January 20, 2006
Wow, we're in for a world of hurt if that's true. Later...
Almost 20 percent of students pursuing four-year degrees had only basic quantitative skills. For example, the students could not estimate if their car had enough gas to get to the service station. About 30 percent of two-year students had only basic math skills.How about this - if it's close to E at all, find the nearest service station and fill up. If you're really that dumb, you won't even find the need to compare gas prices. Rocket science, no?
At the end of the article: "On campus, the tests were given in 2003 to a representative sample of 1,827 students at public and private schools." How about the more likely explanation - the 1827 students didn't give a rat's ass about this test.
The issue here isn't college. If these things are TRULY menacing problems, the problem is lack of a solid high school education. Everybody's got a weak spot (I had some stock do a 3 for 2 split, and the math for that wasn't immediate for even software developer me), but, really, people, I'm more likely to believe test takers didn't care/weren't applying themselves than I am to worry about college grads not being able to function in society.
hln
Posted by: hln at
05:31 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 263 words, total size 2 kb.
September 03, 2005
CNN does one of three things with its stories up until today (when finally it tells us how to help). Here's what they are:
1) Airs stories about how much worse things are getting. (Chicken Little syndrome)
2) Prints stories about how the relief effort isn't good enough/criticizes the federal government.
3) Shows pictures of suffering people in private moments with emotionless taglines. I don't have one handy, but you probably know what I mean: "Watch so and so weep at the loss of his wife of blah blah blah"
What's out there today? "Democrats want disaster answers." What, do they think that the Bush administration has a direct line to God? You want guaranteed safety along the coasts? Don't live there. There you go. Completely not feasibly, but guaranteeable.
Then there are the black leaders yapping about poor response to the crisis. This IS a horrible tragedy. It's brought out the best and worst in people - the best being the outpouring of support and the worst being the miscreant lawless individuals looting and burning New Orleans. And, as I predicted, the best and worst have been synchronous in their occurrence. Hey, black leaders, what's your position - you think the federal government saw what was happening, said "oh, it's just poor black people, let's play another six rounds of canasta?" Idiots. Quit your yapping, open your pocketbooks or roll up your shirtsleeves (if you're down there), and do something. Remember the HURRICANE that caused the problem? Yeah, you think it might be impeding logistical scenarios of getting food and water to suffering people. Wow, that might just be occurring. Of course, if the refugees were mostly white, then the flood waters would miraculously subside, and help would have arrived Monday evening. RIIIIIGHT...
I'm disheartened about the lack of stories of all of the people who've survived and still have each other. I have a client who's based in New Orleans. She's in Baton Rouge (with just about everybody else, she said - the city's overrun) and has probably lost everything. Her son's in the National Guard helping at Flood Zero. And other than being a bit depressed that she's likely not got a home anymore, she's in pretty good sprits and recognizes it could be much, much worse.
And you know what, the response to something like this is NEVER going to be good enough. It's the fact that we're fallible human beings, and that certainly isn't going to change. Kudos to everyone who's doing what they can to help.
Human suffering sucks. It feels like we can't ever send enough money or pray enough. But with human spirit there's always hope. Thank you to Sri Lanka, Japan, Singapore, Great Britain, and all of the other countries who are helping.
hln
Posted by: hln at
09:08 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 528 words, total size 3 kb.
June 30, 2005
That was yesterday, and I didn't even bother to read it. I'd imagine a whole lot of other folks didn't read it either but caught the headline, some of those people started to worry. If you firebombed my house (please don't), you'd have a similar pile of asbestos from our previous siding. So perhaps all of our neighbors should move away due to the risk.
I'd also like to note that asbestos on the house != (does not equal, for you non-geeks) asbestos in the air. So, asbestos on the ground != asbestos in the air. What's a safe amount of asbestos in the air?
The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that if a person breathed one fiber of asbestos per cubic foot of air for his entire lifetime, his risk of developing cancer would increase by no more than a 1 in 100,000 chance.But today, hey, here's the headline. At least it tells me the story I need to know, "Praxair finds no asbestos in air."
Now, lest you think I don't want to fault the company with anything, if discovery finds that Praxair employees were being foolish or lacksidasical on the job, I'll be one of the loudest critics. But what needs to be emphasized with every stinking news article is that the company followed proper disaster procedures. And it obviously had good ones in place.
Back to the issue at hand:
Test results released by industrial gas company Praxair found no asbestos in the air around the historic homes in the St. Louis neighborhood, company officials said late Wednesday afternoon.The state will do its testing of the air today.
The city's director of public safety Sam Simon said he had not yet seen the reports, and would wait until he had confirmation from the state. If the reports are true, that's good - "real good," Simon said.
