OK, I am going to start expecting y'all to weigh in on my posts, so that we can have a good argument. I'm sure that we have both sides of every fence that reads mine (and if not, I know 3 people that can always argue opposite of anything). I am purposefully NOT stating anything on the "other side" so as to make a valid argument.
Here goes.
In New York, there is a building, 1 block from Ground Zero, that Muslims want to turn in to a mosque. There are several people who do NOT want this to happen. They are right. It is too close to Ground Zero and is an insult to the memory of those who died on 9/11.
Those that want to construct this mosque have no sense of propriety. This seems almost like an invasion: Islam attacks and destroys our buildings, replacing them with their own. Now, I am sure this is not the case, but the implications are too close to that appearance. Can't the Muslims see this? Don't they realize how the families of the victims must feel?
I know that it is from a different faction of Islam (which brings to mind other arguments not mentioned here) that attacked us and that the claim is that Islam is a peaceful religion, but past events and actions indicate an opposition that this claim. Now, it seems they want a mosque to celebrate their victory. Can't they choose a different location for their religious site? They claim it's not a religious site, it's an "education" site. Yeah, right. A Christian education center promotes Christianity, we all know this. No religion builds an education center that's NOT designed to promote and teach about their religion.
It seems to me that after the victims' families complained about the mosque, they would have had enough empathy to say "OK, maybe we are putting it too close. But all they can say is "We need it here because . . ." Why? Why is it so vital that they can't put it someplace else? How many Muslims are living that close to Ground Zero that they need it there? Many people travel a long distance to get to church and even longer to get to (place religion here) learning centers. Just pick a different place. This isn't religious persecution, it's emotional. It's more of a "We don't want you rubbing our noses in it." Whether it is intended or not, that is the way it seems.
So, in conclusion, I feel that the Islam learning center should not be built where it is proposed, not matter what the President says (which adds to the claims that he is secretly a Muslim).
Peace up
Charles
Gott spielt nich verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Democratic Society vs State.
OK, here's a tricky topic for discussion. In California (again) they are fighting over the gay-marriage thing. Now here's the problem I see and it's becoming an argument topic in my house. It's the fact that the courts can overrule a lawfully elected piece of legislation.
On the one hand: (My argument) This country was founded on the principle (as everyone knows) of rule of the people, by the people and for the people. Since it came from a time in Europe when the common man had no say in the laws and stipends in the country they were living in, Our for-fathers decided that the people could and should help to decide what was best for behaviour. This, of course, created the democratic republic that we now . . . enjoy?
On the other hand: (My wife's argument) This rule of the people at the time was for white, landowners only. A court over ruled that decision giving first, all white men, then black men and then women the right to vote. The court (read state) has the right and obligation to decide what is best for the country in situations where personal rights are involved, particularly because of the "majority rules" situation.
By the first rule, majority decides which is proper. In the California case, the majority decided that gay-marriage is not to be. The majority of the population, in a legally held ballot, decided this. Another case is the situation in New York City concerning the construction of a mosque near ground zero: The majority says NO.
By the second case, because the majority voted negative (in both issues) the personal freedoms of those who believe in the affirmative are being neglected. That, because they are a minority, they have no chance of getting their decisions through and this is Constitutionally unfair.
OK, My argument (I'm sure Loretta will weigh in) is that by letting the courts decide what is legal or not, we are putting the power in the government into the hands of the state. In an admittedly slippery slope situation, this COULD set the precedent for the state to take over, nudging the common man out, leading to a dictatorial state. Some high mucky-muck (like an elected president) could get it into his head and start to dictate what we are to do, say, or even think. OK, not what to think. But the POTENTIAL is there, if we decide to let the state overrule the wants and needs of the majority. We could also have some minority group, such as the KKK, use the precedents (that are already out there, by-the-bye) to get the courts (a minority themselves that have been known to be controlled) to pass certain . . . resolutions, to protect THEIR interests. This latter example is not such a slippery slope as the former.
