The Way Things Ought To Be!

Search engines.

2012-01-25T08:15:00.000-08:00

Today's rant is about search engines. Like everyone else, I use them daily. I've been using Google (along with everyone else in the world except Microsoft) since they were in beta testing. At that time, I found them to be far more useful than Yahoo! as Yahoo! at that time was an OR search (basically useless, and even if you told it to perform an AND search, it would *STILL* give you OR results), whereas Google was a far more useful AND search.

What do I mean? If you enter 2 or more search items, like "sewing machine" (no quotes) - the Yahoo of the day would give you hits for "sewing" and others for "Machine", whereas Google would give you hits for pages that only had both (or all) terms given.

Fast forward to today. To the best of my knowledge, there is STILL no general purpose search engine that allows you to specify wildcards, such as "Greek Danc*" which would give hits on "Greek Dance", "Greek Dancing", "Greek Dancers", etc. WHY THE HELL NOT?! I suggested this to Google years ago...

They're getting too smart for their own good. If I Google "Reversew" (no quotes), Google returns results for "Reverse". I have to enclose "Reversew" in quotes to get Google to pay attention. Annoying but livable - BUT - the damn thing STILL gives hits on the word "Reverse". STOP DOING MY THINKING FOR ME - THIS IS USELESS.

So, I should use a different search engine you say? Great - I've tried. Bing, Yahoo!, Ask, all perform similarly. They're not half as useful as they were 3 years ago.

Sigh...

Well, it could have been worse I guess...

2012-01-23T08:07:00.000-08:00

At least it wasn't San(c)torum in the lead in S.C. I'll take Gingrich over Santorum, but only by a nose. I'm actually moderately surprised Santorum didn't do better - South Carolina is in the Bible belt after all.

All the Republicans can give me are (mostly fat), bloviating Bible thumpers. This is supposed to defeat Obama? They just DON'T GET IT. They'll thump that damned book, losing elections all the way, while the Democrats sink us into a Socialist quagmire.

Pure disgust.

Thank Goddess! Maybe...

2012-01-11T08:18:00.000-08:00

Thank Goddess the most rabid of the Bible thumpers got their collective heads handed to them on a platter in the New Hampshire primary. The "least worst" Romney took the lead - although I'd still rather have the second runner up, Ron Paul, out of the remaining field. The guy makes sense - a LOT of it. Its the economy, stupid. Its also individual liberty - what a concept for a Republican (OR a Democrat)!! Its NOT spending American money and lives on other countries either.

I would like to think that this is a result of people finally figuring out the Dominionist, theocratic game. I sure hope so. It does seem that the Republicans are getting rejected more and more because they're still preaching the same, old, tired, message of less freedom for everyone.

But we'll end up with Romney. I don't like the Mormon church and their meddlesome politics, and I certainly don't agree with Mormon theology. However, they're no worse than, and possibly better than the Catholics. And most certainly better a Mormon than a Baptist or other Talibanesque fundamentalist.

I'll vote for Paul given the chance - with California's new anti-party and party-hated open primary law. Problem is, the primaries need to all be held on the same date just like the general election is - otherwise many people end up having their choice made for them by the earlier voters. What's wrong with this picture? More party driven BS as far as I'm concerned.

And so it begins...

2012-01-03T21:45:00.001-08:00

Ok, the prelim results are in from the Iowa Circuses/Caucuses...

Leave it to Iowa to support a Bible thumper - they selected Huckabee last time. Fortunately, this fact didn't end up meaning anything.

So Santorum ("Sanctorum") and Romney are in a dead heat, with Paul a close third. The good news is that Gingrich and Perry are reduced to also-rans - which is encouraging, but hardly definitive at this point.

Santorum who sprang up seemingly from nowhere, is even a worse theocrat than Perry - thump, thump, thump, thump, thump, that damned BOOK.

Romney is the guy no-one likes. His strong numbers here are mostly votes against someone/everyone else - the least of all evils. But... I'd rather have Ron Paul - he at least GETS IT: its the economy, stupid! Although I'm not sure I agree with him on things like national defense, although his apparent isolationism has quite a few merits.

I loved the "man on the street" interviews - people saying Romney isn't a Christian, blah, blah. Whatever - they all look pretty much the same from an outsider perspective, but I'd take a Mormon over a Baptist any day of the week. I'd really rather have a Pagan, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Native American, or even an Atheist over any JCI adherent, but we all know that isn't going to happen.

We've GOT to get rid of that Socialist Liberal in the White House, but we sure has hell don't need a worse-than-Bush theocrat to replace him. Once again: A pox on BOTH your houses. Parties *are* the problem - but since we seem to be stuck with them, vote Libertarian, vote Independent, vote ANYTHING but Democrat or Republican!

Whatever.

On to New Hampshire...

Learn how to drive, PLEASE!

2011-12-25T11:32:00.000-08:00

I've been wanting to write this particular post for some time - it is, however, a bit hard to write in order to correctly "draw the picture" sufficiently well so the reader will have a vague idea what I'm trying to say...

Bear with me, and picture this:

A rural "T" intersection where a westbound 2 lane road meets a north/south 2 lane highway. The highway has a left turn lane where southbound traffic wishing to turn onto the road (to head east) can line up. Here's the important part: Just to the south of said left turn lane, is a center merge lane where traffic turning left off of the 2 lane road can speed up and merge with southbound traffic on the highway. This lane is about 1/4 mile long.

Needless to say, all sorts of mayhem, incompetence, and sheer stupidity ensues. Here are several situations I see on an almost daily basis:

1) Southbound car wanting to turn left off the highway and onto the eastbound road. Add another car wanting to turn left off of the westbound road to proceed south on the highway. The "rules of the road" are very clear: The southbound car on the highway has the right of way (over the car turning onto the highway, obviously not over northbound traffic). Instead of taking it, the southbound highway car wants the left turner from the westbound road to go first. THIS WASTES TIME and is VERY DANGEROUS. Time is wasted trying to communicate - if the southbound car would just go ahead and make its turn onto the road, the other car can almost always make its turn onto the highway at essentially the same time. It is dangerous - an exception to the rules of the road usually is - if the car turning onto the highway accepts the invitation of the car turning off the highway to go first and an accident ensues - its going to be the fault of the car turning onto the highway because it didn't follow the rules of the road.

Go back and re-read that if you need to. Exceptions to the rules of the road should ONLY be made in exceptional circumstances. I purposely do NOT make eye contact with the 'car turning off' when I'm the 'car turning on' to discourage the other driver's attempt to be 'polite'. Its anything BUT. If you have the right of way - TAKE IT - unless truly remarkable circumstances apply.

2) Car waiting to turn left off of the road onto the southbound highway. Either doesn't see (!!!!) or doesn't know about, or doesn't care about the southbound merging lane. This kind of sheer IDIOT sits there waiting until traffic is clear on BOTH directions before going. My NUMBER ONE pet peeve. The car in this situation needs to yield to northbound highway traffic, and left turners off the highway from the southbound left turn lane. There is NO need whatsoever to wait until the main southbound lane is clear - that's what the merge lane is for! MOVE IT.

3) As above, but the car turns into the merge lane and STOPS! Or goes real slow waiting for southbound traffic to clear. I'll give them the horn immediately if I just cannot go around them (which I usually cannot). That's what a MERGE lane is for: MERGING. ACCELERATE AND MERGE.

4)Traffic is heavy. This time a northbound car STOPS for either one (or both) of the left turners to go. This causes northbound traffic to back up for miles. DO NOT DO THIS - UNLESS the northbound traffic just past this intersection is essentially stopped already. Otherwise, all this does is create a blockage that will stop the left turners (and right turners too - off the road and onto the northbound highway) from EVER having a gap in traffic. As with #1, it takes a LOT of time to negotiate this kind of exception to the traffic rules; although it can be valid if the traffic is already essentially stopped. THINK.

Now, I'll take the reader down the road a bit more than a quarter mile. The same kind of intersection exists, except for three differences: The road is now eastbound, T-ing to the north/south highway. This fact isn't important for this discussion. More importantly, the merging lane is only 3 car lengths long at best; bad design, it cannot be used to merge with moving traffic. Also, if you're in the merging lane, the road behind you curves to your left. What this means is if someone is in the merge lane behind you, you cannot see the traffic (northbound this time) that you need to merge with.

The unfortunate protocol that has developed at this intersection is for people to turn left into the merge lane and stop. Since the merge lane is uselessly short, that's the only action that can be taken if there's any northbound traffic. However, people will roll forward to the end of the merge lane to allow additional cars to join them there - sometimes there will be as many as 3 cars sitting and waiting there.

9 times out of 10, when I do this there is some guy in a large van or SUV behind me. I can NOT see a damn thing in my passenger left side mirror because of the curvature of the road. So, I started getting into the merge lane and NOT pulling ahead - leaving no room for another car to join me there. Several times I had someone try to do it anyway, and honk because there's no place for them to go. My attitude: "Hey buddy, you saw that it was unsafe to pull out here before you did it, the onus is on you." I can't see, I'm not going anywhere.

After this BS happened a couple of times, I stopped using this badly designed intersection altogether. I now loop through a couple of parking lots and come out further south where there's a 2 way left turn lane in the center. If someone gets behind me there - its no problem because the road is STRAIGHT there, I can SEE out of my passenger side mirror, so I can go when its safe. Problem solved. Technically illegal, but I don't care - its my life and my safety that's at stake. The above intersection needs to either have its merge lane extended so it resembles the one further north up the highway - OR - left turns out of it should be forbidden altogether.

Hope this makes sense...

The Joy of Stainless Steel

2011-12-21T09:19:00.000-08:00

My wife and I frequently watch the various "home search" and real estate improvement shows on HGTV. They're fun to watch. One theme recurs again, and again - the subject of STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES! Always spoken with emphasis and often with a bit of awe: STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES!

Usually, the Realtor or remodeler will tout the fact that a home has STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES! Or the prospective buyer will make note of them, or if not present say that they want STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES! Or sniff about the kitchen being "dated", and they wanted something more "high end" such as STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES!

Sorry, my wife and I are *NOT* fans. We purchased a condo a few years ago, while looking at one of the prospects the realtor pointed out that it had STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES! I told her "That is *NOT* a selling point" (we bought something else)...

Stainless had a brief period of popularity in the mid 1970s - and for those oh-so-concerned about things being "dated", by 1978 the stainless appliances looked *VERY* dated - whatever.

We don't like Stainless because it shows dirt and fingerprints better than nothing else, it scratches and dents easily and very visibly, and its just plain ugly. I realize that people who like this stuff are enamored of the supposed "prestige" of having something that looks like it came from a restaurant kitchen. That's another problem, it looks just like that. I don't want commercial-looking "anything" in my house. The same goes for TVs, stereos, etc as well. I don't want Metalica's recording studio in my living room!

We'll stick with the classic whites and blacks. They look far better and won't be "dated" in 5 years. As for "dated", I'd rather have Avocado or Harvest Gold over STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES!

More proof of the Revisionist, Dominionist lie:

2011-12-10T20:20:00.000-08:00

Found on the 'net, more quotes from our founding fathers:

SOME FOUNDING FATHERS QUOTES ON RELIGION

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Thomas Jefferson

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.