Praxair sent workers into the neighborhood Tuesday night to remove 20 to 30 chunks of exploded gas tanks from streets, driveways and yards, said company president Wayne Yakich.
hln
Posted by: hln at
05:41 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.
June 28, 2005
The company's name is Praxair. It can be easily found on the web by typing "Praxair" into Google. Voila.
Why is this relevant? Oh, it's that Post-Dispatch again carrying the "plight of da people."
Residents in Lafayette Square learned the truth about one of their neighbors Friday, when a chain of explosions and a giant fireball launched metal canisters into their neighborhood.Why is "the truth" put in that paragraph? Its as if sinister Praxair had tried to obfuscate its business practices. Hardly. See website.
Leaders of the historic area say they had no idea that Praxair Inc., a gas distribution company, was handling flammable gases. Furthermore, they say such a facility should not operate in a residential area and are demanding that it relocate.St. Louis has quite a bit of industry. Though I don't have the history of the area, I'm sure I could consult my mother and my uncle and learn that the industry predated the people. Perhaps I shall. Again, I'd like to point out that there were no deaths at the plant, and no serious injuries. If you have to have a disaster...
The truth. Remember, the residents learned "the truth." That needs a sound effect. I think that one that goes with the Magic Eight Ball Easter Egg in MS Access works great. The truth. Bohm! (I'll see if I can find the .wav).
I should disclose in the interest of non-journalism that Praxair uses one of my software products (not local Praxair, but a facility shipping these gases internationally). So I was aware of its gas-handling practices. <sarcasm>I KNEW THE TRUTH</sarcasm>.
By the way, did you see the note on the website at Praxair? "Update: Monday, June 27, 2005 -- The following updates previous statements on the fire at the Praxair Distribution facility in St. Louis. Employees at the Praxair Distribution facility in St. Louis expect to make 100% of their customer deliveries today. "
hln
Posted by: hln at
05:34 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 2 kb.
June 26, 2005
- Cut it into the shape of a beach towel and head to Florida to give it a spin.
- Paint parts of it the color of your favorite football team and fly it on Sundays.
- Sulfuric acid? (It's not fire)
- Hang it upside down
- Cut a big hole out of the middle. Instant poncho!
Perhaps "Flag Burning" has been attached to this too soon. I'd be careful wearing red, white, and blue together if this thing passes. You might be considered a desecrator. Or perhaps Congress will need to pass an amendment to define "desecration."
Desecration: blasphemous behavior; the act of depriving something of its sacred character;
Like what this amendment would symbolically do to free speech?
Yeah, that.
hln
Posted by: hln at
07:17 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.
March 12, 2005
The principles? Women are smarter than men. Bosses are overpaid. And don't e-mail. He's kind enough to state this for us in paragraph two, the one that wraps around his photo because of the P-D's output software.
Here, Billy, I've got one for you. It's awfully novel, and you couldn't write about it because it would, gasp, pass judgment, and we all know you wouldn't dare do that to an individual. Here it is. Are you ready?
Don't cheat on your spouse.
There, now, really. Is that so hard? Or did you just have nothing to write about that day? Perhaps about Wednesday next week we'll hear about Brian Nichols' traumatic childhood and Judge Barnes' tendency to scowl at the homeless on Thursdays.
hln
Posted by: hln at
08:53 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.
January 23, 2005
Survey: Users Confuse Search Results, Ads
NEW YORK - Only 1 in 6 users of Internet search engines can tell the difference between unbiased search results and paid advertisements, a new survey finds.18%. Okay, the other 82% of you - get off the Internet.
The Pew Internet and American Life Project reported Sunday that adults online in the United States are generally naive when it comes to how search engines work.
The major search engines all return a mix of regular results, based solely on relevance to the search terms entered, and sponsored links, for which a Web site had paid money to get displayed more prominently.
Google Inc. marks such ads as "sponsored links," Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news) terms them "sponsor results" and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN uses "sponsored sites." Such ads are placed to the right and on top of the regular search results, in some cases highlighted in a different color.
But only 38 percent of Web searchers even know of the distinction, and of those, not even half — 47 percent — say they can always tell which are paid. That comes out to only 18 percent of all Web searchers knowing when a link is paid.
Perhaps that's a bit hasty given the last paragraph, which states that only 1399 of the 2200 people surveyed were Internet users. But, still! This stuff isn't difficult. I wonder how these people would respond if asked "is everything you read on the Internet true?"
Or if these are the same people (advertising writers, perhaps) who push my pet peeve with words like "Log on to <insert website here>." Uh, you're only logging on if you've registered a username and a password, people. Otherwise you're just VISITING.
