When I was a kid, I had to fly from L.A. to Sacramento and back all the time on a kind of "shuttle" between two divorced parents. In that era (no...not bi-planes), I generally flew on Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) and was tended to by stewardesses in mini skirts. My dad or mom would meet me at the gate, and we would get the baggage without a hassle.
Fast-forward to our days. PSA no longer exits. The term "stewardess" is no longer used and is even considered sexist. We are helped along by flight attendants who have to deal with ruder and more demanding customers than ever before. No one is allowed into the gate areas due to security requirements, so they can't see you off or pick you up at the gate. The best that your friends can do is drop you off at the red line on the floor where only ticketed passengers may cross, and then say their goodbyes as you wait to go through the scanners in a shoeless manner.
Is it any wonder that flying is no fun? I never liked turbulence or the general fear of flying. But going to the airport was cool and kind of relaxed. But things can't be that way anymore. September 11 saw to that. So how does it go now? You arrive at the airport 2 hours early, check in at the counter and present your forms of identification; go into the secure area and wait in a looooong line to take your shoes off and stick every possible piece of metal on you into a basket to be scanned. (On that note, why does it seem that some people always - and I mean ALWAYS - get chosen to be taken aside and examined up close and personal? Is it a pheromone they give off?)
Now, a quick note here: I don't blame the TSA agents, nor do I give them any grief. In fact, I try to smile, say "thank you", maybe have a bit of a laugh with them, and move on my way quickly so that they can get to the next person. They may not all be the best and the brightest, but they're doing their assigned jobs.
Anyway, after I shove everything back in my pockets and put my shoes back on, I get to sit in the gate area for an hour or more, afraid to buy anything because the sticker shock might kill me, and wait to line up for my airplane boarding, stuck behind people who don't care that it isn't their turn or that they are standing in the wrong line or that they are supposed to wait.
In fact, that may be what has changed flying for the worse more than any other problem. People are rude. Not the gate agents, not the flight attendants, and not the security folks; the passengers. This percentage of "me first" types think that by their existence, they have the right to board first, take up any and all overhead compartment space, lean their chairs back as far as possible, demand this and that from the busy attendants, refuse to turn off their electronic devices, and generally think that rules apply to everyone but them. They are reason number one why flying is a nightmare now. They are the reason that zip ties and duct tape are a staple for every flight attendant's first aid kit.
To those passengers, I say this: sit your butts down until your seat assignments are called. Your seat will still be there. Be polite. Cooperate with the people in charge of your safety and the safety of the rest of the passengers. You don't need your Twitter feed so badly that you can't turn off your phone. And bathe once in awhile, will you?
I watched a video of a flight attendant in the SFO crash carrying passengers off the plane over her shoulder. She is over 40 years old and at the hospital it was discovered that she had a broken tail bone. Yet, she put her passengers first, and made sure that everyone was safe.
You jerks who won't behave on a plane ... rent a car.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Royal Baby ... Blah, Blah, Blah
Can you believe the news reports about the new Petit Prince in England? Yes, Kate had a baby. Lots of people do every day. Well, not men, but lots of women do. Yet, because the child is born of so-called "royalty" in a so-called "constitutional monarchy", everyone loses their minds. Why? I mean, ok, the British care because that's how their line of succession runs. But why on earth is it big news in the U.S.? I can only come to one conclusion:
Americans want to be British subjects again.
Maybe not all Americans (certainly not those who claim to be part of the modern-day Tea Party who, instead of throwing tea overboard they lob their sanity over the rails), but seemingly a large number. And I can guess why. The approval rating of Congress has dropped to historical lows, with nothing getting done at that level of government except for a continuous exercise in futility called "Repeal Obama Care". People see this and think, "Wouldn't it be great to be subjects of the Crown again?"
Just think, you could spell words like "color" and "favor" with their missing "u". You could stand in a queue instead of a line, could avoid insane lorry drivers instead of truck drivers, could ride in a lift instead of an elevator, and add petrol to your gas-guzzler instead of, well, gas! Just think! You could get rid of your old apartment and live in a flat instead! Doesn't that better describe the shape of those buildings? They aren't "apart", but are usually quite "flat".
