Wall-E

Took the kiddos to Wall*E today. It is not a kid's movie and yet they loved it. My daughter announced as it was finished, "I want to see it again!" So, did I. I'm still mulling the meaning of it and pondering the imagery, which is so rich and visually stimulating, it deserves a second and third look. (Trailers here.)

Imagine Bladerunner meets E.T. meets The Sound of Music. I'm serious. The setting is a dystopian science fiction backdrop of a ruined world. The flashing neon signs felt straight out of the darkness of Bladerunner. The plucky main character, even his gravelly voice and big expressive eyes, his sympathy, his cheerful task-orientation reminded me of E.T. And the love story, for this is what the movie really is, is pure romance along the lines of The Sound of Music.

Here's the negative, and one reviewer finds it a horrible negative, but he's in the minority: The villain, superficially, is the evil corporation Buy-n-Large or BNL. I don't know if Disney-Pixar is being ironic. I mean, who, besides Disney creates better, huge, artificial, commercial environments? I can't think of one. So, this corporation took over the world, created a mess and earth ends up trashed. Actually, it ends up a literal trash heap. So, you've got the environmentalism crap too. Still, the real villains are the stupid people. Humans, or is it Americans, are dumbasses....or can be fat, lazy and stupid. The question: can humans redeem themselves?

Pixar's robots are human, some good, some evil, and the humans lost their humanity somewhere in the hundreds of years of their cruise-ship-like existence when they had to escape Earth. Earth is desolate and deserted and Wall-E is alone in the world until he receives his first visitor--Eve. And from there, things get more interesting. Saving the world, saving humanity and saving love all factor into the wee story arc.

The movie sticks with me now and I'll be contemplating the implications for a long time. There's so much more I could tell you, but I won't. Except this: Go see the movie. It's the best movie I've seen in a long, long time.

Four/four stars.

Climate Cultists

The world could end tomorrow....for you. Hell, it could end today. That's right, every moment you're living, you're avoiding the apocalypse and have escaped the inevitable doom all humans face. It's called death and it's appointed to all of us.

Christians though, believe that a catastrophic end is inevitable, and through the ages, different dates and times have been set. Currently, people are nervous because the Mayan calendar ends in 2012. The Dutch seem to be particularly concerned:

The Dutch-language de Volkskrant newspaper said it spoke to thousands of believers in the impending end of civilization, and while theories on the supposed catastrophe varied, most tied the 2012 date to the end of the Mayan calendar, Radio Netherlands reported Monday.

De Volkskrant said many of those interviewed are stocking up on emergency supplies, including life rafts and other equipment.

Some who spoke to the newspaper were optimistic about the end of civilization.

"You know, maybe it's really not that bad that the Netherlands will be destroyed," Petra Faile said. "I don't like it here anymore. Take immigration, for example. They keep letting people in. And then we have to build more houses, which makes the Netherlands even heavier. The country will sink even lower, which will make the flooding worse."

Earlier this year, some Russians holed up in caves and had to come out for health reasons. They'd be spared from the coming darkness while you suckers got torched. Last month, an American cult leader, convinced that he is one of the two witnesses (his wife is the other one, evidently) of Revelation fame, came back from Israel without embarrassment when the world didn't end according to his predictions.

At the one end of the spectrum, there's the manipulative cultists preparing for the world's end. Lead by a narcissistic and ego-driven (usually) man the one truth that can be counted on is this: his followers will make him very rich. Money seems to go hand-in-hand with the absolute power the disciples cede to the cult leader.

While I have a visceral dislike for cults generally, I figure the biggest harm is to the followers themselves. They usually turn on their families and give enormous amounts of cash to some idiot, but oh well. That's their choice and they are usually adhering to some fairly strict dogma which can make them decent citizens if they're following the Bible. As long as they aren't interested in imposing their skewed worldview on everyone else, they can worship how they want. It's a free country.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are secular cultists. Big sums of money, emotionalism, exclusionary status, gurus, saviors, and dogma define these guys as much as the "christianists" they like to mock. Maxed Out Mama says this:

Well, actually, I haven't seen the Pope demanding that those who are sure that God doesn't exist be put on trial. That's why I think this brand of climate science is a cult. It's not just a religion, it's a cult. And on DU, there are some true believers:

7. We're talking about CRIMES against humanity, the planet - billions of lives are at stake

Spreading doubt about climate change IS a crime, IMHO. Climate change is a PROVEN FACT, and unless we take immediate steps to rein it in, will kill BILLIONS of people over the next century. That doesn't even begin to take into account the countless species that will become EXTINCT.

