« April 2008 | Main | June 2008 »

May 2008 Archives

May 1, 2008

Whenever I think...

We've lost the idea of sportsmanship in the US, I see things like this.

'Unbelievable' sportsmanship in softball game - Other sports- nbcsports.msnbc.com

PORTLAND, Ore. - With two runners on base and a strike against her, Sara Tucholsky of Western Oregon University uncorked her best swing and did something she had never done, in high school or college. Her first home run cleared the center-field fence.
But it appeared to be the shortest of dreams come true when she missed first base, started back to tag it and collapsed with a knee injury.

The players on the other team... carried her around the field, having her tag the bag with her good leg.

That's what it's all about. Play hard, play fair, and play good.

J.

Sunspot Watch - 7 Days, 0 Sunspots.

For something interesting (like you don't have ENOUGH cluttering your desktop already) you can download the Solar Weather Browser from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center,

I'd like to get something that'd put a real-time video feed on my desktop. (I recently added a third monitor - gotta have something to fill it up. Task manager on the right, main browsing on the center, don't have anything on the left when I'm not watching some video...) The SOHO NASA site's got some 'real time' images, but not a real-time feed. Ah, well - wait a few years...

Gotta admit - it's interesting what you can find on the internet!

Update - the Solar Weather Browser doesn't seem to function on my system. Hope you have better luck...

Update 2 - the OLDER version seems to be working properly. Go figure...


J.

May 2, 2008

Global Warming Doesn't Mean Snow.

Intellicast - Forecast Radar in United States

According to this... it's snowing in Nebraska-Colorado.

May%20Snow.jpg

Okay - global warming snarkiness aside, it's been a LONG time since I recall a blizzard so late in the season.

I wonder if we'll have an early winter?

(By the way? No sunspots today either. Solar radio flux is low, also. It'd be interesting to find out what the temps are like on Mars this year...)

J.

May 4, 2008

It's well past April 1st.

So this probably isn't a joke.

The Silent Scream of the Asparagus

You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.

...

What is clear, however, is that Switzerland's enshrining of "plant dignity" is a symptom of a cultural disease that has infected Western civilization, causing us to lose the ability to think critically and distinguish serious from frivolous ethical concerns. It also reflects the triumph of a radical anthropomorphism that views elements of the natural world as morally equivalent to people.

Why is this happening? Our accelerating rejection of the Judeo-Christian world view, which upholds the unique dignity and moral worth of human beings, is driving us crazy. Once we knocked our species off its pedestal, it was only logical that we would come to see fauna and flora as entitled to rights.

The intellectual elites were the first to accept the notion of "species-ism," which condemns as invidious discrimination treating people differently from animals simply because they are human beings. Then ethical criteria were needed for assigning moral worth to individuals, be they human, animal, or now vegetable.

I recall reading, a number of years back, a story where humans had been 'adjusted' (whether through psychological conditioning or a machine broadcasting some radiation that caused it I can't recall) to a point where the thought of killing anything caused severe nausea, and the consumption of animals was virtually impossible for most of the population. In extreme cases, even the 'alge cakes' the government provided couldn't be eaten... because, after all, the alge were at one time alive. Farmers couldn't use insecticide, doctors had a hard time using antibiotics. Soap and personal hygene were right out - because bacteria live on your skin.

Needless to say, the human race was dwindling fast.

Sorry, but I don't remember much more of the story.. But if there's an insistence on giving plants rights - how long would it be until some joker insists bacteria have rights also, and then some council somewhere agrees with him?

Crazy years, ain't they?

J.

Sunspot Watch - 9 Days... and a pimple breaks out!

Not a large one, though...
Sunspot.jpg

But hey - it's probably the size of the Earth.

There's no sunspots on the back side of the sun, according to Spaceweather.com - so we'll see what happens.

Anyone else notice that there's climatologists saying that global warming is going on hiatus?

But after 10 years, look out!

J.

700 shots on a set of batteries.

One big problem with digital cameras is that they eat batteries like popcorn. Lithium AAs will give about 150 shots. Alkaline AAs might give you 25-30. Your camera may vary, of course, but that's what I've been getting as far as battery life for my Samsung S630. There seems to be plenty of life left in the batteries - but the camera just won't see it.

Searching around on the web gave the clue. It would seem the cameras base their battery consumption on how much current is remaining in the battery - and they set the bar pretty high - but once you clear that bar battery life increases dramatically.

A freshly charged set of 1000mAh NiCads might give you five or ten shots. A pair of 2000mAh Ni-mh batteries might give you 50 before needing to be recharged. A couple of 2500mAh rechargables might give you 200. (That's what I was getting...)

I picked up some 2650mAh batteries yesterday. Charged them - then started trying to kill 'em off. I got 20 minutes of video and about 675 shots (about 100 flash) out of them before they needed a recharge.

THAT is satisfactory battery life. Your mileage may vary, but if you've got a digital camera that's been sucking money out of your wallet for replacement batteries, I'd recommend a set of Duracell 2650mAh NiMH batteries, and an appropriate charger. It's a small price to pay (less than $30 for batteries and charger) and will save you time and aggravation in the long run.

Get clicking!

J.

May 5, 2008

Obama shows he's ready for the job.

Michelle Obama: Barack has hit boiling point - Telegraph

Barack Obama is struggling to contain his anger and frustration over the constant barrage of questions about his character and judgment, his wife has revealed.

Well. Woo-hoo. What he's gone through to this point is pretty much NOTHING compared to what's waiting for him in the Presidency. And he's about to explode now?

What's going to happen when he gets into office and he's tested with international and domestic problems? Is he going to pull out the race card and demand respect from other nations because of his skin color? Is he going to get mad at all the people pressing HIM to come up with solutions? I think he's finding out charisma isn't going to get him much further - he's going to have to come up with actual content, and people are noticing he's pretty much content-free.

Polls: Obama falters with working-class whites - Barack Obama News- msnbc.com

Terry Madonna, a political science professor at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., said Obama lost among working-class whites in the state because his message of how this generation's time has come did not address their economic needs.

"While it's incredibly motivating and passionate and compelling, it lacks content," Madonna said. "Hillary would come in and relate to them, talk about the specifics of her policy."

Motivating. Passionate. Compelling.

But content-free. And, apparently, unhappy because he's being called on it. That's not a good sign.

(On the other hand - the Long Campaign lets you really get a good idea of what the candidate is like. This will really be to the Dem's disadvantage, I think...)

J.

May 6, 2008

Delusional.

Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com

Clinton's attacks on oil prices as artificially inflated, Enron-style, keep escalating, and today she appeared to threaten to break up the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.

"We’re going to go right at OPEC," she said. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at," she told a crowd at a firehouse in Merrillville, IN.

