MaxRedline

Time To Sterilize The Petri Dish

We're excellent when it comes to growing vegetables, and if you have any doubt about that, read on:

Metro Council Goals and Objectives

5.1

Metro's culture is creative, flexible, entreprenurial, incorportates fresh ideas, and supports reasonable risk to successfully respond to a dynamic and changing environment.

Okay.  If they say so.  Let's back up a bit:  is there such a thing as a static and changing environment?  Or a dynamic yet unchanging environment?

You're paying these folks a boatload of money, and they come up with this junk as part of the "work" that they're tirelessly performing on your behalf?

Time for a show of hands:  is there anybody - other than the Metro council - who believes that Metro has demonstrated any of the following: creativity, flexibility, an entreprenurial (business-friendly) perspective?  Second show: anybody who believes that Metro has "responded successfully" to anything?

Anybody?  Hello?

Okay, third show:  anybody believe that Metro is just another money-grubbing, money-wasting , unneeded extra layer of government?

Oh, and fourth show:  anybody believe that Metro has any "culture" other than porking out at the trough?

Actually, anybody that voted "yes" on the fourth item is absolutely correct - Metro does have a culture.  And it's far more toxic than botulism.  It's time to sterilize the large Petri dish in which it continues to grow.

Are You For Equality, Or Multiculturalism?

The "multicultural" silliness is perhaps the most reliable indicator on record regarding just how completely ridiculous Western "culture" has become.

Do you believe in equality?  If so, you cannot "embrace multiculturalism".

If you believe that women and men should have equal rights, then you must reject multiculturalism.

If you happen to be one of those free-thinking "progressives" who will fight for the "right" of homosexual individuals to "marry", then you must reject multiculturalism.

If you happen to believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, then you must reject multiculturalism.

If you're an omnivore, then you must reject multiculturalism.

If you believe in freedom of expression, then you must reject multiculturalism.

If religious faith of any sort is important to you, then you must reject multiculturalism.

If freedom from religion is important to you, you must reject multiculturalism.

If you believe that people can and should be judged, and if you believe that such judgement should be based not upon the color of skin (nor upon gender) - but by the content of their character, then you must reject multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is the antithesis of the basic concepts of freedom and of representative democracy, yet you and your children are indoctrinated every day.  It is Gollum's "Pretty" - seductive in its promises, and destructive in its effects.

The Climate

Those little lies are really starting to add up.  You know, you're told to quit using regular lightbulbs and go for the  fluorescent.  Save energy, save the planet.  What you're never told by the environmeddlists is that fluorescent - each and every one - contains mercury.  Therefore, it's a hazardous product.  Drop one during installation, and you get to fork over thousands of dollars for haz-mat remediation - even if it's just one of those cute little squiggle compact (CFL) jobs.  Bet you've never heard that.

On the other hand, you've heard that global warming is happening on Mars - but you may not realize that it's happening at the same rate as on Earth.  Half a degree Centigrade for both planets over the past fifty years.  How does energy-hog and perennial candidate the Reverend AlGore square his view that humans are destroying the planet with the evidence from Mars?

Was that a cricket chirping?  Aren't they all supposed to be extinct because of anthropogenic Global Warming?

The War

Saudi Arabia claims to have headed off a 9/11-style attack by Al-Quaeda operatives that was to be directed against their oil and military installations; rounding up 172 suspects before the events could unfold.  Unfortunately for these detainees, Saudi rules are a bit different from American rules, and despite all of the rending of clothing and general weeping by the ACLU and other Leftists regarding conditions at the American's "Club Gitmo", those 172 are likely going to wish mightily that they'd been sent there.

And speaking of Gitmo, some 82 of the inmates there have been cleared for release.  The only problem is that nobody wants them.  To rephrase: one-fifth of the prisoners there are cleared for release, but nobody'll take them.  Their home countries don't want them.  And U.S. laws forbids deportation if it appears likely that the deportees could face human rights violations such as torture or death upon repatriation.  Indeed, 17 of the cleared-for-release subjects are Chinese muslims who reportedly fear that they could face execution if returned to mainland China.  For many, living in Club Gitmo is preferable to dying in their home countries.

Tell Them We Miss Them.