This isn't about free speech. The time for debate is OVER, there is no more debate - how can you debate something that is a proven scientific fact? But unlike the "debate" over evolution, this one is going to have deadly consequences.

Darned if I know whether to laugh or cry. Hundreds of years of the Enlightenment dumped in one fell swoop.

Maybe there will be a transcript to which we can refer for the real story. I've explained as simply as possible why I believe the IPCC runaway CO2-forced warming theory is falsified, but I'd never claim that people who disagree with me should be tried for crimes against humanity!!!

Here's the problem with the global warming zealots: they don't believe in God or divine law or an overarching morality. They are god, they make the law and it is their morality that counts. In addition, not only do they want to adhere to their wacked out belief system they want to impose it on everyone.

The scary part: it's working.

In the absence of a cogent belief system, any old idea will march in take roost. Because so much is on the line and because no real Savior is coming, according to the secularists, they toss out reason to believe in a man, a myth, a legend. So Obama gets messianic status. Global warming is the religion of true believers. And socialism is the saving grace of humanity.

Christianity can be misused and abused and as the world gets more topsy-turvy, cults will abound. The absence of God has not been the presence of scientific enlightenment, unfortunately. Just the contrary. The Climate Cultists prove that.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Nutters In Nests

My friend in Oakland insists that I don't have the big picture. Oh, I have it alright.

Whales Lose Supreme Court Case and the NYT Laments and Gnashes Teeth

Check out the first paragraph of David Stout's opinion piece, I mean, hard-hitting New York Time's reportage:

The Supreme Court sided with the White House on Monday in two cases involving national security and worries about the environment, strengthening the Bush administration’s drive, at least for now, for sweeping executive powers in the post-9/11 world.

"At least for now..". Sounds ominous, David. When Democrats run things and put whale-loving justices on the Supreme Court, all will be good. Hold on, Mr. Stout, with Obama it will all be better soon. And here is what has got Mr. Stout so upset:

In the sonar case, the justices said they would review a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which on Feb. 27 upheld most of a lower court ruling that banned high-powered sonar within 12 miles of the coast. Environmental groups had sued to block the use of the sonar because they feared harm to whales and dolphins.

The Bush administration has argued that the sonar training exercises, used to practice tracking of hostile submarines, are vital to national defense, that the possible harm to marine life was being exaggerated and that, in any event, military need should take precedence over the welfare of water creatures.

“This is an issue that is essential to national security, and we welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to review this case,” Lt. Sean Robertson, a Navy spokesman, told The Associated Press.

Southern California’s coastal waters are home to dozens of species of whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions, including nine species that are federally listed as endangered or threatened. Marine biologists have said the sonar in question generates extreme pressure that can disorient and injure the creatures, disrupting their feeding and mating schedules and causing injuries. The Navy has insisted that it takes adequate protective measures, but the Natural Resources Defense Council disagreed, and sued to stop the tests.

The government and military hates children and animals. And the Supreme Court sided with the haters! It's just all too much. In addition, the Supremes said that the government doesn't have to do environmental studies for every portion of the desolate desert that separates the U.S. and Mexico. The administration has unfettered ability to put up that blankety-blank fence. Horrors!

So many things jump out at me from this stupid article. First, the writer doesn't even attempt neutrality. He makes no pretense whatsoever about his bias and just hangs it out there for all to see. This is the New York Times, people, the paper of record. Second, could the outrage be directed at anything sillier? I mean, come on. The Navy shouldn't be able to do sonar maneuvers that would be vital, I should think, should the West-coasters want a decent defense if they're ever attacked. And who would scream the loudest if a fleet of Chinamen stormed Malibu? Third, about the fence and environmental studies. Anyone who has been along the border of Mexico and the U.S. knows it ain't the loveliest terrain. What the hell is there to protect environmentally? Good grief. I get not wanting to hurt whales and dolphins and I'm guessing the Navy doesn't want to. But what is out there in the vast sandy emptiness that needs to be protected?

