I read an article today that mentioned a woman who followed her GPS directions and ended up stranded in California's Death Valley. (Or, as Bill Engvall calls it, it's a valley ... of death!) I cannot understand this. Certainly I could understand ending up on the wrong street or the wrong neighborhood, but how do you drive on the freeway with signs saying "Death Valley next exit" and think that the signs must be wrong because there's no way the GPS could be wrong? If you were about to drive off a pier, would you refuse to believe there was water ahead of you because the GPS says there isn't? Guess what? You're going to get wet!
This is the lack of common sense that I constantly mourn in this world. You see it in things large and small.
For example, an NFL player was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. What was one of the clues the DA used to press charges? The defendant had bought a pack of a particular kind of bubble gum, and the cops found a chewed piece of that gum at the murder scene. Leave out the DNA testing sure to follow. How do you spit your gum out at a murder site and not think to get rid of it? The guy is an idiot and an evil person for committing murder, but he's a complete moron to leave that kind of evidence laying there!
Another example: the CEO of Chik-Fil-A has made it clear that he is opposed to homosexuality. That's his right. But then he posts an idiotic statement on Twitter, deletes it after it is discovered(?), and then can't figure out how the news media has gotten a hold of things! If you post something online, it's there. It's the same thing with people who post embarrassing things on Facebook and wonder how it went viral. Why not post your phone number and then wonder why you get crank calls?
Paula Deen wonders why she's getting flak? Oh, I don't know... because you showed extremely racist behavior? Westboro Baptist Church wonders why Anonymous is hacking their site after they publicly make their idiotic statements and basically dare the hackers to go after them?
The electronic age has been amazing. But nothing is perfect, and if you start to think it is, then you're a fool. If you don't want something out there, don't type it. Don't photograph it. Don't post it. No one cares about your breakfast. But if you're going to post a picture of yourself in a stolen car, don't be shocked if the cops find you. If you're going to post a picture of yourself in Nazi regalia, don't be surprised if you don't get hired anywhere.
And if you see a sign that says Death Valley, don't get off the freeway if you wanted to go to San Diego.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Getting Older
I'm back, and it's time to address an issue that is staring me in the face like a rabid ferret: aging.
Not aging in general this time, but the aspects of aging that involve medical testing.
I was watching a Bill Engvall performance video the other evening, and one of his routines had to do with having that oh-so-fun colonoscopy. He joked about the laxative he had to take the day before, and how anyone who tried to use his bathroom got yelled out of the house. He told about the IV that turned him into a wasted guy that got distracted by the movement of his own finger. He had the audience laughing about the length of tube curled by the machine, and how he passed gas afterward like a bull elephant. If you're wondering, yes, I laughed, too. How could I not? He was hilarious! And yet, behind my laughter was the frightening aspect of the same procedure in my future. It wasn't so funny at that point.
I'm nearly fifty, which means that the AARP is right around the corner (yay discounts!), but it also means that fun times involving prostate exams and colonoscopies are now on the medical schedule for me. Every time I hear about these exams, I never fail to ask, "Shouldn't a modern technological society have come up with a better and less invasive way of conducting these exams?"
Imagine someone from 100 years ago getting a tour of a modern hospital:
"Here, sir, is where we can scan your brain without opening your skull! It's a machine that can show us layers of your brain and where a problem may exist. And here's something interesting! This is called a gamma knife, and it allows us to operate without opening the skin. And where we do open the skin, we have things like electro cauterization and the cell saver which minimizes the loss of blood in a patient. Oh, and look at this! This is a robot that allows doctors to operate safely down to the smallest and most delicate areas of the body!"
"Excuse me, Doctor, but what is that machine over there?"
"Oh, well that's a tube we stick up the patient's backside so we can look for things in the colon!"
"Barbarians!!!"
Seriously, though... Doesn't it seem odd that we can scan an active, living brain for damage without opening the skull, and we can't check a colon for polyps without sticking a tube into it? With all of our technology, Doctor Squint has to still shove a fire hose up the chute to look for bumps? When he finds some, will he shove leeches up there?
I know my loved ones want me to be healthy and live a long life. I want that, too. But when is a technology that gives us Google Glass, iPhones, and Double Stuf Oreos going to get going on a true benefit to mankind: the external scanner for colons? Oh Steve Jobs, why did you have to be such an anti-medicine type? Why couldn't we have an iScope? It's not too late, Bill Gates. While your foundation is offering money for people who come up with ways to solve the world's problems, how about a little cash in the direction of the male colon?
Don't get me started on prostate exams....
Not aging in general this time, but the aspects of aging that involve medical testing.
I was watching a Bill Engvall performance video the other evening, and one of his routines had to do with having that oh-so-fun colonoscopy. He joked about the laxative he had to take the day before, and how anyone who tried to use his bathroom got yelled out of the house. He told about the IV that turned him into a wasted guy that got distracted by the movement of his own finger. He had the audience laughing about the length of tube curled by the machine, and how he passed gas afterward like a bull elephant. If you're wondering, yes, I laughed, too. How could I not? He was hilarious! And yet, behind my laughter was the frightening aspect of the same procedure in my future. It wasn't so funny at that point.
I'm nearly fifty, which means that the AARP is right around the corner (yay discounts!), but it also means that fun times involving prostate exams and colonoscopies are now on the medical schedule for me. Every time I hear about these exams, I never fail to ask, "Shouldn't a modern technological society have come up with a better and less invasive way of conducting these exams?"
Imagine someone from 100 years ago getting a tour of a modern hospital:
"Here, sir, is where we can scan your brain without opening your skull! It's a machine that can show us layers of your brain and where a problem may exist. And here's something interesting! This is called a gamma knife, and it allows us to operate without opening the skin. And where we do open the skin, we have things like electro cauterization and the cell saver which minimizes the loss of blood in a patient. Oh, and look at this! This is a robot that allows doctors to operate safely down to the smallest and most delicate areas of the body!"
"Excuse me, Doctor, but what is that machine over there?"
"Oh, well that's a tube we stick up the patient's backside so we can look for things in the colon!"
