« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »
October 26, 2006
On Global Warming
Global warming is big in the news lately...again. It was huge in the '90's when the hole in the ozone layer was found, and since it became Al "The Robot" Gore's pet issue it's big again. Locally our City Council has decided to officially declare that it's an issue worth being an issue, though no ideas on what to do about it seem to have errupted yet...if ever.
Yes, from the people who brought you the DDT scare, its Global Warming...err, excuse me...it's GLOBAL WARMING! That's better. That rapid melting of the ice caps that will eventually cause the demise of our coastlines, sinking of our cities, and peril of millions...its GLOBAL WARMING.
If you recall another biggie in the '90's was the idea that the pesticide DDT caused the shells of eagles eggs to be thin, crack, and was, thus, causing the demise of several species of eagles (unfortunately not the Philladelphia Eagles). There was a huge outcry and DDT, a really effective pesticide against mosquitos was pulled from legal use. Not a big deal around here, it just meant a few more itchy bumps. Of course, if you are one of the 13 million Africans that have died of Malaria since DDT was pulled you might feel differently....or at least you would if you weren't dead. But now there's Avian Flu and people around here are dying off and suddenly the EPA is saying they may be been a bit hasty with that whole "DDT is bad" thing.
Spotted owls were another big ones about the same time. Can't cut down trees, we'll kill off all the spotted owls, and that would be bad. So, logging operations were shut down, families were bankrupt, entire towns that depended on lumber folded, and some owls were saved. Then came the news that the counts were wrong and there were really quite a few more than previously thought. Oops. Sorry you lost your job, bud. How's McDonalds working out for ya?
So, you'll have to forgive me if I just don't fall for the whole "The world is going to melt and we're all going to die" theory of things. The EPA has proven only one thing to me since the scares of the '90's, that it lacks credibility when it starts pubic outcry.
Posted by at 05:46 PM | Comments (1)
On Something Drastic
I'm thinking about doing something drastic to get my house sold. I've had it on the market since February and despite dropping the price about 20K from what it started at a year ago I've had only a handful of viewings and a few open houses. Granted, I live on a busyish street and that's a detractor but it's a nice house on a big lot with a lot of extra's, and the price is now nicely below market value according to Zillow.com.
Its not just that I want to sell my house, its that I really need to. Working in Susanville now means a lot of driving. So far the drive has been quite pleasant, and with the exception of a few deer and the occasional black bear has offered few perils. But with winter fast approaching I'll soon find myself driving in storms, snow, and ice...and I don't want to. I have a 4 wheel drive with good tires and all that but I just can't see taking the risk if I don't have to.
So, what am i planning to do? I thinking really hard about auctioning my house. One of my lovely wife's clients used the 5-day method to auction their house and it worked very well for them. Not familiar with that method? Let me explain. On a Wednesday (day 1) you put out classified ads saying you're going to auction your house and you let them run until Sunday. On Saturday (day 4) you have a big open house and on Sunday (day 5) after another open house, you do a round-robin style auction to sell the house. Now, there's a bit more work involved than that but essentially that's the gist. While the majority of those bidding on the house will just be people trying to get it for a steal a few, supposedly, will really be interested in the house and will bid up to what it's worth. I may end up with less than it's really worth, but not much less, and when you figure in that I'll be side-stepping a real estate agent with a 6% broker fee (amounts to about 15k) I'll come away even or ahead. If it all works out, that is.
Want to learn more about the method and see if I'm really nuts? Visit 5day.com, and keep your eyes open for ads.
Posted by at 09:51 AM
October 11, 2006
On Inappropriate Times
Singer Barbara Streisand landed in hot water after comments she made at a recent concert performance. According to ABC news radio Streisand stopped singing at a concert to perform in a skit with a Bush impersonater in which the singer questioned a number of Bush's policies and retorted the responses. During this banter the audience began to become upset after the commentary went on for several "not very funny" minutes. Boo's ensued as the audience began to encourage Streisand to get back to the singing. An upset Streisand then turned to the audience and yelled at them to "shut the F**K up" and that it was "her show" and she would "say and do" whatever she wanted. More boo's and now insults began from the audience until Streisand was finally convinced to return to the singing.
While Streisand has a right to think and say whatever she wants she needs to learn about when is an appropriate time to air her political views and when is not. More and more entertainers seem to think that their show is a time to offer up their political opinions. Lets get this straight; If you have something to say, then buy some air time or go on a talk show and say what you have to say, just like the rest of us have to. When people are paying you to do a job, then you need to do your job and leave your opinions to yourself during that time. Just as it wouldn't be appropriate for me to offer my views on gun control to a sick patient under my care it's equally inappropriate for an entertainer to offer their views on a subject when they're supposed to be entertaining in other ways.
Posted by at 09:38 AM | TrackBack
October 04, 2006
On Playboy's Responsibility
Chico finds itself in the pages of Playboy magazine again. See, I do read the articles. This time it's not to showcase any of our co-eds or rate us as a party school (CSU, Chico was #1 in '87 and #2 in '04 according to snopes.com). No, this time it's to report on the Matt Carrington case.
I think everyone's familiar with the incident. For those who may not be I'll give the short short version. Matt Carrington rushed a fraternity that forced him to exercise and consume massive amounts of water in a dark, cold, sewage filled basement as part of a hazing ritual. The exercise combined with the water depleated his electrolyte stores causing him to have seizures and then die. The case has raised national attention to the issue of fraternity hazing and has been in many local newspapers and popular current-event TV shows such as Dateline.
Playboy did a pretty good job reporting the event. The major players in the case were outlined without being overly villianized. It should be apparent to anyone that these boys lives have been essentially ruined over this, whether they're convicted or not. At the very least the haunting reality of what they've done should be enough to keep them up nights. Matt wasn't glorified as a saint, just as a kid looking to make new friends at a new school. The local hospital, EMS system, doctors, or police weren't blamed for lack of policy or response. In essence the case was presented as a severe lack of good sense that ended with tragic results. It was a good article, in short.
What I wonder is this: While writing up the incident, did the editors of Playboy ever consider that when they award "Top Party School" status to a college that they help to influence incidents like the Matt Carrington case? In my opinion the two are not unrelated.
Posted by at 05:24 PM