We could keep certain aspects of our lives with just a few tweaks. We could keep the dollar, just as Canada has. But we could put Doctor Who on the $10 (wait...it's 11 now, isn't it?), and the Stig and the fellows from Top Gear on the $20, since that needs "More Powerrrrr"! Hey! This is going well! We wouldn't even have to drive on the left hand side of the road. The Canadians don't! Of course, National Health Care would be implemented, but right-wingers say that's Obama-Care anyway! It all fits!
So you people ooohing and aaahing over the new Prince George, have your fun! Just remember, when you describe the new cuisine from Britain, add the "u" when saying that the food doesn't have any flavour.
Americans want to be British subjects again.
Maybe not all Americans (certainly not those who claim to be part of the modern-day Tea Party who, instead of throwing tea overboard they lob their sanity over the rails), but seemingly a large number. And I can guess why. The approval rating of Congress has dropped to historical lows, with nothing getting done at that level of government except for a continuous exercise in futility called "Repeal Obama Care". People see this and think, "Wouldn't it be great to be subjects of the Crown again?"
Just think, you could spell words like "color" and "favor" with their missing "u". You could stand in a queue instead of a line, could avoid insane lorry drivers instead of truck drivers, could ride in a lift instead of an elevator, and add petrol to your gas-guzzler instead of, well, gas! Just think! You could get rid of your old apartment and live in a flat instead! Doesn't that better describe the shape of those buildings? They aren't "apart", but are usually quite "flat".
We could keep certain aspects of our lives with just a few tweaks. We could keep the dollar, just as Canada has. But we could put Doctor Who on the $10 (wait...it's 11 now, isn't it?), and the Stig and the fellows from Top Gear on the $20, since that needs "More Powerrrrr"! Hey! This is going well! We wouldn't even have to drive on the left hand side of the road. The Canadians don't! Of course, National Health Care would be implemented, but right-wingers say that's Obama-Care anyway! It all fits!
So you people ooohing and aaahing over the new Prince George, have your fun! Just remember, when you describe the new cuisine from Britain, add the "u" when saying that the food doesn't have any flavour.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Small Furniture Makes Big Rooms - Why I Like IKEA
First off, an apology for being late. Things have been mildly psycho around here this week.
I have a small house. Two stories, three bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms ... but small. When we first shopped for furniture in so-called "normal" stores, the furniture came in two sizes; big and "we're from another country and showing off our huge American leather couch". As we looked around and considered the size of our rooms, we realized that if we put a regular American couch in our living room there would be no room for living. Thus, we went European.
If you have ever watched a program on HGTV called "House Hunters International", you will realize that when people from the U.S. look for homes overseas, they come across as whiny, "where's the closet space", "how can I cook in this tiny kitchen" complainers. They are spoiled here, and fail to realize that in the rest of the world, more than one bathroom is a luxury, a full-sized bathtub is mansion material, and kitchens are designed to cook and not to host a slumber party. The way that Euros make this work is that they buy smaller furniture than can sometimes even be hidden away when not in use. Brilliant!
Americans tend to make the IKEA stores the butt of jokes, largely because buyers of their furnishings generally have to take the flat-pack items home and assemble the tables / couches / beds themselves, often with an enclosed Allen wrench. Put that aside, along with the cost savings that are passed on to consumers with items that are flat-packed and less expensive to ship and store. Look at the general size of the furnishings. Sure, you can buy things that are larger and capable of seating 6 and a Yorkie, but you can also buy furniture that can make a small home look larger. And that is a prime selling point for me, and for other folks who realize that a bigger room makes you feel better.
An example: we have an open floor plan that has the kitchen flowing into the dining area flowing into the living room. A table from a normal furniture store would either be ridiculously large, ridiculously cheap and tacky, or just ridiculous in its uselessness. We went the IKEA route, and bought a nice round table that seats four, but when you open a couple of latches and pull the table apart, there is a butterfly leaf that folds out from the center and seats up to 6 (or more!) in the new arrangement. Brilliant! Our couch is small, our entertainment center is small, and yet, we have plenty of room for friends to visit and we didn't sell any vital organs to afford the furnishings.
