Rev Blair

Building and landscaping can make a huge difference. With windows, pull the shades or curtains during the day in summer, and at night in the winter. With trees, if you have a big lot, consider planting evergreens on the north side of your house. If you are building fences, garages, sheds, etc. keep the prevailing weather in mind. They can help to provide shade and block wind. Get water barrels under your eavestrough (I think you Americans call them gutters) outlets. Capture the rain that lands on your roof and use it to water your plants. The plants like it better, you save money and energy. If you need a new water heater, consider an in-line model. These don't work very well if you have a deep, cold well, or if your water is piped a long way underground, but for most people they are quite usable. An in-line heater means that you aren't paying to heat 40 gallons of water 24 hours a day.

We (me and some fellow Canadians) were wondering about this today. Why is Obama so much more popular than Clinton outside of the US? Their policies and records are the same until you do some digging, which most non-USians don't do. Their clips in the non-US media really aren't that different. Primaries usually don't garner much attention outside of the US. So why is Obama so popular? It started before Hillary's mis-steps. I'm hoping for some perspective on this...Americans watching Canadians watching Americans.

Interesting thing about SUVs, pick-up trucks, and other full-framed vehicles...a lot of them (not all) allow the floor to fold up in a crash, so you get more leg and foot injuries. They also don't absorb the impact as well, so internal injuries due to your organs sloshing around in your body are more common. That being said, in low-speed crashes, the heavier vehicle tends to crush the lighter vehicle. Most low-speed crashes result in fairly light injuries anyway though. Something that really bothers me about the prevalence of really big trucks (3/4 ton and bigger) on the roads now is that the people who drive them don't seem able to understand what they are driving and that they have a certain responsibility as a result. On a separate, but related note...the original body stampings, for all of those little British cars are available, except for the MGB, which some Chinese company bought. It seems to me that somebody should bring back the entire Triumph line etc. They were great little vehicles...small and quick and easy to drive. Most were convertibles. They went forever on a tank of gas. They are kind of minimalist, but I think that could sell pretty well. Why isn't somebody building them with an updated drive train and selling them cheap? They'd go like hotcakes, I think, between the nostalgia thing and the high gas prices. They are the ultimate commuter cars. If I could get a reliable, updated version of a Triumph Spitfire, I know I'd snap it up pretty quick. I had a 1976 Spitfire, and it remains my favourite out of all the vehicles I've owned. If those Chinese MGBs start showing up in Canada, I'm certainly going to have a look, but the Spitfire (and the rest of the TRs) are cooler.

I doubt there's anything completely new on the horizon. I think there'll be huge improvements in solar and wind technology. I think well figure hydrogen out too. It's not going to be cheap or easy though. They'll fight like hell to hang onto that for aas long as possible too. As oil becomes rarer, their profits rise, and the only thing that will change that is alternative sources of energy. Not a recommended learning experience, but roll a small car, and then roll a 3/4 ton truck. The car protects you much better. The safety factor of cars is way better than that of trucks and SUVs.

I don't think I did violate it though. I was able to give several examples of Bush policies that were less than intelligent. I've been pretty clear that politics isn't based on fact, but opinion. I started this thread in an attempt to clarify where I'm coming from, kind of a guide to avoiding misunderstandings. Perhaps I'm muddying instead of clarifying...wouldn't be the first time. I'll keep on trying though, if for no other reason than it isn't often that I can name a thread something that's had me singing, "I don't wanna a pickle, I just wanna ride on my motorcycle..." all day long. As for Humble Pie, it's not as good as Saskatoon pie, but I've eaten my fair share of it and will almost certainly eat a bunch more in the future. To quote another of Arlo's songs, "I'm not shy...or tired."

