Smoke alarm false alarm

OK, once is bad, twice is downright spooky. Tonight about 9pm while watching the movie Chain Reaction, the smoke alarm went off. It lasted about 15 to 20 seconds and then quit. When it's done that before it was due to a candle nearby, but such was not the case tonight. Candles have gotten to the point where they upset my wife's sinuses, so we've stopped using them.

I checked all around, but no smoke. No smell of smoke, no reason for a smoke alarm. We joked that the hydrogen explosions on the movie set it off.

Then around midnight, it went off again. Again for 15 to 20 seconds. Again no smell of smoke, no apparent reason. I checked the attic. I checked outside. No smoke.

I took the battery out and will go get fresh batteries in the morning. But usually when the batteries are dieing, you get a nice occasional chirp and it doesn't stop after 15 to 20 seconds.

Spooky.

* Update - After the 4th time, I made a 1am run to CVS for new batteries. New batteries didn't help, I ended up unplugging the stupid things. I've never had so much trouble. Now I can't sleep.

* Update 2 - this morning I gently took the smoke detectors apart and vacuumed them. Each had a small cobweb in them. Cleaned them good, put them back up and all quiet so far (about 3 hours of experience). I'm afraid to test them though.

And the winner is... And my vote is....

Glenn Chatfield is the winner.

A little over a week ago, I posted a contest, asking my readers to post their idea on who was the smartest president in recent history. Rather than try to judge the best answer, I held a drawing and Glenn Chatfield won the drawing. Glenn will be the recipient of his choice of an iTunes or Amazon gift card.

Most of the votes came in for Ronald Reagan which didn't surprise me. Most of my readers are conservatives and he is the ultimate conservative choice. But I also have some less-conservative (and some down right liberal) readers, so there were also votes for Clinton, Obama and even Carter (that one surprised me). I even had one reader expand the definition of "recent" president and include a vote for Lincoln.

Thanks for all the comments and I really appreciate the different views. Now I'll give my view for the smartest president and it may surprise some. I'd say President Obama is the smartest.

The current president is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School. That says something about his IQ right off the bat. He served in the Illinois Senate starting in 1997, then was elected to the US Senate in 2004. He gave the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in the same year. That's when I realized he was going to go somewhere. His speeches move people.

He's received a lot of negativity because of his use of teleprompters, but he mostly deflects these comments. During his presidential campaign, he sidestepped one of the most divisive subjects - abortion - with the comment that it was above his pay grade. After his inauguration he took action by funding foreign abortions without a lot of statements. You may disagree with his politics, but I think this shows his political IQ.

Obama has also been able to push a lot of legislation through congress by using the economy as cover. A lot of the items in the stimulus bill had nothing to do with stimulating the economy.

So, my vote goes to Obama as the smartest president even if I don't agree with his politics.

How many pillows does one man need?

I'm traveling this week and the idea hit me last night as I crawled into the king sized bed at this Hilton - how many pillows do they think I need? In this case, the answer seems to be five. Being the only one in the room and being unable to have a pillow fight by myself, that left four unused.

Don't forget my contest and your chance to win the $10. All you have to do is tell me who you think is the smartest president and why. I've had some good answers with votes for Obama, Reagan and Carter (you can't get more diverse than that). Read all about it here.

Pre-existing Conditions

The health-care reform bills currently in congress are receiving a lot of national attention. This post will cover a single aspect of the discussion, preexisting conditions. I recently did some research about this for a family member and I relayed some of the information via email to one of my readers. I'll first explain what the term means, speak about the current law and then offer my opinion. As always, I'll welcome your comments.

In health terms, a preexisting condition is any medical condition that exists before you first sign up for insurance. Those big evil insurance companies don't want to pay for them. For example, suppose you are part of the 46 million people who don't have insurance and suppose further the reason is you just want to spend your money on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not on insurance. You wake up one morning and find you can't stand without a severe pain in your hip. After a visit to a doctor, he suggests this might be related to back problems and sends you off for an MRI. You decide to enroll in insurance on the way.

After the MRI (which costs $1000+), you learn that you will need cortisone shots and surgery for your back. The total cost is expected to be over $50,000. That big, mean old, awful, capitalist insurance company doesn't want to pay the bill because you knew about the problem when you signed up and they want to keep their profits. (see here for my discussion on profits).

