LOST Season 4

If you have ANY inclination toward enjoying TV, you absolutely must do yourself the favor of giving LOST (ABC) a try.

I won't even both going into the plot premise – mainly because it just sounds weird. In fact, I didn't want to see this series when it was launched. A couple who are close friends of ours, made my wife and I watch the 3 first episodes of Season 1 (on DVD). I was hooked.

Season 1:

If you want a show that will entertain you with great acting, extremely tight writing and an intricate plot – LOST will win you over. The signature plot device of the show is the use of flashbacks. Each show focuses upon one character, there are many characters. During the course of an episode, events in the "current" timeline are highlighted by several flashbacks of prior events in that character's life which are either connected to or which shape the way they behave in response to the current timeline. The extremely creative twist, however, is that many of the flashbacks reveal a more clever plot device: connections between the main characters, connections of which they are mainly unaware.

Season 2:

Fans of the show will probably agree with me that Season 2 suffered from a couple of major mistakes. The show was so popular that ABC place a several month pause in new episodes. Problems were compounded by the writers' short, unexplainable deviation from flashback/connections device. This lapse only lasted about 5 episodes, but these episodes sandwiched the annoying gap in new episodes – leaving fans with double disappointment. Many fans dropped off the show during this hiatus. This was especially disappointing as a new group of main characters was introduced in Season 2. But the fans who dropped largely missed the fun and shocking twists these new characters introduced into the plot.

Season 3:

Season 3 rectified the issues of Season 2 and stunningly upped the ante by 2. First, yet another set of main characters was introduced. Well, actually, Season 3 allowed us to peer deeply into a community of characters of which only glimpses had been previously granted. And through this view, 2 years of misperceptions were challenged. Second, the season finale continued the now well entrenched flashback device. Yet, I was filled with angst while watching the episode as the events just didn't jive with the timeline which had been previously revealed for these characters. Did the writers think no one would notice? In the final scene of the two hours, it is revealed that these incongruous flashbacks were actually flash forwards – necessitating a complete rethinking of the episode and what it added to the plot line.

Season 4:

Season 4 has introduced yet another group of characters, has continued the flashback connections and has made the most of some tantalizing flash forwards. The question is what new wrinkle will be introduced tomorrow night? As do all fans, I have my guesses. I'll see.

Will you?

On Principle,

CBass

I'm Back

Hey folks,

Sorry for the long delay and dearth in posting.

As some of you may know, I initiated my own consulting company, Successant, in January. As one would expect, beginning an entrepreneurial endeavor such as this is time consuming in the extreme.

To make blog maintenance matters worse, however, I came down with a fever in late February which lasted, in some manner, for 6 weeks. Finally frustrated, I belatedly visited the Doctor to find a simply diagnosis of Tonsillitis. (No surgery, just 5 days of simple antibiotics).

So, in summary, I haven't stopped following the news or formulating my many opinionated thoughts. But getting these drafted out and posted just fell down the list of priorities while struggling to establish my company between fever flash-points. It does feel good to be back, however.

On Principle,
CBass

Travelocity Tort

Now see, if this happened in America, someone would be taking the Roaming Gnome of Travelocity to court for pain and suffering. . .

'Creepy gnome' terrorizes town

""One of my friends was so scared after seeing that thing that we had to take him to the hospital."

Irresponsible Editorials

Irresponsible Editorials

From Fox News. I leave this to stand on its own merits. . .

Good News Is No news

When the government announced last week that the federal budget deficit had fallen to its lowest level in five years — it was big news. But apparently not big enough to make a big splash in The New York Times or Washington Post. The New York Times ran a wire story in the back of the "A" section Friday. The Post put a wire story on its Web site Thursday afternoon and nothing in the paper.

But in an editorial Friday — The New York Times wrote the concept that lower tax rates generate more tax revenues is "nonsense." "That theory has been tested and failed, leading to enormous deficits during the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush."

