I mean, there is so much wrong with this idea that I--even already having known of this since 1999--have trouble knowing where to begin to explain what is wrong with it. But I can pretty well sum it up just by saying, "Every-fucking-thing!"
A few rich liberals have decided not to have kids. That's their right. (And frankly I think the rest of us are just as happy.) But that won't have any effect whatsoever on the billion Chinese, and God-alone-knows how many muslims, and all the Africans, and all the South Americans, who choose to have more than enough children to make up for the rich liberals choosing not to breed, and then some.
Procreation is a basic biological drive and you can't eliminate it. Humans will not voluntarily go extinct.
The article is full of typical eco-moonbattery, too, of course. "Earth can't support the human population", my ass. Earth can support a hell of a lot more people than are on it now. The entire current population of the planet could live in reasonable comfort in Texas. That done, the rest of North America could be given over to supporting that civilization and the entire rest of the planet could lay fallow. We're nowhere near taxing the limits of this planet's life-support capability.
One commenter--"Brian" from Los Angeles--says it's okay to pan Tom Cruise's new film but "...industry critics should stop jumping on the film because they want to make fun of Tom Cruise's career wobblings." He goes on to say, "Don't say 'the movie is going to suck because I like making fun of Tom Cruise.'"
The only problem with that exhortation is that I really enjoy making fun of Tom Cruise.
I can just see Tom Cruise sitting up late at night, seeing this article on-line, and logging in as "Brian" to make just such a post. It's a funny image.
Lions for Lambs was the last movie Cruise made, and it was, to put it delicately, unsuccessful. (Most Americans don't like to see their country being dissed, particularly not by rich American liberals.) Valkyrie doesn't sound like it'll be any better.
Considering the level of judgement shown by Cruise in selecting a religion, it's not all that surprising that he's making crappy movies when he has creative control. The same thing happened to the Star Wars franchise, in fact....
Speed Racer apparently only did $20 million this past weekend. I wish I could say I was surprised by this, but I'm not. Most people who remember Speed Racer don't remember it fondly.
Anime fans like me, who can see the series for what it is, have a different perspective than most people do, but we're basically a niche market. And having seen the trailers it looks to me like they've "re-imagined" the story, which does not instill a lot of confidence.
The anime featured cars that ran on gasoline and which had more-or-less normal steering. The movie cars have four-wheel steering and can run down the racetrack sideways if the driver so desires. And they don't run on gas, either.
To be fair, the cars in the comic book must've been capable of getting about 300 miles to the gallon while roaring along at 170 MPH, but they did run on ordinary chemical fuel.
And while we're at it, what's this nonsense about the "Mach VI"? Speed never drove anything but the "Mach V".
...no, I haven't seen the movie yet.
More moron movie madness, this time from Oliver Stone. He's going to do a "fair" biopic of George W. Bush.
And if you believe that, I should be able to convince you that I'm Xena, warrior princess. (Hint: I am not Xena.)
"A fair depiction", in the liberal lexicon, means "the Republican is excoriated". The linked article gives this massivly indicative quote: "How did an alcoholic bum become most powerful leader in world?"
The same way we don't trust men to be in charge of Girl Scout troops, we should not trust homosexuals to mentor young boys. I think the linked article makes a good case for "why".
* * *
My cross-post of Atomic Fungus #1054 has had 252 views, and has prompted exactly three comments...and one of those three was my reply to a point brought up by someone else.
Well, though, it's true that "what if I put in this engine?" threads are a dime a dozen on PFF. Now, if I posted a build thread of myself doing it, with pictures, that'd be a different story.
Whenever I see a thread title with bad grammar or spelling, I have to restrain myself to keep from posting wisecrack replies. There's one thread entitled, "Toll fees hikes; another way for cooks to get at your wallet!" Every time I see it, I want to post in that thread, "Curse those evil cooks!"
It's a typo; he meant crooks. But I keep imagining a guy in a chef's hat picking some other guy's pocket.
Thanks to the timely intervention of "Fier0girl"--now banned--the forum has discovered "ZOMG". I've been using "ZOMG" for centuries* but I never used it on the forum. Oh well.
* Time period exaggerated slightly.
* * *
I can get "33 to 41 MPG" for a lot less than seventeen thousand dollars and I can do it on 87 octane fuel. (Can I still call it "the cheap stuff" when it's pushing $4? It's a relative measure. Please?)
My 1995 Escort cost me about $600 when you add all the parts I've put into it since buying the car, non-running, for $400. (I didn't even haggle with the guy. I just handed him his asking price. Why? Two words: "intact airbags".) It gets 33 MPG as it sits now. If I were to put my spare engine into the thing, it'd be at least 36. (Burning oil on one cylinder=lowered fuel economy.)
I could buy about seventeen Escorts for the price of that one Smart car. Or I could buy one Excort and pay insurance, maintenance, and fuel for several years, possibly decades, for the price of that one car.
