Here’s my nice red scooter back. (Wrong, the picture is from the bakery.) I’ve learned about $500 worth of lessons over this machine (in keeping it running), so my recent $370 repair bill isn’t entirely lost money. Next item was that carb I had rebuilt. It works but it is simply worn out. The needles, which are brass colored steel pins (to the untrained eye) eventually give out. I stall at the odd intersection but other than that, I’m back on the road. But that completely destroys my budget for this month.
Interesting. Mail sent to Canada takes at least two weeks to get delivered. (Ten working days.) I pointed out to my pal over there that in 1850 it took less time to send a packet to England by steamship. Ah, yes, Canada. My two top quotes, which just might become famous if I repeat them often enough are:
“Canada, where taxes make food so cheap a lot of people can barely afford it.”
“In America, when I help my neighbor, it is my choice. Not my neighbor's.”
The experts can tell you, Canada is not a democracy. It is a slightly east-of-left socialist state. What is not forbidden is compulsory. Roughly 40% of the nation is on welfare of some kind, an entrenching tool that US politicians are just beginning to discover. Canada would be a third world backwater except it had the geographical good fortune to be next to a huge consumer of its raw materials.
The Canuck economy ultimately exists by selling off these unearned materials at rock-bottom prices. They have a repressive legal system—you never hear of abuses like you do in the US because in Canada, abuse is not illegal. Justice? Canada is on the Amnesty International watch list (detaining people without arrest or trial). And worst, Canada allows ex post facto law (if you are acquitted, they can change the law in order to make you guilty).
Google Chrome has come out with yet another round of spyware. I spent this morning blocking it piece by piece. But you can’t really stop Google as their tentacles spread. I can now confirm the intent of Google is to round up anyone who has a variety of different log-ons and passwords all into one big “Google Account” where they can ID you and track you as an individual with or without your consent. You have no say in the matter. Don’t be stupid, if they can memorize your user name, they know your password.
Another outfit to watch out for is Adobe and their incessant “updates”. Every website you visit with Adobe on you system is tracked by that company for unspecified purposes. Since they are not an advertiser or provider, you can bet your ass they are up to no good. Like a thief in the night. Want a cheap and easy test to see if you are being tracked? Log on to any service like Adobe or your email, and while these screens are active, go into your browser and delete all your history and tracking cookies. There is a reason some people want you to close all your browers before you continue—and it isn’t your health that concerns them, If you find you DON”T have to log back on to all the active screens, you are being tracked. Worst known tracker to date because you CANNOT delete it? MicroSoft Outlook.
After further security checks, I see that Google was only able to tie some of my accounts together by collaborating with Windows 7. While I don't care since it is only e-mail accounts, I still believe such activity to be an illegal invasion of privacy. Some people may not want Google monitoring their non-Google accounts. Anyway, all I have to say to Google is, "Fuck you." You can't do business with honest people unless you are honest yourself. That's a lesson you will learn the hard way. Ask Patsie.
Are you feeling rich? I'm not. I'm $800 over budget for January, and it is only the 16th. So I will not be running out and buying this bicycle wheel. Made of unobtainium, it is on sale for half price up at Lee's. Other than this offense to common sense, that's usually a good place to shop.
ADDENDUM
For the few who asked, yes, JZ and I also discussed the accuracy of crime lab results last day. I must say there is far more interest in that subject than can be explained away by curiosity. While this blog cannot possibly convey the depth of knowledge required to argue in court, it can point you in the right direction to get you downright suspicious of lab results. Here is an example.
Crime labs often look at cells for other reasons than human DNA matching. Let’s take a look at the how and why of staining cells. Most of us have seen cells stained a single color under the microscope in Biology 2. But out in the real world, the lab isn’t studying cell structure as often as it is trying to identify an unknown organism. They use two-color staining. And that is what we are about to learn.
One of the primary classifications of cells involves determining whether it is gram-positive or gram negative. Technically, gram should be capitalized as Gram, since it is a proper noun. Dr. Christian Gram. The two stains usually used are first purple, then red. Why? Because the purple dyes the gram positive and the red dyes the gram-negative parts. But you are about to find out a dunce lab tech can easily mess things up.
The purple dye is applied first, then it must be “washed” out to a rather precise degree using, guess what? Good old ethyl alcohol, about 190 proof. In theory, the gram-positive parts are still purple. Then red stain is added and colors what is left—and that is presumed to be gram-negative. But is it? These cell parts are largely positive or negative due to the presence or absence of an outer layer that can be stripped away by careless lab procedure.
There is nothing to stop certain types of people from becoming lab techs, the very type of people you would never leave alone in a room with a jar of 95% Everclear. But even so, the purple dye has to be very carefully washed or the sample layer (called peptidoglycan) can be “denuded” and accept the wrong color of stain. I doubt this alone is ever critical in the courtroom, but the objective here is that the tests are far from infallible.
What’s more, if you have ever viewed a “lab card” you see that there is no determination of whether the suspect is taking antibiotics. Guess what penicillin does? Yep, and considering the lifestyles of people who require penicillin, ahem, who is to trust they did not consume alcohol during the entire time they took the prescription? Yet the lab tech who is staining the sample is not even required to ask such relevant questions. Again, not enough to have any evidence thrown out, but a strong indication not to accept lab results at face value. More than ever, get a second opinion.
I am not a lab tech and deny having had any medical training.
Return Home
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