I just thought a little explanation was in order, iNow. I purposely didn't refer to Pangloss in this post, because I'm trying to explain where I'm coming from, not discredit Pangloss. In fact I think that Pangloss does a good job both moderating and putting up lucid arguments. I don't think questioning the matter of Bush's lack of intelligence is one of those arguments though. There have been stories in the media about that since before he was president. My greater point though, is that politics is not a factual business. When I say that George Bush is an idiot, I'm not talking about SAT scores or his IQ, I'm talking about the outcome of his past policies, his general demeanor, the number of serious errors he's made, his apparent inability to communicate and so on. I also don't want to be misunderstood. I make no bones about being partisan, but even my provincial MLA...who happens to belong to the party I give money to and work for at election time...knows damned well that if I don't agree with him, he can expect some pretty severe criticism, and that criticism will not be kept behind closed doors. At the same time, if I see somebody in another political party doing something good, I tend to let people know about that as well. I might be partisan, but I'm not blind. Finally, things are a bit different at this site than at most places I post. Most places I post at have members who have known me for a very long time, whether they agree with me or not, so explanations like this one generally aren't necessary. I feel that puts others here at a disadvantage, since they might have trouble interpreting where I'm coming from and what I say.

If the title of the thread doesn't make a lot of sense, I suggest you need a lot more Arlo Guthrie in your life, and a fair bit of his dad too. Anyway... It's kind of funny...a few years ago I did a series of "phone calls" I got from George Bush. It was just one of those things you e-mail to friends and relatives...yet another way to avoid writing by writing. The premise was that he thought I was the kind of reverend he was used to dealing with, when in reality I was a beer swilling yahoo. He'd call me up, and I'd tell him things...yeah, things. In the very first one I admonished him over and over again that literalism was a sin...kind of a warning to the readers that I was talking in generalities and metaphors...since I wanted people to think about what I was saying, but not think it was factual. The Conservatives and Republicans I knew pretty much hit the roof over the first three or four things. They demanded sources and links. I ignored them, thinking they were just goofy because I was going after their boy. Then I introduced the men in the black Ford. They were secret service agents assigned to watch me (I did get banned from the US for, as near as I can tell, something I wrote on the internet in real life and they were kind of a reaction to that). So anyway, in these things I was writing, I had these two poor bastards assigned to watch me. They were bored as hell, underpaid, and had to to knock on my door to use the bathroom, since they weren't allowed to leave for any length of time. I ended up drinking beer with them on my front lawn while they played frisbee with my dogs. The Democrats and Liberals and NDPers on my e-mail list hit the roof. They were sure I was being entrapped and shouldn't be talking to these guys. My own mother called to suggest I talk to my Member of Parliament about the US government spying on me. Somewhere along the line, everybody forgot that literalism is a sin...except my grandmother and my MP, both of who got it. On this site, I've said that politics isn't a science and that it's closer to black magic than science. That doesn't mean that I don't believe what I'm saying or that I'm just making things up. It means that I'm not going to provide links to back up everything I say though. I charge 35 cents a word if I have to do that, and the writing is no fun. Neither is the reading, for that matter, but it doesn't matter because the people who pay me are no fun either. Scale is scale though, and until they make beer and cigarettes free, I will write things that are no fun for people who are no fun. On another site, where I was constantly pushed for links for things that had been in the general media, I began responding, "Sausage," whenever anybody said, "Link?" It's a cheap pun in response to what I see as cheap pedantry. This is politics, not science. Of course it's my opinion. It's a pretty well-considered opinion based on a variety of news stories and opinions from experts, as well as my own reading of the entrails, but the only "fact" in politics is the poll results on election day, and even those are subject to interpretation. (My gosh, my English sucks tonight) I kind of feel like that we're headed to that same kind of place here as in the examples I gave. I understand that it's a science site, but this is the politics section. Part of the reason I came here is because I feel scientists need to be more involved in politics...not as a group, but as individuals. Anyway, literalism is a sin and when it comes to politics, it's all opinion. Some opinions work out better on a more consistent basis though. The president on the West Wing once said something like, "You know how I know that? Because I listen to smart people." It's likely the most correct line in the entire run of the show, except he should have said, "Because I listen to people who have been right more often than not for several decades."