Thomas Jefferson

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible].

Thomas Paine

For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is free to combat it.

Thomas Jefferson

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.

Thomas Jefferson

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. [So much for the oft rendered phrase "God-fearing" -Zorba]

Thomas Jefferson

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.

Thomas Paine

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

Thomas Paine

My country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

Thomas Paine

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions.

George Washington

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.

George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness.

George Washington, address to Congress, 8 January, 1790
[Contrast this to the Republican repudiation of science -Zorba]

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and
irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.

George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

...the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction.

George Washington, 1789, responding to clergy complaints that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, from The Godless Constitution: The Case Against Religious Correctness, Isacc
Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore W.W. Norton and Company 101-102

If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they
may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists....

George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

To give opinions unsupported by reasons might appear dogmatical.

George Washington, to Alexander Spotswood, November 22, 1798, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.

George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its
ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority.

George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

There he was, and there he goes!

2011-12-04T12:11:00.001-08:00

So we've lost Cain - who was my favorite overall Republican candidate. Railroaded out, in my opinion, by the Republican establishment. Some circles seem to think Romney had something to do with it - I dunno. The Liberal Left detested him as he made too much sense - as did the Religious Reich (Despite his unfortunate attempt to pander to same) as well.

As much as I detested Clinton, I said at the time that his sex life was no-one's business but his own and of the others involved. I say the same about Cain. I don't know whether or not he did what "they" say he did - NOR do I particularly care. His business, no-one else's. Only in Puritan, prude-i-tan America would this even be newsworthy, much less an issue.

What a slimy bit of business it was to be driven out.

Once again - a pox on both your houses. The established parties are all ethically bankrupt and "represent the people" no more than my cat does.

I don't totally align myself with the Libertarians either - and they're a "party" as well. However, they are most definitely the BEST choice at this particular juncture of history. Not that many will have the brains or courage to think outside the usual Liberal/Conservative dichotomy. At least the Libertarians aren't trying to take your money, or your soul. They don't pander to Socialist Europe, nor do they seek endorsements at Bob Jones University.

What. Ever.

A bit of clarification...

2011-11-29T20:45:00.000-08:00

This is a bit of a rant I posted on a board elsewhere on the internet, in response to a pretty well though out post taking issue with my stance about employment discrimination based on tattoos and other appearance concerns. Other than the guy making the mistake of thinking I was a Liberal, he brought up some good points. Here is my un-edited response - its one of the best "where I stand" rants that I've written in awhile, if I say so myself!

Here it is:

[Name withheld], with all due respect.

You mistake me for a Liberal.

I am not.

Nor am I a Conservative.

I detest both Liberals and Conservatives - for different reasons.

I don't like bible thumpers, and I don't like Socialists. Next?

That doesn't leave a lot of room in today's political climate, does it?

I believe in ABOVE ALL ELSE, freedom of the individual. Freedom from the looters of the Socialist left. Freedom from the Theocratic, Taliban-esque Right. Freedom to do what I damn well please, and shove it up the @$$ of anyone who tries to stop me. If I'm not hurting anyone, NO-ONE has ANY right to ANY say about me whatsoever. Person A's right to swing their arms ends at person B's nose. Live and let live. And all that stuff...

California is both the worst of states, and the best of states for these reasons - and why I won't live in a redneck state, despite the rampant Socialism here (in Ca.).

To put it very shortly, I'm a Pro-Gun, Pro-Choice, Pro-freedom of (and FROM) religion, Pro personal spirituality, Pro military, pro nature, pro LEGAL immigration yet anti ILLEGAL immigration, anti Socialist, anti Dominionist/Theocrat/Taliban/Bible Thumper, anti-big government, anti-big business, anti-handouts, anti BANK, anti-drug, anti booze, anti tobacco, anti conformist (of any kind), blah, blah, blah person. I don't fit in anywhere - Libertarian is the closest I guess, but even that isn't a 100% fit. Political parties are a large part of the problem - ALL of them.

If someone won't take a stand against all this Bullshit, who will?

You critique me for not being practical. I'm not trying to be practical. I *do* recognize the realities - very well. I just don't accept them. I'm trying to make difference by standing up for what I believe in. As I take it from your post that you are black - if people didn't criticize the then status quo back in the day, we wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

Yes, there are certainly those with their so-called "moral" codes who will judge me, or you, or anyone. NOT my problem - and Goddess help anyone who tries to make THEIR "morals" into MY problem (which is exactly what both Liberals and Conservatives do). That's why I try to promote ETHICS over "MORALS" - semantic arguments aside. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have Ethics, just differing "Morals", which I mostly reject except in the rare cases when same actually manage to intersect with ETHICS.

Rosa Parks I'm not, but I'm trying to do my part in my way. I don't pretend to have the answers - at my age, I don't even have all the questions!

BTW, I enjoy your posts! You come across as a very thoughtful, well balanced person. Good day to you!

Maybe its Romney after all...

2011-11-21T09:53:00.000-08:00

What with "foam at the mouth" Dominionist revisionists like Perry making the Republicans look even worse than usual this election season, something surprising occurred...

EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE came to a "Mega Church" to profess their submission to the Dominionist ideal.

Except one.

Romney.

I haven't been much of a supporter of Romney due to his Mormonism - but his refusal to knuckle under to the Theocrats just might make him the "least bad" of the Republican candidates. Don't get me wrong, he's still a Christian of a fairly fanatical sect - but he'd be better than Perry for sure. I was VERY disappointed that my current favorite, Cain, was among the Theocrats.

This just makes me sick.

Monotheism begets atheism...

2011-10-02T15:50:00.000-07:00

The following was found on the Internet, probably compiled by an atheist somewhere. I had been thinking about how the JCI monotheistic triumvirate is not only turning people off to religion, but to spirituality as well.

3 thoughts:

1) Spirituality is not the same as religion.

2) Several of the below quoted are American "founding fathers" - so much for the Dominionist lie of America being a "Christian nation".

3) Atheists deny their own senses - the repudiation of any/all spirituality is a whiplash reaction to religion.

Without further ado:

“The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence.” -Abu Ala Al-Ma’arri

“Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” -Isaac Asimov

“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” -Napoleon Bonaparte

“Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.” -Richard Dawkins

“I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. ” -Albert Einstein

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” -Epicurus

“The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” -Benjamin Franklin

“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” -Christopher Hitchens

“The inspiration of the bible depends on the ignorance of the person who reads it.” -Robert G. Ingersoll

“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” -Thomas Jefferson

“Beliefs are dangerous. Beliefs allow the mind to stop functioning. A non-functioning mind is clinically dead. Believe in nothing.” -Maynard James Keenan

“The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.” -Abraham Lincoln

“What have been [Christianity’s] fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” -James Madison

“Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand.” -Karl Marx

“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, & the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” -Karl Marx

“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church.” -Thomas Paine

“…the Bible is such a book of lies and contradictions there is no knowing which part to believe or whether any.” -Thomas Paine

“Who needs Satan when you have a God like this?” -Robert M. Price

“So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.” -Bertrand Russell

“I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.” -Bertrand Russell

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” -Seneca the Younger

“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means.” -George Bernard Shaw

“A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows.” -Mark Twain

“Beliefs are what divide people. Doubt unites them.” -Peter Ustinov

“Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.” -Voltaire

“Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world.” -Voltaire

“The first clergyman was the first rascal who met the first fool” -Voltaire

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” -Steven Weinberg

It does annoy me to quote Marx here, but I'm afraid he has a point.

The same old GOP...

2011-08-12T09:50:00.000-07:00

And so it continues...

Rick Perry, an avowed Dominionist Theocrat, has announced his bid for the White House. The GOP needs this clown like I need a hole in my cranium.

But this is what I've come to expect from the GOP - and if he wins the nomination, the GOP's conversion to the Dominionist party will be complete. Much as the Democrats embracing Obama finished their logical progression to the Socialist party.

They both make me sick.

Vote Libertarian before its too late - if it isn't already.

The Green Thing

2011-07-20T12:07:00.001-07:00

From the Internet, unretouched:

The Green Thing

In the line at the store, the cashier told an older woman that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day."
The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.

But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that old lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.
In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.
When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water.
We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service.
We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person.
The Green Thing

In Ignorance There Is Strength...

2011-07-16T19:24:00.000-07:00

Wow...

I stumbled upon a picture of one of those signs one sees outside churches - this one was the "New Canaan Baptist Church" - location unidentified. On it were the words:

"A FREE THINKER IS SATAN'S SLAVE!"

Wow, does this remind you of something? How about:

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

George Orwell's "1984". There it is, right in the middle: "Freedom is Slavery". Certainly, Americans frequently wallow in ignorance - but this is a new low.

Ready for your Theocracy? Its coming, America.

Generations

2011-07-15T12:09:00.000-07:00

I'm a so-called "Baby Boomer". I've never understood why I'm lumped in with the "60s generation" (Kids that came of age in the 1960s) as I came of age in the 1970s, and have a very different outlook on life.

I recently found out that Boomers have at least been subdivided into two "cohorts", the ones born between '46 and '55; and the second, born between '56 and '64. This at least makes some sense - the two "cohorts" have little in common with each other.

The first cohort was described as "experimental, individualism, free spirited, social cause oriented", the second as "less optimistic, distrust of government, general cynicism".

I pretty much agree - the second describes me completely, yet I retain a strong individualism and am definitely a "free spirit" - but these latter traits are indeed pretty rare within my cohort.

I found that, even when in High School, that my agemates (I refuse to use the word "peer") were totally conformist, and very much fuddy-duddies. They still are. I'm not. I've always gotten along much better with people both older and younger than I am, but not so much my own age - probably for this reason. Cohort #2 also tends towards conservatism of the worst sort - Bible Thumpers, Revisionists, and Dominionist Theocrats. This is going to be a drag in the nursing home...

Of course, cohort #1 has its own problems. "Individualism" and "Free Spirited" are all well and good, but "experimental" (Think drugs) doesn't sit well with me. They also tend to be leftest liberals of the worst sort - socialists, fanatical environmentalists, PETA and other wackos, etc. Indeed, these are the folks in power now, with the Ayn Rand predicted consequences.

So, as usual, I don't fit in with either - nor in with what is supposed to be "my group". I also have quite a bit in common with the "Generation X". What else is new...

The same, tired old field...

2011-06-17T09:43:00.000-07:00

So, I watched the "first" Republican debate on CNN a few nites ago. While it was largely the same old tired collection of preachers and other theocrats, there were a couple of breaths of fresh - or at least semi-fresh - air.

They all agreed that the Socialist Obama is a failure and needs to go - a sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with. They also mostly toed the Theocratic line, although its way too early in the campaign to thump the Bible too hard. A couple of statements stood out:

1) No Sharia law. Yea, no kidding. We also don't need Biblical law, Talmudic law or ANY religiously based law whatsoever.

2) Someone said the First amendment was created to protect religion from government, but not to protect the government from religion. WAY WRONG ANSWER A$$HAT!!

The "possible" breath of fresh air: Michele Bachmann. If she doesn't slide into the Theocratic Quagmire, she might be a good pick.