Say what you will about IKEA, but I love it. I look at the examples of how to live in 200 square feet and think, "I could live like that!" Americans need to take a look at how other people live, and then take another look at how they live. Maybe then Americans won't look like complete jerk-faces on "House Hunters International".
I have a small house. Two stories, three bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms ... but small. When we first shopped for furniture in so-called "normal" stores, the furniture came in two sizes; big and "we're from another country and showing off our huge American leather couch". As we looked around and considered the size of our rooms, we realized that if we put a regular American couch in our living room there would be no room for living. Thus, we went European.
If you have ever watched a program on HGTV called "House Hunters International", you will realize that when people from the U.S. look for homes overseas, they come across as whiny, "where's the closet space", "how can I cook in this tiny kitchen" complainers. They are spoiled here, and fail to realize that in the rest of the world, more than one bathroom is a luxury, a full-sized bathtub is mansion material, and kitchens are designed to cook and not to host a slumber party. The way that Euros make this work is that they buy smaller furniture than can sometimes even be hidden away when not in use. Brilliant!
Americans tend to make the IKEA stores the butt of jokes, largely because buyers of their furnishings generally have to take the flat-pack items home and assemble the tables / couches / beds themselves, often with an enclosed Allen wrench. Put that aside, along with the cost savings that are passed on to consumers with items that are flat-packed and less expensive to ship and store. Look at the general size of the furnishings. Sure, you can buy things that are larger and capable of seating 6 and a Yorkie, but you can also buy furniture that can make a small home look larger. And that is a prime selling point for me, and for other folks who realize that a bigger room makes you feel better.
An example: we have an open floor plan that has the kitchen flowing into the dining area flowing into the living room. A table from a normal furniture store would either be ridiculously large, ridiculously cheap and tacky, or just ridiculous in its uselessness. We went the IKEA route, and bought a nice round table that seats four, but when you open a couple of latches and pull the table apart, there is a butterfly leaf that folds out from the center and seats up to 6 (or more!) in the new arrangement. Brilliant! Our couch is small, our entertainment center is small, and yet, we have plenty of room for friends to visit and we didn't sell any vital organs to afford the furnishings.
Say what you will about IKEA, but I love it. I look at the examples of how to live in 200 square feet and think, "I could live like that!" Americans need to take a look at how other people live, and then take another look at how they live. Maybe then Americans won't look like complete jerk-faces on "House Hunters International".
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
How NOT To Get Justice
I didn't watch even one minute of the Zimmerman trial. I must confess, I'm not a trial junkie. I don't like watching them, I'm not interested in them, and I really don't like sitting on jury duty.
But I do know that certain high-profile trials don't always go the way that the general public thinks it should (see Simpson, O.J.). The George Zimmerman acquittal appears to be another such case. However, I'm not writing this entry to say if the jury was right or wrong. As I said, I didn't watch the trial, so I'm in no position to second guess the jury. I am writing to comment on what happened in Oakland, California yesterday. Protesters of the verdict blocked freeways, broke windows, attacked news reporters and vans, and generally got up to no good. They blocked a freeway, for goodness sake! Are you people nuts??
And for what? Do you folks think that protests will get the decision reversed? Do you imagine there will be another criminal trial? That's called "double jeopardy", for those who just want to have things their own way despite what the law of the land says. When O.J. was found not guilty of his criminal charges, they didn't hold another trial of the same kind. Instead, the families of the victims tried another tactic, and filed a civil case against Simpson for wrongful death. That succeeded, and bankrupted Simpson, as well as put him on the path to a prison sentence for other crimes.
If the family of Trayvon Martin want to file civil charges against Zimmerman, more power to them. If people want to try to amend Florida's laws to require a 12-person jury, go for it. If you want to hold a peaceful rally to promote more understanding among people, or try to get some of the handguns out of private citizens, you are entitled to do so. But if you just want to protest and get loud because you don't agree with a verdict, and you want to destroy the property of people who had nothing to do with that verdict? No. If you want to block the freeways and roads and verbally assault people just because they are driving in the area? I don't think so. If you want to assault news reporters who are only there because you are causing trouble? Go directly to jail.
