Today was Groundhog Day -- like you really gave a crap. For some schoolkids, Groundhog Day also means Day Two of having to sit through yet another lecture on how George Washington Carver invented peanut butter, and how Little Richard and Chuck Berry were ripped off by the man, and the crack epidemic was a CIA plot, but look at the bright side: you only have 26 more days of that contrived, over-hyped torture left to endure.
A little history lesson for those who don't know what Groundhog Day is, and are too fucking lazy to even do a Google search:
Legend has it, although just where this legend originates -- and just how much liquor and how many successive generations of inbreeding were involved in it's creation -- is unclear. Suffice to say, that somewhere along the line some moron with more time on his hands than brains decided that the actions of a groundhog were more than just the instinctual activities of an oversized rodent; they were an omen of the future, and specifically, about the weather.
If you ask me, a groundhog looks like a fucking rat with a thyroid condition. I wouldn't think it had any special talent for predicting anything, let alone what the temperatures might be six weeks from now. By all appearances, groundhogs do little else besides dig, eat, fuck and shit, and if I really needed to observe the behavior of some beast so as to divine the state of the weather, I'd think I'd pick one I could ask directly, and hence, communicate with.
We have literally thousands of such people here in New Yorkistan, people who do little else besides dig, eat, fuck and shit, and if we turned to them for weather forecasts more often, they'd at least be earning that fucking welfare check. But I digress...
Then again, it has just occurred to me that my description of groundhogs -- a rat with a thyroid condition that does little useful work, and is associated with auguring the weather -- sounds a lot like Al Gore. Maybe I'm being unfair to the groundhogs when I make that association?
Anyways, about Groundhog Day...
Personally, I don't see the point of the whole thing anymore. Yeah, it sorta-kinda made sense one, maybe two hundred years ago, before there was anything like indoor heating, weather tracking satellites, Al Roker, or 24-hour-a-day weather reports (it's fascinating to me that he Weather Channel somehow makes money by basically repeating the same information to you 24 hours a day...then again, that's what they do at (P)MSNBC, and they're broke, so make of that what you will).
In the Old Days (as they say) the guess of a hedgehog was as good as it got, I guess. Science, as we would understand it, was in it's infancy (I've seen enough episodes of Gunsmoke, Davy Crockett, and The Andy Griffith Show to know what I'm talking about! The groundhog was smarter than Goober, for certain!), and mankind being able to predict the weather was probably one of those things that people routinely dismissed as being impossible. Folklore, in many cases, was considered more reliable than this new-fangled science bullshit.
In any case, the need to consult a furry little mammal, on anything, not only seems primitive, but a complete waste of time. I think the only reason why anyone still makes a fuss out of this is that it's become a tradition (some tradition; the only thing lamer and gayer than Groundhog Day is an Obama State of the Union Address, or maybe Justin Beiber. It's a toss-up). It's one of those traditions that probably deserves to fade away.
Mostly because the whole idea is fucking stupid.
The supposed Heavyweight Champ of Prognosticating Prairie Dogs is Punxsutawney Phil, who, we're told, has not seen his shadow this day. Judging from Phil's prodigious midsection, he probably hasn't seen his feet or balls for some time, either, so what's the big whoops? Not to be outdone in the Theatre of the Absurd and Cheesy, a local boy, Staten Island Chuck, likewise did not see his shadow, and unfortunately did not bite Mayor Bloomdouche again this year.
So far as I was concerned, digging his buck teeth into Mayor McCheese was probably Chuck's only redeeming quality.
So, two adumbrative guinea pigs have agreed that in the next few weeks our long nightmare of successive snowstorms, freezing winds, and icy rains will be all over, on their ways to becoming distant memories. Good riddance; I'm sick of snow, cold rain, slush, a coating of ice under every footfall, and getting soaking wet after stepping five feet from my own front door, already. I would love to see that -- warmer weather in six weeks -- happen. I just don't believe that placing all your hopes for an early spring upon the actions of a brace of furry vermin is the smartest way to go.
Especially not when some douchebag in a top hat and tails, who hasn't gotten the message that mutton chops are definitely out, is involved.
Still, people always need hope and encouragement in the darkest depths of the winter of our discontent -- there's staggering unemployment, our economy is in tatters, the world is going to hell around us, and we've finally come to the painful realization that we've elected a man to run this country who's only remarkable talents are for punting on first down, no matter what the issue, and going on vacation -- so I figure hope is where you find it.
Sunnier days ahead. Warmer weather. It's amazing sometimes how so simple a thing suddenly becomes so important to so many, and then you begin to realize how typically American it all is; that a tradition which John Q. Nosepicker -- Man in the Street -- could care less about, means something after all, at least when we're all in misery, even if it is all so fucking gay, and reeking of pagan superstition (one imagines that at least half of those doofuses in top hats are probably pastors, and their Calvinist predecessors would have burnt them at the stake for any witchcraft that involves the use of an unclean animal to foretell the future).
Then again, in the current state of affairs, simple things are about all we have left to look forward to, so I guess we'd better be grateful when we get them, and perhaps not ask too many questions about where they came from, either.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
"Why Don't My Solar Panels Work?"
That was the question asked by one of my neighbors yesterday, whilst discussing the increasing cost of electricity. This neighbor had taken advantage of one of those Obama Administration Green Energy Boondoggles, and had a series of solar panels installed on her roof at great expense, but still saw her utility bills dramatically rise.
Her general belief was that with the simple installation of solar panels, she would be getting "free" electricity in return. That's the first mistake she made, and I'm sure many people make the same miscalculation, if only because they don't stop to get the facts first.
The second mistake she made was that believing she was getting "free" electricity, that she could increase her own consumption astronomically. Why not leave the lights burning? Why not do more, and smaller, loads of laundry as I need them? Yes, let's get that third television, that second refrigerator, that fancy outdoor lighting I've always wanted but couldn't afford to pay for?
The result? Electric bills which have nearly doubled.
What this neighbor had failed to understand was just what it is that a solar panel actually does.
To begin with, a home-based solar panel does not generate electricity; it simply heats water. If you want to generate electricity from sunlight, you need a photovoltaic cell, which is something completely different. Most home solar systems are simple heat-collectors which use sunlight in order to heat a ready-supply of water for showers, washing, baseboard heating and so forth, the advantage being that you will use less gas or electricity to do those things than you normally would. Typically, one does not replace their traditional electric or gas-operated hot water systems when installing solar panels (nor should you!), because solar panels are reliant upon good weather -- if it's overcast or raining, your solar panel is useless.
A solar heating system is an adjunct, or supplement, but not a replacement. In this case, the neighbor replaced some of her gas-operated appliances in favor of electric ones, but was generating no electricity, and her furnace was still burning gas in order to heat water on the days when the solar panels were not working properly or efficiently. She hadn't really "saved" anything.
At best, she simply returned a few hundred cubic feet of natural gas per year (the typical home uses about 600-1200 cubic feet of gas in a year) back into "the System" (i.e. that the utility company did not have to sell to her) where someone else could make use of it, and naturally, I'm certain that someone did. This individual contribution to Mother Gaia is exceedingly small in the grand scheme of things, and so a few scores of people in your neighborhood installing solar panels to save on the gas bill really only brings marginal benefits; they may lower their overall bills by a few hundred dollars per year, but they only marginally increase the ready supply of natural gas available for everyone else, which is quickly sold and used, in any case.
