I got up this morning after sleeping all night and ate a leftover 6" meatball sub while posting here. Then I got an attack of hypoglycemia.
Had a can of Slim-Fast, went to bed, and napped for a little while; woke up after noon starving. Went to KFC for food for Mom and me; I got myself an extra breast and ate everything but the biscuit. Sat down to play WoW, then I got an attack of hypoglycemia.
It wasn't as bad as the first time, so I just ignored it. I shut down the computer, though, and listened to some music for a while. Before deciding I was too tired to stay awake, I took my "Shannon's Landing" ballcap over to the kitchen sink and washed it. I hung it up to dry in the bathroom, then hit the hay again around 4-ish.
I slept until 11 and woke up hungry, so I put myself together and headed out. (The ballcap was dry and looking pretty good.)
The fuel level in the Jeep has been dwindling steadily, and it was too low for my comfort, so I stopped at the gas station to fill up. It took 15 gallons; and as usual I clicked the odometer into trip mode to get my fuel mileage.
That's like 12 MPG and the Jeep normally gets 18. I'm not seeing any difference in power; everything seems to be working all right. But that's just 66% of my normal fuel economy; I've been driving the thing as normal and haven't encountered any unusual conditions. I haven't been running the AC very much of late, nor have I been sitting in traffic and idling.
There are only two possible explanations I can think of:
1) Someone's been stealing gas; or
2) When I reset the computer, it also reset the trip odometer.
See, I pulled the battery's negative terminal while doing some diagnostic work at Og's place; and I pulled it again after I replaced the TPS to make sure the computer wasn't holding any codes. I don't think the trip odometer is kept in nonvolatile memory; that would account for it.
So my plan is to drive on this tankful and fill it again when it gets low, and see what the fuel economy is then. If it's not better/normal, the next step is to invest in a locking gas cap. I hate them; they're a royal pain.
* * *
The other day I made a blood elf death knight named "Slaughther" over on Galakrond. I'm still trying to get her out of the DK starting area, but I don't want to pass up the quests because you get so many skill points from them.
I don't understand why--or even how--people skip the quests in the DK starting area. Since the starting area involves a kind of instance, you can't go back later and make up those quests, as far as I know; and since you start out at 55th level, you need those skill points. Yet somehow I've seen all kinds of DKs running around in Stormwind who are 55th level--and you don't remain 55th long if you do the starting quests.
Besides, there's a progression of quests you have to follow in order to get out of there in the first place. You can't just leave.
Well--not my problem. I notice, this time, that the quests are considerably easier than they were the first time I started a DK. That has to be due to greater experience as a player. Surely they didn't nerf the quests? Right? Right?
* * *
(Actually, I think they did nerf them. And don't call me "Shirley".)
* * *
Because global warming isn't actually taking place they now want to call it "global climate disruption".
"Global climate disruption" doesn't require any particular conditions to be met; it can mean anything at all. Is it too hot? Too cold? Too rainy? Too dry? It's all "climate disruption" and it's all due to human carbon emissions!
It would be funny if it wasn't so disgusting.
* * *
Michelle Malkin discusses the O'Donnell win.
* * *
Ace talks about an article by Peggy Noonan which explains--accurately--why the TEA party is ascendant:
I see two central reasons for the Tea Party's rise. The first is the yardstick, and the second is the clock. First, the yardstick. Imagine that over at the 36-inch end you've got pure liberal thinking—more and larger government programs, a bigger government that costs more in the many ways that cost can be calculated. Over at the other end you've got conservative thinking—a government that is growing smaller and less demanding and is less expensive. You assume that when the two major parties are negotiating bills in Washington, they sort of lay down the yardstick and begin negotiations at the 18-inch line. Each party pulls in the direction it wants, and the dominant party moves the government a few inches in their direction.I blockquoted the same chunk Ace did, because it's correct.
But if you look at the past half century or so you have to think: How come even when Republicans are in charge, even when they're dominant, government has always gotten larger and more expensive? It's always grown! It's as if something inexorable in our political reality—with those who think in liberal terms dominating the establishment, the media, the academy—has always tilted the starting point in negotiations away from 18 inches, and always toward liberalism, toward the 36-inch point.