"That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly," she said, saying she'd use anti-trust law and the World Trade Organization to take on OPEC.

Okay - how about we try actually INCREASING the supply of domestic oil?

Wait - I forgot. The Oil Companies are evil. We can't let them drill. Or build refinery capacity. So - we're stuck dealing with OPEC.

Why is it I keep seeing that Democrats haven't got a clue when it comes to actually solving problems, but are very good at proposing hig-flying solutions which won't address the problem? First Hillary blamed the oil comapnies - wanted to tax them to death. Now, it's OPEC she's after.

Well, I understand it'll take years to get more oil even if we start today. But junk like this isn't going to solve the problem in either the long or the short run.

It does, however, offer an interesting clue into Hillary's mental state - if she thinks she can threaten OPEC and get away with it - she's crazy.

J.

One thing I've been ticked about...

has been the stubborn refusal of Congress to allow drilling in ANWR and off the coasts. This alleviates it somewhat - and has an interesting statistic...

Next Big Future: Bakken oil study - North Dakota only and independent of USGS, Active Companies and list of new 2008 producing wells

North Dakota's Bakken oil is increasing at about 6000-7000 barrels of oil per day per month. The trend is for another 50,000-60,000 barrels of oil per day to be added this year For North Dakota's Bakken oil production.

Let's hope that trend is accurate, and holds up. Every bit helps. 18 million barrels/yr isn't anything to sneeze at.

And any progress on opening up the coasts, or ANWR?

Heh. You really have to ask?

J.

Political Discourse?

Sometimes it seems like a bunch of jackasses braying at each other. I don't mind it too much - I'm able to ignore a lot of what I consder to be excesses - I've got no problem with honest disagreement or attempts to persuade. You've got info? I'll listen to it, and judge what you've got to say.

What I've got a problem with are those on the other side who are simply either going "Shut up, I'm smarter than you are and once we're in charge all you lot are going up against the wall!" or those who won't recognize that my point of view is derived from years of observation and thought - not 'kool-aid gulping mantras'- and that if I respect THEM enought to listen and not be insulting to THEIR points of view, they'd better return the favor. They seem to think if they shout loud enough and long enough in my direction, I'll eventually see just how wonderful their position is and vote for their candidate.

Decibel levels don't do it for me. Reasons do. Facts do. Try to yank my chain with emotion, and I'm likely to toss your opinions out the window.

I'm aligned with no party. I vote for who I think will be best for the POSITION - regardless of whether there's a (R) or a (D) behind their names. And negative campaigning DOES have an impact on my thinking - it makes me think the one stooping to it is LESS qualified than the one he's blasting, not more.

In the case of the Presidency - I don't give a damn if McCain's a 'maverick', Hillary's 'progressive', or Obama promises 'Change'. I'm looking at what they're promising, and what plans they've got for delivering. And I'm not positively impressed by a lot of what I see, and negatively impressed by some of it. Address my concerns with reasonable, rational, VIABLE solutions, and you'll get my vote. Promise me all sorts of goodies without any rational way to acheive them, and I'll pass over your name without hesitation.

I've got certain issues I'm concerned with. Winning the war in Iraq. Oil drilling. Tax reform. Social Security reform. I'm not looking for perfection - I'm looking for ideas that can WORK, and I'm not looking for any quick fixes. We took decades to get into this state, we're going to need decades to fix it. Anyone promising a band-aid will cure it all is automatically suspect in my book - and both Hil and Obie are waving the band-aids very hard.

So I'm aready skeptical, because I'm not seeing a hell of a lot of stuff from the left on any of the issues I worry about ... at least, not what I consider reasonable and rational.

This is getting long, so I'll just use the most painful thing right now.. Re oil - how is raising taxes on the oil companies supposed to bring down the price of a barrel of oil on the world market, with China and India drinking more and more? Is THAT the best idea for solving the gas crisis? Is it the cornerstone of a reasonable, rational, domestic energy policy? (BTW, whatever happened to Pelosi's reasonable, rational energy plan?)

No attempt is being made to get more domestic drilling going. No attempt to increase domestic production. No push in Congress to build refineries. (Or anything else, for that matter, regarding energy.) Just... tax the oil companies. So... can any of the marvelously wise 'progressives' out there explain to me how THAT is supposed to INCREASE the supply of oil on the world market, when THAT problem is driving the cost of oil to insane heights?

(Cue crickets.)

As I said - reasonable and rational and VIABLE solutions will get my vote - but they seem to be scarce this political season. Should I instead vote for someone I KNOW won't be able to deliver, because the promises are so nice that I'll be able to forget for a while that the politician has no intention in hell of delivering?

J.

May 7, 2008

Working on the house...

We've got a whole-house fan - and for about the last year, the thing's been having speed problems. I thought it was the controller - the speed control just wasn't working and the fan was running slowly. Well, with spring being here and the temperatures FINALLY warming up - (It's May, and we haven't had to turn on the air conditioning yet...) I got a replacement controller and installed it...

And the motor ran fine for about a minute... then the speed controller wouldn't affect things at all and it slowed to it's usual speed.

The motor was made in 1979. I suppose it wouldn't be too surprising to find the motor has failed. I found a replacement on-line (and for a lot less than I was expecting to pay) and was about to buy it (and the capacitor needed to start and run it...) when I noticed a FAQ section.

Well, what the heck. Might as well check out the return policy... but it was technical questions instead - including about capacitors...

And there it was - an answer to what might be wrong with the motor.

Question: A motor with a shorted capacitor can still start and run, but will operate as if seriously overloaded True/False?

Answer: True

(Well, THAT pretty much describes what's going on...)

Question: Capacitors for PSC (Permanent Split Capacitor) motors are only used for starting the motor True/False?

Answer: False

(So they're needed to run the motor as well...)

Question: Run capacitors are oval shaped with single MFD (Microfared) ratings True/False?

Answer: True

(The one on the motor is oval-shaped. Didn't see any MFD rating on it...)

Question: It is possible for a Permanent Split Capacitor (PSC) motor to operate even if the capacitor is shorted True/False?

Answer: True

(But apparently it'll run like it's badly loaded down....)

Question: Capacitor life is about how many hours?

Answer: 60,000 hours.

(Let's see - 24x365x30 give well north of 200,000 hours. Not all that time was running the fan, of course - but we've run it pretty constantly in the spring and fall... and I'll make a leap of faith here and figure the thing's gone bad.)

Haven't ordered the motor - but I ordered a replacement 5 MFD capacitor. We'll see if that takes care of the problem...

J.

May 8, 2008

Don't think this'll be good...

She apparently can't win it ... but by Ghod, she's OWED.

Clinton says she'll stay in the race - Decision '08- msnbc.com

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton says she will remain in the presidential race "until there's a nominee." The former first lady declined to say whether that meant through the roll call of the states at the Democratic National Convention this summer.

