Don't Tell Me What it Feels Like

I can tell that winter has returned, because now instead of giving the real temperature on TV, they start telling us what it "Feels Like".  And "feels like" is actually just an easy to understand replacement phrase for "Wind chill factor".

According to Wikipedia,

"Wind chill (popularly wind chill factor) is the perceived decrease in air temperature felt by the body on exposed skin due to the flow of cold air."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_chill

Scientists have worked out the wind chill factor temperature for each degree of real temperature, and at each increase of wind speed.  Wind chill temperature tells you how quickly you will get frostbite if your bare skin is exposed to that wind.  The wind chill calculation is helpful for people who are at risk of frostbite.

But, in my opinion, the wind chill readings are not well understood by ordinary mortals such as meteorologists and weather announcers on TV.  "Wind chill factor of -30c" does not mean "Feels like -30c".

When I was a kid up north walking to school in the middle of winter, my mother used to always tell me the temperature before I left the house.  She would say "It's 30 below zero!!"  as I walked out the door without either hat or gloves.  Thanks to her constant reminders, I have a pretty good idea what it "Feels Like" at all the different temperatures and wind speeds, while walking without a hat or gloves and my ears in the early stages of frostbite.  It is not what the weatherman says it "Feels Like".  A real -35c feels a lot colder than a wind chill factor of -35c.  Why?  If you have a wind chill reading of -35, the "real temperature (i.e. the one showing on the "real" thermometer) is only -19 when the wind is 50 kph.  That means if you can get out of the wind, you will be much warmer (or less cold).  But if the real temperature is -35, you have no place to go, it is -35 everywhere.  If it is only a wind chill of -35, there are lots of ways to get out of the wind.  Walk behind a bigger person, change sides of the street. walk backwards, etc.  Additionally, if the wind happens to be coming from behind, you only need to walk a little faster, and you avoid the wind chill.  And I have not yet even put on my hat and gloves, which happen to be wind proof anyway.

Lately I have noticed a new trend on TV, which is to substitute "Feels like" for the more meaningful term "Wind chill factor".  Don't tell me what it "feels like".  I know what it feels like, or given the real temperature and wind, I can figure it out.  Your job should be to tell me the real temperature, and the wind speed and direction.  Different people have different tolerances to cold.  Different people wear different clothes.  Cold does not feel the same to everybody.

On a motorcycle, the weather presenter's "Feels like" temperature is even less meaningful.  Partly because I have no exposed skin while riding my motorcycle on a cold day.  And partly because, even if there was some exposed skin, it is not exposed to the wind at the normal ground speed they measure.

So unless someone with a perfectly average human body is outside in the nude, standing still on top of a treeless hill, don't tell them what the temperature "feels like"  You don't know what it feels like.  Just give the real temperature, and the wind speed and direction, and let them work it out for themselves.

Picture: from http://www.examiner.com/article/wind-chill-brings-life-threatening-dangers-of-frostbite-and-hypothermia

The Lost Motorcyclists' Review of "Larry Crowne"

Last night the movie "Larry Crowne" with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts was on TV. I had wanted to see ever since it came out in theatres in 2011, but never got around to it.  I am always attracted to movies featuring motorcycles, and because of Mary Ann's Burgman scooter, I thought she might be interested in going to Larry Crowne.  But she wasn't, really.

When it came on TV I decided to watch it myself, as Mary Ann still had better things to do.  As I watched the movie, I thought I noticed in one quick scene, that Larry Crowne, played by Tom Hanks, was reading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance".  I wasn't sure, so I googled it and found out that it was true.  And at the same time I came across a conservative website that blasted Larry Crowne for being too liberal in its views.  They also awarded it with only a half "Reagan" (their unit of film stars), and even funnier, at the end of the review they changed their award to a half "Marx" as it was supposedly so extreme to be considered communist/socialist propaganda.

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/39351/wknd-box-office-transformers-dark-of-the-moon-larry-crowne-monte-carlo/

After Debbie Schlussel's harsh review of such an innocuous film, I simply had to do a blog about it.

What were Debbie's complaints?  First was that Larry Crowne was fired by UMart, which she perceived as a thinly veiled jab at Wal-Mart.  So apparently being against Wal-Mart brands you as a pinko, is that true?  Maybe it is. After all Mary Ann and I try to avoid going to Walmart, and extreme conservatives would label us at the very least as as liberals.  (Mary Ann's Wal-Mart boycott is more effective than mine, but still has failed to bring it to its knees.)  Many of the angry Tom Hanks hating commentators, on Debbie's blog, point out that Wal-Mart would never fire somebody like Tom Hanks, who served in the US Navy, and is regularly employee of the month.  Actually one of the conservatives' most beloved legends is that of the retired navy admiral serving as a humble Wal-Mart greeter.

Here is a link to a conservative website that in turn links back to my blog where I am poking fun at the right wing forwarded email about the retired admiral.  I guess my dry humour does not go over too well in some cases.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1841851/pg1

Tom Hanks was fired during a routine employee cull, where his lack of education got him a red flag.  Actually, not so much a lack of education, as it seems that even just enrolling in college would have spared him getting the axe.  Larry's understanding of the economic system is so weak that he thinks he was "downsized".

So the firing of Tom Hanks has all kinds of ideological implications.  The Conservative view of America is that serving in the military and  working Wal-Mart jobs are good enough to sustain the lifestyle of driving huge SUV's and buying monster homes in the suburbs. Tom Hanks finds out differently when he takes a course in economics at a local community college after he is fired.  And he does not learn about trickle-down free market capitalism either.  There's another good reason to give this movie a half a Marx.

Tom Hank's (I mean Larry Crowne's) education in economics ends up with him dumping his house and buying a scooter to save gas. Actually, to be fair, the idea of buying the scooter came before the economics course.

Another serious complaint about Larry Crowne is that it apparently reverses the Conservative stereotype of willingly subservient women and dominating macho men.  The romantic interests are Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts.  Tom hanks plays a very nice guy throughout the movie, as Tom Hanks often does.  Julia Roberts comes off as kind of bitchy, impatient, hard drinking, bossy, petulant, aggressive, demanding etc., and this does not sit well with conservatives who claim that she is actually playing the man's role, while Tom is playing the woman's.

Another target for conservative ire was the fact that Julia Roberts gave Larry Crowne an A+, seemingly just because she was attracted to him romantically.  Of course this is unethical (if it is true, which it may not be), and I don't think it's fair for conservatives to be harping on this point as if it is a flaw of liberalism. But grading people's speeches is always a bit of a subjective affair, and always open to accusations of favouritism. I once took a community college course, many years ago in computer programming,  where the professor let us give ourselves our own grade at the end. He questioned a guy sitting a few rows back on his self awarded C.  "Why did you give yourself a C?"  "Because I didn't fart too much during classes."  The C stood.  I gave myself an A, and he didn't question it, and I don't actually think it made a bit of difference to my life whether I got a C or an A in that course.

Here is a link to another review, in which "Larry Crowne" is called one of the best movies of the year.

http://brightlightsfilm.com/74/74happy_markel.php#.UnZEu0imc7w

Picture: I got my picture of Larry Crowne reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance out of this second review, where it was correctly attributed.  One of the commentators of the conservative blog called it "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Riding".  Does that mean one of my favourite books is actually a liberal book?  I really never considered the possibility until now, when a conservative does not get the title right, and the book appears as a prop in a liberal movie.