In this woman's case, whatever she had saved by using less natural gas, she quickly lost when she ramped up her electric consumption under the mistaken impression that she was getting something for nothing.
This is one of the major flaws in the whole Green Energy motif; people come to believe that something, because it comes from the Sun, the Wind, or the Tides, is "free", or at least not-as-expensive. They believe this because a) most people are dumber than dogshit, and b) because that's how the whole Green Energy thing is sold to them.
I know, because I used to "sell" Green Energy, but I fully admit to not being a true expert in all the inner-workings of the entire industry.
See, this is how you (usually) get electricity. It's a very basic explanation, so spare me the technical e-mails. It's for the benefit of the layman:
Someone builds a generator. This is typically a very large magnet stuck on the end of a rotating shaft, the whole assembly attached to a turbine. This shaft/turbine assembly is surrounded by a thick coil of copper cables. The turbine is made to rotate at very high speeds, causing the magnet and coil to interact, warping the magnetic fields of both the magnet and the coil. This manipulation of the magnetic field aligns the electrons within the copper and then sets them into motion (this is electric current) down the wires and cables that emanate from the power plant, and connect to your home.
There are typically two ultra-efficient ways to get these turbines spinning at the speeds required to generate this constant electric current;
a. Water power (Hydro-electric power): rapidly-moving water falling down a waterfall (like Niagara Falls), or artificially dammed and released (like Hoover Dam) spins the turbine.
b. Steam generation; a heat source (produced from burning oil, coal, gas, or generated by splitting atoms) heats water to boiling. This steam is then collected and concentrated (super-heated) under pressure, so that when it is released it has enough power behind it to spin that turbine super-quickly.
After thousands of years of human progress, we're still using the same basic mechanisms: the Wheel, Fire, the Steam Engine, and capturing kinetic energy. In any case, we're using energy to create energy. There is nothing"free" about it. You have to construct a super-expensive kit in order to capture or create the energy needed to generate electricity, and a portion of the energy that comes out of the process is wasted due to the principles of resistance (current does not flow uninterrupted down a wire), and the laws of Physics: you can't have more energy coming out of the process than what you've put into it. Also, electricity is an on-demand commodity; it cannot be stored easily or cheaply in vast quantities, like oil or coal. You'd better use every volt you generate as soon as it's generated, or it gets lost. This makes the price jump up or down according to supply and demand, only much faster than many other commodities, because it's a "spot" market.
You can, to a certain extent, calculate how much energy goes into the process, and then regulate the amount that comes out, but this is not an exact science, and inefficiencies abound.
Green Energy methods promise (but never deliver) the ability to do away with some of the more odious aspects of power generation, particularly the need to burn fossil fuels, but the methods currently available are not reliable enough to chuck the whole "burn-something-to-generate- steam-and-spin-a-turbine-model".
Wind Turbines do away with the need to burn something and, thus, generate no pollution, but the wind is unreliable, and the turbines themselves are incapable of generating much power individually because of the complex gearing involved. That's why wind farms contain hundreds of windmills, take up several hundred acres of land, and produce negligible amounts of electricity for what they cost to build and operate.They also require specialist maintenance crews who get paid a shitload of money to climb one or two hundred feet up a mast to work with a giant fan that can easily kill them. You'll usually also see hundreds of dead birds at the base of a wind generator -- the birds get caught in the blades, fly into them, or they nest on the tall masts and fall out/get diced and sliced.
Tidal Generators work much like any windmill or hydroelectric plant, but they use the power of the tides to spin their turbines. Since most places usually only have two high tides a day for a few hours each, the tidal generator spends much of the day inactive. When it works it generates a powerful flow of electricity, but it can't operate on-demand 24/7/365. It too, is inefficient.
Geothermal plants take advantage of the Earth's heat. Built over natural hot springs and steam vents, geothermal plants use the steam that comes up from underground to spin a turbine and generate electricity. There's only one problem: that steam usually contains poisonous and corrosive compounds that can be deadly to man, and which are absolute hell on machinery, meaning a geothermal plant must be built with specially-constructed, high-tolerance materials, and is a maintenance nightmare -- not to mention the problems inherent in "scrubbing" emissions from the plant itself, so that dangerous gases and chemical compounds are not released into the air and environment.
In fact, the only truly efficient methods we have available to us that don't require fossil fuels are hydroelectric power and nuclear power. Both are bad juju to the environMENTAL activists; one scars the landscape, inconveniences fish and interferes with the natural flow of rivers and streams. The other produces small amounts of radioactive waste that has to be stored somewhere until it can either be reprocessed, or the radioactivity dissipates enough for it to be released back into the environment. This is the dilemma which faces the Green Energy crowd: their current solutions are unworkable, and the alternatives don't pass muster with people determined to nit pick them to death. Damn efficiency, progress or good sense.
And of course, it's all super-expensive.
Why, when I sold Green Energy, we never told a potential customer that he would "save money" by buying electricity or gas obtained/generated by Green Methods, because that was a virtual impossibility. Generating that sort of power in a Green fashion costs more than the traditional methods. No, instead we always sold Green Energy as a matter of social consciousness and "displacement". I'll explain.
The social conscious part is self-explanatory. People want to do things they perceive as "good". In fact, most people are simply begging to do something good, because they get a high off of it, or because it makes them feel superior to others. Most people are absolute douchebags, after all. Selling Green Energy as a way to "clean the environment", "Save the Planet" or even as a means to "Stick it to The Man" was an easy sell. There are people in the world who are swayed by such arguments, perhaps 1-in-20, because they are that stupid or committed.
The Displacement Theory takes a little explaining. It was generally suggested that for every kilowatt hour you bought that was generated by Green Methods, you were "displacing" a kilowatt hour generated by "dirty" means, i.e. that was one less kilowatt hour that would have to be generated by burning coal or gas. And if enough people bought Green Energy, then by God, we'd do away with the fossil fuel-burning power plant altogether by pushing the output of those evil machines right off the grid.
Ummm, no.
First off, you have absolutely no way, short of running a cable directly from the windmill to your front door to know whether the electricity you get is Green or not. It all goes into the same Grid. Once power is generated, your nice, clean Green Energy gets mixed in with the Dirty Energy you used to get from Con Ed or Duke Power. There is no way to distinguish between the "Good" electricity and "the bad".
Second, utility companies that have more generating capacity then they need usually don't just shut the lights, close the plant down and quit the business; they try to find more customers for it. Especially since they're producing their power at cheaper rates (after all, if there's more expensive Green stuff in the grid, then their power becomes cheaper by comparison), and selling it at cheaper rates. Given a choice between "Good for Mother Earth, but twice the cost" and "Cheap, Readily-available and Reliable" guess which choice most people (remember; most people are stupid, easily-swayed, lowest-common-denominator douchebags, now) will make?
And in any case, the investment made in constructing the original electric grid/gas delivery systems was so great, the utility companies have a financial interest in keeping them running and profitable, and are happy to simply maintain those delivery methods without having to generate any extra power to pump through them. See, when you Go Green, you're buying power that still has to be delivered to you through your traditional utility company, because they own the means of distribution. You usually see that on your bill as an increased"Delivery Charge"; since the utility has lost you as a power consumer, they'll make sure they rape you on delivery. You'll either come back, or you'll suck it up and decide that's the cost of being Green -- and they can sell the energy they would have provided you to someone else -- and still profit.