Man - in a way I almost feel sorry for the folks in the Democratic leadership.

Almost.

They've done a fine job pushing identity politics - and now it's coming home that it was a bad call. They banked on the Clinton name - and found it wasn't the guarantee they thought it was. Now they've got a racist black as the candidate. (I suppose if through some miracle Obama wasn't available - perhaps a case of "Act Of Oh Ghod Flatulence" - she could step in, but the woman's got enough baggage to overload a C-5. I think they'd find someone else.) And he, at this point is marginally electable. Once people start looking at his record (or lack thereof) and his acquaintences a bit more closely, I don't believe he's going to get more attractive to the electorate.

And he's going against McCain.

Well - it should be interesting in a 'popcorn on the sidelines' sense - but it just makes me think there's something really and truely screwed as far as the Democrats go. The end of the party, perhaps? And if it fragments - what's going to replace it?

J.

Things just keep changing...

Gas 2.0 - Biofuels + Advanced Design Vehicles = A Revolution

An interesting little blog - if you're looking to keep up with new tech in cars and energy sources, it's a fun read.

For example - a production 235 mpg car? Hmmm. Not bad - but that seems somehow familiar... Ah, right. It's a Messerschmidt for 2010!

J.

May 9, 2008

Might be worth getting...

サ Book Review - Clintonisms - The Amusing, Confusing, and Suspect Musing of Billary @ NoisyRoom.net
There's four excerpts - one I left out because I didn't want to raise my cuss-meter. The other three -
Viva La Revolucion “We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices. Government has to make those choices for people.”

- Hillary Clinton, to Illinois Rep. Dennis Hastert about health care, 1993

and one more…

Constitution, Shmonstitution
“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles.”

- Bill Clinton, March 1993

“The purpose of the government is to rein in the rights of the people.”

- Bill Clinton, on MTV, 1993

I think I'll be getting this soon...

Since it doesn't look like Hil's going to get the nod as the Presidential Candidate (good thing, too, imho) this book should stay available for a while. If she got into office - this would quickly disappear down the memory hole.

J.

Remember that sunspot?

The theory was that it was the start of a new cycle of sunspots.

It faded after two days... and then there were none.

Take a look.

What does it mean? You may have noticed we've had a slightly cooler spring than usual. (Heck, we've noticed it - haven't had to run the air conditioning yet this year... come to think of it, we need to do a check of the systems...) This doesn't mean we're not getting a bit warm - but it's not been hot enough to make it mandatory. (It's 70 outside right now, on 9 May. That's not too bad.)

And even NOAA has noticed...

UNITED STATES Climate Summary

The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

We may be in the beginning of a new cold era...

J.

May 12, 2008

The DNC's Poison Pill

It's been kind of odd watching Obama in the Democratic Horse Race. Hillary started WAY in front of everyone else - and it's pretty clear that she had every intention of running for President when she was able to wangle her way into a Senator's seat. She's been planning this run from 2000, if not longer.

Obama, on the other hand - is a pretty much unkown lightweight. He wasn't on the national radar until the race started this year - yet it's kind of amazing how far he's come and how fast he's progressed. Supposedly he's exceedingly electable (at least to hear some Democrats tell it) but I really believe he's got flaws that are going to provoke a loss in November.

Hillary has the advantage of name recognition - and she's well known in Democratic circles. That may very well be her downfall - she's WELL known. Warts and all - and the DNC leadership is not suicidal. They're familiar with her, and they realize (imho) she's got a chance to make it all the way. She takes the Presidency in 2008, they lose the House and Senate in 2010, and the Presidency in 2012. She'll push the Democrats back 8 years, possibly more.

And that scares the blue willies out of them. She's a foul-tempered, vindictive shrew, I understand - and has a real royalty complex. She's also making noises (lately) about REALLY ticking off OPEC. Think $4 a gallon gas is tough? Let's kick OPEC hard and see how far they'll jack the price up. She's NOT the sort of person you want as President - even if she's of your own nominal political persuasion. So how do you prevent her from going all the way to the White House?

By bringing an irresistable lure to an identity politics love-fest. You bring an intelligent, articulate very liberal black man. In the identity politics heirarchy, race trumps gender. Hillary may not like it - but the hard-core crowd who subscribe to identity politics and would be likely to vote in the primaries would LOVE having a way to prove how unprejudiced they are. (For that matter they could have run Cynthia McKinney - but she's just plain crazy and wouldn't have had a chance against Hillary.) Obama's a charismatic speaker - and Hillary's not terribly likeable. Nor is she left-enough to satisify the exceedingly noisy 'Progressive' crowd. Obama is.

But the qualities that enable Obama to beat Hillary in the Democratic Horse Race won't serve him well on the general election. He IS liberal, and I think there's going to be a fair number of Democrats who will think he's too far to the left. He's articulate - but there's already a good number of folks on the left who are finding that charismatic speeches don't make up for a lack of content and workable ideas. Simply rehashing the same stuff that's been gone over for the last 8 years isn't going to fly.

So he's the Democratic Party's poison pill, to avoid a Hillary takeover. There's always the possibility that McCain will make such a hash of things that the country will WELCOME a Democratic President in 2012, and then they'll be ready.

In the mean time - they'll be rid of Hillary. That, in itself, they may consider a 'win'.

J.

May 13, 2008

Odd economic thought...

Is it possible for the media to talk the country into a recession or depression?

If so - even given the idea that reporting bad news is decidedly preferable to reporting good news - would they do it?

If doing so would give the Democrats an advcantage (and for all the supposed lack of media bias, the vast majority of reporters/journalists are of the Democratic persuasion) would they do so?

Just something to ponder. Your thoughts?

J.

May 15, 2008

Don't see these around here often...

I was doing a bit of work in the garage tonight, when I heard a jet overhead that sounded pretty low. We're on the approach path to McCollum, so I didn't think much of it, until the jet got louder. I stepped outside - and saw a B-2 passing overhead rather slowly. I ran into the house, got the little guy and my lovely bride out to see it.

I've never seen jaws drop quite like that before!

It was an impressive sight, turning a slow 90 degrees and apparently lining itself up for the approach at McCollum. Wouldn't they have fun with THAT there!

Sure wish I'd had the camera handy - that would have been a heck of a shot. And even though we're close to a major AF Reserve base, we don't see things like that too often! The occasional C-130, and a C-5 or two - but a B-2?

Nope - they're kind of rare around here...

J.

It's safe to say...

That there's no real concern about oil in the US, judging by this.

Senate panel retains oil-shale moratorium : Nation : The Rocky Mountain News

The Senate Appropriations Committee today narrowly defeated Sen. Wayne Allard's attempt to end a moratorium related to oil shale development in Colorado.