El presidente Calderon has again urged the US Congress to overhaul American immigration laws, insisting that both countries would benefit from reforms that recognize the "blood, sweat and tears" of migrant workers.  Here's an idea, el presidente: enforce your northern border as you do your southern border.

"Mexico doesn´t stop at its political border," Calderón said. "Wherever there´s a Mexican, there´s Mexico."

Unwittingly, he illustrates the problem.

Saving The Planet, Ending War, And Other Stuff

If only we elect Barak Obama to the presidency, things'll get a whole lot better.  It's time that America quits poking its collective nose into the affairs of other countries, so Obama'll be a much-needed breath of fresh air.  Uh...wait....

Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more the Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.

He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world."

Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."

Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others." Make every effort?

Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are four words: United Nations Security Council.

Roh-roh!  Things are shaping up a little differently than expected.  But would he follow through?

But wait!  There's more!  Buy now and we'll give you... uh, sorry, wrong spiel.  Got sidetracked by that ad over there.  Let's see - oh yeah, here's the item:  folks, there's more bad news coming out of Afghanistan.  While your attention was diverted by the Breck Girl's $400 haircuts paid for from campaign funds (just a simple mistake; it could happen to anyone), the news from Afghanistan is both grim and largely overlooked.  Since them Tale-bans were removed some five years ago, infant mortality in the country has decreased by 40,000 a year.

According to the preliminary results of a Johns Hopkins University study, the infant mortality rate has declined to about 135 per 1,000 live births in 2006, down from an estimated 165 per 1,000 in 2001.

The researchers "found improvements in virtually all aspects of care in almost every province," the public health ministry and World Bank said in a joint statement on the findings.

This is terrible news, from a number of perspectives.  Although neither NOW nor NARAL has yet commented upon these disturbing findings, it is readily apparent that abortion is not gaining traction in-country; we can only assume for the moment that this is all the fault of George W. Bush.

As well, there are other dire implications:  although the World Wildlife Fund, AlGore,  and Greenpeace have yet to weigh in on the matter, it seems clear that the addition of 40,000 live births per year in this destitute country - all of them exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere with every breath - represents a markedly increased "carbon footprint" that the country is ill-equipped to deal with.  Clearly, the exhuberance of the Afghan repoductive sector was underestimated, and presently continues unabated.  So what does this really mean?

It means that you will pay - and dearly - for the climatological effects of all of these children.  Their dumping of CO2 into our atmosphere will doubtless accelerate Global Warming, and so you'll have to plant more trees and buy carbon offsets in order to counter these horrific effects.  And once again, it is obvious that the architect for this global disaster in the making is none other than George W. Bush.  Clearly, this was a case of poor planning of the highest order of magnitude.  Planned Parenthood and similar agencies should have been brought into the situation, but were somehow overlooked, even though available intelligence at the time clearly indicated that giving women access to reliable healthcare would inevitably result in an upsurge of greenhouse gas emissions.

If the Tale-bans were still in power, none of this would be happening.  Fortunately, you idiots can't elect Bush to a third term in office, so the insanity should end soon enough.

Are You Listening, Rex?

Ok - rhetorical question.  Nobody, at Metro, least of all councilor Rex Burkholder, is inclined to listen to the "common" folk.  As Rex makes clear in an interview here, and as Coyote remarks upon here - the "planners" aren't about to increase road capacity in the tri-county area because, to paraphrase Rex himself, "people will just use them".  No, Rex is big on pay-to-use.  Nevermind the fact that your gasoline and other taxes paid to build the roads in the first place, Rex wants to find a way to insist that you pay extra to use them - but only if you're driving a car.  Bicycle riders like Rex should get continued carte blanche.  As noted in the interview, Rex Burkholder has a new bike, and he's not too shy to show it off.  Rex loves bicycles, hates cars, loves congestion.  And sees really expensive toys like choo-choos and streetcars as important things that you should pay to build and run - even though you never use them.

Rex thinks it's really important for you to live close to where you work, so that you can walk or ride a bike to get there and back.  This strategy works well for Rex, because he happens to live on the east side of the river and works in a government agency that also happens to be on the east side of the river.  If he happened to live on the west side, he might find bicycling a whole lot trickier due to the winding roads, lack of shoulders on the roads, and little inconveniences like 800-foot-high hills.

