It’s a question that goes through my mind every time someone scores a goal on the Minnesota Wild and if you watch hockey you’ve thought of it at least once. Why don’t they just get a really husky guy out there who could sit in front of the goal and block every single shot?
Don’t write this off as a stupid question, similar stunts are not without major league precedent.
There are some moments in sports where spirit of the game is violated regularly to great and acceptable affect. If you’re down by two points in the final moments of a basketball game then you intentionally foul to force the shot and turnover and give yourself a chance. If that blitzer is going to knock down the quarterback for a loss of 15 yards and possibly a knee injury then you hold him and take the penalty. These are acceptable violations of written rules.
Except we aren’t talking about written rules, we’re talking about acceptable standards of play, but again, it’s not like this kind of violation never happens in major league sports.
Though I wasn’t alive in 1951 to see it, the story of Eddie Gaedel’s major league debut is one of the great baseball legends.
Gaedel was a American dwarf–they weren’t as concerned with political correctness in 1951. On Aug. 17 of that year, Gaedel donned a St. Louis Browns uniform and stepped up to the plate, filling a small corner of the batting box with his unimposing 3’7” 65 lb. frame.
It was a bit of a joke, his number was 1/8 and he had popped out of a cake between games of a double-header, but he had a valid contract.
It’s already hard for major league pitchers to hit a standard strike zone, and Gaedel’s zone was only a few inches.
Needless to say he was walked and got a pinch runner upon reaching first base. The Browns went on to lose the game 6-2.
That’s a great story, but let’s get back to the matter at hand. Why doesn’t some hockey team hire an obese man to just sit in the goal?
I suppose it starts with the simple fact that hockey is a good deal more violent than baseball has ever been. While baseball sees the occasional bench clearing brawl or struck batter charging the pitcher it just doesn't have the raw ferocity like body checking and hockey fights.
Even great baseball moments like Robin Ventura charging the pitching legend Nolan Ryan–Ryan, 46, headlocked Ventura, 26, and hammered him with his right arm which was capable of fastballs exceeding 100 mph– have almost nothing on par with the standard of violence in a Minnesota Wild game moments after Derek Boogaard gets put in.
What would rogue players do to an opposing team who they felt was violating the spirit of the game.
Equipment constraints could also be a problem. Where would a team find pads to cover a goalie of such proportions that he could adequately cover a 4x6 net?
It is also the policy of the NHL to screen for health problems with a standard physical. Could someone with that kind of girth ever be described as physically fit to play a sport? I would put that in the realm of improbable and unlikely but not necessarily impossible.
Considering that Walter Hudson, at 1197 lbs.. might just barely have filled the net with his world record 9’11” waist, it’s going to take a lot of dieting–in the reverse of the conventional sense–to reach anywhere near that size. Since Hudson died in 1991 he’s not about to walk out on the ice even if he could get onto the ice through a doorway.
So let’s go through the particulars: vengeful opposing players, lacking appropriate padding, hardly able to move.
What we’re essentially talking about here is strapping–he would probably have to be tied to the crossbar in order to stand–an inordinately husky masochist in the goal and letting angry players slap hard rubber pucks toward him at speeds close to 100 mph.
I’m guessing he’d be in one of two places after the game. the emergency room or the county morgue. Either way he’s not going to be attending a press conference to tell us all how it went.
It’s not that the question is stupid–like my girlfriend told me–it’s just that most people don’t think through the consequences.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Wherein I prove that the worst day hunting is still better than the best day working
I’ve heard it said that the worst day hunting is better than the best day working and I think I proved the true over the first December weekend.
I took a day off so that I could trek down to Iowa and spend two days deer hunting with my dad and my brother.
When we were planning the trip we hoped for good weather. In the week before the trip we watched the forecast and sprayed water proofing on all of our clothes and boots. The day before we left I said a fervent prayer to the higher powers that control meteorological patterns and asked them to push the storm just a little bit north.
It is not an exaggeration at all to say that none of that did any good.
We woke up at 5:30 a.m. on Saturday, the opening day of Iowa’s shotgun deer season, in hopes of getting out into the field to see the sun rise, only to see gray skies and a quarter inch accumulation of ice on everything outside our windows.
We went out for breakfast, and then sat around for three hours. As my hunting party could tell you, I was less than happy that I had driven seven hours to sit in a hotel lobby and comment on the weather.
It was around noon that the rain weakened and we decided to try our luck. We went to the best land we had permission to hunt on. In years past, this three mile strip has yielded hundreds of trophy bucks and heavy does. That day our party of 17 people shot a single six-point buck.
I knew things were going to go poorly as we got to our starting positions for the drive. Five minutes after we arrived at our positions, the rain came back as if it wanted to make up for lost time.
Not only was it a lousy push, but the lack of sun meant that the walkers didn’t have a reference point to judge their position. Along with the rolling hills and dense brush, this set us up for disaster as practically everyone going through the timber got incredibly lost.
I myself ended up in a position that was about an eighth of a mile away from where I should have been when I made it to the end of the push. Other members of the party (my dad being one) got so turned around that they made circuits around the property’s two ponds.
Luckily, the lack of visible deer helped keep us from tragic accident, even with so many wayward hunters.
The walk, which usually takes an hour and a half, began at 1:15 and ended at 3:30 p.m. It took us an hour after that to round up our lost companions.
We were all soaked to the skin and the closest to miserable that I’ve ever seen a party of hunters who haven’t seen the injury of a fellow hunter.
Meeting back at the machine shed where we hang our deer before processing, it was generally agreed that one outing was enough for the day. It was time to go get dry and spend some time at our favorite bar.
Usually the tavern time is a chance for us to exchange stories about the massive amounts of deer that we saw but didn’t shoot. This time, however, it was a chance to complain about the weather and exchange anecdotes about how lost we had become during the push.
And wouldn’t you know it, the atmosphere was just as cheerful as it would have been if we had shot 100 deer.
What makes hunting worth the effort isn’t the actual hunt or the meat in the freezer afterward, it’s the camaraderie of
the shared experience.
In the tavern, we did one of the things we do every year–ordered shots of peppermint schnapps and toasted to my grandpa who passed away a number of years ago.
He was one of the original members of the group that I join to hunt the hills and woods of Southern Iowa, and the few who are still around from his time remember him fondly. Hunting with those guys gives me a feeling of connection to the past, a tie to a legacy that is greater than myself. Well, that and a freezer full of three months’ worth of delicious venison steaks every year.
Luckily for us, Sunday was a better day. The weather was warm enough to hunt but cold enough that I didn’t get overheated walking through the woods and over hills. The party had collected 10 total deer by the time my dad, brother and I had to leave at noon.
Driving back it seemed that all was right with the world. We were tired, two of us smelled like deer guts, but we were generally happy with the weekend and the time we had spent together.
I took a day off so that I could trek down to Iowa and spend two days deer hunting with my dad and my brother.
When we were planning the trip we hoped for good weather. In the week before the trip we watched the forecast and sprayed water proofing on all of our clothes and boots. The day before we left I said a fervent prayer to the higher powers that control meteorological patterns and asked them to push the storm just a little bit north.
It is not an exaggeration at all to say that none of that did any good.
We woke up at 5:30 a.m. on Saturday, the opening day of Iowa’s shotgun deer season, in hopes of getting out into the field to see the sun rise, only to see gray skies and a quarter inch accumulation of ice on everything outside our windows.
We went out for breakfast, and then sat around for three hours. As my hunting party could tell you, I was less than happy that I had driven seven hours to sit in a hotel lobby and comment on the weather.
It was around noon that the rain weakened and we decided to try our luck. We went to the best land we had permission to hunt on. In years past, this three mile strip has yielded hundreds of trophy bucks and heavy does. That day our party of 17 people shot a single six-point buck.
I knew things were going to go poorly as we got to our starting positions for the drive. Five minutes after we arrived at our positions, the rain came back as if it wanted to make up for lost time.
Not only was it a lousy push, but the lack of sun meant that the walkers didn’t have a reference point to judge their position. Along with the rolling hills and dense brush, this set us up for disaster as practically everyone going through the timber got incredibly lost.
I myself ended up in a position that was about an eighth of a mile away from where I should have been when I made it to the end of the push. Other members of the party (my dad being one) got so turned around that they made circuits around the property’s two ponds.
Luckily, the lack of visible deer helped keep us from tragic accident, even with so many wayward hunters.
The walk, which usually takes an hour and a half, began at 1:15 and ended at 3:30 p.m. It took us an hour after that to round up our lost companions.
We were all soaked to the skin and the closest to miserable that I’ve ever seen a party of hunters who haven’t seen the injury of a fellow hunter.
Meeting back at the machine shed where we hang our deer before processing, it was generally agreed that one outing was enough for the day. It was time to go get dry and spend some time at our favorite bar.
Usually the tavern time is a chance for us to exchange stories about the massive amounts of deer that we saw but didn’t shoot. This time, however, it was a chance to complain about the weather and exchange anecdotes about how lost we had become during the push.
And wouldn’t you know it, the atmosphere was just as cheerful as it would have been if we had shot 100 deer.
What makes hunting worth the effort isn’t the actual hunt or the meat in the freezer afterward, it’s the camaraderie of
the shared experience.
In the tavern, we did one of the things we do every year–ordered shots of peppermint schnapps and toasted to my grandpa who passed away a number of years ago.
He was one of the original members of the group that I join to hunt the hills and woods of Southern Iowa, and the few who are still around from his time remember him fondly. Hunting with those guys gives me a feeling of connection to the past, a tie to a legacy that is greater than myself. Well, that and a freezer full of three months’ worth of delicious venison steaks every year.
Luckily for us, Sunday was a better day. The weather was warm enough to hunt but cold enough that I didn’t get overheated walking through the woods and over hills. The party had collected 10 total deer by the time my dad, brother and I had to leave at noon.
Driving back it seemed that all was right with the world. We were tired, two of us smelled like deer guts, but we were generally happy with the weekend and the time we had spent together.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Don't overspend this holiday season, it could cost you.
I did it last year and I’m afraid I’ll do it again this year. No, I’m not talking about getting too drunk at the office Christmas party.
Actually, the place where I work doesn’t have a Christmas party and I’ve never really been a heavy drinker. There was that one time, but that’s a different column that might not even be fit to print.
My holiday worry is over-spending, and who would blame me? There are great people in my life who deserve extravagent gifts. Except I don’t have the money for extravagent, so they ususally have to settle for nice gifts.
Last year I have to admit that I overdid things just a little bit. I’m not going to go into specifics of what I got for who and why, but lets just say it was more than my old job, which barely paid enough for peanuts and beer, could let me afford. This meant that Visa gave me the holiday gift of a hefty credit card debt which didn’t get paid off until August.
I actually forgot one gift until the last minute and ended up getting my girlfriend long underwear–definately not the type of undergarment a guy under 30 buys for a woman–because my financial situation could easily have been described as flat broke.
She accepted it graciously along with the story that it would “keep her warm when I wasn’t around.”
Since she’s probably going to read this the day after it comes out I’m expecting a rather frosty Christmas unless her gift this year involves gold and diamonds. That’s another joke, I’m well aware she prefers silver jewelry.
Luckily I have a plan this year. To begin with I’ve set myself a realistic spending cap. This is the absolute maximum I’m allowing myself to spend on combined gifts for friends and family.
I’ve also budgeted that alotted cash based on how much I like someone. Not really, it’s really based on how many times they’ll hit me in the head for being a cheapskate if I don’t get them a good gift.
As an added measure, all of my credit cards–all two of them–are safely locked away. Some of you may be asking how I did that and the answer is that I put them away last year after I went wild during Christmas and have forgotten where they are.
There is absolutely zero hours of window shopping planned in my timetable of gift giving. I’ve gone overboard before by walking past the ‘perfect’ gift for someone and buying it only to find a ‘more perfect’ gift minutes later.
Since this year’s plan was not formulated until after I was out from under the crushing weight of credit card debt it is still a bit rough. But next year I should have holiday spending down to a science since I plan to track how my spending plan works out this year and use it to create a new plan soon after Dec. 26.
Oh, one last tip for the concientious gift giver. Whatever that hot toy is this year, don’t start a fight over the last one. These days, you never know who’s packing heat.
Do you know how many people got shot over a Tickle Me Elmo doll? Actually I don’t know of any, but I have felt like shooting myself a few times rather than wait in line any longer.
Actually, the place where I work doesn’t have a Christmas party and I’ve never really been a heavy drinker. There was that one time, but that’s a different column that might not even be fit to print.
My holiday worry is over-spending, and who would blame me? There are great people in my life who deserve extravagent gifts. Except I don’t have the money for extravagent, so they ususally have to settle for nice gifts.
Last year I have to admit that I overdid things just a little bit. I’m not going to go into specifics of what I got for who and why, but lets just say it was more than my old job, which barely paid enough for peanuts and beer, could let me afford. This meant that Visa gave me the holiday gift of a hefty credit card debt which didn’t get paid off until August.
I actually forgot one gift until the last minute and ended up getting my girlfriend long underwear–definately not the type of undergarment a guy under 30 buys for a woman–because my financial situation could easily have been described as flat broke.
She accepted it graciously along with the story that it would “keep her warm when I wasn’t around.”
Since she’s probably going to read this the day after it comes out I’m expecting a rather frosty Christmas unless her gift this year involves gold and diamonds. That’s another joke, I’m well aware she prefers silver jewelry.
Luckily I have a plan this year. To begin with I’ve set myself a realistic spending cap. This is the absolute maximum I’m allowing myself to spend on combined gifts for friends and family.
I’ve also budgeted that alotted cash based on how much I like someone. Not really, it’s really based on how many times they’ll hit me in the head for being a cheapskate if I don’t get them a good gift.
As an added measure, all of my credit cards–all two of them–are safely locked away. Some of you may be asking how I did that and the answer is that I put them away last year after I went wild during Christmas and have forgotten where they are.
There is absolutely zero hours of window shopping planned in my timetable of gift giving. I’ve gone overboard before by walking past the ‘perfect’ gift for someone and buying it only to find a ‘more perfect’ gift minutes later.
Since this year’s plan was not formulated until after I was out from under the crushing weight of credit card debt it is still a bit rough. But next year I should have holiday spending down to a science since I plan to track how my spending plan works out this year and use it to create a new plan soon after Dec. 26.
Oh, one last tip for the concientious gift giver. Whatever that hot toy is this year, don’t start a fight over the last one. These days, you never know who’s packing heat.
Do you know how many people got shot over a Tickle Me Elmo doll? Actually I don’t know of any, but I have felt like shooting myself a few times rather than wait in line any longer.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Thanksgiving, the great American Myth.
There’s something incredibly wholesome about getting together with family and offering thanks for all the good things in life, even if the only thing you can come up with while you’re around the table is that you don’t have to have dinner with these people more than once or twice a year.
That having been said, I think everyone should know that Thanksgiving is a fake holiday. It’s not the most artificial holiday on the calendar, it’s more real than Valentine’s Day but less real than Veterans’ Day (which might be the most unfake holiday, tying for that honor with Martin Luther King Jr. Day).
I realize that most of you are probably angry with me at this point. I assure you that I have many reasons for feeling like I do, allow me to share them with you.
First off, Thanksgiving is supposed to be a commeration of the first colony to be founded in the new world. Putting the story simply, it was on this glorious day that the Pilgrims came together with their new native friends and celebrated the endurance of their new home.
This is a great story, but it’s important to realize it’s just that, a story, a myth, a pleasent fiction on which to base a cultural event.
If you were to read nearly any elementary history textbook, it is quite clear that the first lasting English colony on American soil was that of Jamestown (1607) in what would one day become the state of Virginia.
Prior to that the French and Spanish had already set up outposts in the new world, but these were mostly military and so mostly ignored. Jamestown on the other hand gets ignored because it was an economic venture.
The first Thanksgiving feast was held in 1621. It was a one time festival celebrating a successful harvest and lasted for three days. It wasn’t about family or religion for the Pilgrims, it was about being thankful to be alive. If it had been a celebration of family or religion then Native Americans wouldn’t have been on the guest list.
They probably didn’t eat turkey either. While corn and squash were probably on the menu there weren’t any cranberries. The only thing we know for certain was on the table was deer.
Of course, even though the pilgrims invited their native neighbors, they didn’t feed them. Oh they wanted to, that’s for sure, but they were ill-prepared for the number of guests that arrived. A Wampanoag chief named Massasoit was a gracious enough guest to send some men home for supplies. Boy, those Pilgrims must have been red in the face over that one.
Since the “first” thanksgiving was a one time affair, how is it that we still celebrate it today? You might say that it’s because of a president’s thankfulness that civil war hadn’t destroyed the nation.
