least. Armageddon, Gog and Magog, end of the world, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, all that end-of-everything kind of stuff, and we seem to be willing to accept it without a second thought. I doubt anyone, even the ones who believe this kind of horse-pucky, gave it any serious thought. “Really? Anti-Christ? My goodness, I’d better go buy some more milk!”
And isn’t this the way it seems to go? (to quote Jim Croce) Evil, world-altering events, war mongers, despots, greedy, duplicitous, conspiring monsters, come along, and wherever they are, the people believe them and love them, over and over again. And even those who don’t, who see through it all, just shake their heads in disapproval and go about their lives, glad to not be one of the “gullible ones”. While the monster plots and plans and lies and eventually causes a reign of blood and horror, subjugating entire peoples, stealing unalienable rights as if they were stale bread, and creating misery, mayhem, and hopelessness. I wonder why we do that. Is it just a matter of “oh for heaven’s sake, he’s (she’s) not that bad?” Or do we just fall prey to the cheap, pretty words and ignore the malevolent intent behind them? And of course there’s the “he might be a little extreme, but he’s got some good ideas, he makes sense.” It’s the frog-in-the-pot syndrome, again and again.
And finally, there are all those people who don’t believe a word of that religious mumbo-jumbo, and laugh at the very mention of an Anti-Christ and at all those poor, deluded Christians. We’ll see who has the last laugh I guess. But forget the actual A-C, concentrate on all the actual devils we’ve allowed to come to power. Shall we have a roll call? Can’t, not enough paper in my printer, but we might mention a few all-stars. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hugo Chavez, Akminadejad (and yes I know that is spelled wrong, and no, I don’t care) ad nauseum. History and I consider all these guys evil. There were others. Even more numerous are the ones who did not rise to the level of evil, but managed to ruin lives and make things worse with the best of intentions. We can argue all night about who these are, but it wouldn’t get us anywhere. I’d say Chamberlain and you’d say Churchill, I’d say Carter and you’d say Regan. It never ends. (By ‘you’ I have no idea who I mean).
The point is we let it happen, again and again. I wonder why we do that. But how would we stop it? Half of us accept every one of them, while the other half rejects them, but does nothing to stop them. It wouldn’t be ‘civilized’, and we might be wrong. Then it reverses and the other half accepts while the other, other half rejects. Only after the fact do we ever know if we were right or wrong. And some people go their entire lives in denial, believing their monster was a good guy. Everybody has their apologists.
So when the Real Deal comes along—and again, I don’t think Barak is it—we’ll let it happen. We will sit in the pot of water and let him turn the heat up a little at a time until we’re good and cooked, food for the beast.
I wish we could all discern the intent of a person’s heart. But that would mean nobody would like me I guess . . . .
Well, I said, he came out of nowhere, is a bit of a mystery, he has at least a twenty for charisma—people love him and don’t know why—and he’s taking the country by storm. He is seen as a savior by many, as America’s last, great hope. And no one knows anything about him. Or something like that. She gave it a moment’s thought, said I see what you mean, gave me her approving, that’s-a-good-boy smile, and went back to something or other. Dishes probably.
Since then, I have heard and read several other people make the same comparison, although with a little more serious intent than my own good-natured jab. I didn’t for a moment think Obama might be that infamous scion of doom, and I still don’t. I think he’s just another power-grabbing Marxist feeding an elegant line of bull to gullible people who desperately want someone to run their lives for them. He doesn’t measure up to the Anti-Christ. But it got me thinking.
The notion, silly as it may be, is out there now, in the multiverse, the blogosphere, where people often take such notions seriously. This means that a good number of people are aware of the idea, and whether or not anyone believes it (and you can bet many a conspiracy dooms-dayer does), apparently we’ve all accepted the idea and gone on with our lives. And therein lies the problem. An Anti-Christ is a pretty big deal—in the abstract at least. Armageddon, Gog and Magog, end of the world, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, all that end-of-everything kind of stuff, and we seem to be willing to accept it without a second thought. I doubt anyone, even the ones who believe this kind of horse-pucky, gave it any serious thought. “Really? Anti-Christ? My goodness, I’d better go buy some more milk!”
And isn’t this the way it seems to go? (to quote Jim Croce) Evil, world-altering events, war mongers, despots, greedy, duplicitous, conspiring monsters, come along, and wherever they are, the people believe them and love them, over and over again. And even those who don’t, who see through it all, just shake their heads in disapproval and go about their lives, glad to not be one of the “gullible ones”. While the monster plots and plans and lies and eventually causes a reign of blood and horror, subjugating entire peoples, stealing unalienable rights as if they were stale bread, and creating misery, mayhem, and hopelessness. I wonder why we do that. Is it just a matter of “oh for heaven’s sake, he’s (she’s) not that bad?” Or do we just fall prey to the cheap, pretty words and ignore the malevolent intent behind them? And of course there’s the “he might be a little extreme, but he’s got some good ideas, he makes sense.” It’s the frog-in-the-pot syndrome, again and again.
