Two different topics:
1 - National parks. The United States government claims that national parks are beautiful and are made in order to secure the land that developers may otherwise grasp. That's a joke. If they're scared about people settling in national parks, then why is Death Valley National Park even in existence? No one in their right mind would settle there. I've come to the conclusion that national parks exist for exactly one reason: money. Once the government designates a certain area as a national park, every so-and-so and the kids want to head off and see the new national park, not even much caring which park it is or where it is. Case in point: Smoky Mountain National Park. People pay a huge daily admission fee and lodge and eat (and otherwise help the area's economy) in an otherwise desolate part of this country, just because they think that there's some beauty in these mountains that there isn't in about half of all of the United States. Well they're wrong. There is no smoke, it's fog, and there's much more picturesque and accessible land forms in most American states. Similarly, various national parks in Maine, California, and Wyoming have un-natural boundaries (i.e. 'this land is part of a national park, but six yards over here, this land is free for the taking') and charge admission fees to lure gullible Americans away from their own beautiful states, with their own beautiful land forms. Money, money, money with our gallant U.S. government
And even if it's not natural, American's will pay top dollar to see it. Examples of this are the heavy tourism in St. Louis, a city that, when compared to other average-size cities in the United States, is fairly average itself, except for the Gateway Arch, a relatively small steel structure that cost only hundreds of thousands to build years ago but has returned millions upon millions in tourism money! Another example along the exact same lines, of course, is what makes South Dakota's annual tourism intake double of what its northern neighbor (Uh, North Dakota) makes - Mt. Rushmore. They carved this thing in the early to mid part of last century and its cost then was huge (in the millions in period-money). Nowadays, thousands of people per day pay hundreds of dollars per day in the area to see this man-made and fairly unimpressive structure! And now that I've moved far enough from the topic on that issue...
2 - I heard a story on CNN or so a few days ago about an Amish buggy in Pennsylvania getting rear-ended (hard) by an Avenger (the Dodge), and a few Amish people died. At the time, I began to think - why do the Amish live in the way in which they do? To live as they do (basically, for those who don't know, as their ancestors did it) would be to swear off any technology in the past two hundred years. They still ride buggies, make their own milk, and even dress in period-clothing. So what's the point? If the Amish want to live like that, they can - but I think I've come up with a fairly compelling argument against it.
Think: The Amish have basically stopped their society in the early 1800's. To do this is to swear off technology since then, which, although not wrong, can be viewed as crazy for the simple reason that, if they want to live like their ancestors did, do they believe their ancestors truly would not absorb technology as it is today? Do they believe their ancestors would've stopped time and life at a certain point as the rest of the world moved speedily (and efficiently) by? I think it's absurd. The Amish are trying to live out 19th Century values in a 21st Century world. I say, why even bother? Not that the Amish community is seriously growing, or that there's even more than a few thousand Amish in Indiana and Pennsylvaina. Still, it's a fairly odd belief system.
3 - Get real, people - Hybrid cars?! Eight years ago, in 1994, a friend of mine bought an SUV. At the time, none of my friends had SUV's, and this was the first person any of my friend ever knew who owned an SUV. About three years later, we all had SUV's and it was so commonplace that rather than tell - or even care - what SUV's we bought, we simply said to each other upon the purchase of a new one, "I bought an SUV." Since then, millions upon millions of Americans have joined us in the joys and pitfalls of SUV ownership. Gas was cheap and the economy was good, so we all bought SUV's and didn't think twice. In 1999 or so, gas got expensive, and in 2001, our economy took a serious nose-dive. And because Americans are creatures of the times, the once-SUV-owning liberals all jumped on a single band wagon: Hybrid cars.
They're expensive to buy, only limited in practicality, and usually ugly, but consider - which SUV's weren't all of those things in 1994? For the last year, everyone's been looking for the new wave in cars, but I think it's clear - hybrid cars. More and more are being made, and, just like SUV's were ten years ago, they're a perfect sign of the times: downsizing, rising costs, and a slower American economy. But the thing that all SUV buyers (not myself, though
) and hybrid car owners overlook is that there IS something better, cheaper, and nicer - in this case, it's called a turbodiesel (VW Jetta TDi's in the USA get comparable mileage to the Prius and new Civic Hybrid and cost about $2k less, despite being completely loaded with features). Ten years ago, that 'something better' was called an all-wheel drive wagon, and several companies made them.
So national parks are a sham, the Amish need to modernize, and hybrid cars are the new wave in the car world. You've learned a lot today, haven't you?
Oh, and by the way - a friend of mine called me up the other day. After we exchanged greetings, he exclaimed, happily, "Doug! I got a hybrid car!"
I just hope I don't get sucked into another mad fad like hybrid cars - or trucks - like I was sucked into the SUV craze. But I swear - I liked all the SUV's for sale! And I still do. And maybe, when they listen to my 'carbon-based species' argument about never running out of oil (usually told in tandem with the three rants above), we can start a new craze: 13-passenger full-size trucks. Yum.