In any case, protesters need to understand that nothing will change by you getting violent. The only thing that will happen is that another innocent person will be injured or killed. Some of you will go to jail. Some may commit crimes and go to prison. What will you accomplish? Nothing.
You want to protest? You go right ahead. But don't hurt others; don't destroy property; and don't expect positive results from you cussing out the police. It isn't going to work that way.
But I do know that certain high-profile trials don't always go the way that the general public thinks it should (see Simpson, O.J.). The George Zimmerman acquittal appears to be another such case. However, I'm not writing this entry to say if the jury was right or wrong. As I said, I didn't watch the trial, so I'm in no position to second guess the jury. I am writing to comment on what happened in Oakland, California yesterday. Protesters of the verdict blocked freeways, broke windows, attacked news reporters and vans, and generally got up to no good. They blocked a freeway, for goodness sake! Are you people nuts??
And for what? Do you folks think that protests will get the decision reversed? Do you imagine there will be another criminal trial? That's called "double jeopardy", for those who just want to have things their own way despite what the law of the land says. When O.J. was found not guilty of his criminal charges, they didn't hold another trial of the same kind. Instead, the families of the victims tried another tactic, and filed a civil case against Simpson for wrongful death. That succeeded, and bankrupted Simpson, as well as put him on the path to a prison sentence for other crimes.
If the family of Trayvon Martin want to file civil charges against Zimmerman, more power to them. If people want to try to amend Florida's laws to require a 12-person jury, go for it. If you want to hold a peaceful rally to promote more understanding among people, or try to get some of the handguns out of private citizens, you are entitled to do so. But if you just want to protest and get loud because you don't agree with a verdict, and you want to destroy the property of people who had nothing to do with that verdict? No. If you want to block the freeways and roads and verbally assault people just because they are driving in the area? I don't think so. If you want to assault news reporters who are only there because you are causing trouble? Go directly to jail.
In any case, protesters need to understand that nothing will change by you getting violent. The only thing that will happen is that another innocent person will be injured or killed. Some of you will go to jail. Some may commit crimes and go to prison. What will you accomplish? Nothing.
You want to protest? You go right ahead. But don't hurt others; don't destroy property; and don't expect positive results from you cussing out the police. It isn't going to work that way.
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Why So Vulgar?
I don't get it. Is there something in the contracts that HBO signs that states the following:
As part of this agreement, HBO will air your program ____________ for 13 weeks. However, in order to qualify your program to air each week, each half hour must contain a minimum of five (5) "f-bombs", three (3) scatological references, two (2) scenes of sex and/or nudity, and 5 other words deemed to be vulgar according to attachment 1A.
I don't subscribe to HBO, mainly for that reason. It is just too vulgar for my sensibilities. And yet, I am a big fan of Aaron Sorkin. I loved Sports Night, West Wing, and Studio 60. Thus, when "The Newsroom" came out on DVD, I decided to give it a try. Bad idea.
The old Sorkin-isms were there, some of which (many of which) have been recycled from his previous series. But then, this is HBO, and right from the beginning, the bad language flowed out of my television like raw sewage from the Oakland Coliseum locker rooms.
It's funny in a way. Funny in the idea that in order to be on a cable channel, expletives are required for a truly mature program. Mature? None of my friends feel the need to curse at every opportunity. I can actually manage a whole day at work without hearing one "f-bomb"! I heard more curse words daily when I was a teen than I do now. I guess the whole maturity thing is backwards on HBO.
Aaron Sorkin doesn't need to be crude to be successful. He proved that with his previous series. Originality is nice, though. We could use some of that. But as for "The Newsroom"; it is done in my house. I don't need the language. Nor do I need the violence of other shows, such as "The Walking Dead", "Game of Thrones", or "Adventure Time". (Just kidding on the last one. I just wanted to see if you were paying attention.)
Seriously, HBO. Weren't you responsible for "From the Earth to the Moon"? Good television can be done without blood, guts, and disgusting language. Fortunately, I have a secret super power. I can grab the remote, and change the channel. Better still, I can turn off the television entirely. Top that power, Iron Man.