But in both those administrations, tax revenues grew after tax rates were cut. Indeed, in fiscal year 2007 tax revenues grew 6.7 percent — to a record of more than $2.5 trillion — and the deficit has declined each of the past three years.

Emphasis mine

On Principle,

CBass

Surprised by CNN on Gore

Unless you travel via Horse and Carriage like our Amish friends or have been floating down the Amazon for the last week, you've heard the news that former Vice-President Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Pundits and Analysts across all media forms are dissecting this award along predictable lines:

1. So what, look at past NPP winners
2. What does Global Warming have to do with World Peace?
3. What about nominee, seriously, Rush Limbaugh?
4. What about Al's above average energy consumption?
5. Despite his foibles, isn't this a worthy recognition of his exhaustive efforts?
6. Is Al Gore's science even accurate?

I must confess that while expecting this sort of talk from "insiders", I was just bracing for yet another mass acceptance of propagandist intentions from liberal leaning, academic elites. Until I saw this headline:

"CNN.com readers sound off on Gore, Nobel Peace Prize".

Curious, yet instinctively dubious, I clicked through. Note a few key entries - from CNN, not FoxNews:

Roy Woodcock of Rochester, Washington

What a disgraceful choice. Al Gore has promoted bad science and dishonesty, but done nothing to promote peace. I must conclude that his selection is based on pure politics.

(Cbass Comment: Well, in fact, the Peace Prize is selected by Politicians. Unlike the Prizes for many other disciplines, such as Science and Medicine, it tends to be awarded to current leaders based on global perceptions of their current efforts. Other Nobel committees feature discipline specific academics and practitioners who review the PROVEN contribution OVER TIME of a particular idea, discovery or research finding. This Prize, while sometimes given to positive reformers, is intrinsically designed to be a political prize.)

Chris Smith of Bexley, Ohio

Al Gore? Nobel Peace Prize? Wow, that really degrades my image of that prize. Why not give it to Michael Moore while we're at it? How sad.

(Cbass Comment: Great and original comment! I think the burden falls to the Nobel Committee to show how Al Gore's work is much more than that of spokesman and polemicist. Perhaps Michael Moore could get the prize for Medicine. Oh wait, that's right, the prize for medicine goes to someone how has made a lasting impact upon the field.)

Phillip Bernard of La Grange, Illinois

The peace prize should be reserved for furthering peace in our world. The work Mr. Gore has done is conjectured quasi-science. His research does not employ a scientific method, otherwise it would have been considered for the prize for science.

(Cbass Commnet: Another good observation. Why isn't this the Prize for Science? Probably because it would never pass the first test outlined above. One really does need to show how this is related to Peace, however - and I mean something beyond the cliché, "In 100 years, the world will be so hot and so disrupted in weather that nations will battle for water and the few remaining stable environs". This sort of predictive award is a bit of reverse of the "wait and see" attitude of the other Prize Committees.)

Matthew Whitley of Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Over the last decades, the Nobel Peace Prize has increasingly become a laughingstock. That Al Gore of all people should be honored this year is another nail in the Nobel Peace Prize's coffin of legitimacy and relevance. Much like the prize for literature, the peace prize is becoming nothing more than a political bauble awarded to some political insider advocating the cause of the week.

Al Gore has been "working" for climate change for an enormous period of four whole years, coincidentally discovering this new passion right when his political career was slouching to its end. The Nobel Committee actually expects us to believe that, out of all human organizations working for peace and the improvement of the human condition, Al Gore's paltry four-year media circus of climate change advocacy is the most significant achievement we have to show for ourselves?

How ridiculous. I'm embarrassed for the legacy of the Nobel Prizes, I'm embarrassed for my country, and, if I were Al Gore, I'd be embarrassed to stand in front of the world claiming to be a worthy, legitimate recipient of the peace prize.

(Cbass Comment: Pretty much stands on it's own.)

Michael Chiu of ??

The Nobel Peace Prize should have gone to the Monks in Myanmar. I guess leading peaceful demonstrations for freedom and democracy and consequently suffering arrests, torture, and death is not enough though.