It wasn’t until 1863 that President Abraham Lincoln appointed a day of thanksgiving as the last Thursday in November. Since his historic gesture, every president after him has issued a Thanksgiving Day proclamation. It wasn’t until 1939 that President Franklin D. Roosevelt set the official day as the Fourth Thursday in November–though it took Congress until 1941 to ratify it.
It seems like everything we “know” about the Pilgrims is wrong. They didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, they made landfall at Provincetown. The rock story is just a fable repeated over and over since it was first uttered by Thomas Faunce 100 years after the Pilgrim landing. Faunce was 95 years old at the time.
Not even our images of the pilgrims are right, the funny hats and and shoes with buckles are merely illustrator’s images designed to give quaint feeling to the colonists. Buckles didn’t come into fasion until late in the 17th century, long after the colonies were up and running. Pilgrims might have worn black, but probably only to church.
Not only are the Pilgrims painted wrongly, but the Native Americans are as well. In popular illustrations indians are shown wearing feather head dresses, which would be fine if it were the set of a John Wayne movie, but feathers were a tradition from plains indian tribes whom the Plymouth colonists could never have meet.
So, just to recap: No Turkey, No Rock, No Buckles, No Feathers, No first colony, No tradition lasting from 1621 until the present.
In the end, what is left? Only friends, family, a warm meal to share every year and lots of leftovers to snack on.
Speaking of leftovers, I’m starting to get hungry, time to reheat the mashed potatoes and stuffing.
That having been said, I think everyone should know that Thanksgiving is a fake holiday. It’s not the most artificial holiday on the calendar, it’s more real than Valentine’s Day but less real than Veterans’ Day (which might be the most unfake holiday, tying for that honor with Martin Luther King Jr. Day).
I realize that most of you are probably angry with me at this point. I assure you that I have many reasons for feeling like I do, allow me to share them with you.
First off, Thanksgiving is supposed to be a commeration of the first colony to be founded in the new world. Putting the story simply, it was on this glorious day that the Pilgrims came together with their new native friends and celebrated the endurance of their new home.
This is a great story, but it’s important to realize it’s just that, a story, a myth, a pleasent fiction on which to base a cultural event.
If you were to read nearly any elementary history textbook, it is quite clear that the first lasting English colony on American soil was that of Jamestown (1607) in what would one day become the state of Virginia.
Prior to that the French and Spanish had already set up outposts in the new world, but these were mostly military and so mostly ignored. Jamestown on the other hand gets ignored because it was an economic venture.
The first Thanksgiving feast was held in 1621. It was a one time festival celebrating a successful harvest and lasted for three days. It wasn’t about family or religion for the Pilgrims, it was about being thankful to be alive. If it had been a celebration of family or religion then Native Americans wouldn’t have been on the guest list.
They probably didn’t eat turkey either. While corn and squash were probably on the menu there weren’t any cranberries. The only thing we know for certain was on the table was deer.
Of course, even though the pilgrims invited their native neighbors, they didn’t feed them. Oh they wanted to, that’s for sure, but they were ill-prepared for the number of guests that arrived. A Wampanoag chief named Massasoit was a gracious enough guest to send some men home for supplies. Boy, those Pilgrims must have been red in the face over that one.
Since the “first” thanksgiving was a one time affair, how is it that we still celebrate it today? You might say that it’s because of a president’s thankfulness that civil war hadn’t destroyed the nation.
It wasn’t until 1863 that President Abraham Lincoln appointed a day of thanksgiving as the last Thursday in November. Since his historic gesture, every president after him has issued a Thanksgiving Day proclamation. It wasn’t until 1939 that President Franklin D. Roosevelt set the official day as the Fourth Thursday in November–though it took Congress until 1941 to ratify it.
It seems like everything we “know” about the Pilgrims is wrong. They didn’t land on Plymouth Rock, they made landfall at Provincetown. The rock story is just a fable repeated over and over since it was first uttered by Thomas Faunce 100 years after the Pilgrim landing. Faunce was 95 years old at the time.
Not even our images of the pilgrims are right, the funny hats and and shoes with buckles are merely illustrator’s images designed to give quaint feeling to the colonists. Buckles didn’t come into fasion until late in the 17th century, long after the colonies were up and running. Pilgrims might have worn black, but probably only to church.
Not only are the Pilgrims painted wrongly, but the Native Americans are as well. In popular illustrations indians are shown wearing feather head dresses, which would be fine if it were the set of a John Wayne movie, but feathers were a tradition from plains indian tribes whom the Plymouth colonists could never have meet.
So, just to recap: No Turkey, No Rock, No Buckles, No Feathers, No first colony, No tradition lasting from 1621 until the present.
In the end, what is left? Only friends, family, a warm meal to share every year and lots of leftovers to snack on.
Speaking of leftovers, I’m starting to get hungry, time to reheat the mashed potatoes and stuffing.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Feral Pigs
If you’re out deer hunting this fall, make sure you don’t miss an opportunity to bring home some extra bacon.
The Wisconsin DNR has authorized the unlimited hunting of feral pigs in the state.
“If properly cooked the meat is safe to eat. Landowner and hunters that shoot feral pigs are allowed to keep the carcass for consumption,” said Bradley Koele of the Wisconsin DNR
The pigs are classified as an exotic non-native species and can be killed on site by anyone with a small game license. Land-owners can shoot the pigs no questions asked, under DNR's animal nuisance control authority.
These feral animals look quite different from their common farmyard counterparts. They have elongated, flattened snouts and thick, coarse hair that can vary in color. Colors and patterns range from solid black, gray, brown, blonde, white, or red to spotted and belted combinations of these same colors. Their pointed ears stand up, rather than flopping over like their domestic cousins’.
These pigs can range from 80 to 440 pounds, with some trophy-sized examples reaching 500 pound and standing three feet high.
“Feral pigs can be aggressive and dangerous, but in most cases will run away from hunters or anything else they perceive as a danger to them,” said Koele.
The pigs have a prodigous reproduction rate, with fertility setting on in sows every 21 days. With a gestation period of 115 days, a single sow can give birth to four litters of four to 12 piglets in a year.
During the day, most pigs spend their time in mud wallows or thick brush, coming out in the morning and evening to feed.
They are totally omnivorous, and adaptable to almost any environment. Their diet can range from sea turtles and kelp in Florida, to ducklings and acorns in Wisconsin.
Though the standard range for a single pig is generally about 10 square miles, they have been known to cover up to 50 sqare miles if food is scarce.
Feral pigs are a growing problem in Wisconsin, as DNR officials and farmers are concerned that they could pass exotic diseases like pseudorabies, brucellosis and tuberculosis to domestic stock.
Farmers are also concerned with crop distruction from pigs rooting to find food. Feral pigs can be extremely destructive to recently planted fields and can damage pastures, facilities and fences, resulting in serious financial losses. In addition, the rooting is detrimental to fragile ecosystem and native vegetation.
The wallows pollute and muddy streams and ponds, contributing to erosion and algae blooms, and destroying aquatic vegetation.
The DNR continues to document declines in grassland and wetland birds and small mammals that is due to the pigs’ invasion. The Invasive Species Specialist Group lists feral pigs among the 100 worst invasive species saying, “Feral pigs like other introduced mammals are major drivers of extinction and ecosystem change.”
Pigs were originally introduced to the Americas by Spanish Explorers. Later, pigs escaped into the wild or were released. These roving populations then established themselves in the wild.
In the last few years, there have been local reports of feral pigs in Buffalo, Trempealeau, Jackson, Eau Claire and Clark Counties. The DNR has confirmed that there are feral pigs in Clark County and the WDNR website shows a pig carcass that was killed in Eau Claire County in 2004.
The Wisconsin DNR has authorized the unlimited hunting of feral pigs in the state.
“If properly cooked the meat is safe to eat. Landowner and hunters that shoot feral pigs are allowed to keep the carcass for consumption,” said Bradley Koele of the Wisconsin DNR
The pigs are classified as an exotic non-native species and can be killed on site by anyone with a small game license. Land-owners can shoot the pigs no questions asked, under DNR's animal nuisance control authority.
These feral animals look quite different from their common farmyard counterparts. They have elongated, flattened snouts and thick, coarse hair that can vary in color. Colors and patterns range from solid black, gray, brown, blonde, white, or red to spotted and belted combinations of these same colors. Their pointed ears stand up, rather than flopping over like their domestic cousins’.
These pigs can range from 80 to 440 pounds, with some trophy-sized examples reaching 500 pound and standing three feet high.
“Feral pigs can be aggressive and dangerous, but in most cases will run away from hunters or anything else they perceive as a danger to them,” said Koele.
The pigs have a prodigous reproduction rate, with fertility setting on in sows every 21 days. With a gestation period of 115 days, a single sow can give birth to four litters of four to 12 piglets in a year.
During the day, most pigs spend their time in mud wallows or thick brush, coming out in the morning and evening to feed.
They are totally omnivorous, and adaptable to almost any environment. Their diet can range from sea turtles and kelp in Florida, to ducklings and acorns in Wisconsin.
Though the standard range for a single pig is generally about 10 square miles, they have been known to cover up to 50 sqare miles if food is scarce.
Feral pigs are a growing problem in Wisconsin, as DNR officials and farmers are concerned that they could pass exotic diseases like pseudorabies, brucellosis and tuberculosis to domestic stock.
Farmers are also concerned with crop distruction from pigs rooting to find food. Feral pigs can be extremely destructive to recently planted fields and can damage pastures, facilities and fences, resulting in serious financial losses. In addition, the rooting is detrimental to fragile ecosystem and native vegetation.
The wallows pollute and muddy streams and ponds, contributing to erosion and algae blooms, and destroying aquatic vegetation.
The DNR continues to document declines in grassland and wetland birds and small mammals that is due to the pigs’ invasion. The Invasive Species Specialist Group lists feral pigs among the 100 worst invasive species saying, “Feral pigs like other introduced mammals are major drivers of extinction and ecosystem change.”
Pigs were originally introduced to the Americas by Spanish Explorers. Later, pigs escaped into the wild or were released. These roving populations then established themselves in the wild.
In the last few years, there have been local reports of feral pigs in Buffalo, Trempealeau, Jackson, Eau Claire and Clark Counties. The DNR has confirmed that there are feral pigs in Clark County and the WDNR website shows a pig carcass that was killed in Eau Claire County in 2004.
Monday, October 22, 2007
What Candidate Agrees With You?
This link is a simple reference for people to use in discovering which current presidential candidate agrees with them on the most hot-button issues. The issues are laid out quite clearly, some have options where others are simple yes/no or agree/oppose. Questions can be weighted for their importance to you.
In case anybody is interested, apparently my top candidate is Bill Richarson. He's closely followed by John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican to make the top 10 (I guess that's not surprising).
It should be noted that I got very different results when I skipped answering the abortion question.
To have a website determine the best candidate for you in an extremely arbitrary manner, go here: http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
In case anybody is interested, apparently my top candidate is Bill Richarson. He's closely followed by John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. Rudy Giuliani is the only Republican to make the top 10 (I guess that's not surprising).
It should be noted that I got very different results when I skipped answering the abortion question.
To have a website determine the best candidate for you in an extremely arbitrary manner, go here: http://www.wqad.com/Global/link.asp?L=259460
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Kentucky Fried Insanity
Today there are some people protesting at the Kentucky Fried Chicken in Eau Claire. It’s really sort of cute the way they’re doing it.
Apparently a bunch of PETA members have taken it upon themselves to dress up as skeletons and stand around in the rain to protest the cruelty of killing innocent chickens.
The protesters are carrying signs that read, “I’d rather be dead than eat Kentucky Fried Cruelty.” I’ll grant them that the slogan is just a little bit clever, but what are they honestly hoping to accomplish other than proving that they’re crazy enough to put on costumes and dance around like jackasses?
I can attest to the cruelty. I’ve seen chickens killed. When I say that I’m sure people picture a chicken factory or a man with a hatchet. To tell the truth, my grandmother used to do it with her bare hands. She’d break their necks then spin them and pop the heads off.
The other chickens watched her do it. They didn’t seem overly disturbed, not even to the degree that I was.
I ate that same chicken later, after it had been plucked and gutted. It was delicious.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I hate PETA. For the most part, it seems like they’re a bunch of self-righteous asshats who value animal rights over human rights.
I can’t help but think that child sweat shop labor in third world countries just might be a more valid reason for protest than the killing of an animal with a brain that weighs less than my fingernail.
These people need to understand that extremism (like dressing up as a skeleton) is not the proper way to win the hearts and minds of a moderate public. If anything, it seems to me that they’re probably scaring more people away from PETA than they are from KFC.
I was speaking with a vegan friend of mind the other day who is amazingly open minded. I say that her open-mindedness is amazing because, in my experience, vegetarians and vegans tend to be very snooty about their eating habits.
There is an undercurrent in the vegetarian community that seems to always be saying, “I’m more pure because I use less animal products than you.” This has always disgusted me. It’s one thing to take on the challenge of avoiding animal products and quite another to hold yourself in a superior air for doing so.
Your diet and clothing choices do not make you better than anyone else, they just make you different from the majority of the American population.
While speaking with the vegan friend whom I mentioned earlier, I was pleased to find that her beliefs were well reasoned. She calls herself a vegan, but is not one in the strictest sense. When I asked why she uses the word if she isn’t a strict non-user of animal and animal tested products, she responded that the label is quite useful when doing things like ordering at a restaurant. People understand what it means and thus she doesn’t have to explain her exact dietary specifications.
I was surprised to find that she is accepting of meats that come from hunted game and family farms. Her main objection is to the factory farms which, over the last few decades, have come to provide greater and greater amounts of the meat, milk and eggs that we consume.
In that sense, she and I are in agreement. She, unlike myself, has put her belief into practice, which I respect. Even more than that, she is not a mouthpiece for her own school of thought. While she might suggest that a person try to consume less animal-derived items, she would never look down on or chastise anyone just because they chose not to.
I find this same general attitude to be applicable in many walks of life. Take religion for example. I have no quarrel with any person of any faith, so long as they avoid trying to sell it to me.
I find this example to be particularily illuminating since it seems that these types of dietary choices are practically a religion for some people, and one of the things my grandmother (the one who killed chickens) taught me, it’s that you shouldn’t talk about religion among strangers because you never know who you’ll offend.
The skeleton KFC protest reminds me in a way of an anti-war protest I went to when I was a freshman in college. I was lucky enough to be at a protest where counter-protesters (war supporters) were present to represent an opposing belief.
Of course, many of the anti-war crowd didn’t feel as blessed as I did that we were part of a representative democracy in action.
What happened is that both sides shouted at each other. The pro-war side held up pictures of soldiers in combat and called the anti-war side traitors. The anti-war side held up pictures of dead babies and called the pro-war side murderers. It reminded me alot of watching senate debates on C-span, only a little bit more civil.
It was as if the two sides were standing on either edge of a canyon. Each was yelling at the other to get to work building a bridge, but no one was picking up tools.
I mentioned converting moderates earlier and think that this is really the key point. In my metaphor above, the moderates would be at the bottom of the canyon wondering what all the shouting is about. Some of them may want to climb the walls, but everyone up top is too busy making noise to reach a hand down and help them. Most are probably just tired of people making all that noise in what was once a peaceful canyon.
Apparently a bunch of PETA members have taken it upon themselves to dress up as skeletons and stand around in the rain to protest the cruelty of killing innocent chickens.
The protesters are carrying signs that read, “I’d rather be dead than eat Kentucky Fried Cruelty.” I’ll grant them that the slogan is just a little bit clever, but what are they honestly hoping to accomplish other than proving that they’re crazy enough to put on costumes and dance around like jackasses?
I can attest to the cruelty. I’ve seen chickens killed. When I say that I’m sure people picture a chicken factory or a man with a hatchet. To tell the truth, my grandmother used to do it with her bare hands. She’d break their necks then spin them and pop the heads off.
The other chickens watched her do it. They didn’t seem overly disturbed, not even to the degree that I was.
I ate that same chicken later, after it had been plucked and gutted. It was delicious.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I hate PETA. For the most part, it seems like they’re a bunch of self-righteous asshats who value animal rights over human rights.
I can’t help but think that child sweat shop labor in third world countries just might be a more valid reason for protest than the killing of an animal with a brain that weighs less than my fingernail.
These people need to understand that extremism (like dressing up as a skeleton) is not the proper way to win the hearts and minds of a moderate public. If anything, it seems to me that they’re probably scaring more people away from PETA than they are from KFC.
I was speaking with a vegan friend of mind the other day who is amazingly open minded. I say that her open-mindedness is amazing because, in my experience, vegetarians and vegans tend to be very snooty about their eating habits.
There is an undercurrent in the vegetarian community that seems to always be saying, “I’m more pure because I use less animal products than you.” This has always disgusted me. It’s one thing to take on the challenge of avoiding animal products and quite another to hold yourself in a superior air for doing so.