"Barbarians!!!"
Seriously, though... Doesn't it seem odd that we can scan an active, living brain for damage without opening the skull, and we can't check a colon for polyps without sticking a tube into it? With all of our technology, Doctor Squint has to still shove a fire hose up the chute to look for bumps? When he finds some, will he shove leeches up there?
I know my loved ones want me to be healthy and live a long life. I want that, too. But when is a technology that gives us Google Glass, iPhones, and Double Stuf Oreos going to get going on a true benefit to mankind: the external scanner for colons? Oh Steve Jobs, why did you have to be such an anti-medicine type? Why couldn't we have an iScope? It's not too late, Bill Gates. While your foundation is offering money for people who come up with ways to solve the world's problems, how about a little cash in the direction of the male colon?
Don't get me started on prostate exams....
Monday, June 24, 2013
Delay of Posts
Just wanted to let folks know that I'm not dead. I have had several really busy days, and haven't been in the frame of mind to post anything. Will try to pick it up tomorrow.
Thanks for your patience.
Or lack of interest.
Or whatever.
Thanks for your patience.
Or lack of interest.
Or whatever.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
News Headlines
I decided that since I couldn't think of subject matter to discuss, I would do the usual and scan through the different news sites and pick a few subjects of interest.
Report: Paula Deen Uses "N" Word: Link to Daily Beast I'd like to say that this headline shocked me, but it doesn't. Deen sees herself as a Southerner (note the capital "S"), and the news report says that she not only used the "N" word, but imagined African Americans dressed in white coats as servers for a Southern-themed wedding. Aside from the clearly racist visual imagery this creates, I'd like to know what self-respecting African American would actually act as a wait staff member for such a reception. Anyone? No? Sorry, Paula. You're going to have to think of something else. How about a masquerade party? You and your friends could wear pillowcases over your heads until you reveal your identities at midnight?
Serena Williams Apologizes for Comment Made About Rape Case: SI article Serena Williams tries to backtrack on a comment made that implied that a girl was partially responsible for getting raped due to the way she was dressed. Really, Serena? You wear a black "catsuit" on a tennis court and you're pointing fingers at a girl who got raped? Like it's her fault?? Stick to your noisy tennis strokes and leave discussion of sensitive topics to those who have half a brain. Good grief.
Starbucks to Post Calorie Counts: Starbucks article They already do that in California. That's how we know that a Venti Mocha Frappuccino has 470 calories, 17 grams of fat, 77 grams of carbs, and is 31% fat. Venti Frap Calories If you're a guy, just order 4 of these and you're done with your calories for the day. On a side note, you're probably also dead.
Men's Wearhouse Fires George Zimmer: Zimmer Fired How does the guy that founded the company get fired? This guy was responsible for the success of the franchise, had concerns about the direction the board was taking it, and got fired for his trouble. I shop here! Now I'm torn! (Oops... no, that's just the pants.) This is the guy responsible for: "You're Gonna Like the Way You Look. I Guarantee It." And he did guarantee it! The customer service was great, and I don't think that the founder of a company should be able to be fired by a bunch of corporate hacks. I don't like they way they look.
GM Tops Quality List: GM Quality It hurt me to type those words. I cannot imagine the data used to come up with that information, but it must be true if it comes from J.D. Power. In other news, North Korea ranks first in public health and nutrition, and Guantanamo Bay ranked first in Seaside Resorts.
Report: Paula Deen Uses "N" Word: Link to Daily Beast I'd like to say that this headline shocked me, but it doesn't. Deen sees herself as a Southerner (note the capital "S"), and the news report says that she not only used the "N" word, but imagined African Americans dressed in white coats as servers for a Southern-themed wedding. Aside from the clearly racist visual imagery this creates, I'd like to know what self-respecting African American would actually act as a wait staff member for such a reception. Anyone? No? Sorry, Paula. You're going to have to think of something else. How about a masquerade party? You and your friends could wear pillowcases over your heads until you reveal your identities at midnight?
Serena Williams Apologizes for Comment Made About Rape Case: SI article Serena Williams tries to backtrack on a comment made that implied that a girl was partially responsible for getting raped due to the way she was dressed. Really, Serena? You wear a black "catsuit" on a tennis court and you're pointing fingers at a girl who got raped? Like it's her fault?? Stick to your noisy tennis strokes and leave discussion of sensitive topics to those who have half a brain. Good grief.
Starbucks to Post Calorie Counts: Starbucks article They already do that in California. That's how we know that a Venti Mocha Frappuccino has 470 calories, 17 grams of fat, 77 grams of carbs, and is 31% fat. Venti Frap Calories If you're a guy, just order 4 of these and you're done with your calories for the day. On a side note, you're probably also dead.
Men's Wearhouse Fires George Zimmer: Zimmer Fired How does the guy that founded the company get fired? This guy was responsible for the success of the franchise, had concerns about the direction the board was taking it, and got fired for his trouble. I shop here! Now I'm torn! (Oops... no, that's just the pants.) This is the guy responsible for: "You're Gonna Like the Way You Look. I Guarantee It." And he did guarantee it! The customer service was great, and I don't think that the founder of a company should be able to be fired by a bunch of corporate hacks. I don't like they way they look.
GM Tops Quality List: GM Quality It hurt me to type those words. I cannot imagine the data used to come up with that information, but it must be true if it comes from J.D. Power. In other news, North Korea ranks first in public health and nutrition, and Guantanamo Bay ranked first in Seaside Resorts.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Thoughts for a Tuesday
It's time for some random thoughts, coming from a fragmented and random mind.
Beauty pageants: Yesterday there were a bunch of stories about how a beauty pageant contestant completely flubbed an answer to a question about education. I have a better question: does anyone else think that the time for beauty pageants is long over?? I mean really, does anyone even watch these things? And on a similar note...