(Cbass Comment: But they have personal motivations. . .)

Just when I think we've all gone crazy - I see some glimmerings of hope in sanity.

On Principle,

CBass

Scary Info Available

I just ran across this tool tonight. It is a map of the world with flashing symbols highlighting various incidents across the globe.

Upon my first perusal of the tool, I found a flashing symbol near my home. Through a single click, I found that bomb material had been found just a few miles from my home and literally half a mile from the coffee shop I'll frequent tomorrow morning.

It's funny to think about what takes place around us of which we are normally, blissfully aware. It is also humbling to question, what if no one had found these materials? What would they have been used for? Praise the Lord for a general hand of protection over lives.

I hope it remains.


On Principle,
CBass

Burn it Like Beckham

You've gotta love this. . .

Discovery Channel :: News - Health :: Soccer Burns More Fat Than Jogging: "Sept. 20, 2007 — There's a new slogan for weight-watchers: Burn it like Beckham.

A friendly game of soccer, a new study has found, works off more fat and builds up more muscle than jogging.

Danish scientists, who conducted their research on 37 men, also found the soccer players felt less tired after exercising than the joggers because they were having more fun."

Comforting

"pretty close. . ."

Blast Zone

Construction crews at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters in Atlanta are scheduled to resume blasting work within 30 feet of labs holding some of the world's deadliest organisms.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports that blasting was halted in May after explosions sent rocks through windows in two other lab buildings that also contain deadly germs. But a CDC spokesman says new safety measures have been implemented and the chance of infectious organisms being released is, "pretty close to zero."

We Won!!!

Castle Rock, Colorado has been voted one of Family Circle's 10 Best Towns for Families.


And from Gene Brooks' blog, I calculated our homes "Walk Score". We lost (3 out of 100). Which is really funny because there are trails crisscrossing every seeming inch of our neighborhood and the weather is almost always perfect.

After I looked into the score a bit, I found these tell tale indicators of the calculator's bias:
1: "Walkability" is how close you are to destinations, not how attractive other walk encouraging factors (trails, views, climate, culture, etc) are.

2. These "destinations" are very healthy indeed:

• Grocery Store: We are encouraged to go to stroll to the health food mecca, Circle K
• Restaurants: Perhaps we could jog to Taco Bell for that new, organic, tofu taco
• Coffee Shops: And wash that down with a triple shot latte, loaded with sugar and whole milk.
• Bars: If coffee isn't you thing, jaunt next door and down a healthy shot of single malt Scotch.
• Movie Theaters: Of course! After all this healthy walking if we really need to sit for 2.5 hrs with a tub of butter popcorn, candy and coke.

I'm liking my community more every day. . .

Iraq Wins!!!!

"Once again our national team has shown that there is only one, united Iraq."

PowerPoint Indignity

Warning, this link leads to dark comedy.

Hilarious dark comedy as only, The Onion, can deliver - but dark comedy nonetheless.

Let the Surfer Beware. . .

You Have to Wake Up Early. . .

. . . To Beat A Capitalist. Profit is a great motivator of creativity.

Legal Loophole

Britain's sweeping new anti-smoking law will virtually eliminate smoking inside public places on July 1.

But the London Daily Mail reports the landlord at one Southampton pub thinks he's found a loophole — he's had his bar declared the official consulate of the tiny Caribbean island of Redonda.

He thinks his could be the only pub in all of Britain to welcome smokers — and he'd get a break on alcohol taxes to boot.

Britain's health department concedes that embassies are exempt from the rule. But the foreign office says Redonda is a territory of Antigua and Barbuda and not entitled to its own embassy.

. . . Could Save Your Life. . .

Can you believe how long this process takes??? The best suggestion here is to not eat for the first 3 days. . . Oh the valuable, valuable things you can learn online.