Whoa. Volatile. This blogging stuff probably isn't too good for already stressed-out Type-A sorta folks. I'll be back later.
hln
Posted by: hln at
05:22 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 2 kb.
September 10, 2004
The attacks were on September 11th. Not your friendly, easy-to-say "Nine Eleven." That moniker irritates me more than I can state in a short rant I'm penning between work items. Let it be known that I find "Nine Eleven" is way too familiar and offhanded. It sounds too close to "Seven Eleven" - yes, the convenience store. The term is warm and fuzzy, offhanded. It's coined for ease of use. And it - though little else does - it offends me. A nickname for the worst attack in American history.
I'd imagine I'm not the only one. Give the day its proper bearing - at least call it September 11th. And say it slowly. Yes, those extra syllables may be taxing - especially to the media - but they're worth it.
hln
Posted by: hln at
10:29 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 188 words, total size 1 kb.
August 01, 2004
Posted by: hln at
09:24 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 2 kb.
May 13, 2004
Anyone shocked? Not me - it all goes back to the choice factor. Morgan Spurlock, the Super Sized One, gained 25 pounds. Can you gain 25 pounds at home in a month? Sure. It's hard work to take in nearly 3500 extra calories a day, but it can be done. I think good soda and beer infusions would help. Lots of cake, lasagna, turnovers, pork steak, bratwurst, and fried chicken would give you a good boost. Full-fat cheese, bacon. Oh, and don't leave your chair.
(My source on the second film is old - meant to blog this a couple of weeks ago).
We are human beings, capable of many amazing things. We make many choices in our daily lives. What we eat and how much of it shouldn't be all that difficult, especially when something as objective as weight gain surfaces. We all do have to eat. Food is not tobacco, and I scorn the people who try to lump them together.
Somehow I manage to avoid the McDonald's across the way from work and the one right by the gym about 364 days out of the year. On that 365th day or so, I usually eat a medium fry, grilled chicken sandwich with no mayo, and drink either water or lemonade. This is 450 - 650 calories, depending on what I'm drinking and how much BBQ sauce I put on my fries.
I found an article on CNN.com from last Friday that set me off. Most of the article is about the issue as a whole, including proposed legislation to block silly lawsuits. But what's the title? Advocate: Lawsuits viable obesity weapon. What do you think CNN thinks?
Yes, people are fat. Whose fault is that? In most cases (yes, Heather is making a few exceptions for medical anomalies), it's the individual's fault. While I agree with the end of raising awareness and bringing about more healthy alternatives, the lawsuit means are not acceptable. No one forces you to visit a restaurant, and no one forces you to order off of a restaurant's menu if it doesn't contain healthy food. And that's the heart of this - we have free will. It's not irresponsibility of the food industry for giving consumers what they want. The responsibility lies with the individual. You, potential sue-r, you're a freaking sheep! Baaaa!
"Trial lawyers and (state) attorneys general can be extremely helpful," said Michael Jacobson, head of the consumer group Center for Science in the Public Interest, by "filing innovative suits" that prompt foodmakers to produce healthier foods.
CSPI is behaving like PETA here. The end does not justify the means. So put your clothes back on and get out of the cage, Jacobson. (That'd work better if he were female).
hln
Posted by: hln at
05:22 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 524 words, total size 3 kb.
April 06, 2004
I'll bet you've seen that or something like it before. This is a card I got today from Grace Church, a local non-denominational entity that's so large it requires or employs police officers to direct traffic on Sunday mornings. I'm not denigrating it; I'm just calling it like it is.
You see that nail? That ain't where it goes.
I've long been fascinated by the Shroud of Turin - probably since early high school. I became somewhat fascinated by Christ's crucifixion and crucifixion in general, as odd as that may sound. I read bits of all sorts of books - those who believed it (the Shroud) to be genuine and those who dubbed it a fake.
But back to the nail. Today's lesson involves the Space of Destot. Now, I've not seen The Passion of Christ, and, truthfully, don't feel (or think) I need to. So, someone will have to clue me in if Mel Gibson and his moviemaking crew got this detail right.
The Space of Destot is described as "an unsuspected gap in the wrist" - not the hand. Quoting from the 1984 book The Turin Shroud Is Genuine, page 76:
Considering the nail wound in the wrist first, Vignon had presumed that nails in the palms would not support a body on a plain cross. Barbet proved it using a dead body. Vignon pointed out that the nail had apparently been driven through the wrist, and realised that this would have given sufficient strength to hold the body. Barbet actually drove a nail through the wrist of an amputated arm. The wrist is a mass of bones, and it was not until he placed the nail against it, and struck hard with the hammer, that the nail forced its way through an unsuspected gap called 'The Space of Destot'. As the nail went through, it penetratd or displacd the long tendon coming from the forearm that flexes the thumb, which was drawn across the palm.For further information about the Space of Destot, I send you here, here, and here. (I love this web thing - I didn't have any of this available as a young lass of 14 or so).
