I consider myself a pretty Eco-minded guy. I recycle my household plastics, cans and paper and avoid as much as I can to not contribute to polluting the ground or air. I won't buy anything in a '7' plastic container because reports show that more carcinogens leak into the food product than any other type of plastic. Hey, bottom line is I try to do the right thing and recycle.
Now, you would think that because state and federal governments want people to recycle and not pollute the Earth, that they would somehow promote recycling businesses and make it easier for people to recycle those batteries, cans of paint, old computers, etc.
So I had these old computers that I wanted to recycle. I've seen the reports that computers have mercury and other heavy metals that, if they find their way into a landfill, could contaminate ground water. I read this article about recycling and it gives a bunch of web sites to go to. The first one I go to is Earth911.org. It seemed the Staples not too far from me recycled computers. Great! I gather up the three old computers I had and drive them to Staples. Bring them in and set them up on the counter only to find out that Staples only accepts computers that have Windows Vista or Windows 7 operating systems, the two most recent operating systems at that time. According to the web site, Staples recycled computers period.
I thought about it a little later and realized that Staples wasn't recycling anything. They were refurbishing and reselling computers that were given to them, which is why they wanted the two most recent operating systems.
I let Earth911.org know what I encountered and they said they would check into it. As of right now, the web site shows that only the Staples stores in Southbury, Watertown and Danbury take computers for recycling. I called the Southbury store and they confirmed that they except any computer for recycling. Obviously, something has changed since I brought my old computers to Staples a couple years ago.
At that time, places like Staples and Best Buy also charged you $10 to "recycle" a monitor. My thought was, "Wait a minute. I'm trying to do the right thing by recycling and you want me to pay you for recycling my monitor?? You should be paying me!!" From what I can see today, recycling things at Best Buy is now free, as it should be. Check out this video to find out what happens to your stuff when you bring it to Best Buy!
As for other things like batteries, auto fluids, oil-based paints and such need to be brought to the Household Hazardous Waste facility and they're only open on Saturdays from 9-noon from mid-May until October. Personally, I think they can do a little better in this area. I'm not sure how many people use this facility but having it open year-round would certainly encourage more people to recycle.
And speaking of recycling, I'll end off with this video. Brrrr.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Guns Are The New Black!
Guns are all in the news after the recent shootings at an elementary school in Newtown, CT where 20 children and 6 adults were shot to death by a young man with apparent mental issues. I won't mention the man's name because I won't give him the satisfaction of having been remembered for such a heinous act (do you ever wonder why the word 'heinous' and 'heinie' are so similar? What does a bad act have to do with someone's backside? Or have I just answered my own question? I'm digressing...).
The media has jumped on its horse and shouts out in bold headlines that we need to come up with gun controls so that this never happens again. Everyone in political office from the President of the United States and down to the lowliest Mayor of all cities agree that something needs to be done.
My question is: What? What can be done? What laws can you possibly enact that would 100% prevent anything like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School from ever happening again? I think the answer is: Nothing.
I just shook my head when the media started mentioning that the shooter played violent video games in a dark, bunker-like basement, bringing up the ugly specter that video games were the reason he went on a killing spree. I don't know of a basement anywhere that isn't dark and bunker-like! There are many times when I've played "violent" video games in my dark basement and you don't see me checking myself into the nearest sanitarium or going out to kill masses of people (at least not in real life but within the virtual worlds of Dynasty Warriors and the various Medal of Honor games it's a different story! Digressing again...).
I'm sorry but to play a video game, listen to heavy metal music, read a book or comic book, watch a movie or television show and then go out and kill people there has to be something mentally wrong with you to begin with and all of the sanitizing of entertainment will not change that.
What's also missed is that, from what I've read, none of the guns were the shooter's to begin with. They were his mother's, who enjoyed going to the range and shooting. Legally. So now what, if you have a child that's seeing a psychiatrist you are no longer allowed to own guns or, if you do, must hand them over tout de suite?
