Posts
Check out this link! Bjorn Lomborg is my new hero!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs
Monday, July 28, 2008
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Bluto’s List: A Blogger’s Challenge
Things you should never do but if you do, here’s what you should or shouldn’t do:
1) Peeing in the shower: If you must do this, do it at the beginning of your shower so as to completely flow the urine through the trap, otherwise the urine will stink!
2) Smoking Marijuana: If you must smoke, avoid aluminum cans or foil for smoking. This is only speculation on my part but I do not believe the FDA or any agency has tested this for safety. Given that aluminum is found in the brains of dead Alzheimer’s victims, I’d bet this would be an unsafe practice. Yes aluminum cans have been cleared as a culprit here, but I believe that only applies to the intended use of drinking from them. I’ve heard that an apple can be used as makeshift paraphernalia.
3) Any other ideas?
1) Peeing in the shower: If you must do this, do it at the beginning of your shower so as to completely flow the urine through the trap, otherwise the urine will stink!
2) Smoking Marijuana: If you must smoke, avoid aluminum cans or foil for smoking. This is only speculation on my part but I do not believe the FDA or any agency has tested this for safety. Given that aluminum is found in the brains of dead Alzheimer’s victims, I’d bet this would be an unsafe practice. Yes aluminum cans have been cleared as a culprit here, but I believe that only applies to the intended use of drinking from them. I’ve heard that an apple can be used as makeshift paraphernalia.
3) Any other ideas?
Friday, July 18, 2008
Law Enforcement/Fire Fighting Dangerous Jobs
If you google “America’s most dangerous jobs” a group of articles and blogs referencing a list of the Top Ten most dangerous jobs pops up. The list is rooted in on-the-job fatalities.
A list of the world’s most dangerous jobs can be found at: http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2007/09/most_dangerous_jobs_bureau_of_labor_statistics_2006_2007.html
Curious that the list of dangerous jobs doesn't include soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan but that’s not the point I’d like to make.
The list doesn’t include fire fighters or agents of law enforcement either. I guess fatalities per officer or fire fighter do not measure up. The list doesn't reflect the danger of the job per se, it reflects available equipment and training to perform the tasks listed or more accurately, a lack thereof.
Maybe we need to find an alternative to crop-dusting. Maybe we need commercial fishermen off their boats in Alaska until weather prediction can be perfected. I guess we need to quell our need for timber, get OSHA to frequent jobsites more often ... etc ... Maybe that’s what this list REALLY tells us.
How dangerous would a cop’s job be without weapons? How dangerous would be circus performance without nets.
The list perpetuates some misconceptions if it’s used to marginalize the dangers associated with law enforcement or fire fighting.
If just anyone who signed up to be a cop were made a cop, how dangerous would that job become? It takes a certain innate sense of bravery to control the fight or flight reaction in many situations cops and firefighters face. Timid or shy cops or firefighters would drop like flies.
The list may also reflect a lack of discipline on the part of workers interested in cutting safety corners in order to produce more and thus earn more money. I think cops are more likely to perform "by the book" (not that they all do to a T) than are roofers or commercial fishermen. I doubt too many cops show up to work drunk or on meth, but I've known a strung out roofer or two in my day!
The fisherman doesn’t necessarily realize the dangers he faces because much of it comes in the form of unforeseen rogue wave or storm. Roofers shed a fear of height and really go on without realizing the dangers that face them. They focus on getting the job done as fast as possible so as to maximize their income. Cops and firefighters are well aware of the dangers they face EVERY day, yet roofers get up there feeling safe and secure without a harness because, well…they did it yesterday and didn’t die…
You really have to examine the caliber of person who is given these jobs and the training that goes into them before they are turned loose! If roofing is TRULY more dangerous than law enforcement, why isn't there a Roofer's Academy to get them ready to perform while weeding out prospects who simply do not measure up to this hazardous task?
