November 30, 2005

PANTS BY MC ESCHER

[Building on a post from The Man of GOP and the City, which you should read (it's short & mostly visual) to get the full effect.]

MoveOn.org has a new ad out, which includes a shot of "American troops stuck in Iraq".

Trouble is, they used a picture of British troops in the video, one of whom is wearing shorts (which are not part of the American uniform).

Normally I'd just say "buncha dumbasses" and ignore it, but as we all know, it's not the lie, it's the cover-up that'll bring you down.

In the sidebar picture, they show Mr. Shorts wearing pants.

But not just ANY pants - the same exact pants as the guy standing next to him.

This presents some problems, since they're not standing at the same angle, but they hoped no one would notice.

Sorry guys, it's just not your day.

Links to some VERY big pictures follow, so it might take a while on dial-up, but I wanted you to have the full effect.

First, a screenshot of the MO.O site, so you can see the pictures side-by-side (and as proof that it actually happened, in case they take it down - remember: ALWAYS GET A SCREENSHOT).

Second, greatly enlarged side-by-side comparison of the fake pic (left) and the real pic (right). In the fake pic, notice that the camoflage pattern - right down to the wrinkles and reflection of the sunlight - is EXACTLY the same on both pairs (with allowances for distortion due to photoshopping).

Yet if you look at their feet, you'll see that they're standing at different angles. Which makes for a VERY strange effect for the left soldier: although his right foot is slightly behind him, and you should see the butt-crack of his pants (as you do in the shorts pic), you actually see the front of his pants, which made me think of Escher's "Belvedere" and thus the title of this post.

Anyway, I suggest that MO.O remove the ad, apologize for misleading the American people, and fire the guy who came up with the idea for posting the fake picture.

UPDATE: Tiny thumbnails of very large pictures:

First:

move on fakery.jpg

Second:

side by side pants.jpg

Posted by: Harvey at 08:35 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 3 kb.

November 28, 2005

ON MOURNING

Pam of Pamibe lost her mother recently. She turned off comments on her post, but I suppose you can leave some words here, if you'd like.

Being an adoptee, Pam asks an interesting question about whether being adopted has an effect on the depth of her mourning:

"I feel disloyal, wondering how a birthchild would feel in my place. Would the connection be broader, sharper, as a branch of the family tree is snapped off? The pain more deeply felt, the sadness a seemingly endless well?"

Short answer, no.

My father went after a lingering illness, and since I knew it was coming, I got a good deal of my mourning finished before his body quit.

You'll feel the loss in stabbing bits and pieces, as you stumble over moments when you think "Mom would like this" before remembering that she's gone. It won't be a constant thing. It'll catch you off guard when you least expect it, but each time it bleeds a little less, until the wound is healed and all that's left is the scar of loving memory, where the flesh is bright and strong.

No more pain. Just the reminder.

Cherish the memories and tell her stories so that her light will still shine.

Posted by: Harvey at 11:31 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

November 27, 2005

HOW TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS

An interesting comment in this post:

You are planning to volunteer for the military, right? I mean, "support the troops" is more than just an empty slogan for you, right?

The fact that I spent 4 years on a floating nuclear missile target (aka aircraft carrier) during the Cold War aside, I think the author of that question has an exceedingly narrow view of what "support" means.

You don't need to be firing a gun in theater to "support the troops". In addition to men, a successful military campaign also needs supplies and good morale - the will to stay in the battle until victory.

The most you can do to "support the troops" from the homefront is to actively provide material or morale. Send them armor, send them cookies, send them a postcard. It all helps.

The least you can do to "support the troops" is stay out of the way while they get the job done. You don't even have to so much as say "hi" to a soldier on the street. Just live your life as a productive citizen leading a normal life. Believe it or not, it DOES help troop morale just to know that the country they're fighting for is safe and comfortable - to know that there's a land of sanity to return to when the job is done.

What DOESN'T support the troops is denigrating the mission. Arm-chair quarterbacking that the troops aren't doing a good job, or that they're doing the wrong job. It's corrosive and eats away at morale.

