Inter-Galactic Memo
Special Edition
Fr: W. Leavitt Crypto-Paleo-geologist
To: All interested parties
Re: New, superior theory
The Treadmill Theory of Geological Relocation: A creative extrapolation of the Plate Tectonic Theory©
Abstract:
In 1973 Dr Stefan Peiterson of the Danish Polytechnic Institute for Geological Research introduced a radical and provocative new theory to explain not only the movement of continental plates, but the mysterious archeological evidence of displaced artifacts of an Atlantean culture found in the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico.
Famed Amateur Archeologist, William Hidden, Associate Professor of Franchise-Commerce at the University of New Mexico, had stunned the world with his discovery of ruins and artifacts outside of Wickenburg Arizona which hinted at a coastal, sea-faring race, fifty thousand years before the advent of Native American cultures. Hidden, universally reviled for his discoveries and spectacular interpretation of the evidence, endured a life of professional persecution and ridicule until Dr Peiterson announced his Theory of Geological Relocation, sometimes referred to as the “What goes around comes around” theory.
The theory explains the true nature of plate-dynamics as well as the existence of Hidden’s artifacts thousands of miles from the Atlantic Ocean, which is the traditional location of all Atlantean theories.
The basic aspects of the theory are these: Plates turn back on themselves, similar to the ubiquitous treadmills in health clubs, thus allowing every point of longitude on a given continent to be revisited by a given piece of land, and at a given (estimatable) sequence of repeatable times based on geological eras.
It is commonly believed that continental plates are able to move about on the mantle, rubbing against each other, often one plate sliding or being forced (subduction) under another, causing seismic events, volcanoes, and other phenomena. According to Dr. Peiterson’s brilliant conclusions the plates not only rub against each other, but because of the treadmill effect, with a lubricating interior of magma and large, mountain-sized naturally forming ball bearings of primordial stone, [see attached diagram] the crustal plate is turned on itself, dives deep into the mantle where it continues moving in the opposite direction until it reemerges right where it was a million years ago, give or take. As an example, in a million years, Charlotte, North Carolina will have moved to approximately where Albuquerque New Mexico is today, while Albuquerque will be deep in the interior of the earth, upside down, as it were, moving back to the east coast. Thus we see that the area around Wickenburg AZ was once on the east coast of the North American continent and in a position to have been populated by colonists from the mother country of Atlantis.
For further details on this and other matters relating to the Wickenburg Phenomenon, look for the up-coming book by W.A. Leavitt and D.P. Langholf, tentatively titled The Wickenburg Triangle Exposed.
Also: The Wickenburg Phenomenon Research Society of Holbrook Arizona, The Flint Michigan Golden Years Winnebago Travel Club Newsletter, the Michelin Truckers Guide to the Southwest, and the Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. special edition: Medicine Wheels, Then and Now, The College of Hamburger Knowledge, and The Journal of the Criminally Insane, a scholarly journal published by the Miskitonic Institute of Providence Rhode Island.
Sorry, I could not figure out how to put the diagram in.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
IGM Giant Snakes
Inter-Galactic Memo
FR: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Zoologist
TO: Everyone who has the misfortune of not being me
RE: Sweet vindication
In science news this morning we have a report from Columbia. The partial remains of a fossilized serpent were found in a coal mine there. The remains indicate a distant relative of the Boa Constrictor and scientists believe the specimen was at least forty feet long, perhaps longer. They estimate it weighed in excess of one ton. This is great news. I’m sure we have all seen those wonderful movies about giant snakes, like Anaconda, not to mention the seven or eight sequels. The Sci-Fi channel airs at least one movie a month about a giant snake (probably because the CGI is already in place which makes the movie cheaper to film.)
Those of us who have dedicated our lives to investigating imaginary flora and fauna are greatly relieved to finally have proof of the giant snake. This prehistoric creature was big enough to swallow a full grown human, which right away makes it cooler than lots of other things. It is unfortunate that the snake appears to have not been poisonous, but we can’t have everything.
Most giant snake movies take place in the Amazon basin, where the Anaconda lives, because it is the biggest snake alive today. We have always been sure there are larger examples living in the deepest recesses of the swampy jungle and now we have demonstrably speculative evidence of that very thing. So the next time you see a movie with giant, man-eating snakes, don’t pass it off as sophomoric nonsense. We now have absolute proof that it is possible that there are giant snakes living in the sewers of New York City.