But at least you'll get a Carbon Credit -- which doesn't really exist, is difficult to trade, and which has no fixed monetary value -- and if you do manage to sell/trade it on the sham Carbon Markets, it basically means you have given someone else the right to pollute on your behalf, with your blessing. And somewhere in there, someone will have made a buck, but it won't be you.
In fact, when the Green Energy companies can't produce the electricity they need to satisfy their customer's demand, what do you think they do? They buy it on the open market from the people who make the dirty stuff and re-sell it, of course! It's the only other supply.
My usual sales meeting, usually with people who had expressed an interest about buying Green Energy, mind you, with a customer usually went something like this:
We can give you all the electricity you need, no problems. We have a great many suppliers who can feed us with all the Green Energy we can handle.
That's great.
And you will be doing something positive for the environment. You'll be helping to clean the air, streams, and oceans, and saving wildlife, too, by helping to reduce acid rain, and helping to do away with some of the dirtier aspects of power generation.
I'm always looking to make a positive impact, YESSSIRRREEE! Why,that sounds fantastic! I was always wondering when someone would get around to making Green Energy a reality! It's been one of my interests for years. It's why I joined Greenpeace, you know!
That's super! In fact, not only can we can guarantee you all the power you need, you will never have to worry about service, either; you can simply call your current utility provider, and they'll still come and fix any problems you have with access or distribution, because they still own it -- we only sell them power which they pass on to you. We can also promise that the energy we produce will be as clean as humanly possible.
Wonderful! Fantastic! It's about time!
Also, for every so-many kilowatt hours you purchase, you'll be getting a Carbon Credit, which you can trade on the open market. That's a valuable commodity, these days. It's a good reason to go Green, isn't it?
Wow! This is sounding better all the time!
So, here you are: you can get the energy you need, generated by clean methods, which is best for the environment and saves polar bears and Aborigines; you don't need to swap service providers so you can retain the expert and reliable services of your current power company, and in the process, you'll be gaining valuable Carbon Credits which you can sell for a profit. Everyone wins!
Sounds like it! So, how much does it cost?
Well, you'll be signing a five-year contract (don't tell them about the substantial fees involved for breaking the contract before the first year is up). I have to tell you that the price is slightly higher, about 8-10% higher, than what you're paying now, BUT we guarantee that your price will never increase for any reason at any time during that five year period. And when you consider that you'll at least know for certain what your power costs will be for the next five years -- this helps you considerably when budgeting, you know -- and that you're doing something positive for the world -- and your children -- and that you also get Carbon Credits that you can sell at a profit for it, it's a great deal, don't you think?
Oh, umm, sorry, but....ahhh....that sounds a little too expensive for my tastes, and I didn't realize it would mean a five-year contract. Thank you for your time, and I'm sorry we couldn't do business.
Even those most committed to being Green bail out when they find out how much Green it's going to cost them.
The whole thing was about as close to a legal scam as it was possible to get. There was nothing inherently illegal or immoral about what we were doing, but it wasn't exactly on the up-and-up, either. It depended on the stupidity of legions of people who were under the impression that they were going to get something cheap -- if not free -- with the added benefit that they could brag to their friends about it.
Now, I don't mean all this to be a knock on people who buy solar panels for their homes. Or even of Green Energy, in general; there's a place for it. But it won't replace the existing apparatus without great investment and advances in technology which at present are not cost-effective, and not exactly forseeable. When everything is known -- the purchaser understands exactly what he's buying and what he's getting for his money, and especially the limitations and obligations that come with it-- Solar Panels on your Roof, Windmills on the Plains and Geothermal plants at Yellowstone aren't a bad idea, per se. Just remember the ironclad rule that applies to the generation, distribution, usage and regulation of power:
Nothing is ever free. And if someone sold you a solar panel outfit without telling you exactly what it was good for and how you were supposed to use it, then you shouldn't complain about skyrocketing energy bills.
My neighbor is a little bit wiser now, and was embarrassed to find out just how wrong she had been in her assumptions. Don't make the same mistake yourself.
Her general belief was that with the simple installation of solar panels, she would be getting "free" electricity in return. That's the first mistake she made, and I'm sure many people make the same miscalculation, if only because they don't stop to get the facts first.
The second mistake she made was that believing she was getting "free" electricity, that she could increase her own consumption astronomically. Why not leave the lights burning? Why not do more, and smaller, loads of laundry as I need them? Yes, let's get that third television, that second refrigerator, that fancy outdoor lighting I've always wanted but couldn't afford to pay for?
The result? Electric bills which have nearly doubled.
What this neighbor had failed to understand was just what it is that a solar panel actually does.
To begin with, a home-based solar panel does not generate electricity; it simply heats water. If you want to generate electricity from sunlight, you need a photovoltaic cell, which is something completely different. Most home solar systems are simple heat-collectors which use sunlight in order to heat a ready-supply of water for showers, washing, baseboard heating and so forth, the advantage being that you will use less gas or electricity to do those things than you normally would. Typically, one does not replace their traditional electric or gas-operated hot water systems when installing solar panels (nor should you!), because solar panels are reliant upon good weather -- if it's overcast or raining, your solar panel is useless.
A solar heating system is an adjunct, or supplement, but not a replacement. In this case, the neighbor replaced some of her gas-operated appliances in favor of electric ones, but was generating no electricity, and her furnace was still burning gas in order to heat water on the days when the solar panels were not working properly or efficiently. She hadn't really "saved" anything.
At best, she simply returned a few hundred cubic feet of natural gas per year (the typical home uses about 600-1200 cubic feet of gas in a year) back into "the System" (i.e. that the utility company did not have to sell to her) where someone else could make use of it, and naturally, I'm certain that someone did. This individual contribution to Mother Gaia is exceedingly small in the grand scheme of things, and so a few scores of people in your neighborhood installing solar panels to save on the gas bill really only brings marginal benefits; they may lower their overall bills by a few hundred dollars per year, but they only marginally increase the ready supply of natural gas available for everyone else, which is quickly sold and used, in any case.
In this woman's case, whatever she had saved by using less natural gas, she quickly lost when she ramped up her electric consumption under the mistaken impression that she was getting something for nothing.
This is one of the major flaws in the whole Green Energy motif; people come to believe that something, because it comes from the Sun, the Wind, or the Tides, is "free", or at least not-as-expensive. They believe this because a) most people are dumber than dogshit, and b) because that's how the whole Green Energy thing is sold to them.
I know, because I used to "sell" Green Energy, but I fully admit to not being a true expert in all the inner-workings of the entire industry.
See, this is how you (usually) get electricity. It's a very basic explanation, so spare me the technical e-mails. It's for the benefit of the layman:
Someone builds a generator. This is typically a very large magnet stuck on the end of a rotating shaft, the whole assembly attached to a turbine. This shaft/turbine assembly is surrounded by a thick coil of copper cables. The turbine is made to rotate at very high speeds, causing the magnet and coil to interact, warping the magnetic fields of both the magnet and the coil. This manipulation of the magnetic field aligns the electrons within the copper and then sets them into motion (this is electric current) down the wires and cables that emanate from the power plant, and connect to your home.