Now, to the commenter's credit, he's not following the third option. He's merely evaluating some events in Iraq in a more pessimistic light. I won't hold that against him.

But I wonder if he's thought through the full logic of his chicken-hawk argument. If the only people who can be considered as "supporting the troops" are those who're in combat, then aren't the only people with the right to criticize the war the people working for the Department of Defense who have full access to ALL the relevant information about conditions in the field?

If I have to pick up a rifle or shut up, they have to get a job at the Pentagon or shut up.

Posted by: Harvey at 09:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.

October 21, 2005

ARE YOU GROWING A BEARD, OR DID YOU JUST STOP SHAVING?

Jim of Parkway Rest Stop is musing about the how & why of beard-growing.

As a Facial-Hair-Enhanced-American, I can relate.

I've had my crumb-catcher since about 30-seconds after I was discharged from the Navy, so some people might suspect that I grew it simply because I could.

Mostly true.

However, the other part of my justification is that I have a long, thin face. Combined with a hairline that's been abnormally high since I was a kid (and is slowly but surely receding), there was simply too much skin showing. I desperately needed to bring some balance to my visage.

Now, as to Jim's observation on upkeep:

In most cases, one has to regularly trim that sucker, which involves not only a razor, but also scissors and a fair amount of time. To me, that sounds like more of a pain in the ass than a daily three-minute zip, zip zip with a Mach III.

Yeah, not doing a full-face shave WAS part of the attraction. At the rate my whiskers grow, 24 hours does NOT allow enough stubble to grow for my razor to get a good grip on the tiny hairs. Result - a patchy-looking shave and plenty of irritated skin.

Now, I *do* shave my throat and take out any strays along the edges (see Little Joe's quote in the right sidebar), but I only do so every 48 hours, which lets me whack the shadow right down to the follicle every time without irritation. I can live with that. No one accuses me of "not shaving", because - Hey! I have a beard!

As for trimming the beard itself, that's only a little scissoring every couple weeks, and a 15-minute run-through with the electric beard-trimmer about once a month. Timewise, I think I come out ahead.

However, I admit that beards aren't for everyone. If yours is thin & patchy, then you're better off riding the razor-pony. But if you've got the caveman genetics to pull it off, then it's a pretty good deal.

Not to mention the fact that some women find beards VERY attractive. I've had plenty of women who were complete strangers give in to the temptation to touch it.

You naked-faced guys will never know the pleasure.

Posted by: Harvey at 03:04 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 397 words, total size 2 kb.

October 07, 2005

WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE AN INSULT?

Jen of Jennifer's History & Stuff asks an interesting question:

Can someone (like say an older white Christian male) who uses the phrase "Jew him down" still be considered a generally decent person? Or should we assume he knows darn well that what he's saying is anti-Semitic?

I'd assume it was a matter of habit & social isolation.

Back in my Navy days, an otherwise charming Southern boy was discussing some improvisational repairs to an automobile and described it as being "nigger-rigged".

While chatting with a group that was predominantly black.

One of the gentlemen of color asked him incredulously to repeat what he just said.

And he said it again, with an innocent and puzzled look on his face, perhaps a little surprised that his friends weren't familiar with what he considered a common colloquialism.

One of the black guys defused the situation by suggesting that perhaps he meant "jury-rigged".

Right about then, the light dawned on this poor kid, who blushed and apologized profusely. Everyone accepted and the conversation moved on. Apparently, he always just thought of the phrase as its meaning and never contemplated the implied racial slur.

Sometimes people use words like that.

Anyway, is "Jew him down" really that offensive? I've always assumed it meant "to negotiate an exceptionally good price" - a compliment to the statistical propensity Jews have for business success.

Apparently some people think it means something else. Damned if I know what.

And at the extreme end, some people see racism and discrimination in even the most innocent sentences, the PC equivalent of Guatemalans seeing the Virgin Mary in every tortilla.

Personally, I say give him the benefit of the doubt. Until and unless he displays a pattern of overt racist behavior, just assume that it's a figure of speech and don't take it personally.

And ain't it just mighty white of me to be so open-minded?