Your diet and clothing choices do not make you better than anyone else, they just make you different from the majority of the American population.
While speaking with the vegan friend whom I mentioned earlier, I was pleased to find that her beliefs were well reasoned. She calls herself a vegan, but is not one in the strictest sense. When I asked why she uses the word if she isn’t a strict non-user of animal and animal tested products, she responded that the label is quite useful when doing things like ordering at a restaurant. People understand what it means and thus she doesn’t have to explain her exact dietary specifications.
I was surprised to find that she is accepting of meats that come from hunted game and family farms. Her main objection is to the factory farms which, over the last few decades, have come to provide greater and greater amounts of the meat, milk and eggs that we consume.
In that sense, she and I are in agreement. She, unlike myself, has put her belief into practice, which I respect. Even more than that, she is not a mouthpiece for her own school of thought. While she might suggest that a person try to consume less animal-derived items, she would never look down on or chastise anyone just because they chose not to.
I find this same general attitude to be applicable in many walks of life. Take religion for example. I have no quarrel with any person of any faith, so long as they avoid trying to sell it to me.
I find this example to be particularily illuminating since it seems that these types of dietary choices are practically a religion for some people, and one of the things my grandmother (the one who killed chickens) taught me, it’s that you shouldn’t talk about religion among strangers because you never know who you’ll offend.
The skeleton KFC protest reminds me in a way of an anti-war protest I went to when I was a freshman in college. I was lucky enough to be at a protest where counter-protesters (war supporters) were present to represent an opposing belief.
Of course, many of the anti-war crowd didn’t feel as blessed as I did that we were part of a representative democracy in action.
What happened is that both sides shouted at each other. The pro-war side held up pictures of soldiers in combat and called the anti-war side traitors. The anti-war side held up pictures of dead babies and called the pro-war side murderers. It reminded me alot of watching senate debates on C-span, only a little bit more civil.
It was as if the two sides were standing on either edge of a canyon. Each was yelling at the other to get to work building a bridge, but no one was picking up tools.
I mentioned converting moderates earlier and think that this is really the key point. In my metaphor above, the moderates would be at the bottom of the canyon wondering what all the shouting is about. Some of them may want to climb the walls, but everyone up top is too busy making noise to reach a hand down and help them. Most are probably just tired of people making all that noise in what was once a peaceful canyon.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Things I Hate: Concert Edition
Are you that guy that just has to yell “WOOOOOOO!” at a concert? Are you so desperate for attention that just making noise so that people will look at you has become a viable option?
I guess I can’t fault this sort of behavior at a sporting event, where the reactions of the crowd have very little to do with the real object of attention. But when these kinds of outbursts start to occur at movies, concerts and lectures, I really just want to start stabbing people in the kidney.
Why the kidney? Because humans have two of them and can generally get by without one as opposed to lungs, which you really need both of, or the heart, which is essential and has no backup.
Forgive me for feeling like I want to hear whatever band I just handed over good money to hear.
If I wanted to hear mentally deficient people scream I’d just go to a shelter for the mentally handicapped and start kicking residents in the junk.
If you’re out raged by that last statement then perhaps you’re beginning to understand how I feel when someone makes a noise like a bull elk being castrated while I’m trying to listen to my favorite band who is 50 feet in front of me.
If you don’t want to do the same then why are you there in the first place.
I’m sure there are those of you who are scratching your heads and wondering how else you’re supposed to show your appreciation for the creative genius of the musician.
It’s called clapping, nimrod. Let me explain to you how it works.
Step 1: Put your hands together like you do when you’re asking your god to serve up a smorgasboard of drunken poontang at the all-night kegger.
Step 2: Pull your hands apart like when you’re exagerating the size of your penis to an intoxicated sorostitute in the hope that she’ll let you dissapoint her later.
Step 3: Bring both your hands together in a double slapping action. Like that time you smacked that bitch off the party porch when she laughed at your haircut.
Step 4: Repeat.
Please note that clapping is a bit more complicated than screaming at random times. You should only use it when the object of entertainment completes a portion of their act. If you’re confused as to what that means, just watch for when everyone else is doing it and follow along since that’s probably what you do best anyway.
If you’re that ready to comply with my instructions, let me try one more.
Step 1: Shoot yourself in the head.
Ok, now that we have all the incredibly stupid people gone, let’s continue with this rant.
Also at fault in my eyes are the morons who feel the need to put their hands in the air and do that morion that looks like they’re flicking imaginary water at the band.
If you want to pretend you’re dancing, try wiggling your hips a bit while shuffling your feet. You might look a little silly, but believe me that it’s nothing compared to how dumb you look trying to flick air at the performers. Keep your hands down and nod your head. If you absolutely have to do it, then try to limit it to a few seconds when you feel the music is really good. Like most gestures, it get worn out really fast when you use it too much.
I’ve saved my final complaint for last since it’s an all too common one. Turn your goddam cell phone off. Unless you’re a doctor, you really don’t need it on. If you have spent the time and money to make it through med school, then you should be smart enough to understand how the vibrate setting works. Use it.
Nobody, especially me, paid to hear a monophonic rendition of “We Are the Champions” or “Big Pimpin’” so shut the damn thing off.
Alright, rant concluded. We now return you to your regularily scheduled blogging.
I guess I can’t fault this sort of behavior at a sporting event, where the reactions of the crowd have very little to do with the real object of attention. But when these kinds of outbursts start to occur at movies, concerts and lectures, I really just want to start stabbing people in the kidney.
Why the kidney? Because humans have two of them and can generally get by without one as opposed to lungs, which you really need both of, or the heart, which is essential and has no backup.
Forgive me for feeling like I want to hear whatever band I just handed over good money to hear.
If I wanted to hear mentally deficient people scream I’d just go to a shelter for the mentally handicapped and start kicking residents in the junk.
If you’re out raged by that last statement then perhaps you’re beginning to understand how I feel when someone makes a noise like a bull elk being castrated while I’m trying to listen to my favorite band who is 50 feet in front of me.
If you don’t want to do the same then why are you there in the first place.
I’m sure there are those of you who are scratching your heads and wondering how else you’re supposed to show your appreciation for the creative genius of the musician.
It’s called clapping, nimrod. Let me explain to you how it works.
Step 1: Put your hands together like you do when you’re asking your god to serve up a smorgasboard of drunken poontang at the all-night kegger.
Step 2: Pull your hands apart like when you’re exagerating the size of your penis to an intoxicated sorostitute in the hope that she’ll let you dissapoint her later.
Step 3: Bring both your hands together in a double slapping action. Like that time you smacked that bitch off the party porch when she laughed at your haircut.
Step 4: Repeat.
Please note that clapping is a bit more complicated than screaming at random times. You should only use it when the object of entertainment completes a portion of their act. If you’re confused as to what that means, just watch for when everyone else is doing it and follow along since that’s probably what you do best anyway.
If you’re that ready to comply with my instructions, let me try one more.
Step 1: Shoot yourself in the head.
Ok, now that we have all the incredibly stupid people gone, let’s continue with this rant.
Also at fault in my eyes are the morons who feel the need to put their hands in the air and do that morion that looks like they’re flicking imaginary water at the band.
If you want to pretend you’re dancing, try wiggling your hips a bit while shuffling your feet. You might look a little silly, but believe me that it’s nothing compared to how dumb you look trying to flick air at the performers. Keep your hands down and nod your head. If you absolutely have to do it, then try to limit it to a few seconds when you feel the music is really good. Like most gestures, it get worn out really fast when you use it too much.
I’ve saved my final complaint for last since it’s an all too common one. Turn your goddam cell phone off. Unless you’re a doctor, you really don’t need it on. If you have spent the time and money to make it through med school, then you should be smart enough to understand how the vibrate setting works. Use it.
Nobody, especially me, paid to hear a monophonic rendition of “We Are the Champions” or “Big Pimpin’” so shut the damn thing off.
Alright, rant concluded. We now return you to your regularily scheduled blogging.
Things I Hate: Concert Edition
Are you that guy that just has to yell “WOOOOOOO!” at a concert? Are you so desperate for attention that just making noise so that people will look at you has become a viable option?
I guess I can’t fault this sort of behavior at a sporting event, where the reactions of the crowd have very little to do with the real object of attention. But when these kinds of outbursts start to occur at movies, concerts and lectures, I really just want to start stabbing people in the kidney.
Why the kidney? Because humans have two of them and can generally get by without one as opposed to lungs, which you really need both of, or the heart, which is essential and has no backup.
Forgive me for feeling like I want to hear whatever band I just handed over good money to hear.
If I wanted to hear mentally deficient people scream I’d just go to a shelter for the mentally handicapped and start kicking residents in the junk.
If you’re out raged by that last statement then perhaps you’re beginning to understand how I feel when someone makes a noise like a bull elk being castrated while I’m trying to listen to my favorite band who is 50 feet in front of me.
If you don’t want to do the same then why are you there in the first place.
I’m sure there are those of you who are scratching your heads and wondering how else you’re supposed to show your appreciation for the creative genius of the musician.
It’s called clapping, nimrod. Let me explain to you how it works.
Step 1: Put your hands together like you do when you’re asking your god to serve up a smorgasboard of drunken poontang at the all-night kegger.
Step 2: Pull your hands apart like when you’re exagerating the size of your penis to an intoxicated sorostitute in the hope that she’ll let you dissapoint her later.
Step 3: Bring both your hands together in a double slapping action. Like that time you smacked that bitch off the party porch when she laughed at your haircut.
Step 4: Repeat.
Please note that clapping is a bit more complicated than screaming at random times. You should only use it when the object of entertainment completes a portion of their act. If you’re confused as to what that means, just watch for when everyone else is doing it and follow along since that’s probably what you do best anyway.
If you’re that ready to comply with my instructions, let me try one more.
Step 1: Shoot yourself in the head.
Ok, now that we have all the incredibly stupid people gone, let’s continue with this rant.
Also at fault in my eyes are the morons who feel the need to put their hands in the air and do that morion that looks like they’re flicking imaginary water at the band.
If you want to pretend you’re dancing, try wiggling your hips a bit while shuffling your feet. You might look a little silly, but believe me that it’s nothing compared to how dumb you look trying to flick air at the performers. Keep your hands down and nod your head. If you absolutely have to do it, then try to limit it to a few seconds when you feel the music is really good. Like most gestures, it get worn out really fast when you use it too much.
I’ve saved my final complaint for last since it’s an all too common one. Turn your goddam cell phone off. Unless you’re a doctor, you really don’t need it on. If you have spent the time and money to make it through med school, then you should be smart enough to understand how the vibrate setting works. Use it.
Nobody, especially me, paid to hear a monophonic rendition of “We Are the Champions” or “Big Pimpin’” so shut the damn thing off.
Alright, rant concluded. We now return you to your regularily scheduled blogging.
I guess I can’t fault this sort of behavior at a sporting event, where the reactions of the crowd have very little to do with the real object of attention. But when these kinds of outbursts start to occur at movies, concerts and lectures, I really just want to start stabbing people in the kidney.
Why the kidney? Because humans have two of them and can generally get by without one as opposed to lungs, which you really need both of, or the heart, which is essential and has no backup.
Forgive me for feeling like I want to hear whatever band I just handed over good money to hear.
If I wanted to hear mentally deficient people scream I’d just go to a shelter for the mentally handicapped and start kicking residents in the junk.
If you’re out raged by that last statement then perhaps you’re beginning to understand how I feel when someone makes a noise like a bull elk being castrated while I’m trying to listen to my favorite band who is 50 feet in front of me.
If you don’t want to do the same then why are you there in the first place.
I’m sure there are those of you who are scratching your heads and wondering how else you’re supposed to show your appreciation for the creative genius of the musician.
It’s called clapping, nimrod. Let me explain to you how it works.
Step 1: Put your hands together like you do when you’re asking your god to serve up a smorgasboard of drunken poontang at the all-night kegger.
Step 2: Pull your hands apart like when you’re exagerating the size of your penis to an intoxicated sorostitute in the hope that she’ll let you dissapoint her later.
Step 3: Bring both your hands together in a double slapping action. Like that time you smacked that bitch off the party porch when she laughed at your haircut.
Step 4: Repeat.
Please note that clapping is a bit more complicated than screaming at random times. You should only use it when the object of entertainment completes a portion of their act. If you’re confused as to what that means, just watch for when everyone else is doing it and follow along since that’s probably what you do best anyway.
If you’re that ready to comply with my instructions, let me try one more.
Step 1: Shoot yourself in the head.
Ok, now that we have all the incredibly stupid people gone, let’s continue with this rant.
Also at fault in my eyes are the morons who feel the need to put their hands in the air and do that morion that looks like they’re flicking imaginary water at the band.
If you want to pretend you’re dancing, try wiggling your hips a bit while shuffling your feet. You might look a little silly, but believe me that it’s nothing compared to how dumb you look trying to flick air at the performers. Keep your hands down and nod your head. If you absolutely have to do it, then try to limit it to a few seconds when you feel the music is really good. Like most gestures, it get worn out really fast when you use it too much.
I’ve saved my final complaint for last since it’s an all too common one. Turn your goddam cell phone off. Unless you’re a doctor, you really don’t need it on. If you have spent the time and money to make it through med school, then you should be smart enough to understand how the vibrate setting works. Use it.
Nobody, especially me, paid to hear a monophonic rendition of “We Are the Champions” or “Big Pimpin’” so shut the damn thing off.
Alright, rant concluded. We now return you to your regularily scheduled blogging.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Terrorism is wrong, no matter what you're trying to do.
If “insert some minor and otherwise insignificant event here” doesn’t happen, then the terrorists have won.
It seems like I can’t read the daily news or open my email without someone making that claim. Of course, there are people who use it in a very wry sense, like if someone smiles and says “If I don’t get another drink then the terrorists have won,” as an excuse to stay for a couple extra minutes at the bar.
But aside from that I consider the entire statement to be asinine. It is not only ludicrous in most contexts, but disrespectful to victims of terrorists attacks.
A recent use of this invective came in the form of an opinion column which I get from different organizations and people every day.
It said, “If spending in Iraq means America can’t afford health care for our children or infrastructure maintenance to keep our bridges from falling down, then the terrorists have won.”
Now, as it happens, I happen to disagree with our spending practices in Iraq. We “won” a long time ago (At least I think that’s what the “Mission Accomplished” banner was supposed to mean when the President stood underneath it in 2003 and declard an end to combat operations in Iraq) but we still spend millions of dollars and hundreds of lives in a cyclone of violence that seems never-ending.
Even with in the depths of my disagreement with the war, I still think the use of terrorism as a prod for action against it is wrong.
What the writer of the statement is doing, on a psychological level, is threatening our children. The implication here is that your child will fall sick and die with noone to care if the war continues. The writer is using fear to motivate a response, and that is the very definition of terrorism.
Logically speaking, the arguement isn’t even very sound. It occurs in a basic format known as the “If/then” statement. It is one of the foundations of all logical arguements, “If A then B.”
Taking a look at only the A section we see that it really occurs in two parts which consist of “spending in Iraq” and “America can’t afford health care for our children or infrastructure maintenance to keep our bridges from falling down.”
So obviously it’s a simple choice, Iraq and falling bridges and dying children or, none of that and a happy-go-lucky world where everyone smiles and has enough money left over at the end of the year for a trip to Disney world.
I find this case particularily disgusting because it is turning trade on a recent disaster and also echoing one of my other most hated political opportunist phrases, “Think of the children.”
There are good and solid reason for ending the war in Iraq, but lets not pretend that stopping the war will magically solve other problems. Stopping the war will only end the problem of being at war. Other problems, like our continuing dependence on foreign oil, a lack of children’s health care or a crumbling infrastructure are seperate issues that require their own solutions.
It seems like I can’t read the daily news or open my email without someone making that claim. Of course, there are people who use it in a very wry sense, like if someone smiles and says “If I don’t get another drink then the terrorists have won,” as an excuse to stay for a couple extra minutes at the bar.
But aside from that I consider the entire statement to be asinine. It is not only ludicrous in most contexts, but disrespectful to victims of terrorists attacks.
A recent use of this invective came in the form of an opinion column which I get from different organizations and people every day.
It said, “If spending in Iraq means America can’t afford health care for our children or infrastructure maintenance to keep our bridges from falling down, then the terrorists have won.”
Now, as it happens, I happen to disagree with our spending practices in Iraq. We “won” a long time ago (At least I think that’s what the “Mission Accomplished” banner was supposed to mean when the President stood underneath it in 2003 and declard an end to combat operations in Iraq) but we still spend millions of dollars and hundreds of lives in a cyclone of violence that seems never-ending.
Even with in the depths of my disagreement with the war, I still think the use of terrorism as a prod for action against it is wrong.