The Long Way Round: My Second Review

Since my first viewing of "The Long Way Round", Mary Ann and I have gone on a trip together to B.C.  The picture is our first night camping last summer.  Now might be a good time for a re-review of "The Long Way Round", which helped inspire aspects of our trip.


These days, just getting my motorcycle to the end of our street is a chore.  We're having a colder than normal wave of weather over southern Ontario right now, and once again I'm itching to get out on my bike.  To make matters worse, I've caught a cold and don't I want to go out at all, on foot or in a car.

So with Mary Ann away visiting her aunt for a couple of days, I dragged out the old DVD "The Long Way Round" with Ewan MacGregor and Charley Boorman.  I've seen it already, twice I think. Although I rarely like to watch movies more than once, I can make an exception for motorcycles.

I have not finished going through it yet. Yesterday I got as far as the "Road of Bones" in a marathon session.  But I will confess to taking a few short cuts over the bits I am not too fond of. I might as well list them here.  I fast-forwarded the wrestling, the gasoline in the eye, the naked massage, the eating of the animal's testicular parts, and some scenes of the orphanages.  That doesn't mean I'm heartless, or squeamish... or does it?  Anyway I was sick, and I had a lot of time to kill, and I can't ride my bike, and this video managed to make me forget all those things even though it's the third time through some of it.

To break up my TV watching, I checked up on reviews on the internet.  I can't agree with some of the strongest criticism.  Namely, that these are spoiled rich and famous guys getting free stuff, taking a nice vacation with fully staffed and equipped support vehicles, and they were still whining endlessly about everything, and anyone could do it.  On top of it all, they are accused of rushing through the countries they visit, barely seeing anything or talking to anyone along the way.  That is not my criticism, but it seemed to be a theme on the negative internet reviews.  (I should mention there were many more positive reviews.)

This quote is from

http://www.gnd.com.np/hnt/content.php?cms_id=191  (Hearts and Tears Motorcycle CLub, Pokhara Nepal) starts off with

The Long Way Round has been a blessing and a curse. Sure, it has created interest in adventure riding, but the programme gave a melodramatic impression of life on the road. Millionaire BMW salesman (and actor) Ewan McGregor had free bikes and equipment, an office full of support staff, a back-up truck for mechanics and groupies, and diplomatic contacts to smooth the way. The Wrong Way Round perhaps?

This is a relatively mild criticism.

You know what? I think I like to hear Ewan and Charley complaining.  Hey, I do enough complaining myself, so I can tell some genuine heartfelt complaining when I hear it.  It seemed to ring true, and also often had an element of humour thrown in.  To me it is not realistic to hear just the happy stuff on a trip that includes Russia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine.  I think Ewan and Charley made a good choice to complain on camera when they were feeling down, and the production crew were right to leave that much of it in the final cut.  (I'm sure some was edited out or even I probably couldn't have got through it.)  The things they complained about seemed all pretty real, and things that anyone might encounter.  Well, what about complaining about all the adoring attention they got in Kazakhstan then?  They were given police escorts, treated like celebrities, weren't they?  Actually, think about it for a minute.  The alternative to being treated like a celebrity is to be blocked at the border and get turned away. The alternative to a constant police escort is to have any car come beside you on the road and point a gun at you.  That was a tough place to get through, no matter who you are.  They also were being held up at endless formal ceremonies and performances when they were tired - we never got to see all those performances because it would be too much even for us TV watching couch potatoes to live through.  So I'm going to cut Ewan some slack there and agree that Kazakhstan could have been more interesting if it was a safe country that they could have travelled through on their own. It seemed like a vast majority of people would have been genuinely warm and welcoming.

And what about some of the sharper Internet attacks?  In one case it was by a KTM rider - OK I understand that, the KTM incident in episode one did not look good for the KTM company.  In another case it was by a fan of fantasy films like "Lord of the Rings".  I think anyone who really really likes Lord of the Rings, while directing sharp barbs at "The Long Way Round", should probably stick to more fantasy films. I think most people who have actually ridden a motorcycle (other than a KTM) should be at least able to sympathise a little with Ewan and Charley's difficulties.

Speaking of Kazakhstan, I find it kind of remarkable that Ewan and Charley made the entire round the world trip without a gun for self defence, while many Americans insist that you can't even go to the corner store or sleep in your bed without a firearm.  Actually, remarkable might be the wrong word, if remarkable means "strange or unusual".  But remarkable means to me "Something worth taking note of".  Actually, Ewan and Charley also did "The Long Way Down" through Africa without guns for self defence.  And it rings true with me, as I rode in Africa for a couple of years without a gun, I have done a bit of riding in Mexico, and lots of places in Canada and the USA with no gun. Except for one incident where someone pulled a gun on Ewan and Charley briefly, there was no need for guns. (And there has not been a need for me yet either) And even that incident in Kazakhstan would not have been made any safer with a gun, unless they were ready  to pull their own guns and kill everyone in the offending car.  But Ewan and Charley did nothing, the gun was put away and the car drove off.  So I score one point for a gun-free defence.

Those who accuse Ewan of being a "coddled" millionaire movie star, really need to take a look at their own "coddled" lives.  Chances are, they  can afford a bike (maybe three or four), and enough food to eat, and have a secure home.  If so, they are effectively just as coddled as Ewan, compared to 2/3 of the world.  And I think Ewan and Charley did a good thing to bring up the plight of orphans in their travel documentary.

Is This Really Criticising Jesus?

Quentin Tarantino's latest movie is Django Unchained, a revenge flick set in the times of southern slavery. On February 16, 2013, Saturday Night Live, hosted by one of the stars of Django, did a spoof on the film called "Djesus Uncrossed", where Jesus (or Djesus, or Jesus H. Christ with the H silent), came back from the dead to wreak vengeance on the Romans.

Was the SNL skit a spoof of the movie, or was it a spoof on God, or was it the most blasphemous skit ever in their history?  I'm sorry I missed that episode, but this skit is posted on the internet, here is one link.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2013/02/17/jesus-rises-on-snl.html

In my opinion, this was not really a criticism of Christianity, it was first and foremost a spoof of the film.  And I have seen almost the exact same theme in a Jesus skit done on "Family Guy" in the episode "North by North Quahog" in the skit "The Passion of the Christ 2: Crucify This".  However, "Family Guy" has done a lot of other things the fundamentalist Christians hate.

http://themaxeychronicles.blogspot.ca/2012/09/innocence-of-muslimsthe-anti-muhammad.html

For example (from this web page, showing how Family Guy is blaspheming Jesus)

A standing gag is that Jesus drives a Cadillac Escalade.
 In "North by North Quahog", he is seen in the car in an action trailer for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ 2: Crucify This and is portrayed by Jim Caviezel opposite Chris Tucker.
According to the National Gun Association's pro-guns film in "And the Wiener is...", Jesus  and Moses used guns to defeat the Romans.
During his second coming, shown in "Stewie Loves Lois", Jesus's stature is found to be short since science has proven that people were shorter in biblical times.
He also makes use of his powers to assist his golf game, as seen in Holy Crap. Although he is "Employee of the Week" at Happy-Go-Lucky Toys, he is on the golf course going for his fourth Birdie. He makes his swing, and the ball lands extremely close to the hole, on the verge of going in. Using his power, he gets the ball to go in.
In Go, Stewie, Go!, Jesus is on the side of the jocks in a dodgeball game against the meek.