I'm somewhat bothered that the church doesn't know this. For some silly reason, I feel that all of the knowledge in my head is common knowledge, but of course that is not true.
Just one more crucifixion tidbit - tidbit being a horribly misplaced word for such a gruesome and terrible way to die. Those crucified do not die from bleeding to death - they die from asphyxiation - the inability to breathe. They suffocate. The Gospel of St. John mentions in 19:32 - 33:
Then came the soliders, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.If a man is struggling to breathe on a cross, he's likely pushing upward with his nailed feet. This is no longer possible with broken legs. Presumably, the crucifixion of the thieves had lost its spectacle appeal after some time.
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs.
While two days before Maundy Thursday might be a compelling time for a church to recruit new members, it ought to package a bit of substance with its marketing.
hln
Posted by: hln at
07:02 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 565 words, total size 4 kb.
February 04, 2004
The pork chops I meal-planned (verb, indeed) for dinner this evening were rotten. I lashed out at the grocery store...and removed them from consideration for my business for the next month. As I have done before. What I said:
Today is February 4, 2004. This is just another day, but it is also the day my household is slated to eat pork chops and green beans. For, you see, I purchased said items last weekend at your Maryland Heights store, and the pork chops, as you can see, clearly state "Sell by 2/4/04." Today is 2/4/04. The pork chops were properly refrigerated for the duration of their stay in my home.hln
Sell By, I have learned but obviously am a bad customer for I have not fully taken to heart, really means "ingest a few days before, preferably two at least." Your store has coined its own meaty euphemism, and, frankly, I'm quite tired of it.
No pork chops for my family this evening. These are rancid enough that your meat packaging department should have known better. One whiff, and I traded cellopane removal for photograph procurement. This has happened often enough and with a wide enough variety of meats (though primarily pork and chicken) that you have lost our business for the following month. It's happened before, and perhaps this time I'll not return. Your "Pride of the Farm" is now my "Pride of the Trash Can." Your $5.19 sticker price - unearned.
Am I angry? Yes, I'm angry. This has happened at three of your stores in the St. Louis area, multiple occasions. When I moved here almost 6 years ago, I lived near the Ladue Crossings store. Twice I tried to cook meat on the "Sell by" date. Bad idea, Customer. It occurred with chicken from your Breckenridge Ridge store, and I never returned. I live near the Dorsett and McKelvey store now, and have done 80% of my shopping at that store since my move to Maryland Heights almost 4 years ago. My average in weekly grocery expenditure is $150. In my former month boycott, you lost approximately $600 of my money. Small (but hopefully not rotten) potatoes, I'm sure.
When I was in graduate school in Columbia in the mid 90's, Schucks was the QUALITY store in town. Things change; Dierberg's is already making the cha-ching noise.
A former customer,
Heather Noggle
[address removed]
Posted by: hln at
08:24 PM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 409 words, total size 3 kb.
January 01, 2004
And this is a rant. New York - the state this time - in time for this joyous New Year has decided to regulate carelessness. No, really, it did. I promise. And it feels good about itself.
-
ALBANY, N.Y. - To prevent house fires set by careless smokers, New York state has adopted the nation's first rules mandating that cigarettes sold in the state must be rolled with lower-ignition paper.
The so-called "fire-safe" cigarettes will extinguish by themselves if not puffed on, and advocates say they will prevent many of the fires now triggered by smokers who leave cigarettes unattended.
And that's just a slight eye-rolling statement. Next, there's this:
-
"This could be the beginning of a global standard for cigarettes," said Blair Horner, legislative director for the New York Public Interest Research Group. "If New York goes ahead, it will drive a national debate because tobacco companies are not going to make one set of cigarettes for New York and one for the rest of the U.S. And if the U.S. sets standards, those will be standards for the entire globe."
-
Every year approximately 900 Americans die, 2,500 are injured and $400 million in damage is caused by fires started by cigarettes, according to the American Burn Association and the federal government.
The lower-ignition paper does nothing to reduce the toxicity of cigarettes to smokers or to reduce the health effects of smoking.
You know - I have an idea. New York - why don't you just ban the damned things altogether. Next year on New Year's Eve? Okay. If you're gonna meddle in your shopkeepers' lives and tell them what they can and cannot sell, might as well REALLY regulate, no?