What the writer of the statement is doing, on a psychological level, is threatening our children. The implication here is that your child will fall sick and die with noone to care if the war continues. The writer is using fear to motivate a response, and that is the very definition of terrorism.
Logically speaking, the arguement isn’t even very sound. It occurs in a basic format known as the “If/then” statement. It is one of the foundations of all logical arguements, “If A then B.”
Taking a look at only the A section we see that it really occurs in two parts which consist of “spending in Iraq” and “America can’t afford health care for our children or infrastructure maintenance to keep our bridges from falling down.”
So obviously it’s a simple choice, Iraq and falling bridges and dying children or, none of that and a happy-go-lucky world where everyone smiles and has enough money left over at the end of the year for a trip to Disney world.
I find this case particularily disgusting because it is turning trade on a recent disaster and also echoing one of my other most hated political opportunist phrases, “Think of the children.”
There are good and solid reason for ending the war in Iraq, but lets not pretend that stopping the war will magically solve other problems. Stopping the war will only end the problem of being at war. Other problems, like our continuing dependence on foreign oil, a lack of children’s health care or a crumbling infrastructure are seperate issues that require their own solutions.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Global Warming=Crock of Shit
If there’s one thing I hate, it’s a global warming alarmist.
Concern for the planet’s ecosystem, especially global temperature change is part of the mark of a citizen who is in touch with the current issues facing us as human beings today. Developing an ulcer because you’re worried about the ice caps melting and flooding the world is just ludicrous.
For one thing, one of the more prevalent models of catastrophic climate change predicts that the melting of the ice caps due to global warming would trigger a back swing of global cooling. A second ice age would envelope the world and most plant and animal life would die.
So you can see that warming might be the least of our worries.
Another misconception is that all scientists everywhere are in agreement that global warming is an imminent threat. The truth is that many researchers continue to say that there is either not enough evidence or that the changes we see are merely the natural fluctuation of the earth’s temperature.
Lot’s of people will go straight to a meteorologist if they want to know about global warming, and any one of them who has studied climate change will tell you that the earth is indeed getting warmer, but that’s not the whole story.
Weather patterns are a tricky and fickle beasts. They can move and change, sometimes with barely a moment’s notice. For this reason, when reviewing global weather changes, we need to look at a more solid science, rock solid.
Any geologist will tell you that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old. If the earth were a football field, then human history would be a space the width of a hair on the goal line. For this reason, actual measurements of temperature change represent an insignificant portion of the whole story.
Geological study reveals that the earth is in constant transition. It periodically gets warmer and colder depending on a number of factors, including continental drift and reflective gasses in the atmosphere.
According to one theory, it was a worldwide climate change that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, and I’m fairly sure that none of them were burning fossil fuels.
I myself am not convinced that this ecological change is the fault of humankind. I believe that we have allowed our collective ego to convince us that we are more important than is actually true.
I am not suggesting that cutting greenhouse gas emmissions, decreasing power consumption, researching alternative fuel sources, or decreasing the excessive packaging on products, all ideas which have stemmed from the ecological movement (which itself seems to be driven by global warming extremists), are bad ideas.
These ideas are good in and of themselves, regardless of the temperature.
Decreased emmisions means clean air for you and your children, now and in the future. Emissions are directly linked to power consumption, the less power used, the less it is necesarry to generate, meaning that the power plant uses less fuel.
The fuel those plants are using is mostly fossil fuels and often that means oil. It is the dependency on foreign oil that has led to the war in Iraq for which taxpayers will be paying through the nose until God knows when.
Not only has our dependence on oil caused a war (or two), but it is an ever increasing component in the trade deficit which is one of the reasons why the American Dollar continues its fall in value (it is now trading at essentially equal value to the Canadian Dollar).
The solutions to these problems are not easy, and they cannot be taken care of by elected officials. In 1997 a meeting of world leaders saw the establishment of the Kyoto Protocols, a promise by many nations to reduce emmissions by the year 2012.
Unfortunately, the agreement has done nothing to curb the proliferation of greenhouse gas emmissions. As many as 36 of the 161 nations (including the United States) which signed on are not on track to meet there emissions goals.
So what is the next step? Set new goals, of course. But what’s to stop us from ignoring the new goals just like we did before? Absolutely nothing.
A popular definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.” That’s what this policy is, insane.
A recent study showed that 2/3 of Americans “strongly believe” that “strong action” should be taken on the environmental “crisis”. I’d lay a wager that 90 percent of those people leave unused appliances plugged in, drive to work without trying to find a car pool or even consider riding a bus.
The point is that change doesn’t start from the top down. If we’re to have an environmental revolution then it has to come from you and me. We need to make a concerted effort to live cleaner and “greener” lives. Laws won’t help. Emmissions goals are pie in the sky wishes. And politicians promises to “fix” the environment are beaureaucratic double-talk.
It’s we, the people, who matter and we need to make the changes on our own. Not because the earth is warming and we could be extinct some day, not because that guy from Greenpeace is making us feel guilty, we need to change for the most personal of reasons, because it’s the right thing to do.
Concern for the planet’s ecosystem, especially global temperature change is part of the mark of a citizen who is in touch with the current issues facing us as human beings today. Developing an ulcer because you’re worried about the ice caps melting and flooding the world is just ludicrous.
For one thing, one of the more prevalent models of catastrophic climate change predicts that the melting of the ice caps due to global warming would trigger a back swing of global cooling. A second ice age would envelope the world and most plant and animal life would die.
So you can see that warming might be the least of our worries.
Another misconception is that all scientists everywhere are in agreement that global warming is an imminent threat. The truth is that many researchers continue to say that there is either not enough evidence or that the changes we see are merely the natural fluctuation of the earth’s temperature.
Lot’s of people will go straight to a meteorologist if they want to know about global warming, and any one of them who has studied climate change will tell you that the earth is indeed getting warmer, but that’s not the whole story.
Weather patterns are a tricky and fickle beasts. They can move and change, sometimes with barely a moment’s notice. For this reason, when reviewing global weather changes, we need to look at a more solid science, rock solid.
Any geologist will tell you that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old. If the earth were a football field, then human history would be a space the width of a hair on the goal line. For this reason, actual measurements of temperature change represent an insignificant portion of the whole story.
Geological study reveals that the earth is in constant transition. It periodically gets warmer and colder depending on a number of factors, including continental drift and reflective gasses in the atmosphere.
According to one theory, it was a worldwide climate change that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs, and I’m fairly sure that none of them were burning fossil fuels.
I myself am not convinced that this ecological change is the fault of humankind. I believe that we have allowed our collective ego to convince us that we are more important than is actually true.
I am not suggesting that cutting greenhouse gas emmissions, decreasing power consumption, researching alternative fuel sources, or decreasing the excessive packaging on products, all ideas which have stemmed from the ecological movement (which itself seems to be driven by global warming extremists), are bad ideas.
These ideas are good in and of themselves, regardless of the temperature.
Decreased emmisions means clean air for you and your children, now and in the future. Emissions are directly linked to power consumption, the less power used, the less it is necesarry to generate, meaning that the power plant uses less fuel.
The fuel those plants are using is mostly fossil fuels and often that means oil. It is the dependency on foreign oil that has led to the war in Iraq for which taxpayers will be paying through the nose until God knows when.
Not only has our dependence on oil caused a war (or two), but it is an ever increasing component in the trade deficit which is one of the reasons why the American Dollar continues its fall in value (it is now trading at essentially equal value to the Canadian Dollar).
The solutions to these problems are not easy, and they cannot be taken care of by elected officials. In 1997 a meeting of world leaders saw the establishment of the Kyoto Protocols, a promise by many nations to reduce emmissions by the year 2012.
Unfortunately, the agreement has done nothing to curb the proliferation of greenhouse gas emmissions. As many as 36 of the 161 nations (including the United States) which signed on are not on track to meet there emissions goals.
So what is the next step? Set new goals, of course. But what’s to stop us from ignoring the new goals just like we did before? Absolutely nothing.
A popular definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.” That’s what this policy is, insane.
A recent study showed that 2/3 of Americans “strongly believe” that “strong action” should be taken on the environmental “crisis”. I’d lay a wager that 90 percent of those people leave unused appliances plugged in, drive to work without trying to find a car pool or even consider riding a bus.
The point is that change doesn’t start from the top down. If we’re to have an environmental revolution then it has to come from you and me. We need to make a concerted effort to live cleaner and “greener” lives. Laws won’t help. Emmissions goals are pie in the sky wishes. And politicians promises to “fix” the environment are beaureaucratic double-talk.
It’s we, the people, who matter and we need to make the changes on our own. Not because the earth is warming and we could be extinct some day, not because that guy from Greenpeace is making us feel guilty, we need to change for the most personal of reasons, because it’s the right thing to do.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Politically Correct Bullshiat
In the latest politically correct assault on the “good ol’ days,” a Colorado elementary school recently banned the game of tag at recess.
I hope I’m not the only one that finds this to be completely asinine.
The school cited complaints from parents that their children had been chased and tagged even though they weren’t playing. As I recall from my schoolyard days, it’s difficult to chase someone who isn’t running away, and even more difficult to declare someone “it” when they aren’t playing the game.
Looking back on fond memories of schoolyard games I can find a few instances where I chose to play some game other than tag. This didn’t stop others from assuming that I was playing just because I was on the playground, but when I got tagged I simply kept doing whatever I had been doing and ignored the tagger.
There seems to have been a movement in the last 30 years towards a kinder and gentler world which for the most part is a good thing. But the fact is that a few sharp edges can teach lessons that are important later in life.
If you’re the slow kid on the playground then you learn quickly that tag probably isn’t your game. So instead you play a game you are good at like dodge ball if you can throw. Except that’s also getting banned – maybe not without good reason.
Personally, my favorite playground game was called “Smear the Queer.” Despite its very non-politically correct name, it was a great game. Everyone tries to tackle the person who has the ball, the “queer.” Once that person is tackled, the ball is thrown to/at someone else and the game continues with another target.
This game ended with a district wide ban when I was in fifth grade. Somebody had lost a tooth at another school and hence we were deprived of yet another game.
The Colorado school says that they still encourage racing games, but tag will not be making a comeback any time soon. The trouble I see is that a race is only fun once or twice until you realize that the same kid is winning every time. After that you might as well just stay at the starting line.
With rowdy and calorie burning games like tag being banned, is it any wonder that childhood obesity is an ever increasing problem?
I suppose you could say that I “grew up” during the 90’s when the safety craze was already in full swing, but I was here in the Midwest where we pride ourselves on having a little bit more common sense than the coastal states – especially California, New York and Florida.
To the parents: I know that your child is the most important thing in the world to you, but sheltering them from all harm won’t help them make their way in the world. It’s best for them to learn early that there is almost always someone out there who is faster than they are, and if they don’t pay attention then they’re going to get tagged.
If they learn these things early then they’ll be saved a lot of grief later on in life when their “beautiful and unique snowflake” bubble is popped by the fact that winners and losers are a fact of life and they had better work their butts off if they want to avoid the latter category.
I realize that no one who was involved in the Colorado tag banning is likely to read this, but those who do can take it as an example of what to avoid at all costs. The more fun outdoor games we take away from our children, the more we encourage them to sit inside and become couch potatoes, and no parent wants that.
I hope I’m not the only one that finds this to be completely asinine.
The school cited complaints from parents that their children had been chased and tagged even though they weren’t playing. As I recall from my schoolyard days, it’s difficult to chase someone who isn’t running away, and even more difficult to declare someone “it” when they aren’t playing the game.
Looking back on fond memories of schoolyard games I can find a few instances where I chose to play some game other than tag. This didn’t stop others from assuming that I was playing just because I was on the playground, but when I got tagged I simply kept doing whatever I had been doing and ignored the tagger.
There seems to have been a movement in the last 30 years towards a kinder and gentler world which for the most part is a good thing. But the fact is that a few sharp edges can teach lessons that are important later in life.
If you’re the slow kid on the playground then you learn quickly that tag probably isn’t your game. So instead you play a game you are good at like dodge ball if you can throw. Except that’s also getting banned – maybe not without good reason.
Personally, my favorite playground game was called “Smear the Queer.” Despite its very non-politically correct name, it was a great game. Everyone tries to tackle the person who has the ball, the “queer.” Once that person is tackled, the ball is thrown to/at someone else and the game continues with another target.
This game ended with a district wide ban when I was in fifth grade. Somebody had lost a tooth at another school and hence we were deprived of yet another game.
The Colorado school says that they still encourage racing games, but tag will not be making a comeback any time soon. The trouble I see is that a race is only fun once or twice until you realize that the same kid is winning every time. After that you might as well just stay at the starting line.
With rowdy and calorie burning games like tag being banned, is it any wonder that childhood obesity is an ever increasing problem?
I suppose you could say that I “grew up” during the 90’s when the safety craze was already in full swing, but I was here in the Midwest where we pride ourselves on having a little bit more common sense than the coastal states – especially California, New York and Florida.
To the parents: I know that your child is the most important thing in the world to you, but sheltering them from all harm won’t help them make their way in the world. It’s best for them to learn early that there is almost always someone out there who is faster than they are, and if they don’t pay attention then they’re going to get tagged.
If they learn these things early then they’ll be saved a lot of grief later on in life when their “beautiful and unique snowflake” bubble is popped by the fact that winners and losers are a fact of life and they had better work their butts off if they want to avoid the latter category.
I realize that no one who was involved in the Colorado tag banning is likely to read this, but those who do can take it as an example of what to avoid at all costs. The more fun outdoor games we take away from our children, the more we encourage them to sit inside and become couch potatoes, and no parent wants that.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Gay Marriage
Democrats are the liberal party, the movers and the shakers if you will. So why then will not a single one of them embrace the concept of gay marriage. Oh sure, those practically unknowns Gravel-face and Kucinichead are willing to do it, but Edwards, Clinton and Obama stand pat on the "civil union" side of the fence.
I really wish someone would tell me what the hell is wrong with people getting married that it should be denied to anyone. I'm willing to bet that homosexuals can't mess it up anymore than heterosexuals have already done. It's been said before, but I think it bears repeating, no matter what Jerry Falwell may have said homosexuals are not making a mockery of marriage, divorce is.
Current nationwide estimates put divorce rates somewhere near 50% with rates going down as one moves from east to west until they get their lowest in the Midwest, then it's on to California where the estimates are on the order of 60-70%. Yep, us heteros are doing a great job screwing up marriage.
Maybe a better measure to take would be to rewrite ALL marriage laws so that EVERY marriage would be a civil union. People could still call themselves "married" but on paper it would be a civil union. That would mean some work for our lawmakers, but they need something to do other than voting themselves pay raises.
I meant to go further into this, but real work draws me away.
I really wish someone would tell me what the hell is wrong with people getting married that it should be denied to anyone. I'm willing to bet that homosexuals can't mess it up anymore than heterosexuals have already done. It's been said before, but I think it bears repeating, no matter what Jerry Falwell may have said homosexuals are not making a mockery of marriage, divorce is.
Current nationwide estimates put divorce rates somewhere near 50% with rates going down as one moves from east to west until they get their lowest in the Midwest, then it's on to California where the estimates are on the order of 60-70%. Yep, us heteros are doing a great job screwing up marriage.
Maybe a better measure to take would be to rewrite ALL marriage laws so that EVERY marriage would be a civil union. People could still call themselves "married" but on paper it would be a civil union. That would mean some work for our lawmakers, but they need something to do other than voting themselves pay raises.
I meant to go further into this, but real work draws me away.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
A little Latin
Not everyone can be an Einstein. It’s a simple fact of life that some people are smarter than others, or at the very least have more knowledge about a certain subject than others.
Without a doubt, nuclear physicists are very smart people. But how many of them could tell you the difference between a guernsey and a jersey cow? Different walks of life require different knowledge and different kinds of intelligence.
Over time it seems that certain kinds of knowledge have become privileged with lofty spots in our society. Someone who can start a fire by rubbing two sticks together might be seen as having less knowledge than someone who can recite and digress on the meaning of Geofrey Chaucer, but who would you rather have with you after your plane went down in the wilderness.
My point is that what seems like esteemed knowledge in one situation is useless in a different context, so really nobody has the right to walk around being snooty to other people just because they know a bit of latin.
Of course, learning a little latin isn’t all that hard, and can make you look smarter in front of all your friends and relatives. The trick is to learn just a few words and phrases and when to use them. So, here are a few key phrases to impress your acquaintances with:
Phrase: “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.”
Meaning: “Sweet and honorable it is to die for one’s country.”
When to use it: When talking about war, especially when someone makes reference to the sacrifice laid down by our brave men and women in uniform. Often this phrase is used in a manner which questions how sweet the sacrificer found the action.
Phrase: “Ecce Homo”
Meaning: Behold Man
When to use it: Anytime someone makes a very human mistake. It can be akin to saying “nobody’s perfect” (you can also use “errare humanum est” - “to err is human).