As part of this agreement, HBO will air your program ____________ for 13 weeks. However, in order to qualify your program to air each week, each half hour must contain a minimum of five (5) "f-bombs", three (3) scatological references, two (2) scenes of sex and/or nudity, and 5 other words deemed to be vulgar according to attachment 1A.
I don't subscribe to HBO, mainly for that reason. It is just too vulgar for my sensibilities. And yet, I am a big fan of Aaron Sorkin. I loved Sports Night, West Wing, and Studio 60. Thus, when "The Newsroom" came out on DVD, I decided to give it a try. Bad idea.
The old Sorkin-isms were there, some of which (many of which) have been recycled from his previous series. But then, this is HBO, and right from the beginning, the bad language flowed out of my television like raw sewage from the Oakland Coliseum locker rooms.
It's funny in a way. Funny in the idea that in order to be on a cable channel, expletives are required for a truly mature program. Mature? None of my friends feel the need to curse at every opportunity. I can actually manage a whole day at work without hearing one "f-bomb"! I heard more curse words daily when I was a teen than I do now. I guess the whole maturity thing is backwards on HBO.
Aaron Sorkin doesn't need to be crude to be successful. He proved that with his previous series. Originality is nice, though. We could use some of that. But as for "The Newsroom"; it is done in my house. I don't need the language. Nor do I need the violence of other shows, such as "The Walking Dead", "Game of Thrones", or "Adventure Time". (Just kidding on the last one. I just wanted to see if you were paying attention.)
Seriously, HBO. Weren't you responsible for "From the Earth to the Moon"? Good television can be done without blood, guts, and disgusting language. Fortunately, I have a secret super power. I can grab the remote, and change the channel. Better still, I can turn off the television entirely. Top that power, Iron Man.
Monday, July 08, 2013
One tragedy after another
Wow. Just wow.
Three major transport accidents in a single day.
The major newsmaker was the crash of the 777 at San Francisco airport. I'm absolutely amazed that only two people died in the accident. The video of the crash looked horrendous, but somehow the flight crew got the vast majority of the passengers out of the jet and away from danger. One has to feel very sad about the two young women who lost their lives, and the numerous injured passengers (some severely so) who couldn't walk away from the crash. And yet, it boggles the mind how many escaped. I have flown on a 777 a couple of times, and I was very impressed with the plane in every way. From the news reports, though, I found out that the plane was designed so that all passengers could be evacuated from the plane in 90 seconds, even if half of the exits were unusable. That's truly incredible. Who could imagine such a thing even ten years ago? A jumbo jet crashes at SFO and most people walk away.
Another thing that amazes me, though, is how a couple of other tragedies fell by the wayside, and received much less attention from the news media. The first was a train that crashed in Canada. A train carrying crude oil rolled down a hill from a parking spot, jumped the track and crashed into a town. A town!! Forty people are missing, and a number of buildings were destroyed. This received far less coverage than the plane crash, but the actual damage appears to be much greater. Is it because it took place in Quebec?
How about the plane crash in Alaska, which killed all ten people on board? It isn't even on MSNBC's front page! Is it because the crash that killed five times more people wasn't as dramatic? At least the media is staying on top of the violence in Egypt, where over 50 are dead. But still ...
I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I guess I just wonder where drama goes away, and real news begins. I don't care about a Kardashian baby, or if the tanning mom is in rehab, or if Lindsay Lohan snorts all-purpose flour. I really don't. And yet, the news media continues to put drivel out there as "news".
Even though watching the news on BBC America is far more depressing, at least I get the feeling that I am watching real news, and that the viewpoint is somewhat balanced. Stop showing the SFO crash fifty times an hour! Tell me what is going on, leave the Fox News / NPR / Al Jazeera preaching out of it, and give me facts. Don't tell me what I should think. Sure, you can tell me the various viewpoints on a story, but let me decide how I feel about it. And let me know that there is more going on than a crash in SF.
Condolences to all affected by these horrible events...
Three major transport accidents in a single day.
