Rush Limbaugh made an issue of a column written by David Brooks in the New York Times yesterday, so I read the column myself to see what gave him cause to make such a fuss about it. Limbaugh thought it was shallow and nonsensical.
After reading Mr. Brooks’ column, The Flock Comedies, I decided to revise my own column for this week. I had one all ready to go, but this subject has been on my mind for a while, especially after I viewed a couple of sitcoms that featured a similar theme. That theme was masturbation.
I am not writing this from a religious standpoint, and those of you who know me well are aware that I am anything but a religious person. No, I’m opining over the lack of decency we are seeing these days on TV and in the other media.
Perhaps you’ll call me a prude, but I don’t think that discussion of masturbation between mixed sex groups—or for that matter, between same sex groups—is appropriate, realistic or the least bit funny. In other than a sex education class, or a psychiatrist’s office, I don’t think it is a topic for conversation. Period!
I won’t dignify the shows by naming them, but the topic was not only talked about openly by the loving couple, but also by their co-workers and other close friends. Of course there was the usual canned laugh track to make it appear to be comical. I guess that if you put a laugh track on a non-humorous, unrealistic conversation enough times, some people are going to believe it really is funny.
Well, I for one, don’t! I think it is a symptom of the degradation of our society that we can take a private and personal matter and make it seem to be an everyday topic around the drink cooler or in the bar or restaurant.
I don’t want you to misinterpret me. I am not naïve, and I’m not waging war against the act, only against the portrayal of it as a topic for sitcom humor. If that makes me a prude, then so be it. It still bothers me to hear people use foul language in mixed company, too.
When decency ends, respect ends with it, and we have little enough respect for each other as it is without exacerbating the lack of it.
You might want to read The Flock Comedies in the New York Times 10/21 edition for yourself. I obviously made a connection with it.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Asian Stinkbugs
I was up in Maryland last weekend, and I was introduced to a phenomenon that we don’t yet have here in Georgia. However, on doing some research, I found that it has spread across the most of the northern United States. It is what we have to call a pestilence, because it is a huge infestation of bugs.
The big news lately is the spread of bedbugs, but that is not what I am referencing. No, I found the Asian stinkbug, more commonly known as the brown marmorated stinkbug. They are, as the old saying goes, “thick as flies” up there.
I hate to pick on Asia, but it appears that the bedbugs and the Asian stinkbugs both came from Asia, probably hitching a ride on clothing or other goods being shipped to the United States. I can’t believe that it was a planned and purposeful invasion, but it certainly does present some huge problems at a time when it is the last thing we need.
In case you have never seen one of these critters, this is what they look like. They are about 1/2 –inch long, and unfortunately, they have wings. They are good fliers.
While the bedbugs will bite you and might carry disease (unproven, so far) the stinkbug is just a pest, and I guess it produces a noxious odor, which gives it its name. I didn’t get a chance, thank God, to experience the “stink,” but I was assailed by the little monsters with their hooked feet that cling to clothing and skin. Believe me, they are nasty.
The spread of the stinkbugs is as insidious as that of the bedbug. Both are able to hide in cars and clothing. They are both very prolific, and can reproduce in short cycles, so even if you don’t have any infestation yet, you can expect one shortly. I suspect we helped by driving back here in our minivan. We found two stinkers in the car on the way home, so who knows how many more were along for the ride?
The reason I am relating this to you at all is that there are apparently some treatments you can use to rid yourself of the brown marmorated stinkbug. While temperatures above 130 degrees can kill the bedbug, the stinkbugs are susceptible to soapy water and some chemicals. I won’t even attempt to tell you which ones, or how to treat for them, but you can do some research on Yahoo, or Google, or Bing to learn the best methods.
You had better be prepared, because it looks like the stinkbugs are coming, and they are up in Maryland by the millions.
The big news lately is the spread of bedbugs, but that is not what I am referencing. No, I found the Asian stinkbug, more commonly known as the brown marmorated stinkbug. They are, as the old saying goes, “thick as flies” up there.
I hate to pick on Asia, but it appears that the bedbugs and the Asian stinkbugs both came from Asia, probably hitching a ride on clothing or other goods being shipped to the United States. I can’t believe that it was a planned and purposeful invasion, but it certainly does present some huge problems at a time when it is the last thing we need.