The other "semi-fresh" breath was, as it was last time, Ron Paul. Like last time, he's the only one who seems to friggin' GET IT. Its the economy, stupid. He GETS that. He GOT it last time. He's also no Theocrat, which means he has little chance of going anywhere...

So ONCE AGAIN, here we go. Socialism or Theocracy? Pick your poison - they both will kill America. Correction: They both ARE killing America.

Bike riding in America

2011-06-03T13:31:00.001-07:00

I ride a bike to work just about every day, weather and circumstances permitting. As with everything else I do, I do it "my way", which is not necessarily the way most Americans would approach it.

I'm not riding a racing/road bike, or a mountain bike (on a road?!?) or a so-called "hybrid". I ride a bike that is made for commuting - a European commuter, in this case a German built Biria 3 speed. It is perfect for the purpose to which it is employed, commuting over less than optimal surfaces.

There are many, many European commute bikes made - several brands are imported (in, no doubt, limited numbers) to the US, the Biria was my choice largely because of availability and the very low step-through frame necessitated by my preferred mode of dress.

Americans seem to feel the need to make a competition, or "sport" out of everything - nowhere else in the world do bicyclists dress up in spandex racing outfits to ride their bikes - to the office. Such attire is reserved for the Tour de France and other similar events in the rest of the world.

Being that I wear skirts as much as possible, a skirt friendly bike was essential - hence the Biria. A so-called "woman's" model from another manufacturer would have sufficed as well, but the Biria has an ultra-low (and I mean LOW) step through frame. Great!

You read in the populist bicyclist press, and on the Internet, all kinds of rants from bike riders claiming that they're vehicles too and have the same rights as any other. They feel they have the right to "take the lane" whenever they feel it necessary - and "too bad, so sad" about the cars they may inconvenience. Then they draw the next breath and claim they shouldn't have to ride on so called "MUPs" (Multi Use Paths) shared with pedestrians - the pedestrians get in their way! If not hypocrisy, does anyone besides me at least see the irony of this position?

They claim riding in the same direction as (motor vehicle) traffic is safer. And indeed, as an experienced bicyclist, I agree with that assessment - MOST of the time. Certainly not ALWAYS. There are times when riding against traffic is safer - but the onus is on the bicyclist when choosing to do so. In other words, take responsibility for your actions! Oh-so un-American in today's Socialist/Liberal climate.

A similar thing goes for pedestrians - it is actually often MUCH safer to cross a street in the middle of the block than it is at an intersection, where there is usually just "too much" going on. This is, of course, in direct conflict with conventional wisdom and what is taught us from very small childhood. Once again, the onus is on the pedestrian to make the crossing safely. Don't expect the cars (and bikes!) to see you or yield right of way. What is safer about a mid block crossing is that the pedestrian can often see the traffic situation much better from the middle, and choose when to cross such that no vehicles are interacted with at close range. But of course in America, pedestrians are used to having the right of way, contrary to both common sense and the way its done in much of the rest of the world.

Returning to the bicycle, much similar can be said. Stay the Hell out of intersections as much as possible - they're deadly! Take command of your own ride, your own responsibility, and ride like a hybrid between a pedestrian, and a motor vehicle, because that is what you are. Neither one nor the other, but somewhere in-between. Common sense applies.

Be careful out there...

Shake, shake, shake!

2011-05-06T12:49:00.000-07:00

Shake your booty!

Actually, I'm in a mood to bitch about shakes - milkshakes, that is...

When I go to a fast food joint, I want a burger, fries and a shake. Carl's Jr. is probably my overall fave burger joint. I love their "SuperStar with Cheese", an order of cris-cut fries, and their shake is one of the best in the fast food business - and by far the largest. Yea!

Well, it was...

A couple of years ago, they went to this so-called "hand-scooped" milkshake. Bottom line: Much more expensive, exact same taste, added whipped cream to the top (big whoop...), and available in exactly one size: TINY!

As a result, I stopped buying shakes at Carl's Jr - I drink Coca-Cola there now.

But now the contagion has spread.

The next promulgator of this nonsense: McDonald's. McDonald's never had a very large shake, and they were only "acceptable" for taste, but I frequently purchased them. Now they've joined Carl's Jr. - the shake is TINY, and has a whipped cream topping (again, big whoop).

This only leaves Burger King among the fast food joints that I frequent that still serves a decent sized, priced, and tasting milkshake. How long until they succumb to this creeping "Starbuck-itis"?

Now, for the not quite so fast food outfits, Denny's and similar restaurants provide a vastly better milkshake both tastewise and sizewise - but you don't always have the time to go to such places.

While I'm on this roll, why doesn't anyone serve malts anymore? Or soft serve ice cream?

Ding Dong!

2011-05-01T22:11:00.000-07:00

The thought occurred to many, I have little doubt, upon hearing the joyous news this day. "Ding Dong, the wicked witch is dead."

So let's use "Ding Dong" as a shorthand code for Usama/Osama Bin Laden is dead - shall we?

The best part: They shot the son of a bitch in the field. We won't have any liberal crybabies trying to defend him. Even our president sounded downright Republican in his speech tonite - my respect for him has gone up a couple of notches. Indeed, he probably just won the 2012 election - especially since the Republicans can't come up with anything but the same tired old Dominionist/Theocrat preachers they always have, a washed up businessman, and a Mormon. Americans are too stupid to vote Libertarian...

Still, tonite we're united (briefly) as Americans, lets have our joy for a change.

So, what do you do for a living?

2011-04-18T16:09:00.000-07:00

"So, what do you do for a living?" This question usually annoys me. First off, it usually isn't any business of the asker; second, it causes categorization of people. If I'm to be categorized, I sure as Hell don't want it to be because of my job!

My job is only part of what I am, and not the biggest. Yet fascination with this factoid knows few boundaries. You see it in local elections - Candidate "X" is a "Businessman", or an "Educator", or a "Farmer" or some-such. This information has little to no bearing on their qualification for the office sought. Its in obituaries, "... was an electrician...".

One exception that I'll grudgingly admit to: I was recently in a Jury pool, part of the questions asked by the judge and both attorneys was indeed "What do you do for a living?". I was, as usual, highly annoyed by this - its really no-one's business but one's own. However, I can see that someone's job may give them insight into a trial proceeding that others may not have - so I'll reluctantly admit that it is pertinent.

I want to know what a given person's passion is - what makes them tick, what do they live for? If all they have to live for is their job, I truly feel sorry for them. Sometimes this is because they cannot find another/better job - many are stuck this way in our dismal economy (and don't think employers don't take advantage of this situation). Oftentimes its because people identify with their job - which is seldom the same as their passion.

Another annoyance is, if someone knows what your job is, they want to talk shop and/or ask questions. Dude, I'm off the clock - I'm not discussing this...

I'm pretty much starting to see the wisdom of the ancient belief that you did not reveal your "real" name to anyone except those you trust. I *NEVER* use my real (i.e. legal) name except where I must - and the same goes for revealing any other personal information, such as my profession, place of employment, or place of residence. Instead, I use my "use name" - I utterly refuse to join "social networking" sites such as MySpace or FaceBook - their requirement for your real name is enough to keep me away (not to mention the fact that such sites are great for teenagers, but are irrelevant to anyone much over the age of 17). Its no-one's business what my legal name is, what my profession is, or anything else unless they have cause to require this information.

Be safe out there...

The PC at 30...

2011-04-08T14:29:00.000-07:00

Its been 30 years since the introduction of the IBM PC in mid-1981. Let's take a look and see what's changed - and what hasn't - and have some fun with a bit of ranting!

The term "PC", an abbreviation for "Personal Computer" wasn't - to the best of my knowledge - used before IBM introduced their PC; although the spelled out "Personal Computer" was used on fairly rare occasion by IMSAI, among others. Mostly computers owned by individuals were called "Micro Computers" or "Home Computers".

As was said at the time, one gets the impression that the PC was designed in a bit of a hurry. Although it did utilize a 16 bit (internal) CPU which was still fairly rare at the time - said CPU enabled it to address far more memory than the usual 8 bit processors of the day - it was a fairly poor implementation, running at 4.77 MHZ which was only slightly faster than the industry standard 4 MHZ Z-80. Even at its fully rated 8 MHZ, the PC's 8088 processor didn't have the throughput of a Z-80, although it could address far more memory.

For those who remember the micro computer market at the time, the PC was often said to have copied the worst attributes of the Apple ][+ and the TRS-80 (Model 1) and the best features of neither. The MS-DOS operating system (a fairly bad clone of the then industry leader CP/M) combined the worst features of CP/M and TRS-DOS, and the best features of neither.

The industry had been moving towards what is now called "all in one" design - the keyboard, computer, and screen were all in one housing. These included the NorthStar Advantage, the SuperBrain, and the TRS-80 Model III, among others. The IBM was a throwback to the TRS-80 way of doing things, with 3 ugly boxes connected together with cables. At least the Model I TRS-80's 3 boxes weren't quite as ugly and looked like they belonged together. We've never really recovered from this - to this day PCs are 3 boxes connected by cables; although these days they usually do look far better.

IBM had, at the time of the PC's introduction, the world's absolute BEST keyboard on their superb Selectric typewriter. They were widely decried for the lousy PC keyboard which was not only ugly, but flat with oddly shaped/sized keys with the key legends in the upper left corner of the keys. Making this worse was the beige color which showed dirt very easily - it turns out that the process used for labeling the keys only worked with dark letters on a light background, hence the beige color. The keyboard also emitted very LOUD clicks with each keypress - a feature that was loved by secretaries coming from typewriters, and detested by everyone else.

Only in the last 5 years or so have we FINALLY gone back to the much better looking (and dirt hiding) black which was mostly in use before the PC.

But wait - keyboards got worse. Around 1992, some idiot at IBM decided it would be a great idea to move the control key from its location next to the 'A' key (where it had been for decades), relocated it to the bottom of the keyboard and put the seldom to never used 'caps lock' key there instead. Power users, programmers, and old-timers have been cussing keyboards ever since as the industry, lemming like, followed suit. This is STILL a major problem to this day.

The PC architecture however, was where things got really bad. They had copied the architecture of the TRS-80, and implemented it with a 16 bit processor. It had the TRS-80's memory mapped video, BASIC language in ROM, BIOS in ROM, etc to the point that although the 8088 processor could address 1 megabyte of RAM, the PC could only be expanded to 640 kilobytes. Although this was 10x the then prevalent 64K and the subject of Bill Gate's notorious comment "640K ought to be enough for anyone" - it severely hampered expansion of the architecture once the "PC AT" came out a couple of years later.

Indeed the need for backwards compatibility has hampered the PC's growth ever since. The bad architecture didn't scale well, to this day all PCs have the "hole" in the top of the first megabyte or RAM - although in this day of multi-gigabytes, the first meg is essentially a scratchpad and is lost "in the noise".

Pundits far better than I have observed that the world would have been a much better place if IBM had selected the vastly superior Motorola 68000 family instead of the Intel x86. Anyone who has programmed both (as I have), will tell you that the 68000 is far easier to program, and code for it is much, much more elegant (and smaller!). But we're stuck with the x86 which, like the PC itself, has been extended and patched to continue backwards compatibility.