Cops know the dangers and are serious about keeping cops alive. They are assertive about this whereas many roofers (and other tradesman) are simply foolish about safety equipment.
It's not necessarily a perfect measure of "danger" to count the death toll per worker.
Tupac didn’t write any songs about offin’ roofers, or poppin’ caps in the posteriors of commercial fisherman. I guarantee more cops are shot at every day than ANYONE on that list of "dangerous/deadly" jobs! I guarantee more firemen run into AND out of burning buildings EVERYDAY than anyone else on that list! What takes more bravery? Roofing? Fishing? Construction? Sorry, call it a “less dangerous” position based on whatever criteria suits you, being a cop or firefighter takes a special breed both physically and psychologically.
A list of the world’s most dangerous jobs can be found at: http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2007/09/most_dangerous_jobs_bureau_of_labor_statistics_2006_2007.html
Curious that the list of dangerous jobs doesn't include soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan but that’s not the point I’d like to make.
The list doesn’t include fire fighters or agents of law enforcement either. I guess fatalities per officer or fire fighter do not measure up. The list doesn't reflect the danger of the job per se, it reflects available equipment and training to perform the tasks listed or more accurately, a lack thereof.
Maybe we need to find an alternative to crop-dusting. Maybe we need commercial fishermen off their boats in Alaska until weather prediction can be perfected. I guess we need to quell our need for timber, get OSHA to frequent jobsites more often ... etc ... Maybe that’s what this list REALLY tells us.
How dangerous would a cop’s job be without weapons? How dangerous would be circus performance without nets.
The list perpetuates some misconceptions if it’s used to marginalize the dangers associated with law enforcement or fire fighting.
If just anyone who signed up to be a cop were made a cop, how dangerous would that job become? It takes a certain innate sense of bravery to control the fight or flight reaction in many situations cops and firefighters face. Timid or shy cops or firefighters would drop like flies.
The list may also reflect a lack of discipline on the part of workers interested in cutting safety corners in order to produce more and thus earn more money. I think cops are more likely to perform "by the book" (not that they all do to a T) than are roofers or commercial fishermen. I doubt too many cops show up to work drunk or on meth, but I've known a strung out roofer or two in my day!
The fisherman doesn’t necessarily realize the dangers he faces because much of it comes in the form of unforeseen rogue wave or storm. Roofers shed a fear of height and really go on without realizing the dangers that face them. They focus on getting the job done as fast as possible so as to maximize their income. Cops and firefighters are well aware of the dangers they face EVERY day, yet roofers get up there feeling safe and secure without a harness because, well…they did it yesterday and didn’t die…
You really have to examine the caliber of person who is given these jobs and the training that goes into them before they are turned loose! If roofing is TRULY more dangerous than law enforcement, why isn't there a Roofer's Academy to get them ready to perform while weeding out prospects who simply do not measure up to this hazardous task?
Cops know the dangers and are serious about keeping cops alive. They are assertive about this whereas many roofers (and other tradesman) are simply foolish about safety equipment.
It's not necessarily a perfect measure of "danger" to count the death toll per worker.
Tupac didn’t write any songs about offin’ roofers, or poppin’ caps in the posteriors of commercial fisherman. I guarantee more cops are shot at every day than ANYONE on that list of "dangerous/deadly" jobs! I guarantee more firemen run into AND out of burning buildings EVERYDAY than anyone else on that list! What takes more bravery? Roofing? Fishing? Construction? Sorry, call it a “less dangerous” position based on whatever criteria suits you, being a cop or firefighter takes a special breed both physically and psychologically.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Conflicted Interest in Private Law Enforcement
Private law enforcement holds too much conflict of interest to reign effectively in our society. Booters are the case in point. Recently the Municipal Council was consulted to disallow Logan city the authority to regulate the price a private booter can charge to remove a boot from a legally disabled vehicle. They cite a rise in the cost of doing business (specifically gas prices) as the justification for at least an increase in the limit that keeps them and their competitors in check.