So the basic line taken by Sean Hannity on Fox News is that Liberals are too chicken to take on the Muslims, so it's open season on Christians who don't fight back.

http://www.newshounds.us/20130213_sean_hannity_gutless_snl_writers_hate_christianity_but_are_scared_of_islam

If that were true, I suppose it would be a valid point against all these "attacks" on Christianity.  But none of these skits are attacks on Jesus or Christianity.  They are all attacks on the perverted form of Christianity that is "Born Again Christianity".  The Born Again Christians have basically undermined true Christianity by turning all the teachings of Jesus upside down, preaching hate, not love; war, not peace; wealth, not social justice.  If you are satirizing a perverted form of "Christianity", you are in reality speaking up for Jesus.

And, by the way, Fox News, "Family Guy" is a show on your own network, so how about attacking yourselves for blasphemy, instead of Saturday Night Live on NBC.

Nero Fiddled, but Did He Pay His Taxes?

Recently I watched an argument on Fox news about whether the rich should pay more taxes. In the shouting match, several key points were raised.

Patriotic Millionaire Eric Schoenberg leaves Fox Business host Stuart Varney speechless at 3:51 of this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdgQnl2tbhs

Stuart Varney belongs to "Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength", and was facing a panel on Fox news.

To summarize the existing situation:  The USA is in a fiscal crisis with high debt levels, and President Obama has noted that during the last 50 or so years, tax rates have declined, especially on the rich.  Obama campaigned on the argument that the rich should pay their fair share of taxes.

On the other side of the coin, the rich (represented by Fox News), argue that "it is not a sin to make money" and "making the rich pay will not solve America's debt crisis", and "Jobs are created by the rich, but not if they are taxed too much".

One point that was raised on this program happened when the host Stuart Varney told Eric that if he wanted to pay more taxes, to take out his chequebook and make a payment to the USA government.  And let the other rich people keep their hard earned money.  Stuart explained first, that taxes are not a charitable contribution where you pay whatever you want.  And secondly, if people did pay taxes voluntarily, then those who refuse to pay should not get free government services.  Eric mentioned a list of services including police protection, fire protection, and good roads.

When he brought up the subject of fire protection, one of the Fox Panel jumped in with the fact that there are more fires in slums where people don't even pay taxes.  Apparently rich people's houses don't burn down as frequently, and so do not use up resources from the fire department.  Logically I guess that means that poor people living in slums should pay more for fire services etc.

But wait a minute here.  I am not aware of any study that has determined that poor people living in slums use up more of the government services than rich people. (I'm not talking just about fire services, but police services too.  And roads and infrastructure such as drainage, water, electricity.)  I think it's the opposite, with rich neighbourhoods getting the best support.  I'm not arguing that that is right or wrong, but I cannot tolerate pure bullsh*t that says fire department funding goes mainly to slum dwellers.

Let's get into fire protection, then.  One of the hardest fires to fight, and the most dangerous, are forest fires that can ravage wealthy neighbourhoods as easily as the slums. Wealthy people have a tendency to place their homes in open forested areas, where they are very hard to protect from forest fires.  Poor people cannot afford these expensive home sites because of the cost of land.

A little research on the internet comes up with these facts.

Richard Branson's "cottage" burns to the ground. (Richard Branson is rich)

http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-branson-necker-island-fire-photos-2011-8?op=1

Firefighter lured to their deaths in ambush. This did not take place in a slum, but I'm guessing the gunman was not a millionaire either.  On the other hand, he could easily have been a Fox News watcher.  And Fox does support making guns more available.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/25/rochester-firefighters-ambush-condition.html

The Cerro Grande fire, New Mexico, 2000.  400 homes lost.  Also, the Los Alamos National Laboratory was damaged, which brings up the situation where fire fighters are fighting to save Government infrastructure, not just the private dwellings of taxpayers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Grande_Fire

Historically, inner city fires are a boon for the very rich, as slums can be cleared more easily when they are in smoking ruins, and somebody has to redevelop the now-valuable property.  Check out this story about Rome under Emperor Nero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome

Picture: Detroit home target for fire.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012971/From-Motown-Ghost-town-How-mighty-Detroit-heading-long-slow-road-ruin.html

Did Canadian High Schools Fail Justin Bieber?

A story came out a few days ago that needs some comment.  Not so much because of what happened, but because of the reaction in the media.

vancouver sun

Story: Justin Bieber says "Sixteenth Chapel" instead of "Sistine Chapel" on Letterman show.  Letterman says  "Canadian High Schools", implying that they are no better than American high schools (I guess since David Letterman went to an American high school.)

Facts: While David Letterman did attend high school (Broad Ripple High School in Indianapolis, USA), and describes himself as an average student, Justin Bieber does not go to high school at all due to his star status, show business, and travelling (mostly in the USA but also world wide and a few trips back to Canada).

Backup Stories: Two year ago, Justin Bieber got in another another spot of trouble in an interview where Bieber replied "I don't know what that means" in response to the question "Is Bieber German for Basketball, true or false?".  At that time there was another media storm of controversy, but not about Canadian High schools because it is a fairly well known fact that Bieber does not go to school, but has a tutor that follows him around on his travels.  Actually, if you saw the mobs that form wherever Bieber goes you would realize there is no chance for him to actually learn anything in a normal school setting.  Anyway, apparently it was another false media thrash, in that Bieber actually did know what "German" meant, and could prove it with previous video interviews and clips.  Not surprising, since Bieber's home town is near the most German part of Canada.  But an exceptionally stupid question has the potential to stump the interviewee, thus making a bigger story than the sensible questions.  That's why there are so many stupid questions in media interviews.

http://www.examiner.com/article/justin-bieber-goes-on-the-defensive-about-home-schooling-video

Speculation: Now I'm going to do some speculation of my own, since the media seems to not have that ability.  What could have caused Bieber to say Sixteenth Chapel?

- Loss of hearing.  Dave Letterman clearly said Sistine Chapel first, Justin was repeating what he said.  Maybe Bieber is going deaf.

- Making a Joke.  Bieber trying to be funny.

- Maybe Justin really does not know the name of the Sistine Chapel, but maybe it was because he was not listening, or asleep, when the subject was taught.  Not because the tutor or teacher taught "Sixteenth Chapel" by mistake.

- Maybe Justin's concentration was put off by the little wrestling match that had just finished between him and David Letterman.  The wrestling match was started by Dave, probably surprised Justin.  Makes me wonder more about David Letterman losing his marbles than it does about Justin's home schooling effort.

Now for my response to Dave.

I am not really trying to defend Justin Bieber, my interest is in defending education in general, and Canadian high schools in particular. I don't know about all high schools, but I'm guessing that art history in not "core curriculum" in most North American high schools. When I was a high school history teacher, I'm sure I could not tell you how many of my students knew the name of the Sistine Chapel.  And I could not tell you where I learned the name myself, but I have heard of it.  But one of my blogs has a photoshop of God on a motorcycle, and I used the face of God from a picture of the Sistine Chapel that I found online.  So I must have know about it by then.

And, this question is directed at you Dave: Where did you first learn about the Sistine Chapel?  Did you really learn about it in high school? Maybe they should have been concentrating on math, science and maybe media studies instead.

Is the entertainment business partly to blame for poor quality education, by taking youngsters out of school and making them role models and downplaying the need for education?

