Quick one. Every time I pass by mirrors arranged so that you get the Hall of Mirrors Effect, I have the same idea for a science-fiction tale à la The Twilight Zone.
When you stand between two such mirrors, you see yourself reflected over and over again apparently to infinity, but not actually infinity because you are blocking that exact point. Even if your head were the size of an electron, you still couldn't see the technical infinity point. It's impossible, thus the crux of the story.
What if the protagonist found a way to see the infinity point either by design or by accident? What would he see? What would he learn? What would be the consequence? This feels like a tale H.P. Lovecraft might write and I really cannot see anything other than some Lovecraftian horror awaiting anyone who dared to peer into the infinite.
What awaits such a man? Monsters? Madness? An unforeseen world? A glimpse into the future? A glimpse into the mind of God? Who knows? I'll leave it to your imagination.
I see this tale being an allegory to drug addiction. Like you're only "allowed" one look, but it is so intoxicating (or whatever), that you will spend the rest of your life chasing it, trying to see it again just like how it is said that your first high is the best and you spend the rest of your night chasing that original high but you can never reach it again. Does the protagonist drive himself mad trying to do so? Does he die in the attempt? Does anyone believe him or what he thinks he has found?
I kinda see the story ending with the man dead, but with a relieved look on his face. Yeah, he found what he was looking for alright...but it cost him.
DISCLAIMER:
To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this
idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas,
but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more
important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for
them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy.
If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you
not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)
Monday, September 17, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Today is NEWSCASTERS PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT VICTIMS AND THEIR FAMILIES Day...
We have taken our pound of flesh for the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. It is enough. Time to move on as a nation and get on with rebuilding all those things we have been neglecting as a result of our prolonged response to those terrorist attacks. We are well past the time to be moving money set aside for revenge and destruction and using it instead to rebuild our roads, our schools, our water pipes, our electrical grid, etc. etc. etc. etc.
September 11th has become this national day of mourning and it offends me. Unless you personally knew someone who died that day as a result of the attacks, today is not about you. You experienced a nexus in history...congratulations...but it's not about you. Your life was not affected, so live it instead.
But that doesn't matter because ghoulish engines have been built and continue to churn out these prepackaged 9/11-themed sorrowful human interest stories for the public to consume. The news programs play somber versions of their regular themes too, just like the Brady Bunch. And the newscasters themselves wear their sad faces when reading from the teleprompter. The girls who were hired to be big-titted, attractive stage props are made to dress like they're going to a funeral. And of course the endless jingoistic photo montages of American flags, the still-standing Twin Towers made to look majestic, sad-looking people, bald eagles, heavenly blue skies, and don't forget the firemen hoisting the flag shot and the "cross of steel" too because for some reason, miracle! Each news organization quietly competes to get the most talked about montage because why not, it's not like Nielson ratings, Cume, shares, AQH, and TSL take the day off when it's a bad-memory day for the United States. Money, money, money!
By now, the references to the attack itself are oblique at best. Maybe one picture of the actual attacks and even then, it's a safe one before getting back to the people aspect of it, rather than the political part and the military response. They don't want to stoke any latent anger in the American public anymore and I'm fine with that overall, but not the way the newsmedia goes about it. And then of course, the next day, it's all back to normal: playful banter between hosts and wacky stories and cleavage galore from the hot weather girl...just like yesterday never happened.
September 11th has become this national day of mourning and it offends me. Unless you personally knew someone who died that day as a result of the attacks, today is not about you. You experienced a nexus in history...congratulations...but it's not about you. Your life was not affected, so live it instead.
But that doesn't matter because ghoulish engines have been built and continue to churn out these prepackaged 9/11-themed sorrowful human interest stories for the public to consume. The news programs play somber versions of their regular themes too, just like the Brady Bunch. And the newscasters themselves wear their sad faces when reading from the teleprompter. The girls who were hired to be big-titted, attractive stage props are made to dress like they're going to a funeral. And of course the endless jingoistic photo montages of American flags, the still-standing Twin Towers made to look majestic, sad-looking people, bald eagles, heavenly blue skies, and don't forget the firemen hoisting the flag shot and the "cross of steel" too because for some reason, miracle! Each news organization quietly competes to get the most talked about montage because why not, it's not like Nielson ratings, Cume, shares, AQH, and TSL take the day off when it's a bad-memory day for the United States. Money, money, money!