There are typically two ultra-efficient ways to get these turbines spinning at the speeds required to generate this constant electric current;
a. Water power (Hydro-electric power): rapidly-moving water falling down a waterfall (like Niagara Falls), or artificially dammed and released (like Hoover Dam) spins the turbine.
b. Steam generation; a heat source (produced from burning oil, coal, gas, or generated by splitting atoms) heats water to boiling. This steam is then collected and concentrated (super-heated) under pressure, so that when it is released it has enough power behind it to spin that turbine super-quickly.
After thousands of years of human progress, we're still using the same basic mechanisms: the Wheel, Fire, the Steam Engine, and capturing kinetic energy. In any case, we're using energy to create energy. There is nothing"free" about it. You have to construct a super-expensive kit in order to capture or create the energy needed to generate electricity, and a portion of the energy that comes out of the process is wasted due to the principles of resistance (current does not flow uninterrupted down a wire), and the laws of Physics: you can't have more energy coming out of the process than what you've put into it. Also, electricity is an on-demand commodity; it cannot be stored easily or cheaply in vast quantities, like oil or coal. You'd better use every volt you generate as soon as it's generated, or it gets lost. This makes the price jump up or down according to supply and demand, only much faster than many other commodities, because it's a "spot" market.
You can, to a certain extent, calculate how much energy goes into the process, and then regulate the amount that comes out, but this is not an exact science, and inefficiencies abound.
Green Energy methods promise (but never deliver) the ability to do away with some of the more odious aspects of power generation, particularly the need to burn fossil fuels, but the methods currently available are not reliable enough to chuck the whole "burn-something-to-generate- steam-and-spin-a-turbine-model".
Wind Turbines do away with the need to burn something and, thus, generate no pollution, but the wind is unreliable, and the turbines themselves are incapable of generating much power individually because of the complex gearing involved. That's why wind farms contain hundreds of windmills, take up several hundred acres of land, and produce negligible amounts of electricity for what they cost to build and operate.They also require specialist maintenance crews who get paid a shitload of money to climb one or two hundred feet up a mast to work with a giant fan that can easily kill them. You'll usually also see hundreds of dead birds at the base of a wind generator -- the birds get caught in the blades, fly into them, or they nest on the tall masts and fall out/get diced and sliced.
Tidal Generators work much like any windmill or hydroelectric plant, but they use the power of the tides to spin their turbines. Since most places usually only have two high tides a day for a few hours each, the tidal generator spends much of the day inactive. When it works it generates a powerful flow of electricity, but it can't operate on-demand 24/7/365. It too, is inefficient.
Geothermal plants take advantage of the Earth's heat. Built over natural hot springs and steam vents, geothermal plants use the steam that comes up from underground to spin a turbine and generate electricity. There's only one problem: that steam usually contains poisonous and corrosive compounds that can be deadly to man, and which are absolute hell on machinery, meaning a geothermal plant must be built with specially-constructed, high-tolerance materials, and is a maintenance nightmare -- not to mention the problems inherent in "scrubbing" emissions from the plant itself, so that dangerous gases and chemical compounds are not released into the air and environment.
In fact, the only truly efficient methods we have available to us that don't require fossil fuels are hydroelectric power and nuclear power. Both are bad juju to the environMENTAL activists; one scars the landscape, inconveniences fish and interferes with the natural flow of rivers and streams. The other produces small amounts of radioactive waste that has to be stored somewhere until it can either be reprocessed, or the radioactivity dissipates enough for it to be released back into the environment. This is the dilemma which faces the Green Energy crowd: their current solutions are unworkable, and the alternatives don't pass muster with people determined to nit pick them to death. Damn efficiency, progress or good sense.
And of course, it's all super-expensive.
Why, when I sold Green Energy, we never told a potential customer that he would "save money" by buying electricity or gas obtained/generated by Green Methods, because that was a virtual impossibility. Generating that sort of power in a Green fashion costs more than the traditional methods. No, instead we always sold Green Energy as a matter of social consciousness and "displacement". I'll explain.
The social conscious part is self-explanatory. People want to do things they perceive as "good". In fact, most people are simply begging to do something good, because they get a high off of it, or because it makes them feel superior to others. Most people are absolute douchebags, after all. Selling Green Energy as a way to "clean the environment", "Save the Planet" or even as a means to "Stick it to The Man" was an easy sell. There are people in the world who are swayed by such arguments, perhaps 1-in-20, because they are that stupid or committed.
The Displacement Theory takes a little explaining. It was generally suggested that for every kilowatt hour you bought that was generated by Green Methods, you were "displacing" a kilowatt hour generated by "dirty" means, i.e. that was one less kilowatt hour that would have to be generated by burning coal or gas. And if enough people bought Green Energy, then by God, we'd do away with the fossil fuel-burning power plant altogether by pushing the output of those evil machines right off the grid.
Ummm, no.
First off, you have absolutely no way, short of running a cable directly from the windmill to your front door to know whether the electricity you get is Green or not. It all goes into the same Grid. Once power is generated, your nice, clean Green Energy gets mixed in with the Dirty Energy you used to get from Con Ed or Duke Power. There is no way to distinguish between the "Good" electricity and "the bad".
Second, utility companies that have more generating capacity then they need usually don't just shut the lights, close the plant down and quit the business; they try to find more customers for it. Especially since they're producing their power at cheaper rates (after all, if there's more expensive Green stuff in the grid, then their power becomes cheaper by comparison), and selling it at cheaper rates. Given a choice between "Good for Mother Earth, but twice the cost" and "Cheap, Readily-available and Reliable" guess which choice most people (remember; most people are stupid, easily-swayed, lowest-common-denominator douchebags, now) will make?
And in any case, the investment made in constructing the original electric grid/gas delivery systems was so great, the utility companies have a financial interest in keeping them running and profitable, and are happy to simply maintain those delivery methods without having to generate any extra power to pump through them. See, when you Go Green, you're buying power that still has to be delivered to you through your traditional utility company, because they own the means of distribution. You usually see that on your bill as an increased"Delivery Charge"; since the utility has lost you as a power consumer, they'll make sure they rape you on delivery. You'll either come back, or you'll suck it up and decide that's the cost of being Green -- and they can sell the energy they would have provided you to someone else -- and still profit.
But at least you'll get a Carbon Credit -- which doesn't really exist, is difficult to trade, and which has no fixed monetary value -- and if you do manage to sell/trade it on the sham Carbon Markets, it basically means you have given someone else the right to pollute on your behalf, with your blessing. And somewhere in there, someone will have made a buck, but it won't be you.
In fact, when the Green Energy companies can't produce the electricity they need to satisfy their customer's demand, what do you think they do? They buy it on the open market from the people who make the dirty stuff and re-sell it, of course! It's the only other supply.
My usual sales meeting, usually with people who had expressed an interest about buying Green Energy, mind you, with a customer usually went something like this:
We can give you all the electricity you need, no problems. We have a great many suppliers who can feed us with all the Green Energy we can handle.
That's great.
And you will be doing something positive for the environment. You'll be helping to clean the air, streams, and oceans, and saving wildlife, too, by helping to reduce acid rain, and helping to do away with some of the dirtier aspects of power generation.
I'm always looking to make a positive impact, YESSSIRRREEE! Why,that sounds fantastic! I was always wondering when someone would get around to making Green Energy a reality! It's been one of my interests for years. It's why I joined Greenpeace, you know!