Phrase: “Alea iacta est”
Meaning: “The die is cast.”
When to use it: When you’ve just started a project where the outcome is unsure. Julius Caeser is reported to have said this as he led his troops across the Rubicon River toward Rome.
Phrase: “Quo fata ferunt”
Meaning: “Wherever the fates bear us”
When to use it: Whenever someone asks you a question about the future. It can be very useful in interviews when you are asked questions like, “Where do you see yourself in five years?”
Phrase: “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”
Meaning: “What is asserted without reason can be denied without reason.”
When to use it: When someone makes a claim you disagree with and can’t back it up with facts.
Phrase: “Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses”
Meaning: “If you had kept your silence, you would have stayed a philosopher”
When to use it: Best to bring this one out sparingly as it is somewhat insulting. It is essentially used as a barb against someone who has just revealed their own ignorance. You may have heard a similar expression attributed to Mark Twain, “It is better to keep one’s mouth closed an be though a fool than open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
Phrase: “Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.”
Meaning: “If you can read this, you have too much education.”
When to use it: Whenever someone is trying to prove their intelligence by using latin.
Without a doubt, nuclear physicists are very smart people. But how many of them could tell you the difference between a guernsey and a jersey cow? Different walks of life require different knowledge and different kinds of intelligence.
Over time it seems that certain kinds of knowledge have become privileged with lofty spots in our society. Someone who can start a fire by rubbing two sticks together might be seen as having less knowledge than someone who can recite and digress on the meaning of Geofrey Chaucer, but who would you rather have with you after your plane went down in the wilderness.
My point is that what seems like esteemed knowledge in one situation is useless in a different context, so really nobody has the right to walk around being snooty to other people just because they know a bit of latin.
Of course, learning a little latin isn’t all that hard, and can make you look smarter in front of all your friends and relatives. The trick is to learn just a few words and phrases and when to use them. So, here are a few key phrases to impress your acquaintances with:
Phrase: “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.”
Meaning: “Sweet and honorable it is to die for one’s country.”
When to use it: When talking about war, especially when someone makes reference to the sacrifice laid down by our brave men and women in uniform. Often this phrase is used in a manner which questions how sweet the sacrificer found the action.
Phrase: “Ecce Homo”
Meaning: Behold Man
When to use it: Anytime someone makes a very human mistake. It can be akin to saying “nobody’s perfect” (you can also use “errare humanum est” - “to err is human).
Phrase: “Alea iacta est”
Meaning: “The die is cast.”
When to use it: When you’ve just started a project where the outcome is unsure. Julius Caeser is reported to have said this as he led his troops across the Rubicon River toward Rome.
Phrase: “Quo fata ferunt”
Meaning: “Wherever the fates bear us”
When to use it: Whenever someone asks you a question about the future. It can be very useful in interviews when you are asked questions like, “Where do you see yourself in five years?”
Phrase: “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur”
Meaning: “What is asserted without reason can be denied without reason.”
When to use it: When someone makes a claim you disagree with and can’t back it up with facts.
Phrase: “Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses”
Meaning: “If you had kept your silence, you would have stayed a philosopher”
When to use it: Best to bring this one out sparingly as it is somewhat insulting. It is essentially used as a barb against someone who has just revealed their own ignorance. You may have heard a similar expression attributed to Mark Twain, “It is better to keep one’s mouth closed an be though a fool than open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
Phrase: “Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.”
Meaning: “If you can read this, you have too much education.”
When to use it: Whenever someone is trying to prove their intelligence by using latin.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Again doing what's popular, wondering about bridge collapses
The collapse of the 35W interstate bridge in Minneapolis was a horrific accident. Noone is denying that. I would call it a terrible tradgedy, but ever since 9/11/01 the word "tradgedy" seems to be a little over the top for any incident that claims less than 100 lives or fails to touch the life of at least a B-list celebrity. If Billy Zane's kid brother had died, then somebody might have called it a tradgedy. Not me, but somebody.
Stories continue to cover the response to the bridge collapse as if there was really something new to tell. I guess there is, because the death toll keeps changing, various newspaper and television spots place it somewhere between five and 16 people. How hard is it to tell who's dead and who's not? I really don't want to be the one to dash the hopes of the victims' families, but if they haven't been found by now, then chances are good that they were washed downstream and may never be found.
There might be a few people out there who think it's callous of me to downplay the horror of the incident over and in the Mississippi by relating it to the tradgedy of the world trade center collapse. I obviously disagree, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this right now. No, the link between the two was made in the mind of every American old enough to form coherent thoughts and remember the terrible fear that followed the events of 9/11/01. At the very least, everyone wondered subconciously whether or not this had anything to do with terrorist plots to undermine our confidence in our government, transportation systems, and general infrastructure.
Every news outlet knew what was at the back of everyone's mind, which is why every paper that ran the story included a paragraph which specified that this was not terrorist related. Everyone breathed a huge sigh of relief and went on about their business. This was certainly nothing to worry about, it wasn't even close to 9/11, couldn't measure up to Hurricane Katrina, and the only thing it had on the New York blackout was that a few people died.
But maybe these events are related in some way? Perhaps there is something wrong with the government that all of these things are happening. Looking at 9/11 the evidence seems to point to a massive intelligence failure. Maybe that's not quite fair, the problem was really a failure to act on good intelligence. Reliable sources in the FBI warned about terrorists using planes as bombs, missile defense was more important to the current regime.
Moving on to Hurricane Katrina. Did terrorists have anything to do with it? If they did, then they have a weather generation machine and we'll have to create a biologically advance human with super powers to stop them. But realistically, no they didn't do this one, we did it to ourselves. But again I'm being harsh on the majority of Americans who weren't even aware that New Orleans had levvies which protected it from flooding, until they broke. However, once again, sources which warned of impending disaster were ignored and a terrible tradgedy occured ( the amount of collateral damage alone make this one a tradgedy).
The New York blackout. A relay station blew. Terrorists didn't have anything to do with it other than the fact that there are probably a few undetected cell members in New York using power and you can't plan a jihad in the dark anyway. Anyways, my only beef here is that everyone in New York was so congratulatory to themselves. Hadn't New York done well? They had survived a few hours in the dark without everyone going postal and killing each other. Absolutely no tradgedy here.
Now we come to the bridge collapse. As newspapers and bloggers continue to dig into this story there keeps coming to light new information on warnings which were issued about problems and dangers of increased interstate traffic on the bridge. The last inspection of the bridge was made in June 2006 and can be found here: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/hottopics/35w/06_br_%209340%20.pdf
If you just took time to scan the "Executive Summary" you might have found such interesting phrases as "Fatigue cracks at girder #1C (NBL)," or, "Fatigue cracks at girder #3 (NBL), crack at the diaphragm bottom cutout." While these might be a little alarming, I don't think they hold a candle to the in depth report which details hundreds of patches to the bridge and even webbing that had broken all the way through at points (these were repaired). The report also has phrases which I personally find alarming like, "The truss members have numerous poor weld details."
Now I'm no civil engineer (my next step is to go find one and have him or her explain this report to me), but overall I get a vague feeling of unease when reading the report. From the lack of action taken and the recent stampede of state and local government branches to close and repair bridges, it seems to be like this could have happened anywhere. There are probably reports almost identical to this one for major bridges in every state (maybe fewer the southwest, but they tend to have less rivers to cross anyway).
It's a shame that people had to die for something to be done about deteriorating bridges, but then, that seems to be the precedent set by a string of national emergencies.
Stories continue to cover the response to the bridge collapse as if there was really something new to tell. I guess there is, because the death toll keeps changing, various newspaper and television spots place it somewhere between five and 16 people. How hard is it to tell who's dead and who's not? I really don't want to be the one to dash the hopes of the victims' families, but if they haven't been found by now, then chances are good that they were washed downstream and may never be found.
There might be a few people out there who think it's callous of me to downplay the horror of the incident over and in the Mississippi by relating it to the tradgedy of the world trade center collapse. I obviously disagree, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this right now. No, the link between the two was made in the mind of every American old enough to form coherent thoughts and remember the terrible fear that followed the events of 9/11/01. At the very least, everyone wondered subconciously whether or not this had anything to do with terrorist plots to undermine our confidence in our government, transportation systems, and general infrastructure.
Every news outlet knew what was at the back of everyone's mind, which is why every paper that ran the story included a paragraph which specified that this was not terrorist related. Everyone breathed a huge sigh of relief and went on about their business. This was certainly nothing to worry about, it wasn't even close to 9/11, couldn't measure up to Hurricane Katrina, and the only thing it had on the New York blackout was that a few people died.
But maybe these events are related in some way? Perhaps there is something wrong with the government that all of these things are happening. Looking at 9/11 the evidence seems to point to a massive intelligence failure. Maybe that's not quite fair, the problem was really a failure to act on good intelligence. Reliable sources in the FBI warned about terrorists using planes as bombs, missile defense was more important to the current regime.
Moving on to Hurricane Katrina. Did terrorists have anything to do with it? If they did, then they have a weather generation machine and we'll have to create a biologically advance human with super powers to stop them. But realistically, no they didn't do this one, we did it to ourselves. But again I'm being harsh on the majority of Americans who weren't even aware that New Orleans had levvies which protected it from flooding, until they broke. However, once again, sources which warned of impending disaster were ignored and a terrible tradgedy occured ( the amount of collateral damage alone make this one a tradgedy).
The New York blackout. A relay station blew. Terrorists didn't have anything to do with it other than the fact that there are probably a few undetected cell members in New York using power and you can't plan a jihad in the dark anyway. Anyways, my only beef here is that everyone in New York was so congratulatory to themselves. Hadn't New York done well? They had survived a few hours in the dark without everyone going postal and killing each other. Absolutely no tradgedy here.
Now we come to the bridge collapse. As newspapers and bloggers continue to dig into this story there keeps coming to light new information on warnings which were issued about problems and dangers of increased interstate traffic on the bridge. The last inspection of the bridge was made in June 2006 and can be found here: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/hottopics/35w/06_br_%209340%20.pdf
If you just took time to scan the "Executive Summary" you might have found such interesting phrases as "Fatigue cracks at girder #1C (NBL)," or, "Fatigue cracks at girder #3 (NBL), crack at the diaphragm bottom cutout." While these might be a little alarming, I don't think they hold a candle to the in depth report which details hundreds of patches to the bridge and even webbing that had broken all the way through at points (these were repaired). The report also has phrases which I personally find alarming like, "The truss members have numerous poor weld details."
Now I'm no civil engineer (my next step is to go find one and have him or her explain this report to me), but overall I get a vague feeling of unease when reading the report. From the lack of action taken and the recent stampede of state and local government branches to close and repair bridges, it seems to be like this could have happened anywhere. There are probably reports almost identical to this one for major bridges in every state (maybe fewer the southwest, but they tend to have less rivers to cross anyway).
It's a shame that people had to die for something to be done about deteriorating bridges, but then, that seems to be the precedent set by a string of national emergencies.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Barack Obama: or why I agree with Pat Buchanan
I honestly never thought that it would happen, but I am in agreement with Pat Buchanan's remarks which can be found in his blog, here: http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=810
I also have considered the media storm which has surrounded Obama's remarks about meeting with heads of state from what might be considered "Rogue Nations" and found the whole thing to be ludicrous. It's not as if Obama said he was going to invite each of them over for spankings and blowjobs, he just said he would be willing to meet with them.
Isn't that what a president is supposed to do? How can the "leader of the free world" lead if he keeps himself in isolation? I see this as a bold move toward a less isolationist policy which could be greatly beneficial for the United States in the years to come. By setting up lines of communications between these mostly anti american countries perhaps we can begin to heal the rifts that are present between US and them.
Take Fidel Castro (or more likely his brother Raul) for instance. For almost fifty years the bastion of communism has existed but a few scant miles outside of American waters. An embargo has been in place since 1962 and has done everyone a fat lot of good. We even went so far as to make the embargo into law in 1992 with the passage of the Cuban Democracy Act which aims to "bring democracy to the citizens of cuba." Yes, we all know how good the United States is at delivering democracy to small nations. Maybe we can do better if the nation we're democratizing is closer to our borders, but I doubt it. The whole thing reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw recently: "Don't piss off America, or we'll bring Democracy to your country."
Buchanan points our, correctly and convincingly, that presidents have met with leaders that are much worse than those that Obama proposes to initiate contact with. I think the strongest arguements come in the form of the FDR/Truman meetings with Josef Stalin and Eisenhower's meeting Yuri Andropov. By comparison, Obama's proposal seems very tame.
I know that James will probably chime in with the point that Obama is inexperienced or some such, but it seems like he gets more savvy every day. Such comments made by Hillary Clinton are now quite obviously rebounding as Obama takes the moral high ground, affording him the opportunity to attack Clinton's support of the War in Iraq, which is shaping up to be (like every other war-time election) to be the central issue of the coming election.
I personally believe that Obama is milking this portrayal as a virtual outsider in the political arena for all it is worth. I think he understands the public frustration with the entrenched politicos both inside and outside the Bush camp. If he continues to strive for moderation and keeps his head up while ducking punches as skillfully as he has done so far then it is possible that America will be electing it's first black president in 2008.
I also have considered the media storm which has surrounded Obama's remarks about meeting with heads of state from what might be considered "Rogue Nations" and found the whole thing to be ludicrous. It's not as if Obama said he was going to invite each of them over for spankings and blowjobs, he just said he would be willing to meet with them.
Isn't that what a president is supposed to do? How can the "leader of the free world" lead if he keeps himself in isolation? I see this as a bold move toward a less isolationist policy which could be greatly beneficial for the United States in the years to come. By setting up lines of communications between these mostly anti american countries perhaps we can begin to heal the rifts that are present between US and them.
Take Fidel Castro (or more likely his brother Raul) for instance. For almost fifty years the bastion of communism has existed but a few scant miles outside of American waters. An embargo has been in place since 1962 and has done everyone a fat lot of good. We even went so far as to make the embargo into law in 1992 with the passage of the Cuban Democracy Act which aims to "bring democracy to the citizens of cuba." Yes, we all know how good the United States is at delivering democracy to small nations. Maybe we can do better if the nation we're democratizing is closer to our borders, but I doubt it. The whole thing reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw recently: "Don't piss off America, or we'll bring Democracy to your country."
Buchanan points our, correctly and convincingly, that presidents have met with leaders that are much worse than those that Obama proposes to initiate contact with. I think the strongest arguements come in the form of the FDR/Truman meetings with Josef Stalin and Eisenhower's meeting Yuri Andropov. By comparison, Obama's proposal seems very tame.
I know that James will probably chime in with the point that Obama is inexperienced or some such, but it seems like he gets more savvy every day. Such comments made by Hillary Clinton are now quite obviously rebounding as Obama takes the moral high ground, affording him the opportunity to attack Clinton's support of the War in Iraq, which is shaping up to be (like every other war-time election) to be the central issue of the coming election.
I personally believe that Obama is milking this portrayal as a virtual outsider in the political arena for all it is worth. I think he understands the public frustration with the entrenched politicos both inside and outside the Bush camp. If he continues to strive for moderation and keeps his head up while ducking punches as skillfully as he has done so far then it is possible that America will be electing it's first black president in 2008.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Necrophiliatic Scumbags and the System that Allows Them
Let me ask you a quick question. Would you consider necrobeastiality immoral? If you know the word (it means to have sex with dead animals) then I hope you just answered yes and I’d be inclined to agree with you. Even though we consider it immoral it should be noted that it is not necesarily illegal.
Now I’m not exactly sure that sex with dead animals is alright under Wisconsin Law, but sex with dead humans sure is according to a recent ruling by Grant County Circuit Judge George Curry.
The case involves three men who were apprehended attempting to dig up the body of a woman killed in a motorcycle accident. They had seen an obituary picture and had, for some reason, concocted a plan to dig her up and violate her corpse.
A provision of the Wisconsin sexual assault law applies penalties regardless of the victim being alive or dead. However, under Curry’s interpretation this is meant to be applied only in cases of a rape-murder or murder-rape.
Quite simply this means that the three men will only be charged with misdemeanor attempted theft for trying to take the woman’s body. Is grave robbing really a misdemeanor?
Now normally, I would be against government interference on morality based issues especially in matters of sexual prediliction, but this goes beyond the bar of acceptable.
What two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home (or in the woods when no one is around) is there own business, but when a person (or three) take to grave robbing to have relations with a corpse that they thought looked attractive in an obituary photo that may be when a common decency law needs to be brought into play.
In the first place, there is no way for a corpse to be a consenting party, unless the empty wrapper of flesh that was once a human being was given in a last will and testament to be used for that specific purpose.