IF we are to allow the courts to overrule the decisions of the majority, then what is the purpose of having a democratic society. The minority can now begin to rule, pleading rights violations. If that is the case, there is no longer any need to put anything up to a vote. We might as well have our judges decide who joins them on the bench, what laws are what, and who leads this nation.
Time to weigh in, folks.
On the one hand: (My argument) This country was founded on the principle (as everyone knows) of rule of the people, by the people and for the people. Since it came from a time in Europe when the common man had no say in the laws and stipends in the country they were living in, Our for-fathers decided that the people could and should help to decide what was best for behaviour. This, of course, created the democratic republic that we now . . . enjoy?
On the other hand: (My wife's argument) This rule of the people at the time was for white, landowners only. A court over ruled that decision giving first, all white men, then black men and then women the right to vote. The court (read state) has the right and obligation to decide what is best for the country in situations where personal rights are involved, particularly because of the "majority rules" situation.
By the first rule, majority decides which is proper. In the California case, the majority decided that gay-marriage is not to be. The majority of the population, in a legally held ballot, decided this. Another case is the situation in New York City concerning the construction of a mosque near ground zero: The majority says NO.
By the second case, because the majority voted negative (in both issues) the personal freedoms of those who believe in the affirmative are being neglected. That, because they are a minority, they have no chance of getting their decisions through and this is Constitutionally unfair.
OK, My argument (I'm sure Loretta will weigh in) is that by letting the courts decide what is legal or not, we are putting the power in the government into the hands of the state. In an admittedly slippery slope situation, this COULD set the precedent for the state to take over, nudging the common man out, leading to a dictatorial state. Some high mucky-muck (like an elected president) could get it into his head and start to dictate what we are to do, say, or even think. OK, not what to think. But the POTENTIAL is there, if we decide to let the state overrule the wants and needs of the majority. We could also have some minority group, such as the KKK, use the precedents (that are already out there, by-the-bye) to get the courts (a minority themselves that have been known to be controlled) to pass certain . . . resolutions, to protect THEIR interests. This latter example is not such a slippery slope as the former.
IF we are to allow the courts to overrule the decisions of the majority, then what is the purpose of having a democratic society. The minority can now begin to rule, pleading rights violations. If that is the case, there is no longer any need to put anything up to a vote. We might as well have our judges decide who joins them on the bench, what laws are what, and who leads this nation.
Time to weigh in, folks.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Preposterous Police Pursuits Pose Peculiar Problems
While watching the news today, I saw yet another California police chase, LA of course.
I think that the best way to plan a bank job in CA is to have someone whose only job is to get the police to chase them. If they keep it going more than 5 minutes (and they don't even have to go that fast, they will have half the police force after them, leaving the bank unattended. This is because California has no problem squandering their resources. Yet they dare to call the rest of the US wastrels.
In this particular chase, a pickup was being chased, at high speed, down I10. In the end I counted 3 choppers and 24+ cars. WHAT!!!! The pickup had a flat tire and eventually stopped. Then started again. Then stopped, the driver got out and backed halfway to the police. The walked (I mean casually walked) back to the pickup, got in and started off again. Apparently 24+ police officers cannot keep 1 man from getting into a damaged car.
I get disgusted whenever I see these chases and am reminded, once again, why I will not live in CA. The CA police are so deficient in their jobs that they need 4 times the normal amount of people to do any particular job. I cannot understand why they could not pull some units in FRONT of the car and block it from continuing on. These officers should be ashamed of themselves.
Then again, it IS California. This is the state that has seen some of the some of most ridiculous things ever. The movies as example. one out of every 20 are good. Not a good sign of intelligence. Then there's the OJ trial. I hold that OJ isn't guilty because he was not proven so, that goes with the rules. But the prosecution SHOULD have been able to prove his guilt, except the fact that they are too inept.
Now, I know that it is probably like this because its "what the people want," but that is the stupid, "activist" people. The ones who try to change the US into a "kinder, gentler nation." Instead, we're changing it to a weaker, dumber nation.