In his recent town-hall meeting in Montana, President Obama said that with the new legislation "Insurance companies will also be prohibited from denying coverage because of your medical history. A recent report found that in the past three years, more than 12 million Americans were discriminated against by insurance companies because of a preexisting condition." (see here)

I'm a little confused why the president mentioned this, it turns out that discrimination by employers based on past history isn't allowed. "One of the most important protections under HIPAA is that it helps those with preexisting conditions get health coverage." (from here) Maybe the president is talking about something else all together.

Insurers are "allowed to look back only 6 months for a condition that was present before the start of coverage in a group health plan." That means in my example above, if you waited 6 months for the MRI, cortisone shots and surgery, you would be ok. Maybe the president's idea is right, maybe you should just take a pill and delay the surgery.

Another confusing point happens when people change jobs. Suppose that in my example before you had insurance through your employer when the doctor told you you'd need the surgery. Then you decided to change jobs and look for greener pastures. Assuming your new employer provided insurance, the new insurer would have to cover you. As long as your "creditable coverage" did not lapse for longer than the new employer's preexisting coverage clause, you would be ok. I'm no lawyer, but this doesn't seem like it would really exclude anything if your previous coverage had been in effect for at least six months.

So, in summary, in many cases, preexisting conditions are not an issue at all. If you hear reports of someone complaining, they should examine this web site and see if they really have a problem (often times the reports you hear are from a friend who heard a story about someone who knew of a person whose first cousin-once-removed heard a story. Somehow, details get lost in the conversation.)

My opinion is probably tougher than most people would like. I believe insurance should be insurance, not automatic payment. Everyone needs insurance and everyone should have some. They shouldn't wait until they have an issue to buy it. If President Obama is right and 12 million Americans were discriminated against, he should use his executive powers to go after the insurance companies in question. If they broke the law, they should be prosecuted. If not, by definition, they weren't discriminating.

This topic only deals with preexisting conditions. There are a lot of other issues in the new heath care bills that warrant discussion and I may bring them into my blog in the future.

Contest for comments (If you bribe them, will they come?)

This thought has been on my mind a lot recently and I want involvement from others. Several of my readers are apolitical - it's not that they don't have political ideas, they just don't want to share them. So I'm going to entice them a little bit, I'm going to have a contest. The winner will get their choice of a $10 iTunes certificate (assuming I can figure out how to get one) or a $10 Amazon certificate.

All interested parties should comment on this post with an answer to the following question - "Who do you think is the smartest president we've had in recent history?" By recent history let's say as any president including JFK and beyond, I get hazy on who was who before that. The comment should include a brief description of why you think your choice is the best choice. I'm not going to restrict the answers by defining the word "smartest", I'll let you do that, but be sure to explain your choice.

I'd like to ask respect for all presidents, so as my daughter would say "don't be dissin' nobody." I'd also ask for respect for my readers, if you don't agree with what they have to say, please refrain from commenting on their comments, just offer your own opinion of who is best.

Rather than try to pick a winner based on content and risk showing bias, I'm going to put all of my commenters names into a hat (or bowl) and choose a winner at random. I've asked the lovely Vanna White to do the picking, but she's not available, so I'll ask my lovelier wife to do the honors. I'll post the name of the winner. Be sure to include your name in your comments.

I'm traveling a bit this week and next, so I'll close the comments on next Friday, August 21. That gives everyone a little over a week. Enjoy!

Cash for clunkers - Grandma doesn't qualify

I saw this story on NBC this morning, now it's popping up everywhere. Seems 90 year old Rachel Veitch in Florida has over 557THOUSAND miles on a car (some reports say 559Thousand). No, it's not a Honda or Toyota, it's a Mercury Comet. Made in the USA in 1964. Back in the day, when you bought a car, you named it. Her car is named "Chariot." (my first was "Red Bird", third was "Betsy" -- can't remember second).

Veitch said her "Chariot has never lied to me or cheated on me and I can always depend on her." (source here) It "has outlasted her three marriages and has gone through eight mufflers, at least 17 batteries and three sets of shocks" according to this story. She says that she's a believer in maintaining a car, "I've never been a destructive person and I've just taken care of everything, except my husbands."

According to reports, she's had the car up to 120mph (as high as the speedometer goes) and once got a ticket for going 92mph (she installed a cruise control after that). She even got to take the car onto Daytona Motor Speedway once.