I'm going to deal with this in a separate thread, because it'll take me way off-topic. I do think an explanation is in order though, because there seems to be a bit of an impasse. Of course it's opinion...this is politics, not physics. What Pangloss puts forward is just opinion too. If you want to get indepth, we can do that. I don't do it for free though...it's part of how I make my living. It's still politics, and still just an opinion, but I can (and do) write articles, position papers, and analyses that have more words in the bibliography than in the article. It's not just an ideological thing though. Most of the best military advisors said that Bush needed a larger force in Iraq. The best science advisors said something should be done about global warming. It can go on indefinitely like that. Bush ignored, or actively tried to silence, the experts in favour of his own little group. Look at the Nigerian Yellowcake and aluminum tubes. The international community was actively laughing at Bush's conclusions on those things because he cast aside the experts and chose to believe, and base policy on, things that had already been debunked. Nigerian yellowcake, aluminum tubes, WMDs in general, global warming, arsenic levels in well water, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, appointments to the UN, New Orleans. How many do you want? Bush doesn't listen to the smart dudes, he listens to the ideological dudes. I don't underestimate them at all. I think they are at least as dangerous as Islamic extremists, albeit in a slightly different manner. Perhaps I should make a post about how the religious right started taking over call in shows in the late seventies and early eighties, and how effectively they use the internet and talk radio to this day. I also don't underestimate the neo-conservative movement and how successful and damaging Straussian theory has been to North American politics and democracy in general. I do try to keep my posts relatively short though. I don't see an awkward performance there though. I see a polished performance by a man who has little active intelligence. I also doubt that he comes across as a smart dude in person. From what I've gathered from what international leaders and their people have said, he comes across as disinterested, unaware, overly aggressive, and inconsiderate. They don't fly those planes themselves though. That's important, because nukes put them at the level of having to risk their own lives. They aren't prone to doing that. Ahmadinejad is a coward who acts as a mouthpiece for other cowards. Put his ass on the line, and he'll back down. That's the way his bosses are too. They like to yammer about Israel, and if there were no consequences I have no doubt they'd act. There are consequences though, and they know it. These are not men willing to give up their palaces and dancing girls for their beliefs. They'll give up somebody else's, but not their own. There are tensions between Arabs and Iranians that go back to before Mohammed. US influence in those countries has made that worse. So have religious differences. No, actually, you've been pointedly NOT talking to them for 30 years...unless you consider the Iran/Contra scandal talking. You've been not talking to them since you installed the Shah, which was your response to their finally rebelling against the British, who also wouldn't talk to them. Winston Churchill said that "Jaw, jaw is always better than war, war." He didn't always follow his own advice, but maybe we should give it a shot.

If you like medium format, you should really consider large format. 4x5 view cameras are relatively inexpensive now, and their tilts and swings allow for correction of converging lines etc. Contact sheets are, of course, 4x5. Film can be a little tough to find, but it's still out there in limited amounts. They are a pain to use, since each sheet of film has to loaded separately, but that also gives you the opportunity to manipulate the development of each image separately. Also, if you are really into landscape photography, I'd suggest picking up Ansel Adams' "The Camera", "The Negative," and "The Print."

You might try getting some field experience by working with other, more established scientists. I know the guys who work in Canada's north often take on people to build skills etc. It won't all be science though...there's a lot of cooking and back-breaking labour involved, and they generally use students who will work for little or no money.

Interesting question. I've never shot through a telescope, so I'm not sure whether you'd place your filters in front of the lens or the eyepiece. The first thing is to buy high quality filters, I think. Otherwise you'll get lens flare and it will hurt your images. I think I'd try both a single and a double polarizing filter first. You'll likely want those in front of the lens, since they are adjustable. After that, since you're cross-processing to b+w, I'd go with 25 red. That should make the surrounding sky almost black and increase contrast. Then I'd work my way down to a lighter red, then through yellow and green. Yellow will also darken the sky, though not as much as red. Green is generally used for darkening foliage, but I'd try it just to see what effect it had. I've never tried colour filters with colour film that was cross-processed, so I'm curious as to whether the efect will be the same. I'd also shoot some with no filter at all, as a kind of control. I'm also curious...is there a reason why you are shooting colour and cross-processing to black and white? Is it just for convenience or does it capture sunspots better?

