1. Thanks, but I like throwing my electronics in a heap on the side of the house.  Makes me feel at-home, as if I'm back in Lousiana....

 

2. I think throwing electronics in dumpsters stimulates ecological entrepreneurs to generate new ideas for products. If everything was recycled, there wouldn't be a need.  Dumping is just doing my part. Thanks, though.

 

3. Thanks, but I've contracted with a program that just throws the junk out in space.

 

4. My boneyard. ? . Are they kidding?  Dumped electronics isn't the first thing I think of when I hear "my boneyard."

 

5. Nobody cares about this.  Thanks though.  (My personal favorite)

"I like the idea of charging for carry-ons and allowing the first checked bag free! I am usually traveling with both a computer bag and a clothing bag that would fit overhead. But, I don't travel enough anymore to warrant preferred boarding, so that means a race to find a place for ANY carryon! Why not charge those who travel for business on a regular basis and prefer to carry on? They're usually on expense accounts and can charge the fees back to their companies. Besides, even if I can find a space for a carry-on, I'm short and not as strong as I was when I traveled on business. The baggage charge is also a real deterrent to any traveler who is less than perfect or physically fit. That's discrimination! Maybe AARP should take up this cause for older travelers."

"And the other thing about the whole scandal that annoys me is the fact that is has never really been reported accurately. It’s constantly called a pedophile scandal, when in reality there were only maybe 2% of all the priests who were accused, and of that, only 2% were true cases of pedophilia. 

HH: It was mostly adolescent boys, wasn’t it? 

GC: Yeah, it was really, and people don’t want to say this, because, and I understand why, it was really a homosexual problem, which is not to say that all homosexuals are inclined to be attracted to teenage boys. But 80% of the cases were between adult men and teenage boys who had adult bodies, but they were not old enough to give consent. It’s in so way to say that it makes it better, but I just like to see greater accuracy in the reporting."

 

But I think in terms of what the responsible press would do, would be to look into the organization and say okay, now the Church has made advances, you know, I believe according to the Catholic League in the past year, out of 40,000 priests, there were five accusations made. So obviously, great progress has been made. But is SNAP [a Catholic victims' rights organization calling for the removal of Cardinal Mahoney] ever willing to acknowledge that? They never do.  

"But my understanding is that what the Cardinal was trying to do was to protect the privacy rights of the priests under California law, with regard to personnel files. But even beyond that, I think he was making a very important point with regard to the practice of the Catholic religion, and that is the relationship between the bishop and his priests is not the same as the relationship between an employer and employees. There is a paternal relationship that exists with the bishop at the father, and the priests are the sons, and there needs to be confidential communications between the two. And so when he was asked to release files that he felt should be protected, he challenged that in courts, and ultimately lost it at the Supreme Court. But the fact of the matter is that he wasn’t really trying to cover up. At least I never perceived it that way. I think what he was trying to do was to protect an important principle with regard to the way the Catholic Church functions."  

HH: But if it is true, and I’m glad we agree on this, that there is that perception and it is widespread, oughtn’t the Cardinal, for the benefit of the Church, to retire? 

GC: You know, I don’t think anything would be served by that. I mean, he, when you’re appointed to a post such as an Archbishop of Los Angeles, it’s something that you’re supposed to occupy until you turn 75 years old, or transfer to another position. And you know, for example, we can make a contrast between Cardinal Law and Cardinal Mahoney. The documents that came out in Boston showed that Cardinal Law had moved priests from place to place, even though there had been accusations against those priests, where with Cardinal Mahoney, he has been very forthright about the cases where he had known that priests had a problem, and had them go through treatment, had been assured that the treatment was successful, and put them back into ministry, and then they repeated, they offended again. And he said that these are the cases that really troubled him the most. But in Los Angeles, you didn’t see a systematic pattern of priests who were offending being reassigned… 

   1.  At your generic auto blog, supposedly the commenters know cars.  I'm looking for somebody to talk about the rather unusual drive train (how is it performing in the snow & ice?  What about hitting bumps and skids?)  Tell me something about the MDS and actual gas mileage.  Any news on the release of the hybrid?  I was disappointed to find--well, exactly what you might expect--that the comments about this SUV are almost exclusively about the likes/dislikes of the body style.  Doesn't that describe our current culture?  Everybody's obsessed with "looks" and ambivalent about function, use, and substance.  Sigh. 