Democrats on the Hill or in the White House try to pull it up to 30, Republicans try to pull it back to 25. A deal is struck at 28. Washington Republicans call it victory: "Hey, it coulda been 29!" But regular conservative-minded or Republican voters see yet another loss. They could live with 18. They'd like 8. Instead it's 28.
For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if Democrats (and moderate Republicans) were always saying, "We should spend a trillion dollars," and the Republican Party would respond, "No, too costly. How about $700 billion?" Conservatives on the ground are thinking, "How about nothing? How about we don't spend more money but finally start cutting."
What they want is representatives who'll begin the negotiations at 18 inches and tug the final bill toward 5 inches. And they believe Tea Party candidates will do that.
The second thing is the clock. Here is a great virtue of the Tea Party: They know what time it is. It's getting late. If we don't get the size and cost of government in line now, we won't be able to. We're teetering on the brink of some vast, dark new world—states and cities on the brink of bankruptcy, the federal government too. The issue isn't "big spending" anymore. It's ruinous spending that they fear will end America as we know it, as they promised it to their children.
I would make one change to what Ms. Noonan said:
For conservatives on the ground, it has often felt as if DemocratsThe liberal Republicans might say "We should spend a trillion dollars" but they are the minority in the party. (There are perhaps two or three of them with actual positions of power. Olympia Snowe, for example.) The party leadership comes entirely from the moderate "country club" Republicans, and these are the people who have given us "GOP as 'Democrat Lite'".
(and moderate Republicans)were always saying, "We should spend a trillion dollars," and the Republican Party would respond, "No, too costly. How about $700 billion?" Conservatives on the ground are thinking, "How about nothing? How about we don't spend more money but finally start cutting."
* * *
I have to wonder how real this is. But it sounds real to me:
Looking back, as much fun as the campaign in 2008 was, Hillary Clinton should have been the nominee. Hillary was ready to be president. Obama was not ready. He had never lost a campaign. Everything was handed to him. He doesn’t really understand the idea of work – real, hard, get your heart and soul into it work.It's an interview with a "A longtime Washington D.C. insider, and former advisor to the Obama election campaign and transition team" who is not named.
If this is true, it does not bode well for us:
...just a few days before I left, I saw first hand the President of the United States yelling at a member of his staff. He was yelling like a spoiled child. And then he pouted for several moments after. I wish I was kidding, or exaggerating, but I am not. The President of the United States threw a temper tantrum. The jobs reports are always setting him off, and he is getting increasingly conspiratorial over the unemployment numbers. I never heard it myself, but was told that Obama thinks the banking system is out to get him now. That they and the big industries are making him pay for trying to regulate them more. That is the frame of mind the President is in these days.Paranoia in a national leader is never a good thing; it leads to some mighty poor decisions, things like purges and martial law and suspended elections.
*sigh* Wouldn't surprise me, though. I mean, from the first--back when I was calling him "Boss Tweek" because the "stress of the transition" was giving him a facial tic--it's seemed as if Obama was not up to the job; and in fact a lot of us on my side of the aisle said that Obama had no executive experience whatsoever.
"Executive experience" includes having to work at getting what you want; and Obama has never had to do that. His position as the junior Senator from Illinois was handed to him: a cooperative press sued to have his opponent's sealed divorce records unsealed, so he could be smeared into irrelevance; and this had been a pattern with all of Obama's prior elections. No one has so much as said "boo" to this man for his entire adult life.
That's why he's so antagonistic towards Fox News: their coverage of him is less than hagiographic, unlike the rest of the media. Fox has commentors--popular ones!--who dare to be critical of him.
Come on: this is the guy who muffed repeating the oath of office and had to have it re-administered in private, later, to ensure it was legal and constitutional!
* * *
I can't believe how freakin' tired I still am. Of course, I worked pretty hard to get that hitch off that truck in the boneyard; I used a lot of muscles I don't normally use, and I used them pretty hard. My hands still have that peculiar weak/tight feeling and my arms hurt from wrist to elbow. My shoulders are sore and my legs are, too.
No wonder I slept so much today.