Repeat offense

Got (among other things) seasons 1 & 2 of Sliders on DVD for Christmas. For those not familiar, it was a TV show aired in the mid- to late-90's about a group of 4 people who "slid" between alternate Earths, trying to find their way back home. The first 2 seasons were terrific. Early in the 3rd season, Professor Arturo (John Rhys-Davies) was killed off and replaced w/Maggie Beckett (Kari Wuhrer) to up the "sex appeal". The show started going down hill from there, and when the cute-as-a-button Sabrina Lloyd (as Wade Wells) left at the end of season 3 (when the show switched from Fox to Sci-Fi) things got even worse. I refuse to even acknowledge season 5 as being part of the same show, it was that lame.

Anyway, I happened to notice something about seasons 1 & 2 that I hadn't picked up on during the original airing. Watching the shows back-to-back as they were originally broadcast, I realized they weren't aired in chronological order. Apparently, even back then, Fox couldn't keep their meddling little hands out of the creators' and writers' way. The biggest example of this was the episode "Invasion", which ended as a cliffhanger and was supposed to finish of season 2. But it was aired several episodes before the end of the season, so after the cliffhanger there are several new episodes which had nothing to do with the Kromaggs. Rather confusing. So, they dink with Sliders, dump the show because the ratings aren't where they want them and tick off millions of fans. More recently, they did the same thing with Firefly (covered in a previous rant). And they screwed up Wonderfalls (again, as ranted about here), though at least they changed their M.O. on that one. I have no doubt they've done it other times as well, though can't recall what right now.

You'd think they'd learn by now. I mean, they took at least 3 fantabulous shows, screwed up the advertising, overruled the creators & writers, thoroughly screwed them up, then wondered why the ratings weren't where they wanted. Putzes.

Rain, rain go away!

While I'm sure my new lawn is very happy to be getting the extra water, the cold and wet makes it rather difficult to get any yard work done. Not to mention hinders walking my dog. Bbboooooooooo rain!

Giddy with anticipation? Me?

Very cool. Looks like Serenity is getting some really good reviews. Granted, quite a bit from folks like me who absolutely loved Firefly, but there's some good stuff being said by folks who never even heard of the show. Dang, I wish September would get here already

And on that note . . .

Here's wishing each and every one of you a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS.

Civil Liberties?

Why is it that certain individuals seem to interpret "seperation of Church and State" as "the State must be anti-Christian"? Take a look at Richard Blank's statements and actions here. The Polk County Commission voted to allow displays by any and all organizations (religious or not) on the lawn accross the street from the courthouse. The only condition is that they write a simple letter requesting permission. No fees. No stipulations on the content. Nothing. Yet here Blank is threatening a federal suit to remove only the manger scene. He's not concerned about the Zoroastrianism display. Not concerned that he and everyone else is allowed to put up displays promoting any other ideologies. He just wants the Christian one removed. Now, that's not enforcing "seperation of Church and State" (which, btw, was never intended by the Founding Fathers nor implemented in the Consitution--if you don't believe me, actually read the 1st Amendment sometime). Blank is nothing more than an anti-Christian bigot trying to use our legal system to beat down Christians. If the guy was complaining about all the displays, and wanted all of them removed, then I could believe he truly was seeking seperation of Church and State (even though he'd be misguided). But he's not . . . he's singling out the Christian one, and that's it.

Strange how some people go around crying "you're violating my rights!" while trying to take away and trample on the rights of others.

Cha-ching!

Every time someone brings up the issue of gas price gouging, it is inevitable that some diluded individual laughs at the "conspiracy nuts" and states matter-of-factly that supply and demand is the only factor determining prices. They'll almost always use the "if there's collusion or gouging, give me names and places and dates as proof" statement, feeling that will put an end to it. But it never does. And why doesn't it? Because the "supply and demand" argument doesn't hold water either. Let's take a look at a couple pieces of information, shall we?

According to Reuters the national average price for a gallon of gas is 33 cents higher than it was a year ago (and this is after some seven straight weeks of price declines--the gap was much larger a month ago). Now, that equates to about an 18% increase in a year's time.

