skip to main |
skip to sidebar
My commentary on the CARS initiative may be a moot point as, at this time, the govt is rethinking its financial position on it. This is just a method to give the automotive sector even more money from the stimulus package. How does it help the average American? It doesn't put a dime in our pockets. As a matter of fact, it will cost each of us $3.26 (based on 307 million of us). I guarantee you that the dealers will figure out a way to screw you. I have never left a dealership without a painful burning sensation in my backside. What is even more bizarre is that the car you trade in cannot be resold at all. The dealers are supposed to render the engine and transmission useless. If the engine goes in your '96 Chevy Impala, you may be out of luck buying a recycled one from the salvage yard for $700. You will be forced to spend 2 grand or more on a newer crate engine. If there is one at the salvage yard, I'm sure supply and demand will come into play on the pricing. This goes against the American spirit of reusing what you have instead of just throwing it away. The only people who will truly get a deal are those driving a true piece of shit that is paid for except for the fact that they will wind up with a car payment and higher insurance costs. The program does not have enough limitations either. I went on GM's website http://tinyurl.com/ncqfjm to see just how stupid of a deal they could come up with. You can trade in a 2008 Ford Crown Victoria (at least 50% of all cop cars) on a Chevy Aveo and get $4500. Then the dealer will take the Ford (which would have about 15,000 miles on it) and crush it. How the hell does that make sense? Why don't they just grab the first piece of crap '83 Pontiac they see and give the owner the newer car? Then they would really be getting the clunkers off the road.
You gotta love the buzz about Obama, Prof. Gates, and the cops. This whole thing would have never been news if everyone had not over-reacted from the start. The cop did it first. Then Gates did it. Then the media did it. Then Obama offered an opinion that never should have been offered in a public forum like a national news conference. I feel sorry for the neighbor who called 911 in the beginning. All of the self-righteous minority coalitions are calling her a racist. The 911 call indicates that she said that one of the people "might" have been Hispanic. The cop says she said they were black. Of course, he's covering his ass. Gates carried it even further by playing the "black" victim. He looked like he was shooting off his mouth to the point that the cop had enough. I don't care if you are in your own house, the prudent thing to do is maintain civility and work through it. He's lucky they didn't tase him! Lastly, all this BS about having a beer at the White House and the ensuing speculation of what kind of beer it will be is worse than the frenzy created by Michael Jackson's untimely demise.
I read the other day that some of California's lawmakers want to introduce a bill that would legalize and tax (of course!) weed. They say it would bring $1.4 billion in tax revenue. I have to say that it's about time someone used their gray matter. Lumping pot in with cocaine and heroin is like saying a badminton racket is as dangerous as an AK47. By the way, I didn't know badminton had that first 'n' in it. I always heard that it was Alfred DuPont who was behind the criminalization of marijuana. He invented nylon, which was in direct competition with hemp. Since he was well-placed in high society, he was able to use his influence to aid the ban. (That never happens, right?) It is interesting to note that hemp grown for paper and rope is not the same variety as what is generally smoked for a high. Did you know that the first paper mill in the US, started by Ben Franklin, used hemp exclusively? According to USDA bulletin 404, 1 acre of hemp will produce fiber for paper equal to 4.1 acres of trees. The processing to create paper is also much cleaner than our current production from wood fiber.
Back to getting high on weed. We already have alcohol to get high on. It is fairly apparent that the alcohol industry has a pretty good chokehold on our government when it comes to regulation. Just look at the stats for drunk driving deaths and the number of domestic problems caused by alcoholics. You ever heard of a pothead going on a rampage, beating and killing his or her family? Look at all of the ads on TV! Hell, alcohol doesn't even have any medicinal use other than pouring it on your leg to sterilize it after being shot at the OK Corral. Pot, on the other hand, would not only increase revenue for the government but also revitalize the snack food industry. It would bring a new meaning the the "fourthmeal" at Taco Bell. Just imagine how much money the government would save by not having to chase pot farmers and destroy illegal crops. You ever wonder why they burn the pot instead of burying it at the landfill? I'll bet they all stand downwind of the fire. The bureaucracy involved in pot prosecution could be trimmed back, saving millions in tax dollars. Going back to hemp would also cut down on our oil consumption. It worked fine as rope for hundreds of years. This is one example of technology not necessarily being better.
Healthwise, I assume that there are certain risks to smoking pot similar to tobacco. One of the biggest problems with tobacco is the additional chemicals added during curing and processing. I do think that the number of tobacco related deaths is overstated to give credence to the current legislation hammering tobacco companies. If we keep pot in its pure form, some of these health risks go away. Also, I can't imagine anyone smoking 2 packs of pot a day. You would be a houseplant, just sitting there gathering dust and soaking up sunshine! Here is another odd fact. According to the 2006 World Drug Report, 12.5% of America uses pot but only 1.3% of Mexico uses pot. That might be caused by the fact that 40% of Mexico's population is in the US.
I read in the news yesterday that Azharuddin Ismail, child star of Slumdog Millionaire, and his mother have moved into a new home. They are very happy that there are 4 walls, a toilet, and a locking door. These things should remind us that we don't have it so bad after all. The other child star, Rubina Ali, is also going to be in a new home. These homes are apparently being provided by the Mumbai housing authority, who I guess sells them for £30,000 ($48,000) to whoever. A trust fund has been set up to provide for both children for education and living expenses. The producers are also suppose to set up a £500,000 ($800,000) donation to a local development charity to improve slum children's lives.
The point I'm trying to make here is that the movie grossed $360,000,000! Granted, there are expenses involved as well as the theaters' operating costs, but how much did it cost to actually make this movie? The average household income in India is $1600 per year. (I don't know if this includes the ones we all get stuck with on customer support.) I can't imagine that it cost very much to hire the extras shown in the movie. One woman said her kids were in the movie and they weren't paid at all. Of the 5 million people living in Mumbai, 2.5 million of them live in the slums. Assuming a breakdown of Mom, Dad, and 3 kids, I come up with 1.5 million children living in these slums. That's about 50 cents for each kid from the $800,000 donation mentioned above. Doesn't that make you wonder who made the real money?
Let me preface this by saying that it's about time something besides a Chinese Crested won this contest. Has anybody seen the latest winner of the Sonoma-Marin Fair ugly dog contest? http://tinyurl.com/mhyy8 That's a face only a mother could love. It's curious that the dog known as Pabst (cool name!) is tagged as a "boxer mix". Looks like a red-nosed pit mix to me. I think they classify shelter dogs with anything but a pit or bulldog reference because of the misinformed public panic about these dogs. Our adopted shelter dog was labeled a "dalmatian-hound mix". When we went to meet him and adopt him, I noticed some bulldog features. After we adopted him and took him home, I looked through the paperwork we got from the animal hospital and noted that he was in fact a dalmatian-bulldog mix.
It's a shame that there is such negativity about bulldog breeds. They get so much bad press that it has stirred people into a frenzy that is resulting in the breed actually being banned in some communities. I've had 2 and neither one was more aggressive than any other breed. Most of the stories you read about these dogs killing or mauling someone are a result of poor training and/or environment. Dogs are like people in that how you are raised defines your eventual behavior. Most of these dogs were either abused or raised by gang bangers and meth cookers with the occasional white supremacist thrown in. Most were trained to be mean. The 2 meanest dog breeds I have seen are dachshunds and Jack Russell terriers. The crazy thing is that Jack Russells appear to have become the family dog of choice since thay are smaller than Labs and "fiercely loyal". The "fiercely" is what you have to look out for!
Posts