And finally, there are all those people who don’t believe a word of that religious mumbo-jumbo, and laugh at the very mention of an Anti-Christ and at all those poor, deluded Christians. We’ll see who has the last laugh I guess. But forget the actual A-C, concentrate on all the actual devils we’ve allowed to come to power. Shall we have a roll call? Can’t, not enough paper in my printer, but we might mention a few all-stars. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hugo Chavez, Akminadejad (and yes I know that is spelled wrong, and no, I don’t care) ad nauseum. History and I consider all these guys evil. There were others. Even more numerous are the ones who did not rise to the level of evil, but managed to ruin lives and make things worse with the best of intentions. We can argue all night about who these are, but it wouldn’t get us anywhere. I’d say Chamberlain and you’d say Churchill, I’d say Carter and you’d say Regan. It never ends. (By ‘you’ I have no idea who I mean).
The point is we let it happen, again and again. I wonder why we do that. But how would we stop it? Half of us accept every one of them, while the other half rejects them, but does nothing to stop them. It wouldn’t be ‘civilized’, and we might be wrong. Then it reverses and the other half accepts while the other, other half rejects. Only after the fact do we ever know if we were right or wrong. And some people go their entire lives in denial, believing their monster was a good guy. Everybody has their apologists.
So when the Real Deal comes along—and again, I don’t think Barak is it—we’ll let it happen. We will sit in the pot of water and let him turn the heat up a little at a time until we’re good and cooked, food for the beast.
I wish we could all discern the intent of a person’s heart. But that would mean nobody would like me I guess . . . .
Saturday, April 19, 2008
An article at Physorg.com has me thinking. My son sent it to me before I found it myself. It has to do with the Big Bang and what might have existed, if anything before that auspicious event. In the scientific community this is big news. Cosmologists and theoretical physicists had carefully avoided asking that very question for decades, claiming that pre-big-bang speculation is pointless, or at the very least belongs to the more whimsical mind-set of the philosophers.
Recently, however, some of them may be having a change of heart. Several Smart People from prestigious universities are working on esoteric mathematical landscapes which may offer some insight into whatever was before everything was, if you get my drift. I savor the irony of this burgeoning paradigm shift because for my entire lifetime these top-notch thinkers (and I mean that sincerely) have stubbornly demanded that nothing existed prior to the Singularity which suddenly, for an unknown reason, expanded and created the known universe.
Now, we teachers know that when writing a true or false test question, making bold, declarative statements involving words and phrases like, “nothing”, “every time”, “in all cases”, “never”, “always”, etc., will make the answer to any question false about 90% of the time. There are almost always exceptions. I have always been mildly amused when the scientific community uses absolute declarations like these—and the Big Bang is a perfect example—and then get all huffy when religionists do it. Absolutism is the calling card of religion while skepticism and eternal suspicion are the hallmarks of science. Yet they use these kinds of terms as often as any prophet.
“I tell you there was nothing before the big bang! It would have been absolutely impossible!”
“The Milky Way makes up the known universe—there can be no doubt about that.”
“Any speed faster than 60 MPH must prove fatal to any human being!”
And so on. But it’s hard to stay mad at them. They’re such madcap guys and gals. So new calculations delving into what I’m sure is black magic masquerading as mathematics are giving certain scientists the idea that something might have existed before the Big Bang after all—this after fifty years of renowned thinkers spending their entire professional careers contemplating the time sequence between one femto-second after the Big Bang initiated, to about three seconds after. A few of them took the bull by the horns and went so far as to speculate hours, even years after the sudden, apparently random birth of our reality. The topic will continue to be hotly debated, I’m sure, until the end of time—or at least the end of government grants—and will doubtless never be resolved until we, to quote Stephen Hawking, “Know the mind of God.”
But here’s the real juicy part. The “evidence” now suggest (Remember, this is from peer-reviewed publications) that there might have been a universe exactly like ours prior to ours. Which is just another, terribly unscientific way of saying “the universe existed before the universe came into existence.” They are claiming now that if we were to look at that old universe at the same age as this one now (131/2- 15 billion years) it would be indistinguishable from our own. Wow. So let’s see . . . old universe, new universe, exactly alike . . . some kind of bizarre compression in between, then a sudden expansion . . . almost makes it sound like various natural phases of the same universe, doesn’t it? Which is what religion has been saying all along. Except for that one which says nothing is real. Oh, and that other one which insists the universe is infinite, and has no beginning and no end. But that quack-basket is Christianity and everybody knows that particular religion is not only completely out of fashion, but politically unacceptable as well. Darn, and I thought we’d stumbled onto something here.