New York recently passed a gun control bill. The article I read is here. Gov. Cuomo says, "This is a scourge on society...At what point do you say, 'No more innocent loss of life'?" Guns are a scourge on society? Not the criminals who use the guns to do the actual killing? Without guns, the criminals would use a knife or a bomb or a cannon or whatever else they could turn into a weapon to kill people.
We've always abhorred innocent loss of life and have a half million laws already trying to prevent that. It's a good soundbite for the Governor but if you think about it, it really makes no sense.
My favorite, though, is Sen. Jeffrey Klein who said, "This is not about taking anyone's rights away. It's about a safe society..." You'll notice he doesn't say a 'free' society but a 'safe' society. Contrary to popular belief, the two are different. In a 'safe' society, people have fewer rights than in a 'free' society but many people don't understand that. The one drawback to living in a 'free' society is that things like the shootings in Newtown WILL happen. You can certainly do your best to prevent it but the only true way would be to take all guns from every nook and cranny in this country (all 270,000,000+) and destroy them, leaving the police and armed services with guns and no one else.
It's a pipe dream. Never gonna happen.
Another article here has President Obama working hard to come up with proposals that Congress (Lord help us) can craft into some form of gun control law. President Obama is right when he says, "While there is no law, or set of laws, that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try."
By the way, Mr. President, thanks for letting the social security tax to go back up to 6.2% from 4.2% and thanks for giving the middle class people less deductions thereby making our taxes go up, even though you technically stayed true to your word that the tax amount wouldn't go up. Yeah, I'm being sarcastic and I'm digressing again.
At any rate, I have no problem reinstating the assault weapons ban. I have no problem only allowing civilians 7 round clips instead of the 10 round or more. I have no problem that mental health Doctors should report patients who say they are going to kill someone with a gun.
I just don't like it when A) politicians use the Newtown shootings (or any tragedy) to further their own career and/or agenda (which quite a few seem to be doing) and B) when they try to target extraneous stuff (like video games) as the cause when it isn't.
And that's my 2 cents.
By the way, Forbes ranks the best video games of 2012!
The media has jumped on its horse and shouts out in bold headlines that we need to come up with gun controls so that this never happens again. Everyone in political office from the President of the United States and down to the lowliest Mayor of all cities agree that something needs to be done.
My question is: What? What can be done? What laws can you possibly enact that would 100% prevent anything like what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School from ever happening again? I think the answer is: Nothing.
I just shook my head when the media started mentioning that the shooter played violent video games in a dark, bunker-like basement, bringing up the ugly specter that video games were the reason he went on a killing spree. I don't know of a basement anywhere that isn't dark and bunker-like! There are many times when I've played "violent" video games in my dark basement and you don't see me checking myself into the nearest sanitarium or going out to kill masses of people (at least not in real life but within the virtual worlds of Dynasty Warriors and the various Medal of Honor games it's a different story! Digressing again...).
I'm sorry but to play a video game, listen to heavy metal music, read a book or comic book, watch a movie or television show and then go out and kill people there has to be something mentally wrong with you to begin with and all of the sanitizing of entertainment will not change that.
What's also missed is that, from what I've read, none of the guns were the shooter's to begin with. They were his mother's, who enjoyed going to the range and shooting. Legally. So now what, if you have a child that's seeing a psychiatrist you are no longer allowed to own guns or, if you do, must hand them over tout de suite?
New York recently passed a gun control bill. The article I read is here. Gov. Cuomo says, "This is a scourge on society...At what point do you say, 'No more innocent loss of life'?" Guns are a scourge on society? Not the criminals who use the guns to do the actual killing? Without guns, the criminals would use a knife or a bomb or a cannon or whatever else they could turn into a weapon to kill people.
We've always abhorred innocent loss of life and have a half million laws already trying to prevent that. It's a good soundbite for the Governor but if you think about it, it really makes no sense.