FR: W. Leavitt, Crypto-Zoologist
TO: Everyone who has the misfortune of not being me
RE: Sweet vindication
In science news this morning we have a report from Columbia. The partial remains of a fossilized serpent were found in a coal mine there. The remains indicate a distant relative of the Boa Constrictor and scientists believe the specimen was at least forty feet long, perhaps longer. They estimate it weighed in excess of one ton. This is great news. I’m sure we have all seen those wonderful movies about giant snakes, like Anaconda, not to mention the seven or eight sequels. The Sci-Fi channel airs at least one movie a month about a giant snake (probably because the CGI is already in place which makes the movie cheaper to film.)
Those of us who have dedicated our lives to investigating imaginary flora and fauna are greatly relieved to finally have proof of the giant snake. This prehistoric creature was big enough to swallow a full grown human, which right away makes it cooler than lots of other things. It is unfortunate that the snake appears to have not been poisonous, but we can’t have everything.
Most giant snake movies take place in the Amazon basin, where the Anaconda lives, because it is the biggest snake alive today. We have always been sure there are larger examples living in the deepest recesses of the swampy jungle and now we have demonstrably speculative evidence of that very thing. So the next time you see a movie with giant, man-eating snakes, don’t pass it off as sophomoric nonsense. We now have absolute proof that it is possible that there are giant snakes living in the sewers of New York City.
IGM X-rays
Inter-Galactic Memo
Fr: W. Leavitt
To: Interested parties
Re: New source of X-rays
This is such a great story. Dateline: Physorg.com. A team of scientists from UCLA have accidentally discovered a new source of X-Rays. Are you ready? It’s Scotch Tape™. To quote Dave Berry, “I’m not making this up.”
Peeling tape from a roll of Scotch releases tiny bursts of X-rays that are powerful enough to take images of bones in fingers and hands, researchers have found.
Best of all, they have no idea why. The story is that years ago Russian scientists noticed an unusual effect when pulling sticky tape at just the right speed—it releases radiation.
The UCLA boys and girls tried it a few times and actually got images of their finger bones. So they set up an experiment and peeled the tape (at 1.18 inches per second) in a vacuum and were able to measure the amount of radiation. It was indeed enough to create images. Boy, those science guys . . . I’ll bet they had more fun engineering a device that peels tape at precisely 1.18 ips than they did having sex that one time.
There is a theory, which is called triboluminescence, which occurs when two contacting surfaces move relative to each other.
The impact of this will be, of course, devastating to the public, especially school teachers, who pull miles of scotch tape per year. Who knew we were irradiating ourselves on a daily basis? Pretty cool, huh?
But not to worry. There is a little known and often ridiculed phenomenon called Hormesis. This idea suggests that, since we evolved in a radioactive environment (everybody knows that right? Much more radioactive in the past than now), a small amount of naturally occurring background radiation is necessary for our overall health. Hormesis is real, and can be experimentally verified on plants as well as mice and Liberals. So don’t worry when you peel that tape (Scotch Magic tape doesn’t work) and get a dose—it’s good for what ails you. And at a time interval of a billionth of a second per burst, at 100 milliwatts, it would take several thousand miles of tugs to do any damage, which, even then, would only be statistical.
"It is a discharge process," said Camara. "It is not clear exactly what mechanism is taking place, but electrons are plainly flying from one side to the other at very high speed and when they hit the other side and they stop, X-rays are emitted.
Someday, this may lead to cheaper and safer X-ray machines. But don’t hold your breath.
Fr: W. Leavitt
To: Interested parties
Re: New source of X-rays
This is such a great story. Dateline: Physorg.com. A team of scientists from UCLA have accidentally discovered a new source of X-Rays. Are you ready? It’s Scotch Tape™. To quote Dave Berry, “I’m not making this up.”
Peeling tape from a roll of Scotch releases tiny bursts of X-rays that are powerful enough to take images of bones in fingers and hands, researchers have found.
Best of all, they have no idea why. The story is that years ago Russian scientists noticed an unusual effect when pulling sticky tape at just the right speed—it releases radiation.
The UCLA boys and girls tried it a few times and actually got images of their finger bones. So they set up an experiment and peeled the tape (at 1.18 inches per second) in a vacuum and were able to measure the amount of radiation. It was indeed enough to create images. Boy, those science guys . . . I’ll bet they had more fun engineering a device that peels tape at precisely 1.18 ips than they did having sex that one time.
There is a theory, which is called triboluminescence, which occurs when two contacting surfaces move relative to each other.
