Tuesday, February 27, 2007

I Want One

Now that would be far better next to the big screen than that useless bookcase.


Monday, February 26, 2007

Got Nuts?

First some useless waste of public space tries to ban 'indecent mudflaps' in Arizona.

Now another equally useless public servant tries to to ban fake bull balls.
In Maryland, Delegate LeRoy E. Myers, Jr. filed for House Bill 1163. If passed, this bill, entitled "Vehicle Laws-Display of Anatomically Correct Body Parts-Prohibition," will [prohibit] a person from displaying on a motor vehicle a specified item that depicts or resembles anatomically correct, less than completely or opaquely covered, human or animal genitals, human buttocks, or human female breasts; and [apply] a specified penalty to the offense." The bill is still in its first reading.


Now without regard to good taste, what next? Maybe farmers will now have to hang curtains around their bulls. If fake ones are so terrible what must the sight of real ones be? For that matter, owners of male dogs may soon be required to take action.

Apparently there are no real problems to deal with.


Sunday, February 25, 2007

How's That Workin' For Ya

The Bakersfield Californian has been up in arms as Cal Trans stiffs the taxpayers again. Guess what? So has the LA Times, claiming LA county didn't get their fair share.

Here we go. Just as anyone with a little knowledge about politics ought to know. But no, the voters had the proverbial carrot dangled in their faces and passed all those absurd bond measures that were going to fix our roads.

We in Kern county in particular are being ignored by the head of our Cal Trans district offices because we didn't place the onus of an additional half-cent sales taxes upon ourselves. Stupid taxpayers. No roads for you. The highway nazis have spoken.
Today's editorials in TBC even went so far as to berate us for our short vision of not paying more to get our share.

Does this sound like extortion to anyone else?


Monday, February 19, 2007

Global Warming

Hot topic. HA!
Naw, I'm going to be serious for a change. With the release of the UN report and continued hysteria by the major media it appalls me to hear how little some people know about the subject, even people that think they know. If you just keep repeating Al Gore's line well so much for that bullshit agenda. It spite of Mr. Gore there are many real scientist who if they don't believe otherwise at least take a more moderate view of the problem.


Yes it's a long ten part read but well worth it. When you are using science you never speak in absolutes. Real science involves open data, open methods, peer review and a willingness to change conclusions and methods if so indicated. Stating that global warming is real and the debate is over is NOT science.

Personally I think there certainly are indicators of a warming trend. There is a fair chance that human activity may be contributing to that trend but nowhere near a certainty. There is very little information as to what we could do about it that would make a difference. Now I'm not a pro-industry kind of guy. I have very little love of mega-corps and their ways. I believe in saving open land and forests, saving water and having clean air to breath. But I have no desire to sit in the dark and be uncomfortable too.

Neither does just about anyone else. This fear mongering is mostly the work of 'Greens'. The usual 'pro-environment, people are always bad, why aren't you a nofat organic brown rice vegetarian with a useless degree that shows how much smarter than you I am' types. The UN has the credibility of a panhandler holding up a 'Will work for Food' sign. Do you really think if the global economic powerhouses will sign on to a treaty and then China and India will start curbing the billions of tons of CO2 they produce then please see me about a bridge I've got a great deal on.

There are lots of things we could do better. Why is practically every vehicle on the planet petroleum powered? Not because we couldn't do better. Do the current energy companies want alternate fuels. Hell no. There is no real incentive to change something that is so profitable for them. Different fuels would require giant capital investments for them. They're not letting go. If ethanol takes off they will simply start buying up the production and selling it themselves while producing feel good commercials telling us what good citizens they are for making it and how smart we're being by buying 80 ethn fuel and saving the planet(and that btw is not an answer to either petro fuels or global warming).