Clark Howard, the master penny-pincher picked up the story. When Veitch started driving her Comet, gas was 39cents/gallon. Even though the car only gets 15mpg (well below the CARS threshold of 18mpg), she isn't eligible for the program. Her car is 45 years old and CARS is limited to 25 years old or younger.

Even if it did "she'll never sell, and she packs a .38-caliber handgun in case anyone tries to take her chariot for a ride without her."

Somehow, I don't think I'd mess with Grandma...

(Photo credit here).

I see the bad moon arising...

With apologies to Creedence Clearwater Revival, I off the following fact list:

• My paternal grandmother did everything based on the phase of the moon: planting, cutting wood, even weather forecasting. Anecdotal evidence proved her right more than the local TV weather man.


• Nurses and doctors believe the ER and the OB both fill up under a full moon.


• Teachers believe students misbehave more often under a full moon.
  


• Yesterday, a full moon, congress approved an extension of the cash for clunkers program and approved Judge Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice.

Grandma wasn't wrong very often...

Cash for Clunkers - Continued

Well, it looks like it's official (see here), the Senate has now approved an extension of the Cash for Clunkers bill. The bill was either a huge success or a huge expenditure depending on your point of view. It's a redistribution of wealth from the taxpayers (only 50% of Americans) to those who are in a position to buy a car. Or maybe it's another bailout for car manufacturers.

Some interesting information has come out about the program and actually a lot of details have not come out. But so far, it looks like GM has been the biggest winner with 18.7 percent of new sales. Ford has actually seen a profit. From my previous post, I showed how the increase in sales was short lived, so I hope Ford is investing the profit wisely - it won't last.

Another report I saw said that Ford Explorers were the most traded in vehicle along with older mini-vans. My suspicion is that these owners had been waiting to get rid of their "clunkers".

Remember the program had a dual purpose: #1 to help the auto industry and #2 to increase fuel efficiency. If the Ford Explorers and mini-vans were actually being used and the new cars are taking their place, the second goal will have been reached. I suspect the less fuel efficient cars weren't in heavy use and the newer efficient cars will be used by new drivers, thereby increasing overall fuel usage. (I considered selling a clunker and getting my wife a new car, but I didn't qualify).

Details of the clunker program have been hard to find. The AP reports that the "Obama administration is refusing to release government records on its "cash-for-clunkers" rebate program that would substantiate — or undercut — White House claims of the program's success." So despite promises of "transparency in the people’s White House," things seem to be mostly cloudy. I guess like the stimulus plan, we don't have time to be forthcoming, we have to act now.

My main concern though is the change in the program. The program was initially approved (after a lot of discussion) for $1BILLION or until November 1, which ever came first. We've reached the $1BILLION mark, so the program should be ended. The expansion is going on without any real analysis. Everyone's having a good time, so we just go on spending.

Some of my kids have learned (the hard way) that only the Federal Government can continue spending when they run out of money. In this case, the government doesn't even know how much it has. It's like ignoring the balance column in the checkbook register (do people still use those?)

The new bill should have gone the way of the clunkers -- into the shredder. What do you think?

Defying Gravity - New Series review

Last night I watched a pilot of a new series, "Defying Gravity." My wife was unenthused, as she is about anything sci-fi. But I decided to hog the downstairs TV and watch it anyway. The premise is that a new space-ship is taking off for a 6 year tour of 7 planets. First stop is Venus, after a brief pitstop in earth orbit. Only the astronauts don't know that some unknown thing, "it" or "Beta", is making all the decisions, including who is on the mission.

Set in 2054, the mission is commanded (or some other role, it was difficult to tell), is the man who commanded a Mars mission 10 years earlier, a trip that left two people stranded on the red planet. The show is full of flashbacks to the Mars mission and to the 5 years of training this set of astronauts went through to earn a spot on the ship.

One interesting aspect is the view of abortion. Now we're never really told that one of the astronauts had an abortion, but it's certainly implied. Zoe, had a one night stand with the mission commander (the one from the Mars trip). She was drunk and he was persistent, so they ended up at a no-tell motel. He's quite a womanizer, seen hitting on several different women in the pilot (and one woman actively hitting on him).