"Reality shows": I saw an ad and a brief blurb for a show called Backyard Oil, about a bunch of idiots trying to find oil on their property. I would say these guys seemed as dumb as a bag of rocks, but I don't believe in insulting rocks. Now I hear the expression "Professional Reality Show Star". Would someone please tell me how someone becomes one of those? Is that someone who has been on more than one reality series? I watch one reality show: Deadliest Catch. For some reason, I have always liked that show. But I do wonder about one thing I noted this season... a couple of the Captains said that they put a ton of money into their boats this year, and their continued existence as crab boat captains depended on their catch this year. Really? I look at the Hillstrand family of the Time Bandit, and see that they have books, a clothing line, etc., etc., along with the money they make from the show and have to wonder how much financial difficulty they are really facing! Just asking.
Iran: New president-elect who they say is a "moderate". Vegas now taking bets on how long it will be before he tells the world that Iran has a right to nuclear warheads. "Moderate"? Is that like a serial killer who only kills 20 people instead of 30?
"Wreck-It" Ralph: Watched it again yesterday. Gets better every time. I constantly see something in the background that I hadn't seen before. I'm not a big fan of Sarah Silverman, but she was great in this film.
Clothing: Say what you will about my being a nerd or a geek, but I get lots of positive comments on my variety of Doctor Who shirts. I guess these days it's cool to be a geek!
Clothing (part 2): I don't think I'll ever get the fascination with capri pants. It just seems like whoever created them had problems with decision making. "Shorts! Pants! Shorts! Pants!" (Enter little hispanic girl...) "Why can't we have both?" (Ugly pants party commences...)
Clothing (part 3): Guys... read my lips ... skinny jeans don't look good. Ever.
Government spying: They tried reading my blog. Got bored. They decided to scan Bieber's computer for proof he's a mentally unstable female instead of just a talentless male singer.
P.S. This was post number 250! Woo hoo! 250 postings of nothing! (Seinfeld would be so proud.)
Beauty pageants: Yesterday there were a bunch of stories about how a beauty pageant contestant completely flubbed an answer to a question about education. I have a better question: does anyone else think that the time for beauty pageants is long over?? I mean really, does anyone even watch these things? And on a similar note...
"Reality shows": I saw an ad and a brief blurb for a show called Backyard Oil, about a bunch of idiots trying to find oil on their property. I would say these guys seemed as dumb as a bag of rocks, but I don't believe in insulting rocks. Now I hear the expression "Professional Reality Show Star". Would someone please tell me how someone becomes one of those? Is that someone who has been on more than one reality series? I watch one reality show: Deadliest Catch. For some reason, I have always liked that show. But I do wonder about one thing I noted this season... a couple of the Captains said that they put a ton of money into their boats this year, and their continued existence as crab boat captains depended on their catch this year. Really? I look at the Hillstrand family of the Time Bandit, and see that they have books, a clothing line, etc., etc., along with the money they make from the show and have to wonder how much financial difficulty they are really facing! Just asking.
Iran: New president-elect who they say is a "moderate". Vegas now taking bets on how long it will be before he tells the world that Iran has a right to nuclear warheads. "Moderate"? Is that like a serial killer who only kills 20 people instead of 30?
"Wreck-It" Ralph: Watched it again yesterday. Gets better every time. I constantly see something in the background that I hadn't seen before. I'm not a big fan of Sarah Silverman, but she was great in this film.
Clothing: Say what you will about my being a nerd or a geek, but I get lots of positive comments on my variety of Doctor Who shirts. I guess these days it's cool to be a geek!
Clothing (part 2): I don't think I'll ever get the fascination with capri pants. It just seems like whoever created them had problems with decision making. "Shorts! Pants! Shorts! Pants!" (Enter little hispanic girl...) "Why can't we have both?" (Ugly pants party commences...)
Clothing (part 3): Guys... read my lips ... skinny jeans don't look good. Ever.
Government spying: They tried reading my blog. Got bored. They decided to scan Bieber's computer for proof he's a mentally unstable female instead of just a talentless male singer.
P.S. This was post number 250! Woo hoo! 250 postings of nothing! (Seinfeld would be so proud.)
Monday, June 17, 2013
Legality of Gay Marriage
This week, the Supreme Court is supposed to rule on the legality of California's Prop 8, which basically makes gay marriage in California illegal.
There are those who say that gay marriage should be illegal, because the Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is true. The Bible does say that. And although promoters of gay marriage would like to believe otherwise, the Bible also does speak against homosexuality in the so-called New Testament, or Christian Greek Scriptures.
Anyone who knows me knows that I agree with the Scriptural view here. That's my right and it is what I believe. I do not, however, agree with those so-called Christians who take to the courts to try to make homosexual relations illegal or who go out and beat up gays in the name of God. People who do that had better read their Bibles more closely.
What is being argued in the Supreme Court actually has nothing to do with the Bible. Amazing to read, right? I should clarify this point.
Marriage ... according to the Scriptures ... is between a man and a woman.
What is being discussed in the Supreme Court is the civil view of marriage. Any government has the right to make whatever laws it sees fit for society. Whether you agree with that or not, it is how things are. You may say that the Bible speaks against drunkenness, and it does, but where does it give you the legal limit for the definition of drunkenness? That's something the states decide for themselves, and different states have different definitions. In a similar vein, a state can decide what defines marriage to them, and what rights and benefits go along with that definition. It is a civil case being decided, related to things such as insurance, benefits, and divorce (which the Bible also speaks out against, you hypocritical people who thump the Bible and then cheat on your wives). Whatever the state decides in this case does not make the least bit of difference to my beliefs. I will live my life according to God's Word, and will not marry a member of my own sex. Besides, I'm already married! But others will do what they will. Some will divorce (against God's Word), but which is legal. Others will run for political office, which the Bible states is not in line with Christians being separate from the world, but which is legal. There are many things that are legal, but which servants of God will not take part in doing. We could go for hours on so-called Christians who fight "legal" wars and kill members of their own faith.
If the state says gay marriage is legal, then gay marriage is legal. It doesn't make it right in God's eyes, nor does it make it something I will have in my life, but it makes it legal. That aspect is none of my business. But on a side note ... will you local news broadcasts please quit showing gay couples kissing every time you talk about this subject? I mean really... you don't go out of your way to show straight couples kissing every time you mention straight marriage! Sheesh!