Posted by: Harvey at 10:36 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

October 04, 2005

ARTISTIC NITPICKING

Since I poked Serenity in the eye over a couple small technical details (minor spoilers at the link), I thought I'd share some of my other common complaints about TV & movie unrealism (which are not directed specifically at Firefly):

Control panels full of randomly blinking lights - 99% of these lights should be either on or off to tell you their status. As a general design rule, blinking is usually reserved for an abnormal status. The only exceptions I know for this are hard drive or modem activity.

Control panels should also have their buttons, switches, & lights LABELED - When was the last time you saw an unlabeled button on ANY electronic device? Your radio, your VCR, and even your remote control have crap written all over them... yet you're just supposed to GUESS which button to push on a nuclear reactor?

Factories or basements with leaky steam pipes - When you have a steam leak, you call the mechanic and FIX it (having worked in a ship's engine room for 4 years, I speak from experience).

Pipes ALSO have labels.

Super-fast computers that display new lines of text on their screens s-l-o-w-l-y, one letter at a time in green monochrome with a DOS caret at the front of the line - Have these writers even TOUCHED a computer built within the last 20 years?

And don't even get me started on the big blinking "ACCESS DENIED" warning. (Swordfish was especially bad with this one).

Yes, I know it's just an exercise of artistic license to make a plot point and that I should try to relax.

I'm just saying that I notice it.

Posted by: Harvey at 08:25 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

September 30, 2005

PROBLEM SOLVING

Lynn of Reflections in D Minor examines some ways to think like a genius, and asks the obvious question on this one:

"Look at problems in many different ways, and find new perspectives that no one else has taken (or no one else has publicized!)"

Uh... okay. How do you do that?

The answer is simple... stare at the problem until an idea pops into your head. Dismiss it because it's trite and unoriginal.

Repeat as often and for as many hours as necessary until something original hits you.

Normally I don't have to do this for more than 3 or 4 hours max before something clicks, although sometimes - if I'm very lucky - it only takes a few minutes.

You probably think I'm kidding, but it's actually how I manage to do most of my assignment-based humor pieces for the Alliance & the IMAO podcast.

It's a crude, brute-force technique, but it DOES work.

Sucks the life right out of ya, though.

By the way, if you think the jokes that I post are bad, you should see the ones that never made it out of my skull.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:10 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 194 words, total size 1 kb.

September 29, 2005

MEN DON'T NOTICE

Bloggranddaughter ArmyWifeToddlerMom is fussing about her weight & her body shape, so I thought I'd try to cheer her up by explaining how men look at women.

When we initially spot a woman, we give her a quick scan, head-to-toe (usually consisting of hair, eyes, lips, boobs, hips & legs), making mental notes of which parts are good and which parts are... REALLY good.

Then we completely ignore the merely good parts and spend our time rotating between staring at the various REALLY good parts.

Once we've got the short list & the rotation pattern, those merely good parts are completely invisible.

You could have an ass the size of Montana. We don't care. We're too busy alternating between wondering what it'd be like to kiss those lips and fantasizing about going face-first into that cleavage you're showing off.

Seriously. If you've got ONE good feature for a man to lock eyes on, you're beautiful.

Of course, MY problem is that my eye muscles are always exhausted, because - being married to TNT - my rotation pattern contains about 300 stops...

Posted by: Harvey at 05:00 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

CRAZED BUREAUCRACY OR QUEST FOR HEALTHY BABIES?

You may have seen the BBC News story about the hospital in West Yorkshire that instituted a "no cooing over babies" policy. The subheading on the story makes it sound like the place has been commandeered by foamy-mouthed baby-rights advocates:

A West Yorkshire hospital has banned visitors from cooing at new-born babies over fears their human rights are being breached and to reduce infection.

I think the BBC news version is slanted a bit to make the hospital look more unreasonable than it is.

The local coverage in the Halifax Courier is a little more in-depth and offers a better collection of quotes from those involved, making it look more like the hospital was primarily concerned with the confidentiality interests of the mothers than anything else.