By now, the references to the attack itself are oblique at best. Maybe one picture of the actual attacks and even then, it's a safe one before getting back to the people aspect of it, rather than the political part and the military response. They don't want to stoke any latent anger in the American public anymore and I'm fine with that overall, but not the way the newsmedia goes about it. And then of course, the next day, it's all back to normal: playful banter between hosts and wacky stories and cleavage galore from the hot weather girl...just like yesterday never happened.
 |
| PICTURED: not September 11th |
STEAL THIS IDEA, part IX
Costello showed me the film, "House of a 1000 Corpses" the other day and while I cannot say I liked the film, that's not the point of this entry. What I couldn't help but notice was that while the two guys seemed very interested in what they were doing (investigated strange attractions across the country), the girls really could not be bothered.
Now, being a horror/slasher film, these good times inevitably turn sour and our may-as-well-be-nameless characters get caught up in a terrifying experience from which none of them will escape. No, I'm not giving a SPOILER ALERT for a ten year old film. Now while it is entirely fair to say these characters were doomed from the moment they picked up Baby, who was hitchhiking in the rain, I'm not really so sure.
Evidence that they were doomed anyway comes from the five abducted cheerleaders mentioned offhandedly by a news anchor earlier in the film. Cutaways in between scenes show them being tortured and killed all the while these kids are downstairs eating dinner and holding conversation with the rest of the weird family while Baby's brother fixes their car (he also caused their car to break down in the first place by shooting out the tire). So yes, they may have been doomed no matter what.
However, it does all seem fun and games (at least for the non-cheerleader guests in this house), but each of the two girls were really annoyed by this experience. Denise, just scoffed at everything and Mary grew quite jealous when Baby seemed to be putting moves on her boyfriend during a performance she was doing of a Betty Boop song. At that point, when threatened, Baby pulls a knife on Mary threatening to cut her and blah, blah, blah tension raised. Their car was fixed and they were asked to leave by the mother. They do so, and are again ambushed by the other brothers and the torture-fest begins for all.
But what had me wondering is, what if the girls were appreciative like the guys were? Or what if they simply hadn't come? Would they have been allowed to leave the house unscathed? Yes, that would have made for a pointless film...not that the actual film was any less pointless.
Anyways, what I had in mind was making a DVD extra in which the characters are spared. This would take some planning. I'm using House of 1000 Corpses as an example because the girls' reactions seem to be what gets the action moving. Imagine if they weren't there? Done properly, only a few alternate takes would be needed and you could drop a line early on in the film where the guys complain that they should have left the girls at home (something to which the girls can agree).
Activate the DVD extra, and the girls stay home (perhaps seen in a cutaway phone call wishing they could have come or some other bullshit), the guys end up at the same place, but they have a good time, the car gets fixed and they go off on their way. Fade to credits (this would be a much shorter film). It's like a Choose Your Own Adventure book and it could still end creepily like one of the guys thinking he's seeing a cheerleader being dragged to a shed or pleading from a window or them simply happening across part of a cheerleader's uniform.
In summation, write a horror film where it is clear one character gets the horror ball rolling and if that one character weren't present, everything would have turned out just fine. Write the film so that character can be neatly cut out of it using a minimum of alternate takes and alternate dialog since I'm guessing the budget will not be high. I imagine that is where storyboarding comes to the rescue.
Anyways, that's my stupid idea. Take it from me. Get it out of my head...
DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)
Now, being a horror/slasher film, these good times inevitably turn sour and our may-as-well-be-nameless characters get caught up in a terrifying experience from which none of them will escape. No, I'm not giving a SPOILER ALERT for a ten year old film. Now while it is entirely fair to say these characters were doomed from the moment they picked up Baby, who was hitchhiking in the rain, I'm not really so sure.
Evidence that they were doomed anyway comes from the five abducted cheerleaders mentioned offhandedly by a news anchor earlier in the film. Cutaways in between scenes show them being tortured and killed all the while these kids are downstairs eating dinner and holding conversation with the rest of the weird family while Baby's brother fixes their car (he also caused their car to break down in the first place by shooting out the tire). So yes, they may have been doomed no matter what.
However, it does all seem fun and games (at least for the non-cheerleader guests in this house), but each of the two girls were really annoyed by this experience. Denise, just scoffed at everything and Mary grew quite jealous when Baby seemed to be putting moves on her boyfriend during a performance she was doing of a Betty Boop song. At that point, when threatened, Baby pulls a knife on Mary threatening to cut her and blah, blah, blah tension raised. Their car was fixed and they were asked to leave by the mother. They do so, and are again ambushed by the other brothers and the torture-fest begins for all.