That's super! In fact, not only can we can guarantee you all the power you need, you will never have to worry about service, either; you can simply call your current utility provider, and they'll still come and fix any problems you have with access or distribution, because they still own it -- we only sell them power which they pass on to you. We can also promise that the energy we produce will be as clean as humanly possible.
Wonderful! Fantastic! It's about time!
Also, for every so-many kilowatt hours you purchase, you'll be getting a Carbon Credit, which you can trade on the open market. That's a valuable commodity, these days. It's a good reason to go Green, isn't it?
Wow! This is sounding better all the time!
So, here you are: you can get the energy you need, generated by clean methods, which is best for the environment and saves polar bears and Aborigines; you don't need to swap service providers so you can retain the expert and reliable services of your current power company, and in the process, you'll be gaining valuable Carbon Credits which you can sell for a profit. Everyone wins!
Sounds like it! So, how much does it cost?
Well, you'll be signing a five-year contract (don't tell them about the substantial fees involved for breaking the contract before the first year is up). I have to tell you that the price is slightly higher, about 8-10% higher, than what you're paying now, BUT we guarantee that your price will never increase for any reason at any time during that five year period. And when you consider that you'll at least know for certain what your power costs will be for the next five years -- this helps you considerably when budgeting, you know -- and that you're doing something positive for the world -- and your children -- and that you also get Carbon Credits that you can sell at a profit for it, it's a great deal, don't you think?
Oh, umm, sorry, but....ahhh....that sounds a little too expensive for my tastes, and I didn't realize it would mean a five-year contract. Thank you for your time, and I'm sorry we couldn't do business.
Even those most committed to being Green bail out when they find out how much Green it's going to cost them.
The whole thing was about as close to a legal scam as it was possible to get. There was nothing inherently illegal or immoral about what we were doing, but it wasn't exactly on the up-and-up, either. It depended on the stupidity of legions of people who were under the impression that they were going to get something cheap -- if not free -- with the added benefit that they could brag to their friends about it.
Now, I don't mean all this to be a knock on people who buy solar panels for their homes. Or even of Green Energy, in general; there's a place for it. But it won't replace the existing apparatus without great investment and advances in technology which at present are not cost-effective, and not exactly forseeable. When everything is known -- the purchaser understands exactly what he's buying and what he's getting for his money, and especially the limitations and obligations that come with it-- Solar Panels on your Roof, Windmills on the Plains and Geothermal plants at Yellowstone aren't a bad idea, per se. Just remember the ironclad rule that applies to the generation, distribution, usage and regulation of power:
Nothing is ever free. And if someone sold you a solar panel outfit without telling you exactly what it was good for and how you were supposed to use it, then you shouldn't complain about skyrocketing energy bills.
My neighbor is a little bit wiser now, and was embarrassed to find out just how wrong she had been in her assumptions. Don't make the same mistake yourself.
More Evidence that Global Warming is a Communist Plot...
Surprise! There are no melting glaciers, after all!
Of course there aren't; the whole thing was spun from whole cloth, the better to frighten the bejesus out of people so that they'd panic and fall in line with the Master Plan of the Greenie Meanies, who simply want to "Save the Planet" by arresting progress and redistributing the wealth of the industrialized world.
Personally, I don't give a shit if some headhunter on New Guinea drowns because the island is swamped by rising sea levels (that's a load of bullshit, too). I figure if headhunting was a viable way of life more people would be doing it -- and the fact that the vast majority don't tends to bear me out on this -- that sort of culture would be more widespread. I also reckon that any society which has not evolved beyond it's Stone Age origins and technology is a society that is most likely doomed to eventual extinction. Since extinction is a part of the natural cycle, making expensive efforts to save that which Nature has judged failures is a waste of time and money.
Of course there aren't; the whole thing was spun from whole cloth, the better to frighten the bejesus out of people so that they'd panic and fall in line with the Master Plan of the Greenie Meanies, who simply want to "Save the Planet" by arresting progress and redistributing the wealth of the industrialized world.
Personally, I don't give a shit if some headhunter on New Guinea drowns because the island is swamped by rising sea levels (that's a load of bullshit, too). I figure if headhunting was a viable way of life more people would be doing it -- and the fact that the vast majority don't tends to bear me out on this -- that sort of culture would be more widespread. I also reckon that any society which has not evolved beyond it's Stone Age origins and technology is a society that is most likely doomed to eventual extinction. Since extinction is a part of the natural cycle, making expensive efforts to save that which Nature has judged failures is a waste of time and money.
Job Opportunity...
Wanted: One illustrator with experience in graphic design, and a strong background in desktop publishing. Experience in publishing children's books, preferred. You will be working on spec in a profit-sharing arrangement, so there is no steady paycheck. There's only an opportunity to make some cash, but that's not such a bad thing, is it?
If you or someone you know is willing to take a chance on a self-publishing project, please drop us a line here at the Asylum (Rocky the Human Resources Elf is standing by to take your e-mail) because we definitely have a few things to talk about! Please send your response and a small sample of your work to the following address:
Excelsior502@gmail.com
If you or someone you know is willing to take a chance on a self-publishing project, please drop us a line here at the Asylum (Rocky the Human Resources Elf is standing by to take your e-mail) because we definitely have a few things to talk about! Please send your response and a small sample of your work to the following address:
Excelsior502@gmail.com
Saturday, January 29, 2011
That State of The Union Speech Thingy?
Yeah, yeah, I'm late to the table, but gimme a break! Here in New Yorkistan we're buried under 40" of snow, and news travels slow in these parts. Here was what I heard:
"Ladies and Gentlemen, The President of the United States:
Blah, blah blah, blah, spend more money we don't have and have to print, invent or borrow from the Chinese, blah, blah, blah, blah."
Nowadays, "Investment" is a euphemism for what used to be called"Stimulus", which is another word for "pay off my political allies with phony money we have to print, invent or borrow from the Chinese, and which, ultimately, is wasted, having had no economic effect whatsoever...except to deepen the ocean of national red ink.
Obambi's repeated mantra of "Education, Education, Education!" was sorta-kinda nice, except for three things:
1. The Schools don't educate anyone, anymore. They're government-funded baby-sitting services, where the day is whiled away in self-esteem building exercises with healthy lunches, and Unionized "Teachers" are like Soviet Factory workers who go through the motions but have no enthusiasm, no clue, and no care about the quality of their work. Like the doofus who put together tractors at the state-run factory, they simply do enough to qualify for their government-supplied apartment, and the right to stand for three hours in the toilet paper line.
Who cares if the kids are actually learning anything, when you work in a job that it's almost impossible to get fired from for simple incompetence, and where you are earning far more than you're worth, considering that you probably finished somewhere in the bottom 20% of your own graduating class, and changed majors twice before finally settling for a government job?
If you want to educate people, Mr. President, you get them out of the Public Schools. The idea that more funding will improve the Public Schools, practically liberal dogma, is known to simply be a false one. The call for more"Education" is simply Barack Obama laying the first minefield with which to defend his liberal stronghold, come the first budget battles; republicans will, as usual, be tarred with the charge that they want your children to remain ignorant, and sit in their own stupor in a filthy, understaffed, dilapidated school building.
2. The economic troubles we face today have little to do with education. In fact, there are probably too many people walking around with a college degree, most of whom had no business getting one in the first place, but hell, they managed to scrape up the funding and then faithfully parrot Professor Douchebag, so why not give them the piece of paper?