Soon, though, David Stout will be psyched. Obama will win, put up justices who love babies and animals and the world will be a less mean place. I get weepy thinking about it, but not for the reason Stout does.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

Democrats Just Say No To Drilling

Because it's a good thing to put $99 of gas in your truck (which I did yesterday). And Obama thinks a gradual increase would have been better. This is awesomeness! Speak it, Barry! High gas prices are just what the Dems want. If the economy can go in the shitter, more the better. If people are absolutely miserable, while the planet gets saved even better than better. And if people give up their modern way of life: Hallelujah! Praise Gaia!

Best of all: If America ceases to exist as a super power and the rest of the world crumbles because Americans stop consuming, heaven will have been created on earth. Thanks Democrats! Our lives suck shit but at least the barren tundra of Alaska is pristine.

Oh, and McCain is stupid about this, too.

Being Green: Why Try?

Does anyone feel like littering, leaving a mess, chopping down trees for sport or eating chemicals is a good thing? No on feels that way, do they? And yet Americans are being treated like apathetic no-minds most days.

But really, what can be done about the environment other than caring for our own little patch of land the best way possible? That question is explored nicely in this article.

Ferris Beuller, Smoot-Hawley, and Follow The Money When It Comes To Environmentalism and the Economy

Econ teacher in Ferris Bueller:

In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics.

Maxed Out Mama explains the Smoot-Hawley Act. I kid you not. But here's what she's really talking about and it's very important students, so pay attention!

I believe that many politicians are being deeply dishonest about their "environmental" concerns. I also believe that instituting a carbon tariff will cause Asian growth to slow remarkably and further destabilize the world economy. The rise in food prices is very dangerous because it has an impact on the ability of emerging market countries to support consumption increases necessary to rebalance trade. If you add to the situation by doing something like this, you could recreate the conditions which caused the Great Depression.

WE SHOULD STOP THE RHETORIC AND THINK VERY SERIOUSLY while we still can.

We have no proof at all that CO2 is dramatically affecting global temperatures or will. We have a bunch of models that don't predict previous temperature changes, so how can we believe that they are accurate in future predictions? We have a lot of hysteria on the subject, but it is mostly occurring in the political realm. Follow the money.

Are the world's main powers continually in a power struggle? Yes. Are the world's main powers subtly (and not so subtly) warring over ideologies and more significantly, right now, economies? I think so. The reliance and interconnectedness of the world economies causes significant vulnerability to states.

How so? Imagine having a billion people hungry because rice and corn and wheat are so expensive and in such a short supply that people and the government can't afford them. Starvation on a massive scale, the disease that follows, tends to make people upset. There was a time when China couldn't go out and take, by force, the resources needed for survival, but that has changed. By the way, I'm not writing as an economist since I'm clueless on that front. This opinion is just based on human nature and history. Oh, and China doesn't need force to hurt America. Go read MoM's full post to see why.

And this also relates to the Obama-Clinton-McCain triumvirate of pandering to leftist dogma. All three seem moved by the environmental clap-trap that passes as truth. Should their economic policy be dictated by environmental policy, I fear for the world and for the United States.

Short Car Trips More Environmentally Friendly Than Walking?

Say it isn't so! Actually, this article is kinda funny and illustrates the absurd lengths people go to to ensure righteousness. In the absence of God, people will create one anyway. And environmentalism gets more Pharisaical by the day. For example:

If you walk 1.5 miles, Mr. Goodall calculates, and replace those calories by drinking about a cup of milk, the greenhouse emissions connected with that milk (like methane from the dairy farm and carbon dioxide from the delivery truck) are just about equal to the emissions from a typical car making the same trip. And if there were two of you making the trip, then the car would definitely be the more planet-friendly way to go.

How can one keep up?

Green Energy Will Be Driven By Green Money

For those who want to change the world into a better place, do it with dollars. The world will become environmentally friendly when there's money in it. For example:

The wind turbines that recently went up on Louis Brooks’s ranch are twice as high as the Statue of Liberty, with blades that span as wide as the wingspan of a jumbo jet. More important from his point of view, he is paid $500 a month apiece to permit 78 of them on his land, with 76 more on the way.

“That’s just money you’re hearing,” he said as they hummed in a brisk breeze recently.

Texas, once the oil capital of North America, is rapidly turning into the capital of wind power. After breakneck growth the last three years, Texas has reached the point that more than 3 percent of its electricity, enough to supply power to one million homes, comes from wind turbines.

