The Department of Homeland Security (snicker)* has just let the folks in Illinois that in case of an attack on our country, we’re all supposed to report to the end zones at Soldier Field, as nothing ever touches down there.
*Use of “snicker” stolen from Peoria’s Blogfather and his inability to contain himself when commenting on a PJS editorial.
Why is it here in Illinois that people refuse to dim their lights until the last possible second, if at all? Is it that hard? Are the drivers that selfish?
Particularly maddening is as you approach a hill, you can see the glow from the oncoming car’s lights, and they’re bright. I ALWAYS dim my lights BEFORE I crest a hill, because that’s how I was TAUGHT to drive by my instructor in Minnesota. Common courtesy, it’s called. Also has something to do with safety. I don’t know how many times I’ve done this recently, dimming my lights well in advance of line-of-sight of an oncoming vehicle behind a hill, only to see the other driver just leave his/her brights on until we’re right on top of each other, meeting at the top of the hill, and I’m momentarily blinded. Thanks, jerks.
Another aspect of this is interstate highway driving. Just because there’s separation between the four lanes does NOT mean you can simply leave your lights on bright when approaching other vehicles. The most frustrating of all is when you give an oncoming car a flick of the brights…several times…and you simply get ignored. If I’m WRONG and you’re already on dim, then show me. If I’m RIGHT, then dim your damn lights, arsehole.
Besides, with improved headlights and the increase in “driving lights” on newer cars (we used to call them “fog lights”), there’s little need to EVER have your brights on unless you’re alone on a two lane road.
I’ve come to the conclusion that most people that do this around here do it on purpose. Just to be an ass. Guess what? Mission accomplished.
Good. State Police officers are going to be running a DUI Crackdown over the holidays, as they usually do. I’m glad. Of course, I wish they would crack down diligently like this ALL the time, and not just around the Holidays, but they only get so much Federal grant money to help them pay for the extra man-hours. But whatever they can do, I’m all or it. I particularly like this part of the story:
“According to the Illinois Department of Transportation, eight of the 10 motor vehicle crash fatalities over the last Christmas holiday weekend were alcohol related. Six of the 13 fatalities over the New Year’s weekend were alcohol related.”
Let’s see, that’s 16 of the 23 fatalities involving alcohol. A vast majority. Much higher than the “fatalities involving speeding by sober people” totals, for certain. My point? As always, I’m just lookin’ for an admission from Law Enforcement: Speed traps are revenue builders. Not safety concerns. But revenue builders.
I’m still amazed at this one.
How about 40 days of officials and legislators and law enforcement people getting together to figure out better gun laws?
How about 40 days of raiding the homes and vehicles of known criminals and convicted felons and getting the drugs and guns and everything else they shouldn’t have?
How about 40 days of non-stop communication between whites and blacks in Peoria on how to better understand and get along with each other, instead of hating each other?
I could think of so many other things that could be done over 40 days that would be more effective than “40 days of prayer”. But that wouldn’t get me reelected, now, would it? 
Earlier this week one of my alter-egos had this description of road conditions, more of a “recap”, really, from the last week, during a phone call to the Scott and Gin show.
First, the freezing rain starts to fall. It’s at this time the roads get slippier than Britney Spears’ sanity. Then, they start to ice up, making them slicker than Mitt Romney’s hair. At storms peak, the ice on the roads gets thicker than Robin Williams’ chest hair. At that point, driving becomes as treacherous as hunting with Dick Cheney. Your vehicle is able to move forward about as well as the Chicago Bears offense.
Eventually, all the ice starts to go away. In areas where it was warm enough to melt away, the roads then become sloppier than Paris Hilton on a Saturday night, and it eventually turns to a heavy slush, which can push your car to the right faster than having lunch with Hillary Clinton. Or, to the left faster than having lunch with Fred Thompson. Either way, you’re going where you didn’t want to go.
And that’s the best way to describe life on the roads in Central Illinois for the last week.
An upscale grocery market in New York committed a faux pas last week, advertising a special on ham for Hanukkah. Whoops. It got me to thinking about what other specials they may offer in this obviously insensitive grocery store:
and of course, they would also have specials in their sporting goods and clothing aisles:
Like I said, they MAY offer these specials. But probably not.
Scenario: I’m sitting at the computer, TV over my left shoulder is tuned into ESPN, Chris Berman and the boys are talking football. Diane is over by the vanity, preparing for the day.
I’m not paying attention, but apparently the announcers said something about Green Bay and a certain offensive position, bringing this retort from Diane:
“I don’t know if it’s a good thing to be the tight end for the Packers.”
Ah, yes, out of the mouths of babes. And she is a babe.
While checking some websites originating from my home state of Minnesota last night, I read several stories about the big blizzard that blew through the state. Of course, in the comments section of each newpaper story I read, the nutcases were out in force, just like they are everytime it gets cold.
I read the smarmy little “now what was that about Global Warming again?” and the inane “as I look out at my snow-covered car, I chuckle at the thought of ‘Global Warming’. Aren’t we supposed to be enjoying record high temperatures?”
People like these show their ignorance on so many levels it’s both laughable and tragic. First of all, it’s not “global warming”, it’s “climate change”, and anyone who knows anything about what’s been said would know that the warming of the oceans could cause drastic changes in the climates over land masses, both hot AND cold. Notice, I said “could”, not “will”, as I’m in the camp that says the science is probably right, but hopefully we can fix it.
Secondly, it’s December 1st in Minnesota, it’s SUPPOSED to snow. Morons.
We had this discussion over lunch the other day, and even my Republican friends say that if it was the GOP promoting climate change, and the Dems were the ones paying flat-earth “scientists” to say “it’s not true…don’t believe it!”, then those who are the loudest AGAINST the theory of climate change would be the loudest FOR it. C’mon, 20 percenters, even your beloved King George has admitted climate change is not only real, but that humans are contributing to it.
I watched the Democratic You Tube Debate a couple of months ago on CNN, and was much happier with the questions asked by normal citizens than those that are usually asked at debates by the TV talking heads.
Same goes for the Republican You Tube Debate on CNN this past week. I watched the whole thing, then I watched the re-run. So as not to distort what I felt I heard and saw, I immediately switched it off upon completion, not wanting to hear John King and Anderson Cooper break the whole thing down. I’d do the very same thing if I watched a debate on Fox (which I won’t, because I won’t watch Faux News). I don’t want the reporters telling me who “won” the debate and who “scored points”. I watched the damn thing, I can decide for myself.
And from what I saw and heard on the CNN You Tube Debate, Ron Paul is clearly the candidate from the GOP side that I’d have to consider voting for. His feeling echoes mine on the “war” in Iraq, and he has the guts to say it in front of a flag-waving, hyper-jingoistic crowd (save for his supporters who were there in Florida that night). But I don’t necessarily think he “won” the You Tube debate. I’d have to give it to Mike Huckabee, who had all the right answers for the conservatives who are looking for someone to back. Of course, what he believes in is a far cry from what I believe in, but that’s not the point. He is the best candidate if the GOP is looking for the true “conservative” to run for Prez in ‘08. Huckabee appeals to the scary Evangelicals, he’s been a governor (anymore, we elect Governors to President, not Senators and Congressmen), and most of his policies fit the GOP agenda. He did, however, lose some points from hardliners when the discussion turned to immigration, as some of the rivals tried to take shots at a couple of his policies.
My other thoughts:
WPMU Theme pack by