“Aha!” A skeptic might say, “you’ve forgotten about entropy! Everybody knows the universe can’t be eternal because energy is constantly being lost, the whole thing is winding down to the inevitable heat death at the restaurant at the end of the universe! Why, in another ten billion years or so, all the stars will be cool cinders, there will be no life, no warmth, no atomic movement. That’s a pretty pessimistic outlook, but okay, let’s look at it. I’ve always wondered where the law of conservation of energy fits into the death of the universe. If neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed (an idea I am willing to accept for the time being), then where is all the energy going for the next ten billion years? Is it being turned into matter? Do electrons finally just get tired of spinning their frantic lives and die? If so, where did their energy go? (I’m confident there are answers to those questions, I just don’t know what they are.) And what about the notion that life is a universe-wide anti-entropic phenomenon, taking energy and using it to create ever-increasing levels of order and organization? Humans being the penultimate example of that “natural process”. We create order. We change things. Life does the same. Look at the chaotic nature of the energy being emitted by the sun; useless for anything other than heat and light right? But it gets to earth and is absorbed by OMG! Living things, which turn it into all kinds of highly complex processes, new chemical compounds, and energy producing systems. What if life is sufficiently ubiquitous that it acts as a balance—universally—against entropy? Now where’s your ‘heat death’ Carl Sagan? (I love[ed] Carl Sagan.)
I have always believed in an infinite and eternal universe for two reasons. One, mom and dad did (and I’ve never known anyone smarter or wiser), and two, it is easier for me to imagine a universe without a beginning or an end than it is to imagine a finite universe springing from nothing. I have a really hard time with any kind of spontaneous generation concept. But that’s just me.
Eventually, they are going to discover that the Big Bang never happened at all, and the universe has always been here. They will discover another explanation for the famous ‘background radiation’ that ‘proves’ the big band happened. I’m patient, I’ll wait. And if it turns out I’m wrong, I will be sure to post a retraction where everyone can see it. You know, like all those scientists and politicians do.
Recently, however, some of them may be having a change of heart. Several Smart People from prestigious universities are working on esoteric mathematical landscapes which may offer some insight into whatever was before everything was, if you get my drift. I savor the irony of this burgeoning paradigm shift because for my entire lifetime these top-notch thinkers (and I mean that sincerely) have stubbornly demanded that nothing existed prior to the Singularity which suddenly, for an unknown reason, expanded and created the known universe.
Now, we teachers know that when writing a true or false test question, making bold, declarative statements involving words and phrases like, “nothing”, “every time”, “in all cases”, “never”, “always”, etc., will make the answer to any question false about 90% of the time. There are almost always exceptions. I have always been mildly amused when the scientific community uses absolute declarations like these—and the Big Bang is a perfect example—and then get all huffy when religionists do it. Absolutism is the calling card of religion while skepticism and eternal suspicion are the hallmarks of science. Yet they use these kinds of terms as often as any prophet.
“I tell you there was nothing before the big bang! It would have been absolutely impossible!”
“The Milky Way makes up the known universe—there can be no doubt about that.”
“Any speed faster than 60 MPH must prove fatal to any human being!”
And so on. But it’s hard to stay mad at them. They’re such madcap guys and gals. So new calculations delving into what I’m sure is black magic masquerading as mathematics are giving certain scientists the idea that something might have existed before the Big Bang after all—this after fifty years of renowned thinkers spending their entire professional careers contemplating the time sequence between one femto-second after the Big Bang initiated, to about three seconds after. A few of them took the bull by the horns and went so far as to speculate hours, even years after the sudden, apparently random birth of our reality. The topic will continue to be hotly debated, I’m sure, until the end of time—or at least the end of government grants—and will doubtless never be resolved until we, to quote Stephen Hawking, “Know the mind of God.”
But here’s the real juicy part. The “evidence” now suggest (Remember, this is from peer-reviewed publications) that there might have been a universe exactly like ours prior to ours. Which is just another, terribly unscientific way of saying “the universe existed before the universe came into existence.” They are claiming now that if we were to look at that old universe at the same age as this one now (131/2- 15 billion years) it would be indistinguishable from our own. Wow. So let’s see . . . old universe, new universe, exactly alike . . . some kind of bizarre compression in between, then a sudden expansion . . . almost makes it sound like various natural phases of the same universe, doesn’t it? Which is what religion has been saying all along. Except for that one which says nothing is real. Oh, and that other one which insists the universe is infinite, and has no beginning and no end. But that quack-basket is Christianity and everybody knows that particular religion is not only completely out of fashion, but politically unacceptable as well. Darn, and I thought we’d stumbled onto something here.