Just wait, you're gonna thank me one day (:-0)

How to Test if a Plant Is Edible

Drastic times call for drastic measures. If you ever find yourself stranded in the wilderness for several days without food, you're going to have to figure out how to feed yourself. If you're well prepared and knowledgeable about the area, you should have no problem finding edible plants, but in the worst case scenario, in which you can't otherwise positively identify a safe plant to eat, follow these guidelines to test for edibility.

Can you believe how long this process takes??? The best suggestion here is to not eat for the first 3 days. . .

Steps

1. Avoid ever having to use this method with careful planning. Some plants can be deadly, and even if you follow these guidelines perfectly, there is always a chance that a plant will make you seriously ill. Prepare yourself for wilderness outings by learning about the local flora and fauna, and carry a guidebook or taxonomic key to help you identify plants. Even if you are unprepared and cannot find food you know to be safe remember that, depending on your activity level, the human body can go for days without food, and you're better off being hungry than being poisoned.
2. Find a plant that is plentiful. You don't want to go through the rigorous process of testing a plant if there's not a lot of it to eat.
3. Abstain from eating or drinking anything but purified water for 8 hours before the test. If you have to use this method, this step will probably be unavoidable.
4. Separate a plant into parts. Some plants have edible parts and poisonous parts. In order to test if a plant is edible, you actually just want to check if one part (leaf, stem, or root) of one kind of plant is edible. After you have separated the plant into parts, inspect each part you are preparing for parasites. If you encounter worms or small insects inside the plant, discontinue the test with that sample and consider seeking a different sample of the same plant. Evidence of worms, parasites or insects indicates that the plant is rotten, especially if the organism has vacated the plant. Many parts of plants are only edible during certain seasons (for example, acorns collected after the fall are usually rotten). If you find grubs inside the plant, the plant is rotting, but the grubs are edible and contain high amounts of protein (although they taste sour and are gritty).
5. Find out if the plant is contact-poisonous. A contact-poisonous plant is one that causes a reaction merely by touching your skin. Rub the selected plant part on the inside of your elbow or wrist. Crush it so that the sap touches your skin, and hold it there for 15 minutes. If the plant causes a reaction in the next 8 hours, do not continue testing that part of that plant.
6. Prepare a small portion of the plant part. Some plants are poisonous only when raw, so it's a good idea to cook the plant part you are testing if possible. If you can't cook the plant or if you don't anticipate that you will be able to cook it in the future, just test it raw.
7. Hold a small portion of the prepared plant part against a lip for 3 minutes. Do not put the plant in your mouth. If you notice any burning, tingling, or other reaction, discontinue testing.
8. Place another small portion of the plant part on your tongue. Hold the plant on your tongue without chewing for 15 minutes. Discontinue testing if you notice any reaction.
9. Chew the plant and hold it in your mouth for 15 minutes. Chew the plant well, and do not swallow. Discontinue testing if you notice any reaction.
10. Swallow the small portion of plant.
11. Wait 8 hours. Do not eat or drink anything during this period except purified water. If you feel sick, immediately induce vomiting and drink plenty of water. If activated charcoal is available, take that with the water. Discontinue testing if you experience any adverse reaction.
12. Eat 1/4 cup of the same kind of plant part prepared the same way. It is critical that you use exactly the same part of exactly the same kind of plant, and that you prepare it in exactly the same way as you did the initial sample.
13. Wait 8 hours. Abstain from any other food except purified water. Induce vomiting immediately as above if you should feel ill. If no reaction has occurred, you may assume only that that particular part of the plant is safe to eat, and only as prepared during the test.
14. Begin a new test if the plant part you have chosen fails any of the tests. If the first plant part you choose appears contact-poisonous, you may immediately test a new plant on your other arm or behind your knee. If the plant causes a reaction before you have swallowed it, wait until the symptoms have disappeared before testing a new plant. If you have an adverse reaction after you've swallowed the plant, wait until symptoms have disappeared and start a new test. Although there may be edible parts of the plant you initially chose, it is preferable to move on to a different plant for subsequent tests.