A good education is about the ability to think for yourself and ask questions.   It should not be all about memorizing names.

Dave was simply doing his job.  Asking stupid questions to try and get a reaction, (and when that does not work - physical assault).  And yes, it is a stupid question to ask Justin Bieber if he is going to get a tattoo of the Sistine Chapel.  Instead, do some research, find out he is home schooled, and ask him if he is getting a good quality education outside the school system.

Picture: Part of the Sistine Chapel art work. I think it's on the ceiling, but I'm not sure as I've never been there, and I was not taught about it in school.

What Can We Learn From Monty Hall?

There is game show called "Let's Make a Deal". Although this show has no pretensions of intellectualism, it has created a logical puzzle that fools nearly everybody. I heard about this puzzle on TV a few days ago, where a university professor presented the problem, and gave the correct answer, but he did not have time to explain fully. I was sure he was wrong, and continued to try to figure it out most of the night. By the morning, I was even more convinced he was wrong, so I decided to look it up on Wikipedia. You can find it in this entry "The Monty Hall Problem."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

This entry goes through several different mathematical proofs, only a few of which I understood. And now I realize I was wrong. I had thought it didn't matter, but when Monty offers to let you change to a different door, you should always take the offer.

But why do well educated, mathematically trained humans almost always get fooled by this problem, when apparently even a pigeon can typically figure it out with time? In my opinion, the deceptive part is that Monty Hall is consciously trying to help you, while every normal human instinct would be to fear that he is trying to beat you.

Here is the problem. You have three doors. One door has a car, the other doors have gag gifts. First you are asked to choose a door, and you can win what is behind the door you choose. Monty then opens a door with a gag gift, and offers you the choice of switching to the remaining (still closed) door. Should you switch or not?

Most people (including mathematical wizzes and "The Lost Motorcyclist") instinctively figure that the odds of winning the car are exactly the same, whether you switch or not. Au contraire, your odds of winning are 66% if you switch, and 33% if you don't switch.

This is all explained, with several different proofs in the wikipedia entry. If you wish to figure it out for yourself, take a few days before continuing to look at the answer.

Now are you sure it doesn't matter whether you switch or not? This is an explanation of why you should switch in my own words. You have a 33% chance of winning when you pick your door, but that leaves Monty with a 66% chance of getting the car behind one of his two doors. Then Monty gets a chance to look behind the other two doors, and he eliminates the gag gift. Then he offers you the chance to switch with his best door, even though it contains a car 2/3 of the time. That's why you should take it.

What I think we should learn from Monty Hall is that strangers are not always out to win. In some extremely rare situations, they want you to win. But it's probably pretty rare, so most of the time you'd still be better off being suspicious of "generous offers". And that includes leasing a car vs. buying, in case you don't win the car on "Let's Make a Deal".

Ticky Tacky Motorcycles All Look Just the Same

The word of the day is ticky tacky. "The Lost Motorcyclist" came to this word by a fairly obscure route. First there was this so-called "Toyota Prius ad" on youtube: "You bought a Prius???"

So actually this is not an ad, as I found out later, but from a TV show called "Weeds", which I had never seen, about a widowed suburban mom who is forced to turn to a life of drug dealing in order to avoid simplifying her lavish lifestyle. The theme song of this TV show is "Little Boxes", a 1962 folk song by Malvina Reynolds, making a social commentary about suburban sprawl

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVyVp0qMpOk&feature=fvst

The song refers to suburban houses as "little boxes made of ticky tacky, and they all look just the same."

Now that I am caught up again with pop culture, I am going to relate this back to motorcycling, where one of the great debates is about "ticky tacky motorcycles" looking all the same.

When Japanese motorcycle first came on the market in large numbers, it was about the same time the song "Little Boxes" was first written. And the general idea could also be applied to the cheaply mass produced Hondas, Yamahas, Kawasakis and Suzukis. Especially compared to the more expensive, more hand crafted bikes in limited quantities such as British, American, and Italian bikes. The BMW's, Triumphs, Harleys and Benellis were said to have more character than the Japanese machines.

The traditional motorcycles had a firm grip on the market, but it quickly began to slip for two reasons. First, the Japanese bikes attracted new customers to the market because they were easier to use and cleaner (as well as cheaper). So Honda and Yamaha did not have to win over the hard core bikers to stay profitable. Then finally the experienced motorcyclists caved in as the Japanese bikes established themselves with new dealers and new riders who fearlessly traveled the country without needing to overhaul their bike every few days.

Although by reputation, the Japanese bikes were "ticky tacky" (shoddy materials and construction), the truth was they were actually made of very good quality materials. Eventually all motorcycle makers had to copy Japanese design and manufacturing methods or go out of business.

But today the debate still rages on. The true building material for motorcycles is seen to be iron, chrome, steel, rubber and leather. Plastic, aluminum, and vinyl are more "ticky tacky". You can see the difference right away in my mass produced Kawasaki Vulcan, which has chrome-looking plastic all over the engine. Also plastic fenders, seat base and other odds and ends. But it is about half the price of an equivalent machine with more character.

Let's face it, mass produced items are always going to come up a bit short on "je ne sais quoi", whether they are houses, or motorcycles. But the fact is, not all mass produced items are made of ticky tacky. Or, maybe ticky tacky can sometimes be more reliable and work better than old fashioned materials.

Picture. This motorcycle may have been considered a cheap mass produced item in 1958, but today is a rare and exotic classic. The 1958 Honda Benley C90 from this Honda website:

Zen saying: Wait 1000 years and see how it looks.

CKXT's New Format as SUN NEWS, is All Right Wing

There is no way this is not going to be a rant, as one of my TV channels, CKXT, has been reformatted as a Fox style 24 hour right wing news channel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CKXT-TV (Quote from Wikipedia)

"The simulcast began at the same time Sun News itself launched, at 4:30pm ET on April 18, 2011.

That said, it is not presently clear if this simulcast will be maintained on a long-term basis. Unlike specialty channels, CKXT cannot presently avail of subscription fees. If the new news channel proves popular, with subscription revenue, Quebecor might have an incentive to move to a specialty service-only model. Conversely, if fee-for-carriage were implemented this could change; further, CKXT can solicit local advertising in Toronto, which national specialty channels generally cannot do."

I subscribe to Rogers basic cable in Kitchener, which includes about 36 channels including CPAC and French channels, a right wing Christian 24/7 channel, and a shopping channel. As a customer, I resent losing one more of the entertainment channels in favour of a biased right wing so-called news channel.

I called the Rogers toll free number and received sympathy, and the information that other people had been calling to ask about the change, and that the CKXT format changed on April 18, 2011 (while I was away from home).

I'm not going to criticize the CKXT content right now, except for one thing. This morning, I heard a news host (Possibly Theo Caldwell) comment that "liberals think we conservatives are so stupid we can't spell CBC." That comment itself is stupider than not being able to spell CBC.

My options right now are

• call Rogers to see if I can get either a discount or another channel to replace CKXT
• drop my cable and go for a satellite dish
• drop my cable and use rabbit ears.
• keep on paying the same price and remove channel 15 from my remote channel surfer.

At least CKXT is not getting subscription money from the Basic cable, but it's still annoying to keep paying the same for one less watchable channel.

Viral Video Gone Wrong: Eugenie Harvey

By The Lost Motorcyclist, April, 2011

I am trying to make sense of an awful video advertisement produced by an environmental group called 10:10, which was trying to get people to reduce their carbon footprint through video public service announcements (or ads). So here I have written my own opinion on the post mortem of that train wreck.