Wouldn't people not parking illegally hurt their bottom line even more? If demand for their product is low because people learn the lesson and stop parking illegally will they raise their fees even higher? The fewer who commit this crime, the more the private enforcers need to charge to stay in business.
I understand that owners of private property need a way to enforce the use they intend for their property. They, their tenants and their customers are paying to have those parking spots available. But without regulation, what stops a booter from asking you for $1,000 cash to get your car back? I suppose there are market forces that might cause people to stop renting from landlords who hire booters who employ extreme techniques. But, what other rules might private owners of property choose to make enforceable? No spitting? If a passerby is caught spitting he must give the landlord $100 dollars or must run the gauntlet? Obviously some regulation is in order.
If the crime rate decreases over time, will our police force decrease, too? Will we save some money on enforcement that we don't really need? Probably not! That ratchet just keeps on a clickin'!
It's sort of a typical CV thang isn't it? We make a list of safest places to live and how are we rewarded? Higher fines, more taxes and more cops! It seems counter intuitive to me.
Wouldn't people not parking illegally hurt their bottom line even more? If demand for their product is low because people learn the lesson and stop parking illegally will they raise their fees even higher? The fewer who commit this crime, the more the private enforcers need to charge to stay in business.
I understand that owners of private property need a way to enforce the use they intend for their property. They, their tenants and their customers are paying to have those parking spots available. But without regulation, what stops a booter from asking you for $1,000 cash to get your car back? I suppose there are market forces that might cause people to stop renting from landlords who hire booters who employ extreme techniques. But, what other rules might private owners of property choose to make enforceable? No spitting? If a passerby is caught spitting he must give the landlord $100 dollars or must run the gauntlet? Obviously some regulation is in order.
If the crime rate decreases over time, will our police force decrease, too? Will we save some money on enforcement that we don't really need? Probably not! That ratchet just keeps on a clickin'!
It's sort of a typical CV thang isn't it? We make a list of safest places to live and how are we rewarded? Higher fines, more taxes and more cops! It seems counter intuitive to me.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Aura Schmaura, Indigo Schmindigo!
Here’s a bit of piece that ran last week in the Herald Journal:
“Kids these days are fundamentally different than ever before, and parents, families and schools need to change to accommodate those differences, according to an education professor from Brigham Young University.Rebecca Rocque, a BYU Ph.D student and teacher, taught a seminar on indigo children to about 15 people Saturday in a conference room at the University Inn, on the campus of Utah State University. The event was not associated with USU.According to Rocque, indigo children are those who have indigo-colored auras. An aura is believed to be a field of colored light that radiates from each person, but can only be seen by a few certain people...
...Her goal is to help educate people so they can better associate with these new and different children... 'Parents and teachers want to understand their children better,' she said...
...Rocque said about 96 percent of the children born since 1994 are indigo children. The idea of indigo children was first put forth by a woman named Nancy Ann Tappe, who claims the ability to see these auras in her book, 'Understanding Your Life Through Color.' Though there are different types of indigo children, Rocque said, most possess a high level of creativity and can have trouble fitting into systems that don’t require creativity, she said. She also said they are born with a 'feeling of royalty,' meaning they expect to be treated with dignity and understand they are children of God, and they don’t respond well to discipline based on guilt or appeals to authority.”
96% of them are the same? Well GREAT! That narrows it down! "Kids these days are all the same." We get it! “Feeling of royalty?” “High level of creativity?” "...they don’t respond well to discipline based on guilt or appeals to authority?" Doesn’t that simply describe the nature of being a child?
I think people who need colors to describe an interpersonal experience are people who have a hard time open-mindedly experiencing or using words to describe individuality. Doesn't “the fact” that your kids have a 96% probability of effervescing the same color "aura" lead you to believe the “gift” of seeing auras is relatively useless? Count on it, these people think your kids are "Indigo" kids and have some solution for approaching this apparent problem. Prepare for the sales pitch leading to government funding.