The other bugaboo that has haunted the PC since its inception was the utterly hobbyist grade hardware AND software design. Tin plated, unshrouded and unpolarized connectors were the order of the day! As any TRS-80 owner could have told the PC industry, tin plated RAM connectors were a bad idea... Fortunately, the tin plating seems to have gone away - PC makers figured out what everyone else already knew about junk connectors! But unshrouded and unpolarized connectors can still be found, especially in the hobbyist grade "PC-104" control systems.

Although there was a LOT of talk in the day about IBM "legitimatizing" the micro computer business, the fact of the matter is that the TRS-80 and Apple ][+ hobbyists were the first to migrate to it - and they brought all their bad programming habits with them. By the time the "serious" computer users/programmers got to the PC, bad programming practice had become entrenched - and this certainly hasn't changed, its this way to this very day!

The "serious" users, mostly owners of higher end S-100 machines running CP/M, looked at the PC as the toy it was. The crippled operating system, the color screen that BLINKED when scrolling, the crappy keyboard, tiny disk drives, etc. turned anyone serious away from it.

IBM did do some things right - the 9 pin serial port, introduced with the PC-AT, was the best thing that ever happened to the RS-232 standard. On the other hand, we've been stuck with the hobbyist grade Centronics parallel printer port ever since the PC introduction because IBM adopted it from the Apple and TRS-80 worlds. Tiny capacity, 5-1/4" floppy disk drives didn't engender any love from the established 8" floppy users community as they held approx. 5X the data...

But it was built by IBM - the "legitimatization" caused millions of businesses to purchase them when they wouldn't have looked at other microcomputers of the day. I remember well the secretaries at my place of employment switching from dedicated Xerox word processors to PCs with Microsoft Word. Word crashed regularly, and usually took several hours of work with it when it did. This did nothing to endear the PC to "serious" users, but management bureaucracy being what it is...

As for myself, I skipped the whole mess for many, many years. I continued using CP/M with a reliable, if primitive, word processor (WordStar); and didn't have these problems. I also had a decent keyboard and a nice display. IBM's monochrome display was actually pretty decent, their CGA color display was absurd, even by Apple ][+ standards. It remained sub-optimal until EGA was introduced. But graphics on the PC didn't really get serious until VGA resolutions. The original VGA specification (640x480) still wasn't as high as what was available elsewhere in the microcomputer industry circa 1980, but it was high enough to finally be usable.

Then came the whole GUI mess. In my opinion, GUIs took off because most people didn't, and don't, know how to type. A GUI is essentially a menu driven system. Windows was a disastrous copy of the Mac OS, and didn't really become usable until Windows 95. Both the Mac and Windows promulgated the whole "sheet of paper" paradigm, with black characters on a white background. Coupled with the sudden introduction of "progressive scan", the TV based displays of the day rendered the whole idea a headache inducing mess. This was a result of the bastardization of two very long standing principles of video and motion picture design: The double display of images discovered by Edison, and the WW-II era research by the military that showed a green on black display was the least fatiguing to the eye for long term use. Instead, we got black letters on a glaring white background which flickered badly due to low persistence phosphors and slow refresh rates. Instant headache!

Today, this isn't quite the same problem. We no longer have phosphor persistence issues found in the CRTs, that eliminates the progressive scan flicker (that gave me a POUNDING headache); and most GUIs can be configured to show a restful green on black SOME of the time. Webpage designers are starting to figure out that glaring white backgrounds aren't necessarily the best thing in the world...

So where are we going now? Several trends:

This whole idea of so-called "Cloud computing" is a return to the centralized processing of yesteryear - the exact thing the "Micro Computer Revolution" was supposed to fix. Some of this idea can be a "good thing", but much of it is simply yet another way to part people from their money. You heard it here first...

USB. USB is the best thing to happen to computers since the video terminal. Its square shape is unfortunate - I'm always and forever trying to plug them in backwards - but the sheer usability of USB is wonderful.

Serial ports are disappearing, especially from laptops. This is VERY unfortunate as laptops are FREQUENTLY used to connect to serial equipment. USB/Serial dongles are only a partial answer, unfortunately.

"D" connectors are FINALLY going away. They have the advantage of being dead-nuts reliable, but having to use jack screws (that no-one ever tightens) to hold the connection together is a drag. The new "display port" that Apple has introduced is showing signs of becoming the next industry standard video connection - and I hope it does, ridding us of the D connectors of the previous 4 generations...

PS/2 keyboards and mice are FINALLY dying a well deserved death. Most PCs still have PS/2 connectors, but they're gradually going away - USB is so much easier to deal with and are hot pluggable besides. PS/2 can just "go away"...

The "Chicklet" keyboards of the early 1980s (as seen on the TRS-80 Color Computer, the IBM PC-jr and others) seem to be making an unfortunate comeback - from Apple of all companies. Take a look at their latest Mac keyboards - the keycaps are even rubberized white: the best combination I can think of to attract and hold dirt! And yes, they share the same utterly SHITTY layout with every PC keyboard since 1992 with a mis-placed control key. I thought Apple was about "doing it right", not copying junk from the PC industry. I also thought that the Commodore VIC-20 had done away with crappy Chicklet keyboards for all time, but Apple seems to think they're a great idea. They can keep them...

The above is but one example of how Apple continues to shoot themselves in the foot - if it were any other company doing some of the stupid things (like the above Chicklet keyboards, one button mice, and displays that don't support the industry standard DVI connector) they do, they'd be laughed out of business. Don't get me wrong, I love Apple; both my home and work machines are Macs - but I sure get annoyed with them at times for stupid technology decisions and xenophobia.

In general, I'm tired of "amateur hour" programming, hobbyist grade hardware, money grabs by "you know who", half-assed implementations and/or bastardizations of industry standards, and totally un-workable operating systems. The one thing Apple did right was to switch to a UNIX base - I really wish Micro$oft would do the same.

PCs aren't really any faster than they were in the late 1970s. The hardware is far far more powerful and fast - but it takes at least the same amount of time, if not longer, to boot a modern system and get a text editor running as it did back then. The guy at IBM that saddled us with "POST" should be taken out and shot - I'm tired of waiting for computers to even START to boot up...

Top 100 ideas of all time...

2011-03-16T20:06:00.000-07:00

I noticed an issue of Time magazine that is apparently about the top 100 ideas/inventions of all time. I have yet to purchase this issue, although I really should as it looks interesting.

On the cover were several of the ideas/inventions. Along with a picture of Albert Einstein and a couple of others of which I've forgotten, was an Orthodox Icon of the Christ with the caption "Monotheism".

Great. Just freakin' great.

I certainly do not argue with Time's editors, like it or not, monotheism *is* an idea that changed the world. Not for the better I'd argue, but changed absolutely. More people have been killed because of this one idea than all others COMBINED.

Ok, so I don't have the stats handy to back that last statement up - but it may very well be true. Even if it isn't, there is no denying that millions of innocent people have been slaughtered in the name of monotheism. Look at history. Look at current events. Read the old Testament - if what it says is true, the Jewish people are just as bloodstained as the rest. Google "Christianization of Europe" or similar terms. Look up the missionary movement. Read about the concept of Jihad. Check out the Salem witch hysteria (among others). It will make you sick.

It isn't just the so-called "JCI" (Judaic, Christian, Islamic) religions, there was one other fairly significant foray into monotheism in ancient Egypt by pharaoh Akenaten. With the usual bloodshed and fanatical "convert or die", and "destroy everyone else's sacred spaces/objects/ideals" so common to monotheism.

Did Time cover this? I doubt it, but I need to go find out.

I am, in no way, suggesting that non monotheistic religions are blameless - only that in the whole, they're a lot LESS to blame.

Monotheism isn't something to celebrate.

Egypt spirals down...

2011-02-03T20:24:00.000-08:00

So now Egypt's all aflame, with the rest of the middle east starting to follow. I personally think this mess was orchestrated. Whatever. I can only pray to the Great Goddess that this doesn't spiral into yet another Moslem/Muslim theocracy - but it most likely will as I figure it was theocrats that have been doing the orchestration! "Muslim Brotherhood" indeed - I attach just about the same credence to that as I would a "Christian Brotherhood".

The greatest evil of them all is needless interference with the free will of others.

A theocracy is founded on the principle of interfering with free will - therefore a theocracy is also the greatest evil possible.

In the 21st century, mankind should be way past this. We've seen the effects of theocracy before, both modern and in past times. Yet the planet seems to be determined to spin towards theocracy worldwide. Europe seems to be fairly immune to this, unlike the USA and the middle east, but they have the equally great evil of Socialism to contend with.

Once again, we're stuck between the Devil and the deep blue sea...

Driving: Identifying "losers"...

2011-01-12T08:34:00.000-08:00

Here we go again with one of my fave subjects: Driving, cars, and bad drivers...

The old joke is that anyone driving slower than you are is an idiot, anyone faster a maniac. So true!

I'm not inclined to call faster drivers maniacs unless they're going WAAAY too fast for conditions, swerving in and out of traffic etc. I drive the speed limit 99.9999% of the time - you can't call me a speed demon by any means, yet at the same time I have little patience for ridiculously slower drivers - which I encounter all too often.

Oftentimes, you have about 1/2 of a second to determine if a given car is a "loser" or not - before you're stuck behind them for miles. Drivers don't have to put up with this in most other places in the world, but in the USA no-one will pass even when it is safe - even OBVIOUSLY safe - if you do pass someone, chances are they'll speed up, try to cut you off, or run you off the road. Whatever.

I have found out over many years, that certain cars will USUALLY exhibit particular behavior - by type and/or brand. There are exceptions, of course - like the 1960-something or other VW microbus that passed me on a moderate grade going at least 85. Which proves those things CAN get out of their own way despite popular concept to the contrary.

So, without further ado, a brief list:

BMW: Almost always competent, sometimes a maniac. Virtually NEVER a loser.

Mercedes: Almost always competent, sometimes a loser. Virtually NEVER a maniac.

Cadillac (Car): Almost always a loser.

Cadillac (SUV): Almost always a maniac.

SUVs in general: Almost NEVER competent. Either a maniac, or a loser. The losers are at least usually driving the vehicle as it should be driven - driving a SUV like a maniac is unsafe to everyone on the road. This is why SUVs should be banned unless they're going to be actually used to haul heavy loads or tow trailers - what they're made for...

Maveric: Don't see them very often anymore, but back in the day, ALWAYS a loser. Almost as bad as a VW micro bus.

VW Microbus: Virtually always a loser of the highest order. These things should be outlawed.

Prius: Believe it or not, usually competent. Seldom a loser, although due to the sheer numbers of these simpering vehicles, you'll find the occasional left lane plugger.

Mercury Capri: Back in the day, almost always a maniac.

Porsche: A maniac - no question.

Small pickup truck with a camper shell/cap: Always a loser.

Small pickup truck without a camper shell/cap: Usually competent, sometimes a loser.

Buick, Oldsmobile, Lincoln, etc. See Cadillac.

Mustang (any year): Either a maniac or a loser. Anyone driving a car like this as a loser should be shot.

Corvette/Camaro/Charger etc. See Mustang.