There are those who say that gay marriage should be illegal, because the Bible states that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is true. The Bible does say that. And although promoters of gay marriage would like to believe otherwise, the Bible also does speak against homosexuality in the so-called New Testament, or Christian Greek Scriptures.
Anyone who knows me knows that I agree with the Scriptural view here. That's my right and it is what I believe. I do not, however, agree with those so-called Christians who take to the courts to try to make homosexual relations illegal or who go out and beat up gays in the name of God. People who do that had better read their Bibles more closely.
What is being argued in the Supreme Court actually has nothing to do with the Bible. Amazing to read, right? I should clarify this point.
Marriage ... according to the Scriptures ... is between a man and a woman.
What is being discussed in the Supreme Court is the civil view of marriage. Any government has the right to make whatever laws it sees fit for society. Whether you agree with that or not, it is how things are. You may say that the Bible speaks against drunkenness, and it does, but where does it give you the legal limit for the definition of drunkenness? That's something the states decide for themselves, and different states have different definitions. In a similar vein, a state can decide what defines marriage to them, and what rights and benefits go along with that definition. It is a civil case being decided, related to things such as insurance, benefits, and divorce (which the Bible also speaks out against, you hypocritical people who thump the Bible and then cheat on your wives). Whatever the state decides in this case does not make the least bit of difference to my beliefs. I will live my life according to God's Word, and will not marry a member of my own sex. Besides, I'm already married! But others will do what they will. Some will divorce (against God's Word), but which is legal. Others will run for political office, which the Bible states is not in line with Christians being separate from the world, but which is legal. There are many things that are legal, but which servants of God will not take part in doing. We could go for hours on so-called Christians who fight "legal" wars and kill members of their own faith.
If the state says gay marriage is legal, then gay marriage is legal. It doesn't make it right in God's eyes, nor does it make it something I will have in my life, but it makes it legal. That aspect is none of my business. But on a side note ... will you local news broadcasts please quit showing gay couples kissing every time you talk about this subject? I mean really... you don't go out of your way to show straight couples kissing every time you mention straight marriage! Sheesh!
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Team Names
There has been a lot of talk on the news lately about offensive team names. To be more specific, team names that are seen as derogatory towards a group of people.
Now, I'm not one for being politically correct or oversensitive about matters, but for the love of sanity, if there is one thing that is clear, it is that certain team names have to go! I don't care if someone wants to cite league or team history. That doesn't fly, and I'll explain why. But first, let's list a few of the names and logos that need to disappear. Now.
Washington Redskins: If there's any more derogatory name out there, I can't think of one. Watch an old western and tell me if the actors playing the cowboys thought that they were being respectful when they used this term. It's a slam, and akin to calling a black person the N-word. The logo, showing a native American head, is also inappropriate, but the name is the thing that is ridiculous. How would a white person feel about a league where the "Whitetown Crackers" played? Come on. The owner, Dan Snyder, says it is a respectful name and based on team history. Actually, the owner who came up with that name was a white supremacist and racist extraordinaire. Does Dan Snyder really want to line up in that group? Overall, it should be clear to see that this name is insulting beyond belief and needs to be changed. Now. Today.
Cleveland Indians: If the name isn't bad enough, smiling Chief Wahoo causes this franchise to get the "Insulting Image" award. The team used to be called the Spiders. Granted, that name stinks, too, but at least it isn't insulting. Again, I don't care if this is historical. Get rid of it. And if you don't think the smiling Chief logo is insulting, I dare you to change it to a smiling Mumbai help desk operator with a turban. What? That's racially insulting? No kidding.
Atlanta Braves: While not overtly insulting, it still is based on racist overtones. Their logo used to be a screaming native American, and they tried to use that logo again this year on some batting practice hats. But some folks called them on it, and they shelved the idea. Time to get rid of the name, the logo, and the tomahawk chop.
Kansas City Royals: This promotes monarchy, as well as the Sacramento and Los Angeles Kings. (Just kidding on this one.)
There are numerous college and high schools who use the same names and similar logos. It's time to stop. You can't tell me that there aren't millions of other possibilities that would be just as good. And get this... you know how soccer teams change their jersey designs regularly? They do this to keep people buying jerseys! Think what would happen if these insulting names were changed, and the uniforms changed with them! Fans would go out and buy the new jerseys and hats and other items to show loyalty to their teams. Money would roll in!
Seriously...get rid of these names. Now. It's reasonable; it's logical; it's financially beneficial. It's the right thing to do.
Now, I'm not one for being politically correct or oversensitive about matters, but for the love of sanity, if there is one thing that is clear, it is that certain team names have to go! I don't care if someone wants to cite league or team history. That doesn't fly, and I'll explain why. But first, let's list a few of the names and logos that need to disappear. Now.
Washington Redskins: If there's any more derogatory name out there, I can't think of one. Watch an old western and tell me if the actors playing the cowboys thought that they were being respectful when they used this term. It's a slam, and akin to calling a black person the N-word. The logo, showing a native American head, is also inappropriate, but the name is the thing that is ridiculous. How would a white person feel about a league where the "Whitetown Crackers" played? Come on. The owner, Dan Snyder, says it is a respectful name and based on team history. Actually, the owner who came up with that name was a white supremacist and racist extraordinaire. Does Dan Snyder really want to line up in that group? Overall, it should be clear to see that this name is insulting beyond belief and needs to be changed. Now. Today.
Cleveland Indians: If the name isn't bad enough, smiling Chief Wahoo causes this franchise to get the "Insulting Image" award. The team used to be called the Spiders. Granted, that name stinks, too, but at least it isn't insulting. Again, I don't care if this is historical. Get rid of it. And if you don't think the smiling Chief logo is insulting, I dare you to change it to a smiling Mumbai help desk operator with a turban. What? That's racially insulting? No kidding.
Atlanta Braves: While not overtly insulting, it still is based on racist overtones. Their logo used to be a screaming native American, and they tried to use that logo again this year on some batting practice hats. But some folks called them on it, and they shelved the idea. Time to get rid of the name, the logo, and the tomahawk chop.