So, I don't want to see any more police chases in LA, unless it's in a movie, where the cops are all gung-ho shoot-em-up, take-no-prisoner cops that actually get things done. The cops in the movies are more effective than the real cops in the very city the movies are filmed, go figure.
Peace up
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
I think that the best way to plan a bank job in CA is to have someone whose only job is to get the police to chase them. If they keep it going more than 5 minutes (and they don't even have to go that fast, they will have half the police force after them, leaving the bank unattended. This is because California has no problem squandering their resources. Yet they dare to call the rest of the US wastrels.
In this particular chase, a pickup was being chased, at high speed, down I10. In the end I counted 3 choppers and 24+ cars. WHAT!!!! The pickup had a flat tire and eventually stopped. Then started again. Then stopped, the driver got out and backed halfway to the police. The walked (I mean casually walked) back to the pickup, got in and started off again. Apparently 24+ police officers cannot keep 1 man from getting into a damaged car.
I get disgusted whenever I see these chases and am reminded, once again, why I will not live in CA. The CA police are so deficient in their jobs that they need 4 times the normal amount of people to do any particular job. I cannot understand why they could not pull some units in FRONT of the car and block it from continuing on. These officers should be ashamed of themselves.
Then again, it IS California. This is the state that has seen some of the some of most ridiculous things ever. The movies as example. one out of every 20 are good. Not a good sign of intelligence. Then there's the OJ trial. I hold that OJ isn't guilty because he was not proven so, that goes with the rules. But the prosecution SHOULD have been able to prove his guilt, except the fact that they are too inept.
Now, I know that it is probably like this because its "what the people want," but that is the stupid, "activist" people. The ones who try to change the US into a "kinder, gentler nation." Instead, we're changing it to a weaker, dumber nation.
So, I don't want to see any more police chases in LA, unless it's in a movie, where the cops are all gung-ho shoot-em-up, take-no-prisoner cops that actually get things done. The cops in the movies are more effective than the real cops in the very city the movies are filmed, go figure.
Peace up
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Crazy Crickets Crawl Creepily
OK, check it. I know I'm a grown man and should just suck it up, but I hate crickets. In my home, I kill or release all the bugs necessary into the wild, except crickets. I don't like them. I don't like looking at them, thinking about them, or eating them when they're covered in chocolate (yes, even in chocolate), I DON'T LIKE CRICKETS.
It started when I was young and staying at my sisters. My brother Ken and I were in a bedroom that was converted from a garage and there was a 1 inch gap between the floor and the door. Then one night, as we're getting ready for bed, thousands of crickets came pouring through the crack. It was like a horror movie come to life. The crickets were swarming and we were right in their way.
Yes, that is the nature of crickets and they are, relatively, harmless. Crickets are said to bring good luck and their chirping, to most people, is soothing. I don't mind the chirping, except when I'm trying to get to sleep and there are so many it sounds like the are hooked up to a 5 GW amp and pumped straight into my brain, HHREEK HHREEK HREEK. Other than that, when they are outside in their natural element, fine.
But let's face it, crickets in the house are just creepy. They crawl through the drain and pop up in your tub, sink and even toilet (I swear). And they jump, I mean they JUMP. You never know when a cricket is going to lift his massively mutant legs, press them against the floor and jump straight into your mouth. I know that when I die, it's going to be because a mutant Kentucky cricket (and those in Kentucky are mutant, more of this later) is going to jump into my mouth while I'm asleep and strangle me.
Even my cats don't like crickets. At first, the youngest one played with them. It was funny (and comforting knowing the little bug was gonna die) watching her chase, catch, lose, chase rinse and repeat the cricket, but today, there was a cricket in the tub, I put her there and another cricket assaulted her. She ran. I mean, this 7 pound pile of fluffy feline jumped and ran from a 1 oz. cricket. SEE!?! Even she knew that crickets are creepy. AND they were waiting in ambush.
Now, there are lots of types of crickets. There are the cute little things you see on TV that they have in California (it was California crickets when I was young, see above) but there you only see them like, one at at time because they're too creepy in a group. Then there's the eastern cricket (lighter color and overall smaller).
