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.
Friday, August 10, 2007
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)