today's thought.

[icedawg]

minivans...why? It seems reasonable, based on countless experiences around me involving minivans and other drivers--plus extrapolating with common sense--that a high percentage of road rage incidents involve minivans annoying the drivers around them. Thus minivans, although often indirectly, greatly reduce the safety of the road for the other vehicles. I can't tell you how many times I've had to practice defensive driving because of some minivan driving unsafely with respect to the other vehicles on the road. Your driver's ed instructor told you to "match the flow of traffic" for a good reason--it is dangerous to drive faster or slower than the rest of the vehicles on the road. Unfortunately, it seems, many minivan drivers like to match the speed limit dead on, while there's an unspoken rule that 10km over is reasonable and adhered to by most drivers. You know that pile of cars that build up behind minivans as they drive? Not safe. Furthermore minivan drivers, the onramp of expressways or freeways (or whatever you call them in your area) is partially to allow you time to ACCELERATE to match the speed of oncoming traffic. It's retardedly dangerous to proceed at a leisurely 60km/hr up the ramp and merge with oncoming traffic in excess of 110km/hr. The problem is further exacerbated by the helpless individuals trapped behind you who know better and would like to be traveling at a safe speed when merging. The other day I was stopped at a light, with about 15 cars ahead of me all waiting for the advanced green so we could turn left. I knew for sure I wouldn't make it with that bunch and was prepared to await the next green light--since surely that many cars being alert enough to go through the intersection in that short amount of time was unprecedented. Much to my surprise, the green light appeared and there was no delay in the response of any of the cars in accelerating--everyone dutifully proceeded through the intersection, myself included. Then it dawned on me: no minivans were waiting in the line. I think most of us are aware of the average dismal response time of minivan drivers...if it takes them that long to realize a green light, how quick can they be to brake to avoid hitting another car or a pedestrian? I'm hesitant to actually attribute the cause of the unsafe driving by minivans to the drivers themselves. I suppose that could be the case, but I feel it may actually--somehow--be the seductive power of the minivan itself, for surely not all these people could have been such bad drivers all their lives. No, it's the minivan. Minivans could very well be the death of us all one day. Join me friends in securing the safety of our streets! Help make it safe once again to drive. Ban minivans from all public roads! And that's today's thought.

[icedawg]

Today's thought: It's interesting how, so far, only the two air marshals--who subsequently shot and killed Rigoberto Alpizar--are the ones who heard him say he "had a bomb"; other passengers have stated only that he had repeatedly stated that he needed to get off the plane. Furthermore, from an account from a passenger on Rigoberto's previous connecting flight, a stewardess was quite privy to his eccentric, agitated behaviour, and yet somehow this man was allowed on another flight. ------------------------------------- CNN followed with a slew of somewhat related past stories, essentially all involving someone who suffered from mental illness who was brandishing a knife. The police in all these incidents felt it necessary to shoot and kill the individual. I mean, come on, a knife! Whatever happened to just shooting to incapacitate an individual? Just shoot him in the leg or the arm or the shoulder...it's just a knife for crying out loud. (It might be different if there is a hostage involved, but the situations in the cases on CNN sounded rather controlled with that respect.)

[icedawg]

World populations 1800: 1 billion 1900: 1.6 billion 1950: 2.5 billion 1999: 6 billion 2005: 6.5 billion The first billion was reached in 1800; the second billion, 125 years later; the third, 35 years later; the fourth, 14 years later; the fifth, 13 years later; and the sixth 12 years later. Population growth greatly accelerated between 1950 and 1999 as can be seen; apparently growth is slowing somewhat now. Just how many people are going to be sharing this planet when our grandchildren are adults? Currently, it is expected the world population will be 9 billion by 1950. And--a somewhat darker thought--where are we to bury 6 billion people upon death, while continuing to provide more land for an endlessly increasing population? For some deeper thought, why, on a planet that can supposedly provide enough resources for the survival of 6 billion people (from what I've heard; have not confirmed this figure), has there been such starvation and poverty prior to 1999?

[icedawg]

(This one is just for us Canadians.) Fellow Canadians, please consider voting Conservative in the upcoming elections. I know many of us are somewhat apprehensive in regards to their social policies and whether or not they'd attempt to implement them or adjust the current laws already in place. Frankly I believe they've gotten the message that the majority of us do not agree with their moral platform, and I really don't believe they'd be willing to jeopardize support for themselves by doing so. I suggest voting Conservative simply because the right message needs to be sent to the Liberals: that we will not tolerate corruption in our government. Yes, it's naive to believe truly it can be stopped, but it's important to look at it as a system of checks and balances: we need to do something about it to at least discourage the behaviour. If we just keep voting the damned Liberals back in, again and again, regardless of the mess they continue to make, what message are they going to receive? Frankly I'm disappointed with the Conservatives. Last election the majority of us probably wanted to send the right message to the Liberals, but we decided the cost was too great to do so. The Conservatives failed to convince us that they wouldn't run amuck with our social polices, so that ruled them out in the eyes of many. So who did that leave? The crackpots at the NDP? Most of us know better than that... Then there's the Green Party...yeah, right. So we shamefully defaulted, again, to the Liberals. The Conservatives should have been able to identify themselves as the best choice...but they just seemed to keep tripping over themselves. At least this time it appears they're a little closer to doing so. If we again vote Liberal, have we really sent the Liberals the message we want to? Of course in doing so, we again tell the Conservatives that they still haven't gotten it right--that we're still suspicious of their motives. But what of the cost in doing so? Are we prepared to see what else the Liberals have up their sleeves as we allow them to proceed unchecked again, while simply waiting once more for the Conservatives to get their act together? Which is the lesser of the two evils?