The impact of this will be, of course, devastating to the public, especially school teachers, who pull miles of scotch tape per year. Who knew we were irradiating ourselves on a daily basis? Pretty cool, huh?
But not to worry. There is a little known and often ridiculed phenomenon called Hormesis. This idea suggests that, since we evolved in a radioactive environment (everybody knows that right? Much more radioactive in the past than now), a small amount of naturally occurring background radiation is necessary for our overall health. Hormesis is real, and can be experimentally verified on plants as well as mice and Liberals. So don’t worry when you peel that tape (Scotch Magic tape doesn’t work) and get a dose—it’s good for what ails you. And at a time interval of a billionth of a second per burst, at 100 milliwatts, it would take several thousand miles of tugs to do any damage, which, even then, would only be statistical.
"It is a discharge process," said Camara. "It is not clear exactly what mechanism is taking place, but electrons are plainly flying from one side to the other at very high speed and when they hit the other side and they stop, X-rays are emitted.
Someday, this may lead to cheaper and safer X-ray machines. But don’t hold your breath.
Friday, October 3, 2008
IGM The Next Big Bail-out
Intergalactic Memo
To: All thinking creatures
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: The next big bailout
I was watching Glen Beck interviewing Ted Nugent earlier, which is one of my favorite things to do, when one of those 30 second news breaks came on with the commercials.
The bodiless voice told us that Governor Schwarzenegger has asked the Feds for a 7 Billion dollar emergency loan. He says its necessary to meet payroll—especially teachers—and if they don’t get it the state will be out of cash in a month. Schools will close. Public Safety (police and fire) will be put on emergency minimum shifts, etc.
It occurred to me—because, you know, I think about this stuff—that this was an admission of some kind. But it is not really a mystery. Here’s why:
When it comes to levying and collecting taxes, California is one of the top three states. They take in more money every year than 90% of the countries on earth. Look it up. Their budget is in the hundreds of billions, possibly over a trillion by now. You can look that up too if you want, but I’m not going to.
So, if they take in more money than France or Germany or Italy or Greece or Norway or Sweden, etc, etc, where did all the money go? How could they possibly not have enough to even meet payroll? I thought about it for a few seconds and the answer came to me as a voice from somewhere above me. Well, a little above, and to the left and behind me, like, over my shoulder from somewhere in the kitchen, but it was there, I swear it.
It is two-fold. I will expose them Socratically. First, how does California collect so much money? From where does it come? They collect it in the form of one of the most egregious, outrageously anti-capitalistic, anti-liberty and independence tax systems in the history of the world. They are sucking dry the teat that feeds them. Which is for-profit business. The private sector.
The people who work for business are being killed as well, but not to the extent businesses are. The money goes directly into that huge bureaucratic dumpster affectionately called entitlements. Welfare. Social programs. Special Ed, No Child Left Behind (which Congress neglected to fund, leaving it up to the states), Head Start, Lunch Programs, Section 8 Housing, and on and on. Notice that not one of these items I mentioned sounds in any way wrong, or mean-spirited, or unnecessary. But California can’t afford it all. And that is always the problem with well-meaning but hopelessly clueless, emotionally-driven people. (You know—liberals.) They insist on biting off more than the rest of us can chew. They refuse to set limits, preferring to live in a dream world where the money will always come from somewhere. But the money comes from people’s pockets. People who hire millions of other people. And eventually, the ones who believe—erroneously—that taxing profit out of existence is a good thing, manage to do it. Then the business closes, the jobs vanish, the tax revenues dry up, and California finds itself bankrupt. Again.
Which brings us to the second reason. At some point, the people who generate most of the revenue that goes for all the entitlements, decide they’ve had enough. They close their business and move to another state, or country, or go to work as an employee, still paying taxes, but not quite as much. We experienced this a few years ago when thousands of business relocated to Nevada from California, and hundreds of thousands of people moved along with them, which artificially inflated the real estate, which made it necessary for Congress to force the banks to loan money to everybody, which . . . well, you get my point. All that money California thought they had, and would always be there, vanished. I would have told them it would happen for a lousy million. Tax-free obviously.
California literally brought this on themselves. And they have to be bailed out. And it will come out of your (our) pockets . . . as always. And the next time some moron proposes a feel-good government program, we will forget all about not having enough to pay for everything, and do it all again. Oh wait—they just did.
To: All thinking creatures
Fr: W. Leavitt
Re: The next big bailout
I was watching Glen Beck interviewing Ted Nugent earlier, which is one of my favorite things to do, when one of those 30 second news breaks came on with the commercials.