“Kids these days are fundamentally different than ever before, and parents, families and schools need to change to accommodate those differences, according to an education professor from Brigham Young University.Rebecca Rocque, a BYU Ph.D student and teacher, taught a seminar on indigo children to about 15 people Saturday in a conference room at the University Inn, on the campus of Utah State University. The event was not associated with USU.According to Rocque, indigo children are those who have indigo-colored auras. An aura is believed to be a field of colored light that radiates from each person, but can only be seen by a few certain people...
...Her goal is to help educate people so they can better associate with these new and different children... 'Parents and teachers want to understand their children better,' she said...
...Rocque said about 96 percent of the children born since 1994 are indigo children. The idea of indigo children was first put forth by a woman named Nancy Ann Tappe, who claims the ability to see these auras in her book, 'Understanding Your Life Through Color.' Though there are different types of indigo children, Rocque said, most possess a high level of creativity and can have trouble fitting into systems that don’t require creativity, she said. She also said they are born with a 'feeling of royalty,' meaning they expect to be treated with dignity and understand they are children of God, and they don’t respond well to discipline based on guilt or appeals to authority.”
96% of them are the same? Well GREAT! That narrows it down! "Kids these days are all the same." We get it! “Feeling of royalty?” “High level of creativity?” "...they don’t respond well to discipline based on guilt or appeals to authority?" Doesn’t that simply describe the nature of being a child?
I think people who need colors to describe an interpersonal experience are people who have a hard time open-mindedly experiencing or using words to describe individuality. Doesn't “the fact” that your kids have a 96% probability of effervescing the same color "aura" lead you to believe the “gift” of seeing auras is relatively useless? Count on it, these people think your kids are "Indigo" kids and have some solution for approaching this apparent problem. Prepare for the sales pitch leading to government funding.
Gay Marriage? Gay Pride? Gay Choice?
I'm actually ok with gay marriage ... even polygamy among consenting adults. The commitment is worth promoting. I think divorce, on the other hand, needs to be much more difficult to come by!
I have some questions about gay and "choice". Supposedly “they've" isolated some gene that causes this condition. This is usually the basis for the argument that gay is NOT a choice. If they isolate an obesity gene and discover a method for preventing obesity, do you think parents would choose to make the necessary adjustments to prevent obesity? How about homosexuality? Given the choice of preventing this "condition" (disorder?), would you? If not then methinks your "it's-not-a-choice" argument has no place.
One more thing. How can you be PROUD of something with which you're born? "I'm white and I'm proud! WHITE PRIDE! STRAIGHT PRIDE!" Doesn't sound right does it? Not in today’s PC world. Can you imagine a major chunk of the American population getting away away with a T-Shirt that reads, "Proud to be Male, White, and Straight"? Talk about two-way streets! Drop the rainbows, parades and secret hi-signs and live your dam life! You can be proud of your accomplishments, achievements and that of you children, but PROUD of your race, sexual orientation or abundance of toes (or lack there of)?
I have some questions about gay and "choice". Supposedly “they've" isolated some gene that causes this condition. This is usually the basis for the argument that gay is NOT a choice. If they isolate an obesity gene and discover a method for preventing obesity, do you think parents would choose to make the necessary adjustments to prevent obesity? How about homosexuality? Given the choice of preventing this "condition" (disorder?), would you? If not then methinks your "it's-not-a-choice" argument has no place.
One more thing. How can you be PROUD of something with which you're born? "I'm white and I'm proud! WHITE PRIDE! STRAIGHT PRIDE!" Doesn't sound right does it? Not in today’s PC world. Can you imagine a major chunk of the American population getting away away with a T-Shirt that reads, "Proud to be Male, White, and Straight"? Talk about two-way streets! Drop the rainbows, parades and secret hi-signs and live your dam life! You can be proud of your accomplishments, achievements and that of you children, but PROUD of your race, sexual orientation or abundance of toes (or lack there of)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)