Nah, Clinton has made her share of that kind of error too. So has McCain. Check out their preacher-friends, or go searching through their transcripts. McCain has been nailed for a couple of the big preachers, but not as badly as Obama was. I don't even blame Clinton for Ferraro's crude attempt at playing the race card, although I was disappointed in Ferraro. Those are other people saying things. I sure as hell don't want to be held responsible for the things my friends say, and neither should they. Clinton claimed to have been under sniper fire in a situation where she not only knew she wasn't, but knew there were going to be tapes available though. That's not mis-speaking or stretching the truth. It's just goofy, which is not a trait I generally attribute to Hillary Clinton. Obama's "bitter" comment looks awfully true from where I sit. Being from where I'm from, I've see a fair number of people vote against against their own better interests because they've been disenfranchised enough that they cast their ballots based on god, guns and gays. Where I'm from, by the way, is a hell of a lot closer to where Hillary pretends to be from than anything she's seen in person.

I disagreed with most of Bush's father's policies too. I never thought George Sr. was an idiot though. I think he was crooked and locked Manny Noriega up to keep us from finding out how crooked, but I don't think he was stupid. Same with Clinton. I criticized him extensively during his time in office, especially over Rwanda, but it was always clear to me that he wasn't an idiot in spite of his stupid mistakes. I do think Reagan was an exceptionally stupid man, but he was, at least, smart enough to fool enough people that there isn't a line of people waiting waiting to piss on his grave. I don't agree with hardly anything McCain says. I think he's misguided, weak, and so wrong that it's likely a deep evolutionary trait going back to when mammals hadn't figured out how to grow hair, but I don't think he's an idiot. I think Nixon was one of the smartest politicians you ever had, although he got caught because of hubris, and I also think that not dragging him to the witness stand in handcuffs was one of the biggest mistakes your country has made in my lifetime. I do think that Gerald Ford would have been far better off if, to paraphrase McLean and McLean, somebody would have slipped a vagina over his head and fornicated some sense into him. I don't think he was an idiot though. I think Carter was smarter than most, and likely the best at foreign policy since Kennedy. He sucked at domestic policy though, and his religious leanings are likely part of the reason that the scourge of fundamentalism is now tainting both your political system and mine. Now he appears to be losing it a bit...well, more than a bit. You can't go stumbling around giving out other people's state secrets if you want to be a statesman, after all, even if you are right. That pretty much covers my lifetime...I was four when LBJ left office. Would you like a rundown of my opinion of Canadian political leaders next, or are you still busy convincing yourself that I just assume anybody I don't agree with is stupid?

It's kind of funny...I was flipping through Thompson's "Shark Hunt" the other day and found him complaining about much the same kind of things...the media focusing on trivialities when they should have been over politicians on substance. I found that kind of funny, since he was talking about the rumour (that he started) that Ed Muskie was on ibogaine. That book was written between 1972 and sometime after Carter came to office, for those of you not familiar with the Mad Dokter of Woody Creek. Anyway, I'm not sure that all of these things are so trivial. Some are, to be sure...Obama's "Sweetie" comment comes to mind, as does some off-handed thing McCain got jumped on that escapes me at the moment...but others seem to be much more telling. I mentioned my concern about Clinton's mental health in another thread. That's not based on minor slip-ups, but things that she is generally much too professional to let get through getting through on a regular basis. This isn't like Bush and Cheney calling some reporter an asshole when they thought the mic was off. In McCain's case, the several times he's confused Shia and Sunni factions concerns me. If it was just once, no big deal, but he's done it so often (4 or 5 times by my count, and I have my own politicians to worry about too) that I wonder if he knows the difference...or cares. I haven't seen Obama make a major error, or series of them, so far. The Aushwitcz/Buchenwald thing is nothing. The Sweetie thing is too...although I expected it to get much bigger than it did. Anyway, I think some of this stuff is important. Politicians aren't known for advertising their weaknesses, and their gaffes can give some insight into that. Most of it isn't important though, or is about as important as the Star Trek re-run on my TV right now. The job of the press (and I include bloggers in that, since they've decided they are part of the press) is supposed to be to separate that for us. Which brings us back to why I was leafing through "Shark Hunt", I guess. We need Thompson back, or somebody else who can tell the truth even if it's just by accident. He had a way of sorting through the crap. Maybe we just need more dope fiends in the political press?