The bodiless voice told us that Governor Schwarzenegger has asked the Feds for a 7 Billion dollar emergency loan. He says its necessary to meet payroll—especially teachers—and if they don’t get it the state will be out of cash in a month. Schools will close. Public Safety (police and fire) will be put on emergency minimum shifts, etc.
It occurred to me—because, you know, I think about this stuff—that this was an admission of some kind. But it is not really a mystery. Here’s why:
When it comes to levying and collecting taxes, California is one of the top three states. They take in more money every year than 90% of the countries on earth. Look it up. Their budget is in the hundreds of billions, possibly over a trillion by now. You can look that up too if you want, but I’m not going to.
So, if they take in more money than France or Germany or Italy or Greece or Norway or Sweden, etc, etc, where did all the money go? How could they possibly not have enough to even meet payroll? I thought about it for a few seconds and the answer came to me as a voice from somewhere above me. Well, a little above, and to the left and behind me, like, over my shoulder from somewhere in the kitchen, but it was there, I swear it.
It is two-fold. I will expose them Socratically. First, how does California collect so much money? From where does it come? They collect it in the form of one of the most egregious, outrageously anti-capitalistic, anti-liberty and independence tax systems in the history of the world. They are sucking dry the teat that feeds them. Which is for-profit business. The private sector.
The people who work for business are being killed as well, but not to the extent businesses are. The money goes directly into that huge bureaucratic dumpster affectionately called entitlements. Welfare. Social programs. Special Ed, No Child Left Behind (which Congress neglected to fund, leaving it up to the states), Head Start, Lunch Programs, Section 8 Housing, and on and on. Notice that not one of these items I mentioned sounds in any way wrong, or mean-spirited, or unnecessary. But California can’t afford it all. And that is always the problem with well-meaning but hopelessly clueless, emotionally-driven people. (You know—liberals.) They insist on biting off more than the rest of us can chew. They refuse to set limits, preferring to live in a dream world where the money will always come from somewhere. But the money comes from people’s pockets. People who hire millions of other people. And eventually, the ones who believe—erroneously—that taxing profit out of existence is a good thing, manage to do it. Then the business closes, the jobs vanish, the tax revenues dry up, and California finds itself bankrupt. Again.
Which brings us to the second reason. At some point, the people who generate most of the revenue that goes for all the entitlements, decide they’ve had enough. They close their business and move to another state, or country, or go to work as an employee, still paying taxes, but not quite as much. We experienced this a few years ago when thousands of business relocated to Nevada from California, and hundreds of thousands of people moved along with them, which artificially inflated the real estate, which made it necessary for Congress to force the banks to loan money to everybody, which . . . well, you get my point. All that money California thought they had, and would always be there, vanished. I would have told them it would happen for a lousy million. Tax-free obviously.
California literally brought this on themselves. And they have to be bailed out. And it will come out of your (our) pockets . . . as always. And the next time some moron proposes a feel-good government program, we will forget all about not having enough to pay for everything, and do it all again. Oh wait—they just did.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
IGM Nebraska Law
Inter-Galactic Memo
Fr: W. Leavitt
To: The usual suspects
Re: Nebraska’s new law
Last July, Nebraska lawmakers tried to address a growing problem. They passed a law allowing parents to take a “child” to any hospital and abandon it. No questions asked, no legal repercussions. The law was intended to protect newborns and infants, who might otherwise end up dead and tossed in a dumpster—something which happens all too often.
This piece of legislation was well-intentioned, and I applaud the sentiment, but it was not well-considered. It is poorly worded, using the terms ‘child’ and ‘children’ instead of infant and/or newborn, and set the age limit at under 19. Since it went into law, at least 16 kids have been dropped-off, some of them teenagers.
We (and by we, I mean anyone who has been a parent longer than ten minutes) all know how difficult, challenging and stressful it can be to raise one or more children. Sometimes we just want to . . . drop them off somewhere, change our names and move away. But we don’t. There is no responsibility in all of human existence more sacred, profound and important that being a mom or dad. Most of us know this, and do whatever it takes to stick it out. It’s almost always worth it eventually, but there are no guarantees.
sometimes a parent finds themselves in an untenable situation. Lost, alone, at the end of their rope, with nothing left to give, to do, to believe. And sometimes kids accidentally have kids of their own and don’t know what to do. Which makes the hospital drop-off a wonderful idea.
But the law isn’t working the way it was supposed to. Government seems to be a continuing exercise in unintended consequences.