Kansas City Royals: This promotes monarchy, as well as the Sacramento and Los Angeles Kings. (Just kidding on this one.)
There are numerous college and high schools who use the same names and similar logos. It's time to stop. You can't tell me that there aren't millions of other possibilities that would be just as good. And get this... you know how soccer teams change their jersey designs regularly? They do this to keep people buying jerseys! Think what would happen if these insulting names were changed, and the uniforms changed with them! Fans would go out and buy the new jerseys and hats and other items to show loyalty to their teams. Money would roll in!
Seriously...get rid of these names. Now. It's reasonable; it's logical; it's financially beneficial. It's the right thing to do.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
If Not Electric, Then What?
A news report today noted that Chevrolet is slashing the prices of their Chevy Volt electric vehicle due to a lack of demand. It's still around $29,000 in California, but hey! Chevy Volt Prices Slashed
Now I've seen a few Nissan Leaf's around, (in fact, a friend of mine owns one) and Toyota Prius' in various incarnations are all over the place. But I'm going to harp on an idea that I espoused before: hybrids and electric vehicles are not the answer!
Start with the fact that the manufacturing of the batteries is an environmental catastrophe on its own, and the fact that the various materials are shipped from all over the world to the assembly location, and you have a car that probably causes more pollution in the manufacturing of it than a Honda Civic causes from its fabrication and 150k miles of driving! ZLEV vehicles do a pretty good job of cleansing the bad stuff from an internal combustion engine. And yet, the old motors aren't the answer either.
It's time. It is time that we go to the most plentiful element in the universe. No ... not celebrity news stories. I'm talking about hydrogen. "But we'll blow up! It's unstable!" Like gasoline is stable? Like methane is stable? Anything that burns is relatively unstable. But this isn't the era of the Hindenburg. Technology has progressed to the point where hydrogen fuel cells are a reasonable way of fueling cars.
There was a Top Gear episode where James May pointed out a great fact. He said that people are more inclined to accept a technology that doesn't make them change their habits too drastically. Electric vehicles mean you have to plug your car in on a regular basis, and if you run out of power, you're stuck. Granted, fast charging stations are going to pop up soon, but nowhere near the extent of gas stations. Additionally, where does the electricity come from? Does it magically appear? Poof! No, some kind of power plant has to create it, whether it is coal fired, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, nuclear or whatever. The power comes from somewhere, and if it is coal or nuclear, you've got that pollution thing going on again.
Hydrogen pumps would work just like gas pumps, and could, in fact, be installed where gas stations currently stand. Hook up the pump to the car, fill up, and you're on your way, with your car producing no pollutants at all. Nice.
Do I sound anti-environment? If you've read any of this, you know I'm not. In fact, I believe in being reasonable, and making some sacrifices in behalf of the environment. (Not to say I'm up to eating waxworms yet.) But let's move towards something sustainable; something that people will use; something that will give cars the power they need, the feel that people want, and the protection the environment must have. Let's get these fuel cells going, shall we?
Now I've seen a few Nissan Leaf's around, (in fact, a friend of mine owns one) and Toyota Prius' in various incarnations are all over the place. But I'm going to harp on an idea that I espoused before: hybrids and electric vehicles are not the answer!
Start with the fact that the manufacturing of the batteries is an environmental catastrophe on its own, and the fact that the various materials are shipped from all over the world to the assembly location, and you have a car that probably causes more pollution in the manufacturing of it than a Honda Civic causes from its fabrication and 150k miles of driving! ZLEV vehicles do a pretty good job of cleansing the bad stuff from an internal combustion engine. And yet, the old motors aren't the answer either.
It's time. It is time that we go to the most plentiful element in the universe. No ... not celebrity news stories. I'm talking about hydrogen. "But we'll blow up! It's unstable!" Like gasoline is stable? Like methane is stable? Anything that burns is relatively unstable. But this isn't the era of the Hindenburg. Technology has progressed to the point where hydrogen fuel cells are a reasonable way of fueling cars.
There was a Top Gear episode where James May pointed out a great fact. He said that people are more inclined to accept a technology that doesn't make them change their habits too drastically. Electric vehicles mean you have to plug your car in on a regular basis, and if you run out of power, you're stuck. Granted, fast charging stations are going to pop up soon, but nowhere near the extent of gas stations. Additionally, where does the electricity come from? Does it magically appear? Poof! No, some kind of power plant has to create it, whether it is coal fired, hydroelectric, geothermal, solar, nuclear or whatever. The power comes from somewhere, and if it is coal or nuclear, you've got that pollution thing going on again.
Hydrogen pumps would work just like gas pumps, and could, in fact, be installed where gas stations currently stand. Hook up the pump to the car, fill up, and you're on your way, with your car producing no pollutants at all. Nice.
Do I sound anti-environment? If you've read any of this, you know I'm not. In fact, I believe in being reasonable, and making some sacrifices in behalf of the environment. (Not to say I'm up to eating waxworms yet.) But let's move towards something sustainable; something that people will use; something that will give cars the power they need, the feel that people want, and the protection the environment must have. Let's get these fuel cells going, shall we?
Monday, June 10, 2013
Who Can It Be Now?
"Who can it be knocking at my door? Go away, don't come round here no more." - Men at Work
Those lyrics may indeed apply to people's feelings about Jehovah's Witnesses, but I'm using it slightly differently here. By now, everyone has heard about how the government is pulling information from cellular companies and internet providers, along with other sources. The shock expressed in the media is amazing. The reason it is amazing is because ... this is NOTHING NEW!!
When 9-11 took place, new rules and regulations went into place with the idea that the public needed to sacrifice some rights and privacy for the safety of the country as a whole. The creation of the Homeland Security agency, along with the increased power granted to the NSA was to give the authorities more and better ways to communicate and to track terrorists. This took place over 10 years ago!