In case you have never seen one of these critters, this is what they look like. They are about 1/2 –inch long, and unfortunately, they have wings. They are good fliers.
While the bedbugs will bite you and might carry disease (unproven, so far) the stinkbug is just a pest, and I guess it produces a noxious odor, which gives it its name. I didn’t get a chance, thank God, to experience the “stink,” but I was assailed by the little monsters with their hooked feet that cling to clothing and skin. Believe me, they are nasty.
The spread of the stinkbugs is as insidious as that of the bedbug. Both are able to hide in cars and clothing. They are both very prolific, and can reproduce in short cycles, so even if you don’t have any infestation yet, you can expect one shortly. I suspect we helped by driving back here in our minivan. We found two stinkers in the car on the way home, so who knows how many more were along for the ride?
The reason I am relating this to you at all is that there are apparently some treatments you can use to rid yourself of the brown marmorated stinkbug. While temperatures above 130 degrees can kill the bedbug, the stinkbugs are susceptible to soapy water and some chemicals. I won’t even attempt to tell you which ones, or how to treat for them, but you can do some research on Yahoo, or Google, or Bing to learn the best methods.
You had better be prepared, because it looks like the stinkbugs are coming, and they are up in Maryland by the millions.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Smoking and Health Isses
I’m going to start this column with a disclaimer: I do not advocate, nor do I encourage smoking. I know from personal experience that it is easy to become addicted and difficult to break the addiction. Probably the reason for that is that it is both habit and addiction. You have to break both the addiction to nicotine and the habit of oral stimulus to succeed.
Further, I have no conclusive proof for what I believe to be true of smoking. Maybe the federal government should use some of those boondoggle grants to fund a study on the topic. Lord knows, they fund enough other goofy studies.
Okay, enough on that… Here is the “Kline Theory on the Cessation of Smoking and the Onset of health Issues.”
Those of us who have smoked cigarettes for any length of time and in any quantity of a-pack-a-day or more, and have subsequently quit smoking, have developed health problems within a year or so of quitting. I find that disturbing, and I attribute it to immune system breakdown that follows the cessation. (Examples to follow) Therefore, I postulate that there is a correlation between the two, and that either:
1. Nicotine addiction stimulates the immune system, or
2. Nicotine withdrawal suppresses the immune system.
Either way, it is almost a sure thing that a person who smoked and then quits will suffer some debilitating health problems shortly thereafter. These range from arthritis to cardio-vascular disease, to—the reason you quit in the first place—cancer. There may be others, but those are the ones I know about.
I quit smoking due to an eight-week seminar held by SmokeEnders, an entity that might no longer exist. That was on March 6, 1980. In September of 1980 I suffered chest pains and was hospitalized and catheterized. The diagnosis was coronary artery disease. I have had a coronary artery bypass, six angioplasties and two stents, a ICD/pacemaker implant and a coronary ablation in the thirty years since that event.
It would take too much space and open too many old wounds to detail the rest of the cases of people I know, or knew, who quit smoking only to be plagued by health issues a short time later. However, there are over a dozen instances I can think of where the two were directly related. Some have resulted in continued disability, while others were fatal.
The key factor in my theorizing about the causal effect of quitting smoking and the onset of disease is that I cannot think of a single case where a smoker I know gave up the habit and didn’t develop some health issues. You might conjecture that maybe they got that way due to age alone, but even younger quitters seem to have the syndrome, if I can call it a syndrome.
Think about the people you know who also have been smokers and quit, only to get sick soon afterwards of an apparently unrelated cause. It isn’t always cancer that is caused by smoking, you know. That and emphysema are only the culprits the American Cancer Society targets.
So, what’s the moral of the story? I don’t want to leave you with no hope for smokers you might know, or for yourself, if you are a smoker. Here is the remainder of my theory: If you are a smoker, or you know someone who is, and you haven’t developed a long-time, heavy habit, by all means quit. I don’t think it applies to the casual smoker. If longevity and high use are established, then I recommend that you don’t quit altogether, but cut your usage to fewer than a pack per day. Find a substitute that works equally well to suppress your addiction and your habit.