But what had me wondering is, what if the girls were appreciative like the guys were? Or what if they simply hadn't come? Would they have been allowed to leave the house unscathed? Yes, that would have made for a pointless film...not that the actual film was any less pointless.
Anyways, what I had in mind was making a DVD extra in which the characters are spared. This would take some planning. I'm using House of 1000 Corpses as an example because the girls' reactions seem to be what gets the action moving. Imagine if they weren't there? Done properly, only a few alternate takes would be needed and you could drop a line early on in the film where the guys complain that they should have left the girls at home (something to which the girls can agree).
Activate the DVD extra, and the girls stay home (perhaps seen in a cutaway phone call wishing they could have come or some other bullshit), the guys end up at the same place, but they have a good time, the car gets fixed and they go off on their way. Fade to credits (this would be a much shorter film). It's like a Choose Your Own Adventure book and it could still end creepily like one of the guys thinking he's seeing a cheerleader being dragged to a shed or pleading from a window or them simply happening across part of a cheerleader's uniform.
In summation, write a horror film where it is clear one character gets the horror ball rolling and if that one character weren't present, everything would have turned out just fine. Write the film so that character can be neatly cut out of it using a minimum of alternate takes and alternate dialog since I'm guessing the budget will not be high. I imagine that is where storyboarding comes to the rescue.
Anyways, that's my stupid idea. Take it from me. Get it out of my head...
DISCLAIMER: To anyone reading this, you are welcome to not only use, but claim this idea as your own without giving credit to me. I sometimes have ideas, but I do not have the skills needed to express them. It is more important to me to see these ideas done than to receive recognition for them. That being said, giving me a mention anyway would make me giddy. If this idea has in fact already been done, then I strongly suggest you not actually steal it (at least not without major revisions) :-)
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
LINE OF THE DAY, part XXIX
From this article on Cracked by commenter Al-literati-on:
It is ironic that [Andrew] Wakefield and most of the people who agree with him (i.e. mostly middle-to-upper-class post-WW2 kids born into the most cushy period of Western-Hemisphere society) are likely only alive because they got vaccinated as part of the health revolutions that were sweeping the globe throughout that period. It's so sadly fitting that a man who grew up not having to know what it meant to live under the threat of polio, measles and rubella (amongst others) would be the one to turn around and shit all over humanity for the sake of gratification and self-interest.
Meanwhile he and his kind are viruses, agents of ignorance, attracting like magnets the fringes of society who want nothing more than to fervently believe that every establishment is a conspiracy against their own well-being. The type of person for whom it is easier to believe that the world is one elaborate targeted persecution, than the notion that a concept like human medicine could actually exist on the back of true altruism and the desire to help people.
The ignorant stay ignorant and spread ignorance. The sick stay sick and spread sickness. All because of people like Andrew Wakefield, the sort of huckster with conflict of interest running out the ear, who would run a dodgy trial with a sample size of 12 and dare publish it as a comprehensive medical study. Rogues like him are what destroy medicine and science as institutions. The final layer of irony is that it is precisely because of people like Wakefield that we probably can't 100% trust the medical system.
This, ladies and gents, is how you scientifically define a "clusterfuck".
Meanwhile he and his kind are viruses, agents of ignorance, attracting like magnets the fringes of society who want nothing more than to fervently believe that every establishment is a conspiracy against their own well-being. The type of person for whom it is easier to believe that the world is one elaborate targeted persecution, than the notion that a concept like human medicine could actually exist on the back of true altruism and the desire to help people.
The ignorant stay ignorant and spread ignorance. The sick stay sick and spread sickness. All because of people like Andrew Wakefield, the sort of huckster with conflict of interest running out the ear, who would run a dodgy trial with a sample size of 12 and dare publish it as a comprehensive medical study. Rogues like him are what destroy medicine and science as institutions. The final layer of irony is that it is precisely because of people like Wakefield that we probably can't 100% trust the medical system.
This, ladies and gents, is how you scientifically define a "clusterfuck".
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
I AM A MEMBER OF THE BULL-MOOSE PARTY
Probably the biggest reason I could never vote Republican is the disconnect they display when it comes to their (alleged) Christian convictions and their rabid support for individualism, especially when it comes to businesses.