Now people are finding out that the government is doing just what it said it was going to do, and they are blaming it on President Obama. Again, I've got news for you ... he's just using what the public allowed him to use. Frankly, all of this makes me scratch my head, because I'm not sure why people are so upset. Don't get me wrong. I don't like the idea of anyone tracking me or reading my mail or listening to my phone calls. (But if they do, I'm sure that whoever is listening is stunned into silence by the sheer boredom involved.) The reason I'm surprised is that the voters of this country made the choice of sacrificing certain liberties for the sake of protection. What did you expect? This is the choice you made when you elected your representatives.
If you go to London, look up on the street lamps and the buildings around you. London must have one of the most extensive video camera systems in the world. The police, MI-5, and other agencies use these cameras for a variety of reasons. And the people accept them, because they were willing to give up their anonymity for the sake of what they saw as security. That was their choice.
My point is this: any and all security measures that people find so shocking could only have been put in place with the willingness, apathy, or blindness of the people of this country. It didn't happen without some form of discussion among those elected to run the government. So, folks, deal with it. Either accept it, or do something about it. Just don't sound so shocked.
Friday, June 07, 2013
Good Idea ... Bad Idea
There was a section on the Animaniacs cartoon called "Good Idea / Bad Idea". As I was reading the news, I thought it would make for an interesting idea for some future blogs. So, without further ado:
Bad Idea: Drinking a quart of soy sauce on a dare. The guy went into a coma. Brilliant. Anyone who accepts a dare like this is an imbecile, and should be a candidate for the Darwin Awards. Soy Sauce Coma
Good Idea: Toyota is revamping the Corolla. Bigger, quieter, cooler looking. Now if they could avoid recalling it.
Bad Idea: The car comes with a continuing variable transmission. Make it hotter and give it a manual. Oh. That's right. People can't drive manuals.
Good Idea: Rumor has Justin Beiber buying a ticket for a future space flight.
Bad Idea: Letting him come back.
Bad Idea: Anthony Weiner running for mayor of NY City.
Good Idea: Letting twisted people run rampant with the hilarious possibilities. (I won't include any here.)
Good Idea: An Aussi playing Superman or Wolverine.
Bad Idea: Johnny Depp playing a native American.
Bad Idea: Any films starring Kevin Costner or Bruce Willis.
Worse Idea: Putting Costner and Willis together in a comedy.
Good Idea: Having me play the Doctor!
OK. Enough of this. If you like this idea, I'll do it again in the future. Let me know.
Good Idea: Having me play the Doctor!
OK. Enough of this. If you like this idea, I'll do it again in the future. Let me know.
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
Let HIM Be!!!
It's becoming an epidemic. So many sites out there crying out for the Doctor to be female this time. Let it go. Especially those of you who are so new to the series that you have no idea that there were Doctors before David Tennant!
There are a few points I would like to make here, and some may have been stated before. (My blog ... my rules.)
1) There is no real precedent for a Time Lord to change sex. We didn't see the Master do it. We didn't see Romana do it. The Doctor has never felt his chest after a regeneration and say, "Darn it! I'm still male!" Also, after 11 regenerations, wouldn't the odds have already been that he would have been female at least once if it could happen? He hasn't, and he shouldn't.
2) Political correctness only goes so far. No one has said, "Hey! Why don't we make Superman die and resurrect him as a woman?" It's okay for a character to remain male or female. There's nothing wrong with that! Change just for the sake of change is ridiculous in this case. The show is successful. There is no need to cater to a small group of nattering nabobs.
3) The Doctor "works" as a male. His personality, his quirks, his ego ... it all works. In addition, a male Doctor has always worked best with a female companion. (Sorry Jaime!) It's part of the charm of the series.
I have stated what I would like to see: male, around 35, ginger. Even better, shell out some big bucks for Ewan McGregor if he would do it. Or ask me! I'll take the job! In any case, just leave his gender alone. I, for one, would be horrified if he regenerated into Judi Dench.
There are a few points I would like to make here, and some may have been stated before. (My blog ... my rules.)
1) There is no real precedent for a Time Lord to change sex. We didn't see the Master do it. We didn't see Romana do it. The Doctor has never felt his chest after a regeneration and say, "Darn it! I'm still male!" Also, after 11 regenerations, wouldn't the odds have already been that he would have been female at least once if it could happen? He hasn't, and he shouldn't.
2) Political correctness only goes so far. No one has said, "Hey! Why don't we make Superman die and resurrect him as a woman?" It's okay for a character to remain male or female. There's nothing wrong with that! Change just for the sake of change is ridiculous in this case. The show is successful. There is no need to cater to a small group of nattering nabobs.
3) The Doctor "works" as a male. His personality, his quirks, his ego ... it all works. In addition, a male Doctor has always worked best with a female companion. (Sorry Jaime!) It's part of the charm of the series.
I have stated what I would like to see: male, around 35, ginger. Even better, shell out some big bucks for Ewan McGregor if he would do it. Or ask me! I'll take the job! In any case, just leave his gender alone. I, for one, would be horrified if he regenerated into Judi Dench.
Tuesday, June 04, 2013
Why We Need the US Postal Service
For a government agency that's been around since the time of its first Postmaster, Benjamin Franklin, the United States Postal Service has done a pretty remarkable job. Just think about it... you receive mail, at your house, six days a week. And the cost of a letter is still around 50 cents. Consider that. You can send a letter across the country for half a buck. And yet, the USPS is losing money hand over fist. The latest calculation shows that it lost $1.9 billion dollars over a three month period. That's billion with a "b".
One can figure that email cuts into revenue. People send letters and photos instantly now via the internet. But there is still a clear need for the USPS. What are some of the problems?
1) The Congress (which is the opposite of the "Progress") insists that the USPS pre-fund the retirement plans of their employees, something that no other company is required to do.
2) The USPS has to get approval to raise the price of postage. That's a killer. In the U.S., a first class letter costs 46 cents. That same letter mailed in Norway costs $1.67. Would it kill us to pay 75 cents to mail a letter? I doubt it. People shell out over 4 bucks for a single gallon of gas.
3) The USPS is not allowed to make a profit. That's correct. They cannot legally make a profit.