Our current crisis is one caused by the collusion of government and business. Reduce the size of government, then redirect it's efforts into what it should be doing (like enforcing the law and leaving markets alone), and much of the problem is solved. You will never solve the second half of the problem, the complete lack of ethics in today's business community, until someone gets around to punishing the wrongdoers instead of taking their campaign contributions.
True, economic growth is dependant upon a stream of intelligent entrepreneurs and skilled workers, but the colleges are throwing out very few of either. People who major in African-American or Gender Studies, Education, Psychology or Marketing are not exactly the sort of people you need for economic prosperity: you need doers, not parasites. You need workers, not Liberal Arts majors. If Obambi was serious about Education-as-Economic-Engine, he would have suggested that, perhaps, some of this education money we're already spending be geared towards trade and vocational schools, rather than colleges. Those people would emerge from school with actual, useful skills, and a ready pool of skilled labor might prod some folks with money to bring back a few industrial jobs to take advantage of it.
We need that, more industry, more than we need an indoctrination disguised as an education.
3. Education is probably the first thing that should be cut. We spend more money on that than just about anything that isn't an entitlement or have to do with the Pentagon, and the failure of that spend-more-get-better mindset is abject. Time for a new plan, but I wouldn't depend on Obama or the democrats in the Senate to formulate it; unless they're about to lose their seat, or have a gun to their heads (Violent Rhetoric Alert!) they'll not change a damned thing. They are incapable of doing so; it would mean the end of their rice bowls.
The Sputnik Analogy: Seriously? That's the best you could do? Why is it that conservatives (small 'c' intentional) are always accused of wanting the bring back the 1950's, and excoriated for it, but this dickhead can get away with a Sputnik reference? What's next, the Cuban Missile Crisis as call to action? I can't wait for the day when "Remember Tet!" becomes the basis of national policy.
No Cuts, but Lots of Freezing: how stupid do you think people (other than the ones who voted for you) are? I know, you have to save ObamaCare; it's your single "accomplishment". Without it, your only accomplishment will be "made Jimmy Carter look like Pericles". Spending"freezes" don't work, only real cuts do. Unfortunately for you, Mr. President, the most obvious thing to cut is Part I of the Reparations Plan, the Great Band-Aids and Eyedrops for Everyone Scam.
More Green Energy Bullshit: Ummm, I don't know if you've noticed, but we're buried in snow up here these days. What happened to all that Global Warming bullshit? Green Energy is (mostly) a boondoggle, a very expensive one, and it will not spur the sort of economic expansion you think it will for a very simple reason: until we find an alternative to fossil fuels that provides an equivalent amount of energy, at an affordable price, that is is easy to transport/distribute and doesn't require a super-massive infrastructure project to bring to market, we're not going to "Go Green".
Actually, if you wanted to promote Green Energy, you should be pushing for more nuclear power plants, which is the cleanest form of power known to man. Oh right, environmentalists hate splitting atoms, too, which makes them either stupid, liars or both.
This Whole "Sitting Together" Nonsense: excuse me, but I didn't vote for bi-partisanship. In fact, I, and many like me, voted for the most extreme partisanship imaginable, within certain limits, this past November.
I don't want to see Nancy Pelosi (D) sitting with Congressman Schmo (R), I want to see Congressman Schmo helping Nancy to the door, and then down the Capitol steps, hailing her a cab, and then telling the driver to find the nearest convenient bridge to plunge off of.
The word "Bi-Partisan" is, in fact, two lies for the price of one. When a R calls for bi-partisanship, he's asking dems to support something he otherwise cannot justify. When a D asks for it, it's either a plea for mercy, or a tactical retreat. Very often, when both use it, it simply means "gimme cover on this piece of shit I've crafted that rewards my cronies but hoses the public -- but gives you something, too. When a D asks for it, it's nothing if not about getting what they want, no matter what, no matter how stupid or destructive.
I don't want democrats and republicans working together, because for the most part, that is when the worst sorts of abuses occur. "Compromise" takes place where it shouldn't, and Senator R gets his cuts, but only because Senator D managed to keep that Abortion Funding. Many of the issues we're dealing with no don't lend themselves to the idea of compromise. These questions are more along the lines of "Would you rather pass a bowling ball, or have an umbrella opened inside your anus? Would you prefer to screw your mother, or perform fellatio upon your father?"
The questions are clearly unpleasant, and the solutions will be, as well. The choice is between national bankruptcy and the inevitable Zimbabwe death-spiral that comes with it, or a chance to change things for the better. This requires that certain principles never be compromised. The second we start talking"non-partisan" those graven-in-stone principles can be envisioned as circling the bowl.
Obama gives us a steady diet of more-of-the-same, only the semantics and packaging have changed (see? I told you marketing majors were useless!) . It's almost as if he lives in some strange, alien cocoon that blinds him to the reality that everyone else seems to grapple with, that makes facts easy to ignore or gloss over. This man's term of office cannot end soon enough.
"Ladies and Gentlemen, The President of the United States:
Blah, blah blah, blah, spend more money we don't have and have to print, invent or borrow from the Chinese, blah, blah, blah, blah."
Nowadays, "Investment" is a euphemism for what used to be called"Stimulus", which is another word for "pay off my political allies with phony money we have to print, invent or borrow from the Chinese, and which, ultimately, is wasted, having had no economic effect whatsoever...except to deepen the ocean of national red ink.
Obambi's repeated mantra of "Education, Education, Education!" was sorta-kinda nice, except for three things:
1. The Schools don't educate anyone, anymore. They're government-funded baby-sitting services, where the day is whiled away in self-esteem building exercises with healthy lunches, and Unionized "Teachers" are like Soviet Factory workers who go through the motions but have no enthusiasm, no clue, and no care about the quality of their work. Like the doofus who put together tractors at the state-run factory, they simply do enough to qualify for their government-supplied apartment, and the right to stand for three hours in the toilet paper line.
Who cares if the kids are actually learning anything, when you work in a job that it's almost impossible to get fired from for simple incompetence, and where you are earning far more than you're worth, considering that you probably finished somewhere in the bottom 20% of your own graduating class, and changed majors twice before finally settling for a government job?
If you want to educate people, Mr. President, you get them out of the Public Schools. The idea that more funding will improve the Public Schools, practically liberal dogma, is known to simply be a false one. The call for more"Education" is simply Barack Obama laying the first minefield with which to defend his liberal stronghold, come the first budget battles; republicans will, as usual, be tarred with the charge that they want your children to remain ignorant, and sit in their own stupor in a filthy, understaffed, dilapidated school building.
2. The economic troubles we face today have little to do with education. In fact, there are probably too many people walking around with a college degree, most of whom had no business getting one in the first place, but hell, they managed to scrape up the funding and then faithfully parrot Professor Douchebag, so why not give them the piece of paper?
Our current crisis is one caused by the collusion of government and business. Reduce the size of government, then redirect it's efforts into what it should be doing (like enforcing the law and leaving markets alone), and much of the problem is solved. You will never solve the second half of the problem, the complete lack of ethics in today's business community, until someone gets around to punishing the wrongdoers instead of taking their campaign contributions.