Then there's the Mutant Kentucky Cricket. These things are just freaky. Not only are they smart, they hide and wait until your poor cat or dog goes wandering by and then they attack him like some inner city street gang ("OK, here come da cat, you and legs jump from the left and me and legs [all crickets are known as Legs] gonna jump from the right") but they figure out how to get into your house/apartment when you have bug protection up. They also know just where to be to hit you with the ultimate psychological effect, maybe they're on the ceiling for when you yawn, etc. I think they learn this from cockroaches. They are also built differently from other chrickets. They have these HUGOGIANTAMOUNGOUS rear legs so they can jump across the holler. They probably developed this as a form of selective breeding by the Hatfields to get the McCoys in their sleep (see above) or something.
Also, crickets walk weird. They have this walk that's like left front foot, right front foot, left middle foot, right middle foot kick kick. What are they, in a dance routine? I mean, couldn't God have thought of a better way for them to get around?
In conclusion, I may have made some allusions to this, but I don't like crickets. I'm moving to Arizona, where the worst I have to deal with is scorpions in my shoes.
Ta
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
It started when I was young and staying at my sisters. My brother Ken and I were in a bedroom that was converted from a garage and there was a 1 inch gap between the floor and the door. Then one night, as we're getting ready for bed, thousands of crickets came pouring through the crack. It was like a horror movie come to life. The crickets were swarming and we were right in their way.
Yes, that is the nature of crickets and they are, relatively, harmless. Crickets are said to bring good luck and their chirping, to most people, is soothing. I don't mind the chirping, except when I'm trying to get to sleep and there are so many it sounds like the are hooked up to a 5 GW amp and pumped straight into my brain, HHREEK HHREEK HREEK. Other than that, when they are outside in their natural element, fine.
But let's face it, crickets in the house are just creepy. They crawl through the drain and pop up in your tub, sink and even toilet (I swear). And they jump, I mean they JUMP. You never know when a cricket is going to lift his massively mutant legs, press them against the floor and jump straight into your mouth. I know that when I die, it's going to be because a mutant Kentucky cricket (and those in Kentucky are mutant, more of this later) is going to jump into my mouth while I'm asleep and strangle me.
Even my cats don't like crickets. At first, the youngest one played with them. It was funny (and comforting knowing the little bug was gonna die) watching her chase, catch, lose, chase rinse and repeat the cricket, but today, there was a cricket in the tub, I put her there and another cricket assaulted her. She ran. I mean, this 7 pound pile of fluffy feline jumped and ran from a 1 oz. cricket. SEE!?! Even she knew that crickets are creepy. AND they were waiting in ambush.
Now, there are lots of types of crickets. There are the cute little things you see on TV that they have in California (it was California crickets when I was young, see above) but there you only see them like, one at at time because they're too creepy in a group. Then there's the eastern cricket (lighter color and overall smaller).
Then there's the Mutant Kentucky Cricket. These things are just freaky. Not only are they smart, they hide and wait until your poor cat or dog goes wandering by and then they attack him like some inner city street gang ("OK, here come da cat, you and legs jump from the left and me and legs [all crickets are known as Legs] gonna jump from the right") but they figure out how to get into your house/apartment when you have bug protection up. They also know just where to be to hit you with the ultimate psychological effect, maybe they're on the ceiling for when you yawn, etc. I think they learn this from cockroaches. They are also built differently from other chrickets. They have these HUGOGIANTAMOUNGOUS rear legs so they can jump across the holler. They probably developed this as a form of selective breeding by the Hatfields to get the McCoys in their sleep (see above) or something.
Also, crickets walk weird. They have this walk that's like left front foot, right front foot, left middle foot, right middle foot kick kick. What are they, in a dance routine? I mean, couldn't God have thought of a better way for them to get around?
In conclusion, I may have made some allusions to this, but I don't like crickets. I'm moving to Arizona, where the worst I have to deal with is scorpions in my shoes.