The major newsmaker was the crash of the 777 at San Francisco airport. I'm absolutely amazed that only two people died in the accident. The video of the crash looked horrendous, but somehow the flight crew got the vast majority of the passengers out of the jet and away from danger. One has to feel very sad about the two young women who lost their lives, and the numerous injured passengers (some severely so) who couldn't walk away from the crash. And yet, it boggles the mind how many escaped. I have flown on a 777 a couple of times, and I was very impressed with the plane in every way. From the news reports, though, I found out that the plane was designed so that all passengers could be evacuated from the plane in 90 seconds, even if half of the exits were unusable. That's truly incredible. Who could imagine such a thing even ten years ago? A jumbo jet crashes at SFO and most people walk away.
Another thing that amazes me, though, is how a couple of other tragedies fell by the wayside, and received much less attention from the news media. The first was a train that crashed in Canada. A train carrying crude oil rolled down a hill from a parking spot, jumped the track and crashed into a town. A town!! Forty people are missing, and a number of buildings were destroyed. This received far less coverage than the plane crash, but the actual damage appears to be much greater. Is it because it took place in Quebec?
How about the plane crash in Alaska, which killed all ten people on board? It isn't even on MSNBC's front page! Is it because the crash that killed five times more people wasn't as dramatic? At least the media is staying on top of the violence in Egypt, where over 50 are dead. But still ...
I'm not sure where I'm going with this. I guess I just wonder where drama goes away, and real news begins. I don't care about a Kardashian baby, or if the tanning mom is in rehab, or if Lindsay Lohan snorts all-purpose flour. I really don't. And yet, the news media continues to put drivel out there as "news".
Even though watching the news on BBC America is far more depressing, at least I get the feeling that I am watching real news, and that the viewpoint is somewhat balanced. Stop showing the SFO crash fifty times an hour! Tell me what is going on, leave the Fox News / NPR / Al Jazeera preaching out of it, and give me facts. Don't tell me what I should think. Sure, you can tell me the various viewpoints on a story, but let me decide how I feel about it. And let me know that there is more going on than a crash in SF.
Condolences to all affected by these horrible events...
Friday, July 05, 2013
Happy 4th ... you idiots
We set a record yesterday. Our area had its 7th day in a row with temperatures over 105 degrees.
Let us bow our heads for a minute of silence for my sweat glands.
One can only imagine just how dry the grasses and trees are in the general area. All it takes is a spark to start a nasty fire. So, imagine my lack of surprise when I see illegal fireworks shooting overhead and exploding in a shower of pyrotechnics. Follow that up with exploding M-80s and other forms of miniature dynamite and we have the makings for a disaster. Fortunately, our place of worship and my house was spared any catastrophe of this kind, but I do have a message to the mouth-breathers out there who think their antics were clever: you are idiots, morons, self-centered knuckle-draggers who deserve a swift kick in the seat of the pants.
Let's face it...people who use illegal fireworks are nothing more than selfish jerks, who think that their own visual pleasure and excitement torn from doing something illegal trumps the safety and well-being of others. That's what it comes down to in the end. And frankly, that kind of person shouldn't possess explosives anyway, but particularly when they are no doubt loaded up with Budweiser or some other form of colored water containing alcohol.
You can celebrate so-called Independence Day if you want to, although I do wonder if you really can claim independence when you have the NSA on your phone, computer, and probably your showerhead. But leave the explosives to the military. Leave the pyrotechnics to the pros.
Although even the pros have problems. Just do a search on the fireworks accidents that happened yesterday. If these professionals can't go error free, what makes you nincompoops with the bottle rockets think that you can do better? Take your selfish, ooohing and aaahing and burping, illegal explosive launching selves and go somewhere where you can't harm anyone. I hear Death Valley is nice in the summertime.
Let us bow our heads for a minute of silence for my sweat glands.
One can only imagine just how dry the grasses and trees are in the general area. All it takes is a spark to start a nasty fire. So, imagine my lack of surprise when I see illegal fireworks shooting overhead and exploding in a shower of pyrotechnics. Follow that up with exploding M-80s and other forms of miniature dynamite and we have the makings for a disaster. Fortunately, our place of worship and my house was spared any catastrophe of this kind, but I do have a message to the mouth-breathers out there who think their antics were clever: you are idiots, morons, self-centered knuckle-draggers who deserve a swift kick in the seat of the pants.