Of course, the best prevention is not to ever get started with smoking. I sure wish I hadn’t.
Further, I have no conclusive proof for what I believe to be true of smoking. Maybe the federal government should use some of those boondoggle grants to fund a study on the topic. Lord knows, they fund enough other goofy studies.
Okay, enough on that… Here is the “Kline Theory on the Cessation of Smoking and the Onset of health Issues.”
Those of us who have smoked cigarettes for any length of time and in any quantity of a-pack-a-day or more, and have subsequently quit smoking, have developed health problems within a year or so of quitting. I find that disturbing, and I attribute it to immune system breakdown that follows the cessation. (Examples to follow) Therefore, I postulate that there is a correlation between the two, and that either:
1. Nicotine addiction stimulates the immune system, or
2. Nicotine withdrawal suppresses the immune system.
Either way, it is almost a sure thing that a person who smoked and then quits will suffer some debilitating health problems shortly thereafter. These range from arthritis to cardio-vascular disease, to—the reason you quit in the first place—cancer. There may be others, but those are the ones I know about.
I quit smoking due to an eight-week seminar held by SmokeEnders, an entity that might no longer exist. That was on March 6, 1980. In September of 1980 I suffered chest pains and was hospitalized and catheterized. The diagnosis was coronary artery disease. I have had a coronary artery bypass, six angioplasties and two stents, a ICD/pacemaker implant and a coronary ablation in the thirty years since that event.
It would take too much space and open too many old wounds to detail the rest of the cases of people I know, or knew, who quit smoking only to be plagued by health issues a short time later. However, there are over a dozen instances I can think of where the two were directly related. Some have resulted in continued disability, while others were fatal.
The key factor in my theorizing about the causal effect of quitting smoking and the onset of disease is that I cannot think of a single case where a smoker I know gave up the habit and didn’t develop some health issues. You might conjecture that maybe they got that way due to age alone, but even younger quitters seem to have the syndrome, if I can call it a syndrome.
Think about the people you know who also have been smokers and quit, only to get sick soon afterwards of an apparently unrelated cause. It isn’t always cancer that is caused by smoking, you know. That and emphysema are only the culprits the American Cancer Society targets.
So, what’s the moral of the story? I don’t want to leave you with no hope for smokers you might know, or for yourself, if you are a smoker. Here is the remainder of my theory: If you are a smoker, or you know someone who is, and you haven’t developed a long-time, heavy habit, by all means quit. I don’t think it applies to the casual smoker. If longevity and high use are established, then I recommend that you don’t quit altogether, but cut your usage to fewer than a pack per day. Find a substitute that works equally well to suppress your addiction and your habit.
Of course, the best prevention is not to ever get started with smoking. I sure wish I hadn’t.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
The Proposed Transaction Tax
I always try to avoid politics and religion in my columns, but every so often there is a collision between one of those topics and another subject, which I want to address. This is one of those instances, so I will warn you up front that there is a political aspect to this column. Therefore, those of you whom I know would be offended are invited to stop here and go on to something more pleasing to you.
However, if you have read this far, I want to warn you that everyone will be impacted by the legislation in a very negative way, and you really should learn about it before it becomes the law of the land. If we are to stop its passage, we need every concerned citizen to join the cause.
There has been a lot of traffic on the e-mail circuit about a proposed 1% transaction tax that Congress is likely to pass in the “lame duck” session between November and January. Some claim that the transaction tax is just a rumor, an urban legend to scare people into voting out the present majority.
I would agree with that assessment if I didn’t have living proof that the Speaker of the House was questioned about it publicly, and stated (her exact words), “I think the idea still has great merit.” My proof? http://tinyurl.com/24dn5ud. Some things you can fake, but this isn’t one of those.
The latest message I received has a final line that I assume is the opinion of one of the forwarders. “Some will say aw its just 1%… Remember that once they pass it they can raise it at will.”
I strongly disagree with that statement. A 1% tax on every single transaction is HUGE.
First of all, every dollar that passes through your possession is two transactions, one to earn it and one to spend it. And that is only your tax. The entity that gives you the money, whether by check, cash, or direct deposit is also taxed at 1%. The entity that you give the money to is also taxed at 1%. So every dollar is actually taxed at 4% each time it is transferred to you and from you.