Ta
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
America is Sick and Dying
I know what you are saying (because I know all three of you). One is thinking "Woahh, now that's going too far," while the other is thinking "WHAT?!?! No alteration???" The third is thinking "What, no chocolate? I'm going back to bed."
Let me address the second first. I couldn't think of an alteration.
As to the former, hear me out.
Since the birth of this nation, we have held that the biggest concept is freedom and security. Freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. This nation was founded on those very principles.
Now, we seem to have lost many of those sacred rights and that, along with some other points, have led to a nation that is not as strong as it was as recently as the 1940's. I will admit that my history may be off a little bit. Our government, and its citizens, have slowly stripped away our rights.
For Example: During the recent Bush administration, the President complained about a comment an entertainer made (although the company the entertainer denied it, I believe this is true) and the man lost his job. During the same administration, every American was monitored. Mentions of terrorism, disaffection or even sites visited on the web were tagged for "closer scrutiny." In the interest of security (we were told), the government monitored us for potential seditious activities.
But that's not all. We can not blame the government for all our woes and ailments. After all, WE are the government. There is more in the private sector that is wrong than can ever be accounted for by blaming the government. There is still: Rampant Racism (and anyone who thinks it's just the crackers is . . . well . . . crackers.), hatred, political and/or religious intolerance, paranoia and general apathy. If you will bear with me, I will address each issue.
Racism, it's not just for whites anymore, and never has been. I myself have encountered a great deal of racism in my life. There are blacks (or African Americans or whatever they prefer to be called this decade ((OIIYY that sounds racist))) who hate anyone who isn't black and blacks who hate blacks, there are Hispanics who hate anyone who isn't Hispanic, likewise with Asian and etc. ad nausea. This is strictly divided along race lines. They don't have (or need) a reason for their hatred, there are ample excuses though. Racism breaks away the very bond that should hold this country together. After all, we all come from somewhere that once hated the very neighboring country that our neighbor (or spouse or best friend) came from, but we got over that, because we are all Americans. That's the way I like to look at it (contrary to the appearance of the above statement), that we are all Americans. Period.
Hatred. This is more than hatred on the side of race. It's a hatred of anything that is different. A hatred for someone who makes more money than you or a hatred of someone who believes differently from you. This is a catch all topic.
Intolerance, Political, Religious or otherwise. This is a BIG problem. This one should probably have come first. There are those out there (and I know some personally) that believe that there political/religious beliefs are the only ones worth having. Break it down
Political: Bush was a great president because he was Republican. Obama is trying to take over the US. You don't believe me, I'll spout threats of what WILL come. OR Bush was trying to take over the world and Obama is trying to save it. He is a Saint and deserves deification. Let's get it straight. Bush had his good points and his bad, so does Obama. Dis Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, NO, he hadn't been in long enough to make a difference, but that's judged by a bunch of intellectual idiots. No one can take over the US without our help.
Religious: All the Muslims are evil. They believe is killing everyone who isn't Muslim. I, p[personally, try not to believe that. I have not studied Islam and neither have 99.9% of those who disbelieve it. I do still want a picture of Muhammad to post and I believe the Muslims should respect my feelings that he is not an icon to me and I do not have to follow their religious beliefs.
Paranoia: This goes with the belief that Obama is trying to take over the world. We harbor these fears of the government and tell our children to believe them. We tell our daughters that they are not safe being alone in their house/apartment alone, "they WILL be raped!!!" I have seen the commercial that talks about signal strength EVERYWHERE. It follows a woman through the commercial everywhere EXCEPT in the parking garage. Then she amazingly turns in to a large black man. WHAT???? Or all the commercials for security systems that have girls have their doors busted in, get real. This kind of paranoia leads to the personal isolationism we have throughout our country, which has lead to a fractured citizenry.
Apathy: This is the nail in the coffin. We have all the problems above, but it is our apathy that binds them all together. "I'm not gonna do anything to change this because . . ." Give me a break people. Get out there and vote or be active in politics. Of course, being active is not MY job, it's YOURS. I'm just gonna sit here and write blogs for you to read.