I'm only have joking. I'm only half serious. I suppose I should be glad that the news today is this absolutely inane. (You're not even reading anymore, are you?) Brian opened the newspaper this morning and noted the cover story. I gave him a blank look, like, so what? He said yes, nothing blew up.
Good point.
hln
Posted by: hln at
08:24 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 468 words, total size 3 kb.
December 19, 2003
Apparently so.
-
MINNEAPOLIS - One of the state's most influential medical groups has joined the fray in saying officials should change language on the state Department of Health's Web site suggesting abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.
In a letter obtained by the Star Tribune dated Dec. 9, Dr. Robert Meiches, head of the Minnesota Medical Association, said the site's language — while not exactly inaccurate — is misleading and confusing to women.
The breast cancer language has generated controversy since it was first posted in September, because critics say it's designed to frighten women considering abortion.
And back to the case at hand. Hey, abortion kills fetuses - whom some of us see as human beings! Would that not dissuade some pregnant lady folk who might be considering ridding themselves of what Ani DiFranco lyricizes "the son or daughter I thought better of." I'll bet it does. Does the word "kill" elicit fear? PETA certainly hopes so.
But here's the paragraph that flipped the switch on the Blog About flag to. 1. Here's the big, nasty, horrifying offensive language.
-
The Web site, as well as a Health Department pamphlet, state that some studies suggest that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, while other studies suggest no increased risk. That contradicts the conclusions of the nation's leading medical institutions, including the National Cancer Institute (news - web sites), which found earlier this year that there is no evidence of an increased risk.
"It is deliberately deceptive," said Dr. Janette Strathy, legislative director of the Minnesota branch of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "It oversimplifies a very complex situation with the goal of frightening the patient."
What's the complex situation? I'm lost.
Oh, and, hey, wait - we're Americans. We're too stupid to realize that medical studies might contradict each other and make up our own minds. "Suggest" means "Is." We can't read that sentence and conclude that there's conflicting evidence. You know what - a woman who never has children incurs increased risk for breast cancer. Quick, women, conceive! Hey, honey, do we have plans for this evening? I really ought to reduce my risk for breast cancer, no? I mean, it is my top priority, and reading that something might put me at risk puts me into immediate tizzy irrational panic! Aargh! What a euphemism that is anyway - reducing the risk of breast cancer.
[Reader: note change from Health category to RANT]
Interestingly, I side with the NCI on this one. If it says no increased risk, probably no increased risk. But goodness - quit the freak-out. Anybody disagree that further studies on breast cancer and all/any of its possible causes is a bad thing? Oh, the controversy of this complex issue. Let us plaster all of the newspapers with this horrible miseducation of our nation's women.
hln
Posted by: hln at
01:07 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 575 words, total size 4 kb.
December 01, 2003
-
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. - A Baptist minister whose fall from grace began with a fire his wife set at a home he had secretly bought with his mistress will walk out of prison on Sunday and head directly to the pulpit.
Would you take spiritual guidance from THIS man? (I haven't even gotten to the rest of his wrongdoings. It gets worse.)
The answer, most seriously, is no way. I don't remember ever writing about Christianity, my beliefs. Perhaps now is the time.
I have exactly 10 minutes, so I'll not be able to do an insightful Michael Williams-style post complete with scripture passages, but I think I'll amble along just fine with the points I intend to make.
Ministers - members of the clergy - undergo rigorous instruction in the faith. I can't speak for the Baptist denomination, but Lutheran ministers who study in the seminary learn to read Hebrew to more fully understand the Bible in its original language/context. Those of us who are familiar with Christianity and its teachings know and can recite the ten commandmants. Armed with that alone, this man knew better.
He knew - or should have known - that there are consequences for actions. For him, indeed, the consequences were great regardless of whether or not he was ever "caught."
The bible speaks that we are lost souls without God. I've always interpreted that to mean that God, through Jesus, has saved us. That we still have the responsibility to ourselves and to God to try to lead the best possible life, and through parables and teachings, the actions of Jesus, we are given the path. The man who "stands around" and "waits" for spiritual guidance is nothing more than a sheep who will never find his shepherd, not truly believing that he has been given the tools he needs to live an as-virtuous-as-possible life.
Back to this man. Sexual sins by the clergy are reprehensible. I never commented on the Catholic debacle, and this will suffice to say I'll not do so again, but the theme ties here. The actions of leaders, who are given power and authority IN THE NAME OF GOD, must be beyond reproach. Especially in this world where so many dismiss Christianity due to the scandals and corruption. How can we expect those who don't believe - especially rational adults - to look past the messes made by people and find God when their own husbands, wives, and children may be nothing more than eventual prey?
Now, am I qualified to judge? No, not really. I am also not a spiritual leader, and though God may see a sin as a sin, societally, we know different.