It is a fact of business life that the employee or consumer ultimately pays the business tax through less income or higher fees, so we have to double the tax every time you transact any business whether it is income or expense.
Here is an example of how much that 1% tax can grow:
You receive a payment of $1,000 from your employer. From that amount, $10 is deducted from you and another $10 is deducted from your employer—2 transactions.
You only have a net of $990. It is also probable that your actual pay should have been $10 higher, but your employer passed the transaction tax on to you in lost wages.
You deposit the $990 in your checking account. You only get credit for $980.10—that is, if your bank will eat the $9.90 tax they have to pay. If they don’t, your checking account will show a deposit of $971.20.
Are you following me so far?
You later decide to make an ATM withdrawal of $200. Well, you get the full $200, but your checking account shows a withdrawal of $204—that is, if the bank doesn’t charge ATM fees.
You write a check for $120 to the cable provider. Your account is depleted by $121.20. The cable company has probably already added the transaction tax to your bill, so you actually got billed $1.20 more for your service than you would have otherwise paid.
I could go on and on with this, but I think I can summarize your transaction taxes on that $1,000 earned income after you only spent $320 of it.
Let’s see, you lost $20 when you got paid, another $18.80 when you deposited the money, still another $4 when you used the ATM, and $2.40 when you paid your cable bill. That adds up to $45.20. By my reckoning, that means that you paid a transaction tax of 4.52%, and you still have bills to pay and food, gas, clothing and other staples to buy.
Do you see where this is going?
It is completely possible that your transaction tax on that $1,000 could be as high as the number of transactions make it, possible exceeding 10%. And none of that is deductible on your income tax forms. Oh yes, it also does nothing to reduce your income tax and payroll tax that is deducted from the wages to get that $1,000 in the first place.
"Now, tell me again that it is “only 1%.”
(Welcome to the Tea Party)
However, if you have read this far, I want to warn you that everyone will be impacted by the legislation in a very negative way, and you really should learn about it before it becomes the law of the land. If we are to stop its passage, we need every concerned citizen to join the cause.
There has been a lot of traffic on the e-mail circuit about a proposed 1% transaction tax that Congress is likely to pass in the “lame duck” session between November and January. Some claim that the transaction tax is just a rumor, an urban legend to scare people into voting out the present majority.
I would agree with that assessment if I didn’t have living proof that the Speaker of the House was questioned about it publicly, and stated (her exact words), “I think the idea still has great merit.” My proof? http://tinyurl.com/24dn5ud. Some things you can fake, but this isn’t one of those.
The latest message I received has a final line that I assume is the opinion of one of the forwarders. “Some will say aw its just 1%… Remember that once they pass it they can raise it at will.”
I strongly disagree with that statement. A 1% tax on every single transaction is HUGE.
First of all, every dollar that passes through your possession is two transactions, one to earn it and one to spend it. And that is only your tax. The entity that gives you the money, whether by check, cash, or direct deposit is also taxed at 1%. The entity that you give the money to is also taxed at 1%. So every dollar is actually taxed at 4% each time it is transferred to you and from you.
It is a fact of business life that the employee or consumer ultimately pays the business tax through less income or higher fees, so we have to double the tax every time you transact any business whether it is income or expense.
Here is an example of how much that 1% tax can grow:
You receive a payment of $1,000 from your employer. From that amount, $10 is deducted from you and another $10 is deducted from your employer—2 transactions.
You only have a net of $990. It is also probable that your actual pay should have been $10 higher, but your employer passed the transaction tax on to you in lost wages.
You deposit the $990 in your checking account. You only get credit for $980.10—that is, if your bank will eat the $9.90 tax they have to pay. If they don’t, your checking account will show a deposit of $971.20.
Are you following me so far?
You later decide to make an ATM withdrawal of $200. Well, you get the full $200, but your checking account shows a withdrawal of $204—that is, if the bank doesn’t charge ATM fees.
You write a check for $120 to the cable provider. Your account is depleted by $121.20. The cable company has probably already added the transaction tax to your bill, so you actually got billed $1.20 more for your service than you would have otherwise paid.
I could go on and on with this, but I think I can summarize your transaction taxes on that $1,000 earned income after you only spent $320 of it.
