Wednesday, February 28, 2007

"Why I Hate Blacks"

No, that is not what I think. "Why I Hate Blacks" is the name of an editorial which was printed in AsianWeek. It was written by an Asian named Kenneth Eng.

The article is mostly racist tripe. If you want a picture of true racism, feel free to click on the link above and read it.

That said, something did occur to me while reading one part of it:
"Blacks are easy to coerce. This is proven by the fact that so many of them, including Reverend Al Sharpton, tend to be Christians.

Yet, at the same time, they spend much of their time whining about how much they hate "the whites that oppressed them."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Christianity the religion that the whites force upon them?

Ok Mr. Eng, you're wrong. Christianity hasn't been "forced" on any group of people since the Spanish Inquisition. While one can argue that blacks as slaves may have been coerced into Christianity, they were certainly free to drop it after they were liberated.

But let's put Eng's racist point aside and consider something else. Multiculturalists , as well as blacks themselves, love to point out the uniqueness of "black culture". If so, why is Christianity such a common part of it?

The fact is that blacks are very much a part of American culture, but they don't want to admit it. If black culture were such a unique and separate culture within American society, then whites and blacks would rarely cross paths. It would be a relationship closer to Apartheid than what we have in America now.

Still think black culture is unique? Name one unique part of black culture that no whites EVER partake?

Rap/hip-hop music? Sorry, my daughter likes it. (much to my chagrin)

Jazz and blues? Nope. I've known a lot of people, myself included, who like it.

Unique words used to describe things? Sorry, but you can find that in different sections of the country anyway.

Self-pity? Nah. I've known plenty of whites who follow the "blame everyone but yourself for your situation" philosophy.

A history of slavery? While blacks have a more current history, whites have been enslaved more often throughout history. Nothing uniquely black there.

The experience of racism? Perhaps, but let me ask this: Is racism so common today that ALL blacks experience it? Probably at some point in their lives, but I can claim to have experienced reverse racism. Ask the Duke lacrosse players about reverse racism. Does that mean the Duke lacrosse players are now a part of "black culture"?

Another thing to consider on the issue of the experience of racism is that different blacks respond to racism differently. Are there any blacks who would NOT confront racism when they were the victims of it? Of course. But there are many who would, and would likely confront it through the courts or in the Media (the fact that Eng's editorial was reported throughout the Media shows the power of the Media in these cases).

For example, consider the Grateful Dead. They have a following of people, who refer to themselves as "Deadheads". But does everyone who listens to the Grateful Dead instantly become a Deadhead? No. Does everyone who even likes the Grateful Dead qualify as a Deadhead? No. The subculture of Deadheads are people who attend every Grateful Dead concert to which they are able.

So how can the experience of racism effectively be called a "culture"?

What about black skin? Can that be the basis for a culture? Even when you are black, other blacks will turn on you for not "acting" black. Ever heard the "Aunt Jemima" charge against Condi Rice? How about Michael Steele being called an "oreo" (black on the outside, white on the inside)? Better yet, how about our "first black president", Bill Clinton?

The truth is that "black culture" is like Global Warming: a fiction made up by liberals based on superficial information. Notice who benefits by the continued belief in a "black culture": liberal politicians, who continue to receive overwhelming support from the blacks, in spite of the fact they don't really do anything FOR blacks.

Think about it: what is there for politicians to do FOR blacks? Affirmative action programs have been out there for decades. Where affirmative action programs are overly favorable to blacks, they tend to be thrown out by the courts, leaving legislators with little or no options.

However, liberal politicians continue spouting the fiction of a "black culture" in order to keep their prize voting bloc together.

If you want to define "black culture" in any way, it is a continuing gratitude to liberal politicians for their support of the Civil Rights movement, as represented by the overwhelming support of blacks during elections. But even that culture is slowly eroding over time, as more blacks start to vote for conservative politicians. Eventually, you will see blacks voting for their own individual interests over political lip service to their skin color.

Just like the cultures of Irish and Italian immigrants before, the "black culture" is slowly fading away as it is incorporated into the American melting pot culture, from where it originally came. Segregation and racism created the "black culture", but it was never really that far removed from the American culture where it grew.

Unfortunately, there are idiots out there like Kenneth Eng, who provide fodder for the liberal politicians to reinforce the need for a "black culture" myth. Racist idiots are to "black culture" as a hot summer is to Global Warming: a convenient excuse to prolong a myth. But like hot summers, we will always have racist idiots. Until most people can objectively see both for what they are within the bigger pictures surrounding them, the myths will continue.

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Congratulations Al Gore, now here's the bill...