1 - National parks. The United States government claims that national parks are beautiful and are made in order to secure the land that developers may otherwise grasp. That's a joke. If they're scared about people settling in national parks, then why is Death Valley National Park even in existence? No one in their right mind would settle there. I've come to the conclusion that national parks exist for exactly one reason: money. Once the government designates a certain area as a national park, every so-and-so and the kids want to head off and see the new national park, not even much caring which park it is or where it is. Case in point: Smoky Mountain National Park. People pay a huge daily admission fee and lodge and eat (and otherwise help the area's economy) in an otherwise desolate part of this country, just because they think that there's some beauty in these mountains that there isn't in about half of all of the United States. Well they're wrong. There is no smoke, it's fog, and there's much more picturesque and accessible land forms in most American states. Similarly, various national parks in Maine, California, and Wyoming have un-natural boundaries (i.e. 'this land is part of a national park, but six yards over here, this land is free for the taking') and charge admission fees to lure gullible Americans away from their own beautiful states, with their own beautiful land forms. Money, money, money with our gallant U.S. government
And even if it's not natural, American's will pay top dollar to see it. Examples of this are the heavy tourism in St. Louis, a city that, when compared to other average-size cities in the United States, is fairly average itself, except for the Gateway Arch, a relatively small steel structure that cost only hundreds of thousands to build years ago but has returned millions upon millions in tourism money! Another example along the exact same lines, of course, is what makes South Dakota's annual tourism intake double of what its northern neighbor (Uh, North Dakota) makes - Mt. Rushmore. They carved this thing in the early to mid part of last century and its cost then was huge (in the millions in period-money). Nowadays, thousands of people per day pay hundreds of dollars per day in the area to see this man-made and fairly unimpressive structure! And now that I've moved far enough from the topic on that issue...
2 - I heard a story on CNN or so a few days ago about an Amish buggy in Pennsylvania getting rear-ended (hard) by an Avenger (the Dodge), and a few Amish people died. At the time, I began to think - why do the Amish live in the way in which they do? To live as they do (basically, for those who don't know, as their ancestors did it) would be to swear off any technology in the past two hundred years. They still ride buggies, make their own milk, and even dress in period-clothing. So what's the point? If the Amish want to live like that, they can - but I think I've come up with a fairly compelling argument against it.
Think: The Amish have basically stopped their society in the early 1800's. To do this is to swear off technology since then, which, although not wrong, can be viewed as crazy for the simple reason that, if they want to live like their ancestors did, do they believe their ancestors truly would not absorb technology as it is today? Do they believe their ancestors would've stopped time and life at a certain point as the rest of the world moved speedily (and efficiently) by? I think it's absurd. The Amish are trying to live out 19th Century values in a 21st Century world. I say, why even bother? Not that the Amish community is seriously growing, or that there's even more than a few thousand Amish in Indiana and Pennsylvaina. Still, it's a fairly odd belief system.
3 - Get real, people - Hybrid cars?! Eight years ago, in 1994, a friend of mine bought an SUV. At the time, none of my friends had SUV's, and this was the first person any of my friend ever knew who owned an SUV. About three years later, we all had SUV's and it was so commonplace that rather than tell - or even care - what SUV's we bought, we simply said to each other upon the purchase of a new one, "I bought an SUV." Since then, millions upon millions of Americans have joined us in the joys and pitfalls of SUV ownership. Gas was cheap and the economy was good, so we all bought SUV's and didn't think twice. In 1999 or so, gas got expensive, and in 2001, our economy took a serious nose-dive. And because Americans are creatures of the times, the once-SUV-owning liberals all jumped on a single band wagon: Hybrid cars.
They're expensive to buy, only limited in practicality, and usually ugly, but consider - which SUV's weren't all of those things in 1994? For the last year, everyone's been looking for the new wave in cars, but I think it's clear - hybrid cars. More and more are being made, and, just like SUV's were ten years ago, they're a perfect sign of the times: downsizing, rising costs, and a slower American economy. But the thing that all SUV buyers (not myself, though
) and hybrid car owners overlook is that there IS something better, cheaper, and nicer - in this case, it's called a turbodiesel (VW Jetta TDi's in the USA get comparable mileage to the Prius and new Civic Hybrid and cost about $2k less, despite being completely loaded with features). Ten years ago, that 'something better' was called an all-wheel drive wagon, and several companies made them. So national parks are a sham, the Amish need to modernize, and hybrid cars are the new wave in the car world. You've learned a lot today, haven't you?
Oh, and by the way - a friend of mine called me up the other day. After we exchanged greetings, he exclaimed, happily, "Doug! I got a hybrid car!"
I just hope I don't get sucked into another mad fad like hybrid cars - or trucks - like I was sucked into the SUV craze. But I swear - I liked all the SUV's for sale! And I still do. And maybe, when they listen to my 'carbon-based species' argument about never running out of oil (usually told in tandem with the three rants above), we can start a new craze: 13-passenger full-size trucks. Yum.
Of course by now I need a biger one because I can no longer see over the Escalades, Excursions, Exploders, and Hummers 
Shouldn't an SUV be somewhat nimble and maneuverable? 