It is confirmed that she's pregnant and her friend tries to talk her into an abortion. We haven't seen yet that she decided to go through with it, but presumably she wouldn't have been allowed on the trip with a 5 year old at home. What makes all of this interesting, is that all through the pilot, she hears a baby crying. No one else hears the baby, so I'm assuming that it's the baby she aborted.

The series focused more on the romance and tension between characters than it did on any real sci-fi. I was surprised at the free sex within the astronaut community (maybe AIDS and STDs have been eradicated). The tension between former sex partners is shown, so surely, some mission psychologist would have prevented this kind of action. Also, all of the characters went on a drinking binge the night before lift-off. Today airline pilots are prohibited from drinking the night before flights (which makes me glad), why would you let astronauts drink before their flight? One astronaut is even confronted as being an alcoholic, they would let him go? Oh yea, Beta is making the decisions.

All in all, it was a good show. I'll probably watch again next week, but it comes on very late for me (10pm). I can't stay up that late every Sunday night.

Upcountry - Book Review

The other day, I posted a quote about the book Upcountry, by Nelson DeMille. I finished reading the book and thought I'd post a review. I had read other DeMille novels - Plum Island, The Lion's Game and Nightfall, and knew this would be an adventure. The further I got into the new novel, the more adventurous it became.

Upcountry is set mostly in Vietnam. The lead character, Paul Brenner, is a retired Vietnam War veteran who stayed in the Army for several years in the Criminal Investigation Division. After his exit from CID, he is called back for one case - to investigate a 30 year old murder that occurred during the height of the war.

Brenner's travel to Vietnam brings back a lot of memories, some of them quite graphic (not for kids). While I was too young to know details back then, the details provided in this book seem accurate and an epilogue explains DeMille's background and gives authenticity.

Of course there has to be a woman involved, in this case it's Susan Weber. She's been in Vietnam for a number of years and likes the fact that she's living in a new territory, likened to the Old West. Susan decides to accompany Brenner and he's not sure he wants her there.

Typical for DeMille, the novel is action packed. There's some romance in it, and a lot of unanswered questions at the end (but none that affect the quality of the story). The novel is somewhat of a sequel to The General's Daughter (which was made into a John Travolta movie), but I didn't know this until half-way through and I didn't miss anything.

Vietnam War veterans may find this book brings back memories and that could be good or bad. Also, the graphic descriptions could prove too graphic for some people - on at least one occasion I had to take a break from reading to wash my hands. But the story line was excellent and kept you guessing as to what would come next. The ending questions (what happens to Susan Weber?) are not so bothersome as to leave you hanging - I hate it when that happens and often refuse to buy the sequel on purpose alone.

Lately, the idea of race relations has been forefront on my mind, and this book helped understand the issues a little deeper. As noted in my previous post, the regional pride of the North and South Vietnamese, seemed to echo the regional differences in the U.S.

All together, a very good read, I recommend it. I'm interested in your opinion.

Cash for clunkers

By now you may have heard that the "Cash for Clunkers" program is broke (or not depending on who you listen to). This post is NOT about that issue. The story on that issue is not yet complete. I may post about that in a week or so when all of the facts are out.

Back about a year ago, I posted an entry about the cost of a gallon of gas (about $4 at the time). A year ago when gas was $4/gallon, I made the bold prediction that "the subject of gas prices will be quiet again." (see here).


Well, let's check into the current situation. People have criticized American automotive companies and said that they focused on trucks and SUV's. During times with high gas prices, this hurts auto sales and, according to critics, helped cause the downfall of GM, Chrysler and Ford. However, prices are down now, around $2.20 or so depending on the day. It now appears that SUV sales are back up (according to Bloomberg) and truck sales are also on the rise (see here). Maybe American car companies were focusing on the right markets after all.

Of course, you have to acknowledge that everyone wants to save gas and go green right? Well, Toyota is having a tough year just like the American companies and has decided to close a Mississippi Prius plant even before it opened (see here). In fact, Motor Trend magazine says Toyota is no long profitable in the US. Seems it's not just American cars that are hurting.


So what does this have to do with "Cash for Clunkers"? The program was initially designed to improve fuel mileage on the highways by encouraging consumers to get rid of older, less fuel efficient cars in favor of newer, more fuel efficient cars. A side benefit is that the ailing automotive market (both domestic and foreign) gets a short-term boost.