One of the trends in advertising today is viral videos. Instead of running your ads on TV, at huge cost, you can leverage them by putting them on Youtube, and hope they become "viral", meaning millions of people forward links to their friends. Ultimately, popular viral videos even make it onto the regular TV news programs. This gives them high impact and advertising for little cost. Unfortunately, in order to go "Viral", your ad must have a big enough impact on a viewer to make them want to tell their friends about it. So your ad needs to be extra edgy, with content shocking beyond what you can see on network TV. And there may even be slight temptation to not seek everyone's approval of the ad before posting it, for fear of losing that edge. But there is a possibility of a backfire, which can destroy your campaign, with no hope of ever pulling the viral video back out of circulation. Because a viral video, if it takes off, can be like an uncontrolled nuclear reaction.

This is a story of a young, inexperienced, environmental PR group, directed by Eugenie Harvey, trying to run an ad campaign with a shocking video advertisement. They obviously were looking for a certain Monty Pythonesque humour, and they did achieve that, but it was completely at odds with the goals of the campaign.

Ten-ten realized very quickly that the ad was a mistake. They lost some important sponsors over the release. Because they were an environmental group, they also damaged the credibility of other the people working for the environment. In the end,  Fox News caught up to the ad and broadcast it to America. The propaganda value from something like this is so valuable to the anti-environmentalists, that Fox News risked going over the bounds of good taste to make sure everyone saw it. And of course, Fox would need to mention that everyone in the environmental movement is really like this underneath their fake exterior disguise. (in case you didn't know, Fox News is anti-environmentalist)

The Fox news bit starts with the typical call to "Outrage!" and shows the clip, with appropriate conservative anti-global warming commentary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqTd0g48ZY4 (there is a graphic violence warning)

Full original ad here. (contrary to Fox's statement, they probably did show the worst of it.)

http://artthreat.net/2010/10/1010-campaign-heads-explode/#

Here is an article about 10-10, the group that launched the ad. It is a British environmental group I never heard of before this Fox News video, which appeared on October 10 last year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/31/eugenie-harvey-10-10

This "humour" may pass as funny to the younger generation in Britain, I suppose. But, humour does not travel well. I have had discussions with some of my kids (even while adults) about "too much violence on TV" and they think I'm an old fuddy duddy.

Given the huge negative impact of ads like this, I am a little bit tempted to think it was a set-up by a covert anti-global warming operative. But the only suspicious background I could dig up was that Eugenie Harvey, the director of 10:10, had earlier worked for FoxTel (Owned by Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News Channel).

My own final verdict is it was probably a genuine attempt at making a pro-environment video go viral, but that backfired big time.

Picture: Randi Zuckerberg (of Facebook) and Eugenie Harvey (of 10:10), ironically discussing ways of leveraging small non-profit advertising impact back in June 2009. On this blog:
http://www.chroniclebooks.com/blog/2009/06/22/all-for-good-arianna-huffington-randi-zuckerberg-and-eugenie-harvey/

Howard Stern vs. Amanda Peet

By The Lost Motorcyclist, March 2011

Amanda Peet is an American actress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_peet

What caught my attention was a youtube video posted where Howard Stern blasted her for several full minutes. After listening to the rant, I was curious as to the reason or the context of the rant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zur0PR_-gPo

Early on in the speech, Howard says "They go on there and they clearly have nothing to talk about". An ironic statement, in my opinion.

In case you don't know who Howard Stern (the radio Shock Jock) is, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_stern.

"In May 1987, Stern recorded five television pilots for Fox when the network planned to replace The Late Show hosted by Joan Rivers.[65] The series was never picked up; one executive having described the show as "poorly produced", "in poor taste" and "boring".[66] Stern hosted his first pay-per-view event on February 27, 1988 named Howard Stern's Negligeé and Underpants Party."

also

"In February 1991, Stern released Crucified by the FCC, a collection of censored radio segments following the first fine issued to Infinity by the FCC over alleged indecency.[69] He released a third video tape, Butt Bongo Fiesta, in October 1992 that sold 260,000 copies for a gross of over $10 million."

Howard's approach is soft (or hard) core porn mixed with racist hatred, and a determined campaign to say things that normal people keep to themselves. He also feels that he is some kind of crusader for free speech, and a supporter of lesbian rights. Most women who appear on his show have to get naked and do things to him. So that's a sum up of Howard Stern.

Now why does he take offence at Amanda Peet's appearance on Letterman??? It seems that his own beautiful model wife appeared on Letterman earlier, and didn't do so well. So Howard decided to attack another person appearing on Letterman and Amanda Peet was at the wrong place at the wrong time. For one, apparently her parents were rich. Obviously that would not be enough for a rant like this, lots of people are born rich, and I don't hold it against them. I don't even hate Howard for making $10,000,000 of "Butt Bongo Fiesta". But the key point for Howard was when Amanda got into a fit of giggles and could not clearly state the concept of the movie she was promoting at the time. When Letterman asked her to set up the clip from the movie, she said "Now sell, Amanda, sell" and "Clearly I don't belong here". Then got into a fit of giggling, where Dave tried to fill in the background for her. So actually in a way I kind of see Howard's point, that she did not do a very good job of "selling" the movie.

But here is the point of view of a guy who lives in a more real world than Howard Stern. In Howard Stern's world, famous movie actresses take off their clothes when he tells them to and act out his fantasies on TV and radio. This, so far anyway, has never happened to me or anyone I know. I personally would be OK with being in the same room as Amanda Peet, and if she were to giggle uncontrollably at one of my jokes, I would not be offended. Even if the giggling was totally fake. And I bet a lot of guys I know would be the same way. But then I never have been paid ten million for doing a tape called Butt Bongo Fiesta, either. So my standards are pretty low.

Now let's assume I am the typical guy going to see a movie. How do you, as an actress in the movie, sell that movie to me? Well for starters, forget about telling me that the movie is about "An old Grandmother that people are waiting for her to die so they can get her apartment." There is no way you can say that to make me want to see that movie. On the other hand, if Amanda Peet is fun to watch on Letterman, and is laughing and maybe a little nervous, I might be tempted to go, especially if Mary Ann (who would never want to hear Howard Stern in a million years) want to see it too.

So I have watched Amanda Peet in a few movies, example "Saving Silverman" where she is truly a quite unlikeable person, and maybe Howard is confusing her character onscreen with her own personality. Or maybe she refused to appear naked on his show. Or maybe something else set him off.

Howard makes his fame by saying whatever comes into his mind, and his combination of profanity laced, hate filled rants, mixed with his profanity filled sexual musings seem to appeal to a lot of Americans, and many Canadians too. But I would not call it "having something to say" as much as it is simply pushing the boundaries of good taste. On David Letterman's Late Show, you have to appeal to a wider audience, and do it with taste and style. It seems to me Amanda Peet is about as entertaining as anyone, and way more entertaining to me than Howard Stern's own appearances on the talk shows to promote his satellite radio network.

Here is the offending video, (Peet on Letterman) and the selling of the movie starts at 4:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg_2XkgIRYU

And as a counterpoint, here's Howard's wife on Letterman, probably the original trigger for Howard Stern's hate filled rant. Somehow, Howard does not come off sounding as good as he thinks he is. Anyway, that's what I think. His wife also happens to look a little bit like Amanda Peet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpxpEKLb_Ic

Picture: A frame grab of Amanda Peet's face from My Damn Channel featuring comedian David Wain in a Wainy Days sketch.