Let’s see, you lost $20 when you got paid, another $18.80 when you deposited the money, still another $4 when you used the ATM, and $2.40 when you paid your cable bill. That adds up to $45.20. By my reckoning, that means that you paid a transaction tax of 4.52%, and you still have bills to pay and food, gas, clothing and other staples to buy.
Do you see where this is going?
It is completely possible that your transaction tax on that $1,000 could be as high as the number of transactions make it, possible exceeding 10%. And none of that is deductible on your income tax forms. Oh yes, it also does nothing to reduce your income tax and payroll tax that is deducted from the wages to get that $1,000 in the first place.
"Now, tell me again that it is “only 1%.”
(Welcome to the Tea Party)
Saturday, September 25, 2010
The Road Not Taken
I use a line for a Robert Frost poem as the title for this column, because it fits so well with what we all do from time to time. That is, we choose a path and it might or might not be the right one to take, but we never know what the alternative may have produced. In this instance, as you’ll see, I took both paths, and I was pleasantly surprised by what I would have missed had I not done so.
I flew to Portland, Oregon last week to complete the sightseeing I missed on my auto trip last year. My main objective was to visit Hells Canyon, which straddles the Oregon-Idaho border. That entailed my driving clear across Oregon from Portland to the town of La Grande, a 250-mile trip via I-84. My hotel for the first night was in La Grande, and much of the driving was after sunset. However, the most scenic part along the Columbia River Gorge was during daylight hours, and the scenery was gorgeous (if you’ll pardon the pun).
Driving along I-84, you hug the Columbia River most of the way, and you see towering cliffs alongside the highway on the Oregon side, while the Washington side has huge hills topped by lots of wind generators. There is traffic visible on the Washington side, but it is mostly up on the hillsides away from the river.
I decided to drive back from my eastern Oregon visit on the opposite side of the gorge to see what the Oregon side would look like from there. Since the drive would be all in the daylight, I determined to cross well upriver from Portland to see as much as possible.
Crossing at the town of Umatilla, I started along Highway 14. It isn’t an interstate road, and has only two lanes and opposing traffic all the way, but the speed limit is 65, and there isn’t nearly as much traffic. Especially lacking are the huge 18-wheelers, though there are some of them. I was able to maintain a good pace, and the scenery from the elevated roadway was impressive.
What I didn’t even suspect was the sights that would be visible on the Washington side. There are several large wineries where you can stop and sample wines, and some have full service restaurants as well. The vineyards are huge and dot the hillsides, though none of this was visible from I-84.
Further along Highway 14, there was a sign pointing to the left that said, “Stonehenge.” I had to investigate that, and it turns out that there is a full-sized replica of that famous old stone monument in England. This one was built by a early 1900’s millionaire named Sam Hill as a monument to the men of Klickitat County who gave their lives in WW I. This Stonehenge isn’t all crumbling like the original. It is made of concrete and it has the same calendar aspect of its namesake. It also has plaques with the names and dates of the 13 men who are immortalized there. Sam Hill is buried down the hill from Stonehenge, but the gravesite isn’t easily accessible, and is nothing to look at.
Stonehenge wasn’t the only thing Sam Hill built above the Columbia Gorge. He built an entire town, which he named Maryhill in honor of his daughter, a loop road that is said to be the first paved road in America, and a mansion called (appropriately) Maryhill. That building is still preserved today as a museum of art, and is well worth a visit. It sits on the bluffs about two miles from Stonehenge and overlooks the river. On clear days, you can also get a wonderful view of Mount Hood from both landmarks, too.
My GPS system wanted to route me down the hill from Stonehenge to the Sam Hill Memorial Bridge and across to I-84, but I would have missed the Maryhill Museum and a lot more of the road and tunnels along the Washington side, so I turned off the GPS and followed my own course. I’m glad I did, too, because I was afforded great views of those cliffs over on the Oregon side of the Columbia River, which are also topped by some hills that sport the wind generators as well.
All in all, I could have spent the entire day and then some just exploring the sights along Highway 14 on the north side of the Columbia River Gorge. It was an experience and I’m certainly glad that I took that road as well as the interstate highway.