Mini Van: A loser. I don't know why - the times I've driven mini vans they handle well (far better than ANY SUV) and have plenty of pep. Something about the psychology of ownership I guess...

Full sized van: Loser - but like the SUV, they really have to be.

Bottom of the line, small, cheap car: A loser. Guaranteed to be in your way. The Dodge Colt was notorious for this.

A 3+3, 4X4 crewcab dually: Maniac. Has huge tires that threaten to run over you. Same goes for Chevy Blazers and any truck/SUV with oversized tires.

Honda: Loser. Always slow, in everyone's way.

Toyota: Usually competent.

Mazda: Usually competent, sometimes a maniac.

The (ill-)legitimacy of the Church...

2010-12-23T14:36:00.000-08:00

I am constantly amazed at the authority people give to "The Church" - even people who do not ordinarily attend, or belong to, one.

There are several facets to this "jewel". One are non-church people who nevertheless want Church sanction for weddings, funerals and the like. WTF? You either buy into the idea of the Church - or you do not. They give The Church credence in these things - but not in others. I don't get it.

Then there are the church people who give legitimacy to their particular Church because of something "the elders" did in the 19th century, or something that happened in the Holy Roman Empire 2,000 years ago. What does this have to do with what the Christ did? Absolutely nothing. I don't get it. Oh, and by the way, Theodosius "the Great" can rot in Hell...

Of course, this isn't just limited to Christians - there are Moslems who long for the return of "the Caliphate" over whatever region they're discussing - after all, it existed 1,000 years ago, so that makes it "legitimate" today.

As an aside, can we PLEASE decide how we're going to pronounce and spell the word that refers to the followers of Islam? How do THEY pronounce it? When I was a kid, it was spelled "Moslem", and pronounced "Mozz-lem". Then it suddenly changed to "Muslim", pronounced "Muzz-lem". Now I'm hearing that the latter spelling should be pronounced "Moose-lem". Come on people!

Of course we have the 1948 land grab in the middle east - after all, the Jewish people lived there 3,000 years ago. Gimme a break - using that logic Americans should give all their land back to the Indians - which may not be such a bad idea, but that isn't going to happen! After all, they're (the Indians) not adherents of a JCI religion, so they have NO "legitimacy".

Of course, my biggest beef with "The Church" is that people willingly surrender their God/dess given right of free will and thinking for themselves to others. People want others to do their thinking for them! No thank you.

A renewal of faith...

2010-11-21T10:26:00.000-08:00

I dislike the word "faith", but for lack of a better term...

I've been taking care of my ailing father, who isn't expected to live much longer. Needless to say, I've been quite upset at this prospect. A couple of days ago, I shared the movie "Avatar" with him. It was the first time I'd seen it since my wife and I saw it at the theatre. I had forgotten how utterly beautiful this movie truly is. It really renewed my "faith", my connection with the divine. I am, for now at least, at peace with my father's prognosis.

Feeling very good, I Googled the movie and encountered some "interesting" reviews. Needless to say, so-called "Christian" reviews were very harsh. "Anti-Christian", "Contrary to Christian spirituality", "anti-capitalist" etc. etc.

"Anti-Christian"? This reeks of absolutism. "Non-Christian" certainly, but "Anti-"? Obviously, "If you're not 100% with us, you're against us." is the mentality.

"Contrary to Christian spirituality"? This is an oxymoron if I ever heard one - Christians, at least Christians of this stripe, have no spirituality. Its a contradiction in terms! These types expect "the Church" (and its BOOK) to guide their lives - no experiencing for yourself, and certainly no thinking for yourself.

"Anti-Capitalist"? Oh please - this is more of the above mentioned absolutist thinking. I'm a "somewhat" Ayn Rand capitalist myself - but I don't hold with corporate greed. Goddess forbid that we have any balance!

Oh, how much like their Islamic brothers are these Christians!

So I will take comfort in this movie, which portrays a TRUE spirituality that Christians will never experience. I'd rather burn in their Hell than be cut off from the divine as they so obviously are.

Election fall-out...

2010-11-03T11:01:00.000-07:00

The much ballyhooed mid-term election is over - thank Goddess. As always, good and bad will come of it.

The California proposition results make no sense, but whatever. Some passed that should have failed, some failed that should have passed - but I've given up trying to make any sense out of California's proposition votes ever since an anti-horsemeat proposition put on the ballot by a southern California busybody actually passed. Gimme a break...

We're rid of Nancy Pelosi as speaker - and good riddance. The Republicans aren't going to be able to un-do much of the Democratic damage - but the good news is that they won't be able to do much damage themselves and should be able to keep the worst of any further Democratic damage under control. No more back room arm twisting by Obama to ram un-wanted legislation down our throats.

As much as it pains me to say this, I'm glad Boxer won the Senate race - I don't like her politics, but I wouldn't have voted for Carly Fiorina for dog catcher - this was the best the Repubs could come up with? Sheesh.

We need yet another term by yet another Brown as Governor like we need a hole in the head - but there you go...

Still, I give it about 3 weeks before the Republicans start beating on the Bible - something we've been relatively free of in recent months. Blech.

Like the bumper sticker says: "Don't Blame Me, I Voted Libertarian"...

3 cars...

2010-10-27T09:54:00.001-07:00

Here's "yet another" thought on cars - this time a kind of review and comparison of three:

1) My 1985 Mercedes-Benz 300SD (Turbo-Diesel)
2) My wife's 2006 Toyota Matrix
3) My father's 2009 Buick Lucerne, which I've been driving a bit lately...

I'm mainly contrasting the Buick with the others...

Buick has come a LONG way since I last drove one (15 years ago or so), its fit and finish are as good as anything. Its too new to know what its long term longevity might be - a priority to me, but ignored by most of the public and all of the car press.

It has WAAAAY to many silly gadgets that can break - and drive up acquisition costs. Whatever - it isn't really Buick's fault, the American car market demands them. In addition to the "usual" power (leather) seats, power windows/door locks; it has remote start (and remote door lock/unlock & trunk pop), Sirius radio, a backup do-dah that beeps when you're close to an obstacle, automatic climate control, etc.

I've never been much on car gadgets - I want air conditioning, cruise control, and a good supportive seat. That's it. I've come to the reluctant conclusion that power door locks can be a good thing - but don't miss them when they're not there - but power windows are kind of stupid. I *DETEST* power seats - not only are they stupid, but they take forever to adjust every single time I get into - or out of - the car. They're equally annoying in the Mercedes, which has them too - but the old MBZ has a memory driver's seat. If you're going to have the silly things, why didn't you put in a seat memory, Buick? The MBZ has the seat controls on the door, where you can see them. The Buick puts them on the side of the seat in the time honored American fashion - which is OK most of the time. I had a bit of a hunt for it once while wearing a large Belly Dance skirt - but this is really a nit.

The Toyota "makes do" with manual seats, I love it as I can adjust the seat in 1/10th the time it takes the power motor to grind its way into position. The Toyota also has cloth seats, which I'll take any day over the MBZ's and Buick's leather. Leather is hot, its cold, its slippery, and it doesn't wear particularly well. Some car makers now equip their seats with heaters and/or coolers in order to overcome leather's inherent disadvantage - the MBZ doesn't, but the Buick might. Either way, having to spend more in money and complexity to overcome a problem that wouldn't exist if non-leather seat covers were employed is just silly...

The Buick has GM's "On-Star" communications system - kind of redundant in today's cell phone world, but it does allow perks like remote door unlock if you've locked your keys in the car, and automatic distress beacons in case of accident. Not worth the $200-$300 annual price tag. You can spend even more money with the Buick and its Sirius radio. Sirius radio is nice, no question, but I'll be damned if I'd almost $150/year for radio. The stuff I listen too either isn't on Sirius at all, or only in limited quantities.

The Buick has a system of beeps and lights that tell you when you're backing up close to another object. Now here is a gadget I can get behind (no pun intended)! I'm thinking of retrofitting one into the Mercedes.

Two other items that are missing from the Buick - present on both the Mercedes and the Matrix: Sun roof and fog lights. American car manufacturers, like all nations, have their own quirks:

Americans: A dearth of sunroofs, a dearth of fog lights. Needless interlocks, but no interlock on re-engaging the starter with the engine running (!). "Always locked" trunks. Never a locking gas cap or fuel flap (!!). Almost impossible to get a manual transmission.

Japanese: Very similar to the Americans - but sunroofs and fog lights are available on most models. Virtually ALWAYS a locking gas flap. Plenty of manual transmissions. "Always locked" trunks.

Germans: Very few interlocks, but always one to prevent starter engagement with engine running. Like the Japanese, lots of sun roofs, fog lights, and locking gas flaps. Trunk locks with the doors, doesn't have to be "popped". Plenty of manual transmissions, although not many of them are imported to the U.S. And of course, my beloved Diesel engines.

The Buick is getting just under 22 MPG, with its 3.8 litre V-6 - whereas the MBZ gets just under 29 MPG, with a 3.0 litre straight 5 that was designed in 1966. If the 3.8 V-6 were a modern Diesel, it would be getting in the mid-30s, at least. Sigh...

I like the V6 though; in the American tradition, it has plenty of power down low, it doesn't like nor need to be revved at insane speeds like most Japanese engines do. Over powered to be sure, but very controllable and tame.

The Buick, like the Mercedes, has four wheel disk brakes - which was a bit of a surprise to me. The Toyota has drums on the rear - I think drums should be outlawed. I can't see that it costs any more to put disk brakes on a car than it does obsolete drums. *shrug*

The Buick and the Toyota are both front wheel drive, whereas the Mercedes is rear-wheel - showing it to be a much more expensive car. I'm not really a fan of FWD, although it is a way to get decent, but not exceptional handling, without spending a huge amount of money. With this said, the Buick mostly drives like a RWD car, no torque steer whatsoever. Of course the Buick is a traditional American "float-mobile", but seems to handle better than older version of the same. Nothing handles like my Mercedes!

The Buick has another American car affectation, so called "cornering lights" which come on (at night) when the steering wheel is turned more than "so far" in the appropriate direction or when the turn signals are engaged. I guess the idea is "ok", too bad the area they illuminate is blocked by the cab forward sloping A-pillars (the latter of which are shared with the Toyota). All new cars have them, and they annoy me. What happened to "wrap-around" windshields?

"Rain Sensing" wipers are another gadget I could find myself liking - they seem to work as advertised in my limited exposure to them so far. I'm not to the point of where I'd pay extra for them, but they seem to be a good idea...

Both the Mercedes and the Buick feature 4 speed automatics. Saving the "its impossible to get a manual transmission in America" tirade for another day; I like the Buick's ability to select all 4 gears with its D,3,2,1 selector. The MBZ only has D,3,2 - which drives me nuts. Both the MBZ and the Buick have floor mounted shifters - which I really prefer my automatics on the steering column, but whatever. The Toyota is, of course, a manual as we were able to actually purchase it with one, although it had to be brought in from another dealer's lot as our local dealer only had automatics in stock.

The Buick however, doesn't do compression braking very well - an essential for my driving style. Downshifting the transmission doesn't slow the car by much, and it tends to run away on hills. The Mercedes (and Toyota to a lesser extent) slows down on downshifts, and its downhill speed can be regulated with the throttle on all but the very steepest hills - the way it should be!