This tidbit from the Telegraph seems to support that:

Staff there had given visitors a card with a message purporting to come from a newborn baby. "I am small and precious so treat me with privacy and respect," the baby said. "My parents ask you to treat my personal space with consideration."

Still, I'm left to wonder exactly what led to this situation? Were there a lot of mums complaining about people asking questions? Perhaps a rash of unwed mothers who didn't want to discuss how the baby came about?

On the other hand, I can't for the life of me come up with a single sane reason for the "What makes you think I want to be looked at?" sign.

Speaking of not-quite-sane, I find this line from the Telegraph story... odd...:

It is ironic that the hospital seems to have used the Human Rights Act to justify an apparently rigid and unfeeling policy[...]

Why is the word "seems" in there? Was the reporter too lazy to call to find out the reason for the "no cooing" policy?

Overall I suspect the papers may be making WAY too much out of one statement from the hospital's Neonatal Manager, Debbie Lawson: "Cooing should be a thing of the past because these are little people with the same rights as you or me"

Notice that she doesn't specify which particular right she's talking about. Let's see if the FULL quote (from the Halifax Courier link) sheds any light:

"We know people have good intentions and most people cannot resist cooing over new babies but we need to respect the child. Cooing should be a thing of the past because these are little people with the same rights as you or me.
"We often get visitors wandering over to peer into cots but people sometimes touch or talk about the baby like they would if they were examining tins in a supermarket and that should not happen."

Sounds slightly less nuts that way, doesn't it? I can understand being upset about people acting with inappropriate casualness toward a stranger's child.

Anyway, setting aside the one out-of-context quote you'll see everywhere, I honestly suspect that the reason for this rule MAY be related to the fact that the UK government has taken an increased interest in tracking hospital infection rates.

Whichever it is, I'm just a little disappointed in the lack of dilligence exhibited by the press on this one.

[Hat tip to bloggranddaughter ArmyWifeToddlerMom for the pointer to the BBC story]

Posted by: Harvey at 08:42 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 547 words, total size 4 kb.

September 28, 2005

PERSPECTIVES ON THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

Thinking about what Ogre said regarding the "fine tuning" of physical constants in the universe being evidence of intelligent design, I think we're having a difference of perspective.

Ogre imagines himself in a pre-universe lawn chair, watching God drawing up plans for a universe capable of sustaining human life.

Me? I come at it quite differently.

I start with the fact that the time is now, the universe exists, and I'm in it. Then I use what I know about the universe as it is to look backwards towards the beginning of time.

Trouble is, there's a wall that I can't see past.

If I remember my Hawking correctly, the physical constants on which I'm basing my mental time-travel assumed their current properties at 3x10-14 seconds after the Big Bang. Before that, they were... different... and there's no way of knowing - under current theory - HOW they were different.

So my vision is limited. Any pronouncements by me of what things were like before that would be speculation of the "guess what's in the mystery box" sort.

Ogre says it's God.

Me? I'm not even sure there IS a box.

Anyway, if such guesswork intrigues you, here's an interesting (if somewhat dry and acronym-laden) essay on it.

Posted by: Harvey at 07:57 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 222 words, total size 2 kb.

September 27, 2005

PLAYING DICE WITH THE UNIVERSE

Ogre of Ogre's Politics & Views mulls over the possibility of the universe arising by happenstance, crunches some numbers, and concludes.

"In other words, according to physics and mathematics, there is absolutely no possible way that this universe was created through random chance -- it's simply not possible."

I beg to differ. There's a big difference between "infinitesimally small" and "non-existent".

What he's calculating are the odds of getting it right on the first try.

To calculate the probability of the universe as we know it getting created, you'd need to know the number of trials that were attempted.

As the number of trials approaches the inverse of the odds of occurrance, the likelihood of success approaches certainty. Not knowing the number of trials involved, though, there's no conclusion to reach about how much of a long-shot the universe is. There may well have been a Googolplex of failed universes before a functional one popped up.

For the record, I'm agnostic about any particular theory of universal creation. The rules of physics changed at the (moment of creation/big bang), and without consistent rules, there's no way to deduce what happened before that moment.