I flew to Portland, Oregon last week to complete the sightseeing I missed on my auto trip last year. My main objective was to visit Hells Canyon, which straddles the Oregon-Idaho border. That entailed my driving clear across Oregon from Portland to the town of La Grande, a 250-mile trip via I-84. My hotel for the first night was in La Grande, and much of the driving was after sunset. However, the most scenic part along the Columbia River Gorge was during daylight hours, and the scenery was gorgeous (if you’ll pardon the pun).
Driving along I-84, you hug the Columbia River most of the way, and you see towering cliffs alongside the highway on the Oregon side, while the Washington side has huge hills topped by lots of wind generators. There is traffic visible on the Washington side, but it is mostly up on the hillsides away from the river.
I decided to drive back from my eastern Oregon visit on the opposite side of the gorge to see what the Oregon side would look like from there. Since the drive would be all in the daylight, I determined to cross well upriver from Portland to see as much as possible.
Crossing at the town of Umatilla, I started along Highway 14. It isn’t an interstate road, and has only two lanes and opposing traffic all the way, but the speed limit is 65, and there isn’t nearly as much traffic. Especially lacking are the huge 18-wheelers, though there are some of them. I was able to maintain a good pace, and the scenery from the elevated roadway was impressive.
What I didn’t even suspect was the sights that would be visible on the Washington side. There are several large wineries where you can stop and sample wines, and some have full service restaurants as well. The vineyards are huge and dot the hillsides, though none of this was visible from I-84.
Further along Highway 14, there was a sign pointing to the left that said, “Stonehenge.” I had to investigate that, and it turns out that there is a full-sized replica of that famous old stone monument in England. This one was built by a early 1900’s millionaire named Sam Hill as a monument to the men of Klickitat County who gave their lives in WW I. This Stonehenge isn’t all crumbling like the original. It is made of concrete and it has the same calendar aspect of its namesake. It also has plaques with the names and dates of the 13 men who are immortalized there. Sam Hill is buried down the hill from Stonehenge, but the gravesite isn’t easily accessible, and is nothing to look at.
Stonehenge wasn’t the only thing Sam Hill built above the Columbia Gorge. He built an entire town, which he named Maryhill in honor of his daughter, a loop road that is said to be the first paved road in America, and a mansion called (appropriately) Maryhill. That building is still preserved today as a museum of art, and is well worth a visit. It sits on the bluffs about two miles from Stonehenge and overlooks the river. On clear days, you can also get a wonderful view of Mount Hood from both landmarks, too.
My GPS system wanted to route me down the hill from Stonehenge to the Sam Hill Memorial Bridge and across to I-84, but I would have missed the Maryhill Museum and a lot more of the road and tunnels along the Washington side, so I turned off the GPS and followed my own course. I’m glad I did, too, because I was afforded great views of those cliffs over on the Oregon side of the Columbia River, which are also topped by some hills that sport the wind generators as well.
All in all, I could have spent the entire day and then some just exploring the sights along Highway 14 on the north side of the Columbia River Gorge. It was an experience and I’m certainly glad that I took that road as well as the interstate highway.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Airborne Again
After eight years of non-flying, I finally decided it was time to try it out again. It wasn’t fear of flying after 9/11—I did fly in January of 2002, but I just got tired of winging it, and wanted to enjoy road travel. As you know, Judy and I do a lot of that.
If you never worked for an airline, then it is difficult for me to describe the joys of NRSA travel. On my first attempt out of Dallas I was able to watch the flight I was standing by for depart the gate without me. However, I did manage to get the very last seat on the next departure a mere four hours later.
My seat for the flight from Dallas to Portland, Oregon was 33F, a window seat right next to the engine nacelle on the MD-80. It wasn’t noisy, and there was a neat aspect to it. On taxi out to the runway I noticed that there were a lot of dragonflies, and it was really cool to watch them buzz along unsuspecting and get sucked into the engine. Wow, they really gain speed on the way in!
I am also happy to report to you that the ingestion of dragonflies does not disable or in any way affect the operation of the MD-80. They seem to pass right through. Unlike that US Air flight that Captain Sullenberger had to ditch in the Hudson River after the bird strike, our aircraft was completely unsullied (unsullenbergered?) by the encounter with the dragonflies.