The program has been tried in other countries as well. Countries such as Slovakia, France, Germany, Spain and Italy have all unveiled a cash-for-clunkers program at various times in the last year according to this NY Times article. And the program has some history as France had a "similar incentive program ... from 1994 to 1996."

How successful will the program be? According to the same NY Times article, the "plan produced a comparable sales bump initially." Sounds great, right? Well the rest of the sentence goes on to say that the initial sales bump "was followed by a severe drop in 1997 and 1998."

So here's my prediction for 2009 and it will basically echo the prediction from 2008. Americans are less concerned about fuel efficiency than they are about the size of the vehicle (see SUV sales and truck sales above). People will trade in cars under the plan and get minimal improved gas mileage (2 mpg improvement for trucks and 4mpg improvement for cars is the minimum to get the cash). More importantly, these people will take out 4, 5 or 6 year loans to pay for these cars and find that they have trouble making the payments or making their other payments (e.g. mortgage). Next year, we'll all be worse off.

And the country will be no greener than it is today.

This animosity between the North and South...

It's unusual for me to comment on a book before I finish reading it, but in this case I just had to do so. I'm reading Nelson DeMille's story about an Vietnam War Veteran who goes back to investigate a murder that took place during the war. I'll do a full review on the story in a few days when I finish the book.

The subject line is part of a quote from the book and it struck me in that it could pertain to the struggle we in the U.S. continue to have with race. I've always thought that if the Civil War and the Reconstruction had taken place differently, race relations would be different. Maybe I take it a little to personally, but I've always felt that we Southerners unfairly get the blame for a lot of racial issues.

The book has nothing to do with race relations (or does it?) but everything to do with war. DeMille has some very colorful descriptions of battles and the characters "detective work." Bottom line, it's not a story for children.

The entire quote: "This animosity between the North and South Viets, the victor and the vanquished, went on, and it was a very complex thing, having less to do with the war, I thought, than what came after. War is simple; peace is complex."

What do you think? Does this apply to the Yankees and the Rebels?

Old dogs, Children and Watermelon Wine

For some reason this weekend, this old Tom T. Hall song entered my ADD-rattled brain and I've had trouble getting it off my mind. A quick search this morning showed me I'm not completely alone (see this lady's blog about the song and her family).

In the song, the singer stops in a hotel bar in Miami for a quick drink before bed. He sounds like he'd prefer to be alone, but someone sits down beside him and begins to talk. Man, I hate it when that happens. But the singer learns something from the visitor as he explains "Ain't but three things in this world that's worth a solitary dime..." ...wait for it... "...But old dogs and children, and watermelon wine."

Hall has many songs that I love, including his hit "I Love". Some of his songs are funny, one that my kids have heard me sing a lot is "Sneaky Snake". I also like "Faster Horses" (another song about the virtues in life, in this case "faster horses, younger women, older whiskey and more money").

Probably my favorite song by Hall is the simple melody "I Like Beer". But of course a paragraph on simple melodies would be incomplete without the mention of the song "That Song is Driving me Crazy" - ever get a song stuck in your head and it won't leave? - this song will stay in your head for weeks.

Rhapsody describes Tom T. Hall as "story teller, poet, philosopher." I think when I die, I'd like to be known as a philospher (it would be even better to be thought that way now - but the pay isn't what it used to be). You can read the lyrics and even listen to "Watermelon Wine" on Rhapsody's site here.

Health care - who needs it?

I was probably 23 before I even thought about health care issues. I can't remember every going to a doctor as a kid, I know I had to have a physical before college. I also know I got my shots, some from the health department. I have a vivid memory of the polio shot, a lot of us were lined up in what might have been an old school (circa 1965). I went to the infirmary at school one time while in college, it was a waste of my time and the doctors' (a story for another day).

After graduating college at the ripe old age of 22, I got married. I had health coverage on my job and my wife had coverage on her job. About a year later, we decided it was time to start planning for a family, but planning didn't include insurance. When our daughter was born, we found that we had to pay her part of the hospital bill ourselves (I think it was around $2,000 -- I still have the bill somewhere).

It turns out a lot of people don't think about insurance until they start having families. And a lot of people don't want to sign up for insurance even if they think about it.

To me, that's freedom of choice. Certainly the bills are higher today than they were in 1983 when my first was born, but if a person decides to pay their own way, they should be allowed.