Now that Al Gore can add an Academy Award to his credentials, it is time for him to pay his bill. His energy bill, that is. From
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, [20-room, eight-bathroom] located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

I guess Global Warming is not that big a deal after all? The lesson from Al Gore is clear: "do as I say, not as I do".

But it is too bad the Academy Award for best film didn't go to Chicken Little. It could have been an Oscar sweep for alarmists.

On a separate note, I was watching a show about the "Little Ice Age" recently. I would be far more concerned about another ice age than I would about Global Warming.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Linder on Global Warming

I need to visit Myrhaf's blog more often. On Friday, he posted a link to an editorial by Rep. John Linder about Global Warming.

(For those of you not familiar with Linder, he co-wrote "The FairTax Book" with Neal Boortz.)

Linder tears apart the agenda of the Global Warming theorists:
"In order to focus on you and what you are doing to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere, which, as everyone knows will destroy the globe, we do not discuss the activities of termites. Fifteen years ago it was estimated that the digestive tracts of termites produce about 50 billion tons of CO2 and methane annually. That was more than the world's production from burning fossil fuel. Additionally, cattle, horses and other ruminant animals are huge producers of both CO2 and methane, but, being unable to respond to our demands on this issue, their activity is ignored.
When it comes to methane, another greenhouse gas, termites are responsible for 11 percent of the world's production from natural sources. Seventy-six percent comes from wetlands, which provide habitat conducive to bacteria, which produce 145 million metric tons of methane per year during the decomposition of organic material. It is curious that the very alarmists on climate change are alarmists on saving and increasing wetlands.

With Al Gore's Academy Award last night, I think it is safe to say the Hollywood establishment could use a little Global Warming because their brains have frozen.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Friday Trivia! Presidential Edition

Since everyone seemed to enjoy the Valentine's trivia, let's try a President's Day edition:

1. Which rock star contributed his hit One Night Love Affair to the soundtrack of the 1985 film "Real Genius" (which starred Val Kilmer)?

2. What was the first name of Marcy's second husband on the sitcom Married with Children?

3. Which R&B/jazz singer, nicknamed "Queen of the Blues", won a Grammy Award for her 1959 rendition of What a Diff'rence a Day Makes?

4. Which former Pro Bowl offensive lineman for the Oakland Raiders and Atlanta Falcons (from 1993-2003) was nicknamed "The Oval Office"?

5. Which former major league pitcher was played by Ronald Reagan in the 1952 film The Winning Team?

1. Bryan Adams
2. Jefferson
3. Dinah Washington
4. Lincoln Kennedy
5. Grover Cleveland Alexander

On Altruism

1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others

Altruism is the single most dangerous concept in politics.

The concept of altruism comes to us from religion. The great irony is that in no religion I am aware of does altruism ever get applied to government actions. Altruism is a personal commandment.

Yet somewhere in history, altruism was picked up by politicians as a means to sell their ideas. Don't think for a second that most politicians are truly displaying "unselfish concern for...the welfare of others".

When you hear altruism being given as the reason for a government program/action, be afraid. When government enters the realm of "unselfish concern for...the welfare of others", that means they are about to use force against one part of society in order to provide something for another part of society.

But taxes aren't "force", right? Wrong. Try not paying your taxes, and you will quickly learn about the force of government.

But what about the poor people? Folks, if you are truly concerned about the poor, donate to charity. If you know someone who is poor, help them. You won't get to Heaven any quicker by passing your personal altruistic responsibilities to the government.

But can't government help people? Sort of. But at what cost? When you pay government for a service, you are also paying for all kinds of government bureaucrats to make sure the service is provided, as well as accountable. Even then, government fails (Remember the debit cards handed out by FEMA after Hurricane Katrina? Remember the stories of them being used at strip clubs?).

If you want to be altruistic, do it on your own dime, not mine. And not the government's.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Belated Happy President's Day!

Two important things to remember:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." - George Washington

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties." - Abraham Lincoln

Friday, February 16, 2007

Friday Trivia! Valentine's Edition

For this week's Friday Trivia, I decided to go with a Valentine's Day theme. Have at it:

1. Which rock band from Seattle once did a cover of Kiki Dee's "I Got the Music in Me" on their LP titled Magazine?

2. What former Major League Baseball player and manager is currently managing a team in Japan's Pacific League?

3. Which recently discovered moon of Uranus was named after a character in Shakespeare's play Timon of Athens?

4. Which song from the Richard Rodgers/Lorenz Hart musical comedy Babes in Arms has been recorded by the following singers: Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra, Elvis Costello, Carly Simon, Dolly Parton, Linda Ronstadt, and Chaka Khan?