Now, in order for prices to rise in a purely supply/demand driven situation, either the supply must decrease or the demand must increase. That's really, really basic economics. So, which of these (or combination) has resulted in the 18% price increase? I am, unfortunately, unable to find hard numbers showing worldwide barrels per day of crude oil. However, every source I do find says that production is up in 2004, and Kuwait is even stating publicly that there is an overproduction. So, we know that a reduction is supply of crude isn't the culprit. So, could it be a shortage of refined gas? Nope. Refineries, while at their production limits, are pumping out virtually identical numbers as last year. So, we know there has not been any reduction in supply to account for an 18% price increase.

Well, then it must obviously be that we've encountered an 18% increase in demand over the past year, right? Various sources have reported an increase of anywhere from 3% to 5%. Overall demand for crude has increased a mere 7.5% over the past 2 years.

So, to all you "it's entirely supply and demand" believers . . . can one of you kindly explain how a 5% (being generous) increase in demand can account for an 18% increase in price?

Deep pockets

Well gee, I guess Wal-Mart has gotten a little too big for its own good and has become a ripe target for frivilous lawsuits. I read about this one a few days ago, and wasn't sure if I should laugh, or be thoroughly disgusted with our society. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Or parental responsibility? It is not Wal-Mart's responsibility, duty or obligation to screen each and every song on each and every CD for "objectionable" material. Wal-Mart's policy is to not sell albums which have a parental advisory on them. If such a label isn't put on, it's not their fault. They aren't the ones who put the labels there, or remove them, or determine the criteria for them. If you're so concerned about the music your kids listen to, take it upon yourself to screen the album--you know, like a good parent is supposed to do. But, our society (specifically, our legal system) seems to expect everyone else to be perfect, not make mistakes, and do our work for us. When something doesn't go our way, it must be someone else's fault.

Then, today, I happen accross this. Once again, why is it Wal-Mart's responsibility to ascertain every detail of a person's history before selling them something? Don't get me wrong, I fully support background checks for firearm purchases. But to say that Wal-Mart "should have known" about this girl's psychological problems is rediculous. If anything, Ms. Bracy herself (the girl's mom) should have known about her daughter's problems and taken a more active role in protecting/supporting her. A retailer is not allowed (and rightfully so) to delve into a customer's personal medical records, so they had no way of knowing about Ms. Stewart's psychological problems if she chose to lie on the application. But again, it gets down to the "when something bad happens, it must be someone else's fault" mentality . . . and of course, it must be the fault of someone with deep pockets, so we can sue the bejeezes out of 'em.

Personally, I wish more of these types of cases would get thrown out of court and the plaintiffs forced to pay legal fees due to the absolute absurdity of the suit. And/or start debarring or punishing the lawyers that repeatedly represent moronic cases. Maybe then we'd see a reduction in this kind of garbage.

Note: I'm not even a big fan of Wal-Mart, and only shop there when absolutely necessary. Their employment record and detrimental effect on smaller local businesses doesn't sit well with me. But that shouldn't make them targets for b.s. lawsuits and idiotic complaints.

Am I missing something?

I'm by no means a legal expert, and have never been put in this situation, but it seems to me that Snipes would welcome a DNA test, not fight to supress it. I mean, if a woman whome I had never met claimed I was her child's father, I sure as shooting wouldn't oppose a DNA test--it would prove her case a categorical lie. And it's not like the test would cost Snipes any money, nor a huge amount of his time (just go on down to the office, they take a swab from your mouth--that's it). By fighting a DNA test, Snipes is (at the minimum) giving the impression that he believes there's the possibility he is the father. That, of course, implies that he's straight up lying about never meeting the woman. It also implies that he was at the mentioned crack house, or frequented/frequents crack houses. It seems to me the more logical approach--if his version is actually true--would be to take the DNA test, prove the woman a liar, and put the situation behind him. By fighting, it's going to drag it out, give the public a possibly false impression of him (i.e., that he's a lying, crack addict, dead beat dad). Then again, he's probably doing it based solely on his lawyer's advice, who of course will profit much more in a prolonged fight than if it's nipped in the bud right away.