Okay, 'scuse the lack of quotes...not sure if it's this place or if Mrs. Rev did something to my 'puter while I was out. I also seem to have lost ten pages of notes and ramblings on the lies and misconstruations of the Harper government. Anyway... Pangloss: Wow, you are really hung up on Bush's IQ, Pangloss. The man can't put a sentence together. He uses the wrong word, or makes up new words, on a regular basis. That's not being plain-spoken, that's being stupid...or perhaps aphasic. His policy decisions are bizarre and his explanations for them often nonsensical. Again, that's being stupid. He refuses to listen to smart people who are specialists in the areas they are advising him on. That's also being stupid. He has waged a virtual war on science since coming to office. That's stupid too. I don't care if the man has an IQ of 342 and his brain is so big that he's had to have a skull enlargement, he acts like an idiot, so it's best to work under the assumption that he's an idiot.

I don't have a watch right now, due to an incident involving a jackall, and old Fordson tractor, and a sledgehammer. I greatly prefer an analog watch...one with nothing on it but two hands. I've always had trouble with the ones that go on your wrist though, they tend to get destroyed. I like those ones that hang from your beltloop. I destroy them too, but it takes longer.

Waylon Jennings, Pink Floyd, Steve Earle, Fred Eaglesmith, Tom Waits, The Clash, Willie Nelson, The Sex Pistols/Sid Vicious, The Hives, The Beatles...a whole of stuff.

I don't think any experienced politician operating at that level would do it the way Hillary is doing it. I don't think Hillary would be doing it if there wasn't something wrong either...she knows better than that.

What over-simplification? That Bush is an idiot? There have been pages and pages of examples of his lack of intelligence written. The deeper analyses have tied that lack of intelligence to many of his policy gaffes. Surely I'm not the only one here with access to the US media. I doubt I'm the only one with access to the foreign media either. Was I supposed to delve into his entire foreign policy, or lack thereof, since he took over the presidency? I was under the impression that you didn't just want us to be bashing Bush though, so I didn't think I should head off on tirade listing everything from PNAC to Uzbekistan. Not at all. First of all, I've stated more than once that I think they want nukes, so it really isn't my statement you're debunking, just the argument they make. Second of all, you've done nothing to address their argument. The leaders of Iran aren't terribly worried about convincing you and I of anything, their audience is in the Middle East and in countries like China who need their oil. Third of all, there are other reasons...a couple of which I've touched on...for them to want nuclear power and other non-weapons nuclear technology. Put it all together and their argument that they need those facilities and that technology for domestic use stands up just as well as your claim that they only want it for bombs. Hell, even if they admitted wanting nuclear weapons, they could still make the argument that it drives education, science, and technology and the people of Iran (that middle class I was talking about earlier) want those things.

She's grasping at straws. She's at the point of saying just about anything. Every time I've seen her talk for the past few weeks, I get the impression that she's mentally ill, as well. I hope I'm wrong about that...I don't like her much, but I do think she's been a pretty effective politician for a long time. Maybe one of you professional psychologist/psychiatrist types could give us their impressions on that. She's been in the public eye for a very long time though, and is surrounded by some very professional politicians. She knows better than to say things like that, or in that way. I started wondering when she made her sniper fire claims. She knew the press was following her everywhere on that trip...she was the first lady at the time. She had to know that somebody would dig up the tapes now that she's running for president and claiming to have been under sniper fire. It wasn't a matter of mis-speaking, and it wasn't the kind of ambiguous claim that politicians often make, it was a bizarre statement that made no sense. It was almost as bad as Ed Muskie breaking down in tears in front of a crowd. There have been a few things since then, the Kennedy one being the biggest, that have made kind of step back and think her wheels are slipping more than a little.

