these days...

...there's just so much to ridicule

update 1:
so
very
very
much

update 2:
so very much

a teachable moment

local malcontent explains illegal immigration:

...do you own your own home...? Let's assume that you do. Nice place, fenced yard, a swingset for your kids. But... I want to come live in your house too! I like your place, and I really like your full refrigerator and pantry.

So I intend to come climb through a window, and live there with you, and I don't care what you think of that. I intend to eat my fill of your groceries, I intend to use your family's electricity and phone. And you have plenty of room... I'll just take this bedroom, the one which used to be your kid's.

The food and the utilities I'll be consuming means that your family will have to eat less, and your OG&E bill will be larger. But Not To Worry!! I will "pay" for my invasion of your home by planting you a great garden, and raising some great veggies and fruit... Which I will sell to you, your wife and your kid. Cheap, but not Free.

update: barbara bellar explains obamacare:

So let me get this straight: ... We're going to be gifted with a health care plan we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people without adding a single new doctor, but which provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it (but exempted themselves from it), and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before the benefits take effect, by a government which is already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.

two reruns

these posts from six years ago are still relevant - please read them both

as a sorbet

i posted before about some muzak in a chinese restaurant, and something related happened today in a nearby mexican restaurant:

the music was definitely not muzak or radio, nor was it quite mariachi. it was in the mariachi tradition, with typical lyrics about "mi corazon" and "besame mucho", but much improved from its century-old oompah influence.

the first track sounded like security-era peter gabriel, the next track had an easy stereolab lounge influence, another had a "blinded by the light" style organ ostinato holding it together. another track had simon and garfunkel harmonies, and another had some brief chromatic dissonance that could have come from soundgarden or the foo fighters (with a third of the distortion).

pretty cool.

put it out

with friends like these...

imao pointed to ace of spades pointed to the jim messina meme generator - which is all about the obama "for all" campaign using a photo of some creepy dude who wrote "obama care" on his hands.

i didn't think lol-captions can do it justice, so i fired up photoshop and made what everyone is thinking:

i am the 53%

(among other things), flopping aces asks "Has (obama) ever truly reached across the aisle other than to say to Republicans, “I won, the keys are mine, get in the back of the seat and just shut up while I drive.”?"

layout change

it was about time to refresh the look of this blog - more to come...

my cs6 is just getting warmed up

yes, i know the idea has been done - more or less...

lines of the losers

the only problem i have with this list is the title - this is *not* the worst of president hussein.

going green

...with envy
(please read it all, including comments)

pun alert

all superheroes have a nemesis. who is the nemesis of the first person to walk on the moon?

the s/fifth/lynch/ column

Connecticut's first lady Cathy Malloy is forced to apologize for speaking the truth.

truth in advertising...

...comes to political speeches

:)

yes there are two paths you can go by...

...but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on

who's in charge?

splotchy is in charge!

"who's in charge?" blog is back from a hiatus. go join in the fun at blogspot and/or tumblr

---

bump: seriously, guys, the more the merrier - vote early vote often :)

yeah, prettty much

i've said it before and i'll say it again: i'm disgusted that our two-party system never produces presidential candidates i can vote FOR, only AGAINST.

related links here, here, (and more to come...)

"One simply does not drive in to Mordor"

, says Lileks of the twincities' discouragement of vehicular efficiency.

---

big update:

as a slight tangent to that article, the comments began to discuss whether or not repurposing lanes from auto to bike traffic adds to traffic congestion - to which the obvious answer is "obviously". but one commenter took the "pious bicyclist" attitude, which eventually included the claim that:

On urban streets, lane reductions in themselves almost never affect capacity, congestion, or level of service - it's the higher-volume intersections that control how well vehicles can get through (green time doesn't grow on trees).

to which i replied (snarkily i'll admit):

"lane reductions in themselves almost never affect capacity" - seriously??? replace the water and sewer lines at your house with quarter-inch pipe and tell us how that works for you...

some hours later he replied with:

Fluid molecules and drivers are not the same. Fluid molecules are much more predictable. Fluid molecules do not drink, text, or become distracted, and do not have $500 collision deductibles.

A very common early assignment in college introductory-level transportation courses is for students to analyze the capacity of an urban street - first, by analyzing the capacity of the roadway between intersections (usually high), and then by analyzing the throughput at intersections (much lower unless there are many lanes or unbalanced phasing). It's a great way to get it through the students' heads that things aren't always as they initially seem, and that analogies to other flow concepts don't always hold up.

, which is partially true but sidesteps the issue.

(i would have added my rebuttal at lileks' site, but it seems to disable additional comments for previous days.)

the whole bit about fluid molecules is true, and it's true that things aren't always as they initially seem. but even simple geometry dictates that fewer lanes hold fewer cars. if his claims were true, no road would need to be more than a two-way path. if "capacity" and "number of lanes" have no connection, then the "capacity" of the katy freeway out of houston is the same as fm2092 out of menard. And if more lanes do not mean more cars, then all highway expansion projects are pointless as they do not allow more cars on the road.

pffft.

goal setting

Why stop at 54.5?

Strict new federal fuel-economy and carbon-emission standards made final Tuesday are the biggest technological challenge to the auto industry since the government began regulating emissions in 1970 and mileage in 1975.

The rule sets the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon as the average the auto industry must achieve by 2025, up from 29.7 mpg now and 35.5 mpg in 2016.

The tough "CAFE" standard (for corporate average fuel economy), which was to be announced earlier this month, was announced Tuesday by the Obama administration on the day that Republicans' national convention got underway in Tampa.

It is "a monumental day for the American people," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in announcing the final rules.

As long as we're throwing out ridiculous numbers, how about we set these goals?

• 8 more hours per day,
• 9000% higher incomes,
• 95% fewer lightning strikes,
• all people weigh below average,
• all children are smarter than average, and
• 0% mortality

Kennedy chose "to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." President Hussein chooses to dictate the impossible, and blame others when his choom dreams fail.

"obama doesn't care about white people"

kanye dig it?