One man recently dropped all nine of his children off, ages 1 to 17. Sounds terrible doesn’t it? But his wife had died a few months previous, and he had to quit his job to take care of the kids, and one thing led to another. Talk about being at your wits end. It’s easy to pass judgment on something like this, but we all have different strengths and weaknesses, and varying levels of tolerance and expertise. The poor guy didn’t know what else to do, and there was the new law. At least the kids will be taken care of, I’m sure he was thinking, at least they will be fed and clothed and go to school. My heart goes out to the guy. But I have to ask myself, where was his support? Where was his family, his church, his friends? Maybe there weren’t any—who knows? Even though Nita and I are past all that—empty nesters—it is good to look back and know that we would never have had to face such a decision. Our extended family would have done whatever was necessary to see to it that our family stayed together. And, God forbid, if something should happen to one of our children, we would be right there to take over—as would the other sets of grandparents.
The problem with this scenario in Nebraska is not obvious. It isn’t people who can’t take care of their kids, it’s who should step in when they can’t—or won’t. In this case, government stepped in, which is almost always a mistake in these kinds of situations. We are losing the most important infrastructure of all—the network of family and friends, especially those with whom we attend religious services, and other private organizations designed to help in these kinds of circumstances. Over the decades we have been slowly inculcated with this idea that government will be there, that it is “their” job to take care of everything. And slowly, we have been sucked into that lie. It is this lie that was at the heart of the disaster in New Orleans during Katrina. It wasn’t the Governor or Mayor, and it wasn’t President Bush and his FEMA people (although it could have been handled better) it was this pervasive and crippling idea that government will always be there, can solve any problem—which they have been telling us now for far too long. This idea is why thousands of people sat and did nothing while the water rose and the dikes broke. They had been trained to do just that. And we see it elsewhere as well. In fires, earthquakes, floods, and in economic implosions. The government will take care of it, don’t worry.
Maybe we should rethink this trend. Maybe we should take care of it. A few people do. They drop what they are doing and go to where they are needed and stay until its fixed. Most of us don’t—can’t, to be realistic. But not because it’s impossible. We don’t or can’t because the system has been altered. Once upon a time it was done differently. I think the change began when President Roosevelt gave us the New Deal. I could be wrong. But FDR would have liked this new law— bring your unwanted children to a hospital, and we will take care of everything. It is humane, kind, and obviously comes from a place of compassion. But it is wrong. Not wrong as in immoral, but wrong as in a mistake. We have become a nation addicted to government at every level. And we need to kick the habit.
Fr: W. Leavitt
To: The usual suspects
Re: Nebraska’s new law
Last July, Nebraska lawmakers tried to address a growing problem. They passed a law allowing parents to take a “child” to any hospital and abandon it. No questions asked, no legal repercussions. The law was intended to protect newborns and infants, who might otherwise end up dead and tossed in a dumpster—something which happens all too often.
This piece of legislation was well-intentioned, and I applaud the sentiment, but it was not well-considered. It is poorly worded, using the terms ‘child’ and ‘children’ instead of infant and/or newborn, and set the age limit at under 19. Since it went into law, at least 16 kids have been dropped-off, some of them teenagers.
We (and by we, I mean anyone who has been a parent longer than ten minutes) all know how difficult, challenging and stressful it can be to raise one or more children. Sometimes we just want to . . . drop them off somewhere, change our names and move away. But we don’t. There is no responsibility in all of human existence more sacred, profound and important that being a mom or dad. Most of us know this, and do whatever it takes to stick it out. It’s almost always worth it eventually, but there are no guarantees.
sometimes a parent finds themselves in an untenable situation. Lost, alone, at the end of their rope, with nothing left to give, to do, to believe. And sometimes kids accidentally have kids of their own and don’t know what to do. Which makes the hospital drop-off a wonderful idea.
But the law isn’t working the way it was supposed to. Government seems to be a continuing exercise in unintended consequences.
One man recently dropped all nine of his children off, ages 1 to 17. Sounds terrible doesn’t it? But his wife had died a few months previous, and he had to quit his job to take care of the kids, and one thing led to another. Talk about being at your wits end. It’s easy to pass judgment on something like this, but we all have different strengths and weaknesses, and varying levels of tolerance and expertise. The poor guy didn’t know what else to do, and there was the new law. At least the kids will be taken care of, I’m sure he was thinking, at least they will be fed and clothed and go to school. My heart goes out to the guy. But I have to ask myself, where was his support? Where was his family, his church, his friends? Maybe there weren’t any—who knows? Even though Nita and I are past all that—empty nesters—it is good to look back and know that we would never have had to face such a decision. Our extended family would have done whatever was necessary to see to it that our family stayed together. And, God forbid, if something should happen to one of our children, we would be right there to take over—as would the other sets of grandparents.