And, societally, we judge and decide what we believe. I tell you this man is an obvious disservice to Christianity.
Now, that being said, I'll give you some more meat from the article
-
Lyons will have completed his prison sentence on grand theft and racketeering charges, but will remain on probation for the next three years on federal charges of including bank fraud and tax evasion. He also owes $2.5 million in restitution.
Wildly popular and charismatic, Lyons was at the height of his power as pastor of Bethel Metropolitan Baptist Church and president of the National Baptist Convention 1997, when Deborah Lyons set fire to the house.
The resulting investigation unmasked Lyons' use of his leadership role at the convention to access millions of dollars to finance his lavish lifestyle. Officials estimate that Lyons took about $4 million to buy luxury residences, jewelry and support his mistresses.
hln
Posted by: hln at
07:35 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 622 words, total size 4 kb.
October 25, 2003
Rant warning in effect. Semi-long post.
more...
Posted by: hln at
01:42 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 857 words, total size 5 kb.
September 24, 2003
I don't remember the why behind the no. So we looked into cable. At that time, this area was serviced by St. Louis' secondary cable company (which was later bought by Charter, about 2 years ago), and it did not offer cable Internet service. So, we were pretty much outta luck, this being early 2000. We got a 2nd phone line so that we can both do work/play online at once. Yes, sometimes we IM each other from different parts of the house. I digress.
Time passes. Dial-up SUFFICES, but we both get into this blog thing. As you probably know, sometimes it's a go-down-the-blogroll festival of link opening into new windows. This takes forever to load in 56k (which is a farce - I connect at 23.6 usually). You can read Meryl giving it a good gripe since she was blogging away from home due to Isabel. I keep thinking, "honey, you have NO idea."
Back on track. One of these SBC Yahoo advertisements made its way into our home, and it planted that little advertising seed, you know, like it's aiming to do. So we called, or submitted it on the Internet - I'm not sure which came first. They call us back, leave a muffled message on our answering machine. I call the next day - Thursday or Friday of last week, and I spend 30 minutes on the phone with smarmysalesrep, who says, "Yes, ma'am, Ms. Noogle (note the two Os - bad bad), we can get that for you. I don't know WHAT they were talking about." He signs me up. Our nifty modem came in a box Monday with the go-live date of, um, tomorrow. I accidentally attributed the wrong phone number to the order, so Brian calls on Monday and clears that up.
Yesterday, I receive a call from the contractor who would be doing any necessary beforehand work to ensure this'll work. He has some bad news. That phone line isn't copper; rather, it's fiber optic, and that's a "no can do" with DSL. He's trying to hook that to the original number, though, and so ever-hopeful Heather says, "No, wait, that's the WRONG phone number. Try this one" and gives him the new. He calls me back today - same deal.
To do DSL with this kind of set-up, the technician informs me, requires some sort of remote station. And, that's slated to happen, oh, about 2005.
Okay, people. This the year 2003. Our technology is amazing. AMAZING. Look at new computers today - mine's so ancient (almost 3 years now) that I have no idea what's out there. And, seeing that mine's perfectly functional, even for a session of Asheron's Call or two, it'll be, oh, a few months before I seriously look at upgrading some of the pieces. My point, though, is LOOK AT THE ADVANCES IN THREE YEARS. I know they're there. Some of the servers at work have a GIG of RAM. GIG! (Sorry for yelling, sorta.) What's SBC advanced? Um, it can PRINT MORE ADS and not provide any more service.
Zounds. Feel the acid. So, I've flipped the switch in my head that says "something more than dial-up." Seeing as we dropped cable on its sorry ass in June, that's kinda out of the question. At least with Charter. Ah, but there is another, as Yoda would say.
Maryland Heights, my municipality, for some reason has TWO cable companies. Most of the rest of the metro area is only serviced by Charter. So, I call Cable America today and get the hook-up. The funny part? The whole thing is LESS expensive (when you take away my dial-up account) with the Internet access and a similar cable package than what Brian and I were paying with Charter.
Pblllllht on SBC.
hln
Posted by: hln at
07:19 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 703 words, total size 4 kb.
September 22, 2003
I gave it the perfunctory once-over, not really reading it, but bookmarking it for later. Well, today, I went back, and here's what I found.
On a page named "what is redism?" I learned that I am oppressed. This page appears to be COMPLETELY SERIOUS. (I, however, of course, am NOT...so enjoy)
Fisssssssssk!
-
If you're a redhead, you almost certainly had times at school when people
picked on you, simply because you were different to everyone else. You were
the one with red hair, and you were to be avoided at all costs. You
supposedly had the short fuse, the unpredictable temperament and I bet you
were the last one to be picked for any team too.