My favorite, though, is Sen. Jeffrey Klein who said, "This is not about taking anyone's rights away. It's about a safe society..." You'll notice he doesn't say a 'free' society but a 'safe' society. Contrary to popular belief, the two are different. In a 'safe' society, people have fewer rights than in a 'free' society but many people don't understand that. The one drawback to living in a 'free' society is that things like the shootings in Newtown WILL happen. You can certainly do your best to prevent it but the only true way would be to take all guns from every nook and cranny in this country (all 270,000,000+) and destroy them, leaving the police and armed services with guns and no one else.
It's a pipe dream. Never gonna happen.
Another article here has President Obama working hard to come up with proposals that Congress (Lord help us) can craft into some form of gun control law. President Obama is right when he says, "While there is no law, or set of laws, that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there's even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try."
By the way, Mr. President, thanks for letting the social security tax to go back up to 6.2% from 4.2% and thanks for giving the middle class people less deductions thereby making our taxes go up, even though you technically stayed true to your word that the tax amount wouldn't go up. Yeah, I'm being sarcastic and I'm digressing again.
At any rate, I have no problem reinstating the assault weapons ban. I have no problem only allowing civilians 7 round clips instead of the 10 round or more. I have no problem that mental health Doctors should report patients who say they are going to kill someone with a gun.
I just don't like it when A) politicians use the Newtown shootings (or any tragedy) to further their own career and/or agenda (which quite a few seem to be doing) and B) when they try to target extraneous stuff (like video games) as the cause when it isn't.
And that's my 2 cents.
By the way, Forbes ranks the best video games of 2012!
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Yet More Classic Films!!
Happy New Year!!
Since there was no zombie apocalypse, rapture, civilization-ending meteor strike or take-your-pick of world-ending disasters; I get to continue writing and watch more classic movies!
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance - Wow. That's pretty much all I can say about this western which stars Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, Lee Marvin and Vera Miles. It also features Andy Devine (the voice of Friar Tuck in Disney's Robin Hood), John Carradine, Lee Van Cleef and Strother Martin among others.
Some of Stewart's early lines in the movie seem forced or scripted. He says a few things that, well, people don't talk like that. Even at that time. That aside it is a great movie. I would highly recommend it for anyone who hasn't seen it.
I was wondering if this movie was nominated for an Oscar but that was the year Lawrence of Arabia, The Music Man, Mutiny On The Bounty and To Kill A Mockingbird came out soooo...
It did get nominated for an Oscar for Best Costume Design, though. So there's that.
Metropolis - This German silent movie from 1927 is considered a classic and I can't argue with that. As of this writing I haven't quite finished the movie (watching the restored version on Netflix which is 2 1/2 hours long) but I can already tell you that the special effects are ridiculous good for that era. Some of the acting might be considered over-the-top but I understand that in the silent era actors and actresses needed to move their hands more and show large facial expressions in order to get their point across.
The music, also, is deeper than the solo piano that you constantly hear in any Charlie Chaplin short (been checking those out also and now understand why Chaplin is Universally revered. Good stuff!).
I was most surprised at the complexity of the story. Written for the screen by Thea Von Harbou, from his own novel, you can see the slightest parallel relationship between this story and Orwell's 1984. It more explores the relationship between workers (who build and keep the city humming, live in the dark depths and basically have no future) and the planners (who are the rich, live IN the city and have the easy life). There is no Big Brother but the workers are kept a close eye on and, of course, there's an underground movement for revolt.
I guess the movie was edited for time and, possibly content. The cut scenes were lost for many years and then found in South America. Well, most cut scenes. There are still scenes that are lost forever and the added scenes are beat up so you can tell what's what when watching the movie.
If you don't mind B & W silent movies then check it out.
Well, 2013 is upon us and still no flying cars! What the Hell??!! What's up with that?
Interested in nanotechnology? Go here. Enjoy the year and be excellent to each other!
Since there was no zombie apocalypse, rapture, civilization-ending meteor strike or take-your-pick of world-ending disasters; I get to continue writing and watch more classic movies!
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance - Wow. That's pretty much all I can say about this western which stars Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, Lee Marvin and Vera Miles. It also features Andy Devine (the voice of Friar Tuck in Disney's Robin Hood), John Carradine, Lee Van Cleef and Strother Martin among others.