The problem with this scenario in Nebraska is not obvious. It isn’t people who can’t take care of their kids, it’s who should step in when they can’t—or won’t. In this case, government stepped in, which is almost always a mistake in these kinds of situations. We are losing the most important infrastructure of all—the network of family and friends, especially those with whom we attend religious services, and other private organizations designed to help in these kinds of circumstances. Over the decades we have been slowly inculcated with this idea that government will be there, that it is “their” job to take care of everything. And slowly, we have been sucked into that lie. It is this lie that was at the heart of the disaster in New Orleans during Katrina. It wasn’t the Governor or Mayor, and it wasn’t President Bush and his FEMA people (although it could have been handled better) it was this pervasive and crippling idea that government will always be there, can solve any problem—which they have been telling us now for far too long. This idea is why thousands of people sat and did nothing while the water rose and the dikes broke. They had been trained to do just that. And we see it elsewhere as well. In fires, earthquakes, floods, and in economic implosions. The government will take care of it, don’t worry.
Maybe we should rethink this trend. Maybe we should take care of it. A few people do. They drop what they are doing and go to where they are needed and stay until its fixed. Most of us don’t—can’t, to be realistic. But not because it’s impossible. We don’t or can’t because the system has been altered. Once upon a time it was done differently. I think the change began when President Roosevelt gave us the New Deal. I could be wrong. But FDR would have liked this new law— bring your unwanted children to a hospital, and we will take care of everything. It is humane, kind, and obviously comes from a place of compassion. But it is wrong. Not wrong as in immoral, but wrong as in a mistake. We have become a nation addicted to government at every level. And we need to kick the habit.
IGM PETA and breast milk
IGM
This is about PETA and therefore does not deserve the usual heading and memo format. I have already blocked the source of this, although my brother might have sent a link with the story.
PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has released an official proclamation asking (at least I think they asked, but they do a good deal of strident demanding, whining, begging, coercing and confrontational harassing) Ben And Jerry (Of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream—my second favorite kind) to switch from cow’s milk to breast milk. That’s human breast milk.
I assume that in their deluded little world of “Planet Death to Humans” PETA thinks that milking cows is cruel and unusual. True, we are the only creature I know of which continues drinking milk past infancy, and uses the milk of another animal, and I can see some room for a lively debate on those points, but despite those caveats, how is it possible that a group of presumably sane people can come to such a desperately unsane conclusion?
I am familiar with the process of milking a cow. Not intimately, but I have tried it, and been around it off and on. Both my parents did a lot of it in their youth. I’ve never seen a cow behave as if it objected to the milking. Sometimes they kick or bolt, but that is usually because someone had cold hands, or squeezed where they shouldn’t have, or startled the animal. PETA will counter with the argument that commercial dairies lock the cow in a metal cage when they are hooked up to the automatic milking machine. I will counter the counter by saying “are you people complete morons?” They put them in the cages so they don’t wander off halfway through—that might be painful. So they are protecting them, not abusing them. Notice the cows don’t protest the process.
Now, let’s move on to the breast milk part of the proposal. Ben and Jerry’s is headquartered in Vermont. There are about 750,000 people in Vermont. (Yes, I looked it up) I can just picture every lactating female pumping her breasts every day to sell to an ice cream company. (To hell with the kid, we need the money.) I’m sure Ben and Jerry would be willing to pay for such a service. Considering the inconvenience, the stigma, and the tiny amount of milk from each session, I put the wholesale price of breast milk at around $100 an ounce. Probably more. Which would what—triple?—the price of their product. But even if every legal-age female adult in the state regularly sold their milk, (Which is possible, but that’s another story) they would be around a million gallons short. Now the price of breast milk rises to several thousand an ounce. But what woman would do it? Not even the members of PETA. Although Pamela Anderson could make serious bank if she did, and videotaped it.
Ben and Jerry’s response was precious. They essentially said, “What a wonderful and creative idea, but no thanks.”
So why the letter? Two reasons, which are always the same with PETA. The first is political agitation. The second is attention. PETA is, at its heart, a collection of people who believe they are sincere about their cause, but are really just a bunch of sad, pathetic, personality-challenged, socially-inept . . .