I furthermore take issue with the burying of bodies that have been pumped full of formaldehyde. This process is gross, inhumane and without regard for the perfectly natural process of biological decomposition. If a sanitary method of disposal needs to be had, rather than allowing corpses to break down in the earth, then I would put forward cremation as the best method. Not only would this take care of sanitation concerns and save on land space, but it would completely deny access to those disturbed individuals who consider graverobbing and necrophilia (having sex with the dead without the added animal angle) to be a well spent evening.
Not only that, but think of the savings to families that won’t have to pay for a burial plot or a casket. A modest place in a cemetery can cost up to and beyond $3,000 with a casket running anywhere from $500 to $10,000.
Both sex and death are as natural a part of life as breathing. But when the two are put together they paint a sickening picture of the sickening depths to which societal graces in America are falling.
There will always be disturbed individuals who attempt to get away with such things, but it is galling when the legal system sees fit to sit by and allow it.
Now I’m not exactly sure that sex with dead animals is alright under Wisconsin Law, but sex with dead humans sure is according to a recent ruling by Grant County Circuit Judge George Curry.
The case involves three men who were apprehended attempting to dig up the body of a woman killed in a motorcycle accident. They had seen an obituary picture and had, for some reason, concocted a plan to dig her up and violate her corpse.
A provision of the Wisconsin sexual assault law applies penalties regardless of the victim being alive or dead. However, under Curry’s interpretation this is meant to be applied only in cases of a rape-murder or murder-rape.
Quite simply this means that the three men will only be charged with misdemeanor attempted theft for trying to take the woman’s body. Is grave robbing really a misdemeanor?
Now normally, I would be against government interference on morality based issues especially in matters of sexual prediliction, but this goes beyond the bar of acceptable.
What two or more consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home (or in the woods when no one is around) is there own business, but when a person (or three) take to grave robbing to have relations with a corpse that they thought looked attractive in an obituary photo that may be when a common decency law needs to be brought into play.
In the first place, there is no way for a corpse to be a consenting party, unless the empty wrapper of flesh that was once a human being was given in a last will and testament to be used for that specific purpose.
I furthermore take issue with the burying of bodies that have been pumped full of formaldehyde. This process is gross, inhumane and without regard for the perfectly natural process of biological decomposition. If a sanitary method of disposal needs to be had, rather than allowing corpses to break down in the earth, then I would put forward cremation as the best method. Not only would this take care of sanitation concerns and save on land space, but it would completely deny access to those disturbed individuals who consider graverobbing and necrophilia (having sex with the dead without the added animal angle) to be a well spent evening.
Not only that, but think of the savings to families that won’t have to pay for a burial plot or a casket. A modest place in a cemetery can cost up to and beyond $3,000 with a casket running anywhere from $500 to $10,000.
Both sex and death are as natural a part of life as breathing. But when the two are put together they paint a sickening picture of the sickening depths to which societal graces in America are falling.
There will always be disturbed individuals who attempt to get away with such things, but it is galling when the legal system sees fit to sit by and allow it.
Monday, July 23, 2007
A Few Rules of Mine for Other People to Ponder (or adopt)
Everyone needs to have rules they live their life by. It doesn't really matter what they are, so long as you yourself find them to be acceptable. Some people, for lack of creativity, simply accept the rules of conventional society and move along their merry way never bothering with the lack of fairness in some of those rules.
Now I could have started off talking about how everyone needs laws, but I don't honestly think everyone does. Some people need laws because they would otherwise be unable to determine proper, civilised behavior. Everything one everyone wanted from law could be solved if everyone just followed the old and tested golden rule, but neither I nor any other sane person would even attempt to say that everyone could live by any single rule no matter what precious metal it were made from.
All of this having been said, I'd like to share some of my personal life rules with you all. Some of these are straight forward and others take some interpretation.
1. There is an exception to every rule.
2. Some rules have no exceptions.
3. When going out on a dinner and movie date, go to the movie first.
4. Avoid universal qualifiers (all, every, etc.) and negators (never, none, etc.)
5. Don't dive in unless you know how deep the water is. Jumping in feet first is acceptable.
6. If you've spent the last 5 hours trying to find the answer to a problem then it's probably time to go to sleep and worry about it in the morning.
7. Blowing something up is not the same as fixing it.
8. Beating your head against a wall doesn't solve anything unless your problem is not having bruises on your head.
9. Everything is true, nothing is sacred. Nothing is true, everything is sacred. (stolen from Robert Anton Wilson)
10. When sober, always do what you said you would when you were drunk. It will teach you to keep your mouth shut. (Also stolen, from Hemingway I believe)
11. Even if you hate them, courtesy should be extended to all people. If they snub that then all bets are off.
Now I could have started off talking about how everyone needs laws, but I don't honestly think everyone does. Some people need laws because they would otherwise be unable to determine proper, civilised behavior. Everything one everyone wanted from law could be solved if everyone just followed the old and tested golden rule, but neither I nor any other sane person would even attempt to say that everyone could live by any single rule no matter what precious metal it were made from.
All of this having been said, I'd like to share some of my personal life rules with you all. Some of these are straight forward and others take some interpretation.
1. There is an exception to every rule.
2. Some rules have no exceptions.
3. When going out on a dinner and movie date, go to the movie first.
4. Avoid universal qualifiers (all, every, etc.) and negators (never, none, etc.)
5. Don't dive in unless you know how deep the water is. Jumping in feet first is acceptable.
6. If you've spent the last 5 hours trying to find the answer to a problem then it's probably time to go to sleep and worry about it in the morning.
7. Blowing something up is not the same as fixing it.
8. Beating your head against a wall doesn't solve anything unless your problem is not having bruises on your head.
9. Everything is true, nothing is sacred. Nothing is true, everything is sacred. (stolen from Robert Anton Wilson)
10. When sober, always do what you said you would when you were drunk. It will teach you to keep your mouth shut. (Also stolen, from Hemingway I believe)
11. Even if you hate them, courtesy should be extended to all people. If they snub that then all bets are off.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Pulling your proverbial leg.
As part of my job (I'm a journalist with a small town newspaper) I'm often required to go to small town fairs to get pictures of various events that are taking place. Some of the events are cute, like a childrens talent competition. Some of the events are interesting, like a chainsaw woodcarving artist. Other events are ones that I find to be completely asinine, like the tractor pull.
If you've never been to a tractor pull then you really should sometime. Then you can see what rednecks with too much time on their hands can do with a tractor. For the uninitiated, let me explain how this works. A given tractor hooks on to a special vehicle called a skid. The skid has a special sliding device that makes it harder to pull the further you go. Operators take turns pulling the skid as far as they can. There are seperate weight and category classes. Weight classes are mostly useless, as almost every operator will continue to add weight to their tractor to compete in as many classes as possible. There is a seperate class for modified tractors which usually resemble drag racers, only they're tractors so it's not nearly as cool.
Once a first round on winners is determined, the three or five best pullers in each weight come back to pull again to determine the winner. Then prizes are handed out and everyone goes home.
Now as you might imagine, many of these supped up tractors are quite loud. Not only that, they smell like shit as they burn through enough diesel fuel to get a bus from Minnesota to Texas. At a time when gas prices only seem to be going up I think it's great that we can get together and waste fuel in such a pointless exercise. Oh wait, that's not great. As a matter of fact it's the exact opposite of great, horrible. I really can't think of any stupider way to waste diesel fuel. Well, maybe just straight up burning it, but that's another story.
Also included in town and county fairs are things called "horse pulls" which, if possible, are more boring than tractor pulls. The difference is that horse pulls waste nothing but time which is actually a benefit in a small town. Again, let me digress into explaining what happens at one of these pulls. A sled is loaded with concrete blocks. Two-horse teams are then hooked to the sled. The team has 10 seconds to pull the sled 20 feet (I think that's the distance). If any team is unable to pull the full distance then the weight of the sled and the progress they do make is marked as their final score. This seems simple, but weight is added gradually and each team pull once a round. It can take over 40 rounds before a winner is declared. So really, all there is to watch is a teams of horses pulling a steel sled back and forth over the same 60 ft of ground for two hours or more.
There is also a "pony pull" which is the exact same thing only with ponies instead of horses and the distance they must pull is less. I am informed that the east has a similar contest, the "ox pull" only the sled moves a matter of inches in each pull, I'm sure that it must be even more riveting.
Now, I'm not saying that any of that is "cruel to animals" or "bad for the environment," even though I could easily make that case. The fact is that these animals have been bred and trained for exactly this purpose, so to not use them in such a way is an insult to their genetic structure. The tractors have been painstakingly rebuilt and revamped to perform their best and the pulling is probably the closest alot of the viewers ever get to having "fun."
All I'm saying is that I think it's boring. Really, really boring. Maybe I need to get drunk to enjoy the spectacle, it seems to work for everyone else.
If you've never been to a tractor pull then you really should sometime. Then you can see what rednecks with too much time on their hands can do with a tractor. For the uninitiated, let me explain how this works. A given tractor hooks on to a special vehicle called a skid. The skid has a special sliding device that makes it harder to pull the further you go. Operators take turns pulling the skid as far as they can. There are seperate weight and category classes. Weight classes are mostly useless, as almost every operator will continue to add weight to their tractor to compete in as many classes as possible. There is a seperate class for modified tractors which usually resemble drag racers, only they're tractors so it's not nearly as cool.
Once a first round on winners is determined, the three or five best pullers in each weight come back to pull again to determine the winner. Then prizes are handed out and everyone goes home.
Now as you might imagine, many of these supped up tractors are quite loud. Not only that, they smell like shit as they burn through enough diesel fuel to get a bus from Minnesota to Texas. At a time when gas prices only seem to be going up I think it's great that we can get together and waste fuel in such a pointless exercise. Oh wait, that's not great. As a matter of fact it's the exact opposite of great, horrible. I really can't think of any stupider way to waste diesel fuel. Well, maybe just straight up burning it, but that's another story.
Also included in town and county fairs are things called "horse pulls" which, if possible, are more boring than tractor pulls. The difference is that horse pulls waste nothing but time which is actually a benefit in a small town. Again, let me digress into explaining what happens at one of these pulls. A sled is loaded with concrete blocks. Two-horse teams are then hooked to the sled. The team has 10 seconds to pull the sled 20 feet (I think that's the distance). If any team is unable to pull the full distance then the weight of the sled and the progress they do make is marked as their final score. This seems simple, but weight is added gradually and each team pull once a round. It can take over 40 rounds before a winner is declared. So really, all there is to watch is a teams of horses pulling a steel sled back and forth over the same 60 ft of ground for two hours or more.
There is also a "pony pull" which is the exact same thing only with ponies instead of horses and the distance they must pull is less. I am informed that the east has a similar contest, the "ox pull" only the sled moves a matter of inches in each pull, I'm sure that it must be even more riveting.
Now, I'm not saying that any of that is "cruel to animals" or "bad for the environment," even though I could easily make that case. The fact is that these animals have been bred and trained for exactly this purpose, so to not use them in such a way is an insult to their genetic structure. The tractors have been painstakingly rebuilt and revamped to perform their best and the pulling is probably the closest alot of the viewers ever get to having "fun."
All I'm saying is that I think it's boring. Really, really boring. Maybe I need to get drunk to enjoy the spectacle, it seems to work for everyone else.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Things I Hate Pt. 2
I just spent some time poking around on Facebook, so I think it's about time for another rendition of Things I Hate.
Part of my job is to run around with a camera and take pictures of people doing various things. Sometimes they're working in their garden, sometimes it's a large group of people to show who's involved in a particular activity. The point is that there is usually a reason for a picture in the newspaper looking the way it does. Please note from this that I have nothing against photographs in general, nor against digital technology (other than the beef I have with all technology).
There is however a particular type of photograph that I really dislike. The pressed heads. This is the photo that results from a bunch of people getting their heads really close together and then taking a picture. Essentially what you're doing is creating a line-up of who was with you when the picture was taken. You get faces and little else. Digital technology has only made this type of shot more prevalent by allowing people to press heads and hold their digital camera out at arms length to take the picture themselves without fear of wasting a shot. Unless you all have some sort of crazy facepaint on this picture is pointless.
Now I know that this picture might be useful to you later when you're trying to remember who exactly came to the bar while you were busy dumping tequila down your throat, but it really isn't very interesting to anyone else.
Perhaps a better idea would be to hand off your camera to your designated driver (assuming that you have the intelligence to have one) and let them take pictures of you when you're shaking it on the table to Abba's Dancing Queen. Now that would be a picture worth showing off later.
I suppose that since I'm on the topic of people taking drunken pictures I should mention another common one. The "WOOOOO!" shot is that picture with a large group in which everyone's face is scrunched with eyes closed and mouth open as they're screaming loudly. I know you're drunk and everything, but it doesn't take much to recall that photos don't include sound. At best you look like you're trying to swallow flies or are part of a constipation support group.
Look, I'm not saying that taking a camera isn't a good idea. How else are you going to remember all the stupid things you did (not saying that like it's a bad thing). But maybe you could try taking some good pictures every once in a while, something interesting, rather than yelling heads.
Part of my job is to run around with a camera and take pictures of people doing various things. Sometimes they're working in their garden, sometimes it's a large group of people to show who's involved in a particular activity. The point is that there is usually a reason for a picture in the newspaper looking the way it does. Please note from this that I have nothing against photographs in general, nor against digital technology (other than the beef I have with all technology).
There is however a particular type of photograph that I really dislike. The pressed heads. This is the photo that results from a bunch of people getting their heads really close together and then taking a picture. Essentially what you're doing is creating a line-up of who was with you when the picture was taken. You get faces and little else. Digital technology has only made this type of shot more prevalent by allowing people to press heads and hold their digital camera out at arms length to take the picture themselves without fear of wasting a shot. Unless you all have some sort of crazy facepaint on this picture is pointless.
Now I know that this picture might be useful to you later when you're trying to remember who exactly came to the bar while you were busy dumping tequila down your throat, but it really isn't very interesting to anyone else.
Perhaps a better idea would be to hand off your camera to your designated driver (assuming that you have the intelligence to have one) and let them take pictures of you when you're shaking it on the table to Abba's Dancing Queen. Now that would be a picture worth showing off later.
I suppose that since I'm on the topic of people taking drunken pictures I should mention another common one. The "WOOOOO!" shot is that picture with a large group in which everyone's face is scrunched with eyes closed and mouth open as they're screaming loudly. I know you're drunk and everything, but it doesn't take much to recall that photos don't include sound. At best you look like you're trying to swallow flies or are part of a constipation support group.
Look, I'm not saying that taking a camera isn't a good idea. How else are you going to remember all the stupid things you did (not saying that like it's a bad thing). But maybe you could try taking some good pictures every once in a while, something interesting, rather than yelling heads.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Biological Terror in Our Own Minds
Once again I have a newspaper column I wrote that I want to get some more play out of. So here it is (apologies for the strange spacing)
Last year it was the e. coli contamination in our spinach. The year before that it was the Asian bird flu. The year before that it was SARS. And before that it was the Africanized honey bee.
We’re always looking for it here in America, the next big epidemic, that latest and greatest danger that will finally be arriving to usher in armageddon and end us all.
Are we really so gullible as a people? Do we really just believe everything we see on TV?
In the 1997 movie “Men in Black” Tommy Lee Jones says to Will Smith, “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”
I find that this quotation is uniquely suited to this situation, as I am more afraid of aliens invading the earth than I am of Asian bird flu.
Let’s look at the numbers. between 2003 and 2005 about 150 people worldwide died of the dreaded bird flu. Let’s compare this to some other random cause of death. How about car accidents, which account for 43,000 deaths in the US every year. That’s just over 117 deaths per day, about five deaths per hour.
But Ryan, you say, “you were talking about diseases, car crashes aren’t a disease.”
Well neither are bees, but I see your point. Let’s take our examples in a different direction.
What if bird flu had killed 7.2 million people worldwide in 2003? Then I might be a little bit concerned about it. Except bird flu didn’t kill 7.2 million people worldwide in 2003. No, that number is people who died of heart disease.
Who is worried about heart disease? I am now that I looked up the numbers, that’s for sure.
Next year I expect to hear about Guatemalan Kissing Sickness. Followed the following year by Kuala Lumpur Syndrome. These are just guesses of course, but now that they’ve been printed you should expect to see them showing up in other places. (I actually made those two up, so there’s no need to stop kissing).
But why oh why are these things being blown like they have been? What is the purpose of trying to scare honest, hardworking American taxpayers?
I have a theory. If the general populace were to actually feel threatened by Avian flu or any of the other outbreaks mentioned, there could be massive repercussions.
What if 80 percent of the population would no longer gather in public places for fear of infection? Public and commercial transportation including planes, trains, and buses would be hard hit. So would all professional sports. Churches could go either way, it depends on whether people want the comfort of divine presence or the safety of staying home more.
Surveys have been done which suggest that in light of an actual breakout most parents would keep their children home from school.