Peace up, Charles
Gott speilt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Let me address the second first. I couldn't think of an alteration.
As to the former, hear me out.
Since the birth of this nation, we have held that the biggest concept is freedom and security. Freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. This nation was founded on those very principles.
Now, we seem to have lost many of those sacred rights and that, along with some other points, have led to a nation that is not as strong as it was as recently as the 1940's. I will admit that my history may be off a little bit. Our government, and its citizens, have slowly stripped away our rights.
For Example: During the recent Bush administration, the President complained about a comment an entertainer made (although the company the entertainer denied it, I believe this is true) and the man lost his job. During the same administration, every American was monitored. Mentions of terrorism, disaffection or even sites visited on the web were tagged for "closer scrutiny." In the interest of security (we were told), the government monitored us for potential seditious activities.
But that's not all. We can not blame the government for all our woes and ailments. After all, WE are the government. There is more in the private sector that is wrong than can ever be accounted for by blaming the government. There is still: Rampant Racism (and anyone who thinks it's just the crackers is . . . well . . . crackers.), hatred, political and/or religious intolerance, paranoia and general apathy. If you will bear with me, I will address each issue.
Racism, it's not just for whites anymore, and never has been. I myself have encountered a great deal of racism in my life. There are blacks (or African Americans or whatever they prefer to be called this decade ((OIIYY that sounds racist))) who hate anyone who isn't black and blacks who hate blacks, there are Hispanics who hate anyone who isn't Hispanic, likewise with Asian and etc. ad nausea. This is strictly divided along race lines. They don't have (or need) a reason for their hatred, there are ample excuses though. Racism breaks away the very bond that should hold this country together. After all, we all come from somewhere that once hated the very neighboring country that our neighbor (or spouse or best friend) came from, but we got over that, because we are all Americans. That's the way I like to look at it (contrary to the appearance of the above statement), that we are all Americans. Period.
Hatred. This is more than hatred on the side of race. It's a hatred of anything that is different. A hatred for someone who makes more money than you or a hatred of someone who believes differently from you. This is a catch all topic.
Intolerance, Political, Religious or otherwise. This is a BIG problem. This one should probably have come first. There are those out there (and I know some personally) that believe that there political/religious beliefs are the only ones worth having. Break it down
Political: Bush was a great president because he was Republican. Obama is trying to take over the US. You don't believe me, I'll spout threats of what WILL come. OR Bush was trying to take over the world and Obama is trying to save it. He is a Saint and deserves deification. Let's get it straight. Bush had his good points and his bad, so does Obama. Dis Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, NO, he hadn't been in long enough to make a difference, but that's judged by a bunch of intellectual idiots. No one can take over the US without our help.
Religious: All the Muslims are evil. They believe is killing everyone who isn't Muslim. I, p[personally, try not to believe that. I have not studied Islam and neither have 99.9% of those who disbelieve it. I do still want a picture of Muhammad to post and I believe the Muslims should respect my feelings that he is not an icon to me and I do not have to follow their religious beliefs.
Paranoia: This goes with the belief that Obama is trying to take over the world. We harbor these fears of the government and tell our children to believe them. We tell our daughters that they are not safe being alone in their house/apartment alone, "they WILL be raped!!!" I have seen the commercial that talks about signal strength EVERYWHERE. It follows a woman through the commercial everywhere EXCEPT in the parking garage. Then she amazingly turns in to a large black man. WHAT???? Or all the commercials for security systems that have girls have their doors busted in, get real. This kind of paranoia leads to the personal isolationism we have throughout our country, which has lead to a fractured citizenry.
Apathy: This is the nail in the coffin. We have all the problems above, but it is our apathy that binds them all together. "I'm not gonna do anything to change this because . . ." Give me a break people. Get out there and vote or be active in politics. Of course, being active is not MY job, it's YOURS. I'm just gonna sit here and write blogs for you to read.