No, that’s not fair. They are well-intentioned. But ontologically misinformed. PETA can only happen in the screwed-up, humanist, Godless culture of Hubris Inc. Otherwise known as America, circa right now.
They weren’t serious about the breast milk. They were trying to make a point. As usual the point was ridiculous. Animals have no inherent rights. Which sort of puts the entire reason for PETA’s existence to rest. Only creatures with the ability to cognitively realize the concept of “rights” can have rights. Cogito Ergo sum. Whatever that means.
This is about PETA and therefore does not deserve the usual heading and memo format. I have already blocked the source of this, although my brother might have sent a link with the story.
PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has released an official proclamation asking (at least I think they asked, but they do a good deal of strident demanding, whining, begging, coercing and confrontational harassing) Ben And Jerry (Of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream—my second favorite kind) to switch from cow’s milk to breast milk. That’s human breast milk.
I assume that in their deluded little world of “Planet Death to Humans” PETA thinks that milking cows is cruel and unusual. True, we are the only creature I know of which continues drinking milk past infancy, and uses the milk of another animal, and I can see some room for a lively debate on those points, but despite those caveats, how is it possible that a group of presumably sane people can come to such a desperately unsane conclusion?
I am familiar with the process of milking a cow. Not intimately, but I have tried it, and been around it off and on. Both my parents did a lot of it in their youth. I’ve never seen a cow behave as if it objected to the milking. Sometimes they kick or bolt, but that is usually because someone had cold hands, or squeezed where they shouldn’t have, or startled the animal. PETA will counter with the argument that commercial dairies lock the cow in a metal cage when they are hooked up to the automatic milking machine. I will counter the counter by saying “are you people complete morons?” They put them in the cages so they don’t wander off halfway through—that might be painful. So they are protecting them, not abusing them. Notice the cows don’t protest the process.
Now, let’s move on to the breast milk part of the proposal. Ben and Jerry’s is headquartered in Vermont. There are about 750,000 people in Vermont. (Yes, I looked it up) I can just picture every lactating female pumping her breasts every day to sell to an ice cream company. (To hell with the kid, we need the money.) I’m sure Ben and Jerry would be willing to pay for such a service. Considering the inconvenience, the stigma, and the tiny amount of milk from each session, I put the wholesale price of breast milk at around $100 an ounce. Probably more. Which would what—triple?—the price of their product. But even if every legal-age female adult in the state regularly sold their milk, (Which is possible, but that’s another story) they would be around a million gallons short. Now the price of breast milk rises to several thousand an ounce. But what woman would do it? Not even the members of PETA. Although Pamela Anderson could make serious bank if she did, and videotaped it.
Ben and Jerry’s response was precious. They essentially said, “What a wonderful and creative idea, but no thanks.”
So why the letter? Two reasons, which are always the same with PETA. The first is political agitation. The second is attention. PETA is, at its heart, a collection of people who believe they are sincere about their cause, but are really just a bunch of sad, pathetic, personality-challenged, socially-inept . . .
No, that’s not fair. They are well-intentioned. But ontologically misinformed. PETA can only happen in the screwed-up, humanist, Godless culture of Hubris Inc. Otherwise known as America, circa right now.
They weren’t serious about the breast milk. They were trying to make a point. As usual the point was ridiculous. Animals have no inherent rights. Which sort of puts the entire reason for PETA’s existence to rest. Only creatures with the ability to cognitively realize the concept of “rights” can have rights. Cogito Ergo sum. Whatever that means.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
IGM Conflicting Theories
Inter-Galactic Memo
To: People with nothing better to do
Fr: W. Leavitt (who had nothing better to do)
Re: Scientists with nothing better to do . . . . .
There are two semi-fascinating articles on Physorg.com today. One, coming to us from Oxford, that ancient repository of theoretical brilliance and degenerate buggery, claims that Dark Matter (remember that? We’ve talked about it before) does not exist. It had to happen, right?
In order to explain the phenomenon they’ve been seeing, the boys (and girls I assume) at Oxford say that it is more likely we (the earth, Milky Way, local group) just happen to be in an area of the universe that is “a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low.” Well, that makes sense. Occam comes to the rescue again.
In other words, I guess, instead of there being a hundred times more matter than we see out there, we live in a place that is unusually low in matter. The rest of the universe has lots more, which accounts for the motion of galaxies, etc.