Some of Stewart's early lines in the movie seem forced or scripted. He says a few things that, well, people don't talk like that. Even at that time. That aside it is a great movie. I would highly recommend it for anyone who hasn't seen it.
I was wondering if this movie was nominated for an Oscar but that was the year Lawrence of Arabia, The Music Man, Mutiny On The Bounty and To Kill A Mockingbird came out soooo...
It did get nominated for an Oscar for Best Costume Design, though. So there's that.
Metropolis - This German silent movie from 1927 is considered a classic and I can't argue with that. As of this writing I haven't quite finished the movie (watching the restored version on Netflix which is 2 1/2 hours long) but I can already tell you that the special effects are ridiculous good for that era. Some of the acting might be considered over-the-top but I understand that in the silent era actors and actresses needed to move their hands more and show large facial expressions in order to get their point across.
The music, also, is deeper than the solo piano that you constantly hear in any Charlie Chaplin short (been checking those out also and now understand why Chaplin is Universally revered. Good stuff!).
I was most surprised at the complexity of the story. Written for the screen by Thea Von Harbou, from his own novel, you can see the slightest parallel relationship between this story and Orwell's 1984. It more explores the relationship between workers (who build and keep the city humming, live in the dark depths and basically have no future) and the planners (who are the rich, live IN the city and have the easy life). There is no Big Brother but the workers are kept a close eye on and, of course, there's an underground movement for revolt.
I guess the movie was edited for time and, possibly content. The cut scenes were lost for many years and then found in South America. Well, most cut scenes. There are still scenes that are lost forever and the added scenes are beat up so you can tell what's what when watching the movie.
If you don't mind B & W silent movies then check it out.
Well, 2013 is upon us and still no flying cars! What the Hell??!! What's up with that?
Interested in nanotechnology? Go here. Enjoy the year and be excellent to each other!
Friday, December 28, 2012
Some Classic Films Finally Seen
I hope everyone reading this has had a good Christmas and will have a happy and safe New Year! I've had a couple of movies staring me in the face for a little bit now. Finally decided to watch them.
Fahrenheit 451 - Everyone knows Ray Bradbury's classic story. In a society where books are illegal and firemen start fires to burn the books, one fireman, Guy Montag, questions the way the society is run after a couple of incidents. I knew of the story but never actually read it. The movie has some interesting moments and it took me about an hour to realize that Julie Christie plays both Montag's wife, Linda, and the rebel Clarisse. At least now I can say that I've seen it.
1984 - Another dystopian society-type movie where false information and a "big brother" who watches everything reign supreme. I think I enjoyed this movie slightly more than Fahrenheit 451 but, again, having never read the book by George Orwell I had questions aplenty and the ending left me completely flummoxed.
Equilibrium - Influenced heavily by Fahrenheit 451 and 1984, Equilibrium stars Christian Bale as John Preston, policeman supreme in a society where emotions are suppressed by Prozium (the drug of choice for suppressing emotions!). More current and more action scenes make this movie easier to watch, if you can ignore all the illogicalities(?) that are present in trying to make this movie believable. Still, it was entertaining and I enjoyed it.
Reservoir Dogs - Never saw this Tarantino flick until the other night and it's pretty much like every other Quentin Tarantino movie you've ever seen. Interesting conversations then shocking bloody violence. You also have the end scene which reminds me a lot of the bar scene in Tarantino's Inglourious Bastards, with the same results. If you've never seen this movie, then check it out.
Some more classics that I still have to watch include Reefer Madness, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and Metropolis.
Fahrenheit 451 - Everyone knows Ray Bradbury's classic story. In a society where books are illegal and firemen start fires to burn the books, one fireman, Guy Montag, questions the way the society is run after a couple of incidents. I knew of the story but never actually read it. The movie has some interesting moments and it took me about an hour to realize that Julie Christie plays both Montag's wife, Linda, and the rebel Clarisse. At least now I can say that I've seen it.