“Aha!” A skeptic might say, “you’ve forgotten about entropy! Everybody knows the universe can’t be eternal because energy is constantly being lost, the whole thing is winding down to the inevitable heat death at the restaurant at the end of the universe! Why, in another ten billion years or so, all the stars will be cool cinders, there will be no life, no warmth, no atomic movement. That’s a pretty pessimistic outlook, but okay, let’s look at it. I’ve always wondered where the law of conservation of energy fits into the death of the universe. If neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed (an idea I am willing to accept for the time being), then where is all the energy going for the next ten billion years? Is it being turned into matter? Do electrons finally just get tired of spinning their frantic lives and die? If so, where did their energy go? (I’m confident there are answers to those questions, I just don’t know what they are.) And what about the notion that life is a universe-wide anti-entropic phenomenon, taking energy and using it to create ever-increasing levels of order and organization? Humans being the penultimate example of that “natural process”. We create order. We change things. Life does the same. Look at the chaotic nature of the energy being emitted by the sun; useless for anything other than heat and light right? But it gets to earth and is absorbed by OMG! Living things, which turn it into all kinds of highly complex processes, new chemical compounds, and energy producing systems. What if life is sufficiently ubiquitous that it acts as a balance—universally—against entropy? Now where’s your ‘heat death’ Carl Sagan? (I love[ed] Carl Sagan.)
I have always believed in an infinite and eternal universe for two reasons. One, mom and dad did (and I’ve never known anyone smarter or wiser), and two, it is easier for me to imagine a universe without a beginning or an end than it is to imagine a finite universe springing from nothing. I have a really hard time with any kind of spontaneous generation concept. But that’s just me.
Eventually, they are going to discover that the Big Bang never happened at all, and the universe has always been here. They will discover another explanation for the famous ‘background radiation’ that ‘proves’ the big band happened. I’m patient, I’ll wait. And if it turns out I’m wrong, I will be sure to post a retraction where everyone can see it. You know, like all those scientists and politicians do.
Monday, March 24, 2008
IGM The Higgs Boson
Well, we’re all pretty excited around here. The Large Hadron Collider is essentially finished and about to go online. As I’m sure you know, CERN has been building the device in France and Switzerland for 8 or 9 years now and pay-off is just around the corner. The scientists will be doing all kinds of experiments, but the Big Fish is the Higgs Boson, a stealthy little thing also known as the “God Particle”.
I’m not sure why it’s important, but scientists all over the world are producing record amounts of saliva as they slobber over the possibilities. The Higgs Boson is a theoretical particle predicted by the Standard Model of physics—in fact the last missing particle in the Model—and it may be the thing that imparts mass to other particles, which, despite being completely counter-intuitive, is why they are looking for it.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve lost track of all the “elementary” particles they’ve found over the last 80 years or so. It started with atoms, then neutrons, protons and electrons, and now it’s like somebody left the barn door open. They’re everywhere; quarks of all kinds, leptons, WIMPS, photons, bosons, neutrinos, W and Z particles and on and on. Isn’t it fascinating how they can predict a particle mathematically, or based on the behavior of other particles, and then design an experiment to find it?
Years ago, my friend Brad Hill (who was taking a double major in Theoretical Mathematics and Celestial Mechanics) held the opinion (firmly tongue-in-cheek) that physicists create particles when they extrapolate them. Essentially, his theory was; “they make up a particle which doesn’t exist, then design an experiment to find it, which “calls” the particle into existence from the virtual world. We had more than a few laughs over that now and then. But now, I find myself taking the idea seriously. Science has come a long way since the early 70’s. Or maybe I have, who knows? Anyway, now we have Quantum Mechanics, in which virtual particles are real, and the Uncertainty Principle, which allows for things like made-up realities—which includes elementary particles.
So maybe the Higgs Boson doesn’t exist at all. But now that the theorists need it to complete the Standard Model, the Large Hadron Collider will not so much “find it” as call it into existence. There is some precedent after all. The concept could explain all kinds of things, like disco, pet rocks, Hillary Clinton and Sasquatch, to name a few.
So let’s lift a glass to the LHC and all those boys and girls who will be running it, looking for another particle that doesn’t exist, but very well may in the next few years. It’s an exciting time to be alive, isn’t it?
I’m not sure why it’s important, but scientists all over the world are producing record amounts of saliva as they slobber over the possibilities. The Higgs Boson is a theoretical particle predicted by the Standard Model of physics—in fact the last missing particle in the Model—and it may be the thing that imparts mass to other particles, which, despite being completely counter-intuitive, is why they are looking for it.
I don’t know about you, but I’ve lost track of all the “elementary” particles they’ve found over the last 80 years or so. It started with atoms, then neutrons, protons and electrons, and now it’s like somebody left the barn door open. They’re everywhere; quarks of all kinds, leptons, WIMPS, photons, bosons, neutrinos, W and Z particles and on and on. Isn’t it fascinating how they can predict a particle mathematically, or based on the behavior of other particles, and then design an experiment to find it?