True, economic growth is dependant upon a stream of intelligent entrepreneurs and skilled workers, but the colleges are throwing out very few of either. People who major in African-American or Gender Studies, Education, Psychology or Marketing are not exactly the sort of people you need for economic prosperity: you need doers, not parasites. You need workers, not Liberal Arts majors. If Obambi was serious about Education-as-Economic-Engine, he would have suggested that, perhaps, some of this education money we're already spending be geared towards trade and vocational schools, rather than colleges. Those people would emerge from school with actual, useful skills, and a ready pool of skilled labor might prod some folks with money to bring back a few industrial jobs to take advantage of it.
We need that, more industry, more than we need an indoctrination disguised as an education.
3. Education is probably the first thing that should be cut. We spend more money on that than just about anything that isn't an entitlement or have to do with the Pentagon, and the failure of that spend-more-get-better mindset is abject. Time for a new plan, but I wouldn't depend on Obama or the democrats in the Senate to formulate it; unless they're about to lose their seat, or have a gun to their heads (Violent Rhetoric Alert!) they'll not change a damned thing. They are incapable of doing so; it would mean the end of their rice bowls.
The Sputnik Analogy: Seriously? That's the best you could do? Why is it that conservatives (small 'c' intentional) are always accused of wanting the bring back the 1950's, and excoriated for it, but this dickhead can get away with a Sputnik reference? What's next, the Cuban Missile Crisis as call to action? I can't wait for the day when "Remember Tet!" becomes the basis of national policy.
No Cuts, but Lots of Freezing: how stupid do you think people (other than the ones who voted for you) are? I know, you have to save ObamaCare; it's your single "accomplishment". Without it, your only accomplishment will be "made Jimmy Carter look like Pericles". Spending"freezes" don't work, only real cuts do. Unfortunately for you, Mr. President, the most obvious thing to cut is Part I of the Reparations Plan, the Great Band-Aids and Eyedrops for Everyone Scam.
More Green Energy Bullshit: Ummm, I don't know if you've noticed, but we're buried in snow up here these days. What happened to all that Global Warming bullshit? Green Energy is (mostly) a boondoggle, a very expensive one, and it will not spur the sort of economic expansion you think it will for a very simple reason: until we find an alternative to fossil fuels that provides an equivalent amount of energy, at an affordable price, that is is easy to transport/distribute and doesn't require a super-massive infrastructure project to bring to market, we're not going to "Go Green".
Actually, if you wanted to promote Green Energy, you should be pushing for more nuclear power plants, which is the cleanest form of power known to man. Oh right, environmentalists hate splitting atoms, too, which makes them either stupid, liars or both.
This Whole "Sitting Together" Nonsense: excuse me, but I didn't vote for bi-partisanship. In fact, I, and many like me, voted for the most extreme partisanship imaginable, within certain limits, this past November.
I don't want to see Nancy Pelosi (D) sitting with Congressman Schmo (R), I want to see Congressman Schmo helping Nancy to the door, and then down the Capitol steps, hailing her a cab, and then telling the driver to find the nearest convenient bridge to plunge off of.
The word "Bi-Partisan" is, in fact, two lies for the price of one. When a R calls for bi-partisanship, he's asking dems to support something he otherwise cannot justify. When a D asks for it, it's either a plea for mercy, or a tactical retreat. Very often, when both use it, it simply means "gimme cover on this piece of shit I've crafted that rewards my cronies but hoses the public -- but gives you something, too. When a D asks for it, it's nothing if not about getting what they want, no matter what, no matter how stupid or destructive.
I don't want democrats and republicans working together, because for the most part, that is when the worst sorts of abuses occur. "Compromise" takes place where it shouldn't, and Senator R gets his cuts, but only because Senator D managed to keep that Abortion Funding. Many of the issues we're dealing with no don't lend themselves to the idea of compromise. These questions are more along the lines of "Would you rather pass a bowling ball, or have an umbrella opened inside your anus? Would you prefer to screw your mother, or perform fellatio upon your father?"
The questions are clearly unpleasant, and the solutions will be, as well. The choice is between national bankruptcy and the inevitable Zimbabwe death-spiral that comes with it, or a chance to change things for the better. This requires that certain principles never be compromised. The second we start talking"non-partisan" those graven-in-stone principles can be envisioned as circling the bowl.
Obama gives us a steady diet of more-of-the-same, only the semantics and packaging have changed (see? I told you marketing majors were useless!) . It's almost as if he lives in some strange, alien cocoon that blinds him to the reality that everyone else seems to grapple with, that makes facts easy to ignore or gloss over. This man's term of office cannot end soon enough.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Up To My You-Know-What In Snow...
Apologies for lack of content these days, but New York has been re-buried under it's third major snowstorm in the last month... with more on it's way.
I haven't had the time to put up some posts, because I've been digging folks out of the snow (and making some decent scratch at it, too), and will probably be very busy for the next few days. I will try to get something in tonight.
So sorry!
I haven't had the time to put up some posts, because I've been digging folks out of the snow (and making some decent scratch at it, too), and will probably be very busy for the next few days. I will try to get something in tonight.
So sorry!
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
9/11: One Man's Tragedy is another Man's Treasure...
"9/11 Victim" is the New Black.
They even have their own collection of highly-paid parasites to "lead" them. Instead of being Poverty Pimps like Rev. Al, or Je$$e Jackass, these people can be more accurately described as "Misery Pimps".
It's been 10 years, already. Get on with your lives. September 11th ruined me physically, mentally, professionally, financially, and no one ever advocated on my behalf. Probably because my case couldn't be used to pry federal tax dollars and donations from people's wallets. My case certainly wouldn't have brought anyone $17 million for delaying the construction of the new WTC, providing others with badly-needed jobs, and a cash-strapped New York City with revenues, and it never caught a politician's ear, either.
The orgy of grief, and everything that's sprung from it, has got to stop at some point. Don't you think watching other people getting rich off of other people's pain isn't the first indication that something ain't exactly right here?
They even have their own collection of highly-paid parasites to "lead" them. Instead of being Poverty Pimps like Rev. Al, or Je$$e Jackass, these people can be more accurately described as "Misery Pimps".
It's been 10 years, already. Get on with your lives. September 11th ruined me physically, mentally, professionally, financially, and no one ever advocated on my behalf. Probably because my case couldn't be used to pry federal tax dollars and donations from people's wallets. My case certainly wouldn't have brought anyone $17 million for delaying the construction of the new WTC, providing others with badly-needed jobs, and a cash-strapped New York City with revenues, and it never caught a politician's ear, either.
The orgy of grief, and everything that's sprung from it, has got to stop at some point. Don't you think watching other people getting rich off of other people's pain isn't the first indication that something ain't exactly right here?
We Deliver for You...
The long overdue dismantling of the U.S. Postal Service begins. The DHL/Fed Ex model works, government mail delivery doesn't.
It's a bout time; My mailman's back is practically broken carrying those three bills and 70-pounds of unwanted junk mail I get every month, too. Do something good for the environment, and get all those Postal trucks off the road, and the planes out of the air. Save some trees.
Get rid of those bloated pension obligations, too, and save the taxpayer some money.
We live in a world of e-mail, cell phones, instantaneous data transfer, the Internet, word processors. The concept of stuffing hand-written or printed paper messages into an envelope for hand-delivery is passe, obsolete. The only things preventing old-fashioned mail delivery from going the way of the dinosaurs are habit, custom, and security (because a sealed envelope is just as secure as a bank vault, you know).
And security gets better all the time. So long as the software companies don't stiff their programmers.