So if you want to say "God created it", fine.

Me, I'm just going to say "I don't know, and I don't think I ever will".

I'm only an atheist about the stuff that happened afterwards.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:04 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 239 words, total size 2 kb.

September 20, 2005

WHY I DON'T LIKE CSI

Via Lynn of Reflections in D Minor, I found this disapproving review of CSI at Plugged In. This quote pretty much sums it up:

Twenty years ago on Quincy, Jack Klugman described the murders he uncovered each week. CSI shows theirs. From every angle. Over and over again. A drug-crazed raver strangles his friend. A woman caves in a manÂ’s skull with a rock. A man shoots himself in the head. A teenager stabs an entire family to death with a kitchen knife. The detectives are fond of saying that blood "talks." It also flies, drips, runs and pools on the floor. CSI is ugly, exploitative, gross, [and] disrespectful of the dead [...]

True.

But what they don't mention is what turns me off the most about this show: the detectives' antiseptic indifference to what they see.

When Quincy described the autopsies he did on his victims, there was always a suppressed undertone of outrage in his voice, as though - even after all his years as a Medical Examiner - he was still mortified at the inhumanity that was shown to the bodies he was examining.

CSI? They couldn't care less. They're cold, emotionless... practically bored. It's just another classroom exercise to them. Whatever.

Mostly I avoid the show, although I occasionally peek in just to see if someone is going to feel something.

I'm still waiting.

Posted by: Harvey at 07:23 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

September 18, 2005

CRESCENT OF EMBRACE IS FINE

(cross-posted from IMAO)

Some folks are upset that the Flight 93 memorial "Crescent of Embrace" resembles an Islamic crescent.

Me, I'm ok with making a point of reminding people exactly what religion those murdering terrorist shitbags thought justified their actions.

And if it's true that it's oriented toward Mecca, then it's also handy for showing which way to aim our ICBM's.

Posted by: Harvey at 10:42 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 71 words, total size 1 kb.

September 13, 2005

ON EVOLUTION

Ogre opened a can of worms, so I'm going to pull out some nightcrawlers.

Intermediate and transitional forms.

Observed instances of speciation.

Finally, don't forget to check what Darwin actually wrote in Origin of Species, with - perhaps - special attention to Chapter 6, where he addresses some of the objections that he thought people would raise to his theory:

Difficulties on the theory of descent with modification -Transitions-Absence or rarity of transitional varieties-Transitions in habits of life-Diversified habits in the same species-Species with habits widely different from those of their allies-Organs of extreme perfection-Means of transition-Cases of difficulty-Natura non facit saltum-Organs of small importance-Organs not in all cases absolutely perfect-The law of Unity of Type and of the Conditions of Existence embraced by the theory of Natural Selection

WARNING: The above links contain prodigious quantities of dry, technical language. Do not attempt to read without having a caffeine source handy.

Posted by: Harvey at 09:46 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 2 kb.

September 11, 2005

1000 OR SO WORDS ON 9/11

(reposted from 9/11/04)

Higher, please.

(click to enlarge)


This picture is an original work of art by Bryan Larsen, which I found pre-9/11/01 at the Quent Cordair Art Gallery site. It fascinated me enough to bookmark it then, and I've viewed it many times since. Both professional quality and poster prints of this image are available via the Quent Cordair site.

The following text appears at the first link:

The following letter was written by Quent Cordair on Friday, September, 14, 2001, to our mailing list:

Dear friends, family and associates,

As a former U.S. Marine, I once carried a rifle in our defense. I've two younger brothers in the military who now stand ready to cover that end of things. The firemen, doctors, rescue personnel, blood donors, the brave New Yorkers and others on the scene are giving what they have to give to the effort. Philosophers are fighting with the pen. The artists' tools are uniquely valuable as well.

As a gallery owner, I offer what I have -- a single image to inspire, to counter the endless images of the destruction which we've all endured over the past days. This image stands in lucid contrast, in defiance of those who would destroy. It is a re-affirmation of who we are, of what we've created, of what we've built, of what we will rebuild and build higher yet, with unthwarted and unconquered determination. Those who would destroy us have not touched our essence.