Years ago, my friend Brad Hill (who was taking a double major in Theoretical Mathematics and Celestial Mechanics) held the opinion (firmly tongue-in-cheek) that physicists create particles when they extrapolate them. Essentially, his theory was; “they make up a particle which doesn’t exist, then design an experiment to find it, which “calls” the particle into existence from the virtual world. We had more than a few laughs over that now and then. But now, I find myself taking the idea seriously. Science has come a long way since the early 70’s. Or maybe I have, who knows? Anyway, now we have Quantum Mechanics, in which virtual particles are real, and the Uncertainty Principle, which allows for things like made-up realities—which includes elementary particles.
So maybe the Higgs Boson doesn’t exist at all. But now that the theorists need it to complete the Standard Model, the Large Hadron Collider will not so much “find it” as call it into existence. There is some precedent after all. The concept could explain all kinds of things, like disco, pet rocks, Hillary Clinton and Sasquatch, to name a few.
So let’s lift a glass to the LHC and all those boys and girls who will be running it, looking for another particle that doesn’t exist, but very well may in the next few years. It’s an exciting time to be alive, isn’t it?
Thursday, March 20, 2008
IGM THE TAX MYTH
INTERGALACTIC MEMO
The tax myth
I was up half the night writing and rewriting another Intergalactic Memo in my head. What set me off was some hack running for president talking about taking care of the American worker, cutting taxes for the middle and lower class worker, and raising taxes on the wealthy. All of them are spouting the same tired mantra—“protect the workers, relieve the burden on the productive members of society” etc., ad nauseam.
In the Review Journal this morning I noticed a quote in an article by John Edwards. I didn’t read the article, I just saw the quote in a bigger font and read it. Here’s what it says:
I will pay for it by repealing President Bush’s income tax cuts for Americans who make more than $2oo,ooo per year.
I don’t even care what he’s planning to pay for. This kind of wrong-headed thinking is ludicrous. Where do these ideas come from? The Communist Manifesto? Mein Kampf? A pamphlet from the Socialist Workers Party? I swear, this kind of muddle-headed, emotion-driven, irrational, ideological drivel grates on my nerves like sandpaper eyelids folding back and scraping on the brain! We have Bolsheviks trying to run the country!
It’s as if liberals (and far too many Republicans are closet liberals) believe that anyone who earns over some arbitrary amount of money—$200,000 will do nicely for the moment—doesn’t work. What? Only people earning a wage are “workers”? Wealthy people don’t earn their money? That’s right out of Karl Marx. What is anything he had to say doing in an American political debate? Are there really people out there who think the country is thick with trust fund babies, the idle rich, the indolent, self-absorbed social elite? Because it isn’t true. They exist, certainly, but our media seems to have given the false impression that they are legion. The truth is less than one half of one percent of our citizens are wealthy by inheritance. (People like Paris Hilton, who, based on what we know of her thus far, is a complete waste of protoplasm). It is also true that the wealthiest 5% of the country pays over 50% of all taxes. Do people just not believe that? Then read this:
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul¬dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per¬cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. (The American, Nov-Dec 2007, Stephen Moore, author)
Rich people pay taxes. It is a myth that they don’t. Corporations often get around paying, but that’s another issue altogether, which has to do with capital gains, writing off losses, and all kinds of other complicated stuff.
The idea that the rich don’t pay their fair share is just plain wrong. Like the rest of us, they take advantage of every deduction and exemption and exception they can legally find. A very few people—like George Soros—hire a phalanx of attorneys and accountants to keep from paying, but that is rare—and unethical. But for the most part they pay the lion’s share of taxes.
These politicians constantly pick on the working rich as if they are a separate class, which is tantamount to inciting class discrimination. It is the working rich who drive our economy, who pay the most in taxes and licensing fees and regulatory expenses, as well as mandated insurance, workers comp, social security and so on. They are not a separate class, they are not different from us—they just make more money—and pay lots more in taxes.
How many jobs has Steve Wynn created in Las Vegas? Tens of thousands at least—and all those employees pay taxes as well, but nowhere near as much as Mr. Wynn, who is the one who took the chances, had the dream (over and over again) found funding, created, and made his vision reality. I don’t know Steve. My guess is he and I wouldn’t get on very well. But I respect what he does. How about the Maloof brothers? I do not like their style at all. They were obnoxious rich boys in high school, spoiled and conceited. (I played ball with them on Wednesday nights back in the day). I think the Palms reperesents the worst of Las Vegas, the seedy, the crass and lascivious, but they too took their fathers seed money, started businesses, grew them, expanded, bought professional sports teams and came to Vegas and built a successful mega-resort. How many people do they employ? Thousands. And the Maloofs, like all the resort owners, pay local, state, and federal taxes. Regulatory fees, etc. We tax the snot out of them. And now we want to hit them again so they can pay for education. If we keep taxing the rich, keep picking on them and treating them like powerful chattel, they will eventually give up and go away. We’ll get just what we wanted and no one will have a job. Read Atlas Shrugged. It could happen.