It was a big day for Colorado energy issues on Capitol Hill as Gov. Bill Ritter testified before a senate committee asking lawmakers to move cautiously on oil-shale development until more is known about the environmental impact and other issues.

Meanwhile downstairs, the appropriations committee was considering a massive Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill. Allard, a member of the committee, attempted to insert an amendment that would reverse the moratorium that lawmakers approved late last year.

The moratorium prevents the Department of Interior from issuing regulations so that oil companies can move forward on oil-shale projects in Colorado and Utah. Allard said the moratorium has left uncertainties at a time when companies need to move forward and in the long term make the United States more energy independent.

After all, if there were a real oil shortage, we'd be drilling wherever the oil was. Wouldn't we?
"If we are really serious about reducing pain at the pump, this is a vote that would make a difference in people's lives," Allard argued.

But in a 14-15 vote, the committee spilt strictly on party lines and rejected the amendment.

Maybe not.

cat
This would seem to be the attitude of the Democrats as far as actually DOING anything about the energy crisis goes.

Actually, they've got a plan. Here it is.

1. Raise taxes on oil company profits
2. Then a miracle occurs.
3. The price of oil drops.

See? Well thought out, very simple, and certain to work.

However - 'work' can have so many meanings...
J.

May 16, 2008

It's all about "is", isn't it?

Is saying you'll meet countries like Iran and Syria without preconditions the same as saying you'll talk with terrorists?

My Way News - Obama says Bush falsely accused him of appeasement

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama accused President Bush of "a false political attack" Thursday after Bush warned in Israel against appeasing terrorists - early salvos in a general election campaign that's already blazing even as the Democratic front-runner tries to sew up his party's nomination.

The White House denied Bush had targeted Obama, who said the Republican commander in chief's intent was obvious.

I think this hit too close to home for Obama. If he wasn't planning on appeasement, why would this bother him? If he wasn't planning on meeting and negotiating with state sponsors of terror, why would he gripe?

Unfortunately, he's on the record saying he'd meet 'without preconditions' the sponsors of terrorism in the ME. Maybe he's got something to offer them to try to get them to stop?

And I'm sure they will. After all, they're just reasonable people who are slightly misunderstood, right? There's no such thing as a BAD state, or a BAD dictator, right? They're all amenable to persuasion, and I'm sure a few billion here and there will go far in making them our staunch allies and good world citizens.

Heh. And the Publisher's Clearing House van's parked right outside my house, too.

Sorry - but the hysteria by the Obama supporters (and by the man himself) over this sounds like a frantic denial of something he'd planned to do - and was hoping nobody was paying attention to when he mentioned it.

J.

May 18, 2008

Found this today...

It's a pretty good summation of why I'll be voting for McCain over Obama. (Yes, I know, Obama's not the candidate YET - but the media is starting to ignore Hillary, which is a sign that no matter how you twist the numbers, she ain't gonna make up the delegate lead that Obama has.)

Talking Turkey at the TurkeyBlog

McCain experienced the horrors of war firsthand, but knows that we must do what we must do to preserve our great nation.

Obama thinks the horrors of war consist in having to wear a flag pin just because people who didn't edit the Harvard Review are dying overseas to keep your scrawny ass safe in the homeland. And it's too much for him to bear!

I've never been a fan of McCain, and I'm sure I'll have plenty to bitch about under a President McCain. But come November, I'll have no trouble picking my candidate.

As pretty much every adult who's lived in the real world understands, there's times that you have to do things you don't like or want to do, because the alternative is worse. (Think about taking out the garbage, if anything more extreme is bothersome to you.)

Obama seems to think good intentions are enough to avoid conflict when it comes to international relations, and even if they aren't, it's all just a game that can be called at any time for any reason. Good intentions don't mean much when faced with people actively doing you harm. (A classic example is a mugger. Your good intentions and a desire to hold on to your own wallet mean nothing to him.) And the only way to end a war you're fighting is through either victory or defeat.

We lost in Viet Nam, in that the forces that were attempting to take over that country succeeded. Even though we had nominally 'won' - in that the South had established a boundary line and was able to keep the North out - but it was only our assistance that managed it. Cut the aid, as the Democrats did in '75 - and South Viet Nam fell.

We are being set up, I think, for a repeat of Viet Nam. We have made amazing progress in Iraq - even with Syria and Iran funneling ideological, financial and physical support to the forces that would gleefully drag it back to 700 AD.

And it'd come to nothing if we bugged out - did a 'peace with honor' routine, promise funding to the IA, and left. The IA might do quite well with our support - but after about a year, you know what'll happen. They'll get funding cut... and it won't be long afterwards that their throats will be cut. And we'll just sit on the sidelines and go "Oh, what a shame. Not OUR responsibility, though!"

At least. the Democrats will.

Obama believes diplomacy can change things. Now, diplomacy is a fine thing - but when faced with a decided bad actor/nation, often all diplomacy does is increase the body count by delaying conflict. There is much to be said for a 'game' where both sides are roughly equal in abilities - but in warfare that's a ticket to a real slaughter. War isn't a 'game' - and diplomats seem to ignore that.

McCain gets that. I don't think Obama does. McCain also seems to understand there's folks who cannot be negotiated with, who would happily destroy themselves in order to take out their perceived enemies. I don't think Obama gets that at all.

J.

If your opponent buys ink by the barrel...

You probably shouldn't get into that fight. But hey, what does she have to lose?

Hillary turns fire on media - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com

PORTLAND, Ore. – Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is increasingly aiming its punches not at her front-running opponent Barack Obama, but at the media.

On the campaign trail, in a new ad and in her meetings with donors and superdelegates, she blasts the D.C. punditocracy for counting her out and urges anyone who’ll listen to ignore the hardening storyline that places Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee.

She's lost the narrative, she's not got the momentum - her win in West Virginia got little air time - she's not, short of some significant meltdown by Obama - going to have a shot at the brass ring this election cycle (and this was her big chance - by 2012 she's definitely going to be past her prime) so she might as well go down swinging.

It won't help, but it might help her accept her fate if she feels she's done everything she can to forestall it.

J.

May 19, 2008

Getting a kind of queasy feeling...

As I watch Obama, I see an incipient dictator plying his trade. First you have to persuade the people to get you into power.

There are, unfortunately, enough people who look at the "D" behind his name and think that's all they have to know. Their concept of Democrat is a lot like a sports team alignment - their feelings are a bit upset when their team doesn't win, but they know there's going to be another game, and then their team might do better. They might not like some of the players on the team, but they self-identify as Democrats and that's how they'll vote.