Okay, I'll admit, I am a lapsed Catholic at best, but that doesn't mean I have lost that sense of "we're all in this together" mentality that came with those Christian values which were imparted on me in my youth. I have lost some of it. I have become more selfish with my giving. I tend to limit what I do give, emotionally and especially financially, to those whom I love, care about, or at least could conceivably benefit from if I were to aid them. It is rare that I give without any of these concerns. My annual donations are typically limited to the DAV, breast cancer research, and at least $20 to the Salvation Army each year around Christmas (or if I don't encounter them, a Toys for Tots campaign will do just nicely). If I were wealthier I would certainly do more as I only need so much to live on even after an increase in lifestyle is considered in this equation. I'll admit I feel bad that I'm on the poorer end of the spectrum when considering these things.
The point I'm making is that what feels like everything I remember from my Sunday School classes and those times I did attend Mass even semi-regularly in my youth, the lessons offered were that of charity, duty, and obligation to others. This idea that it's not just about me. The story of the widow's mite comes to mind. I suppose that's what tithing was all about. We each alone cannot attend to all the duties asked of us to and for our fellow men, but others are dedicated to these tasks and we can help them considerably through donation. If we cannot do the work ourselves, then let the money which represents value from work done, serve in our stead.
Yet, the Republican creed centers on individualism and inherent in individualism is selfishness. The Social Darwinistic idea that the poor are so not by circumstance (or even by design) but by their own actions; that the sick should not rely on handouts, especially government handouts, to aid in their convalescence but instead should pay for it themselves and if they can't, well...that's not our problem now is it?; that we are entitled to that which we earn and are equally entitled to not have to contribute unwillingly via taxation to public functions though the military tends to get a huge pass on this one.
The Republicans put forth this notion that we are in it for ourselves...kind of the opposite of e pluribus unum (more like ex uno unum?) and wear it like a badge of honor; as a symbol of a proud American. Now I understand the history of this nation is full of proud rugged individuals but I don't recall them ever acting alone or believing that they alone were responsible for their successes. They seemed to understand that their successes were built on the work of others. However, how does this ideology jibe with the Christianity they so brazenly wear on their sleeves?
These are the same people who will shout out loudly when the idols of their faith are threatened. Some Presidential Dollars failed to get their edge inscriptions? Must be a plot to remove God from our money. We need "In God We Trust" on our currency to distinguish ourselves from the Godless Communists! We need an affirmation of our faith in the Lord on our coins lest history judge us a heathen nation. We need the Ten Commandments openly displayed as they are the source of our laws and the moral foundation upon which we have built our society!
It gets ridiculous because when faced with actual things Jesus would have done like helping the poor, comforting the sick, and working together for the betterment of all, they rise up practically in arms to shout down foodstamps, welfare, universal health care, housing assistance, job retraining programs, unemployment insurance, WIC, addiction recovery programs, battered women's shelters, etc. etc. etc. No, let's fuck over the poor, our greatest obligation as Christians, because we believe that the government needs to get out of our lives all the while not setting up alternative, non-governmental programs to assist these people.
They want smaller government; a government which does not interfere with their lives...except for when it comes to abortion and preventing the spread of contraception/sex education. Then we need government assistance!
That's actually one thing I've never understood about faith. Why do people feel the need to forcibly save others? Is that actually a mandate explicitly stated in the Bible? I say this also in light of their desire to be rugged individuals. I have thought that while we are obligated to help one and other, our responsibility and faithfulness to the Lord is our own burden. It may take a village to care for one and other on Earth, but our path to the rewards of Heaven was meant to be a lonely one, or at least one between the individual and God. Perhaps I have been wrong? Then again, I have been guilty of apostasy since the early 1990s so what do I know? :-)
But they say they want the government out of their lives but are perfectly content to use it to impose upon others their twisted views of their faith in an effort to spare others temptation. How can one say they are able to remain faithful and resist temptation if they do not allow temptation to exist and move freely among them?
If pornography is wrong (for the sake of argument), how does eliminating it make one less of a sinner? If you are not supposed to view pornography as a part of your religious beliefs, how can you know if you are truly worthy if you have never had to resist its temptation? Only by having it around you can you know if you are truly worthy of your faith and more importantly, know if you are capable of resisting its temptations. Same for any other aberrant behaviors/lifestyles.