Homecoming

So, way back in October I had some folks come out to put in a sprinkler system and new sod in my front & back yards. Trust me, it was necessary. The weeds were knee high or taller, and the lawnmower flat out refused to do anything in the back yard. Anywho, they started work in early October, and were supposed to be done just before I left on my Colorado trip. Since they were going to be doing a bunch of work in the back, I obviously had to arrange for other accommodations for my dog. Figured it would all work out fine having him stay at my folks' house, since he'd be staying there while I went vacationing anyhow. Well, due to weather and other issues, things took a little longer than expected. And, well, upshot is that the puppy dog finally got to come home today. Very happy day . . . the place didn't seem the same without him.

Choo-choo

A friend of mine spends a fair shake of his weekend time volunteering over at the Niles Canyon Railyard. So, after hearing him hype it up for months, another friend and I took a trip on up there to check things out. Pretty darn cool. Basically, they (meaning the entire volunteer group) spend their time rebuilding/restoring old trains.


No. 2 engine is more put together than No. 3 

They work on not only the engines, but the cars as well, and operate an actual functioning rail line. They're even working to extend the line in various places. Yes, you can ride the trains--though only the ones that are completely refurbished, of course. As a matter of fact, this time of year, they run their "Train of lights", which is a holiday decorated train with both standard, covered/enclosed passenger cars as well as open air seats. They were already sold out, so we didn't get to ride, but it was still a pretty sight.


The dining car is going to look totally awesome when done! 

As you can see, they've got a lot of work to do, but are coming along nicely. And of course, being the enthusiasts they are (translation: a little off center in the mental health area ) once they finish with one project they just move on to another. And, as you can also see, it's more than just welding, cutting, engine work, etc. The carpentry they're doing in the dining car is really impressive!

Anywho, check 'em out if you get the chance. Not sure how much tourism they allow/want in the work areas, but the completed trains and information is worth the trip. Really neat place.

Grumpified Nomad

There I am, sound asleep, when I am rather rudely jolted awake by a ringing phone at around 6:45 am. Since I've been receiving an inordinate number of hang-up calls in recent weeks, I am disinclined to move my bod from the warm, comfy embrace of the covers. So, the answering machine kicks in, does it's little greeting, and beeps. From my room, I can barely hear the caller . . . not enough to understand what they're saying, but it's audible. And it's then that my mind says "Shit, that sounds like my dad." Now, if my dad's calling at 6:45 am it's got to be for something important. I'm talking emergency here. All kinds of bad scenarios start popping into my head. Did something happen to mom? To my uncle? To my dog (who's staying with my folks while I have new sod laid in the yard)? To the family dog (who was recently diagnosed with cancer)? To their house? Understandably, at this point, I'm moving out of bed pretty fast, and get to the kitchen just after the caller hangs up. So, I hit the answering machine (twice, actually--I missed the button the first time, since I'm not terribly coordinated at 6:45 am, as further evidenced by the "toe vs. door frame" incident which occurred leaving my room) and listen to the message. And wouldn't you know it . . . it was some jerk off telemarketer! Some dingleberried smeghead from American Intercontinental University wanting to sell me their on-line degree program. Yeah, like I'm really going to pay thousands of dollars to a "university" that wakes me up from a sound sleep to give me a sales pitch at six-fricking-forty-five in the morning! Really shows what kind of quality institution they run. So yeah, my grumpiness levels are going to be pretty darn high today.

Blank stare

Well, I've got this strange urge to blog something. But have absolutely no idea what. It's a strange sensation, really. This nagging feeling and desire to sit down and write, but the only thing that comes to mind when I actually do so is "duh, hmmm". I'm not even sure why I have this urge . . . it's not like I've traditionally had this habit of blogging every single day. Yet here I sit, typing away about absolutely nothing. Strange. Maybe it has something to do with me recently thinking about picking up writing again. It's been a long time since I tried my hand at some prose. Dunno. But I imagine anyone reading this is feeling something similar. Afterall, why else would you be sitting through this drivel if you didn't have some kind of undeniable, irresistable urge to read a blog, even though nothing of interest had been posted. I suppose it's somewhat like flipping through the channels on the TV and finally settling on watching the same re-run of some Step by Step episode you've seen a thousand times before, just because there's nothing else on but you can't seem to tear yourself away from the set . . . not that I've ever done that, mind you.

I don't wanna wait!