Then there's the ones who really, seriously WANT to control how other people live. The radical left, the radical right - both sides of the same coin. The thing is, the radical right shot their bolt back in the '80s with the "Moral Majority", and it wasn't much of a bolt in the first place. It's really hard to be authoritarian when you'll take "NO!" for an answer.

But in order to be a dictator, you've got to establish a mindset that encourages subordination to the will of the dictator. We've already seen, through Michelle Obama's proxy voice, how "he won't let you do things as you've been doing them." Today, another fine speech is coming to the fore, when he was playing to the crowd in Oregon -

"Pitching his message to Oregon's environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to "lead by example" on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

Ah, we're now going to worry about what OTHER countries say is okay?

Note the theme, though. Sacrifice - so other countries will like us.

The radical left eats this up with a spoon. However, through environmentalism, global warming, and a host of 'good intentions' their plans and dreams could quite literally turn our civilization inside-out. We need energy - yet there's been very little in the way of feasable alternative energy coming down the pike. Windmills are all well and good - but not everyplace is good for them. Same with solar. Tidal? The same. Windfarms off the coast? Seriously slowed. ANWR is off limits, as is the oil shale in Colorado. The moratoriums on drilling off Florida and California are still in place. Nukes? Don't even go there.

Barak, it would seem, would follow them all - regardless of what people actually want.

We won't go into the various 'isms' that must be adhered to. Multiculturalism. Global Warmism. And in the end, fascism. Why that? Let's look at the definition.

Fascism is a government, faction, movement, or political philosophy that raises nationalism, and frequently race, above the individual and is characterized by a centralized autocratic state governed by a dictatorial head, stringent organization of the economy and society, and aggressive repression of opposition.[1] In addition to placing the interests of the individual as subordinate to that of the nation or race, fascism seeks to achieve a national rebirth by promoting cults of unity, energy and purity.
You might argue that the folks on the left aren't facist because they don't push nationalism... but what are they pushing for? You've got groups within an overall meta-group... isn't THAT nationalism, adhering to the meta-group? Certainly there seems a desire for an autocratic state, with a dictatorial head, top-down economic control, a 'guiding hand' on society to make sure it goes in the proper green, multiculti directions... and aggressive repression of those who dissent,

How is that not fascist?

The funny thing is - you don't get all the goodies and advancements of technological civilization which have made the radical left even POSSIBLE without cheap energy. It just doesn't happen. And the 'greens' have been fighting cheap energy for decades - with the result that cheap energy has gotten a LOT more expensive lately.

And that's where Obama comes in. The man's slick. Real slick. He knows how to play an audience, he knows how to get people to BELIEVE in empty rhetoric. And it doesn't help that people are frightened. Frightened people are easily manipulated - and tend not to think things through.

The average Joe gets bombarded with bad news daily. For the last 7 years it's been bad news after bad news. If it isn't a recession scare, it's global warming. If it isn't global warming, it's a mortgage crisis. If it isn't a mortgage crisis, it's trumpeting the latest unemployment numbers like they're the second coming of the Great Depression. Or pointing out over and over and over again how unprepared the government was for a Katrina-scale disaster. (Never mind that NAGIN never did what he was supposed to, and the LA government fell down on the job.) And if THAT plays out, they'll go with the missing photogenic bimbo of the week - anything to keep the tension on.

What does Obama offer? "Change" and "Hope". "We're not going to do the same old failed stuff!" But what constitutes a failure? Have we failed in Iraq? Or is it a failure - regardless of progress - if the media labels it so? All the 'failures' of the last 8 years are being directly laid on Bush and the Republicans... but are they failures, or not complete successes?

Does it matter? The point is to have people ready and primed for someone who can come in and 'save' them - through being granted extraordinary rights. He'll toss out all the old, failed stuff. And bring in new ideas, new thought... new ways of dealing with our enemies.

And that they don't work means little - it's the intentions that count for the Democrats. Appearance over substance. His INTENTIONS would be GOOD, and that's all that matters.

That's been all that's mattered for the left-supported dictatorships in the 20th Century. Why should things change now?

Obama in '08 - we need a dear leader for life!

J.

May 20, 2008

Yeah. That's gonna help.

What happens when you get a House full of lawyers? The first recourse is litigation.

House passes bill to sue OPEC over oil prices | Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Tuesday allowing the Justice Department to sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices, but the White House threatened to veto the measure.

HE doesn't want to tick off the folks we get our oil from.

You ever get the feeling that the folks in Washington WANT $10/gallon gas?

The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow.
And how are we supposed to enforce that?
The measure passed in a 324-84 vote, a big enough margin to override a presidential veto.
They can't be bothered to approve drilling in the US, but they'll go to great lenghts to kick the folks who sell us oil.

Who the heck is advising these clowns?

J.

May 21, 2008

And so another political dynasty starts.

Political Radar: Madame President Clinton? Chelesa Clinton That Is

ABC News' Ed O'Keefe Reports: Perhaps there will be a Madame President Clinton after all. No, not Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. How about former first daughter and active campaigner Chelsea Clinton?
"If you asked me (if Chelsea would run for office) before Iowa, I would have said, 'No way. She is too allergic to anything we do.' But she is really good at it," former President Bill Clinton tells PEOPLE magazine in their latest issue, hitting newsstands Friday.

Good lord. Why don't we just establish a formal, hereditary aristocracy of politcal families?

J.

May 22, 2008

Reality. What a Concept!

First, we'll go with the NY Times take.

Senators Sharply Question Oil Officials - New York Times

WASHINGTON — Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee vented their fury over high gasoline prices at executives of the nation’s five largest oil companies on Wednesday, grilling the oilmen over their multimillion-dollar pay packages and warning them that Congress was intent on taking action that could include a new tax on so-called windfall profits.

Such showdowns between lawmakers and oil titans have become a familiar routine on Capitol Hill. But with gas prices nearing $4 a gallon, and lawmakers headed home for a weeklong Memorial Day recess where they expect to get an earful from angry constituents, there is added urgency for Congress to appear active.

It's not important to SOLVE the problem, after all - just to LOOK like you're doing something.
At the Judiciary Committee hearing, Democratic senators struggled to have the executives explain how oil prices had risen so high. The senators expressed doubt that basic laws of supply and demand were at work and suggested instead a more sinister combination of monopolistic behavior by oil-producing countries, speculation in the futures markets and sheer corporate greed.
And of the three, guess which is least important?

If you don't like monopolistic behavior by oil-producing countries - why can't we drill for more oil here at home?

The executives pushed back, suggesting that Democrats in Congress were at fault for not allowing more drilling and exploration for domestic oil and insisting that global economic conditions outside their control were mostly responsible for the high prices.

“As repetitive and uninteresting as it may sound, the fundamental laws of supply and demand are at work,” said John Hofmeister, the president of Shell Oil Company. “Oil exporting nations, as has been said, are managing their natural resource development and production to supply their local and global markets in their own self-interest.”