Texans are even turning tapped-out oil fields into wind farms, and no less an oilman than Boone Pickens is getting into alternative energy.

“I have the same feelings about wind,” Mr. Pickens said in an interview, “as I had about the best oil field I ever found.” He is planning to build the biggest wind farm in the world, a $10 billion behemoth that could power a small city by itself.

And money, more than insipid moralizing, will drive green energy. And that's the best way. The American Way.

Climate Sinners

More religious talk from the Global Warming types. Now, the United States, along with Saudia Arabia are the chief sinners.

The only conclusion I can come to is that mankind needs some sort of religion. And since going to church is passé and reading the Bible marginally literally categorizes one as a medieval ignoramus, the only choice is to make up rules, laws, and damnation on the fly.

Enter environmentalism.

You can't even talk to these people anymore. It's not enough to renew, recycle and reuse. Oh no! Now we must reduce the number of children, if have any at all. We must reduce our refuse--go on a third-world diet to produce third world amounts of poop. We must downsize everything from our houses to our trucks. We must not light a candle. The list is getting so long and Pharisaical, who needs church? The nightly news is a sermon.

Like all cults, the Environmentalist religion has a shred of truth. It's a good thing to live modestly and within our means. It's a good thing to not trash the environment--to dress and keep what we're given. It's a good thing to respect all living things, including plants. It's a good thing to treat animals humanely. These are all good things.

But this condemning language and apocalyptic fervor is going to drive people away from saving the planet. It's just too....weirdly religious. If environmentalists want to save the environment they could start by saving their message. Make it factual and doable. People will try. Find a way to work with human nature. People will buy it because they want to.

The church lady rarely ever gets listened to.

Tree Hugging

This link goes out to my tree-hugging friend. You know who you are!

P.S. My socialist San Francisco buddy probably is sorry he missed this.

Tap Water: The New Leftist Sacrament and It's Green TV Not Green Tea To You, Bub

Religion looks different. No need to go to church to get a guilt trip these days. The local university or turning on the TV will do just fine. Eric from Classical Values laments the new wrinkle on the Leftist religious folk:

Well, hey, I drink tap water, but only because I'm a cheapskate. However, all this talk of taking a politically correct "pledge" not to drink bottled water makes me feel like running out and buying several cases on general principle.

The activists are also screaming that bottled water leads to war:

The Women's International League of Peace and Freedom has launched a three-year "Save the Water" campaign, on the notion that drinking bottled water encourages privatization, which can lead to wars over water.

This really shouldn't come as a shock, because I heard about a recent incident involving an employee who was scolded at work for drinking a bottle of water from Fiji. Until then, I hadn't known there was such a thing about politically incorrect water, so I asked, and I was told that the objection was that because bottled water is transported, while tap water comes out of the faucet, that bottled water eats up more carbon than tap water, and the longer the distance from the source, the more carbon is burned.

Gaia might unleash her wrath--wild fires, hurricanes, general tohu and bohu will commence.

The water obsession is just the most recent wrinkle on the purity Ché shirt. Last night, while iChatting with my brother, he tells me to go turn on NBC. Why who is it but that smug little troll Bob Costas and his band of merry metrosexual men airing their greenness via candle-light while the fifty big screen TVs blare behind them. Keith Olberman looks much better in low lighting, though, so there's that.

How very conscious of NBC. How noble! The guys looked like they were on a candle-lit date. It makes all kinds of sense if you go to the Church of Gaia. Turn off the lights and leave the place buzzing with EMFs from TVs and sound equipment. They probably hopped on the corporate jet to get there in time to moralize. Nothing like a good hypocritical preacher to make you catch the spirit.

And the best part? The little peacock turned green, too. Cute! Who says football announcers are block-headed jocks? It's great to seem them get in touch with The Feminine.

To get serious for a moment. If people want church there are better religions with much better preachers. And the newer preachers seem far more tolerant than our Leftist brethren.
Listen to Joel Osteen's morality and then listen to Keith Olberman. Whose church do you want to attend?

Paul Krugman: Gore Derangement Syndrome Caused By Bush Derangement Syndrome

Whether it's his zeal to limit a person's choice about rock music or his zeal to limit a person's use of the atmosphere, the impulse within the man that desires to control others is what gives me a visceral response to Al Gore's policies and positions. Mr. Gore seems to have a real need to be the sanctimonious voice of morality. And since he's a Democrat, he certainly can't go back, finish seminary and actually preach in a church. No, in Mr. Gore's case, he created a mega-worldwide church and invokes damnation on anyone who refuses to believe.