Crusade: The MOST Holy...
This brings me around to businesses, the other big position of the Republican party. They are very cozy with big business and despite being a religious party, they expect no moral and/or ethical behavior from the businesses they support. The more businesses parasitically fuck over the communities which helped them grow strong and wealthy, the more adored they are. Businesses, despite being legal persons in the eyes of the law, are not expected to behave like their living counterparts. In fact that kind of behavior is frowned upon the cutthroat game of capitalism.
It's not that businesses have to behave this way: it is certainly not a congenital property. We've allowed them to become this way and I have a very hard time supporting a party which espouses Christian values while supporting the very opposite kinds of behavior in the businesses they allow to generously fund their campaigns.
Why is it wrong to expect a business to support the community which helped it grow? Why is it wrong to suggest that businesses have an obligation to enable the people they employ to enjoy fruitful and productive lives? Why is it wrong to suggest that businesses (and people and communities too) need to be stewards of their environments; that it is not all about now and us, but about the future and those yet to come as well? Why would any party of God be so eager to support the kinds of unethical and decidedly un-Christian behaviors which made the heads of our wealthiest corporations (and even the not-so-wealthy ones)?
I'm not saying the Democrats are any better, but what I am saying is that the hypocrisy of the Republican party glares as brightly as the sun. I cannot vote for them so long as their platforms are so incongruent. And of course, their obvious abiding hatred for women...
Okay, I'll admit, I am a lapsed Catholic at best, but that doesn't mean I have lost that sense of "we're all in this together" mentality that came with those Christian values which were imparted on me in my youth. I have lost some of it. I have become more selfish with my giving. I tend to limit what I do give, emotionally and especially financially, to those whom I love, care about, or at least could conceivably benefit from if I were to aid them. It is rare that I give without any of these concerns. My annual donations are typically limited to the DAV, breast cancer research, and at least $20 to the Salvation Army each year around Christmas (or if I don't encounter them, a Toys for Tots campaign will do just nicely). If I were wealthier I would certainly do more as I only need so much to live on even after an increase in lifestyle is considered in this equation. I'll admit I feel bad that I'm on the poorer end of the spectrum when considering these things.
The point I'm making is that what feels like everything I remember from my Sunday School classes and those times I did attend Mass even semi-regularly in my youth, the lessons offered were that of charity, duty, and obligation to others. This idea that it's not just about me. The story of the widow's mite comes to mind. I suppose that's what tithing was all about. We each alone cannot attend to all the duties asked of us to and for our fellow men, but others are dedicated to these tasks and we can help them considerably through donation. If we cannot do the work ourselves, then let the money which represents value from work done, serve in our stead.
Yet, the Republican creed centers on individualism and inherent in individualism is selfishness. The Social Darwinistic idea that the poor are so not by circumstance (or even by design) but by their own actions; that the sick should not rely on handouts, especially government handouts, to aid in their convalescence but instead should pay for it themselves and if they can't, well...that's not our problem now is it?; that we are entitled to that which we earn and are equally entitled to not have to contribute unwillingly via taxation to public functions though the military tends to get a huge pass on this one.
The Republicans put forth this notion that we are in it for ourselves...kind of the opposite of e pluribus unum (more like ex uno unum?) and wear it like a badge of honor; as a symbol of a proud American. Now I understand the history of this nation is full of proud rugged individuals but I don't recall them ever acting alone or believing that they alone were responsible for their successes. They seemed to understand that their successes were built on the work of others. However, how does this ideology jibe with the Christianity they so brazenly wear on their sleeves?
These are the same people who will shout out loudly when the idols of their faith are threatened. Some Presidential Dollars failed to get their edge inscriptions? Must be a plot to remove God from our money. We need "In God We Trust" on our currency to distinguish ourselves from the Godless Communists! We need an affirmation of our faith in the Lord on our coins lest history judge us a heathen nation. We need the Ten Commandments openly displayed as they are the source of our laws and the moral foundation upon which we have built our society!
It gets ridiculous because when faced with actual things Jesus would have done like helping the poor, comforting the sick, and working together for the betterment of all, they rise up practically in arms to shout down foodstamps, welfare, universal health care, housing assistance, job retraining programs, unemployment insurance, WIC, addiction recovery programs, battered women's shelters, etc. etc. etc. No, let's fuck over the poor, our greatest obligation as Christians, because we believe that the government needs to get out of our lives all the while not setting up alternative, non-governmental programs to assist these people.