And what would everyone do while they were sitting in their homes shivering with fear and wolfing down anti-viral medications? They wold watch television, the very thing that informed them of the outbreak in the first place. Fear of disease and a “need” to know any news of the spreading biological menace would keep them glued to the tube, allowing advertisers to hold sway over a captive audience.
Maybe this all sounds a little over the top, but I told you before that it’s just my own theory.
Staying informed of the possibilities of new diseases is probably a good thing for you and your family, obsessing over them and worrying yourself sick over a foreign disease that might spread to the U.S. is pointless.
Last year it was the e. coli contamination in our spinach. The year before that it was the Asian bird flu. The year before that it was SARS. And before that it was the Africanized honey bee.
We’re always looking for it here in America, the next big epidemic, that latest and greatest danger that will finally be arriving to usher in armageddon and end us all.
Are we really so gullible as a people? Do we really just believe everything we see on TV?
In the 1997 movie “Men in Black” Tommy Lee Jones says to Will Smith, “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”
I find that this quotation is uniquely suited to this situation, as I am more afraid of aliens invading the earth than I am of Asian bird flu.
Let’s look at the numbers. between 2003 and 2005 about 150 people worldwide died of the dreaded bird flu. Let’s compare this to some other random cause of death. How about car accidents, which account for 43,000 deaths in the US every year. That’s just over 117 deaths per day, about five deaths per hour.
But Ryan, you say, “you were talking about diseases, car crashes aren’t a disease.”
Well neither are bees, but I see your point. Let’s take our examples in a different direction.
What if bird flu had killed 7.2 million people worldwide in 2003? Then I might be a little bit concerned about it. Except bird flu didn’t kill 7.2 million people worldwide in 2003. No, that number is people who died of heart disease.
Who is worried about heart disease? I am now that I looked up the numbers, that’s for sure.
Next year I expect to hear about Guatemalan Kissing Sickness. Followed the following year by Kuala Lumpur Syndrome. These are just guesses of course, but now that they’ve been printed you should expect to see them showing up in other places. (I actually made those two up, so there’s no need to stop kissing).
But why oh why are these things being blown like they have been? What is the purpose of trying to scare honest, hardworking American taxpayers?
I have a theory. If the general populace were to actually feel threatened by Avian flu or any of the other outbreaks mentioned, there could be massive repercussions.
What if 80 percent of the population would no longer gather in public places for fear of infection? Public and commercial transportation including planes, trains, and buses would be hard hit. So would all professional sports. Churches could go either way, it depends on whether people want the comfort of divine presence or the safety of staying home more.
Surveys have been done which suggest that in light of an actual breakout most parents would keep their children home from school.
And what would everyone do while they were sitting in their homes shivering with fear and wolfing down anti-viral medications? They wold watch television, the very thing that informed them of the outbreak in the first place. Fear of disease and a “need” to know any news of the spreading biological menace would keep them glued to the tube, allowing advertisers to hold sway over a captive audience.
Maybe this all sounds a little over the top, but I told you before that it’s just my own theory.
Staying informed of the possibilities of new diseases is probably a good thing for you and your family, obsessing over them and worrying yourself sick over a foreign disease that might spread to the U.S. is pointless.
Friday, July 6, 2007
"Jailbird" by the late Kurt Vonnegut
I don't have it in me today to post about politics, which it seems this blog has been primarily concerned with so far other than yesterday's bit about television.
So, as promised, I will be trying to review Kurt Vonnegut's "Jailbird."
Published in 1979, "Jailbird" is about a man you've never heard of who was stung by the Watergate scandal. Walter Starbuck's life seems, in most respects, to be a giant joke with a punchline of prison. Not very funny but then again books about economics rarely are.
If you think you didn't read that last sentence correctly, then I invite you to try again. But rest assured that this book is, in a manner of speaking about economics. It's basic philosophy is one of waxings and wanings that are ridden like surfers on waves by people participating in the system.
The main character is, by the end of his stay in prison, ready to be pushed around by the waves rather than swim against them. This lethargic floating leads him on a journey that takes only two days in reality but seems like much more as the years the old man has lived float by almost as if they were seperate protagonists themselves.
The oddity of the years, or so the author tells us, is that they really are like people. Each distinct with it's own markings and features, each belonging to groupings of other years. To this end, thoughout the novel years are written out and capitalized rather than being presented in numerals.
Vonnegut plays literary jokes like this all the time, another with numbers can be found in "Hocus Pocus" (1990) regarding how many people Eugene Debs Hartke has killed, which is incidentally equal to the number of women he's had sex with.
Yet another joke of Vonnegut's makes some play in the book, the appearance of pulp sci-fi writer Kilgore Trout.
Vonnegut himself thought that this work was one of his best, giving it an A when he self-rated it in chapter 18 of "Palm Sunday" The only books to score higher than A are Cat's Cradle and Slaughterhouse-Five which got A+s.
I feel less generous. I don't think that Jailbird deserves ranking equal to other Vonnegut works. It is a solid work, but nowhere near as engrossing as "Mother Night" which also got an A from Kurt.
While I am regretful to denegrate any work from a master like Vonneguy, the lack of focus in the novel was too great to entirely overcome. It jumps around from economic matters to love, to war and betrayal.
For this reason Jailbird receives a B+ from me.
So, as promised, I will be trying to review Kurt Vonnegut's "Jailbird."
Published in 1979, "Jailbird" is about a man you've never heard of who was stung by the Watergate scandal. Walter Starbuck's life seems, in most respects, to be a giant joke with a punchline of prison. Not very funny but then again books about economics rarely are.
If you think you didn't read that last sentence correctly, then I invite you to try again. But rest assured that this book is, in a manner of speaking about economics. It's basic philosophy is one of waxings and wanings that are ridden like surfers on waves by people participating in the system.
The main character is, by the end of his stay in prison, ready to be pushed around by the waves rather than swim against them. This lethargic floating leads him on a journey that takes only two days in reality but seems like much more as the years the old man has lived float by almost as if they were seperate protagonists themselves.
The oddity of the years, or so the author tells us, is that they really are like people. Each distinct with it's own markings and features, each belonging to groupings of other years. To this end, thoughout the novel years are written out and capitalized rather than being presented in numerals.
Vonnegut plays literary jokes like this all the time, another with numbers can be found in "Hocus Pocus" (1990) regarding how many people Eugene Debs Hartke has killed, which is incidentally equal to the number of women he's had sex with.
Yet another joke of Vonnegut's makes some play in the book, the appearance of pulp sci-fi writer Kilgore Trout.
Vonnegut himself thought that this work was one of his best, giving it an A when he self-rated it in chapter 18 of "Palm Sunday" The only books to score higher than A are Cat's Cradle and Slaughterhouse-Five which got A+s.
I feel less generous. I don't think that Jailbird deserves ranking equal to other Vonnegut works. It is a solid work, but nowhere near as engrossing as "Mother Night" which also got an A from Kurt.
While I am regretful to denegrate any work from a master like Vonneguy, the lack of focus in the novel was too great to entirely overcome. It jumps around from economic matters to love, to war and betrayal.
For this reason Jailbird receives a B+ from me.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
You Know What I Hate?
Yesterday, while I my girlfriend and I were hanging out with a friend of ours, the TV was tuned to an old staple of Network Television, "Full House."
I remember watching this show when I was a kid and thinking how stupid it was. But a show's lack of believable plot, less than cheesy voiceover and shooting locations doesn't keep a cable television network from rolling out reruns in one hour blocks.
I was reminded of one of my many rules of life, cultivated over many years of television mind captivity. TV shows that have to add a laugh track to tell you when a moment is funny really aren't that funny (every rule has exceptions, this one's is M*A*S*H*).
If you don't believe me then I'll pull out some anecdotal evidence andl use it as if it were scientific fact.
Just think back to a time when you had a few friends. Let's say for sake of our story that you and these "friends" of yours went out to a movie. Now the movie is kind of cheesy, but has a full audience. Jokes that normally you would smile at become laugh out loud funny when a group of people around you is laughing. All it takes is one person to start the laugh avalanche. I call this the Principle of Laugh Crescendo.
Now, what a standard network sitcom does is artificially inducing the PLC by means of laughter planted in the show's soundtrack. They've been using that same laughtrack since "I Love Lucy" in the 1950s the people you heard laughing on Friends, and still hear laughing on Dharma&Greg, are at least 77 years old. Either that or they're dead, and with the age expectancy at about 72 in this country I'm betting on dead.
I remember watching this show when I was a kid and thinking how stupid it was. But a show's lack of believable plot, less than cheesy voiceover and shooting locations doesn't keep a cable television network from rolling out reruns in one hour blocks.
I was reminded of one of my many rules of life, cultivated over many years of television mind captivity. TV shows that have to add a laugh track to tell you when a moment is funny really aren't that funny (every rule has exceptions, this one's is M*A*S*H*).
If you don't believe me then I'll pull out some anecdotal evidence andl use it as if it were scientific fact.
Just think back to a time when you had a few friends. Let's say for sake of our story that you and these "friends" of yours went out to a movie. Now the movie is kind of cheesy, but has a full audience. Jokes that normally you would smile at become laugh out loud funny when a group of people around you is laughing. All it takes is one person to start the laugh avalanche. I call this the Principle of Laugh Crescendo.
Now, what a standard network sitcom does is artificially inducing the PLC by means of laughter planted in the show's soundtrack. They've been using that same laughtrack since "I Love Lucy" in the 1950s the people you heard laughing on Friends, and still hear laughing on Dharma&Greg, are at least 77 years old. Either that or they're dead, and with the age expectancy at about 72 in this country I'm betting on dead.
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Social Security or Why We're Screwed in our Old Age
I wrote this column a while ago and it just saw print in the paper. In order to get more mileage out of things I've already done, I think I'll put it here too. Because it was originally in newspaper column format the spacing will be a little weird.
I’m a part of Generation Y, what some people call the net-geners. We grew up with the internet an use it as a tool to facilitate communication with little regard for race, color, religion or international borders.
And yet despite our freedom of communication we remain a disparate mass in the political system. While senior citizens make all of the decisions we sit on our hands and do nothing.
We find most political agendas laughable because they have nothing that interests or affects us.
One issue that continues to pop up affects us more than any other group and yet still we do nothing.
The issue is social security, that grand entitlement set up to ensure fiscal solubility to the elderly in a decreasingly family centered culture.
But now many financial analysts are predicting the dissolution of social security by 2019.
Why 2019, you ask? Because by that time there will have been an influx of 78 million baby boomers to the ranks of the retired.
That, coupled with the extended life expectancy that modern medicine offers has is currently strangling a program that is so well intentioned.
If a fix is in order then there are essentially three options, raising taxes, lowering benefits, or the establishment of personal accounts.
Now of course, the older population tends to favor the first option and abhor the second.
Young people polled favor the third option, understanding that the first two would hurt them immediately and in the future.
Really, a personal account system seems to make the most logical sense. Just let everyone pay for themselves.
But the older portion of the population is worried that such a system would leave them with no support, since it was not in place for them to pay into.
But no politician in his right mind would ever call for any of the three plans, well aware that the backlash would likely knock him so far out of elected office that he’d be lucky to end up on the city council of Moosejaw, Alaska.
The fact is that we need some sort of plan. Having none leaves us with a system that will crumble and fold in just a few years.
Something new has to be tried. It may not be comfortable for any of us, but something is better than nothing.
Generation Y is chock full of non-voters, comedian Jon Stewart has quipped that “the only way to get young people to vote is to establish a draft.”
Quite simply we’re far too apathetic about government to get anything done even though we’re the largest segment of the population.
The net effect of this is that over the next 15 years social security will be 3.8 trillion dollars in debt leaving nothing for the younger generation.
Maybe it’s time to bring out that well used political line: “Think of the children!”
Or perhaps it’s time for the children to start thinking about themselves. If social security is going to hell in a handbasket then maybe we should let it.
The years between the Great Depression and now have seen the advent of many new kinds of personal savings plans such as IRA’s and company matching 401k plans. Instead of making the federal government take care of us in our old age maybe we should take personal responsibility for our lives.
I know that social security constitutes the the majority of income for some seniors, and I empathize with them. But, if you don’t want to see the collapse of the social security system then maybe it’s time to start thinking about comprimise.
As a personal note to seniors who are gracious enough to read my outlandish ideas. Maybe when social security goes belly up you can borrow some money from your kids, god knows they borrowed enough of it from you over the years.
I’m a part of Generation Y, what some people call the net-geners. We grew up with the internet an use it as a tool to facilitate communication with little regard for race, color, religion or international borders.
And yet despite our freedom of communication we remain a disparate mass in the political system. While senior citizens make all of the decisions we sit on our hands and do nothing.
We find most political agendas laughable because they have nothing that interests or affects us.
One issue that continues to pop up affects us more than any other group and yet still we do nothing.
The issue is social security, that grand entitlement set up to ensure fiscal solubility to the elderly in a decreasingly family centered culture.
But now many financial analysts are predicting the dissolution of social security by 2019.
Why 2019, you ask? Because by that time there will have been an influx of 78 million baby boomers to the ranks of the retired.
That, coupled with the extended life expectancy that modern medicine offers has is currently strangling a program that is so well intentioned.
If a fix is in order then there are essentially three options, raising taxes, lowering benefits, or the establishment of personal accounts.
Now of course, the older population tends to favor the first option and abhor the second.
Young people polled favor the third option, understanding that the first two would hurt them immediately and in the future.
Really, a personal account system seems to make the most logical sense. Just let everyone pay for themselves.
But the older portion of the population is worried that such a system would leave them with no support, since it was not in place for them to pay into.
But no politician in his right mind would ever call for any of the three plans, well aware that the backlash would likely knock him so far out of elected office that he’d be lucky to end up on the city council of Moosejaw, Alaska.
The fact is that we need some sort of plan. Having none leaves us with a system that will crumble and fold in just a few years.
Something new has to be tried. It may not be comfortable for any of us, but something is better than nothing.
Generation Y is chock full of non-voters, comedian Jon Stewart has quipped that “the only way to get young people to vote is to establish a draft.”
Quite simply we’re far too apathetic about government to get anything done even though we’re the largest segment of the population.
The net effect of this is that over the next 15 years social security will be 3.8 trillion dollars in debt leaving nothing for the younger generation.
Maybe it’s time to bring out that well used political line: “Think of the children!”
Or perhaps it’s time for the children to start thinking about themselves. If social security is going to hell in a handbasket then maybe we should let it.
The years between the Great Depression and now have seen the advent of many new kinds of personal savings plans such as IRA’s and company matching 401k plans. Instead of making the federal government take care of us in our old age maybe we should take personal responsibility for our lives.
I know that social security constitutes the the majority of income for some seniors, and I empathize with them. But, if you don’t want to see the collapse of the social security system then maybe it’s time to start thinking about comprimise.
As a personal note to seniors who are gracious enough to read my outlandish ideas. Maybe when social security goes belly up you can borrow some money from your kids, god knows they borrowed enough of it from you over the years.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Running early might leave you winded by the end of the race
This year some political genius decided to start his canidate out early on the 2008 campaign trail. This means a new era in American Politics where we'll get to begin ignoring campaign ads even earlier than we have in the past. Oh what a brave new world we live in where the solution to people not caring anymore is to give them more of the same crap spread out over a longer period.
I want to start declaring right now who does and does not have a chance at office, but as my good friend James pointed out yesterday it is a little early to begin that sort of thing. For the next year or so it will be anyone's game.
The only thing I really see coming out of this is that now canidates have months to make some sort of silly faux pas that will make them the laughingstock of the voting public. Think John Kerry goes hunting or Micheal Dukakis rides in a tank only earlier and stupider. Of course with a longer period to commit these acts of idiocy in it could be that American taxpayers will just have more time to forget them or lose sight of them in the face of the latest scandal. Could we as a nation possibly have a shorter attention span?
Wait, what was I talking about again?
Taking a look at how campaigns have traditionally been run, candidates usually used primaries and the run-up to them to pander to their base and achieve the nomination nod. But with early campaigning and primaries being held earlier they seem to be stepping up their stepping out. Barack Obama for example made a comment which seems to be against affirmative action in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous. Hilary Clinton is catching flak from women of all people, some who think she's trying to be too "macho" by supporting the Iraq War. If the candidates aren't careful, they could end up alienating their base before primaries even get close.
If you need a reminder of how nearly impossible it is to secure the presidency without a party endorsement then I point to the glorious failure of Ross Perot.
George Washington did it, but he did have to single handedly win the country it's independence first. I understand his victory over the redcoats involved advanced mechanized tooth implants and an arm that converted into a cannon. My history is a little rusty though.