Will Watching Fox News Mean Jared Loughner can Plead Insanity?

It's time for an update on the Jared Loughner case. He is the crazy guy who allegedly shot and killed people at a Democratic rally in Tucson in January 2011.

In the early hours of the case, many liberals and Democrats said that the killing was because the political rhetoric was too heated, and called for toning it down. Especially Sarah Palin, who had cross hairs on her website targeting the primary victim, Gabrielle Giffords. And because Gabrielle had mentioned these cross hairs long before the shooting, saying that "there would be consequences". And the whole issue was already an open sore because of various liberals, Democrats and lefty types who had already been shot and killed in the last few years.

Again in the early going, the conservatives fought back hard, claiming that Jared Loughner was in fact a left wing liberal, and that rhetoric on the liberal side was just as violent as that on the right.

Now we have had three weeks to settle down. In that time, the rhetoric about shooting liberals has been toned down, and we know a little bit more about the case.

He may plead insanity, and if so, certain things need to be proven.

Detectives have been able to determine that Jared intended to perform a political assassination, and that he was aware that the death penalty was associated with this act. That's because he looked up these search terms on his computer before committing the murders. This makes him appear sane (legally).

On the other hand,

"if delusional disorder caused Loughner to believe that when he attempted to assassinate Rep. Giffords and shoot the others, he was acting on orders from God, or that the shootings were necessary to save the universe, mankind, or himself for that matter, the insanity defense remains viable. "

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-29/is-jared-loughner-crazy-evaluating-the-insanity-defense/

Would an insanity plea be possible if  "the the shootings were necessary to save the universe, mankind, or America"?   If so, then the constant refrain on Fox News that the Democrats only purpose is to destroy America, could have some bearing on the case. It may make the difference between a death penalty and an insanity defence.

It raises the possibility in my mind that Jared Loughner can shoot people and plead insanity because he listened to the most popular news channel in the country.

Advertising Standards of Canada Skewer Themselves in an Ad

Last night I watched a commercial on TV that I am going to nominate for an academy award in the category of Fearless Advertising. This ad was an example of "That Idea is so Crazy that it just might work". I did not notice at the time which program carried the ad, as it only struck me this morning. But the only program we watched on TV last night was "Tipping Point" by David Suzuki. And this program was about the Alberta Tar sands.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/entertainment/movie-guide/Oilsands+debate+pushes+Alberta+documentary+deadline/4173975/story.html

The advertisement was a silly one from the Advertising Standards of Canada, where a teenage girl is caught by her father, sneaking out of her bedroom window, and she hires three mimes to announce that "I was going to the library". The punch line of the ad is "Dressing it up doesn't make it true". The video of the ad is on this link, in case you have not seen it.

http://www.adrants.com/2011/01/canada-calls-for-truth-in-advertising.php

Honestly nothing clicked for me right away, but later I remembered. I have written a blog about this organization, about how they OK'd an advertisement claiming toxic sludge was "like yogurt". So according to the Advertising Standards, that's not a lie. But according to most people it is a lie.

http://lostmotorcycles.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-is-oil-sand-sludge-essentially-like.html

After a ruling like that, they should hang their heads in shame, caught in the act of lying. But apparently that's not the way advertising people think. Their motto must be "When caught in a lie, repeat it louder and longer, right to their face".

It seems they have an actual code of conduct, which you can read online. I assume it is kind of a study guide to deception for advertising people.

http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/the14Clauses.aspx

Their advertisement is a perfect parody of what the Advertising Standards people did themselves. Caught in a lie, they called in the mimes and the party balloons to announce that they never lie. And of course they must run it during an Alberta Tar sands documentary. Why not? Despite what they say, all advertising is based on "Dressing it up will make it true"

The documentary itself was quite hard hitting about the oil sands, and I would think the oil companies will not be liking it very much. It exposed their fraudulent water quality monitoring. Of course, what can you expect when the only people to monitor the water are hired by the oil companies. They apparently did no monitoring, and claimed that any sludge in the Athabasca river was naturally occurring because the river flowed through bituminous soil, and always had. Also, there were no toxic outflows into the river, as all water borne toxins were held back behind dams in toxic pools. Finally, an independent scientist got tired of being lied to by the oil people and did a scientific investigation where he found a way to separate the naturally occurring toxins from those falling out of the air from the processing plants. His evidence was enough for our Conservative Environment Minister, John Baird, to admit that we didn't have exactly a "World class" pollution monitoring system. And knowing the Conservatives are funded by and based in the oil area, that is quite a humbling admission.

Another part of the documentary I found interesting was the connection to James Cameron and Avatar. I did not notice when I saw the movie, but several of Avatar's depictions of mining on the planet Pandora were inspired by the Alberta Tar Sands, apparently done by a background artist from Alberta. And so the movie was similar enough to the Tar Sands that James Cameron later made a trip to Alberta to see the Tar Sands for himself. I didn't know about that tie in when I saw the movie last year. But it was very clear after seeing "Tipping Point". When I was watching Avatar, I was thinking it was based on Talisman Oil in the Sudan, where they actually helped the Sudanese government bomb natives who got in their way. That is obviously not happening in the Canada Tar Sands project.

My 2 blogs about Avatar:
http://lostmotorcycles.blogspot.com/2010/01/judge-for-yourself-if-avatar-3d-is.html
http://lostmotorcycles.blogspot.com/2009/12/subliminal-message-of-avatar-3d.html

Fox TV News uses the Munchhausen Trilemma

I never used to be very good at lying, and with recent advances in that art form I am getting left even further behind. Here are three recent examples.

In an unsolicited phone call, I was told that my computer was being monitored, and I had viruses, and that I should to download software from a given website. I asked if this was a prank call, and I was told, no, this is serious, and to call back at 1-201-338-6180 for confirmation. I then asked if they could tell me what operating system was on my computer, and was told it was Windows. I answered that it was actually Linux, and the reply was "Sorry, wrong number *click*"

Yesterday I was given a wind power petition to sign. I was a little suspicious of the obviously conservative wording. I saw in the fine print the petition had been initiated by John O'Toole, MPP Ontario, but it did not mention party affiliation. I asked which party he was in and I was told he was in the Liberal party. When I checked the Internet later, he was in the Conservative Party, (according to his own web site).

On Monday night, I watched a Fox video clip, where Megyn Kelly was expressing outrage about a Democrat in the US Congress who was referring to the Nazi "Big Lie" theory. That is the theory that if you tell a big enough lie often enough, it will be believed. The Fox reporter said repeatedly that the Fox News Network never used Nazi imagery for their opponents. Then Jon Stewart, of the Daily Show played several clips where Fox News was calling liberals Nazis. I have certainly seen enough of that myself, that I didn't need John Stewart to prove it. Megyn Kelly was using the Nazi "Big Lie" theory to prove that they didn't call other people Nazis.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201101200037?lid=1153136&rid=58389619

There are so many lies, so openly and confidently told that we can no longer pretend to ignore them just for the sake of peace and quiet.

I came across an interesting dilemma (or at least trilemma) mentioned on the TV show "The Big Bang Theory", a weekly comedy show about four brainiacs and one hot blond. One interesting aspect of the show is that they do sometimes resort to un-dumbed down dialogue. So according to this show, apparently the Münchhausen Trilemma, explains why it is difficult or impossible to ever know the truth. And by extension, maybe there is also no such thing as lying.