They want smaller government; a government which does not interfere with their lives...except for when it comes to abortion and preventing the spread of contraception/sex education. Then we need government assistance!
That's actually one thing I've never understood about faith. Why do people feel the need to forcibly save others? Is that actually a mandate explicitly stated in the Bible? I say this also in light of their desire to be rugged individuals. I have thought that while we are obligated to help one and other, our responsibility and faithfulness to the Lord is our own burden. It may take a village to care for one and other on Earth, but our path to the rewards of Heaven was meant to be a lonely one, or at least one between the individual and God. Perhaps I have been wrong? Then again, I have been guilty of apostasy since the early 1990s so what do I know? :-)
But they say they want the government out of their lives but are perfectly content to use it to impose upon others their twisted views of their faith in an effort to spare others temptation. How can one say they are able to remain faithful and resist temptation if they do not allow temptation to exist and move freely among them?
If pornography is wrong (for the sake of argument), how does eliminating it make one less of a sinner? If you are not supposed to view pornography as a part of your religious beliefs, how can you know if you are truly worthy if you have never had to resist its temptation? Only by having it around you can you know if you are truly worthy of your faith and more importantly, know if you are capable of resisting its temptations. Same for any other aberrant behaviors/lifestyles.
Crusade: The MOST Holy...
This brings me around to businesses, the other big position of the Republican party. They are very cozy with big business and despite being a religious party, they expect no moral and/or ethical behavior from the businesses they support. The more businesses parasitically fuck over the communities which helped them grow strong and wealthy, the more adored they are. Businesses, despite being legal persons in the eyes of the law, are not expected to behave like their living counterparts. In fact that kind of behavior is frowned upon the cutthroat game of capitalism.
It's not that businesses have to behave this way: it is certainly not a congenital property. We've allowed them to become this way and I have a very hard time supporting a party which espouses Christian values while supporting the very opposite kinds of behavior in the businesses they allow to generously fund their campaigns.
Why is it wrong to expect a business to support the community which helped it grow? Why is it wrong to suggest that businesses have an obligation to enable the people they employ to enjoy fruitful and productive lives? Why is it wrong to suggest that businesses (and people and communities too) need to be stewards of their environments; that it is not all about now and us, but about the future and those yet to come as well? Why would any party of God be so eager to support the kinds of unethical and decidedly un-Christian behaviors which made the heads of our wealthiest corporations (and even the not-so-wealthy ones)?
I'm not saying the Democrats are any better, but what I am saying is that the hypocrisy of the Republican party glares as brightly as the sun. I cannot vote for them so long as their platforms are so incongruent. And of course, their obvious abiding hatred for women...
JUST SO STUPID IT MIGHT WORK?
With all the talk about Global Warming, I find myself thinking back to the old simulation game by Maxis called "SimEarth". Two of the eight scenarios in the game had you terraforming the planets Venus and Mars.
Venus and Mars have their own problems for terraforming: Venus is too hot and has an extremely dense atmosphere compared to Earth. Its surface temperature averages 900°F and the atmosphere exerts ninety times the pressure at the surface than does Earth. Its atmospheric pressure is roughly the equivalent of being about a half mile underwater and breezes would feel more like rushing water than air against your body (we are working on the assumption that you would not immediately die upon exposure to this of course!).
Mars has the opposite problem: it is too cold and it possesses a rarified atmosphere compared to Earth. Its average surface temperature is -67°F (whereas for Earth, the average surface temperature is about 60°F) and the atmospheric pressure at the surface is about 1/100th that of Earth's.
The means for terraforming these worlds were objects called "oxygenators" (for converting CO2 into O2 and thus creating a cooling effect), "vaporators" (for releasing H20 into the air to moisten the world and raise the overall temperature), "N2 generators" (to release inert nitrogen into the atmosphere in order to build up atmospheric pressure), and "CO2 generators" (to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thus warming the planet).
What had me wondering was, "Were these carbon dioxide and oxygen generators entirely fictional?" Plants and animals do it all the time via photosynthesis and respiration so it can't be impossible. The question is can it be done effectively? That is, without further warming the planet?