Just two doors down from that article is another from NASA. Scientists there have found a new, very small motion in distant galactic clusters. Not individual galaxies mind you—not enough mass in just one—but in clusters of hundreds of galaxies that are gravitationally connected. They have decided ( I imagine them voting on napkins in the break room) that "The clusters show a small but measurable velocity that is independent of the universe's expansion and does not change as distances increase." In other words, there is apparently something beyond the known (visible) universe. A great deal more mass, which is exerting its own, independent influence on the visible universe as a whole.
What's more, this motion is constant out to at least a billion light-years. "Because the dark flow already extends so far, it likely extends across the visible universe," Kashlinsky says.
The finding flies in the face of predictions from standard cosmological models, which describe such motions as decreasing at ever greater distances.
Now, that’s interesting. In order to make such an effect constant over a billion light years, there would have to be a lot of matter out there beyond what we can see. Much more than in that part of the universe we can see. And how would the effect of that matter not decrease over distance? They don’t know. Neither do I, but I have a theory.
So on the one hand, and at the same time, we have a group of very capable, educated people claiming Dark Matter may not exist after all, that we just live in a relative empty region of space, (which would make the Copernican concept of the universe in error) and on the other hand we have a similar group claiming that not only does Dark Matter exist, but that even more of it must be beyond our ability to detect it, beyond the known universe. Actually, the stuff we can’t see—which has to be much more massive than the entire visible universe—could be regular matter, like dirt and pet dander. Nobody knows. Unlike dark matter which we can’t see because its invisible, and currently undetectable, we can’t see that other stuff because it’s just too far away.
So now we have people suggesting that the big bang might not have happened, that the universe is infinite, and that matter and energy are therefore infinite. Hey, that sounds a lot like a religious claim. Specifically, the Christian concept of the universe. “No beginning, no end, stars without number,” all that stuff. See? Science and religion can live together after all.
To: People with nothing better to do
Fr: W. Leavitt (who had nothing better to do)
Re: Scientists with nothing better to do . . . . .
There are two semi-fascinating articles on Physorg.com today. One, coming to us from Oxford, that ancient repository of theoretical brilliance and degenerate buggery, claims that Dark Matter (remember that? We’ve talked about it before) does not exist. It had to happen, right?
In order to explain the phenomenon they’ve been seeing, the boys (and girls I assume) at Oxford say that it is more likely we (the earth, Milky Way, local group) just happen to be in an area of the universe that is “a huge void where the density of matter is particularly low.” Well, that makes sense. Occam comes to the rescue again.
In other words, I guess, instead of there being a hundred times more matter than we see out there, we live in a place that is unusually low in matter. The rest of the universe has lots more, which accounts for the motion of galaxies, etc.
Just two doors down from that article is another from NASA. Scientists there have found a new, very small motion in distant galactic clusters. Not individual galaxies mind you—not enough mass in just one—but in clusters of hundreds of galaxies that are gravitationally connected. They have decided ( I imagine them voting on napkins in the break room) that "The clusters show a small but measurable velocity that is independent of the universe's expansion and does not change as distances increase." In other words, there is apparently something beyond the known (visible) universe. A great deal more mass, which is exerting its own, independent influence on the visible universe as a whole.
What's more, this motion is constant out to at least a billion light-years. "Because the dark flow already extends so far, it likely extends across the visible universe," Kashlinsky says.
The finding flies in the face of predictions from standard cosmological models, which describe such motions as decreasing at ever greater distances.
Now, that’s interesting. In order to make such an effect constant over a billion light years, there would have to be a lot of matter out there beyond what we can see. Much more than in that part of the universe we can see. And how would the effect of that matter not decrease over distance? They don’t know. Neither do I, but I have a theory.
So on the one hand, and at the same time, we have a group of very capable, educated people claiming Dark Matter may not exist after all, that we just live in a relative empty region of space, (which would make the Copernican concept of the universe in error) and on the other hand we have a similar group claiming that not only does Dark Matter exist, but that even more of it must be beyond our ability to detect it, beyond the known universe. Actually, the stuff we can’t see—which has to be much more massive than the entire visible universe—could be regular matter, like dirt and pet dander. Nobody knows. Unlike dark matter which we can’t see because its invisible, and currently undetectable, we can’t see that other stuff because it’s just too far away.
So now we have people suggesting that the big bang might not have happened, that the universe is infinite, and that matter and energy are therefore infinite. Hey, that sounds a lot like a religious claim. Specifically, the Christian concept of the universe. “No beginning, no end, stars without number,” all that stuff. See? Science and religion can live together after all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)