-
There were the taunts of "gingernut", "ginger" and "carrot-top". You may
remember others. You could be walking along one day and some idiot with
nothing better to do would call out across the street "GINGER!", leaving you
to guess his I.Q. to be under 10. And did you ever wonder why you got called
"carrot-top", when you could have sworn your hair wasn't green?
-
You may have managed to ignore it or laugh it off. Even the severest
taunting can be forgotten as soon as it stops, or when you leave school. You
tend to hope that adults won't voice their opinions of redheads in such a
childish manner. However, this kind of treatment can make an impact. Your
confidence can be dented by playground jibes, you can become shy or
introverted, and you may well feel as if you are less important than other
people with a different, "normal" hair-colour.
-
The worrying thing is that redism doesn't end in the playground. You can
hope as much as you like but the truth is that you're stuck with the jokes
for life. The worst of it is that adults seem to be able to get away with it
without it even being deemed cruel! Having reached my twenties I still get
the "ginger abuse" from kids and young men and women of my age!
-
Redism appears to be viewed as an acceptable prejudice to hold by many
people, including high profile figures such as MPs or judges (see The Hall
of Shame). But in this age of political correctness, how do they get away
with this kind of behaviour? Should this be tolerated?
-
In April 2000, for example, NPower, an electricity and gas supplier ran a
poster campaign to try and get customers to switch their electricity supply
to their service. One of the posters depicted a family of two parents and
one boy, each having red hair. The caption for this advert read, "There are
some things in life you can't chose".
-
Consider what would have happened if the poster depicted 3 black people,
with exactly the same caption. There would have been a public outcry, the
government would openly attack the company and the advertising agency and
the press would be plastered with the news that a well-known company was
racist. The poster campaign would be banned, if indeed it did manage to get
the go-ahead in the first place.
More black people versus redheads oppression theme for the next several paragraphs - not even a good argument.
But, most importantly, I learned I'm a minority! Oh, wait, I already get a bunch o' unearned perks for being female, so I guess that's no matter. What I learned here today is that I'm oppressed, and life as a redhead isn't worth living? Hmm - I seem to remember something about "I'd rather be dead than red on the head." Yeah, heard that one a few times.
Tall bridge just made for jumping is to the north, buddy.
hln
Posted by: hln at
08:51 PM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 767 words, total size 5 kb.
September 17, 2003
1) Pick up a Ted Rall column. This one will do.
2) Tell yourself you're going to fisk it (before reading).
3) Read and fisk at the same time. Like this!
-
NEW YORK--What kind of world would it be if someone
set your car ablaze because it guzzled too much fuel?
A better one, argues the Earth Liberation Front, a
loosely-organized ecoterrorist organization that
spray-painted environmentalist graffiti such as "gross
polluter" and "fat, lazy Americans" on 30 sport
utility vehicles at two car dealerships and set fire
to a third on Aug. 22. Several SUVs and 20 Hummer H2s
were destroyed. On Sept.2, 22 more SUVs were trashed
at a Houston car dealership. (Police have arrested a
man in connection with the California incident.)
-
Ecoterrorism expert Bron Taylor of the University of
Wisconsin at Oshkosh, says that ELF believes "that
ecosystems have an inherent worth that cannot be
judged in relation to human needs, that human actions
are bringing the earth toward mass extinctions, and
that political action is insufficient to bring about
the wholesale changes needed."
-
Taken at face value, most Americans agree with the
"elves." A Los Angeles Times survey found that, even
among conservative Republicans, two out of three
people believe that the environment is more important
than property rights, corporate profits or even
creating jobs. Virtually everyone acknowledges that
human-generated pollution is affecting the
environment: only eight percent of Americans think
that global warming (news - web sites) is a myth. (The
United States produces more greenhouse gases, both per
capita and overall, than any other nation, making it
largely responsible for climate change.)
Second, the meat, or, really, the juice of the paragraph. Where the hell did that "most Americans agree with the elves (presumably ELF minions)" statement originate? Did a hair you shaved off your maw yesterday morning scream that unfounded assertion to you when you had writer's block? That's an unfounded claim. Dismissed.
"Two out of there people believe the environment is more important than property rights, corporate profits or even creating jobs." Apples and oranges. The environment is VERY important, yes. Citizen, do your part. You, too, Rall. If I catch you littering or not recycling everything but the cat litter, I'm sending out a press release.
Blah blah blah greenhouse blah, next.
-
The environmental crisis is, hands down, the most
important matter facing humanity today. Who cares
about peace in the Middle East if the region is under
water, stricken by famine or choked by dust storms?