It concerns me that in one of the drafts of the new health care bills, people will be FORCED to have some form of insurance. They will no longer have the option to choose to pay their own way. Some Americans are all about freedom of choice, as long as you choose their way of dealing with problems.

The push for health care - our economy depends on it

I have to give our current administration the credit, they've certainly learned the way to America's pocketbook. "It's the economy stupid!" is what I've been reading between the lines the last few days.

See, President Obama keeps telling us he inherited this mess, it was worse than anyone thought and the stimulus plan is working exactly as planned (was this Plan B or Plan C?). Then he tells us the we have to have health care reform in order to save the economy.

This way, he wins either way. If health-care gets voted in, obviously he's lived up to his campaign promises (until it doesn't work - then he changes his promises). If it doesn't get voted in, well he tried. If the economy continues to go south, it's not his fault, he tried to pass health-care to fix it. Soon, the economy will be the reason we do everything.

It really bothers me the "change" I've seen in the last six months. During the campaign, abortion issues were above his paygrade. Well, he's gotten a payraise and now we are funding abortion in other countries and he's pushing for funding here. The stimulus plan was needed immediately to fix our economy, the money was going to create jobs immediately and now it's working as designed and will take a few years.

Sadly, none of this surprises me, I expected it all along. Now what's next?

Funny email response

I sent an email to an individual trying to set up a meeting for next Tuesday afternoon. The response I got said:

"Unfortunately Tuesday and Thursday afternoon I am volunteering to read to some 8-10 year olds. I felt I needed to work with some people that were properly mature for their age. I can understand tantrums from an 8 year old, it is the 30-60 year olds throwing tantrums around here that puzzle me."

I tend to agree.

Mr. President, what's the rush?

* Forgot to thank Chuck for his link to the LA Times article. Thanks Chuck.

A couple of days ago, my wife asked me what the proposed healthcare bill would do to our medical coverage. The truth is, I don't know. I've heard lots about what it might do. I know that some proposed Medicare legislation will cut the payments for MRIs and "could affect the availability of MRIs and other tests particularly in rural areas." (see here) It's only logical that the same would be true of the proposed overall healthcare legislation.

I also know that the president thinks that sometimes "maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller." He also thinks "that one way to shave medical costs is to stop expensive and ultimately futile procedures performed on people who are about to die and don't stand to gain from the extra care." (see here) While I actually agree with him on both of these fronts, I'm very sure I don't want the government involved in the decision. I also think that might be why some people pay into insurance in the first place, so they can have expensive life saving treatment when they need it.

But what scares me the most about the locomotive pushing its way through congress, is the need for speed. Why is it that this bill must be pushed through? If the health care bill is important (and it is), it's important to do it right. Instead, many in congress have laughed at the idea of actually reading the bill they will be voting on.

Take for example, Congressman Hoyer from Maryland. He said he's "laughing because ...(he doesn't) know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill." (see here). I also heard that the leaders of both houses of congress have said they won't read the bills, but I could not confirm those reports.

The last time a bill was pushed this hard, we ended up with the so-called-stimulus package. That bill wasn't read by most members of congress either. There are several organizations that are suggesting congress should actually know what it's voting for - "Let Freedom Ring is a conservative backed site that is attempting to get our representatives to read the bill before they vote on it. Backed by liberal organizations, ReadTheBill.org is pushing the same thing." (reference here)

I also think that we, you and I regular people, should have a chance to read the bill. We should know what our representatives know (or in this case, what they don't know). We should be able to examine the pros and cons and we should advise them on how we feel, so they can make the hopefully-intelligent decisions we have sent them to make.

Jupiter Struck by Object, NASA Images Confirm

This article confirms that the planet Jupiter has been struck by a comet or an asteroid. You may think "so what, I'm not moving to Jupiter anytime soon and I don't know anyone who lives there."

But what if the comet or asteroid had hit the earth? Well, it would have been a very bad thing. All you have to do is watch the movies, like Deep Impact, Asteroid, or any Saturday afternoon B movie to understand.

Thankfully, our solar system has a couple of big planets out there that act as magnets to attract comets and asteroids. I mean, think of it this way, if you were aiming at planets, would you rather aim at a big target like Jupiter, or a small target like Earth?