Wouldn't you know it. I get all happy, happy, joy, joy feelings thinking about how close April is, and then I find out that Serenity's release date has been pushed back to September 30. No doubt it'll be worth the wait, but dagnabbit! I want to see it now.

Hi Everybody!!

Over the weekend, while taking a gander at the statistics for this blog, I noticed a rather large influx of hits originating from my former employer's domain. This unusual source of traffic, along with "coincidentally" receiving more than one e-mail on the same topic from multiple new readers (in and out of that company) draws me to the inevitable conclusion that the two are related. Whether all the hits are being generated from the same little girl and her immediate co-workers, or if the hits are from a broader base at the company, I'm not entirely sure.

Anywho, in case at least some of that traffic is from folks I got along with over there (which would actually be most of the employees), but haven't talked to in a while--Hiya! How're things going? Feel free to drop me a line and catch up!

The right thing?

So, the jury is in on the Scott Peterson case, and they've recommended death. Now, in general I've got mixed feelings on State Sanctioned Executions (yeah, I've also got issues with terms like "Death Penalty" or "Capital Punishment"--a penalty is designed to teach a lesson, and someone can't learn from a punishment that kills them). On the one hand, there are some people who commit crimes so heinous that it demonstrates an inability to function in a civilized society. These people need to be permanently removed from the population for the good of society. And the only way to fully ensure that they will never again be re-entered into the populace, nor influence others into immitating their behavior, is to execute them. People like Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer are shining examples of this. And, IMO, anyone capable of murdering an 8-month pregnant woman and dumping her body in the ocean is a fairly decent example of this as well . . . especially if that person was the woman's husband.

On the other hand, the best argument against execution as far as I'm concerned is "what if we're wrong?" There have been several instances in the past where people previously condemned to death were later proven to be innocent of the crime. While there is no way we (as society) would be able to give them back 10, 20 or more years of their life, it would at least allow them the opportunity to pick up the pieces and continue on with their life, should a mistake have been made. Execution does not allow for that possibility.

Now, deep down, I do believe that Scott Peterson is the perpetrator of this heinous crime. But that's just what my gut and heart says, based entirely on circumstantial evidence. I am unable to shrug off the posibility that the wrong man has been condemned. If there had been hard evidence that he was guilty, then I'd absolutely agree with the jury's recommendation. But no hard evidence exists (at least, none that we the public have been made aware of). And while I firmly believe he's guilty, that's all it is: belief, not irrefutable fact. In this particular situation, I can't help but feel that justice would be better served sentencing him to life in prison without posibility of parole.

I know that may sound contradictory--that I'm convinced he's guilty, but don't want him executed because he might be innocent. But our legal system (supposedly) is based on laws, fact, proof. While my doubt would not be sufficient to meet the "reasonable doubt" test which would have me vote not guilty were I on the jury, I believe there is enough question about his guilt to warrant forgoing an execution. All I can say is that I'm very glad this decision is not on my shoulders. And whatever decision is made, I sincerely hope that this tragedy is not compounded by a mistake.

Minor changes

Well, as you may or may not have noticed, I've made a few cosmetic and functional changes to my blog. I think there have been no adverse affects on the various links and readability and such. But, if you find any problems, or perhaps wish to put in your 2 cents on layout/colors/etc., shoot me an e-mail or drop a comment on the affected entry.

Trouble in the Pits

Okay, so I obviously sat down and watched 3: The Dale Earnhardt Story last night, and must say I was rather disappointed. Truthfully, my hopes weren't all that high to begin with--it's pretty hard to tell anyone's life story in a 2 hour TV movie, let alone someone as famous and accomplished as Dale Earnhardt. But even still, this could have been so much better.


Lobby of DEI 

Too many of the scenes were simply little snippets . . . disjointed clips of events in his life without any kind of leadup and limitted explanation. Granted, I'm betting that most viewers were people already very familiar with Dale's accomplishments and life. But for anyone who was thinking this movie would give them an insight into the man's life, who wasn't already knowledgeable of the events in his life, it would have been rather confusing.

There were a couple of annoyances throughout the film as well. For about the first half of the movie (which took us to just after Dale's first Winston Cup in 1980), apparently the only people who called him "Dale" were his parents. Everyone else, including his first 2 wives, Teresa (his future 3rd wife) and Neil Bonnet (his best friend) always called him "Earnhardt". I have to believe this was an attempt by the writers and director to perpetuate the "legend" status. Afterall, hearing people call him "Dale" makes him sound too human.