I am writing this column at 32,000 feet above the Rockies en route to Portland, where I will rent a car and drive across Oregon to see Hells Canyon, the sight that I missed on last year’s road trip. However, I won’t be doing the loop trip. The road is washed out part way around, so I’ll have to do a “U” trip instead, but I anticipate that it will be great. I have the whole day to do the 500-mile trek, though I may cut part of it out if what I saw from the air on the way over really is snow up in the passes.
If the weather holds, I also intend to drive up to Mt. Saint Helens from the south to see it from where Spirit Lake used to be. It is now called Windy Ridge, and that ought to be interesting if it lives up to its name.
For some of you I will create my usual journal with photos. This time I’ll probably do it after I return home, so you won’t see it for a week or so. Stand by…
If you never worked for an airline, then it is difficult for me to describe the joys of NRSA travel. On my first attempt out of Dallas I was able to watch the flight I was standing by for depart the gate without me. However, I did manage to get the very last seat on the next departure a mere four hours later.
My seat for the flight from Dallas to Portland, Oregon was 33F, a window seat right next to the engine nacelle on the MD-80. It wasn’t noisy, and there was a neat aspect to it. On taxi out to the runway I noticed that there were a lot of dragonflies, and it was really cool to watch them buzz along unsuspecting and get sucked into the engine. Wow, they really gain speed on the way in!
I am also happy to report to you that the ingestion of dragonflies does not disable or in any way affect the operation of the MD-80. They seem to pass right through. Unlike that US Air flight that Captain Sullenberger had to ditch in the Hudson River after the bird strike, our aircraft was completely unsullied (unsullenbergered?) by the encounter with the dragonflies.
I am writing this column at 32,000 feet above the Rockies en route to Portland, where I will rent a car and drive across Oregon to see Hells Canyon, the sight that I missed on last year’s road trip. However, I won’t be doing the loop trip. The road is washed out part way around, so I’ll have to do a “U” trip instead, but I anticipate that it will be great. I have the whole day to do the 500-mile trek, though I may cut part of it out if what I saw from the air on the way over really is snow up in the passes.
If the weather holds, I also intend to drive up to Mt. Saint Helens from the south to see it from where Spirit Lake used to be. It is now called Windy Ridge, and that ought to be interesting if it lives up to its name.
For some of you I will create my usual journal with photos. This time I’ll probably do it after I return home, so you won’t see it for a week or so. Stand by…
Saturday, September 11, 2010
A Modest Proposal
(See My Weekly Wisdom Column of April 25, 2009 – Go Green!)
Okay, you’ve finally convinced me that global warming really does exist. We really do need to do everything we can to conserve energy and develop new green technology to save Mother Earth.
I am going to propose some radical steps that we should have taken long ago. I don’t have any hard facts to back up the energy waste, or in this case, the savings. However, I have seen some of the statistics that others use to justify the use of the new CFC light bulbs. I have read that we waste huge amounts of energy and spew tons and tons of carbon into our atmosphere merely by leaving our computers and television sets running 24/7—albeit in “sleep” mode.
Now I have thought of two other wastes of power with the attendant spillage of carbon into our fragile environment. Here they are.
First, we have to stop broadcasting late night TV. Shows like The Tonight Show, Late Night with whoever replaced Conan O’Brien, Jimmy Kimmel Live. And all those hardcore and softcore pornography films that always seem to be shown late at night have to go. It not only wastes tons of electricity, but it also pollutes our airwaves with a lot of filth.
I suggest that we go back to a format for all stations where they play the National Anthem of whichever country originates the broadcast, and put that wonderfully nostalgic “test pattern” back on immediately after the local nightly news, sports and weather. That stays on for five minutes and then it’s “Nighty-night.”
Just think of all the electricity we would save be limiting broadcasting to 18 hours a day instead of the present 24/7.
Now, if you enjoy the late night shows–and I guess a lot of us do–then I say they put them on earlier in the evening so we can all enjoy them. After all, we all wax nostalgic over the earlier generation of television shows, like “The Ed Sullivan Show,” “Your Show of Shows,” “Texaco Star Theater,” “The Colgate Comedy Hour” and many more. They used the same theme as these modern-day late night shows, and everybody loved them. Let’s get them back!