5. What was the name of the Houston franchise of the World Hockey Association (which existed from 1972-1979)?

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Is marriage passé?

So I am reading this article about how there are more unmarried couples then married couples today (called "Look who’s happily unmarried" over at, and the thought strikes me: The gay marriage movement is asking society to open a door to an empty room, a place where not even straight people go anymore.
"The recent report of a Census Bureau survey found that married-couple households in the U.S. are now outnumbered. A hair more than half — 50.3 percent — of households are headed by unmarried people, and 31.7 percent of American children are being raised in unmarried homes."

What does this say about marriage? Calling marriage obsolete is a bit too simplistic. It is still useful in specific circumstances, such as if your partner is unconscious and in the hospital and the doctors need someone to make a decision on treatment, or if only one partner has health insurance through their work. But some of these situations have been legislated out of existence in certain states, largely thanks to accommodations to the gay community.

In effect, by making life easier for gay, non-married couples, we have been undermining marriage.

What about divorce? No doubt stricter divorce laws have had an impact, but I suspect divorce in general has had an impact. How many of us have been through a bad divorce, or known more than a few couples who have been through a bad one? I would not be surprised if 90%+ of Americans can answer that question "yes". When we see the emotional and financial damage left from a nasty divorce, what incentive is there to get married? And for the children of these divorces, there is even less incentive.

Right now, unless you are in a situation with a partner where you will be required to be married under the law in order to receive a specific benefit, the only reason I can think of is income taxes. Is a thousand or so dollars per year in reduced income taxes worth getting married? (Mind you, I am throwing that figure out. I have not actually looked it up. I think it may actually be less than that.) Of course, that is assuming that being married would enable a couple to pay less, which is not often the case. Getting married is only really useful to the tax situation of a "one breadwinner" couple. If both couples work, and both make roughly the same amount, they are likely to push themselves into a higher tax bracket by filing jointly.

Yet again, we see marriage undermined.

What about religion? Most, if not all, religions consider marriage to be sacred. However, I am not aware of ANY religion that requires marriage to be state-sanctioned. If your religion requires you to be married, but your legal situation doesn't, why can't you ONLY be married within your religion? There is nothing legally or theologically making this invalid.

So why get legally married? We have dis-incentivized marriage to the point where it is really only useful in specific situations. Sadly, most of those situations don't apply to the majority of Americans.

At this point in time, I would say to anyone considering marriage (including homosexuals, if they have legal access to marriage) to look at their situation first. If they would actually benefit from it, I say go for it. However, if they can find a way around the marriage benefit (i.e. a properly executed will, or a legal power-of-attorney document), then I would suggest they do so. It is far easier to get legal documents changed than it is to get a divorce.

That having been said, how should we as a society view this? What do we think the purpose of marriage should be? Should we even be sanctioning the institution at all?

I must admit that I find the recent marriage "proposal" (pun intended) by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance (WDMA) to be intriguing. According to Initiative 957, which the group has proposed in the state of Washington:
"If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

* add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
* require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
* require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
* establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
* make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

While I recognize WDMA's true intent is to get gay marriage legalized, I find this proposal to be a useful starting point for any discussion of marriage. Why should states sanction marriage for the mere purpose of "love"? People will be in love regardless of marriage. Why do states need to encourage something which will happen anyway?

However, procreation is an extremely valid reason for states to provide benefits, although I think adoption should be considered as a reasonable substitute for procreation.

But until we give marriage a truly useful definition, for both couples and society as a whole, then it is nothing more than an obsolete institution which should be removed from government oversight.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Sorry folks

Sorry I didn't post yesterday, and I don't really have time for it today. I had some major plumbing problems at home, which kept me out of work. Now I have to play catch up.

I will try and resume normal posting tomorrow, but I make no promises. Worse comes to worse, I will have Friday Trivia again this week.

Friday, February 09, 2007

In Denial

Ellen Goodman is a moron. In her Boston Globe ediorial today, she nails the difference between "Holocaust denial" and "Global Warming denial", and then proceeds to walk right past it:
"I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future."

There is no denying that Global Warming has occurred in the present, but at a very insignificant amount.

But how does the current Global Warming relate to the future? If we use the past as a guide, we can see that the Earth has gone through MANY warming AND cooling periods. How is the current Global Warming different than anything previously?

Contrary to what the environmental socialists would like to believe, THEY are the ones in denial, much like the Holocaust deniers. The Global Warming politicos are denying the historical evidence in order to promote their own cause through "end of the world" scare tactics. There is something going on, but it is NOT related to the climate.

Friday Trivia!

