Another great resource from The NYTIMES Freakonomics blog:
Arthur Frommer Online: Fly/drive Ireland (in winter) for only $499 is again available to each of two persons traveling together, for bookings until September 28
There are lots of great travel ideas and bargains that I shouldn't even be considering right now... but I'll be glad that this site is around someday!
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
What I've been saying for years. :)
"People often talk about saving the planet. But really, the planet will be just fine without us, and the issue is more whether our species will be smart enough to survive the climactic and biological changes we are wreaking on ecosystems."
I've been reading the Freakonomics blog on nytimes.com lately, and I came across this article about Global Warming today. Besides finding the above quote (basically echoing the argument that I use against 'environmentalists' when I feel preached at), I thought it interesting to discover that the article was repeatedly suggesting, if not promoting the unpopular?/realistic?/scientific? argument that one person really can't do anything. The real point being that it's up to our governments to do anything that would actually have a planetary effect.
Maybe it's just my personality type, but I find that kind of logical/cynical honesty refreshing. I feel that the One-Person-CAN-Make-a-Difference!-type arguments are generally corny and not-powerful. Sometimes I even think that they hinder the development of the kinds of technologies and legislature that could actually help these situations, because people start to think that turning off the lights is all it'll take... In the end it can really dumb down the issue.
And it seems like these contributors are all sticking with the argument (for action against Global Warming) that [I think] you're stupid not to buy into - no matter what side of the political scale you weigh in on - and that is: No matter what the cause of Global Warming is, it is happening, and it could make life for humans difficult in years to come, so why not try to do something about it? The cause matters in terms of HOW we fight Global Warming (whether it's a naturally occurring temperature fluxuation or completely human-caused, or whatever...), sure, but WHY NOT do something about it either way? The only reason that I see for the massive onslaught of GW Doubters is $. (Dolla dolla bill, y'all.)
And I'll be pissed if in 50 years I find out that all the penguins had to die because the US was too scared to offend Big Oil to not consider the funding and development of alternative technologies.
I've been reading the Freakonomics blog on nytimes.com lately, and I came across this article about Global Warming today. Besides finding the above quote (basically echoing the argument that I use against 'environmentalists' when I feel preached at), I thought it interesting to discover that the article was repeatedly suggesting, if not promoting the unpopular?/realistic?/scientific? argument that one person really can't do anything. The real point being that it's up to our governments to do anything that would actually have a planetary effect.
Maybe it's just my personality type, but I find that kind of logical/cynical honesty refreshing. I feel that the One-Person-CAN-Make-a-Difference!-type arguments are generally corny and not-powerful. Sometimes I even think that they hinder the development of the kinds of technologies and legislature that could actually help these situations, because people start to think that turning off the lights is all it'll take... In the end it can really dumb down the issue.
And it seems like these contributors are all sticking with the argument (for action against Global Warming) that [I think] you're stupid not to buy into - no matter what side of the political scale you weigh in on - and that is: No matter what the cause of Global Warming is, it is happening, and it could make life for humans difficult in years to come, so why not try to do something about it? The cause matters in terms of HOW we fight Global Warming (whether it's a naturally occurring temperature fluxuation or completely human-caused, or whatever...), sure, but WHY NOT do something about it either way? The only reason that I see for the massive onslaught of GW Doubters is $. (Dolla dolla bill, y'all.)
And I'll be pissed if in 50 years I find out that all the penguins had to die because the US was too scared to offend Big Oil to not consider the funding and development of alternative technologies.
Monday, September 10, 2007
2nd place is the first loser?
Heavyweights in Chicago lived up to its name this year with Elite contenders from all over the nation. Going into the tournament Flaming Moe was the 2nd seed to Slow White - we'd seen Slow once in Boston (where Moe won) and once at Spawnfest (where Moe lost). Slow proved themselves the better team once again in Chicago, beating Moe handily, 15-7.
What this means: Unfortunately, barring some disastrous upsets early in the series, Moe doesn't have a shot at a #3 seed going into Nationals.
What this also means: Holy sh!t Moe! So you lost to the [now] #3 team in the nation... That makes us what? The worst team ever to be the 4th best team in the nation? Yeah...whuh? Hell no!
Moe has earned it's place at the top this season. Start owning your successes Moe! Realize who we are. If you're on Flaming Moe 2007, you're on the fastest, toughest, hardest working, best looking team in Mixed Ultimate. It doesn't get much better. It CAN'T get much better than this.
Sure, there's room for improvement, and we're going to make adjustments. But from here on out, for every point and every game, you're going to know - but more importantly, we are going to know - that Flaming Moe is on the field.
P.S. - I don't think that my readership extends very far into the Ultimate world (or the world in general) but for those of you that do read this; yeah, this is a rather candid and personal look at Flaming Moe, but I couldn't be prouder to be the first to tell you how well this team is going to play throughout the 2007 club series.
...So watch out.
What this means: Unfortunately, barring some disastrous upsets early in the series, Moe doesn't have a shot at a #3 seed going into Nationals.
What this also means: Holy sh!t Moe! So you lost to the [now] #3 team in the nation... That makes us what? The worst team ever to be the 4th best team in the nation? Yeah...whuh? Hell no!
Moe has earned it's place at the top this season. Start owning your successes Moe! Realize who we are. If you're on Flaming Moe 2007, you're on the fastest, toughest, hardest working, best looking team in Mixed Ultimate. It doesn't get much better. It CAN'T get much better than this.
Sure, there's room for improvement, and we're going to make adjustments. But from here on out, for every point and every game, you're going to know - but more importantly, we are going to know - that Flaming Moe is on the field.
P.S. - I don't think that my readership extends very far into the Ultimate world (or the world in general) but for those of you that do read this; yeah, this is a rather candid and personal look at Flaming Moe, but I couldn't be prouder to be the first to tell you how well this team is going to play throughout the 2007 club series.
...So watch out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)