Mind you, if someone were to give me a Smart car, I wouldn't reject it...but I'd probably sell it to some eager moron, and then use the proceeds to: rebuild the engine in the Escort; put the other Escort drivetrain into the '86 Fiero, and rebuild that car's suspension and get it street-legal again; pay someone to fix the 1977 MGB so it could be used; and probably still have enough money left over to seriously overhaul my entertainment system and upgrade my anime collection.
It's like the idiots who buy Toyota Priuses. Congratulations, moron: you just paid a premium for an econobox. You paid more for the car than you can possibly save in fuel costs, unless your last car was an M1 Abrams tank or you drive 80,000 miles per year. Even if gas costs $5 per gallon.
The difference between 33 MPG and 18 MPG is greater than the difference between 33 MPG and 45 MPG. Not only is this basic arithmetic, but it's a technological issue as well; you get to pick two of the following: fast, efficient, cheap. The Prius is not cheap; the idiotic parallel hybrid technology used to build the thing is hideously expensive, but at least it gives acceptable acceleration. ("Acceptable" meaning it goes from 0-60 faster than 12 seconds.)
The Smart is efficient and cheap, but that only applies if you consider $17,000 to be "cheap". It's imported from Europe, for crying out loud, and the dollar is weak against the euro, so $17k is probably about as good as it gets. (Even if it were made here, that figure wouldn't improve. The US is barely cheaper than Europe for manufacturing, these days. Barely. You want companies to stop exporting jobs? Make it easier for them to make a profit while keeping the jobs here, dumbass!)
If you want 33 MPG you can get a Chevy Aveo, starting around $11,000. It's not "new" and "chic" but it'll save you money. You won't have to use premium fuel, either.
We used to be able to build cars that got 40+ MPG without hybrid technology. They went 0-60 in about 15-20 seconds but they managed rather well, and if you knew how to drive one you could effortlessly drive in freeway traffic without causing anyone any trouble. (You learn how to take off-ramps at 50 MPH, which most are designed for anyway, and you learn to think and plan ahead so you've got most of the speed you need when you're trying to do something like merge with traffic.)
Because the American automotive mindset relies on gasoline remaining cheap approximately forever, few people bother to think about what they'll do with their gas-guzzling behemoths when gas is $4 per gallon until gas is $4 per gallon...and then they get angry at the oil companies for "price gouging".
I don't know how many times I've gone over this in prior Fungus posts. Lots. I keep coming back to it, though.
If you chose to buy a Hummer H2--a $50,000 pickup truck with a wagon body--knowing that it weighs three and a half tons and gets 12 MPG with a tailwind, don't come bitching to me when you have to pay $400 per week to keep the thing in gasoline. I don't have any sympathy for you; you chose to buy that stupid thing for schlepping your kids around solely because you liked the idea of driving a $50,000 penis extension. You certainly didn't need anything like that much vehicle for your life in the suburbs, though you justified it to yourself by telling yourself it was "safer" than a more appropriately-sized vehicle. You made the bed; lie in it.
"Well, I didn't know gas was going to be $4 per gallon!" So? Did you even consider the possibility that gas might go up in price? Or were you so enthralled with how "cool" it was that you didn't even consider the "cost-to-own" of the thing?
I'm just saying that people make stupid decisions, and most seem constitutionally incapable of acknowledging their own complicity in their situations. "It's not my fault; it's the oil companies! They're charging too much!" Yeah. It has nothing to do with the law of supply and demand or anything. You could have bought a minivan which averages twice the best fuel economy of your H2...but oh no, that would make you feel old and out of touch and not cool. Can't have that! So--somehow--it's the fault of the oil companies that you have to spend so much to fill up your $50,000 station wagon.
In the meantime, the people who bought the small cars are laughing as they drive past your sorry ass at the gas station.
* * *
George Will has some questions for Barak Hussein Obama. Heh.
When you decide to steal something, make sure it's worth risking your life. This is why gun control increases crime: if more criminals had to worry about being shot while trying to commit a crime, there would be less of it.
If you try to steal someone's truck and you know he's unarmed because guns are illegal in your area, you know you can be long gone before the cops show up in response to the guy's 911 call. But if you try to steal someone's truck, and he has a gun, you may end up dead. Worth it?
Criminals are not well-known for their decision-making capability, though. Much like Tom Cruise, actually.
Want to eliminate the "worldwide waves of fear of Islam"? Stop the islamic terrorists. Repudiate islamic terror attacks when they happen. Stop giving tacit approval of atrocities by saying nothing when they occur. Maybe then you'll have the beginnings of eliminating the "fear of islam". End the "honor killings" and stop treating women like cattle.
People fear islam because you guys look like a bunch of super-violent misogynistic nutcases. It's not because they're bigots; it's because lots of muslims are batshit insane.
Al Sharpton owes IRS $1.5 million. I would think that someone like Al Sharpton could afford a competent accountant, don't you?
* * *
I'm glad I got the grass cut Saturday, because Sunday was a miserable day. It was cold, and windy, and it rained just about all day.
* * *
And now it's Monday, and I have work tonight. Oh well. More later!