I am throwing out five questions that will cover a range of topics. It's Friday, so I know you aren't really working. First person to get all five correct in the comments wins...bragging rights (hey, I've got two kids. You weren't expecting money, were you?).

Have at it:

1. In baseball, who was the first American League player to make $100,000 per year?

2. What was the headline on the Chicago Daily Tribune on Wednesday, November 3, 1948?

3. Who sang "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" for the 1966 cartoon How the Grinch Stole Christmas!?

4. Which former U.S. president was in a train accident (which killed his 11 year old son) just 47 days prior to his inauguration?

5. What do the drug heroin and a group of jellyfish have in common?

1. Joe Dimaggio
3. Thurl Ravenscroft
4. Franklin Pierce
5. Both heroin and a group of jellyfish are referred to as "smack".

Thursday, February 08, 2007

The Wheel of Global Warming

I ran across an interesting editorial by Pat Sajak, host of "Wheel of Fortune", titled "Is it Just Me, or Is it Warm in Here?". Admittedly, a game show host does not qualify as an expert in Global Warming, but he does make a good common sense point:
"Well, it's official. The Earth is warming up, and we're to blame. A United Nations panel of scientists has said it's more that 90% probable that human activities have caused most of the warming in the last 50 years. That's up from a 66% probability in a 2001 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And way up from a 30-year-old warning of a coming Ice Age in Time Magazine. (Oops! That was right in the middle of our 50 years of man-made global warming.)

Anyway, the Time piece (June 24, 1974) reported, "The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth." So, you see, we were also responsible for the global cooling even though, as it turned out, we were in the middle of global warming, although those wacky climatologists of the 1970s didn't notice.

...So I guess it's the logic (or lack of it) that gives me the greatest pause. On some level, I suppose, its comforting to think man has the power to turn the Earth's thermostat up and down at will. There's also the argument that we should take all steps deemed necessary by this [U.N.] panel "just in case". I say, let's wait a bit before dramatically adjusting our lives. After all, if we can switch from an impending Ice Age to catastrophic global warming in just 30 years, we should be able, with some effort, to drop the temperature a degree or two in pretty short order.

Of course, Sajak is being funny, but he has a valid point. Where does mankind get off thinking we can control the weather?

On a side note, think about this: If we were producing enough greenhouse gases to impact the climate of the entire planet, you would notice it in the air anywhere on the planet. Certainly air is "dirtier" in large cities and industrial areas. But if you go out in the country, or up on a mountain, or out on the ocean, how is the air? It seems pretty clean to me.

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Let the Global Warming censorship begin!

Did you ever feel like you were living in the time right before the Salem Witch Trials? I am just wondering how long it will be before it becomes a crime to speak out against the absurd theory (and it is a theory, not a scientific fact) that mankind is causing Global Warming.

When scientists try to speak out against this absurdity, they get treated like an abortion doctor visiting a Baptist church. God forbid we should have an open public debate!

One example:
"“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,” [George] Taylor asserts.

Taylor has held the title of [Oregon's] "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

Can't have a scientist disagreeing with our politics, can we?

Thanks to an anonymous comment on my post from yesterday about Dr. Timothy Ball, who spoke out against this mankind-causing-Global Warming nonsense, I even have an example of blogging attacks on scientists, over at
"The deathless and - in many specific respects - completely fictional meanderings of Dr. Tim Ball have begun appearing again on right-wing blogs all over the net. At City Troll, at Convenient Untruth and at New Orleans Lady, the same tired and retreaded old climate rant paints Dr. Ball as the courageous victim of a plot to silence a well-meaning skeptic.

But Ball can't even tell the truth about his own resume. His claim to be the first Climatology Ph.D. in Canada is a total falsehood; his degree was in historical geography - not climatology - and it was nowhere near the first ever granted to someone writing vaguely in the field.

Of course, they don't challenge WHAT Ball is saying. They merely attack the messenger.

Even more interesting is how they claim he is unqualified to discuss climatology, since "his degree was in historical geography". I wonder if these morons ever stopped to consider: Climatology is a sub-science of Geography. But don't let a little thing like "facts" get in the way of your crusade, right?

How about this little disturbing information from Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby (bold part added by me):
"YOU KNOW that big United Nations report on global warming that appeared last week amid so much media sound and fury? Here's a flash: It wasn't the big, new United Nations report on global warming.

Oddly enough, most of the news coverage neglected to mention that the document released on Feb. 2 by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was not the latest multiyear assessment report, which will run to something like 1,500 pages when it is released in May. It was only the 21-page "Summary for Policymakers," a document written chiefly by government bureaucrats -- not scientists -- and intended to shape public opinion. Perhaps the summary will turn out to be a faithful reflection of the scientists' conclusions, but it wouldn't be the first time if it doesn't.