Let's face it...people who use illegal fireworks are nothing more than selfish jerks, who think that their own visual pleasure and excitement torn from doing something illegal trumps the safety and well-being of others. That's what it comes down to in the end. And frankly, that kind of person shouldn't possess explosives anyway, but particularly when they are no doubt loaded up with Budweiser or some other form of colored water containing alcohol.
You can celebrate so-called Independence Day if you want to, although I do wonder if you really can claim independence when you have the NSA on your phone, computer, and probably your showerhead. But leave the explosives to the military. Leave the pyrotechnics to the pros.
Although even the pros have problems. Just do a search on the fireworks accidents that happened yesterday. If these professionals can't go error free, what makes you nincompoops with the bottle rockets think that you can do better? Take your selfish, ooohing and aaahing and burping, illegal explosive launching selves and go somewhere where you can't harm anyone. I hear Death Valley is nice in the summertime.
Monday, July 01, 2013
Gentle Seasonal Changes
So, summer has arrived. And where I am, it has arrived ever so gently. It started with a couple of days of rain showers, and somehow morphed into a new Syfy special: When the Earth Went Nuclear!
How we go from rain to 110 degrees is beyond my comprehension. We have always had warm (read: hot) summers here, and a running joke is that we have two seasons; rain and blistering heat. But this week goes beyond sanity. How insane?
We are expecting at least 5 more days over 100 degrees and nearing 111 degrees before we gently cool to 99.
Death Valley, which in anyone's book translates into "Valley where things die" is near 130 degrees. 130! The news reports say that people's tennis shoes are melting as they walk on the pavement!
Las Vegas, NV hit 117 degrees! People actually had to go inside and watch lounge singers to avoid the heat. Ten minutes later they decided that they preferred heat stroke.
Even Seattle, Washington hit the 90s which, as you might guess, is just a bit unusual for them.
So, to all you who deny that humans are having an effect on the weather, I would like to invite you on a tour of Death Valley in a station wagon with no air conditioning.
On a more serious note, I think it appropriate to mention that 19 firefighters died while working a serious blaze in Arizona. My wife and I discussed it this morning, and a thought occurred to me: what defines a 'hero'? I'm sure that there are many different definitions of the word: someone who rescues helpless animals, someone who donates time at a women's shelter, someone who flies to other countries to provide medical care to the impoverished. I would like to throw another definition out there. A hero is someone who runs into danger while others run away; someone who works in catastrophic conditions to save someone else's property; someone who would willingly sacrifice his or her life for the benefit of others.
In this case: firefighters.
How we go from rain to 110 degrees is beyond my comprehension. We have always had warm (read: hot) summers here, and a running joke is that we have two seasons; rain and blistering heat. But this week goes beyond sanity. How insane?
We are expecting at least 5 more days over 100 degrees and nearing 111 degrees before we gently cool to 99.
Death Valley, which in anyone's book translates into "Valley where things die" is near 130 degrees. 130! The news reports say that people's tennis shoes are melting as they walk on the pavement!
Las Vegas, NV hit 117 degrees! People actually had to go inside and watch lounge singers to avoid the heat. Ten minutes later they decided that they preferred heat stroke.
Even Seattle, Washington hit the 90s which, as you might guess, is just a bit unusual for them.
So, to all you who deny that humans are having an effect on the weather, I would like to invite you on a tour of Death Valley in a station wagon with no air conditioning.
On a more serious note, I think it appropriate to mention that 19 firefighters died while working a serious blaze in Arizona. My wife and I discussed it this morning, and a thought occurred to me: what defines a 'hero'? I'm sure that there are many different definitions of the word: someone who rescues helpless animals, someone who donates time at a women's shelter, someone who flies to other countries to provide medical care to the impoverished. I would like to throw another definition out there. A hero is someone who runs into danger while others run away; someone who works in catastrophic conditions to save someone else's property; someone who would willingly sacrifice his or her life for the benefit of others.
In this case: firefighters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)