Season 2 episode 1. (In this video at 7:00) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LnXgsEtqKU


From Wikipedia: The Münchhausen Trilemma

"If we ask of any knowledge: "How do I know that it's true?", we may provide proof; yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen Trilemma is that we have only three options when providing proof in this situation:

* The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
* The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)
* The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)

The first two methods of reasoning are fundamentally weak, and because the Greek skeptics advocated deep questioning of all accepted values they refused to accept proofs of the third sort. The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options.

In contemporary epistemology, advocates of coherentism are supposed to be accepting the "circular" horn of the trilemma; foundationalists are relying on the axiomatic argument. Not as popular, views that accept (perhaps reluctantly) the infinite regress are branded infinitism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_Trilemma

So now is it finally clear why nothing is ever clear?

Picture: From the movie Adventures of the Baron Munchausen, after whom the trilemma is named.

Did "Star Trek" have a Liberal Message?

In 1965, a television series called "Star Trek" began, and although it was cancelled after three seasons, it is by no means forgotten today. That is because, after the show was cancelled, its followers banded together to try and bring it back on the air. These followers have been called "Trekkies". As they grew in number, they helped bring about spin off movies, and several spin-off TV series of the same name. Now, because there are so many descendants of Star Trek, you would normally write "Star Trek TOS" for "the original series". I won't do that here, as TOS for me is the only real Star Trek, I'm not really considering the rest, which may or may not have the same philosophy.

The Trekkies never believed in Star Trek as the literal truth, although that concept was explored in the 1999 movie "Galaxy Quest". However, they do believe that the actors themselves existed, and the stories told about them, such as Lt. Uhura being asked in person by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to remain on in her role as communications officer after the first season. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhura

Star Trek was the first TV show in America to feature a black woman as anything other than a maid, and the first to show an interracial kiss. And it's message was liberal and multicultural in many other ways.

Like the Bible, Star Trek has a canon that has grown around it, comprising all the known information about their universe. Even things that were not revealed in the original series. For example, Lt. Uhura's first name. Or the blueprint plans of the starship Enterprise. Or the complete lexicon of the Klingon language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_canon

Star Trek presented a philosophy, a vision of the future, and a moral code. All were based on science and reason rather than magic and superstition. The positive message of the program was hope for the future of all mankind. This was explored through many episodes depicting variations this vision of the future.

The future vision of Star Trek can be summed up as this. Humans discover space travel, and begin exploring space, moving Earth colonists onto an infinite number of new uninhabited, but habitable planets. There are other non-human planets with intelligent life already, some primitive, which are left unharmed (hopefully) after a scientific investigation. Others are hostile, and advanced technologically, and are a direct threat to Earth's Federation of planets. For example, the Romulan and Klingon empires.

Star Trek was introduced just a few years before man finally stepped on to another planet, and Star Trek's vision of the future assumed that man would achieve true space travel. At the time of the original show, it did not seem so impossible, but soon after landing on the moon it became apparent that the human race was at least a thousand years away from travel to other stars. Soon after, a new philosophy had to replace the "space travel" idea. It seemed that the only way to ever achieve space travel was to first ensure that the planet Earth was not destroyed, giving us time to develop this new technology. The idea developed that we were already travelling through space on a ship called "Earth", and we needed to treat it like a space ship, meaning to keep it from being polluted and make sure we don't run out of fuel until we reach a refueling station or discover independent space travel.

The Star Trek moral code was just as important as its vision for the future. It started with the acceptance of different races as equals, and with all countries being part of a united world government. This would bring peace to Earth, and was the best way for Earth to move forward into space exploration.

A second part of the Star Trek moral code was stated in the Prime Directive.

That there would be no interference with any civilization that had not discovered interstellar travel. This of course was a reference to neither colonizing nor exploiting primitive civilizations.

By examining many other episodes, it is quite easy to fill in the rest of the moral code for Star Trek. Do not attack anyone who has not attacked you. And if they are a primitive civilization, do not strike back, simply retreat. No torturing prisoners. No brutal punishments, no revenge. Actually seems more or less in keeping with a peaceful version of either Christianity or some other Earth religion, with the superstition and supernatural removed.

Of all the episodes of Star Trek, I do not remember one where there was any terrorist attack on the Federation of planets. I don't think that this was because the writers had not thought of it. Terrorism was inconsistent with the rules of Star Trek. In Star Trek, those who would do you harm have giant space warships, and know how to use them. If they do not have space travel, then they stay home, protected by the prime directive, and have no reason to hate you because they don't even know you exist. You might say that terrorism comes about because you ignore the Prime Directive. It is the result of exploiting and interfering with primitive cultures. I don't remember terrorism being an issue when our enemies were Germany, Japan, or the USSR.

Was Star Trek an example of Moral Relativism? I guess its debatable. In the case of primitive cultures, it was quite clear. No missionaries were sent down to tell the people their culture was evil. That was an example of Star Trek's Moral Relativism - morality is relative to the culture, not to be judged evil by another culture. In the advanced cultures of Kilingons and Romulans, there were no missionaries either, as they would have been quickly slaughtered. The contrast in morals was obvious, though never put into words. The Federation was not out for war and conquest, while their enemies were.

Within the crew of the Enterprise, there was little chance to explore moral relativism. All the crew members were loyal and seemed to have the same values, regardless of their race or country of origin. The misfit was Spock, a Vulcan who was half-human. But even there his relative difference was mostly in use of self-control and logic rather than violence and emotion.

The Ethics of Star Trek, from http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/User:Ottens/Phase_II

"Gene Roddenberry, a man who was very open-minded about the customs of different cultures, said: "[By the 23rd century, we] will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. [We] will learn that differences and attitudes are delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear". Roddenberry certainly must have supported cultural relativism, which, according to James Rachels, a contemporary American ethicist, is a theory that makes six basic claims:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another.
3. The moral code of our own society has no special status; it is merely one among many.
4. There is no "universal truth" in ethics - that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all people at all times.
5. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society; that is, if the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action is right, at least within that society.
6. It is mere arrogance for us to try to judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures."

Picture: Mr. Spock. Half human, half Vulcan I consider him to the real moral leader and inspiration despite his status as second in command to Captain Kirk.

Another Cure for Winter: Dagmar Midcap's Boss Hoss Video

I have seen a few Boss Hoss motorcycles around, and in my opinion they are excessive. So now I have my opinion on record, I want to say something in general about the way we describe big motorcycles vs. small motorcycles, because it has a lot to do with how easily we are attracted to them. Statements of huge horsepower tend to be be backed up with fact, and we insist on it. But statements of nimble handling and ease of maneuvering are allowed to be hugely exaggerated, and we don't care.

In this video, from Driving Television season 1, Dagmar Midcap takes a Boss Hoss for a ride. Although she is rather small, she appears to have no difficulty handling the Boss Hoss.

My only problem is with the use of words and descriptions, that in this case give an unfair advantage to larger bikes. If we continue to insist that bikes live up to the horsepower claims, but we never insist they live up to ease of handling claims, bikes will tend to get bigger. These attitudes may even explain why we have so many excessively large motorcycles.

First the description:

"She's smaller than the average motorcycle rider, and she handles the Boss Hoss with ease. And that's something we've been seeing more and more of."