All 3 cars have cruise control. GM had, for many years, the very best cruise control interface in the industry - part of the turn signal stalk. It could be operated totally by feel and was very intuitive and easy to use.

Now GM, at least on the Buick, has given into the unfortunate fad of locating the cruise control buttons on the steering wheel where I have to look for them every time I want to use them. There should only be exactly ONE button on a steering wheel - the HORN! The good news is that the on/off button is, like it was on the stalk control, a latching button so it can be simply left on all the time. On/off on cruise controls never made any sense whatsoever to me.

The MBZ's cruise control is a separate stalk above the turn signal stalk. It is also very intuitive, easy to use, and has no on/off function whatsoever. Set, resume, accelerate, deaccelerate, and cancel. Its wonderful!

The Toyota has a hybrid approach. Their cruse control isn't on the steering wheel (thank Goddess!) per se, but is a separate stalk on the RH side - WHICH TURNS WITH THE STEERING WHEEL! Not entirely satisfactory as it isn't always in the same place. It also has a "soft button" on/off which, of course, turns itself off every time the car is shutdown, requiring the driver to turn it back on each use. Dumb. Otherwise, its use is pretty intuitive, especially the cancel function.

Climate controls: The Toyota has large, manual dials; whereas both the Mercedes and the Buick have automatic climate controls. ACC is one of the dumbest ideas ever promulgated on the car buying public. The MBZ's system was one of the first ever created - and is universally detested by all who own a 126 Mercedes-Benz. It basically doesn't work, and has an annoying way of defaulting to turning on the heat full blast at the most inopportune times. The European versions of the 126 had manual dials - why did we get stuck with this?

The Buick's system, I'll admit, works and works well. With that said, I see no advantage to it whatsoever. Why have the complexity and expense? Something else to break...

An update: Finally got ahold of the manual. Both a sunroof and foglights are options - although obviously rarely encountered due to the American car market "package" system. A memory driver's seat is also an option - and it even has a button to roll the seat back for "easy access" in/out. Although my previous comments about the far easier to deal with manual seats still stand, if its going to have power seats, it might as well have memory and it might as well have an easy way to roll the seat back so you can get in/out of the car!

Oh Goddess! Here we go again...

2010-10-25T19:49:00.000-07:00

So, we're almost to the mid-term election. Once again, the American electorate must choose between Socialism or Theocracy. But wait! A new hope has arisen!

Perhaps!

The "Tea Party" is an amazing, grass roots campaign. Feared by Democrats and Republicans alike, it has the potential to revolutionize American politics. Lots of potential - and I hope it does!

However, its unlikely. The good news is that liberals of all stripes detest it - but Republicans and Theocrats alike (all too often one and the same thing) would like to either co-opt it, or create their own version in their own image.

The "Tea Party" isn't conservative per se, its actually Libertarian - which impulse the world needs right now. But I fear that their totally justified fear of the left's liberal socialism will cause them to eventually embrace an equal evil: Rightist Theocracy, of which Germany has had all too much experience with a form thereof.

As long as the Tea Party embraces constitutional government, I'm all for it. As soon as they begin to embrace revisionist, Dominionist, Christian dogma/principles - all thinking people should revile them.

Sarah Palin, beloved spokesperson of the Tea Party is a borderline Theocrat herself - by all means she has a great book which shows how screwed up the Republican party really is - but she thumps the Christian Bible all too much for my taste. As a private citizen, I have no problem with that. As a public figure, I do. Still, her vote on gay rights when she was Alaska's governor shows that she can transcend her personal philosophy to make a "freedom for all" type decision, even if she personally disagrees with it.

We'll see.

Sports!

2010-10-14T20:56:00.000-07:00

Americans, and people worldwide for that matter, are obsessed with sports. We build multi-million dollar arenas for them that would be the envy of any ancient Roman, we spend billions of dollars on them, we force our kids to play them, they're an important part of every newscast - ENOUGH!

If someone likes a given sport - I have no problem with that. I watch, and enjoy, the occasional football game myself. But it shouldn't dominate, uh make that DOMINATE, our culture. Look at any High School in the United States. The largest, costliest, and usually newest building on campus is the gymnasium. Make that times TEN if its a junior college, and times ONE HUNDRED if its a four year school.

I thought schools were for educating kids for life and a career. While the instrumental music program starves, the dance program is non-existent, do-nothing administrators pull down six figure salaries and sports programs are ALWAYS funded. Its big business.

Oh, the gymnasium is used for P.E.? Ok, so why is it *always* sports, never dance, seldom gymnastics, ice skating or anything with a bit of cultural and aesthetic value?

I had a "personal trainer" at a gym tell me something I found VERY interesting - and very apropos: She said that the boot camp style P.E. that permutates our school system is responsible for more non exercising adults than all other causes put together! I certainly can agree with this, I utterly DETESTED P.E. as a child. Only in middle age did I find a form of exercise that is both enjoyable, and beautiful: Dance, specifically Belly Dance. Now, I'm in a Belly Dance class that beats the Hell out of me every Monday nite - and I'm loving it!

I think a little bit of balance is needed. By all means, the kids that want to play football - or whatever - should be able to do so. But I also think there should be more forms of P.E. available to the huge number of kids who aren't into hardcore sports.

By the way, speaking of sports and linking it to one of my favorite subjects (Automobiles): What's up with all this emphasis on so-called "Sports Cars"? Or if it isn't a Sports Car, its "Sporty" - whatever the Hell that means. They even have "Sporty" TRUCKS! WTF? I wouldn't be caught dead in 95% of the Sports Cars out there - something a 17 year old male with a small wee-wee would drive. No thanx! Now an old Morgan on the other hand...

Television

2010-10-07T12:43:00.000-07:00

I'm *really* tired of TV, and its all pervasive invasion of our lives. Everywhere you go, there's a screen blabbing inanely away. Trying to sell you something, displaying some mind-numbing program, or booming away with the latest (bad) news...

You find them in restaurants, waiting in line at amusement parks (captive audience), in offices of all descriptions - my fave is the annoying trend of Doctor's offices having one.

Most people, my dear wife included, just can't seem to function without it. One of my dance sisters has hers on ALL the friggin' time - she even leaves it on for her cat when she's gone. It isn't so much the picture, that's easy enough to ignore or turn away from - its the constant NOISE. I drives me NUTS!

Yea, I watch it too. Not very much, but a little bit - because my wife insists on having one in the house and having it on way more than I'd like. A frightful waste of time. If it disappeared tomorrow, I wouldn't miss it.

The more expensive TV has become, through modern day "essentials" such as cable TV, the worse it has become. I used to be a TV enthusiast/addict like everyone else - back in the 1970s when there were still some shows worth watching. Now its so insipid to be beyond belief.

Its even affecting our workday. There is an insidious new type of work schedule called "9/80" (Google's your friend if you're unfamiliar) that works well if all you do is go home and gel in front of the TV, but for anyone with a life its bad news.

Fight back!

TV Be Gone TV "Zapper"!

I have one, and it works!

My Father's Wisdom

2010-08-30T14:39:00.000-07:00

A quote my father was fond of reciting when I was a boy:

A tool, in the hands of a fool, becomes not a tool, but a duel, between the fool, and the tool!

Google can't seem to find this anywhere, so I have no idea where it came from!

Bad Tattoos

2010-08-29T11:51:00.000-07:00

As a newbie to the world of tattoos, I'm truly flabbergasted at the sheer number of bad, and I really mean BAD, tattoos out there. Seen on sites such as "Rate My Ink" and similar, there are a LOT of people out there with enormously bad ink.

To be clear, I'm not talking about subject matter here - my tattoo artist told me if someone "wants a picture of a baby with a bomb, who am I to question it? Its my job to make it look good, make it good art."

She's right.

I cannot for the life of me, understand why someone would have something as permanent as a tattoo put on THEIR BODY for Goddess's sake, and have anything less than stellar beauty. There are a lot of sub-standard tattooists out there, called "scratchers" by the real tattoo artists - don't these tattoo-ees do their research? Bad lines, inconsistent fonts, kindergarten level "artwork", botches of all types - they're all out there. And many of the people bearing these abortions are actually proud of them...

There's no accounting for taste - but if you want a "Hello Kitty" tattooed on your wrist, or a "My Little Pony" tattooed as a "Tramp Stamp" - at least do the world and yourself a favor and get a GOOD artist to put it there! Yea, it will cost you a bit more, but will be in every way totally worth it.

Think before you ink. Life is too *LONG* for a bad tattoo!

Be careful out there...

RubberNeckers...

2010-08-24T12:18:00.000-07:00

Ok, here we go with yet another Zorba rant on the subject of driving...

So, you're cruising at speed on a multi lane freeway, when suddenly the brake lites lite up, and you stomp on the brakes (AKA "Jam and Slam"). Then its "creep and beep" for the next 2 miles. When you arrive at "the problem", its nothing more than someone in the median changing a flat tire, an accident that has moved itself completely off the road, a routine traffic stop - or even worse - something going on on the OTHER SIDE of the freeway!

As soon as you crawl around this "obstruction", traffic picks up the pace, and within a quarter mile you're back up to speed.

This drives me insane. Its fine if there's something going on IN a lane, or VERY close to a lane - and oftentimes it *WAS* a legitimate obstruction that has cleared by the time you get to it. Ok! But most of the time, its people slowing down to "rubberneck", i.e. look at what's going on...

I DON'T CARE.

GET OUT OF THE WAY.

I don't look, don't care to, I'm PAYING ATTENTION TO MY DRIVING - what a concept - not to what's going on on the side of the road. Or the other side of the freeway. I drive to GET THERE; if there's clear space in front of the car, I GO.

Indeed, one time I felt my life was in danger because of this behavior. Traffic was piled up for at least 5 miles on California's route 5, in the middle of nowhere. A plume of black smoke reached into the sky. When I finally arrived at the site of all this consternation, it turned out to be a motorhome in the median, fully engulfed in flames. Totally away from any traffic lanes. So there I am, pulling a fifth-wheel trailer, being forced to crawl by this thing, just waiting for the propane tanks to blow and throw flaming shrapnel onto MY VEHICLE! Thanx guys - I really wanted to get past this thing as fast as possible...

Our "Gay" Apparel

2010-08-13T12:56:00.000-07:00

What a fine tangle California's Proposition 8 has created!

The fact of the matter is, this is ONCE AGAIN, an attempt by those who do not approve of something trying to dictate their preferences to everyone else. In other words, busybodies that would do society the greatest service by minding their own business. As is all too often the case, these busybodies are Christians and other monotheists trying to legislate their morality on everyone, whether it concerns them or not.

Myself, I figure someone's relationship is none of my business. The greatest evil in the world is interference with someone Else's free will. But that is what monotheists do best: interfere with the free will of others.

Do I think homosexuality is wrong? Yes - for me. I think the creator - in what ever form you choose - made man and woman to fit together, to compliment each other, blah, blah...

The important thing here is, that I "THINK". Its my opinion. I do NOT make a habit of foisting my OPINIONS on others when they're unwelcome. What others do is none of my concern as long as their actions hurt no-one else - which is certainly the case here!