The price goes up because the demand goes up. This is apparently difficult to understand for Democrats in Congress - and they'd rather punish the oil companies because the worldwide price of crude is going through the roof than allow for more drilling in the US.

Look well, my friends, at the clowns playing at managing a crisis. There's no proposal to actually SOLVE the problem - they blame the supplier and then tie their hands so they can't produce more and bring down the price.

This crisis has been a long time coming. During it's approach, there's a number of things that could have been done to mitigate the effects. Each time, however, the 'easy' choice was made. Environmentalists got what they wanted - the squeaky wheels got the grease. Areas were put off-limits. Drilling was forbidden. Each step brought us closer to this, until the tipping point was reached. I think it was about when Katrina hit it became apparent we needed to increase the domestic oil supply - but such a thing was politically unfeasable at the time.

And now - we're in for a hard stretch of it. Pretty soon, people aren't going to care about the environmental aspects of drilling off the coasts or in ANWR. They're going to want to know why we can't. And I don't think the Democrats are going to be able to blame the oil companies for policies they've clearly fostered and encouraged.

They'll try, of course. To do anything else - like actually attempt to solve the problem, will be an admission of error. And that's simply not something that can be done.

Let's look at how CNN's Money reporting was slanted...

Oil executives go before Congress - May. 21, 2008

"You have to sense what you're doing to us - we're on the precipice here, about to fall into recession," said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. "Does it trouble any one of you - the costs you're imposing on families, on small businesses, on truckers?"

The executives said it did, and that they are doing all they can to bring new oil supplies to market, but that the fundamental reasons for the surge in oil prices are largely out of their control.

"We cannot change the world market," said Robert Malone, chairman and president of BP America Inc. "Today's high prices are linked to the failure both here and abroad to increase supplies, renewables and conservation."

Malone's remarks were echoed by John Hofmeister, president of Shell.

"The fundamental laws of supply and demand are at work," said Hofmeister. The market is squeezed by exporting nations managing demand for their own interest and other nations subsidizing prices to encourage economic growth, he said.

In addition, Hofmeister said access to resources in the United States has been limited for the past 30 years. "I agree, it's not a free market," he said.

The executives pushed the idea that large parts of the U.S. that are currently closed to drilling - like sections of Alaska, the Rocky Mountains and the continental shelf - should be opened.

"The place to start the free market is in our own country," said one executive. [The drilling ban] sets the stage for OPEC to do what we are doing in our own country, and that is effectively limiting supplies."

John Lowe, executive vice president of ConocoPhillips, said Congress should enact a balanced energy policy. In addition to lifting the drilling ban, such a policy could include measures to encourage alternative energy sources, remove the ethanol tariff, promote energy conservation, cut regulations around refining.

"We must work together to find a real solution," said Lowe. "U.S. oil companies should be viewed not as scapegoats, but as assets."

The executives also named several things that Congress should not do, first among them being a hike in taxes or an undoing of the mergers of the late 1990s.

The difference between the NYTimes and CNN Money is that reality is important to money managers. They need the little, petty details that the NYTimes doesn't want to bother with - like the executives giving suggestions on how to get through this.

But what would you want to bet that the Democrats are going to take the absolute worst way out of this? Hike taxes? Maybe even propose nationalization of the oil companies?

I swear, you'd almost think they were on the Saudi payroll.

J.

Something completely different...

NASA - 100 Explosions on the Moon

103, actually.

What's causing them? Hey, you take a chunk of space debris and whack it into the Moon at 30,000 mph, it's gonna spark.

Neat video, too. Enjoy!

J.


Congressional Idiocy

I was unfortunate enough to listen to Fox News today. Neal Cavuto was talking with a Representative from California about why they were investigating the oil companies. There was a brief exerpt of the Representative's speech to the oil executives today that went something like this... (I've been unable to find a transcript on-line.)

"I have no evidence of collusion and price fixing, gentlemen, but I believe that you're doing something illegal. The FEC (?) hasn't been able to find it, so you have to persuade me that you're not."
Great. They've got to prove a negative to the satisfaction of some nut in Congress who 'needs something to tell my constituents when they complain to me about high gas prices'.

So what are the oil companies supposed to say? "You can tell your constituents that your refusal to allow infrastructure upgrades have contributed to the current problem."? Yeah, that'd go well.

Neal then asked her why she was blocking new drilling. The response? "We can't drill our way out of this situation!" Energy conservation and big government alternative energy projects seemed to be the way to go - private sector nuclear and oil were out of the question.

So - garden variety stupid, or simply monomaniacal on the idea that no new drilling should be done anywhere in the continental US? I wish I had the transcripts - it'd be a lot easier to tell.

But more and more I'm thinking the Democrats have disconnected themselves from reality on this one. Energy conservation? Sure! That's why I installed motion sensing switches where practical. CF lights also. Alternative energy? Good f'n luck there - you need something workable NOW, not something that'll provide a government jobs program for the next 30 years. Let the private sector decide what'll work - and stand out of the way on new development of nuclear energy. We're supposed to be more like France, right? Well, they use a LOT of nuclear-generated electricity. Why don't we?

But in the mean time - explore. Drill like our economy depended on it. Develop solar and nuclear power to replace coal-fired power plants, but we have to have oil. There's just no substitute. And to block exploration/exploitation of that resource while we try to find other solutions... well, that's just plain idiocy.

J.

Uh, warming. Yeah. That caused it.

Many ski areas finish with record-breaking seasons - Outdoors Highlight Story - The Olympian - Olympia, Washington

Ski areas throughout the Northwest had such great snow in the 2007-08 winter that neither its November absence nor its road-closing, midwinter surplus could prevent a banner year for the winter-sports industry.
Several resorts - including the Summit at Snoqualmie - set new highs in skier/snowboarder visits and others, like White Pass, had seasons that ranked among their all-time best.

Snoqualmie's total of 714,000 user visits through April 30 already was more than 100,000 higher than its previous best winter. Washington's 49 Degrees North and Oregon's Mount Hood Meadows both set all-time records for skier visits, and White Pass had one of its top five years, with about 130,600 visits.

In all, Washington ski resorts will finish with about 2.1 million visits, about 50,000 off the record winter of 2001-02.

"These numbers are remarkable, because we had no November," said Scott Kaden, president of Pacific Northwest Ski Areas Association. "Some ski areas had to wait two weeks into December to get open, and some even had to wait three or four weeks.

We don't know as much as we think we know on the weather. Personally, I blame the lack of sunspots.

J.

May 26, 2008

Memorial Day.

The military is much more than it seems.