Peace up, Charles
Gott speilt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Beautiful Bugatti Belongs on Burrow Blog
I know, title sucks but nyeahh
OK, so I'm watching this show called Top Gear and they introduce me to my new love and I just had to write this down because I can't think of anything else to blog about. It's the Bugatti Veyron.
I don't know if any of you know about this car, but you should. You should.
For the car lovers, it has a 8.0L, W16, Quad Turbocharged, 987 BHP mid mounted engine. All in a car that weighs Kerb weight of 1888Kg. What this all boils down to is a top speed of 253.8 mph in a car that, in my humble opinion, is absolutely gorgeous.
I have been a Lamborghini fan (excluding the Diablo which I didn't care for) since I was a teenager and saw my first Countach. They are sleek, low vehicles with beautiful lines and curves. I will (of course) admit that the speed is a big selling point, but it's the way the car looks that I fell in love with. Not to mention the sound, with cars, you always have to consider the sound.
Then came along the Bugatti. As usual, it was the way it looked that made me go "Oh Baby!" It doesn't look anything like the Lamborghini. A Lamborghini is low and wide and sleek with a sharp nose. The Bugatti looks fatter and rounder (check it out on wikipedia) but it also looks sleeker and, well, better. The measurements stack up as follows: Lamborghini is 81"wide, 44.8" high and 181.5 long, with a 104.9" wheelbase, whereas the Bugatti is 78.1"wide, 45.8" high and 175.7 long, with a 106.7" wheelbase. Somehow, this makes the Bugatti seem smaller, almost like a one-person car.
When they test drove it on Top Gear, they used the Volkswagen test track in Germany that has a 5 mile long stretch of flat, straight road so that Richard Hammond could get it up to its alleged top speed. I don't remember if he actually made it (I know he got very close), but I do remember watching it move and it further convinced me to love the car. They never managed to get the car an to their "test track," where they time various cars and place the times on a board, because Bugatti wouldn't let them. Bummer.
And now the down-sides. As far as I can tell, there is only one (mileage doesn't count because it's a Super Car). The cost. It is somewhere around $1.4million, which is something I am not going to be able to afford in my lifetime. But hey, a man can dream, can't he.
Peace up
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
OK, so I'm watching this show called Top Gear and they introduce me to my new love and I just had to write this down because I can't think of anything else to blog about. It's the Bugatti Veyron.
I don't know if any of you know about this car, but you should. You should.
For the car lovers, it has a 8.0L, W16, Quad Turbocharged, 987 BHP mid mounted engine. All in a car that weighs Kerb weight of 1888Kg. What this all boils down to is a top speed of 253.8 mph in a car that, in my humble opinion, is absolutely gorgeous.
I have been a Lamborghini fan (excluding the Diablo which I didn't care for) since I was a teenager and saw my first Countach. They are sleek, low vehicles with beautiful lines and curves. I will (of course) admit that the speed is a big selling point, but it's the way the car looks that I fell in love with. Not to mention the sound, with cars, you always have to consider the sound.
Then came along the Bugatti. As usual, it was the way it looked that made me go "Oh Baby!" It doesn't look anything like the Lamborghini. A Lamborghini is low and wide and sleek with a sharp nose. The Bugatti looks fatter and rounder (check it out on wikipedia) but it also looks sleeker and, well, better. The measurements stack up as follows: Lamborghini is 81"wide, 44.8" high and 181.5 long, with a 104.9" wheelbase, whereas the Bugatti is 78.1"wide, 45.8" high and 175.7 long, with a 106.7" wheelbase. Somehow, this makes the Bugatti seem smaller, almost like a one-person car.
When they test drove it on Top Gear, they used the Volkswagen test track in Germany that has a 5 mile long stretch of flat, straight road so that Richard Hammond could get it up to its alleged top speed. I don't remember if he actually made it (I know he got very close), but I do remember watching it move and it further convinced me to love the car. They never managed to get the car an to their "test track," where they time various cars and place the times on a board, because Bugatti wouldn't let them. Bummer.