In years past, scientists contributing to IPCC assessment reports have protested that the policymakers' summary distorted their findings -- for example, by presenting as unambiguous what were actually only tentative conclusions about human involvement in global warming.

I just hope America's Freedom of Speech can survive this lunacy. Otherwise, the Global Warming idiots may end up burning me at the stake.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Some Post-Super Bowl Thoughts

Now that the "big game" is over, time for a few ruminations on it:

MVP: If I could hand out an MVP award, I would give it to the Colts secondary. Maybe a co-MVP between Kelvin Hayden and Bob Sanders? If I have to choose only one player, then I give it to Bob Sanders, since he added a forced fumble to his interception.

If I had to choose an offensive MVP, I would take Dominic Rhodes, who had as many touchdowns as Peyton Manning (one), but no fumbles or interceptions (Manning had one of each). Add in 113 rushing yards, and Rhodes walks away with it.

REX GROSSMAN: Everyone's goat, for good reason. If the Bears start next season with Grossman under center, they are fools.

BEST COMMERCIAL: I liked the Doritos "Live the flavor" ad in the first quarter (link here).

HALL OF FAME SELECTIONS: How does Michael Irvin get in before Art Monk? They both played in three Super Bowls, but Monk did it with three different quarterbacks. Monk's career stats were better than Irvin's:
Art Monk: 940 catches, 12,721 yards, 68 touchdowns
Michael Irvin: 750 catches, 11,904 yards, 65 touchdowns

Just because Irvin toots his own horn louder doesn't mean he deserves it more.

An intelligent voice in the wilderness of ignorance

A climatologist speaking out AGAINST Global Warming? Strange but true, Dr. Timothy Ball has written an article against the hysteria:
"Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets."

As Dr. Ball goes on to explain:
"Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

Be careful what you say Doc. You will have the enviro-whackos crying "Global Cooling" in a few years.

(Read the whole article over at

Friday, February 02, 2007

Revenge of the Snow Weenies

Yesterday, I bashed northerners for being reckless in the snow. Today, it is time to give southerners their share of grief.

I live in Georgia. It snowed yesterday. My kids were off school. No problem.

Today, there are some trace amounts of snow left on the grass, but the roads are clear, although wet. While it is cold outside, the roads are NOT frozen. My kids are off school again today. Huh?

There is a fine line between being smart with snow, and just being a downright weenie with it. Southerners have mastered the art of snow weenieness (like that word?).

I imagine there is someplace around Virginia where they have just the right attitude towards snow. But go north of there, and the idiots are running the show. Go south of there, and the weenies are running the show.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

It snowed!

It snowed here last night. Snow is one of nature's great wonders.

To look upon a freshly fallen snow is to observe peace. Sounds seem quieter with snow on the ground (until the kids find out it snowed, then it gets louder for awhile).

Snow provides a new perspective on the world. It is like God is saying, "Want to see what everything looks like in white?"

But for all of it's wonder, snow has a dark side. Mind you, I am not referring to the horrible blizzards people up north have seen, with houses buried under snow, people dying, etc. I am referring to driving on snow.

There are different textures of snow, and some are easier to drive on than others. But "easier" doesn't mean "floor it". It just means a light application of the brakes is less likely to cause you to spin out of control. Regardless of how safe the snow might be, it is best if you don't drive on it at all.

Which brings me to the difference between north and south.

In the south, we don't have much snow management equipment (such as plows and sanders). We have enough to clear the interstates, but that's all. Because of this, everything shuts down when it snows.

When I used to live in Delaware, the opposite was true. Because there was more snow equipment, it took about 6 inches of snow to really have an impact (4 inches if it fell quickly and fell first thing in the morning), and that was usually only the schools. At lesser amounts, you might see schools opening late, but it was still business as usual. Speaking of business, it took a snowfall of closer to a foot to close down businesses. If your car could move, you came to work. At best, they might open an hour or two late.

The real problem with snow is the back roads. In the south, they don't get plowed/sanded at all. In the north, they will get plowed/sanded later in the day, possibly even the next day or two if the storm is bad enough. Either way, the back roads aren't safe to travel on for the duration of the first day after the snow first falls.

(I can't speak for places much farther north than Delaware, since they undoubtedly get much more snow, and can keep chains on their tires for longer periods of the winter.)

But when back roads are bad, why would businesses be open? The usual excuse is "we can't close every time it snows. We'd go out of business." After many years of putting up with that by driving in the snow, first I decided to take sick days when it snowed. Next, I moved south.

If you nuts want to drive in that crap, go ahead. Just don't ask me to risk my life or my car for your "business".