But Rex lives on the flat east side, where everything was nicely planed over during the course of the great floods that carved the Columbia River Gorge.  So for him, riding's no big deal, and everybody else should be forced to do it.  And by golly, if he and his pals get their way, you're either going to do it or you're going to pay!

Of course, Rex also really likes paving over large chunks of land and building "mixed-use" stuff on the sites.  "Mixed-use" is plannerspeak for "the ground floor has a Starbucks and maybe an art gallery, while the upper floors are all rabbit-cages that cost half a million dollars apiece".  It's all very trendy.  Of course, Rex doesn't live in one of those things himself.  He and his "partner" live in a single-family dwelling.  Which is rather ironic, since it seems pretty unlikely that Rex and his "partner" are going to be producing any "family" members anytime soon.

That being the case, it seems only reasonable that Rex and his "partner" be forcibly relocated into one of those expensive rabbit cages that he so loves, in order that their single family dwelling can be allocated to its original purpose: as a dwelling for a family.  You know, the kind with kids that might want to go out and play in the yard?

And here's another idea:  why not quit paving over large spaces to build "multi-use" structures of interest only to wealthy, trendy, childless people?

Why not take this idea and run with it?  After all, the city of Portland places no requirements on "dignity village", what gives them any reason to assert control over "minimum" sizes for homes on residential lots?  In fact, what gives Metro, the county, or the state any say in such matters?  If density is good (and it appears to be wonderful, as we continue to elect some of the densest induhviduals currently available), then why not restore to citizens their right to decide how much space they need in order to call it "home"?

Nahh...never happen.  In Oregon, you can have any kind of sense you want - as long as it isn't "common".

Fat Lesbians?

Oh, the thought police are going to have a field day with this one.  Twice as likely to be overweight or obese than heterosexual women, the Rosie O'Donnels of America are significantly more likely to develop diabetes and heart disease than are their hetero counterparts.  They're probably more likely to be foam-at-the-mouth Leftists, but that wasn't covered in the report.  Just another nonsense "issue" for them to get all worked up about.  If the science doesn't support you, claim discrimination.  Eat another bonbon.  Have a heart attack.  Blame somebody else.  Seems to be the pattern....

Robots?

There's a lot of effort and money going into producing 'bots that will do more than skim swimming pools or vacuum floors.  In Japan, for example, they're already beginning to deploy robots in assisted-care and nursing homes.  Of course, the US military is hoping to replace a third of our fighting machines with robotics during the next 20 years.

The war effort may have some great benefits, although tasking robots to care for the elderly and disabled is somewhat disquieting - could we end up in a situation in which some of our most helpless humans are relegated to machine-provided care?

For many, the idealized application of robotics comes from the old television cartoon, "The Jetsons" - in which a more or less humanoid robotic maid handles the mundane household chores.  This has been deemed unlikely to come to pass anytime soon, however, as robotics specialists don't seem too keen on the idea. 

As one expert, based in the U.S., told me: "If you just want a servant to cook and look after the garden, there are plenty of Mexicans. Why buy a hugely expensive machine?"

On the other hand, there is an abundance of evidence that indicates that humanoid robots have not only been developed, but extensively deployed.  Unlike the cartoon scenario, these are not domestic servants - but something more.  They've been programmed to know what's best for you, and to ensure that the program is followed.  Resistance is futile.

These 'bots are widely distributed across America, and while the distribution was undertaken clandestinely, they can be recognized - despite their humanoid attributes - by virtue of the fact that they all follow the same programming.  So sophisticated are the machines, however, that they don't lend themselves to the generally-accepted identification standards, so the Mark One and the HAL9000 aren't employed.  Instead, they've been given unique mnemonic identifiers which greatly improve the ordinarily difficult task of human-to-machine acceptance and assignment.

David Bragdon.

Bill Bradbury.

Ted Kulongoski.

AlGore.

And the list goes on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Just Telling It Like It Is

There's big trouble in Little Beruit as the city of Portland takes offense to a banner that a homeowner placed on the roof of his house.  Not visible to drivers or pedestrians, it's visible only from the air - specifically, it's visible to riders of the infamous aerial tram, and some of them are highly offended.  There really shouldn't be any problem, because at every "input session" OHSU responded to privacy concerns by noting that since the windows of the tram cars would be frosted, riders would be unable to see into yards or windows.  If they can't look downward along the route, then they'd never know that the banner was there.