1984 - Another dystopian society-type movie where false information and a "big brother" who watches everything reign supreme. I think I enjoyed this movie slightly more than Fahrenheit 451 but, again, having never read the book by George Orwell I had questions aplenty and the ending left me completely flummoxed.
Equilibrium - Influenced heavily by Fahrenheit 451 and 1984, Equilibrium stars Christian Bale as John Preston, policeman supreme in a society where emotions are suppressed by Prozium (the drug of choice for suppressing emotions!). More current and more action scenes make this movie easier to watch, if you can ignore all the illogicalities(?) that are present in trying to make this movie believable. Still, it was entertaining and I enjoyed it.
Reservoir Dogs - Never saw this Tarantino flick until the other night and it's pretty much like every other Quentin Tarantino movie you've ever seen. Interesting conversations then shocking bloody violence. You also have the end scene which reminds me a lot of the bar scene in Tarantino's Inglourious Bastards, with the same results. If you've never seen this movie, then check it out.
Some more classics that I still have to watch include Reefer Madness, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and Metropolis.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Why I voted for Rocky Anderson
In the recent 2012 Presidential election, there are many people who think that it was President Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney. That's it. Two choices. Pick one or the other.
Wrong.
Other people running for President included former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party, Physician Jill Stein of the Green Party and former Mayor of Salt Lake City Rocky Anderson for the Justice Party.
I've voted for third party nominees before. One of the questions I get is "Why would you waste your vote [on a third party candidate who is definitely going to lose]?"
My answer: I'm not "wasting" my vote if I'm voting for who I want to win. It's my choice, not someone else's.
In this past election I've heard a lot of "I don't really like either candidate but I have to vote for one of them."
My answer: Why? Why do you have to vote for a Republican or a Democrat if you don't like either?
Mainly because many people don't even realize that there are other candidates. We are bombarded in all media that it's Democrat or Republican, choose one. Most people, in general, are dependent sheep who are resistant to change, believe the media as if it were gospel, are too lazy to do any research ("Oh, I'm so busy I just don't have time!") or are bound by some unwritten familial rule that they must always vote Republican or Democrat. ("My family has voted Republican/Democrat for generations!") Even if they don't like the candidate!! How ridiculous is that?!
My proof? All we heard about the previous Congress is that they were do-nothing and useless and unable to agree on anything. So what do the people do? Re-elect 98% of that useless body of do-nothings! Why? Because those were the faces that were front and center on every tv channel in their respective states.
I would love to do a poll to find out why people vote the way they vote. The resulting book of stupidity would be amusing, if nothing else. Maybe a little sad, as well.
Now, with that being said, I'm NOT saying that you should never vote Republican or Democrat. What I'm saying is that there are other choices if you don't like either candidate. To me, voting for a candidate you don't like is "wasting" a vote.
I was surprised to find that Rocky Anderson was not on the ballot in every state so I decided to do some research. How exactly do you get on the Presidential ballot?
According to ask Yahoo.com, third party and independent candidates have to get voter signatures (in some states as many as 750,000!), pay steep filing fees and follow many complicated procedures to get on the ballot. Republicans and Democrats are automatically put on the ballot because they are the recognized "major" parties. You can also read the Wikipedia article regarding ballot access here. It has some interesting stuff.
Then I asked myself why you hardly ever see third party or independent candidates at Presidential debates. So I did more research and according to Wikipedia, the debates used to be sponsored by The League of Women Voters but in 1987 withdrew their sponsorship because the major parties (Republicans and Democrats) wanted to control just about every aspect of how the debates were run. When the LWV withdrew guess who stepped in to run the debates? Yep, the Republican and Democratic Parties assumed control of organizing the debates through the Commission on Presidential Debate (CPD), or , if you prefer, the Commission on Public Deception. You can read an insider account of the debate process by Ralph Nader here.