I'm getting the impression that the only people they interviewed for this article are over the age of 60, live in towns barely represented on a map, and that they all seem to regard the Post Office as a place to gather socially. Exactly the sort of people one would expect not to understand technology, and to be too lazy or stupid to take the time to figure it out or learn how it works.
It's a bout time; My mailman's back is practically broken carrying those three bills and 70-pounds of unwanted junk mail I get every month, too. Do something good for the environment, and get all those Postal trucks off the road, and the planes out of the air. Save some trees.
Get rid of those bloated pension obligations, too, and save the taxpayer some money.
We live in a world of e-mail, cell phones, instantaneous data transfer, the Internet, word processors. The concept of stuffing hand-written or printed paper messages into an envelope for hand-delivery is passe, obsolete. The only things preventing old-fashioned mail delivery from going the way of the dinosaurs are habit, custom, and security (because a sealed envelope is just as secure as a bank vault, you know).
And security gets better all the time. So long as the software companies don't stiff their programmers.
I'm getting the impression that the only people they interviewed for this article are over the age of 60, live in towns barely represented on a map, and that they all seem to regard the Post Office as a place to gather socially. Exactly the sort of people one would expect not to understand technology, and to be too lazy or stupid to take the time to figure it out or learn how it works.
Why the Islamic World is Doomed...
Pakistani Woman Enrolls in First Grade.
A 25-yr old mother of three in first grade. While this may put her ahead of many of our 25-yr old mothers of three in the Bronx, what does it say about the Islamic world?
But, before you deign to answer that question, try to wrap your head around the just-announced formation of the Iranian Internet Gestapo.
Societies which restrict the spread of information, forbid the principle of debate, stifle education, cut off access to viewpoints which conflict with the "official" point-of-view, are societies which eventually wither and die. They are strangled by a lack of creativity, and a the inability to adapt to an ever-changing world. Societies which treat their women as livestock, and don't bother to educate or put them to work in a capacity other than sperm receptacle or human punching-bag, simply cease to exist, eventually.
The only thing that's keeping the Islamic world "relevant" is that there's so damned many of them (what happened to all that War on Terror bullshit?), but the ability to breed like roaches still won't save that culture and those societies from the slow death that awaits them. They are sterile cultures. Stale. Flatlined. Hence, all the violence; they aren't aware of another way to live.
The Iranians can cite the Stuxnet attacks on their nuclear program all they want, the real reason they're clamping down on the 'net is because it's a place where people are exposed to ideas that are dangerous to the regime. Well, that and because the Middle East is the internet rape video and donkey sex capital of the world (just ask Google).
No educated women+no political or religious dissent+no exchange of ideas+the criminalization of unofficial thought = Islam is a barren wasteland. That's the real reason why they hate us in the West; it has little to do with religion, it's all about culture. Our system represents a culture of freedom and progress, and theirs represents a culture of repression, ignorance, violence and perpetual poverty, even if you do swim in a sea of oil. They are incapable of changing so as to match and join us in the 21st Century, so they try to pull us down to their level (that's what terrorism is all about, after all), the easier to enslave us all so that they may live off the fruits of our labors and productive, creative brains.
Productive and creative brains that got that way because we allow dissent, educate our women, and don't spend the majority of our day looking at deviant pornography.
The Whole FundaMENTAList Islamic thing has nothing to do with religion: it's all about ensuring that a system in which Might Makes Right, and where Men can lord it over women, continues to exist, even if it eventually means cultural suicide. Because if there's anything a Muslim man fears more than God, it would be an original thought and a vagina. If both were ever to be combined, every camel-fucking pile of dirty lauindry in the Middle East would find himself up Shit's Creek without a paddle.
Rev. Al on "Hannity"...
The "Reverend" Gimme tries to debate former Senator Rick Santorum on the issue of out-of-control rates of abortion in the African-American community.
Al's real problem, besides dodging the actual question as to whether abortion rates this high constitute a new holocaust, is that Santorum made the following mistakes:
1. He used the word "Black" in a way that Sharpton disagrees with. "Black", in any context, is not supposed to be uttered by a White man as the term is owned by the poverty pimps, like Al, and should only be used as the sharp wedge end of the Crowbar of Guilt and Shame which opens the White Man's wallet.
2. He used the word "slave" or "slavery" in a way that Sharpton disagrees with. The word "Slave", too, is owned by the poverty pimps, and should only ever be uttered in the context of what African-Americans are"owed". Frankly, this "you-owe-me" bullshit is wearing thin, and Al might be quite shocked to learn that the way things are going in this country, the whole notion of successive generations of people wholly-supported by the State as a way of "making amends" for past evils is about to go the way of Jim Crow (oh no you didn't!).
3. He brought Obama into the debate, and suggested that he should, perhaps, think in a certain way. Black folks don't like to be told how to think, but then again, who does? Al may have a point here, but it's a very small one. We all know Obama is incapable of thinking unless Rahm, Harry or Nancy tell him what to think. (and no, this is not a racist statement: I think this about Obama's White Half, too).
4. He suggested that people should exercise some personal responsibility, and think about the consequences of their actions. This pisses Al off, because in order to continue his gravy train, African-Americans have to be infantalized (oops!)and presented as the innocent, helpless victims of a corrupt and racist system; if people ever started thinking about what they do, or started taking responsibility for their actions, Al would have to find honest employment.
The debate, such as it was, is unremarkable, except for the inability of Sharpton to concede a single point, especially where he's so obviously wrong. He wasn't letting Santorum get away with using"black", "slave" and lecture folks on responsibility without cash being spread around, even if it made him look dumber than usual.
Al's real problem, besides dodging the actual question as to whether abortion rates this high constitute a new holocaust, is that Santorum made the following mistakes:
1. He used the word "Black" in a way that Sharpton disagrees with. "Black", in any context, is not supposed to be uttered by a White man as the term is owned by the poverty pimps, like Al, and should only be used as the sharp wedge end of the Crowbar of Guilt and Shame which opens the White Man's wallet.
2. He used the word "slave" or "slavery" in a way that Sharpton disagrees with. The word "Slave", too, is owned by the poverty pimps, and should only ever be uttered in the context of what African-Americans are"owed". Frankly, this "you-owe-me" bullshit is wearing thin, and Al might be quite shocked to learn that the way things are going in this country, the whole notion of successive generations of people wholly-supported by the State as a way of "making amends" for past evils is about to go the way of Jim Crow (oh no you didn't!).
3. He brought Obama into the debate, and suggested that he should, perhaps, think in a certain way. Black folks don't like to be told how to think, but then again, who does? Al may have a point here, but it's a very small one. We all know Obama is incapable of thinking unless Rahm, Harry or Nancy tell him what to think. (and no, this is not a racist statement: I think this about Obama's White Half, too).
4. He suggested that people should exercise some personal responsibility, and think about the consequences of their actions. This pisses Al off, because in order to continue his gravy train, African-Americans have to be infantalized (oops!)and presented as the innocent, helpless victims of a corrupt and racist system; if people ever started thinking about what they do, or started taking responsibility for their actions, Al would have to find honest employment.
The debate, such as it was, is unremarkable, except for the inability of Sharpton to concede a single point, especially where he's so obviously wrong. He wasn't letting Santorum get away with using"black", "slave" and lecture folks on responsibility without cash being spread around, even if it made him look dumber than usual.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)