And think about the sports franchises. Huge stadiums, even larger salaries for the players. But without A-Rod and his millions the peanut and beer guy would have no jobs. The grounds keepers would be doing something else, the security people and ushers and kiosk workers and memorabilia hawkers would be out of work and paying no taxes—and sucking up federal aid. Every stadium employs hundreds of people, every team hundreds more. Professional athletes may be idiots as a general rule, but they work hard. Their careers are short and often end in permanent, crippling injuries. Most of us have no idea what kind of commitment and determination it takes, starting as a kid, to make it to the pros. The sacrifice is tremendous. And because they are “wealthy”, hundreds of thousands of people have jobs. In what sense do pro athletes not work? And yeah, I think most of them are ignorant, spoiled brats too.
In what sense does my buddy Bryan not work? He owns a successful pool plastering business, employs 40 or 50 people and makes a good living. (I have no idea how much but it’s more than $200,000 a year). He works eighty, ninety hours a week—more than any of his employees. Explain to me why he should pay a higher percentage of taxes. I’ve talked to him; if he could get out from under the debilitating crush of taxation, he could expand, hire more people, purchase better equipment. He’d have more work, have to hire more people. And all those employees would pay more actual tax dollars to the government.
Let’s look at an unnamed hotelier. My cousin happens to be married to the guy. He’s worth billions, and he employs tens of thousands of people, pays all kinds of taxes, corporate and personal—millions and millions every year. He’s one of the majority of rich people who pay their fair share. They understand what taxes are for, why they are necessary. Most of us don’t. And most of the working rich spend even more on charities than they do on taxes. But when the politicians decide they have the right to spend other people’s money, and that some people should be forced to pay more by virtue of their success, all that philanthropy will dry up. It happens time and again, and still most people don’t get it. They don’t see the rich as being victims of unfair treatment, they just see the free money vanish and pronounce the rich selfish.
Now let’s talk about all those nice people who work at Wal-Mart (the ones who represent all those working in low-paying jobs.) We look at them and see their struggles, trying to make ends meet, and our knee-jerk reaction is to blame the rich and legislate another draconian tax to suck them dry. But there is no connection between Sam Walton’s billions and the fact that his cashiers make 12 dollars an hour—or 8, or whatever it is, other than the fact that Wal-Mart employs hundreds of thousands of people, all of whom pay taxes. But Walton personally kept less than one percent of his company’s earnings. He just knew how to make money. Most retail jobs don’t pay a lot because they don’t demand a lot of education or skill or experience. Those are low-skill jobs. Most of the people who have them don’t want to work full time. How many of them are retired and want extra income? How many are lacking in schooling and training? Those jobs are not meant to provide a living wage. And the argument that without those workers, the faithful employee, Wal-Mart wouldn’t exist, is fallacious. Because without Wal-Mart none of their jobs would exist either. Look at the minimum wage. It is meant for part-timers, the retired, teen-agers and those just entering the job market. The assumption has always been that employers who pay minimum wage are going to spend a lot of time training their people in entry-level skills. It’s not meant to be a living wage. The fact that so many people settle for those jobs and try to live on them, is not the employers problem and certainly not the governments problem!
This posturing about the evil rich is nothing more than a disingenuous ploy on the part of politicians to set one group of people against another for the sole purpose of collecting votes and re-election funds. And yet, every four years millions of people fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
And how can it not be obvious to everyone that the only two methods of taxation which even approach equity are a flat tax or a federal sales tax—without loopholes and exceptions. Our current income tax is illegal anyway. And don’t start yelling about the 16th amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
(This is a direct contradiction to the original amendment, which required apportionment, and all those other things I mention in the next few sentences.) And there is credible evidence that the 16th amendment has never been properly ratified.
According to the constitution (remember that document?), and the Supreme court, an “income tax” can only be collected from corporations since income is defined as “corporate profit”. A tax on wages originally came with very specific and limiting parameters. The tax must be for a specific and publically stated purpose, the length of time it is to be collected must be set, the amount collected must be pre-determined, and the various states must be apportioned according to population with a set amount for each state based on the latest census. Does that sound like the IRS? And does the 16th amendment sound like something the Founding Fathers would approve of? Read it again. It is carte blanche; the congress wrote themselves a law that says they can take as much money from us as they want. No limits. Yep, that sounds like socialism all right.
To review: raising taxes on wage earners, regardless of their income, is never the right thing to do. (It is occasionally acceptable to exempt some people from paying taxes altogether). Lowering taxes, especially on the working rich, always increases overall tax revenues. Always. It stimulates the economy, increases employment, and rebuilds infrastructure. It is better for everyone. This is fact. It can be proven. It is historical. And yet, again and again, the liberals deny it, claim it isn’t true. One might ask oneself why they would do that. What is their motive for such duplicity? If any of them would just come out and publically announce they subscribed to a socialist agenda, that would be fine. I would have no problem accepting their position and would be content to let the voters decide. But they never make such an admission. Why not? The entire democratic platform these days is based on socialist ideology, global government, global economy and the surrender of National sovereignty to some nebulous, ill-defined, intrinsically ineffective and naturally corruptible form of bureaucratic nightmare. What are they afraid of? What is it they will not speak? How do they really see the world and humanity in general? Because what they are saying is not what they are thinking.