I know a fair number of homosexuals - some are even friends of mine - and they're free to live their lives as they see fit. I haven't totally figured them out - but I do know that most of them are far more secure in themselves than the average heterosexual. They know what they are, a lot of heterosexuals aren't sure what they are. The Delphic commandment again! Homosexuals are often more cultured, more intelligent, and better educated than the typical American redneck.

Lay off of 'em, will ya?

Things that are "of the world"...

2010-07-31T12:54:00.000-07:00

While I'm on a roll about Christians and other monotheists, how about the phrase that something is "of the world" that one encounters often from certain varieties of the above?

No question, I myself would certainly be called "of the world" by these types; what with my long beautiful hair, earrings and other jewelry, skirts, Belly Dancing - and most especially my "Tramp Stamp" tattoo!

Ok, fine. Such things are indeed "of the world" - no argument. But to look at one of these individuals who would decry me (and many others) as being "of the world" standing there in their suit and tie - makes me laugh!! Like a suit and tie is found in heaven and wasn't invented, made, and worn in "the world"! Those who know me well will know that I consider the suit and tie to be one of the most evil contraptions ever foisted on men - but irregardless of all that, this (obsolete) mode of dress is just as much "of the world" as any other. Wearing a "male burqa" (necktie) doesn't elevate anyone above "the world"; nor does wearing (or not) anything else do so.

The fact that supposedly intelligent, thinking human beings can actually take nonsense like this seriously has never failed to amaze me...

The Dark Art...

2010-07-30T17:22:00.000-07:00

Since very ancient times, one has encountered belief/idea that reading and writing are of the "dark arts". And indeed, they are! Ask any Anthroposophist, s/he'll tell you it is "Ahrimanic" - meaning essentially "of the Devil" in more populist terms.

So what does this mean?

It certainly does NOT mean that it is something to be automatically avoided; much as a Christian, or other monotheist might think to do, with their inherent "NIH" (Not Invented Here) mentality. What it does mean is for us to understand what the written word is - and what it isn't.

Entropy is the nature of the (physical) universe - as soon as something is created, it starts to decay. This is certainly true of the written word - ask anyone in high technology, s/he'll tell you that any book on this subject is obsolete as soon as its published! Not all that is written becomes obsolete so fast, but it all becomes so eventually. Just because its written down doesn't make it so, and just because it was so when it was written, doesn't make it so today!

The only constant in the universe is that of change.

As you might imagine, this comes around to one of my favorite topics, the monotheistic "religions of the BOOK". This term is, if I'm not mistaken, an Islamic term - but all three of the "JCI" monotheistic religions put HUGE stock in their respective BOOKS.

We've all seen the news of Muslims run amok when someone "desecrates" their BOOK. Even if you believe every single word is true, its still only a BOOK. Some brands of Christians aren't much better. We have "this" Bible church, and "that" Bible church, etc, etc. A "Church of God" or "Church of Christ" or similar, at least makes sense - they're worshiping their God or Christ. What is the "Bible church" worshiping? Sounds to me that they're worshiping a BOOK - or at least giving it a far larger status than its due. Its still only a BOOK - all this over-reacting is playing into the dark side of such things. Ahriman is pleased...

There is no such thing as a "Holy" BOOK - its a physical object that has been decaying since it was printed; and its contents have been decaying since they were written. I'm not saying don't read them, or don't find the good in them - but don't worship them or put them on a pedestal as infallible.

This goes for Pagans too - who generally don't have a sacred BOOK - but have many book based sources to turn to. Just because someone wrote it down doesn't make it so. Take what works, leave the rest behind - use it for good.

Everyone needs to THINK for themselves, develop an internal sense of ETHICS, and not relying solely on what someone else tells them - either in a BOOK or first hand.

Capishe?

The Plan...

2010-07-26T08:20:00.001-07:00

From a chain letter - Snopes notes that Robin Williams had nothing to do with it except the very last item regarding the statue of liberty - but its STILL very good:

Gotta Love Robin Williams

This has been around before but is well worth reading again

YOU HAVE TO LOVE HIM...A MUST READ...READ THIS!
HE MADE THIS SPEECH IN NEW YORK.

The Plan!

Robin Williams, wearing a shirt that says 'I love New York' in Arabic.

You gotta love Robin Williams........Even if he's nuts! Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan. What we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message.

Robin Williams' plan...(Hard to argue with this logic!)

'I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan.'

1) 'The US, UK , CANADA and AUSTRALIA will apologize to the world for our 'interference' in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those 'good 'ole' boys', we will never 'interfere' again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea , the Middle East, and the Philippines . They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are from. They're illegal!!! France will welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5) No foreign 'students' over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a 'D' and it's back home baby.

6) The US, UK , CANADA and AUSTRALIA will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not 'interfere.' They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us 'Ugly Americans' any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH...learn it...or LEAVE. Now, isn't that a winner of a plan?

11)The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'you want a piece of me?' '

Ethics

2010-07-24T19:57:00.000-07:00

Ethics. There is NOTHING more important than ethics. Not principles, not morality; and certainly not laws, rules or regulations. Indeed, all such things are attempts to codify the uncodifiable, that is, ethics. The blind following of these, by the oft-unthinking, are responsible for as much harm in the world as actual evil-doers. Remember that road to Hell?

Humanity *MUST* evolve towards an internal ethical sense. Dependence upon externally imposed "morality" et al, will result in our eventual fall into darkness - indeed, it has happened many times before. I am in no way suggesting that this will happen overnight (remember, anarchy is a wonderful system that has no chance whatsoever of working at this stage of humanity's evolution) - indeed, it will take tens or even hundreds of millennia. But it is the duty, obligation, and certainly in the best interest of all those who align themselves with the forces of light to cultivate an ethical sense, and encourage its growth in others.

So who has an ethical sense?

Not many.

Governments don't - they cannot by their very nature. Certainly, the ethically bankrupt BOOK-based religions have proven time and time again that they lack even the gist of the idea of ethics. With very few exceptions, employers don't - and neither do most employees and very few, if any, unions.

Where I've encountered ethics is among individuals. Ones that have stayed away from ethics lacking organizations and people. Ones who have the courage, the foresight, and - let's face it - the intelligence to be able to "figure it out". It gives me hope.

Am I? I try - which is more than many will do. I'm no God or Goddess, I fall down trying - but at least I try. I don't put my trust/faith in other humans, human organizations, or their BOOKS to tell me what's right and wrong - I think for myself. Ask/look for input, yes. But in the final analysis, its my decision, my responsibility, and "the buck stops here".

I know a lady whom the law/morality/principle based types would decry - but this lady has ethics, something the former people lack. I'd rather have her at my back than the other.

How about you?

The "new" air pollution...

2010-07-11T10:45:00.000-07:00

While I'm on a roll about harmful substances, what about cigarettes and other tobacco "products"? No-one needs lil ol' me to tell them of the dangers of first- and second-hand smoke, yet like booze, the Nanny-state refuses to ban the damn things outright; instead spending millions of tax payer dollars fighting for the hearts and minds of the public. The tobacco companies retaliate by advertising the image that supposedly goes along with their particular brand of cigarette. Regardless of that and similar to a booze drinker; the only image a smoker projects is one of utter stupidity...

My mother started smoking them when she was about 16 years of age, tried valiantly for decades to quit - which she finally succeeded at with the aid of nicotine gum in her 60s. She never understood why I had severe childhood asthma (Hello!), and ultimately they were responsible for her death by stroke at age 78. Wonderful.

But one thing I've never seen anyone mention, not even the Nanny-state: What about the air pollution these things cause? We regulate internal combustion engine emissions to the point of ridiculousness, yet we allow this source of pollution to continue! I can smell a cigarette 3 or 4 cars ahead in a traffic jam - putting out far more pollutants than a 1960s era Diesel. What's up with that?

At least the state of California has made it illegal to smoke the darn things in most public places - which is a legitimate use of Nanny-state powers as it protects people from the actions of OTHERS - but Goddess help you when you go to the east coast or, even worse, Europe. The Europeans took to this new-world vice and aren't showing any signs whatsoever of ever giving it up. The Europeans gave the Amerinds booze, and in turn, they gave the Europeans tobacco. A fair trade, don't you think?

The Great Thief...

2010-07-02T13:58:00.000-07:00

I'm an oddball in today's world. The somewhat old-fashioned term is "teetotaler", someone who doesn't drink alcohol at all.

Why not? Why should I?

I've never at all understood the need to drink alcohol that is felt by most people. It just doesn't make sense. Alcohol is the Great Thief: It contributes nothing, it can only take. It takes away common sense, it takes health, it takes lives, it destroys lives that it hasn't taken. Even when used as an aid to seduction, it fails. It takes away the edge of orgasm when it doesn't take the orgasm altogether. Alcohol is also a poison, plain and simple.

Yet our society is oh so hypercritical when it comes to this poison. Its illegal to take many drugs as they are correctly perceived to be harmful. Leaving the debate about the Nanny-state protecting people from themselves for another day; what is the difference between Alcohol and any other drug?

If we are to ban all these other drugs, some of which are no worse than alcohol (as bad as it is), alcohol should be banned along with the rest of them!

Oh - but didn't we try that? It didn't work. Neither does the so called "war on drugs".

Like anarchy, prohibition is an excellent idea that doesn't have a prayer of working. The cure is worse than the disease. Don't get me wrong, I'd *LOVE* to see a successful ban on Alcohol, pot, LSD, meth, Crack, Cocaine, etc, etc, etc. but it ain't gonna happen. I don't want the ban to protect people from themselves, I want the ban to protect ME from the drug users - we all know the statistics...

The way back to sanity?

2010-06-29T07:45:00.000-07:00

Ok, so I was very much for McCain in Y2K - he had the courage to call out the Bible Thumpers as the "agents of intolerance" that they are - and watch his campaign auger in as a result. Instead, we got The Shrub, who did very little to conceal his theocratic tendencies.

So in 2008, McCain tried again - but this time his message was watered down by his pandering to the Dominionist theocrats. He didn't do his campaign any favors by his selection of Sarah Palin, rightfully or wrongfully. An American public, caught once again between Socialism and Theocracy, chose Socialism as they were sick of the theocratic Bush. The Republicans could only reluctantly promote a reluctant theocrat, who had actually won out over a preacher and a Mormon - and then they (the Republicans) proceeded to loudly thump the Bible and in general mis-manage the campaign.

Read Sarah Palin's book, "Going Rogue". Whether or not you like Sarah (She's too much a Theocrat for my taste, but otherwise appears to be an honest person - certainly no Socialist and not nearly as bad as the Left would lead you to think), or believe her book; it is a real eye opener into the mis-management, incompetence, and overbalanced Republican party. I have no doubt whatsoever, that the Democratic party is in similar disarray - after all, look what they gave us.

"Laugh about it, shout about it when you've got to choose. Either way you look at it you lose!" - Simon and Garfunkel

McCain wasn't far enough to the Right, Obama isn't far enough to the left - this is what the two major parties give us. Goddess forbid that we EVER have a centrist, or a moderate of either stripe. I really do think much of the problem is the political "party" system - at the very best it is outdated, but its far worse than that. All the parties do is polarize America, no voices of reason can be heard.