Now I'm thinking for Earth and its recent accumulations of carbon dioxide and methane which accelerate global warming trends. Could machines or more precisely, factories, be created all over the world (I'm assuming in desert climes where there's ample sunlight to power these factories and few people to interfere with their operations) to draw these greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and replace them with oxygen and water? And could the carbon resulting from this be converted into bicarbonate rock (the stuff of seashells)? And could they draw out the "bad" gases faster than we can generate them?
If powered by solar, nuclear, or wind energy, they would not create greenhouse gases themselves. It sounds ridiculous, but I wonder...
Venus and Mars have their own problems for terraforming: Venus is too hot and has an extremely dense atmosphere compared to Earth. Its surface temperature averages 900°F and the atmosphere exerts ninety times the pressure at the surface than does Earth. Its atmospheric pressure is roughly the equivalent of being about a half mile underwater and breezes would feel more like rushing water than air against your body (we are working on the assumption that you would not immediately die upon exposure to this of course!).
Mars has the opposite problem: it is too cold and it possesses a rarified atmosphere compared to Earth. Its average surface temperature is -67°F (whereas for Earth, the average surface temperature is about 60°F) and the atmospheric pressure at the surface is about 1/100th that of Earth's.
The means for terraforming these worlds were objects called "oxygenators" (for converting CO2 into O2 and thus creating a cooling effect), "vaporators" (for releasing H20 into the air to moisten the world and raise the overall temperature), "N2 generators" (to release inert nitrogen into the atmosphere in order to build up atmospheric pressure), and "CO2 generators" (to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thus warming the planet).
What had me wondering was, "Were these carbon dioxide and oxygen generators entirely fictional?" Plants and animals do it all the time via photosynthesis and respiration so it can't be impossible. The question is can it be done effectively? That is, without further warming the planet?
Now I'm thinking for Earth and its recent accumulations of carbon dioxide and methane which accelerate global warming trends. Could machines or more precisely, factories, be created all over the world (I'm assuming in desert climes where there's ample sunlight to power these factories and few people to interfere with their operations) to draw these greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and replace them with oxygen and water? And could the carbon resulting from this be converted into bicarbonate rock (the stuff of seashells)? And could they draw out the "bad" gases faster than we can generate them?
If powered by solar, nuclear, or wind energy, they would not create greenhouse gases themselves. It sounds ridiculous, but I wonder...
Saturday, September 1, 2012
FINANCE MAKES NO SENSE TO ME...
My credit rating took a serious hit two days ago...well, actually it started over 150 days ago but I only found out about it the other day from American Express. Today, Discover got in on the act and I fully expect a letter from Mastercard any time next week. My credit limits are being gutted. I didn't have much to begin with, but I suspect I will be down 70% from where I was starting next week all because I tried helping someone in need.
I don't dispute the debt. It's real. I took it on as a cosigner so I have to bear the consequences. I am mad that this creditor made zero attempts to contact me when the primary account holder went into delinquency because, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're owed money and more than one person is responsible for it legally and the first person stops paying for any reason, you would go after the other guy, right?
Apparently not. This account was allowed to go into major delinquency and it appears the creditor has written it off. They've also reported my friend's address as one of my own to all three of the credit reporting bureaus giving me more work to do.
Now my friend did not screw me over. I know that's the first thought you're likely having and I don't fault you for it. No, the best as he could determine was that his autopayments had been hijacked and since the hijacker did not change the amount of the payment, only its destination, the bank did not question it. Very suspect of the bank.
I ultimately blame TD North for fucking me over because had they stopped payment when the destination was changed and notified my friend about it, this would have been resolved immediately rather than it becoming a charge-off.
Now I, being old-fashioned in my mindedness, felt that we should make good on this debt. That would be the right thing to do, no?
The answer, as it turns out, is no.
See, both of us now have a black mark on our respective credit histories now. Those black marks will remain for seven years.
Having been raised with Christian values as well as the more worldly values of "do the right thing", I wanted to make good on the debt because I was working under moral and ethical considerations. I do not deny that wrong had been done nor do I deny the validity of the debt. I would happily pay it to have this stain removed from record. I would hope understanding would prevail, but even if it did not, surely paying off a bad debt would reduce the time a black mark remains on the record, right?
Wrong.
Whether you make good on a debt or not does not affect how long the black mark will remain on your credit report and that length of time is seven years.
So if the mark remains whether you pay the bad debt or not, what exactly is the incentive to make good on a mistake? Basically if you've fucked over a lender out of his money, yes, your credit history is fucked for seven years but...free money? It sure seems that way.