Weather systems are becoming increasingly violent and
unpredictable, species are going extinct and
virgin-growth forests are vanishing at an alarming
rate. While smog has diminished somewhat in places
like Denver and Los Angeles, air pollution is getting
worse nationally. Ohio's EPA, for example, announced
that 2002 was the most toxic summer on record in 14
years.
The MOST important problem is the environmental crisis. THE. *mutter* Hey, Rall. Ever heard of a terrorist? You claim your guy Bron knows about them. Perhaps you should ask for a definition. And put your hands down. You said hands down.
-
The main reason:
-
SUVs.
-
What should we do about this long-ignored crisis?
Writing letters to the editor and joining The Sierra
Club (news - web sites) are admirable, but working
within the system hasn't stopped the polluters.
Do you feel that blood pumping? Are you ready for the Stairmaster? Almost...
-
Burning SUVs isn't the answer, argues the Sport
Utility Vehicle Owners Association of America: "All
told, the vandalism will not make any company think
twice about producing more SUVs and other light
trucks, nor will it shake the tremendous consumer
confidence in the vehicles. Instead, the blaze
destroyed the property of a small business owner, and
put the lives of innocent civil servants in harm's
way."
The quote is correct, though - burning a few SUVs won't stop production. Capitalism says: demand! And the rest of the quote is dead on: Destroyed the property of a small business owner, and put the lives of innocent civil servants in harm's way. Yes, indeed. And gave the media a frenzied time, yahoo!
-
But SUVs are a national blight, burning 33 percent
more gas, generating 30 percent more carbon monoxide
and 75 percent more nitrogen oxide than regular cars.
SUVs are so popular--they account for more than half
of new car sales--that average fuel efficiency
reversed a long-term trend by starting to drop
beginning in 1987. Since 1990, SUVs have wasted an
extra 70 billion gallons of gasoline, costing even
more than the war on Iraq (news - web sites). They're
the sole reason we dropped out of the Kyoto Protocol
(news - web sites) to reduce greenhouse gases. SUVs
have got to go.
-
The SUV phenomenon is the creation of an unholy alliance of Congress,
Detroit automakers and consumers. The big
four automakers have convinced even the legislators they don't own outright
that eliminating
SUVs would hurt the economy. SUV owners think the 9,000-pound leviathans
make them
safer than passenger cars (though studies have proven they're not), are
better at handling
snow (untrue), drive off-road (very few SUVs ever leave the pavement), offer
extra room for big
families (get a minivan instead, dope) and let them see ahead of smaller
cars (while blocking the vehicles behind them). The Republican-controlled
Congress has no
intention of closing the fuel emissions loophole that lets SUVs pass as
"light trucks." And the SUV
craze is making Detroit more profitable than ever.
It's only the Detroit automakers, eh? So the Lexus, BMW, and Infiniti SUVs are white as lambs. And, wait, Mr. Rall, you're exempting minivans? I want them to be declared heathen, too. I mean, when I'm trying to turn left in my little red sports car and a minivan pulls astride me, I can't see over it, either. Waaa! Oh.
Damned those corporations profitting off of what consumers want. Damn them!
-
That leaves consumers and dealers as the principal targets of radical
environmentalists like the ELF. The idea
is to make SUVs as unfashionable, and as scary to own, as fur became after
the PETA-inspired
spray-paint attacks of the '80s. In an ideal world, American consumers could
be convinced
to do the right thing through an appeal to logic with public service
messages like
the "What Would Jesus Drive?" TV campaign, but the kind of people who would
buy a car
that increases the risk to other motorists in an accident can't be reasoned
with. They're
selfish and stupid. It's unfortunate that drivers must worry that their SUVs
are being targeted by insulting stickers and Molotov cocktails, but one
thing's for sure:
It couldn't be happening to a more deserving group of people.
Sorry, bucko. No ideal world. Oh, but those who lean so far left they have constant backaches think it'll happen if we just. legislate. enough.
(Oh, and Mom, thanks for reading - I know you're the only one who made it this far.)
4) Now, is your blood shakin', baby? You're already sweating. It's time to run/walk/Stairmaster/elliptical/cycle off that adrenaline. And the good news, puppet Rall will be back another day to inspire you yet again!
5) After your workout, submit your Rall fisk to Venemous Kate for her snarky snark snark.
Patented. Proven.
hln
Posted by: hln at
05:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1623 words, total size 11 kb.
September 16, 2003
You get this, though I bet it was compiled by more scientific/valid means than a drunken survey.
But you get my point.
Not what you would expect, eh? Still, would be interesting to see if just a few skew the whole thing. Naaaaaa - more fun this way.
hln
Posted by: hln at
07:43 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.
94 queries taking 0.0585 seconds, 250 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.