4) They are required to have post offices in just about every town. (Let's see FedEx or UPS do that!)
5) The USPS is required to deliver six days a week. FedEx and UPS charge extra for Saturday delivery.
I could go on, but you get the picture. People whine and complain about how slow the mail is, but most of us get our Netflix dvds the day after they are mailed out. It's ridiculous that people complain about the USPS, but don't complain about the constraints that that service has to deal with that FedEx and UPS don't.
I'm sorry, but it's time to take the chains off of the USPS and let them do business. Looking at just the five points above, we could do the following:
1) Get rid of the pre-funding of retirement accounts and let the USPS operate under the same guidelines as any other company.
2) Let the market determine the cost of postage. If they need to raise prices, let them. If the price becomes non-competitive, they'll feel it.
3) Let the USPS make a profit. Duh. Any profit can go to pay down the national debt.
4) Let the USPS close offices that don't make any money. Place a limit, though, and make it so that there has to be a post office within a 20 mile radius to the next office. Use grocery stores and the like for small branches to handle shipping questions and accept packages.
5) Let the USPS determine the delivery schedule. Again, if people start using other methods to ship because they are unhappy with dates of service, the USPS will have to change to keep making money.
See how easy that is? So what, pray tell, is causing these problems? That's right! An idiotic group of doofuses who oversee the regs. Sorry. I'm not trying to be political. I just see a great benefit in having a healthy postal service. Someone needs to fix this. Now. I need my Netflix dvds.
One can figure that email cuts into revenue. People send letters and photos instantly now via the internet. But there is still a clear need for the USPS. What are some of the problems?
1) The Congress (which is the opposite of the "Progress") insists that the USPS pre-fund the retirement plans of their employees, something that no other company is required to do.
2) The USPS has to get approval to raise the price of postage. That's a killer. In the U.S., a first class letter costs 46 cents. That same letter mailed in Norway costs $1.67. Would it kill us to pay 75 cents to mail a letter? I doubt it. People shell out over 4 bucks for a single gallon of gas.
3) The USPS is not allowed to make a profit. That's correct. They cannot legally make a profit.
4) They are required to have post offices in just about every town. (Let's see FedEx or UPS do that!)
5) The USPS is required to deliver six days a week. FedEx and UPS charge extra for Saturday delivery.
I could go on, but you get the picture. People whine and complain about how slow the mail is, but most of us get our Netflix dvds the day after they are mailed out. It's ridiculous that people complain about the USPS, but don't complain about the constraints that that service has to deal with that FedEx and UPS don't.
I'm sorry, but it's time to take the chains off of the USPS and let them do business. Looking at just the five points above, we could do the following:
1) Get rid of the pre-funding of retirement accounts and let the USPS operate under the same guidelines as any other company.
2) Let the market determine the cost of postage. If they need to raise prices, let them. If the price becomes non-competitive, they'll feel it.
3) Let the USPS make a profit. Duh. Any profit can go to pay down the national debt.
4) Let the USPS close offices that don't make any money. Place a limit, though, and make it so that there has to be a post office within a 20 mile radius to the next office. Use grocery stores and the like for small branches to handle shipping questions and accept packages.
5) Let the USPS determine the delivery schedule. Again, if people start using other methods to ship because they are unhappy with dates of service, the USPS will have to change to keep making money.
See how easy that is? So what, pray tell, is causing these problems? That's right! An idiotic group of doofuses who oversee the regs. Sorry. I'm not trying to be political. I just see a great benefit in having a healthy postal service. Someone needs to fix this. Now. I need my Netflix dvds.
Monday, June 03, 2013
The Doctor Dies ... Long Live the Doctor
You had to know I was going to write about Doctor Who today. Matt Smith revealed himself to be as big a liar as Steven Moffat and announced that he will be leaving the series, not after the 8th season as he hinted, but at the end of the current season. We will have two more episodes with Matt as the Doctor; the 50th Anniversary episode in November and the Christmas episode this year. He will have played the role for 46 episodes. Not bad, but it feels like is wasn't long enough.
The episodes since Clara's introduction as the new companion have been uneven, but that is the fault of the writing, and not of Matt. He has, as always, been a fantastic Doctor, moving between incredibly energetic and spastic to tear-jerking to "don't mess with me" serious. In this second half of season 7 (or season 7.2 as they like to call it), I think his best performances have been in the "ghost" story "Hide" and the split-personality acting job in "Nightmare in Silver". In all of the episodes, I have found myself loving the character he created, and wishing he went on forever.
As he started out in "The 11th Hour", we discovered the taste sensation of "fish fingers and custard", the fashion statement of bow ties (and later fezzes and Stetsons) being cool, and how he just couldn't seem to figure out how to arrive on time. That is, until the fire engine ladder burst through the hospital window and the Doctor crawled in to save Amy and Rory. That was timing!
When Matt took over the role, I remember a lot of folks saying that he could never fill David Tennant's shoes. Fortunately, Matt seems to have very big feet. In any case, I told my fellow "Whovians" to give him a chance, and that every new Doctor grows into the role. Matt didn't grow into the role; the role adapted to him! He took the character, jutted out his chin, and dared the writers to keep up with his energy, which they did. Matt Smith proved to be charismatic, photogenic, and a mix of emotions that could leave you laughing or cheering, as he dared a sky full of aliens to challenge him, telling them to "let someone else go first".
There have been many great incarnations of the Doctor. Somehow, Matt has zoomed to the top of my list, even above David Tennant and Tom Baker. (I know some who will accuse me of blasphemy with that David comment.) I still love "Asylum of the Daleks", where he first met the "souffle girl" Oswin (later to be found to be Clara herself), and you can't watch his reaction to the idea of "dinosaurs ... on a spaceship!" without smiling.
Will I miss Matt Smith as the Doctor? Absolutely. Do I trust that the next actor to play the Doctor will be a lot of fun? Certainly. Do I have my opinions as to what Mr. Moffat should look for in a Doctor? Of course. Will I make my opinions known here? What do you think?