The Air Force's key visual is the pilot - but without many, many people keeping that plane running, the base working, the missions planned, medical support, communications supplied - that pilot would be a ground-pounder.

The Army's key visual is the grunt, fully laden down with his combat load and armor. But without many, many people providing transportation, logistic support, communications support, medical support - he'd be all dressed up with no place to go and nothing to do it with.

The Navy's key visual is the sailor on ship. But without the folks on shore making sure the ship has what it needs, where it needs it, when it needs it, and providing a thousand and one ancillary services from logistics to medical support to simply delivering the mail - that ship owuld soon find itself empty.

The Marines? The toughest of the services - but still needing logistics, communications, and transportation... most of which they crib off the Navy's budget. Without the extras, the Marine would be like the Grunt - loaded down with armor and his combat load and unable to get ot the fight.

So on this Memorial Day - I'd like to salute them all. The admin clerk in a base stateside, the missile crews under the western prairie, the Pilots trash-hauling and pulling combat missions around the world, the GI in Iraq, the Sailor in the Persian Gulf, the Marine in a God-forsaken hotspot somewhere I couldn't find on a map given Google Earth and three days.

You keep us free. And I am so proud to have been one of you for a time.

And I'd like to salute all who served in the past. Every contribution was needed - even if it didn't seem so at the time. It all went together to become the United States Military of today - and if you worked on weapons systems or hardware that's no longer used, when you were in it WAS needed.

On Memorial Day, 2008 - let us remember. We are the sum of all who have passed before.

J.

May 27, 2008

It comes down to a point...

Where, when victory is immenent, that a decision one way or another can make a big difference in the bloodshed still to come.

In Iraq, it looks like the back of the 'resistance' formed by Mookie and his dead-end Mahdi Army has been broken. They've stood down over the latest push in Sadr City, and weapons caches are being dismantled and destroyed.

Iraqi Army dismantles Mahdi Army caches in Sadr City - The Long War Journal
We've gone through a WEEK with only one death in Iraq, and that wasn't combat-related.

The people of Iraq have turned away from the radicals, and are pushing hard to rebuild.

And we could throw it all away easily. All it would take would be for whoever gets elected this year to declare we lost, and pull out our people unilaterally. Oh, whoever does it will paint a pretty picture of how we're leaving the Iraqis sufficient support - but that support will be quietly wound back... and then disappear because of 'increased violence' as the jackals from Iran and Syria see their opportunities.

We've done it before. Should I play 'name the party' on this one?

It looks like we can definitely win. Should we? Will we?

J.

Er, really dead - or just mostly dead?

Maybe parrot-dead?

Osama Bin Laden is not in Pakistan he is dead says Taliban leader

A top Taliban commander Baitullah Mehsud has rejected reports that al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden, and other leaders are hiding in his region.

"The al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden is dead, and the Afghan Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, are not in our territory," he said in an interview broadcast by a satellite television network.

Funeral prayers have been said for Osama bin Laden over the years with one reported by a Pakistani news organisation, and another in an Egyptian newspaper as far back as December 2001.
This report quoted an official of the Taliban saying that he had suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death.

Serious complications to the lungs? I can only hope he coughed up a lung - literally.

For quite a while now I've thought he was dead. There was the occasional video after 9/11, and then a few tapes... but when you consider how cheap recording equipment is, and video equipment - he should have been yakking up a storm, getting new videos to incite the faithful out on a weekly basis.

Instead, after ToraBora the were a few videotapes that could have been filmed at any time. And occasional scratchy (I understand) cassette tapes. Heck, take a few recordings of his speeches, convert them to WAV files, and cut&paste snippets into a new speech - it wouldn't be hard at all, and probably what was done.

So - Is Obama dead? Or just pinin' for the fjords?

J.

May 28, 2008

Well-Done Car-toon...

Saw Speed Racer the other day - and I'm rather impressed.

Oh, the physics are wrong, the materials science is bogus, and we won't even talk about the physiological aspects of the racing - but it was fun in a 'okay, we know this isn't a serious movie' way.

It's a cartoon. The colors are exceedingly vivid - the backgrounds at times seems almost drawn in. The characterization's close to what I recall the characters were like in the original series. And it's got plenty of 'edge of your seat' racing action.

(Of course, the next day we watched the Daytona 500. Funny how real-world racing seemed dull... they weren't even slamming into each other on purpose!)

Speed1.jpg


So, one down on the 4 movies I'd like to see. The others are "Iron Man", "Prince Caspian", and "Indiana Jones". Any opinions on those?

J.

Solving the Problem?

As I've said before - Democrats depend on a problem, an issue, to get into office. It's also important that they LOOK like they're solving the problem, while actually NOT doing a blessed thing to take it off the table. Case in point...

CJR: Watch the Democrats, Part II

A story in The Hill a few weeks ago, which we reported on, offered some grim comments from members of the Senate about prospects for health reform that have reverberated. Among others, they reverberated with Ezra Klein at The American Prospect, who commented on the senators’ comments and later that day ran two follow-up clarifications from Senator Jay Rockefeller and Senator Max Baucus. Rockefeller had originally said: “We all know there is not enough money to do all this stuff. What they are doing is…laying out their ambitions.” Baucus had told The Hill that the groundwork for reform was being laid through hearings, but he projected an uphill battle ahead. “If they try to solve all the problems, it’s going to be difficult.”

Good thing they'll not actually try then, isn't it? Oh, you'll get a lot of handwaving - but little in the way of actual health care reform.

And I do believe that's a feature, not a bug.

Update - There's this from the link above. Emphasis added...

The more skeptical among us might point out that it is also precisely what you do if you have no intention of moving ahead with legislation. On the Hill, they don’t call such activities “paralysis by analysis” or dog-and-pony shows for nothing. Years ago when I was a cub reporter at the Detroit Free Press, Michigan Senator Philip Hart, who was known as the conscience of the Senate, came by one Sunday afternoon. We talked about consumer protection laws, and he told me he was holding hearings on a fish inspection bill that I was interested in. Then the bill is going to pass, I naively asked the senator. No, said Hart, those hearings are just dog-and-pony shows to make the public think we are doing something. That’s a lesson I never forgot, and it is relevant for any journalist who will cover the nitty-gritty of health reform legislation next year.

Out in Montana, the home turf of Senator Baucus, Mike Dennison, a reporter in the state bureau for Lee Newspapers, seems to understand what Hart meant. Dennison wrote a piece that X-rayed the same fuzzy quotes and signals that The Hill reporter got. Right at the beginning Dennison told readers that Baucus says he is making health reform a top priority this year and next but hasn’t spelled out many details. Instead, Dennis reported, he has laid out five principles he wants to pursue. Ah, principles! That’s another way of dodging the substance when you don’t want to commit. Dennison quoted Bob Moffit, director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Moffit said what the boundaries of journalism would not let Dennison say. “None of these things are spelled out. The language doesn’t tell me anything about what the policy actually is. It’s a good sound bite, but it doesn’t say anything.”