And Republicans interested in science or economics who don't buy the gospel are deranged. So says Paul Krugman. Who can rationally disagree with Al Gore? Why would the Right be against his beliefs? Krugman thinks it goes back to the Right's insecurity over the Presidency of George W. Bush. Ultimately, disliking Gore's means and methods and the actual substance of his policies can be pinned on the defense of an illegitimate President Bush:

And now that Mr. Bush has proved himself utterly the wrong man for the job — to be, in fact, the best president Al Qaeda’s recruiters could have hoped for — the symptoms of Gore derangement syndrome have grown even more extreme.

***

Climate change is, however, harder to deal with than acid rain, because the causes are global. The sulfuric acid in America’s lakes mainly comes from coal burned in U.S. power plants, but the carbon dioxide in America’s air comes from coal and oil burned around the planet — and a ton of coal burned in China has the same effect on the future climate as a ton of coal burned here. So dealing with climate change not only requires new taxes or their equivalent; it also requires international negotiations in which the United States will have to give as well as get.

Everything I’ve just said should be uncontroversial — but imagine the reception a Republican candidate for president would receive if he acknowledged these truths at the next debate. Today, being a good Republican means believing that taxes should always be cut, never raised. It also means believing that we should bomb and bully foreigners, not negotiate with them.

Was Mr. Krugman writing about Gore Derangement Syndrome? Because this whole piece certainly feels like B.D.S. President Bush is al Qaeda's best friend. President Bush is a stupid rube. President Bush is an illegitimate President.

And then there's President Bush's policies. It's axiomatic to Democrats that dealing with climate change (and of course, the climate change is a bad thing, it must be, if it exists at all as anything more than the natural order of things) we must raise taxes, give in to foreign governments and "acknowledge these truths".

There's no debate in the Democrat-o-sphere. Human-caused climate change isn't science, it's an inconvenient truth. And Al Gore is the chief evangelist. And the only reason Republicans can't see the truth is that they hate Al Gore and sensible policies like raising taxes. And the Right just can't abide when the greatness of guys like Gore are acknowledged with prizes like the Academy Award and the Nobel Peace Prize.

While the Left has been bereft of zealous sermons for as long as they've been hippies, most Republicans still know a good sermon when they hear one. And they recognize a preacher posing as a politician. For all the Left's projection about George Bush, it's Albert Gore, Jr. who carries himself as the Gaia-ordained apostle of light and "truth". His faith isn't in the science of climate change, his faith is in his own rightness. If he actually believed his sermons, he'd live in a mud hut and restrict his caloric intake so he'd reduce his carbon and methane emissions.

So, Republicans are unreasonable and haters and deranged because they dare to doubt the dubious "truth" and the man who delivers it. Who's deranged again?

Environmentalism and Forestry

This article should be in your intellectual arsenal when it comes to arguing with stupid environmentalists. About trees:

North Americans are the world's largest per-capita wood consumers and yet our forests cover approximately the same area of land as they did 100 years ago. According to the United Nations, our forests have expanded nearly 100 million acres over the past decade.

The relationship between trees and greenhouse gases is simple enough on the surface. Trees grow by taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and, through photosynthesis, converting it into sugars. The sugars are then used as energy and materials to build cellulose and lignin, the main constituents of wood.
There is a misconception that cutting down an old tree will result in a net release of carbon. Yet wooden furniture made in the Elizabethan era still holds the carbon fixed hundreds of years ago.

Berman, a veteran of the forestry protest movement, should by now have learned that young forests outperform old growth in carbon sequestration.
Although old trees contain huge amounts of carbon, their rate of sequestration has slowed to a near halt. A young tree, although it contains little fixed carbon, pulls CO2 from the atmosphere at a much faster rate.

Plant more trees. Like, duh!

Laurie David An Energy Hog & Strumpet

I know, I know. I should be above this kind of thing:

"It's been six years of trophy building, which creates a very large carbon footprint," neighbor Jackie Mendez-Diez told us yesterday. "It's huge hypocrisy. Laurie flies around in her private plane telling people what kind of car to drive, and she doesn't even know where the wetlands are on her own property." Mendez-Diez said she confronted David two weeks ago, and soon after was served with a no-trespass order by Chilmark police.