 

   2.  I visited a site called Hybridcar.com.  Voila!  An article on the Aspen.  Against my better judgment, I read it.  You may find the opener interesting.  (The article does end on a rather fair note, giving Chrysler credit for manufacturing a vehicle that makes some sense.)  Yet, the tone of the entire piece is quite condescending--check out this excerpt (emphasis mine).

Hemi Hybrid Hijinks

The introduction of Chrysler’s first hybrids could be misconstrued as a bad practical joke. That’s because Chrysler’s Dodge Durango and Chrysler Aspen Hybrids will pair up a hybrid gas-electric system—the symbol of automotive virtue—with a powerful Hemi engine, which is best known for winning car races. . . Chrysler’s 5.7-liter V8 Hemi hybrids are very likely to offend the die-hard hybrid drivers, a group easily riled by any corruption of hybrid ideals. From the Prius point-of-view, DaimlerChrysler is flaunting its disregard for the environment by marrying sacred hybrid technology with an obscene amount of horsepower. . . Even after hybridization, these vehicles will barely break the 20-mpg mark—a fraction of what the average Prius driver achieves.

. . .Releasing two Hemi hybrids is a form of technological triage—another example of today’s ultra-light form of green consumerism which asks for no compromise from the buyer. Thanks to technology, more is still more—for now.

kballs says:  Going from 14-16MPG may save more oil than going from 35-50MPG, but going from 14-50MPG saves even more. While a 2MPG bump is a good thing for delivery trucks, garbage trucks, etc., some people can't really justify driving a land yacht. They should consider something "big enough" to meet their needs without waste. It's a vehicle, not a living room. You don't need 4ft of leg room and shoulder room. You probably don't really need 7-9 seats for the 1 time/year that you carpool with your friends to the ski slope either. . .

 

Richard says:  Justify, what's justify got to do with it. Choice baby, now they can have that Hybrid snobery in powerfull Hemi to boot.

   

Choose says:  I really like the idea of a hybrid, or all electric, and I would like to one day have a home that uses renewable energy sources.  But when I read these forums, I get turned off by all the preaching of everyone telling others what they "need" or "should have". If someone chooses to have a big car, little car, hybrid, diesel, or whatever, then that is their choice. Why should anyone tell you what you must drive, or what job you should have, or who you should vote for?  The green movement is feeling a lot like the old communist movement, in that they want to control our actions "for the greater good of the planet/society/politik". Am I the only one who sees this line of thinking, this willingness to tell others how to spend their money as scary?

 

kballs says:  That's right, you can choose to be wasteful ifn you damn well fcuking please.  People who think they are being told what they must drive should wake up, the world doesn't revolve around you OR tell you what to drive... or do you feel that guilty?Most statements are of more of a "reevaluate your needs" nature than saying "everyone must drive a Prius, SUVs should be illegal".  There are people who use their big trucks and SUVs to capacity for a majority of their miles driven. But there are a lot of people who commute daily in their big gas hogs, completely empty... their reasons for "choice" are along the lines of "I like the space, which I never stretch out in because I'm always behind the wheel", "It can haul stuff, which I rarely do, but it's cool, unlike a minivan or wagon", or "It's safe because it's big and heavy and I 'win' in collisions by killing and maiming the other people."  So you're welcome to choose to be wasteful. In fact, I'm going to freely express my god-given freedom and patriotic right to be wasteful by buying a Prius, and all the gallons of gas I save over a Suburban I'm going to set on fire for all to watch. I have a right to impact the environment and it's future effects on our race to the full extent of everyone else even if I don't need to, because it's about choice, not needs, practicality, or moral obligation.