And now the down-sides. As far as I can tell, there is only one (mileage doesn't count because it's a Super Car). The cost. It is somewhere around $1.4million, which is something I am not going to be able to afford in my lifetime. But hey, a man can dream, can't he.
Peace up
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Dumb Digital Delays Demand Dressing Down
In June of 2009, the broadcast companies throughout the United Stated were, by law, supposed to change over entirely to digital. This deadline was broadcast 2 years+ in advance and vociferously (fun word). It is now one year later and the broadcasts, at least in my house and home town, continue to come in analogue.
What Happened?
Millions of people throughout the nation were forced to get boxes and converters or new TVs ("Oh, TVs aren't necessary, they will get coupons for converter boxes") just to continue to be able to watch TV. IT WAS THE LAW!!! A deadline was set. But today, if I want to watch Smallville (which I don't because it's a re-run if it's even running tonight, I have to watch it in analogue which is a very bad way to watch a HD show dumbed down to regular because heaven help the cable companies if they had to provide HD channels at a reasonable price. hhhhhhh (that's supposed to be a release of breath). Anyway, if I want to watch Comedy Central . . . fuzzy Analogue picture. TV Land . . . fuzzy analogue.
Some are saying that there aren't enough boxes produced to cover the nation so these broadcasters are doing analogue as a courtesy. Then, why don't they also have a channel in digital? I mean, it was a deadline and the broadcasters aren't even TRYING to comply. Why aren't there enough boxes. Surely the production lines could produce enough boxes since the boxes WILL be bought. They have to be bought. It can't be cost. If it was, they would illegally hire illegal aliens to do the work. Everyone else does.
In the early 90s, it was determined that the computers of the world had a major flaw and "The end of the world (would) happen in 2000." This set a deadline to fix all the computers in the world. The deadline was met and the world was saved. SO, maybe that's what we need to do to get anything done. Start a panic. Apparently, the government has no authority or power to enforce a deadline, unless it ONLY costs citizens money and NOT corporations.
So, I say "Go ye forth and spread the dreadful news that the end of the world is nigh unless the broadcasters broadcast in digital by the year 2011. Make it scary. Really make people believe it. Also add in cheaper and better fuels and, while you're at it, make it a deadline for me to win the lottery. (Hey, I gotta try)
Word
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum A.E.
What Happened?
Millions of people throughout the nation were forced to get boxes and converters or new TVs ("Oh, TVs aren't necessary, they will get coupons for converter boxes") just to continue to be able to watch TV. IT WAS THE LAW!!! A deadline was set. But today, if I want to watch Smallville (which I don't because it's a re-run if it's even running tonight, I have to watch it in analogue which is a very bad way to watch a HD show dumbed down to regular because heaven help the cable companies if they had to provide HD channels at a reasonable price. hhhhhhh (that's supposed to be a release of breath). Anyway, if I want to watch Comedy Central . . . fuzzy Analogue picture. TV Land . . . fuzzy analogue.
Some are saying that there aren't enough boxes produced to cover the nation so these broadcasters are doing analogue as a courtesy. Then, why don't they also have a channel in digital? I mean, it was a deadline and the broadcasters aren't even TRYING to comply. Why aren't there enough boxes. Surely the production lines could produce enough boxes since the boxes WILL be bought. They have to be bought. It can't be cost. If it was, they would illegally hire illegal aliens to do the work. Everyone else does.
In the early 90s, it was determined that the computers of the world had a major flaw and "The end of the world (would) happen in 2000." This set a deadline to fix all the computers in the world. The deadline was met and the world was saved. SO, maybe that's what we need to do to get anything done. Start a panic. Apparently, the government has no authority or power to enforce a deadline, unless it ONLY costs citizens money and NOT corporations.
So, I say "Go ye forth and spread the dreadful news that the end of the world is nigh unless the broadcasters broadcast in digital by the year 2011. Make it scary. Really make people believe it. Also add in cheaper and better fuels and, while you're at it, make it a deadline for me to win the lottery. (Hey, I gotta try)
Word
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum A.E.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