My thanks to the artist, Bryan Larsen, who during the months in which others were plotting to destroy the World Trade Center, was busy creating, featuring the towers in an artwork which identifies and celebrates in theme all the towers stood for. The creation of this painting while others were targeting the painting's subject for destruction was no coincidence; there is no irony in the timing. Each side identified the WTC as a vital symbol of America in these times; one side sought to destroy that value, the other to celebrate it and build on it. In retrospect, the artwork stands in memorial. The World Trade Center was not fully appreciated, by many, until it was gone.

May this image serve as inspiration as we recover and look to the future. Please feel welcome to share it with all, to remind ourselves, and the world, of who we are, undaunted and unbeaten. God bless America, those who built it, those who will build again, and higher.

Quent Cordair

Again, I say...

Higher, please.

Posted by: Harvey at 08:00 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 430 words, total size 3 kb.

September 08, 2005

HE HAS THE RIGHT, BUT I THINK HE'S WRONG

President Bush ordered US flags to be flown at half-staff "As a mark of respect for the victims of Hurricane Katrina".

I understand that the President has broad discretionary powers in this arena, but I don't think it's appropriate in this case.

Half-staff should be reserved for honoring the death of specific individuals who, by their government service, did much to honor this country. Presidents, Justices, Congressmen, etc? Yes. I have no problem with that.

To honor international allies facing the loss of one of their great names? Sure. That's what friends are for.

And perhaps even honoring some victims who lost their lives during battles in the War on Terror. Individual soldiers or those who died on 9/11.

But I draw the line at people killed by weather.

Yes, I know President Bush also ordered half-staffing for the victims of the Asian tsunami. He was wrong about that, too.

I think he should keep the lowering of the flag as a gesture of honor - reserved for people and events which define us as a nation.

Using it as a mere "mark of respect" cheapens it.

[Thanks to Beloved Wife TNT of Smiling Dynamite for bringing this to my attention]

Posted by: Harvey at 02:54 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 205 words, total size 1 kb.

September 01, 2005

PRICE GOUGING IS A GOOD THING

Why? Because the alternative is shortages.

Future supplies of gas (and more regionally - other consumer goods) are uncertain. It could very well be that needed items will not be able to be sent to where they can be easily purchased through normal channels. Nobody knows.

Uncertainty makes consumers panicky, and panicked consumers start hoarding.

Jacking up the prices is the only way to keep these panicky people from buying up everything in sight and causing shortages.

Meanwhile, the high prices are also an incentive for freelancers to load up their station wagons to bring in more supplies, helping to ease the supply crunch until the regular distribution channels are back to full capacity.

It's a temporary spike and temporary price spikes let people do their own rationing. People can decide for themselves if $5/gallon gas is worth buying, or if they should wait a couple days. Prices will drop after people take a few deep breaths, and things will get back to normal a lot quicker this way.

However, as a cheap political stunt, some government officials try price controls. Since there's now no incentive to not buy stuff, panicky consumers start hoarding, leading to shortages and more panic.

There's also no profit incentive to return capacity to previous level, nor is there any encouragement for freelancers to help bring in supplies, outside of organized charity.

If there were any brains in government, they'd get the hell out of the way and let anyone help who wanted to, even if they DO make money off it.

Posted by: Harvey at 03:11 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

August 05, 2005

I DON'T *HAVE* TO, BUT I DO ANYWAY.

Graumagus of Frizzen Sparks is talking about seat belts, and I like the way he sets it up:

I've pretty much got a lifetime membership to the "Fuck the nanny state" club. I'm not a big fan of laws requiring people to wear seatbelts, wear motorcycle helmets, etc.

[snip]

But just because I don't think the law should force people to wear them doesn't mean I don't think they're suicidal idiots for not doing so.

Same with me.

I personally became a fan of seat belts when I watched a driver safety film in my high school driver's ed class. In one scene, they showed the one good thing France ever did. They gave a prisoner a reduced sentence if he drove a car into a tree at 50 mph.

