X

Cellphones for Tweens

No no no no no no no. That’s my initial reaction to just about any story that involves marketing to ‘tweens’ (the demographic bracket for people who until recently would have been called ‘children’. This article at the New York Times about marketing cell phones to kids in the 8 to 12 range goes too far. Why do kids this age need cell phones?

I’ve heard that some of the kid phones (specifically the Disney models, I think) have some parental surveillance features that Michel Foucault would be proud of. Parents can go online to see no only who their kids have been calling, but where the calls were made from. This could be useful in the event of a kidnapping or other such crisis event, but I imagine that parents are using them for much more trivial spying. Yuck.

Lutfisk

I went to Wikipedia to find out what Lutefisk is, you know, made of (fish and lye, it turns out) and found one of my favorite pieces of political trivia to date. I actually looked it up, and it’s true. The section of the Wisconsin statutes quoted here is under the ‘definitions’ section. The second 2 is a heading for specific exemptions. The (f) section simply reads; ‘Lutefisk.’ Too good to be true. This is better than the Tommy Thompson ale tax story.

“The Wisconsin Employees’ right to know law regarding toxic substances specifically exempts Lutefisk (Wisc. Stat. 101.58(2)(j)(2)(f))” [From Wikipedia article on Lutefisk]

To The Owners of Large Cars

The results are in, and the reality based community has won the polls. The Earth’s climate is changing for the warmer, and the changes are anthropogenic. That five dollar word, for those who don’t know and are too lazy to click the link to Dictionary.com, means ’caused by humans.’ In particular, the changes in global climate are caused by humans burning petroleum and releasing carbon into the air.

(Sidenote; carbon isn’t the only greenhouse gas - there are plenty of others. Methane, for example, is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon. One of the most interesting climate feedbacks that I’ve heard about has to do with the permafrost in the tundra. As I understand it, there’s an awful lot of methane trapped in old peat bogs that have been frozen in permafrost since before the last ice age. As the climate warms and the permafrost melts, that methane is being released into the atmosphere, thus causing even more warming, causing the tundra to melt further, releasing more methane, causing more warming, ad infinitum (until all the permafrost is melted).

We know that this is happening. There is no argument, except from right wing wackos and scientists whose work is funded by Exxon/Mobil and such. There is not legitimate scientific debate about Global Warming - what remains is political. While we seem to be arguing about whether or not Global Warming is going on, what we’re really arguing about is what to do (or not to do) about it.

Meanwhile, these redneck idiots keep buying bigger and bigger trucks. Here are some pictures of the obscene rigs people are driving around, lest you forget;

Now, there are all sorts of arguments about what the best way toward a lower carbon future might be. Hybrid cars, bio-diesel, hydrogen, small fully electric vehicles, wind power, ocean power, carbon sequestration, ethanol, and other new technologies offer promising starts. None of these is perfect; it takes electricity to make bio-diesel, to separate hydrogen from water, and to power electric cars. Most electricity still comes from coal, which has a high carbon output. The other alternatives also have problems. My feeling is that some combination of all these technologies and as many more as we can come up with is the best way. But, in the wash what we need to be doing is using less energy . And the way to use less energy is not by driving bigger and bigger cars. Our national debate has been turned completely toward technological solutions (totally understandable, since we live in essentially a fascist technocracy) and completely away from the essential (and pretty easy) step of just using less.

Here’s what’s bothering me; I don’t drive a giant car. I ride the bus or bike most of the time, and drive a sensible fuel efficient sedan when the other options won’t work (groceries, road trips, that stuff). I pay extra to my local power company for wind generated electricity. I’m seriously considering shelling out for a bio-diesel car. In short, I’m using only my fair share of energy resources. Some might say less than my share, but that’s not how I look at it. But here are all these other idiots out on the road burning our limited petroleum resources like it was a friggin crude oil kegger, getting us all ready for the Kansas City beach party. So here’s what I want to know; when the global warming refugees start showing up, are these jerks going to house them? Are the gas guzzlers (the people, not the cars) going to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions? When is this going to stop? At what point are we going to get it together and ban these monstrosities? I don’t think it can happen soon enough, and I doubt it’s going to happen at all. But I’d be willing to bet that in the next few years, there will be increasing acts of vandalism committed against private vehicles. I have to admit that I’ve been tempted to gouge an Escalade’s tires from time to time. Not that I’d ever actually do such a thing. I prefer to fight with words. So, here is my open letter to the owners of large cars. Maybe I’ll grow some guts and start leaving this on windshields.

STOP IT! You’re being totally inconsiderate. You’re ruining the planet for the rest of us. You have no right. If I had my druthers, I’d replace your behemoth of a conveyance with something more suited to your sense of community mindedness; a unicycle. Please, trade in your car for something more sensible.

Help Joe Biden

Okay, I’m supporting Barack Obama for president (at least for the moment), but I still think everyone should go and sign Senator Biden’s petition at endingthewar.com. The petition says

“I strongly agree with Senate Democrats’ efforts to start bringing our troops home, narrow the mission of those that remain and pursue a political settlement in Iraq.

We should withdraw our combat troops by early 2008, except for a limited number necessary to keep training Iraqis and to deny terrorists a sanctuary.

And we should do that in the context of a comprehensive political, diplomatic and economic strategy that gives us a chance to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind.”

It’s not enough, really. He should be saying; bring ‘em all home. But this compromise takes political realities into account, and may in fact be a solution that can make it through the Senate. With the wringing of many hands and the gnashing of many teeth first, of course.

So go forth and give ‘em your name. Because the only way Biden and his compatriots are going to get this thing through is if the Right wing realizes that there isn’t anyone left who’s in favor of the war.

Mover and Shaker

Arthur is on his way to being mobile. In the past few weeks he’s learned how to roll over, and has figured out that he can use this skill to the end of a certain limited mobility. In other words, our little man is going places. That means we need to start thinking in earnest about toddler proofing our house (no small feat).

In other news, I’m really miffed at the number of giant screen TVs in public places anymore. We took Arthur to the doctor yesterday to check on a thing, and there in the waiting room was a massive wide screen HDTV (playing the food channel, on mute). No one in the waiting room was watching the silent screen - everyone was reading or chatting. We’re working hard to make sure Arthur doesn’t spend any time watching TV, and it was really hard to keep his attention elsewhere in a room where the set was such a centerpiece. I wish people were more considerate.