1) Do NOT ... repeat DO NOT, regenerate the Doctor as a woman. That just would not work in so many ways. The Doctor is male. That is his gender. It affects his relationships with his companions and it has never been stated that Time Lords can change gender when they regenerate. Leave the Doctor as male. That's the way it is.
2) Don't change his color. I'm not saying this as a racist, but I feel as though if they do this now, it is catering, and not for choosing the best actor. The best actor for the role may very well be black, and if that's the case, go for it. Don't just do it for the sake of doing it, though. This leads me to my next request...
3) Make him ginger. Let's just get this over with. The Doctor has wanted to be a red-head for a long time. Do it. Find us a good red-headed actor (there are lots of them out there), and give the Doctor the thrill of his many lifetimes. It would be fun, though, if he looked in the mirror, decided he didn't like the red hair, and willed it a different color before the regeneration was complete. You could just put the final choice in a red wig to start, and then let his natural hair color be the continuing color.
4) Let me be the Doctor. OK. That was just selfish. But I would absolutely love it.
5) Don't go too old. (Or too young.) Matt was the youngest actor to ever play the role. Don't go any younger, or it gets a bit silly. But don't go William Hartnell old, either. Maybe someone in his late 30s. (Or me. I'm a bit old, but I can play it younger. Mr. Moffat? Hello?)
6) Don't wait forever to start season 8. You need to hit the ground running, and not make the fans wait too long for the new Doctor to start. Allow too much speculation and you could hurt the show. Get your actor, and get filming. Then, get it back on the air. You make us wait too long.
7) You ruined my hope of a Doctor Who / Sherlock crossover, which would have been great. I would have loved to see the Doctor and Sherlock working together and Watson and Clara working together. Still, you can make it happen with the next Doctor. Do it, Mr. Moffat.
I will miss Matt Smith. He was a great Doctor, and he never embarrassed the show with bad behavior off the set. You will reign as the best Doctor to me ... for the foreseeable future. You know how time goes, though. With all of the wibbly-wobblyness, you never can tell who will be my favorite a year from now. But that's Doctor Who for you.
The episodes since Clara's introduction as the new companion have been uneven, but that is the fault of the writing, and not of Matt. He has, as always, been a fantastic Doctor, moving between incredibly energetic and spastic to tear-jerking to "don't mess with me" serious. In this second half of season 7 (or season 7.2 as they like to call it), I think his best performances have been in the "ghost" story "Hide" and the split-personality acting job in "Nightmare in Silver". In all of the episodes, I have found myself loving the character he created, and wishing he went on forever.
As he started out in "The 11th Hour", we discovered the taste sensation of "fish fingers and custard", the fashion statement of bow ties (and later fezzes and Stetsons) being cool, and how he just couldn't seem to figure out how to arrive on time. That is, until the fire engine ladder burst through the hospital window and the Doctor crawled in to save Amy and Rory. That was timing!
When Matt took over the role, I remember a lot of folks saying that he could never fill David Tennant's shoes. Fortunately, Matt seems to have very big feet. In any case, I told my fellow "Whovians" to give him a chance, and that every new Doctor grows into the role. Matt didn't grow into the role; the role adapted to him! He took the character, jutted out his chin, and dared the writers to keep up with his energy, which they did. Matt Smith proved to be charismatic, photogenic, and a mix of emotions that could leave you laughing or cheering, as he dared a sky full of aliens to challenge him, telling them to "let someone else go first".
There have been many great incarnations of the Doctor. Somehow, Matt has zoomed to the top of my list, even above David Tennant and Tom Baker. (I know some who will accuse me of blasphemy with that David comment.) I still love "Asylum of the Daleks", where he first met the "souffle girl" Oswin (later to be found to be Clara herself), and you can't watch his reaction to the idea of "dinosaurs ... on a spaceship!" without smiling.
Will I miss Matt Smith as the Doctor? Absolutely. Do I trust that the next actor to play the Doctor will be a lot of fun? Certainly. Do I have my opinions as to what Mr. Moffat should look for in a Doctor? Of course. Will I make my opinions known here? What do you think?
1) Do NOT ... repeat DO NOT, regenerate the Doctor as a woman. That just would not work in so many ways. The Doctor is male. That is his gender. It affects his relationships with his companions and it has never been stated that Time Lords can change gender when they regenerate. Leave the Doctor as male. That's the way it is.
2) Don't change his color. I'm not saying this as a racist, but I feel as though if they do this now, it is catering, and not for choosing the best actor. The best actor for the role may very well be black, and if that's the case, go for it. Don't just do it for the sake of doing it, though. This leads me to my next request...
3) Make him ginger. Let's just get this over with. The Doctor has wanted to be a red-head for a long time. Do it. Find us a good red-headed actor (there are lots of them out there), and give the Doctor the thrill of his many lifetimes. It would be fun, though, if he looked in the mirror, decided he didn't like the red hair, and willed it a different color before the regeneration was complete. You could just put the final choice in a red wig to start, and then let his natural hair color be the continuing color.
4) Let me be the Doctor. OK. That was just selfish. But I would absolutely love it.
5) Don't go too old. (Or too young.) Matt was the youngest actor to ever play the role. Don't go any younger, or it gets a bit silly. But don't go William Hartnell old, either. Maybe someone in his late 30s. (Or me. I'm a bit old, but I can play it younger. Mr. Moffat? Hello?)
6) Don't wait forever to start season 8. You need to hit the ground running, and not make the fans wait too long for the new Doctor to start. Allow too much speculation and you could hurt the show. Get your actor, and get filming. Then, get it back on the air. You make us wait too long.
7) You ruined my hope of a Doctor Who / Sherlock crossover, which would have been great. I would have loved to see the Doctor and Sherlock working together and Watson and Clara working together. Still, you can make it happen with the next Doctor. Do it, Mr. Moffat.
I will miss Matt Smith. He was a great Doctor, and he never embarrassed the show with bad behavior off the set. You will reign as the best Doctor to me ... for the foreseeable future. You know how time goes, though. With all of the wibbly-wobblyness, you never can tell who will be my favorite a year from now. But that's Doctor Who for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)