That depends on the technology you claim to be using, doesn't it? In Iran's case, they claim to be using technology that requires the same technology as nuclear weapons so they can produce the fuel. Interestingly, Russia seemed to be making progress at first when they offered to supply the fuel. Then the sword rattling gave the Iranians the excuse they'd been looking for to insist on making their own plutonium. They were able to say that they couldn't trust anybody to not cut the supply off because of pressure from the US. That was all crap, of course, but it's a pretty good example of where the bull in a china shop method gets you when it comes to foreign policy. Back to that, are we? Tell you what...if it makes you feel better you can call Stephen Harper a monomaniacal control freak who suffers from micro-penis syndrome. I certainly wouldn't quibble about it. Bush is an idiot, the man can't even put together a coherent sentence, but the mistakes that have been made go back to when you had some very smart leaders. A lot of that is trying to impose your culture on theirs. It's the same mistake the British made. Allowing Bush to take the mistakes of the past even worse would be the biggest mistake of all. You really don't want to start a war with Iran. You especially don't want to do it without the backing of the Russians and at least a tacit nod from China. It will make the quagmire in Iraq look like a mud puddle. You have a lame duck president who should have been impeached a year ago. He's surrounded by people who have done the wrong things for the wrong reasons for as long as they've held power. Together with Bush, they've made your country both an international laughingstock and incredibly unpopular. You can defend them, whether it's for some kind of misplaced national pride or because you, as a nation, don't think it's worth understanding the depth and complexity of the issues, or you can try to prevent him from making any more disastrous mistakes.

Their reasoning is generally pretty good...I have a lot of respect for your founding fathers. I don't think they foresaw a world where there were 300,000,000 people in the US though, or the complexities of modern life and the additional governmental work that requires. It would be interesting if we could get their input on what's required in the modern world...I have a feeling they'd have some pretty good ideas...but we have to remember the context of their times as well.

I know a lot of beef farmers who grow veggies for their own consumption too, Pangloss. As I said, I don't believe that Iran doesn't want nukes, but the argument for them wanting nuclear energy for electricity is at least as strong as your supposition that they want that energy for bombs. As for your global warming remark, Dubai and Saudi Arabia are both building environmentally friendly cities. Global warming isn't really the driving impetus there...these people aren't big on science...but they can see the environmental degradation happening around them, so have decided to act. Competition between the Arab states, especially the Saudis, and the Iranians being what it is, that could be at least a partial motivation for Iran wanting to produce electricity from nuclear power. I guess what I'm really pointing out is that over-simplification of this issue doesn't help at all. This is not just a matter of, "They bad, we good," and if it's dealt like as if it is, things will go very badly.

I don't think that's going to happen, aguy. My guess is that McCain will be taking a hard right-winger on the ticket with him. As for Obama, I think Kucinich would be the best Vice President. I also think that's the one thing that would ensure that Obama didn't become president, so it's not going to happen. Obama too will be choosing somebody fairly far to the right to be on the bottom of his ticket. I don't know who it will be, but I doubt it will be anybody I've seen listed as a possibility so far.

Having been at least peripherally involved in politics, I kind of reject the idea that staffs can be significantly reduced. No one person can be an expert on everything. They need people around them who are well-versed in the basics and can go out and learn the particulars. They also need at least one good speech writer (it's very much a specialized craft), a good executive assistant/secretary, and a press liason/spokesperson or two to deal with the press and weird writers who leave strange messages on their machines in the middle of the night. My riding here in Canada is about the size you are suggesting, and my MP has about a half dozen paid staff and a whack of volunteers. This is a good MP...hardworking and personable. He's actually called me up personally about a couple of things, and I know he reads every e-mail and letter sent to him. I'm gonna miss him when he's gone. The reality is that if the government doesn't pay for that staff, somebody else will. Then the politician will be beholden to that somebody, which is what I think we're trying to get away from. We'll just have to disagree on that. I lived under a provincial government that worked on that basis, at least when they weren't stealing the government coffers, and they buggered things up so badly that I had to move to the next province over. Each of them should still have a chance to speak on any given issue though. Part of representing people is giving their thoughts and concerns a voice, after all. Now most of the time that's not going to matter much...they'll just vote...but when a big issue comes up, the kind that will get them in the press, they'll all want to speak. How do you deal with that?