Dagmar: "Acceleration is phenomenal, The small block 350 V-8 has 405 foot pounds of torque. And the larger 502 engine, well that has a pavement pounding 567 foot pounds of torque. The Boss Hoss is a lot easier to balance than you might think. It'll take you a few minutes to get used to the sheer bulk and mass of this vehicle, but after you toss it around in the corners, you'll notice that it's really well balanced. Throttle acceleration is obviously incredibly powerful, but it's smooth. At about the half way barrier, you'll notice that this engine changes dramatically. That's when the full force of the 385 horsepower kicks in. The secret is in the engineering. With the engine mounted in line with the frame and a right angle drive transmission, that allows the length of the bike to be kept to a minimum, the Boss Hoss is relatively easy to maneuver. And its low centre of gravity provides good balance. This monster needs to be treated with respect because it can bite you. As North America's ultimate cruiser, this is one bike you have to ride to believe."

I have no problem with the use of superlative words to describe the power of the Boss Hoss. When you have a bike so powerful, of course you can get away with comments like "pavement pounding torque". But then again with a bike over 1200 lb., are you really justified in saying "handles with ease", "a lot easier to balance than you might think" and "relatively easy to maneuver."? I guess the key is "relatively" and "than you might think". I never have a problem with weight while actually driving at any speed. The problems begin as you come to a stop. They continue as you try to park the bike in your shed or garage, or even in the open air. More problems occur at motels, restaurants, gas pumps, camp sites, coffee shops, beaches, ferries, U-turns, and on slippery or uneven surfaces. So if Boss Hoss is "relatively" easy to balance once rolling, then my moped makes "more power than you would think" while on its centre stand.

"The Legend of the Seeker" to the Rescue for WInter Blahs

January will probably be my second month in a row with no motorcycle ride. Things are looking pretty bleak, so it's a good thing I've been able to find some Youtube videos to watch. One series that has been entertaining is "The Legend of the Seeker", which has about 40 hours of fantasy adventure episodes, from the producers of on old favourite "Xena". The show was cancelled a few years ago after two seasons, but I have not seen any of it until now. Usually I don't like these fantasy "Lord of the Rings" type shows, but this one has plenty of leather clad women, some humour, and the sword fight scenes are easily skipped over, and the magic rules are reasonably simple and sort of consistent. Actually, that was my major objection to wizard shows, in that the magic rules changed at the whim of the writers. They basically could come up with any stupid new magic power whenever they had written themselves into a corner. I want to see the writers work for their living. Make the magic rules, then live with them when writing the end of the story.

After a while, a person can get used to all the overblown drama of these "Quest to save the World" magic and swordplay fantasies. From there it is quite a letdown, going for a simple motorcycle ride to Tim Hortons in Port Dover. Unless... through the power of imagination, to transform a simple ride into a quest. For example, Timmies becomes "The Palace of Horton" where I am seeking the chalice of decaf and donut of cruller. The barkeep refuses my Tim's Card, because he is so grateful that I am the great "Seeker of Truth" who is saving the world by slaying the evil minions of Half-truth in the Underworld of Blogosphere.

The reason I need to go to the Palace of Horton, is because my truth seeking powers grow weaker when I am trapped for too long in my Dungeon of Edgewood, fighting waves of mind-controlled zombies. So I need to rebuild my powers with the aforementioned chalice of decaf. I also enjoy meeting up with other fire breathing dragon riders of all types. The Slow Riders of Hog, and the Slow Riders of Non-Hog. Even the fast riders of Squid are welcome company.

Of course, I could not safely ride my fire breathing Vulcan past all the evil cagelings who are trying to kill me without my "Lid of Invincibility" and my "Cloak of Anti-Invisibility" (my helmet and high visibility colour motorcycle jacket).

So back to reality. The jet stream is dipping all the way south to Mexico right now. January is a washout. Can't wait to see the long range weather forecast for February.

Picture: Tabrett Bethell, on a "Legend of the Seeker" poster, that I lightly photoshopped. I like her character, Cara, a reformed evil "Mord'sith" now allied to the good guys. But she has hard time resisting the habit of killing people they meet along the way. Such as Tim Hortons cashiers who pour coffee instead of decaf. Or forget to put it in a china mug and save the environment.

Is the Jeremy Clarkson Ford Fiesta Test Fake?

Jeremy Clarkson Top Gear road test of the Ford Fiesta Youtube video

What a piece of marketing propaganda, and coming from where? the most unlikely source, the BBC!

A Ford Fiesta gets tested by a TV car show called "Top Gear". In the test, it is allowed to take part in a beach assault. It is carried by a Royal Marines landing craft and Jeremy drives it ashore under fire to let off one of the soldiers on the beach.

The episode has got to have had a huge positive impact for Ford Fiesta sales. Ford could never have hired the Royal Marines for their own commercial, and even if they could, it would not have had the same powerful effect. But apparently the Royal Marines are willing to cooperate with a BBC TV show, and in return they get some positive media attention for themselves.

During this spot, Jeremy manages to avoid looking like a Fiesta commercial by calling the car shit several times (but only the stripped down model) and dismissing its "green" features in a joking way. However, everything else he says about the car feeds a fantasy image that Ford could only hope for in its wildest dreams.

Although Top Gear apparently started out doing serious car testing, they have gradually gotten into more faked and thus more exciting simulations. I guess they found that this was the way to increasing the number of viewers.

One viewer apparently missed the old style road tests, and wrote in asking to go back to real car testing, which inspired Jeremy to do this totally over the top "serious" mock road test of the Fiesta.

So instead of seriously considering the power, fuel efficiency, space, reliability, speed etc. in comparison to another car, Jeremy sets up a series of exaggerated so-called tests that are faked to show off the best aspects of the Fiesta. Luggage space? A stuffed Zebra head happens to fit exactly in the back, and so that is judged excellent. The Fiesta is small and maneuverable, so he stages a chase in a Mall against a much larger and more powerful Corvette. I believe it is possible that the Fiesta would win, given the slippery floors and extremely limited space. But the whole fake chase was scripted and choreographed like a Hollywood movie. And he should have put the Fiesta up against a Honda Fit or a Toyota Yaris. And finally, nobody drives in a mall anyway. Of course we all knew that, didn't we? especially the last one.

But Jeremy was not finished yet, the Royal Marines beach landing was next. The Fiesta went off the landing craft and was immediately over the "bonnet" in salt water, nose down. That apparently didn't kill the unsnorkeled engine. Also, the front wheels with regular street tires on them had no problem finding traction on the mud or sand under the water, and the Fiesta plowed its way, apparently with no help, up onto the beach. I have driven on beaches at times, and I would not try that. The beach above the water line seemed hard packed enough to drive on, so that part was credible, but not the part under the water. In fact, if the Fiesta could drive through the water, we would have a whole new class of amphibious assault vehicles being tested right now.

The real outcome of the test was probably at least one written-off green Fiesta. And if they did, I'm sure Ford would be happy to write it off. We are not told if they have paid any other money to make this show, but really I would not be surprised.

Picture from this blog, that mentions the Marines came up with the idea, and specifically mentions they understood the show as comedy, not a serious test. It does not mention that any spectators were allowed to watch. I figure either a tow rope, or an underwater ramp would do the job, but I was not able to find any confirmation.
http://www.fquick.com/blog/Jeremy_Clarkson_drives_Ford_Fiesta_into_Sea/2506