So, we all can be thankful that Jupiter is out there. You know, when you think about it, it's almost like someone designed it that way :)

The Great War: American Front - Book Review

The cover declares this book is "the definitive alternate history saga of its time." I have to agree. Harry Turtledove does his expected excellent job of telling a story that could be from a parallel universe. It's history, but not the way you remembered it.

At the beginning of the book, Turtledove sets the tone. It's near the end of the Civil War, but things have not gone well for Lincoln's USA. In fact, they have lost the war. The middle part of the North American continent is split into two nations, USA and CSA. The story line jumps to 1914 and the outbreak of The Great War. But the alliances aren't what you would expect. The Confederate States are joined by England and France. Which means that the USA allies with Germany.

The American Front details the battles between the USA and Canada and between the USA and CSA. President Roosevelt (Teddy) is guiding the USA, while President Woodrow Wilson guides the CSA. Slavery has ended long ago, but blacks are treated poorly in both nations. Armies discover machine guns, tanks, and chlorine gas. Trench warfare breaks out in Virginia, Kentucky and Utah.

Not only are there strange international alliances, there are a couple of intra-national alliances (or at least intra-continental). The Mormons of Utah originally were part of the USA, but they rebelled and tried to secede. Some Indian nations also sided with the CSA and fought against the USA.

Turtledove moves from the USA front lines to the Canadian, then to the CSA, then back again. You look at the war from the view of the soldiers, the workers in the steel mill, plantation owner and plantation workers. Socialism is about to break out and you see the war from a socialist's view.

A good bit of the book deals with the way blacks are treated. There's a lot of foreshadowing to indicate that the next book will focus on this issue as well. It's clear from this and other Turtledove books he believes that part of the reason for the Civil War was States' rights. But he also acknowledges the fact that slavery played a major part and shows that the problems didn't end in 1865.

I was very impressed with the book and have just ordered (thanks to my wife) the sequel and the third book in the series. Race relations have been on my mind a lot recently and all the political talk about socialism from the right wing feeds right into the story line. The book isn't negative on any of this, the reader is left to determine the impact.

Some of the language used in the book will probably offend a great many people. Words that were commonly (but rudely) used in the 1915 time period are used throughout the book. Being set in the middle of a war, there is a lot of profanity as you might expect. And there are some scenes described that would probably warrant keeping kids away (both for sex and violence).

My favorite quote from the book is a real quote from Vegetius of the Roman Empire "Let him who desires peace prepare for war."
I highly recommend the book.

$2000 Light Bulb - now free?

A couple of years ago, I posted an entry about a $2000 light bulb. The problem was that California was trying to mandate use of CFLs (I'm not sure if they ever succeeded) and the cleanup from dropping/breaking a bulb could cost as much as $2000.

Thankfully, things have gotten better. There's an EPA procedure for cleaning the bulbs up, documented in this PDF. I won't say it's easy, but it's doable. I remember as a kid, we used to break thermometers and let the mercury roll around in our hand, so the mercury in these new bulbs can't be that bad. I still believe in freedom and that market demands should dictate what bulb you choose to use.

Which brings me up to today, or actually yesterday. On a trip to my favorite toy store, Lowe's*, I saw a display of CFL's. I had seen the display before, but this time I looked carefully. You get seven 60-watt equivalent bulbs for $10. The box claims that the bulbs will save you $329 over the life of the bulbs. That's for all seven bulbs, over nine years, so it saves just over $5 per year or 43cents per month. Can you tell a difference of 43 cents in your electric bill?

In my book, these "typical savings" numbers are never enough to make my jump on the new product, but a little more analysis helped in this case. First of all, 7 bulbs for $10 is a reasonable price. Saving me the hassle of changing bulbs every few months is worth something. And long term savings is always good, even if you never notice the savings.

But the best news (pay attention now) is the bulbs come with a $10 coupon off your next purchase at Lowe's (for $50 or more). This effectively makes the pack of bulbs free. So, I spend $10 today, get light bulbs that save me 43cents a month, save the hassle of frequent changes and get the $10 back? This makes it an easy decision.

I just wish I could get some sort of sticker on the bulbs that say "I'm a capitalist, not an environmentalist" (with apologies to Star Trek fans) to explain why I'm buying CFL's.

* Note: In the interest of full disclosure, I'd like to note that Lowe's is one of my customers.