Oddly it comes down to strange bedfellows. Isn't it always so? When money is the only real driving force of our government, well, most of us are left as nothing but subjects, ruled by a government of incompetence bought by corporations with a myopic view so narrow the only thing they see is a bottom line. Those often well meaning but sometimes just crazy agenda driven chicken littles are faced with throwing out these fearful scenarios of doom to even be heard. The media so starved to put anything sensational on to draw advertising for the mega-corps advertising dollars overplay it and just repeat verbatim the press releases rather than do news gathering (if they're lucky some quasi celebrity will die and they can change gears for a couple of weeks). The politicians will continue to say they're working to fix the problems but are too busy raising money to get re-elected and not offend the big money donors. The masses will all say how something ought to be done but then go back to watching TV and getting another fix of reality from American Idol.

Now if you really want to worry.



Tuesday, February 13, 2007



Berlin - BMW drivers have more sex than owners of any other cars and are much more active than Porsche drivers, a new German car magazine has found.

The German magazine Men's Car found in a survey of 2 253 motorists aged 20 to 50 published in its inaugural May issue that male BMW drivers say they have sex on average 2,2 times each week while Porsche drivers have sex 1,4 times per week.

Well that explains one person I know! HA!


Friday, February 09, 2007


I heard about this on Bob & Tom this morning.


A theatre in Florida had to change the title of a charity production of The Vagina Monologues on its marquee, after a woman complained that it was offensive.

The new name? They decided on 'The Hoohaa Monologues'.

Then, they had to change it back after the play's producers said that the lack of offense was offensive.

Atlantic Theatres in Atlantic Beach, Florida, received a complaint from a woman who'd seen the advertised title as she drove past with her niece. She said that it had made her niece ask her what a vagina was.

The theatre's Bryce Pfanenstiel commented: 'I'm on the phone and asked “What did you tell her?” She's like, “I'm offended I had to answer the question.”'

Let see, she's old enough to be able to read the word yet doesn't know the proper name of her own body part. And an older relative can't explain it without embarassment? I'm guessing pregnant high school dropout living in a trailer park someday.
Ya gotta just love Florida. Along with Texas, they're in their own little world.

And as they talked about on B&T what should they call Jeb Bush now?


Thursday, February 08, 2007

Python Trek

Just in case you're fans of both like myself.


Friday, February 02, 2007

Big Trouble

You're in big trouble now! You made us over react and look like fools.


Thursday, February 01, 2007

Bright Idea

Well here goes the nanny state again.


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

Now before anyone goes nuts here let me explain. In my head I count about 25 CFLs around my own house with about another dozen standard fluorescent tubes in places like under kitchen cabinets and in the garage. There are probably as many incandescent bulbs. Why? Well I like to save money (man you should see my PG&E bill) but CFLs are not well suited for many uses. You can't use them in dimmer curcuits and I have several of those. I've had really bad luck with CFL flood lights. They die way too soon. I'm guessing the heat buildup is too much in many fixtures designed for standard flood lights. When you consider the cost they are nowhere near worth it.

Now regular spiral CFLs that are about shaped like A bulbs are great. The cost is way down too. I often buy packs of 4-6 for about $1.50 a bulb. Good price and they work well. And I see lots of other people using them too. But they often produce ugly light. When I'm in my den watching TV I often turn the dimmers down to produce a darker warmer light with less glare.

There are much bigger wasters of electricity. Stores that are closed all night with 100% of their parking lot lights on, all night. Office buildings with A/C units running all year.

This guy has no clue however. I have no clue where he is coming from either (well maybe I do). I saw this clown interviewed last night and he basically said because consumers are too stupid to change over we now need a law. Estimates are that light consumes about 20% of the average electric bill. So look at my case. How much of that is already energy efficient. Probably more than half because the CFL represent the heavy use lights as well. Places like the kitchen. the bath, the hallway and outdoor security lights on photocells that run all night. The dimmer circuits are often at reduced levels so they are saving power too.

So let me ask who is stupid. Taking away peoples' choices and imposing the view of arrogant politicians and bureaucrats is stupid. There are better ways to encourage change.

Voting this guy out of office might be a start.