The problems aren't limited to the left. Republican candidates are undergoing close scrutiny by the media which could hurt them in the long run. Mitt Romney is having trouble with religion. As a member of the Jesus Christ Church of Latter-Day Saints (he's a mormon) he is finding that there's a fallout from long dead church dogma which allowed polygamy banned black people. He's also under fire for the church's anti-gay stance, but this has little risk since it is already part of the party base.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is having greater or equal troubles for his stance in support of abortion rights. This is a big no no if you're trying to court the GOP. Almost as bad are his wedding woes. It's hard to look like a secure family man when you've divorce twice already.
At the very least I think it can be said that the candidates, Democrat or Republican, don't plan on bombarding us with the same old party lines over and over in the next few months. But will we listen even if they're saying something different?
I want to start declaring right now who does and does not have a chance at office, but as my good friend James pointed out yesterday it is a little early to begin that sort of thing. For the next year or so it will be anyone's game.
The only thing I really see coming out of this is that now canidates have months to make some sort of silly faux pas that will make them the laughingstock of the voting public. Think John Kerry goes hunting or Micheal Dukakis rides in a tank only earlier and stupider. Of course with a longer period to commit these acts of idiocy in it could be that American taxpayers will just have more time to forget them or lose sight of them in the face of the latest scandal. Could we as a nation possibly have a shorter attention span?
Wait, what was I talking about again?
Taking a look at how campaigns have traditionally been run, candidates usually used primaries and the run-up to them to pander to their base and achieve the nomination nod. But with early campaigning and primaries being held earlier they seem to be stepping up their stepping out. Barack Obama for example made a comment which seems to be against affirmative action in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopolous. Hilary Clinton is catching flak from women of all people, some who think she's trying to be too "macho" by supporting the Iraq War. If the candidates aren't careful, they could end up alienating their base before primaries even get close.
If you need a reminder of how nearly impossible it is to secure the presidency without a party endorsement then I point to the glorious failure of Ross Perot.
George Washington did it, but he did have to single handedly win the country it's independence first. I understand his victory over the redcoats involved advanced mechanized tooth implants and an arm that converted into a cannon. My history is a little rusty though.
The problems aren't limited to the left. Republican candidates are undergoing close scrutiny by the media which could hurt them in the long run. Mitt Romney is having trouble with religion. As a member of the Jesus Christ Church of Latter-Day Saints (he's a mormon) he is finding that there's a fallout from long dead church dogma which allowed polygamy banned black people. He's also under fire for the church's anti-gay stance, but this has little risk since it is already part of the party base.
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is having greater or equal troubles for his stance in support of abortion rights. This is a big no no if you're trying to court the GOP. Almost as bad are his wedding woes. It's hard to look like a secure family man when you've divorce twice already.
At the very least I think it can be said that the candidates, Democrat or Republican, don't plan on bombarding us with the same old party lines over and over in the next few months. But will we listen even if they're saying something different?
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Doing what's popular. Bashing Bush.
I know I said that the next post was going to be about the canidates making a big show in their early campaigning and why that's the stupidest thing since the Scopes monkey trial, but some breaking news has come to my attention.
Nearly everyone who hasn't been hiding under a rock must have heard about the firing of attorney general Alberto Gonzalez. The firing was called for on all levels, but the Bush administration fought against it every step of the way.
They continue to fight against the Justice Department even now, with President Bush trying to ignore subpoenas handed down on June 13 calling for the white house to hand over internal communications from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.
If you'd like to read a bit about this before my rant then it can be found herehttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19480518/
Who does this bastard think he is? He's not a king. His word isn't law. I'm inclined to agree with Patrick Leahy by saying that this kind of presidential flaunting of the judicial system hasn't been seen since the days of Richard Milhouse Nixon.
The question that burns in my mind is how exactly did the GOP leadership decide that this ass clown, this chunder monkey was the one who should get their nomination seven years ago. On one hand we had a decent, honorable and well spoken war veteran (John McCain) and on the other we had a gibbering baboon who went AWOL from the national guard and can't seem to get out a few sentences of a prewritten speech without murdering a piece of the english language.
There are times when I wonder about Bush. Is he really a stupid puppet with Cheney's hand up his ass squeezing his prostate to make him talk, or is he in fact a very canny fellow pretending to be a moron so that people will expect less of him and let their guard down? It's really up in the air.
Next year chances are good that we'll be handing a Republican's war to a Democrat who wants nothing more than to balance the budget (who was the last president to do that again?).
There are people out there still who are blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11 and yet I get the feeling that few of those same people are going to recall who got us into our current situation in the Middle East, which I would describe as a very sandy Vietnam.
But I've strayed from the original subject of my outrage and gotten into why I generally hate the president.
Simply put I think that this whole presidency is a bunch of crap. The white house has already closed its eyes (prior to 9/11) to terrorism to concentrate on missile defense (Reagan's ridiculous Rube Goldberg "Star Wars" system), wiped it's ass with the bill of rights by suspending habeas corpus for terrorism suspects, now it's just generally pissing on the constitution by pretending that checks and balances, written as a mainstay of our political system, don't really matter.
In America nobody, not even the president, is above the law.
This kind of crap is almost enough to make me wish the 747 that hit the Pentagon had gone for the White House instead.
If I don't post again in the next week then you'll know the secret service tracked me down and shipped me to Guantanamo for that last remark.
Nearly everyone who hasn't been hiding under a rock must have heard about the firing of attorney general Alberto Gonzalez. The firing was called for on all levels, but the Bush administration fought against it every step of the way.
They continue to fight against the Justice Department even now, with President Bush trying to ignore subpoenas handed down on June 13 calling for the white house to hand over internal communications from former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor.
If you'd like to read a bit about this before my rant then it can be found here
Who does this bastard think he is? He's not a king. His word isn't law. I'm inclined to agree with Patrick Leahy by saying that this kind of presidential flaunting of the judicial system hasn't been seen since the days of Richard Milhouse Nixon.
The question that burns in my mind is how exactly did the GOP leadership decide that this ass clown, this chunder monkey was the one who should get their nomination seven years ago. On one hand we had a decent, honorable and well spoken war veteran (John McCain) and on the other we had a gibbering baboon who went AWOL from the national guard and can't seem to get out a few sentences of a prewritten speech without murdering a piece of the english language.
There are times when I wonder about Bush. Is he really a stupid puppet with Cheney's hand up his ass squeezing his prostate to make him talk, or is he in fact a very canny fellow pretending to be a moron so that people will expect less of him and let their guard down? It's really up in the air.
Next year chances are good that we'll be handing a Republican's war to a Democrat who wants nothing more than to balance the budget (who was the last president to do that again?).
There are people out there still who are blaming Bill Clinton for 9/11 and yet I get the feeling that few of those same people are going to recall who got us into our current situation in the Middle East, which I would describe as a very sandy Vietnam.
But I've strayed from the original subject of my outrage and gotten into why I generally hate the president.
Simply put I think that this whole presidency is a bunch of crap. The white house has already closed its eyes (prior to 9/11) to terrorism to concentrate on missile defense (Reagan's ridiculous Rube Goldberg "Star Wars" system), wiped it's ass with the bill of rights by suspending habeas corpus for terrorism suspects, now it's just generally pissing on the constitution by pretending that checks and balances, written as a mainstay of our political system, don't really matter.
In America nobody, not even the president, is above the law.
This kind of crap is almost enough to make me wish the 747 that hit the Pentagon had gone for the White House instead.
If I don't post again in the next week then you'll know the secret service tracked me down and shipped me to Guantanamo for that last remark.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
A New Start in a New Place
So...I have my own blog now. How exciting for me. Now all I need is something to write about. Maybe I can start by letting everyone know what to expect from me. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Once upon a time I had a blog. It wasn't really a blog, but more like an online diary. I did some complaining about my life, a little bit of expounding on issues I felt were relavent and some posting of short stories and poetries I had written.
You can expect to find more of the same here, though probably with less complaining about the life I lead since it is (all things considered) fairly fulfilling and fun.
A little bit about me: I was one of the multitude of upper middle class children in America who felt like college was yet another hurdle expected of me in life. I went to the University of Northern Iowa even though I wasn't really interested in being there. I don't mean that the subjects I studied were uninteresting, but I feel as though I could have gotten just as well educated if I and a few of my friends from high school had read the same books and had a few frank discussions. It was interesting to speak with some of the professors, though it seemed as if the majority of them were there just so that they could avoid doing work in the real world. In some ways, I feel like professors are students who were too afraid to leave school (or ran back to them in shame in some cases). I realize that this is a rather pretentious thing for someone with a Liberal Arts BA to say, but that's the way I feel.
After I graduated I moved out of Iowa to Wisconsin. Meaning I moved from one state in the middle of nowhere to a state close to Canada. I managed, after several months of unemployment, to land a job at a small town newspaper (pretty much exactly what I wanted) as a reporter/editor. Why did I move to Wisconsin instead of a mecca of culture like new york or LA? Well, first of all I never, ever want to live in LA no matter what any job their offers to pay me. The same goes for New York only to a slightly lesser degree. I'd move their for a hundred thousand a month. Also my girlfriend lived in Wisconsin at the time and I'd do just about anything to be near her (love makes fools of all men [and some women]).
Small town life (not too small) suits me. I like to have ready access to things like trees and rivers (ones that don't burn when you drop a match in them). I actually don't live in the town where I work, but commute from a nearby college town. Though the college life is not mine anymore, I do like to stay in touch with it.
As you've no doubt gathered (unless you started at this line for some odd reason) I come from the Midwest and like it here. As near as I can tell it's the only sane place left in the continental United States (Jury's out on Hawaii and Alaska, I don't have much data on them). From California's frivolous lawsuits to Florida's reputation for the bizarre I'm not sure how much longer Midwest sensibility is going to last if it stays stuck in the middle. Maybe California really will fall off into the ocean. I'm praying for 'the big one.'
Speaking of prayers I guess you might call me an agnostic. In a bit of self loathing, it should be noted that I hate agnostics. Dirty fence sitters, why don't you just make up your mind and believe in rational scientific observation or have the balls to take a few things of faith. I was once a Catholic, but when transubstatiation was finally explained to me I said "Really? You all really believe that this is flesh and blood you're eating?" That was enough for me. I'm as liberal as the next guy (I was going to say as liberal as anyone but that's just not true [more on this later]) but I just don't think symbolic cannibalism is for me. My girlfriends father once gave me the best advice on religion I've ever had. He said "you can belong to any church you want, you still believe whatever it is that you believe. A camp ranger gave me the second best advice when he pointed to the forest said, "We had our kids baptized, but my God, he's out there."
Moving on to politics. I guess I'm a liberal, or at least I've been called one. I think Universal Health Care would be great, if someone could find a way to make it work. I think social security is fine, but it can't continue in it's current form or it will go belly up by 2010. I love the outdoors, I also like to fish and hunt. Inheritance is stupid, if you didn't earn it then you shouldn't have it (Paris Hilton, case in point [you will hopefully never hear anything about that stupid whore ever again]). I don't have a stance on abortion, not possessing a uterus means that I don't think I'm entitled to an opinion. I also think that guns are awesome, though you probably could have extrapolated this from what I said about hunting. I think there are too many humans on this planet, though what is to be done about that problem I have no idea. Having a black president would be cool, but Obama is probably a bad choice. The same is true for a woman president, but Hillary Clinton probably couldn't be any worse than either Bush was/is. I'd really like to see John McCain make a strong showing, but with him polling in the single digits it doesn't seem very likely. My good friend James once told me that my politics are so twisted that assigning me to left or right on a political spectrum was an impossibility. I'd say that I agree with our first president, Mr. George Washington, who thought that political parties were bad for the country as they were too dividing. I also feel that left or right is a stupid direction to drag political discourse which should be aimed at moving us forward.
I don't think I mentioned yet that I love to read. Unfortunately with my new job being pretty much entirely reading and writing I am often left without the inclination to do either at the end of the day. Be that as it may, expect to see an occasional book review posted here.
This post has already stretched far longer than I meant it to, so I'll be cutting it off here. In the near future expect to see a commentary on presidential canidates and why beginning to run in 2007 for a 2008 election is moronic. Also in the works is a review of the late, great Kurt Vonnegut's "Jailbird" and Tom Robbins' "Villa Incognito."
Cheers,
Ryan
Once upon a time I had a blog. It wasn't really a blog, but more like an online diary. I did some complaining about my life, a little bit of expounding on issues I felt were relavent and some posting of short stories and poetries I had written.
You can expect to find more of the same here, though probably with less complaining about the life I lead since it is (all things considered) fairly fulfilling and fun.
A little bit about me: I was one of the multitude of upper middle class children in America who felt like college was yet another hurdle expected of me in life. I went to the University of Northern Iowa even though I wasn't really interested in being there. I don't mean that the subjects I studied were uninteresting, but I feel as though I could have gotten just as well educated if I and a few of my friends from high school had read the same books and had a few frank discussions. It was interesting to speak with some of the professors, though it seemed as if the majority of them were there just so that they could avoid doing work in the real world. In some ways, I feel like professors are students who were too afraid to leave school (or ran back to them in shame in some cases). I realize that this is a rather pretentious thing for someone with a Liberal Arts BA to say, but that's the way I feel.
After I graduated I moved out of Iowa to Wisconsin. Meaning I moved from one state in the middle of nowhere to a state close to Canada. I managed, after several months of unemployment, to land a job at a small town newspaper (pretty much exactly what I wanted) as a reporter/editor. Why did I move to Wisconsin instead of a mecca of culture like new york or LA? Well, first of all I never, ever want to live in LA no matter what any job their offers to pay me. The same goes for New York only to a slightly lesser degree. I'd move their for a hundred thousand a month. Also my girlfriend lived in Wisconsin at the time and I'd do just about anything to be near her (love makes fools of all men [and some women]).
Small town life (not too small) suits me. I like to have ready access to things like trees and rivers (ones that don't burn when you drop a match in them). I actually don't live in the town where I work, but commute from a nearby college town. Though the college life is not mine anymore, I do like to stay in touch with it.
As you've no doubt gathered (unless you started at this line for some odd reason) I come from the Midwest and like it here. As near as I can tell it's the only sane place left in the continental United States (Jury's out on Hawaii and Alaska, I don't have much data on them). From California's frivolous lawsuits to Florida's reputation for the bizarre I'm not sure how much longer Midwest sensibility is going to last if it stays stuck in the middle. Maybe California really will fall off into the ocean. I'm praying for 'the big one.'
Speaking of prayers I guess you might call me an agnostic. In a bit of self loathing, it should be noted that I hate agnostics. Dirty fence sitters, why don't you just make up your mind and believe in rational scientific observation or have the balls to take a few things of faith. I was once a Catholic, but when transubstatiation was finally explained to me I said "Really? You all really believe that this is flesh and blood you're eating?" That was enough for me. I'm as liberal as the next guy (I was going to say as liberal as anyone but that's just not true [more on this later]) but I just don't think symbolic cannibalism is for me. My girlfriends father once gave me the best advice on religion I've ever had. He said "you can belong to any church you want, you still believe whatever it is that you believe. A camp ranger gave me the second best advice when he pointed to the forest said, "We had our kids baptized, but my God, he's out there."
Moving on to politics. I guess I'm a liberal, or at least I've been called one. I think Universal Health Care would be great, if someone could find a way to make it work. I think social security is fine, but it can't continue in it's current form or it will go belly up by 2010. I love the outdoors, I also like to fish and hunt. Inheritance is stupid, if you didn't earn it then you shouldn't have it (Paris Hilton, case in point [you will hopefully never hear anything about that stupid whore ever again]). I don't have a stance on abortion, not possessing a uterus means that I don't think I'm entitled to an opinion. I also think that guns are awesome, though you probably could have extrapolated this from what I said about hunting. I think there are too many humans on this planet, though what is to be done about that problem I have no idea. Having a black president would be cool, but Obama is probably a bad choice. The same is true for a woman president, but Hillary Clinton probably couldn't be any worse than either Bush was/is. I'd really like to see John McCain make a strong showing, but with him polling in the single digits it doesn't seem very likely. My good friend James once told me that my politics are so twisted that assigning me to left or right on a political spectrum was an impossibility. I'd say that I agree with our first president, Mr. George Washington, who thought that political parties were bad for the country as they were too dividing. I also feel that left or right is a stupid direction to drag political discourse which should be aimed at moving us forward.
I don't think I mentioned yet that I love to read. Unfortunately with my new job being pretty much entirely reading and writing I am often left without the inclination to do either at the end of the day. Be that as it may, expect to see an occasional book review posted here.
This post has already stretched far longer than I meant it to, so I'll be cutting it off here. In the near future expect to see a commentary on presidential canidates and why beginning to run in 2007 for a 2008 election is moronic. Also in the works is a review of the late, great Kurt Vonnegut's "Jailbird" and Tom Robbins' "Villa Incognito."
Cheers,
Ryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)