The other major annoyance was the overplaying of Earnardt & Waltrip's rivalry. Yes, there was a definite rivalry there . . . even some hostility. But the movie made it out to be an absolute obsession on Earnhardt's part. It seemed that every time he was out on the track, all he wanted to know was "where's Waltrip" so he could wreck him. That's not how it was in reality. The movie even went to far as to take at least 2 of Dale's most famous quotes, pull them out of context and apply them to his animosity towards Waltrip, even though in reality he was talking about an incident with Terry Labonte and restrictor plate racing in the two quotes.

Of interesting note as well was the fact that footage used to represent the start of the 2001 Daytona 500 (where Dale lost his life) was obviously not from that race. The reason this was apparent was because that particular race was one of the few times that NASCAR mandated roof & spoiler wickers on the cars in an attempt to add excitement (via increasing the "hole" the cars punched in the air). Now, it could have been a simple oversight on the producers' part. But the reason I found this interesting is because of the controversy surrounding these wickers and Dale's crash. Many people felt they were a contributing factor. It was even reported that Earnhardt himself came on the radio at one point during the race and said (roughly) "NASCAR needs to do something about these wickers or they're going to kill someone."

All in all, it was an interesting movie, but fell far short of being "good".

Remember this reminder

Or, more aptly, these reminders. First is that if you happen to find yourself in the Monterey area, now is an even more wonderfull time to visit the Monterey Bay Aquarium. I visitted it most recently back in late September, shortly after the arrival of the only great white shark in captivity. It's good to see that she's still doing well. While she is just a young thing, and rather small, it's still an experience worth having . . . especially watching the 100+ lb tuna scury to get out of her way


Yeah, I know this ain't a great white, but this pic came out better! 

Second is that 3: The Dale Earnhardt Story will be airing tomorrow night (Saturday, December 11) at 9:00 EST. So, that's 6:00 PST for us on the left coast. And, if you miss it there, it'll be airing again at 9:00 PST. I have no doubt that the movie will portray Earnhardt as an absolute saint, which he wasn't. But it should still be an interesting, inspiring show (at least I'm hoping it will be). I was never an Earnhardt fan, but always had respect for him both as a driver and a person. It's hard to believe it's been almost 4 years since his fatal crash.

No Tolerance for Zero Tolerance

Okay, this has the potential to be completely stupid. Now, if these were actual, factual, alcoholic Jello Shots, then I absolutely agree that the little girl should be suspended (and a serious look taken at her mother's ability to properly raise a child). But to have a policy that this little girl should and will be suspended even if there was no alcohol involves is assinine. What the school is effectively saying is that gelatine cubes, cups, anything aren't allowed, because no matter what specific shape it takes it could be mistaken for an alcohol-containing item. Y'know what . . . water looks an awefull lot lot Vodka, so I guess kids better get suspended for bringing water to school, too. And hey, that cup of Coke might be mistaken for a rum & Coke!!

Come on folks. If the Jello this girl didn't have alcohol, and she wasn't selling it under the pretext of being "Jello shots", then what the heck did she do wrong?!? Why is she being suspended for something completely harmless and innocent? I guess the school board better be hoping they contained alcohol, because otherwise the community would be 100% right in raising a major ruckus.

BTW, rum & pineapple Jello make a great shot . . . as does lime & Triple Sec

Vroom Vroom

So, have I mentioned yet that I'm going to the Daytona 500 in February? Cool huh? Granted, I won't have the best seat in the house, and I'm not a huge fan of restrictor plate events, but it's The Daytona 500!! I try to go to at least one NASCAR Cup race a year, and target tracks where I've never been before so I can take some time and see a different part of the country. Daytona wasn't really all that high on my list, but since it'll be Rusty's last Daytona 500 (and probably Mark Martin's as well) I figured it'd be a good one to see. 'Sides, there's a Titan missile launch scheduled at Kennedy that week too, so that'll be totally cool to witness (assuming they don't schedule it on the same day as the 500!). Yeah, I'm looking forward to it