I want to do the right thing, but I will not be forgiven even part of my punishment for doing so, so why bother? Such draconian measures: they do nothing to inspire moral and/or ethical behavior.
The lesson I take from this is that businesses are immoral and unethical creatures. They forget (probably because they have to by law), but they do not forgive. They are not like this because they must be, but because we made them that way. This is what we get for putting pennies before people.
We have willed businesses into becoming people as legal fictions but we never, for some reason, thought it necessary that they ought to behave morally and ethically in addition to their profit-seeking. We reap what we sow and as for this particular creditor, what you have sewn is me not paying you back shit now.
I think what is bugging me secondarily is how my creditors all think alike. There's no evidence of consideration in their decision-making. It's all numbers I'm sure. Yes, I'm pre-blaming Mastercard and quite frankly I will kiss their ass in another entry if they alone do not slash my credit limit...but I know that ain't happening. The question will be by how much.
But it would be nice to believe that even one of these creditors could look at my payment history considered altogether and say, "Let's give him a break because the only account of his that ever went bad was one where he was cosigned. The accounts entirely in his name, he has never been late, not once...ever. He's the one who got screwed, not the other way around." Could I pretend a little humanity can exist in the minds of these people? I could...but then let's face it...it's all equations to them. I have always been a number...
I don't dispute the debt. It's real. I took it on as a cosigner so I have to bear the consequences. I am mad that this creditor made zero attempts to contact me when the primary account holder went into delinquency because, correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're owed money and more than one person is responsible for it legally and the first person stops paying for any reason, you would go after the other guy, right?
Apparently not. This account was allowed to go into major delinquency and it appears the creditor has written it off. They've also reported my friend's address as one of my own to all three of the credit reporting bureaus giving me more work to do.
Now my friend did not screw me over. I know that's the first thought you're likely having and I don't fault you for it. No, the best as he could determine was that his autopayments had been hijacked and since the hijacker did not change the amount of the payment, only its destination, the bank did not question it. Very suspect of the bank.
I ultimately blame TD North for fucking me over because had they stopped payment when the destination was changed and notified my friend about it, this would have been resolved immediately rather than it becoming a charge-off.
Now I, being old-fashioned in my mindedness, felt that we should make good on this debt. That would be the right thing to do, no?
The answer, as it turns out, is no.
See, both of us now have a black mark on our respective credit histories now. Those black marks will remain for seven years.
Having been raised with Christian values as well as the more worldly values of "do the right thing", I wanted to make good on the debt because I was working under moral and ethical considerations. I do not deny that wrong had been done nor do I deny the validity of the debt. I would happily pay it to have this stain removed from record. I would hope understanding would prevail, but even if it did not, surely paying off a bad debt would reduce the time a black mark remains on the record, right?
Wrong.
Whether you make good on a debt or not does not affect how long the black mark will remain on your credit report and that length of time is seven years.
So if the mark remains whether you pay the bad debt or not, what exactly is the incentive to make good on a mistake? Basically if you've fucked over a lender out of his money, yes, your credit history is fucked for seven years but...free money? It sure seems that way.
I want to do the right thing, but I will not be forgiven even part of my punishment for doing so, so why bother? Such draconian measures: they do nothing to inspire moral and/or ethical behavior.
The lesson I take from this is that businesses are immoral and unethical creatures. They forget (probably because they have to by law), but they do not forgive. They are not like this because they must be, but because we made them that way. This is what we get for putting pennies before people.
We have willed businesses into becoming people as legal fictions but we never, for some reason, thought it necessary that they ought to behave morally and ethically in addition to their profit-seeking. We reap what we sow and as for this particular creditor, what you have sewn is me not paying you back shit now.
I think what is bugging me secondarily is how my creditors all think alike. There's no evidence of consideration in their decision-making. It's all numbers I'm sure. Yes, I'm pre-blaming Mastercard and quite frankly I will kiss their ass in another entry if they alone do not slash my credit limit...but I know that ain't happening. The question will be by how much.
But it would be nice to believe that even one of these creditors could look at my payment history considered altogether and say, "Let's give him a break because the only account of his that ever went bad was one where he was cosigned. The accounts entirely in his name, he has never been late, not once...ever. He's the one who got screwed, not the other way around." Could I pretend a little humanity can exist in the minds of these people? I could...but then let's face it...it's all equations to them. I have always been a number...