Isn't that what's important? That it sound good, not that it say anything?

Looks like people are finally starting to wise up. The internet makes it MUCH more difficult to disguise such hand-waving.

J.

Trashing Bush for Fun and Profit

Seemed like everywhere I tried to get news today was consumed with analyzing Scott McClellan's book, "What Happened".

Yawn. An insider wrote a book that sounds like it came directly from the most lurid dreams of the Left. In fact, it sounds like it could have been written off the Daily Kos.

Which brings up the question - if he was participating in something that he saw AT THE TIME as near evil, why didn't he blow the whistle?

Why did he wait until about 5 months before the election to come out with all this? (He should have waited - two months would have been MUCH more effective.)

And why did he do what he criticized others for doing?

Political Punch

Before he wrote his own memoir, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was rather critical of those who did the same.

In fact, some of the same language now being used to trash McClellan he himself used to trash previous administration authors.
On the book critical of the Bush White House written in cooperation with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul
O'Neill," McClellan said on January 12, 2004:

McCLELLAN: "It appears to be more about trying to justify personal views and opinions than it does about looking at the results that we are achieving on behalf of the American people."
Arguably, McClellan wasn't a terribly effective press secretary. Could this be a way of trying to rebuild his credibility? Or did he get a nice little nest egg that pretty much insures he'll never have to make nice to the inmates of the Inside Beltway Insane Asylum?

By the way - the comments to the above article are quite interesting. They don't seem to think much of McClellan's work, oddly enough.

Could it be folks are starting to realize the media's been showing us reflections in a fun-house mirror instead of actual news for the last 8 years?

J.

Ponderings...

This has been percolating for a while. Enjoy...

"Life's like a movie - write your own ending..." - K.tF

Actually, life is much more like a piece of fiction. Not terribly good fiction, at that, in most cases.

One of the minor problems of reading a lot of fiction is that after a while you tend to equate life with the stories you read. You want to fit the outlines of your life into the structure of a story - with a beginning as things start up, tension building as things unfold, then a dramatic climax and resolution of the plot, with everything tied up neatly leaving no subplots to cause problems later. Then the story ends.

You put the book away, satisfied with the ending. Or you throw it across the room because the plot, characterization and writing just plain stunk. Or it's the first in a series, and you want MORE!

Either way, that particular book or story is over. There's a resolution, an ending - and you can put it away. You can forget it - or incorporate what you've taken away from the story into your own life. I've done that with quite a few books - learning much that was honorable and good and some things which were base and not so honorable along the way. So it goes - the good and the bad intertwine and cancel each other out. I've tried hard to be worthy of my lovely bride - and with the Best Boy Ever in my life, I try even harder to be a good man. He'll learn from me what a man should be - I owe it to him to be a character worthy of emulation. If you're looking for characters worthy of emulation, I might well suggest the writings of Louis L'amour, by the way.

However - real life doesn't flow like a story. It's messy. It's convoluted. There's bits and pieces that you don't understand that you'll never get any explanation on, and you know how sometimes you think you've missed a critical plot twist? Well, you can't go back and try again - whatever it was is past, as surely as the snows of childhood. The chapter or subplots resolve themselves - but often you don't realize it until long after the fact. The story you live goes on much longer than that - and the final page often comes as a surprise.

And although we tend to, at least when young, try to plan out the broad structures of the story - often the details are something completely different than what was planned. The plot takes twists and turns like a roller coaster - and the preparation before you get on the ride determines whether you're happy with where you end up, or wearing your lunch... or end up somewhere in the middle.

When I was younger, before going in the Air Force in '74, I thought I'd do 20 years then retire. What came after that - I didn't have a clue. Twenty years seems like such a LONG time - but I was also thinking that my chance of making it wasn't too great, what with the fair chance of the US and the USSR getting into nuclear warfare. It didn't happen, which I don't mind in the least...

Anyway - that would take me to 1994 - but I'd be less than 40. What would I do for the remaining 40 years of my life? I had a nebulous idea of going to college on the GI Bill, but that turned out to be a joke, and not a terribly funny one at that - so no more on that bit. I'd get married - perhaps. But the idea of the future Mrs. Lawson was pretty incomplete.

Life doesn't work quite the way you expect. I had some very interesting (in the good sense) training in the Air Force, lost a lot of good opportunities due to focusing on plot details that were pretty far off what I needed to be doing at the time, got out in '84, moved to Atlanta, and had 'interesting' (in the Chinese sense) times for a few years. Then I was lucky enough to get back into the AF in a Reserve capacity - and did well enough to do 13 more years. I was fortunate enough to meet my lovely bride - and things got a lot better. Oddly enough, we got married in 1993. A year early, according to my original schedule? Well, the plot goes as it will.

The story took a much better turn. I started making better decisions, and better choices, leading to better jobs. Could it be simply because I'd made the wrong choices at first, and learned from them? It's hard to tell - but I like to think you tend to remember characters who learned from their mistakes much more fondly than characters who stupidly, obstinately made the same mistakes over and over again. It took me a while to realize I didn't have to make the same choices - that there WERE ways to do things that didn't include a whole lot of heartache in my personal life.

I learned. But some folks don't seem to, and there's a lot of them, if you hadn't noticed. But each of them is writing their own story, each sees himself as the central character of their narrative. The world DOES revolve around them, they're at the centers of their own stories - just not in a way that's particularly beneficial to them. That preparation I spoke of? It's a combination of schooling, talent, intelligence, judgement, sensible risk-taking and self-knowledge.

We all write our own stories. We're all the center of our respective narratives. There are characters that enter our lives for a while, then leave, only to pop up decades later - others that enter and stay. But we're all at the center. The world does indeed revolve around me. And you. And all of us.

"Life's like a movie - write your own ending." - Kermit the Frog

He got it almost right. Life's like a story - a tale unfolding. And you're at the center of it. The problem is - there's a LOT of different genres, and there's a lot of them I wouldn't care to be stuck in.

J.

May 30, 2008

Yawn.

Gossip - New York Post

SUSAN SARANDON, who appeared in three films last year and won kudos for her TV movie "Bernard and Doris," is still not a contented soul. She says if John McCain gets elected, she will move to Italy or Canada. She adds, "It's a critical time, but I have faith in the American people."

Let's see. You threatened to move in 2000. 2004 also? Now, 2008.

Delta is STLL ready when you are.

J.

About May 2008

This page contains all entries posted to Rusted Sky in May 2008. They are listed from oldest to newest.

April 2008 is the previous archive.

June 2008 is the next archive.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.36