Other than that, I’m pretty happy with the way things are going. How about you?
The tax myth
I was up half the night writing and rewriting another Intergalactic Memo in my head. What set me off was some hack running for president talking about taking care of the American worker, cutting taxes for the middle and lower class worker, and raising taxes on the wealthy. All of them are spouting the same tired mantra—“protect the workers, relieve the burden on the productive members of society” etc., ad nauseam.
In the Review Journal this morning I noticed a quote in an article by John Edwards. I didn’t read the article, I just saw the quote in a bigger font and read it. Here’s what it says:
I will pay for it by repealing President Bush’s income tax cuts for Americans who make more than $2oo,ooo per year.
I don’t even care what he’s planning to pay for. This kind of wrong-headed thinking is ludicrous. Where do these ideas come from? The Communist Manifesto? Mein Kampf? A pamphlet from the Socialist Workers Party? I swear, this kind of muddle-headed, emotion-driven, irrational, ideological drivel grates on my nerves like sandpaper eyelids folding back and scraping on the brain! We have Bolsheviks trying to run the country!
It’s as if liberals (and far too many Republicans are closet liberals) believe that anyone who earns over some arbitrary amount of money—$200,000 will do nicely for the moment—doesn’t work. What? Only people earning a wage are “workers”? Wealthy people don’t earn their money? That’s right out of Karl Marx. What is anything he had to say doing in an American political debate? Are there really people out there who think the country is thick with trust fund babies, the idle rich, the indolent, self-absorbed social elite? Because it isn’t true. They exist, certainly, but our media seems to have given the false impression that they are legion. The truth is less than one half of one percent of our citizens are wealthy by inheritance. (People like Paris Hilton, who, based on what we know of her thus far, is a complete waste of protoplasm). It is also true that the wealthiest 5% of the country pays over 50% of all taxes. Do people just not believe that? Then read this:
The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul¬dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per¬cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. (The American, Nov-Dec 2007, Stephen Moore, author)
Rich people pay taxes. It is a myth that they don’t. Corporations often get around paying, but that’s another issue altogether, which has to do with capital gains, writing off losses, and all kinds of other complicated stuff.
The idea that the rich don’t pay their fair share is just plain wrong. Like the rest of us, they take advantage of every deduction and exemption and exception they can legally find. A very few people—like George Soros—hire a phalanx of attorneys and accountants to keep from paying, but that is rare—and unethical. But for the most part they pay the lion’s share of taxes.
These politicians constantly pick on the working rich as if they are a separate class, which is tantamount to inciting class discrimination. It is the working rich who drive our economy, who pay the most in taxes and licensing fees and regulatory expenses, as well as mandated insurance, workers comp, social security and so on. They are not a separate class, they are not different from us—they just make more money—and pay lots more in taxes.
How many jobs has Steve Wynn created in Las Vegas? Tens of thousands at least—and all those employees pay taxes as well, but nowhere near as much as Mr. Wynn, who is the one who took the chances, had the dream (over and over again) found funding, created, and made his vision reality. I don’t know Steve. My guess is he and I wouldn’t get on very well. But I respect what he does. How about the Maloof brothers? I do not like their style at all. They were obnoxious rich boys in high school, spoiled and conceited. (I played ball with them on Wednesday nights back in the day). I think the Palms reperesents the worst of Las Vegas, the seedy, the crass and lascivious, but they too took their fathers seed money, started businesses, grew them, expanded, bought professional sports teams and came to Vegas and built a successful mega-resort. How many people do they employ? Thousands. And the Maloofs, like all the resort owners, pay local, state, and federal taxes. Regulatory fees, etc. We tax the snot out of them. And now we want to hit them again so they can pay for education. If we keep taxing the rich, keep picking on them and treating them like powerful chattel, they will eventually give up and go away. We’ll get just what we wanted and no one will have a job. Read Atlas Shrugged. It could happen.
And think about the sports franchises. Huge stadiums, even larger salaries for the players. But without A-Rod and his millions the peanut and beer guy would have no jobs. The grounds keepers would be doing something else, the security people and ushers and kiosk workers and memorabilia hawkers would be out of work and paying no taxes—and sucking up federal aid. Every stadium employs hundreds of people, every team hundreds more. Professional athletes may be idiots as a general rule, but they work hard. Their careers are short and often end in permanent, crippling injuries. Most of us have no idea what kind of commitment and determination it takes, starting as a kid, to make it to the pros. The sacrifice is tremendous. And because they are “wealthy”, hundreds of thousands of people have jobs. In what sense do pro athletes not work? And yeah, I think most of them are ignorant, spoiled brats too.