Ron Paul was the only 2008 candidate that "got it" - but was lost in a sea of fanaticism, both left and right. Arlen Specter, always a voice of moderation in the Republican party, finally jumped ship and became a Democrat. I suspect he won't do any better there - the guy's a centrist and centrists are not welcomed in either party.

The voters in California *FINALLY* voted in open primaries - both parties had a conniption fit, funding millions in opposition ads, seeing that an open primary system would dilute their stranglehold on power. It took several attempts over many years to get open primaries passed in California, but its a start in the right direction.

We are NOT going to see the end of the wild pendulum swinging, polarization in our nation until the Republicans stop insisting that one certain religion is the only one to be counternounced, and the Democrats stop insisting that a failed and discredited economic system is our desired future.

We want something besides Socialism or Fascism. We want freedom from both. We want freedom, period.

Blink, blink, blink!

2010-06-23T11:04:00.000-07:00

We've all been stuck behind one. The guy/gal who is all over his/her brakes, constantly, all the time. Maybe its a congested freeway, maybe its a city street, maybe its a winding 2 lane road, maybe is even a straight as an arrow 2 lane road with no opposing traffic that the nanny-state has nonetheless striped double yellow so you're stuck behind this idiot.

It doesn't matter what speed the "blinker" is going - indeed s/he may be going quite fast enough, but is always keeping you on edge because of the constant blink, blink, blinking of his/her brake lights. You quickly become complacent and start ignoring the lights because they've ceased to mean anything. Bad idea. Then the idiot actually uses his/her brakes "for real", and you're caught off guard.

Brakes are NOT a speed maintenance device, as many flatlanders find out the hard way in the mountains. They are for slowing or stopping your vehicle ONLY. Speed maintenance is achieved by proper use of the throttle and transmission.

Be safe out there!

The illegals that stream into the US

2010-06-21T15:08:00.000-07:00

Well, isn't this just great. The Great Socialist, Obama, is going after the state of Arizona for enforcing FEDERAL LAW! But I can't really complain too much about Obama-Akbar - Bush the Theocrat was of the exact same mindset what with his "Good Friend, Vincente Fox".

The politicians, both left and right, have sold the US down the river...

Cars

2010-06-19T15:07:00.000-07:00

I'm a passionate car nut, I'm sure I'll be writing here on the subject from time to time. I drive a 25 year old Mercedes-Benz 300SD, which is everything I think a car should be, and very little that one should not. My wife drives a Toyota Matrix - a handy large-for-a-compact hatchback that is almost "cross-over" in stance.

I seldom understand the American mindset when it comes to cars, so the latest fad doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I'm talking about the Toyota Prius, or the "Pius" as some call it; referring to the religious cult-like mentality some Prius owners develop about their cars.

Don't get me wrong, I think hybrid technology in general is a good idea, I just think that its wasted in the Prius - or any gasoline powered automobile. Of course, I really think gasoline powered anythings are inefficient fuel wasters, but I digress...

All this rather expensive hybrid technology is thrown at a gasoline engine to make it about the same efficiency as a diesel. What's up with that? Might as well drive one of the new, clean burning diesels - or better yet - how about a diesel-electric hybrid?

Oh darn, you can't GET a diesel-electric hybrid. "Everyone" is talking about them, but no-one is really stepping up to the plate, not even the Germans, who are famous for their diesel technology. This technology has been around for decades, being used in locomotives and ships since at least the 1950s. Yet here we are driving in-efficient gas powered (hybrid or not) vehicles - why?

I had had high hopes for Honda - 10 years ago they were the only major Japanese automotive manufacturer who did NOT have a diesel infrastructure. Everyone else in Japan did - even though most didn't import them to the U.S.A. (a story for another day) - so Honda very quietly started buying up diesel technology. 2009/20010 were years bandied about as being the year diesels were going to make it big in the US - just as they are everywhere else in the world. Honda is THE world leader in clean air technology, there was even rumor (true or not) they had perfected a diesel that didn't require urea-based exhaust after-treatment. Put one of those engines in their Insight hybrid, then you'd have something.

It never happened.

I don't know why.

It frustrates me.

In the meantime, we're stuck with self-righteous "Pius" drivers poking along in everybody's way (much like the VW MicroBus of old) in a car that is the ugliest thing since the Pontiac Aztek - which it actually resembles. I could live with the back end of the Prius, although it isn't a thing of beauty - but does the front end have to look so darn simpering?

Still, I'd forgive the car its ugly looks if I could get one with a diesel electric powerplant! In the meantime, I'll keep driving my ancient MBZ with an engine that was designed in the mid-1960s that STILL beats gasoline engines for fuel efficiency in a similar sized car. A modern diesel would do much better.

One month ago today...

2010-06-18T09:40:00.000-07:00

My friends are, no doubt, quite tired of hearing about the subject - that of my rather large lower back tattoo that I got exactly one month ago today. Being that it was my first and only, it was quite the experience. For the curious, I refer them to: Of Pain and Beauty - just updated yesterday!

But today, I want to make my usual observations about society's attitudes towards tattoos, lower back tattoos (AKA "Tramp Stamps"), and especially lower back tattoos on men.

Of course, tattooing has been "mainstream" for quite a few years now, but it was a bit of a "jump" for this conservative kind of guy to get one. The 'net is full of accounts of how tatts are everywhere and on everyone - no need to discuss that aspect further.

Believe it or not, there are still a lot of people who are horrified of the whole idea for religious reasons or other mis-information. Whatever, its always amazed me how people think their beliefs/standards/morals should apply to everyone - but that's a topic for another day.

The 'net is also full of stories about lower back tattoos being called 'Tramp Stamps', 'arse antlers', 'Santa Cruz (or California) License Plates', etc - along with stories about how their owners (Usually assumed to be women) are sluts, or whatever. The movie "Wedding Crashers" certainly didn't do this kind of tatt any favors!

And of course, lower back tattoos on men are very much frowned upon by many, or even most. About the best you can expect with one is "He must be gay.". Whatever - people are free to think what they wish, I'll still wear my beautiful 'Tramp Stamp' with pride - I'd get it again in a heartbeat! Being that I'm a male Belly Dancer, wear earrings, skirts, have long hennaed hair, etc. - people are going to think what they will.

It just makes me laugh at their ignorance...

Give Darwinism a chance...

2010-06-17T12:04:00.000-07:00

The worldwide nanny-state mentality; as originated mostly in California, then promulgated by the United States; annoys me. Seat belt laws, car seat laws, helmet laws, lawsuits over hot coffee, etc, etc, etc. The list is never-ending. What happened to personal responsibility? If someone is dumb enough to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, or drive a car without a seat belt, or not properly restrain their child - LET THEM! Let's stop pandering to the lowest common denominator, protecting idiots (or their children) from themselves is NOT a business the gov't should be in, and its resulting in the dumbing down of the population. Let Darwinism work - go ahead, PLAY in the freeway...

And don't even get me started on the subject of mandatory bicycle helmet laws - for anyone. I ride a bike to work every day - and I wear a helmet because I ride on a narrow, high-speed road. Its value is probably minimal, but I wear it. In a quiet neighborhood, I wouldn't. Like just about everyone, I did all kinds of crazy stuff as a kid on my bike - helmets had never been heard of - and I am still here to tell the tale. Americans are afraid of life...

And the World Stops Turning on a Sunday...

2010-06-13T13:24:00.000-07:00

Being that this is the very first Sunday this 'blog has ever been existence, it might be a good time to reflect on a trend, fortunately vanishing, of how the world stops turning on Sundays.

A phenomenon left over from theocratic "blue laws" from previous centuries, one still encounters the "closed on Sunday" mindset all too often. Usually found among mom & pop merchants who are still living in the 1950s, it usually goes hand in hand with a 5PM weekday closing time.

If the mom & pops want to survive in the 21st century, they need to examine this policy closely. They may close at 5PM, but WalMart certainly doesn't. They may be closed every Sunday, but the big box store is open - and taking their business.

I am in no way suggesting that people shouldn't have a weekend - but perhaps the time has come to make the "weekend" into "two days off in succession" instead. I myself would have no problem, in fact would have a mild preference for, working both Saturday and Sunday, and having, say, Tuesday and Wednesday off. In fact, I'd actually rather have Tuesdays and Thursdays off - speaking for myself. The mom and pops can hire help for weekends, increasing their profitability and relevance in the post millennium world.

Certainly, having everyone off, and the whole world stopped, on one certain day is damned inconvenient, at the very least! The fact that this day "just happens to" coincide with the "day of rest" of certain religions annoys me...

What think you?

Oh what to do with the oilspill!

2010-06-12T14:38:00.000-07:00

Isn't the gulf of Mexico in a fine mess. Its been weeks upon weeks since the disaster started, and we're no closer to a solution than we were the day it happened.

I'm no expert, but "something" should be done rather than the government obstructionism that's going on right now. Someone wanted to create artificial sand bars to stop the oil from reaching fragile wetlands. Nope, can't do that, need to evaluate the environmental impact of said sandbar first. Huh? HELLO? Anybody home?

Several companies and several foreign governments have offered to step in and help in various ways. Nope, can't have that - the US Gov't has it all under control folks.

Maybe we should blow the thing up with a nuke or other high explosive. I personally don't know if that would work or make it worse - but if it would work there's no way we can possibly do that - use a NUKE? Hear the liberals cry about that...

This is the exact same kind of paralysis that happened with Hurricane Katrina; liberal government or conservative, socialist or fascist, the results are the same.

And the oil continues to pour out...

A very brief introduction...

2010-06-11T19:37:00.000-07:00

Hello!

I am Zorba, a centrist, slightly right of center, reformed Republican with a strong Libertarian bent. I'm disgusted with politics, both left and right - a pox on BOTH your houses! I consider myself an environmentalist, yet am tired of "tree-hugging" leftist liberals. I consider myself an Ayn Rand style capitalist, yet am sickened by corporate greed. I'm a pro gun, pro choice, anti-Bible thumping Pagan male Belly Dancer! Thus I fit in no categories except my own - and I think there are a Hell of a lot of other out there like me. This 'blog will eventually piss everyone off - sooner or later. I "attempt to" apply common sense, and above all else ETHICS, to all situations, rather than dogma, doctrine, morality, or principles. I don't like the Socialist we currently have in the White House, and I didn't like the Bible-thumping revisionist/Dominionist theocrat we had before that. Clinton was a waste, and George Bush Sr. was bad news. Ronald Reagan was, IMHO, the greatest president we've had in my personal lifetime - but even he wasn't perfect - granting amnesty to illegal aliens who were in my country illegally - as well as starting the downfall of the Republican party by pandering to the Bible-thumpers. He also didn't keep a campaign promise to end draft registration - regardless of how you feel on the subject, a promise is a promise. Otherwise, I think he was a damn fine man.

I enjoy informed debate, and welcome well-presented viewpoints that are contrary to my own - we may both learn something! Being that I don't subscribe to dogma of any type, I reserve the right to change my mind about anything at anytime! Contrary to absolutist, dogma-based thinking, the universe changes, our place in it changes, and our perception changes - or at least should!

We do, as per the ancient Chinese curse, live in interesting times...