So, why did I vote for Rocky Anderson? Well, I didn't trust Mitt Romney as far as I could throw him! I figure when a guy is the Governor of a state (like Mitt was in Massachusetts) and doesn't even win that state in the election, you know he can't be any good. Obama won Mass. with 60.8% of the vote to Romney's 37.6%.
Obama, in my mind, didn't really bring the "change" that he ranted about in his first campaign so I didn't want to vote for him again.
I agree with MOST of what Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party say they want to bring to government. Especially ending the incessant bribery, oops, I mean lobbying that has become a way of the political system. Enough to give him a shot.
You want to bring change? Real change? Then stay away from the major parties. They just want to keep the same old wheel turning.
Justice Party
Rocky Anderson on the Issues
Wrong.
Other people running for President included former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson for the Libertarian Party, Physician Jill Stein of the Green Party and former Mayor of Salt Lake City Rocky Anderson for the Justice Party.
I've voted for third party nominees before. One of the questions I get is "Why would you waste your vote [on a third party candidate who is definitely going to lose]?"
My answer: I'm not "wasting" my vote if I'm voting for who I want to win. It's my choice, not someone else's.
In this past election I've heard a lot of "I don't really like either candidate but I have to vote for one of them."
My answer: Why? Why do you have to vote for a Republican or a Democrat if you don't like either?
Mainly because many people don't even realize that there are other candidates. We are bombarded in all media that it's Democrat or Republican, choose one. Most people, in general, are dependent sheep who are resistant to change, believe the media as if it were gospel, are too lazy to do any research ("Oh, I'm so busy I just don't have time!") or are bound by some unwritten familial rule that they must always vote Republican or Democrat. ("My family has voted Republican/Democrat for generations!") Even if they don't like the candidate!! How ridiculous is that?!
My proof? All we heard about the previous Congress is that they were do-nothing and useless and unable to agree on anything. So what do the people do? Re-elect 98% of that useless body of do-nothings! Why? Because those were the faces that were front and center on every tv channel in their respective states.
I would love to do a poll to find out why people vote the way they vote. The resulting book of stupidity would be amusing, if nothing else. Maybe a little sad, as well.
Now, with that being said, I'm NOT saying that you should never vote Republican or Democrat. What I'm saying is that there are other choices if you don't like either candidate. To me, voting for a candidate you don't like is "wasting" a vote.
I was surprised to find that Rocky Anderson was not on the ballot in every state so I decided to do some research. How exactly do you get on the Presidential ballot?
According to ask Yahoo.com, third party and independent candidates have to get voter signatures (in some states as many as 750,000!), pay steep filing fees and follow many complicated procedures to get on the ballot. Republicans and Democrats are automatically put on the ballot because they are the recognized "major" parties. You can also read the Wikipedia article regarding ballot access here. It has some interesting stuff.
Then I asked myself why you hardly ever see third party or independent candidates at Presidential debates. So I did more research and according to Wikipedia, the debates used to be sponsored by The League of Women Voters but in 1987 withdrew their sponsorship because the major parties (Republicans and Democrats) wanted to control just about every aspect of how the debates were run. When the LWV withdrew guess who stepped in to run the debates? Yep, the Republican and Democratic Parties assumed control of organizing the debates through the Commission on Presidential Debate (CPD), or , if you prefer, the Commission on Public Deception. You can read an insider account of the debate process by Ralph Nader here.
So, why did I vote for Rocky Anderson? Well, I didn't trust Mitt Romney as far as I could throw him! I figure when a guy is the Governor of a state (like Mitt was in Massachusetts) and doesn't even win that state in the election, you know he can't be any good. Obama won Mass. with 60.8% of the vote to Romney's 37.6%.
Obama, in my mind, didn't really bring the "change" that he ranted about in his first campaign so I didn't want to vote for him again.
I agree with MOST of what Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party say they want to bring to government. Especially ending the incessant bribery, oops, I mean lobbying that has become a way of the political system. Enough to give him a shot.
You want to bring change? Real change? Then stay away from the major parties. They just want to keep the same old wheel turning.
Justice Party
Rocky Anderson on the Issues
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)