"Personalities aside, there's been an incredible amount of land disturbance and development, and there's been very little public scrutiny," says Ian Fein, a reporter at the Vineyard Gazette. "They've taken an area that was largely undeveloped and turned it into 'Camp David,' as they call it." Even more interesting, since her separation, Laurie has been seen around town with a prominent island contractor -- one who worked on her house, no less. What gives?

Hmmm... and there's more on the "Carbon Sasquatch":

"Actually, Laurie David has been creating one HUGE carbon footprint here on Martha's Vineyard for the last 6 years. Her disgusting and ostentatious trophy building has been virtually ceaseless for about 6 years now. The trucks and pollution stop only when Mrs. Carbon Sasquatch is here for her summer vacation, making herself the center of everyone's attention.

And I'd say the fact that I saw Laurie and her hottie but dumb building contractor, Bart Thorpe, holding hands while walking on a secluded dock to a boat yesterday, has a lot more to do with her marriage breaking up than the scratchy toilet paper she's forced on her family. I've also seen Bart bicycling in front of my house with a little girl he kept calling, Romy [Laurie's daughter is named Romy]. Bart, coincidentally, left his wife recently, too.

I met Laurie David 6 years ago. I didn't like her then. I don't like her now. She is the prime example of a spoiled, selfish, rich girl who says, "do what I say, not what I do". She is a narcissist and a hypocrite to the nth degree."

Man. Other than the fact that she thinks posting nasty blog comments about her neighbors is an appropriate venue for dispute-settlement, we're kind of liking this Jackie Mendez-Diez! "Scratchy toilet paper." Heh. Seriously, life is too short for that stuff.

Speaking of scratchy toilet paper, a good friend caused a marital spat when she bought recycled toilet paper. When her husband complained about his "@!$!! bleeding bum" they switched back to the tree-killing kind. It was one of the funniest stories I've ever enjoyed.

H/T Ace

Great (Lakes) Mess

As most of you know, I grew up in Michigan. A couple girlfriends who lived in Algonac, Michigan and grew up on the water coming off of Lake Huron ended up having children with holes in their hearts that doctors say were a direct result of the poisonous waters they swam in as kids. As it turns out, Canada isn't doing as much as the United States to clean up the sludge-filled lakes.

It's a crying shame the lakes are such a mess. There is no better swimming than in Lake Michigan in the summer. Imagine the ocean, now imagine it without the salty stickiness. That's the joy of the Great Lakes.

That joy will evaporate as the polluted waters make it impossible to swim or fish there. It all needs to be cleaned up.

LG Washer and Dryer: A Review

On Monday, I called my husband at work and told him that the dryer died. We need a new washer and dryer sooner rather than later was the consensus. A few weeks ago I had warned him this might happen. The washer wasn't ringing all the water out and putting sopping clothes into an old dryer must have been stressful. After ten years of service, the washer and dryer, true soul-mates, died within days of one another.

So sad. For my bank account.

After slogging through reviews, I found epinions most helpful, (as an aside, who on earth has time to write reviews about their home products, oh, right...) here was the conclusion: No to anything Maytag and all other brands receive mixed reviews except for these new snazzy, front-loading contraptions that use a fraction of the energy, water, detergent but cost a lot more. Ugh. Must phone the hubby again. I don't like these phone calls. I find myself sounding like a David Oreck infomercial and my husband hates to be "sold". So I sell him anyway and he agrees.

Here's what I gleaned about washers and dryers:

1. Make sure they both have stainless steel drums. Ceramic drums can chip and then rust.
2. Make sure the dryer senses the dryness of the clothes. That saves energy.
3. Don't pay extra for dryer features. They're bogus ways to jack up the price.
   

Off to Home Depot with armed with a little bid of knowledge and a lot of three kiddos. We buy this washer and this dryer. And dang blast it all, today online, there's a 10% of sale. Crud! Speaking of crud, the washer just whipped through one load of moldy towels (they've been sitting around for a week). It was whisper quiet. The clothes come out smelling and looking good.

The dyer was loud when I first put the towels in the drum. They banged everytime it turned--not loud, but louder than I hoped. This got better as the clothes got dryer. I am still a tad disappointed because my main criterion after size was sound. Between the washer and dryer, dish washer and refrigerator, there's a lot of ambiant sound in my kitchen and I like it quiet. Still, the dryer is quieter than the old one.