He did.

The front of the car looked like a wadded up Kleenex afterwards.

He unbuckled & stepped out of the car 2 seconds after impact without a damn scratch.

I was sold.

About 10 years later, I was driving home after dark, in winter, down a piece of highway that I'd driven down every day for years. It was cold - below freezing - but it handn't snowed for days. That road should've been clean & dry.

Apparently I found a spot where it wasn't.

Lost control of the car, started spinning around in circles, went off the right side of the road, down a shallow slope, and slammed driver's-side-door-first into a big ass tree.

My car had a distinct horseshoe-shape to it.

My injuries consisted of a couple small cuts on my right hand, because it landed in a pile of glass from the driver's-side window that had landed on the passenger seat.

That's all.

I'm still sold on seat belts.

Funny thing is, I told this story to the tow-truck driver who brought me & my horseshoe-car the 5 more miles to my front door, and his response?

"I don't like seatbelts".

Maybe one of his cars was wrecked by a French prisoner...

Posted by: Harvey at 12:54 AM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

August 03, 2005

AND A *REALLY* BIG BROOM

Blogdaughter Tammi of Tammi's World talks about the importance of emotional Spring Cleaning.

I agree, everyone's gotta do it sooner or later. Crap builds up & needs to be taken to the curb.

Me? I use a pen, a spiral notebook, and a quiet place - preferably outside, if it's reasonably nice - then just start writing.

I find that when I'm troubled, the biggest problem is that my thoughts keep jumping and swirling and I can't find a pattern, much less the root cause of what's REALLY bugging me. So I start by jotting down the first piece of flotsam that floats by. Ok, that's gone. Next.

On and on and on.

Eventually, my mind's waters are clear of garbage (although still swirly), and maybe now I can see to the bottom, find the plug, pull it out, drain the tank, and feel clean and dry again.

I can't say it ALWAYS works, but I never feel worse afterwards.

Posted by: Harvey at 03:26 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

July 27, 2005

I'M GOOD WITH IT

Ogre of Ogre's Politics & Views puts forth the following lament:

This editorial in the Sun News of Myrtle Beach has it right. The editorial talks about a "tax break" that's been proposed in North Carolina. This "break" would allow home builders to be exempt from property taxes for up to 5 years for homes they build that are not occupied immediately.

Of course, if this happens, then everyone else will have to pay more taxes to make up for the builder not paying taxes.

Me?

Personally, I'm happy for ANYONE who gets out of paying any tax for any reason.

It'd be better if it were me, but... *shrug*

And technically, the tax break doesn't CAUSE the higher taxes on everyone else. That's a separate decision and deserves to be cursed on its own.

Posted by: Harvey at 03:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 143 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 3 of 6 >>
135kb generated in CPU 0.0294, elapsed 0.1161 seconds.
86 queries taking 0.0957 seconds, 343 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy



Recent Comments

  • nigga Sounds a litlle bit like Blood of the Nation. I'm a patriot too, but I think there is no need to tak... entry
  • 货架 货架、 货架 entry
  • vw bug Happy Easter! entry
  • Phelps It's the sugar. Sugar is hygroscopic. It absorbs water. Starch (bread) is not. Starch in bread c... entry
  • tommy I think it probably has something to do with the amount of fat, specifically saturated fat (which st... entry
  • the Humble Devildog The Staleness Gnomes are whimsical and capricious, and should never be challenged! Their wrath is f... entry
  • Bruce I am going to take you up on your offer. I'll drive and you give me one of the tickets you already ... entry
  • oddybobo I have only one thing to say! "mmmmbop!" entry
  • Harvey Roses - as a Blue Oyster Cult fan, I guess I'm just throwing stones from my glass house, huh? :-) entry
  • wRitErsbLock someone left the cake out in the rain. I don't think that I can take it, 'cuz it took so long to ba... entry

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Sample link

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 1284
  • Files: 2
  • Bytes: 7.3M
  • CPU Time: 1:03
  • Queries: 71592

Content

  • Posts: 6169
  • Comments: 19525

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0