My second proposal is even better than the first. It not only will save precious fuel, but will also get rid of some pretty obnoxious people and plots. It ties in with the first proposal, too.
We have to give up movies!
Well, maybe not all movies, but how about we stop making “B-grade” films. That would eliminate about ninety percent of the junk that is shown these days. If a film is really good, it could be produced as a DVD or Blue Ray film and sold in stores immediately upon release. The tendency is to do just that about two months after they hit the theaters anyway.
Some of the more controversial movies, horror flicks and chick flicks and other genres, seem to become boring after about an hour, so why not produce them for some of these rogue TV stations that show junk and old reruns now? (Nothing past 11:30 PM though) Producers should be able to limit the length to one hour by editing and cutting out all the crap they currently include.
Taking away the large screen movie theater would not only give us a better class of films, but it would keep all those cars and SUVs and such off the roads at night. Home entertainment is the way of today, so nobody should be forced to drive to a theater and pay exorbitant rates to see a picture.
There is the added benefit of all the gasoline we can save. And there are a lot of second-rate actors that would have to work for a living instead of giving us their poor performances.
Just think! We can actually bring back the “good old days” at the same time we conserve on energy and save the planet by putting my two proposals into effect. We might even change the moral tone of our society too.
Okay, you’ve finally convinced me that global warming really does exist. We really do need to do everything we can to conserve energy and develop new green technology to save Mother Earth.
I am going to propose some radical steps that we should have taken long ago. I don’t have any hard facts to back up the energy waste, or in this case, the savings. However, I have seen some of the statistics that others use to justify the use of the new CFC light bulbs. I have read that we waste huge amounts of energy and spew tons and tons of carbon into our atmosphere merely by leaving our computers and television sets running 24/7—albeit in “sleep” mode.
Now I have thought of two other wastes of power with the attendant spillage of carbon into our fragile environment. Here they are.
First, we have to stop broadcasting late night TV. Shows like The Tonight Show, Late Night with whoever replaced Conan O’Brien, Jimmy Kimmel Live. And all those hardcore and softcore pornography films that always seem to be shown late at night have to go. It not only wastes tons of electricity, but it also pollutes our airwaves with a lot of filth.
I suggest that we go back to a format for all stations where they play the National Anthem of whichever country originates the broadcast, and put that wonderfully nostalgic “test pattern” back on immediately after the local nightly news, sports and weather. That stays on for five minutes and then it’s “Nighty-night.”
Just think of all the electricity we would save be limiting broadcasting to 18 hours a day instead of the present 24/7.
Now, if you enjoy the late night shows–and I guess a lot of us do–then I say they put them on earlier in the evening so we can all enjoy them. After all, we all wax nostalgic over the earlier generation of television shows, like “The Ed Sullivan Show,” “Your Show of Shows,” “Texaco Star Theater,” “The Colgate Comedy Hour” and many more. They used the same theme as these modern-day late night shows, and everybody loved them. Let’s get them back!
My second proposal is even better than the first. It not only will save precious fuel, but will also get rid of some pretty obnoxious people and plots. It ties in with the first proposal, too.
We have to give up movies!
Well, maybe not all movies, but how about we stop making “B-grade” films. That would eliminate about ninety percent of the junk that is shown these days. If a film is really good, it could be produced as a DVD or Blue Ray film and sold in stores immediately upon release. The tendency is to do just that about two months after they hit the theaters anyway.
Some of the more controversial movies, horror flicks and chick flicks and other genres, seem to become boring after about an hour, so why not produce them for some of these rogue TV stations that show junk and old reruns now? (Nothing past 11:30 PM though) Producers should be able to limit the length to one hour by editing and cutting out all the crap they currently include.
Taking away the large screen movie theater would not only give us a better class of films, but it would keep all those cars and SUVs and such off the roads at night. Home entertainment is the way of today, so nobody should be forced to drive to a theater and pay exorbitant rates to see a picture.
There is the added benefit of all the gasoline we can save. And there are a lot of second-rate actors that would have to work for a living instead of giving us their poor performances.
Just think! We can actually bring back the “good old days” at the same time we conserve on energy and save the planet by putting my two proposals into effect. We might even change the moral tone of our society too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)