In what sense does my buddy Bryan not work? He owns a successful pool plastering business, employs 40 or 50 people and makes a good living. (I have no idea how much but it’s more than $200,000 a year). He works eighty, ninety hours a week—more than any of his employees. Explain to me why he should pay a higher percentage of taxes. I’ve talked to him; if he could get out from under the debilitating crush of taxation, he could expand, hire more people, purchase better equipment. He’d have more work, have to hire more people. And all those employees would pay more actual tax dollars to the government.
Let’s look at an unnamed hotelier. My cousin happens to be married to the guy. He’s worth billions, and he employs tens of thousands of people, pays all kinds of taxes, corporate and personal—millions and millions every year. He’s one of the majority of rich people who pay their fair share. They understand what taxes are for, why they are necessary. Most of us don’t. And most of the working rich spend even more on charities than they do on taxes. But when the politicians decide they have the right to spend other people’s money, and that some people should be forced to pay more by virtue of their success, all that philanthropy will dry up. It happens time and again, and still most people don’t get it. They don’t see the rich as being victims of unfair treatment, they just see the free money vanish and pronounce the rich selfish.
Now let’s talk about all those nice people who work at Wal-Mart (the ones who represent all those working in low-paying jobs.) We look at them and see their struggles, trying to make ends meet, and our knee-jerk reaction is to blame the rich and legislate another draconian tax to suck them dry. But there is no connection between Sam Walton’s billions and the fact that his cashiers make 12 dollars an hour—or 8, or whatever it is, other than the fact that Wal-Mart employs hundreds of thousands of people, all of whom pay taxes. But Walton personally kept less than one percent of his company’s earnings. He just knew how to make money. Most retail jobs don’t pay a lot because they don’t demand a lot of education or skill or experience. Those are low-skill jobs. Most of the people who have them don’t want to work full time. How many of them are retired and want extra income? How many are lacking in schooling and training? Those jobs are not meant to provide a living wage. And the argument that without those workers, the faithful employee, Wal-Mart wouldn’t exist, is fallacious. Because without Wal-Mart none of their jobs would exist either. Look at the minimum wage. It is meant for part-timers, the retired, teen-agers and those just entering the job market. The assumption has always been that employers who pay minimum wage are going to spend a lot of time training their people in entry-level skills. It’s not meant to be a living wage. The fact that so many people settle for those jobs and try to live on them, is not the employers problem and certainly not the governments problem!
This posturing about the evil rich is nothing more than a disingenuous ploy on the part of politicians to set one group of people against another for the sole purpose of collecting votes and re-election funds. And yet, every four years millions of people fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
And how can it not be obvious to everyone that the only two methods of taxation which even approach equity are a flat tax or a federal sales tax—without loopholes and exceptions. Our current income tax is illegal anyway. And don’t start yelling about the 16th amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
(This is a direct contradiction to the original amendment, which required apportionment, and all those other things I mention in the next few sentences.) And there is credible evidence that the 16th amendment has never been properly ratified.
According to the constitution (remember that document?), and the Supreme court, an “income tax” can only be collected from corporations since income is defined as “corporate profit”. A tax on wages originally came with very specific and limiting parameters. The tax must be for a specific and publically stated purpose, the length of time it is to be collected must be set, the amount collected must be pre-determined, and the various states must be apportioned according to population with a set amount for each state based on the latest census. Does that sound like the IRS? And does the 16th amendment sound like something the Founding Fathers would approve of? Read it again. It is carte blanche; the congress wrote themselves a law that says they can take as much money from us as they want. No limits. Yep, that sounds like socialism all right.
To review: raising taxes on wage earners, regardless of their income, is never the right thing to do. (It is occasionally acceptable to exempt some people from paying taxes altogether). Lowering taxes, especially on the working rich, always increases overall tax revenues. Always. It stimulates the economy, increases employment, and rebuilds infrastructure. It is better for everyone. This is fact. It can be proven. It is historical. And yet, again and again, the liberals deny it, claim it isn’t true. One might ask oneself why they would do that. What is their motive for such duplicity? If any of them would just come out and publically announce they subscribed to a socialist agenda, that would be fine. I would have no problem accepting their position and would be content to let the voters decide. But they never make such an admission. Why not? The entire democratic platform these days is based on socialist ideology, global government, global economy and the surrender of National sovereignty to some nebulous, ill-defined, intrinsically ineffective and naturally corruptible form of bureaucratic nightmare. What are they afraid of? What is it they will not speak? How do they really see the world and humanity in general? Because what they are saying is not what they are thinking.
Other than that, I’m pretty happy with the way things are going. How about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)