First load size:

• Five oversized towels
• Ten hand towels
• Five wash clothes

I used Method detergent and softener, bleach and a Method dryer sheet, curious to know how everything would smell and feel if I went all out with wash products. Soft, clean and fluffy, like the commercials--model towels came out of the dryer.

The most exciting part? It was all so simple, a child could do it. And children will be doing it. Today. I tell you how that works, too. If they can use a search engine on the internet, they can wash their clothes at ages 8 and 10.

Oops, I forgot: My husband decided to try the dryer just to make sure it was really broken. He turned it on last night and he said, "See? Still working!" The words were half-way out of his mouth when the dryer made an exploding sound and knocked out. Bam! Nothin. The whole family sat at the dinner table laughing and he was laughing, too. "Well, I guess it's really broken." He said this as he pulled the plug gingerly out of the wall. Actually, I was happy for the little explosion. Had it still worked, I wold have been a tad upset about spending nearly $2,000 on a washer and dryer.

Childless, Sin-Free & You Might Earn Gaia's Salvation, But Probably Not

I'm one of those stupid women not working in my acquired profession to raise my children when a perfectly adequate illegal Spanish-speaking nanny could do the work for me while I changed the world one spine at a time, so I'm already a feminist failure. It gets worse. I'm not satisfied with the morally defensible family of four. There are three Clouthier children. I'm just greedy that way. Not Laurie David greedy, mind you. There are no private jets or pied-a-terres, but most excess resources go to feeding, clothing, educating, and entertaining those dirty little creatures--children. My husband drives a ten-year-old Chevy Malibu (long paid for) when he could drive a fancy schmancy hybrid which certainly counts as another sin. And then there is my gas-guzzling Suburban monster for which there is no defense besides it actually works for a big family. The sins keep coming. I voted for Bush, twice, and there's just no atonement for that. I'll be suffering eternal Gaia damnation, and I toiled lo, these long years thinking that recycling would buy me some grace.

No. There's no grace for me. Or you, probably, either. The list of sins keeps growing.

About those pesky kids:

Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.

The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.

The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.

What about divorce? I think the creation of two homes when one would do is selfishness beyond comprehension. Two McMansions instead of one. Two rooms of furniture for the two kids, killing untold rain forests.

Divorce creates the need for two lawyers and that's gotta be some kind of ec0-crime. Disproportionate predators and all that.

Sheryl Crow, Bono and Sting Save The Planet By Giving Up Touring For Summer

It is absolutely true, almost. The Anchoress proposed a plan to save the world and the world's most prominent musicians and entertainers decide to take her advice. Here's just a bit:

Of course, that means less fun for all of us, but we should not be having fun when the world is going to end in thirty years, anyway. Canceling summer entertainment in all of its forms will deprive artists and corporations of hundreds of millions of dollars, and those economic losses will trickle down everywhere - to the stores, the restaurants, the hotels, the airlines…the loss of income will affect employment numbers, it will be felt by the vendors selling wares at concerts and even by the Indonesian sweatshops no longer engaged to create $40.00 tee shirts. You will feel the pinch, somehow, and so will I. But a “crisis” situation demands a “crisis” response, and if we suffer a little, at least we all suffer together.

But meanwhile, an entertainment-free summer may have conserved so much energy, that we might just be able to defeat the “man-made catastrophe” of global warming, in its entirety. And wouldn’t that just be something? C’mon, now - wouldn’t it all be worth it?

This summer will be the best ever. The world will last and we can thank the entertainment industry. Hallelujah!

Politically Correct Light Bulbs--UPDATE

Righteous people buy fluorescent light bulbs. If people more righteous have their way, they'll mandate super special energy saving light bulbs for the masses. But what if incandescent bulbs turn out to be better? And fluorescent bulbs turn out to be worse. (This last link has very important information.)


UPDATE: I want to make clear here that I'm all for energy saving technologies but I fundamentally distrust group think and "conventional wisdom" and everyone know that, blah, blah, blah. There is a reason, besides flickering that makes one look like a resurrected Zombie, that fluorescent lights haven't been the standard besides in the DMV, hospital psych wards, and other institutions intent on casting average humans in a bad light. (Couldn't help myself.) Innovations continue and there probably end up being more than one choice for perfect light. And I for one, look forward to fluorescent alternatives.