DAD - watch with the lights on...

Not exactly sure just how 'ignorant' you have to be but it actually looks like something I would do. How long do you think the snake thought about what its choices are watching this dude walk along side it?

Zurich, how very German of you

The Swiss are a lot like the Germans (go figure) - but by that I mean they seem angry and far from friendly but if you approach them first, it turns out they are super happy and very friendly.

Checking out today, they called my room to ask 'what time they might expect me to need a check out'? Funny, I called down at 10am to ask for a 1pm late check out. 1pm? That is fine, jah. Thank you. click.

I hung up - this would normally make me mad, I mean after all I am allowed 4pm late check outs with the status I have with this hotel chain... But not today, today I figure they are just a little out of sorts downstairs and the person I spoke to at 10am didn't let anyone know.

Ok, so they have been feeding me these things called, I kid you not, 'Speckli' - tiny little vanilla/almond flavored Swiss versions of a Madeline Cake/Cookie. They are soft and bread like but a touch sweet - very much like cake indeed. In a convenient travel size.

So its 1pm - and true to my word I am standing at the counter. It seems like just yesterday that I was standing at this very counter asking for dinner directions and the man I was speaking to quickly fired off 'that iz not allowed!' at his co-worker.

Seems she was letting a couple stand slightly behind the counter to use the computer terminal as the free internet computer in the lobby was not working.
She said something to him, he said something back - it was all rapid fire.

Then he turns to me without breaking stride and says 'jah, here is vere you want to go!' in the most friendly of voices.

Oh wait, that was yesterday. So each time I come to the counter there is this formality but also a feeling like I am interrupting. Very German to me. Its this 'I am being efficient, look at my efficiency and now what, now you interrupted me and I must do my job but now I will not be as efficient' ...How may I help you, sir?' bit.

Anyway, checking out I ask where can I buy some of these Sprecklis you have me addicted to. NOT IN ZURICH! was the reply - perhaps not quite so sharply but perhaps it was, very hard to tell. These Germ...Swiss aren't so friendly.

Then they handed me a bag of them - no questions asked, no money exchanged. Friendly indeed. And that is Switzerland in a nutshell, think Germany but with fewer people and more laid back but not too laid back as not to be efficient...

If I ever doubted my heritage was German, that is long gone. Seems not to friendly but if you take the first steps....want to be efficient at almost all costs (almost) and will give you a bag of Spreckli just cause you said you liked them.

--------A little about dinner and we are out of here --------------

Restaurant Zeughauskeller! Why does everything that is spelled like this come out of my head as an excited shout that starts slow and ends 'up and to the right' with emotion?

Anyway, I ordered: Aelplermagronen (Alpine Macaroni - vegetarian) a specialty from the heart of Switzerland, with onions, potato cubes, served in a cream sauce with a portion of apple chunks with cinnamon (traditional)

It was excellent. I just didn't feel like meat, even though, as the menu says, "Sausages are our favorites". The restaurant is located on the Paradeplatz stop of nearly every light rail line in Zurich. Bread in Switzerland is also remarkable and at this lovely place, it costs 1.50chf per piece (they serve it in a basket and you tell them how much you had, like Italy and the table wine). Nice and crunchy while also chewy - well worth the small price.

A couple other interesting pictures and then off to Dooblin...

Zurich, for the heck of it

Actually its work related but so far its far better than Geneva, by a long shot. Got all weekend so if you know of something I should go see or do, send me email.

Last meal - I sure hope they finished before she sunk

The Titanic - surely one of the most tragic travel accidents in history, one because it was man versus nature from the beginning ("The unsinkable ship"?!?, C'mon they were just begging for Mother Nature to take a shot) - or at least the human kind bravado where luxury and engineering were set to conquer, and two - and most importantly, because over 1500 people died that night.

Well, turns out they ate well:Here's to hoping we all met our demise not in cattle class (third class on the RMS Titanic) but in First class after enjoying a fine meal.

Bush~ism, I'd laugh it he wasn't so laughable that it makes me sad

Let's make sure that there is certainty during uncertain times in our economy.
--George W. Bush Washington, DC 06/02/2008

The one thing I AM certain of is the future of uncertainty with regards to our economy. Thanks, W for the legacy that will keep on giving/

The news used to clean his lines up they wouldn't publish his direct quotes - like the time he said "There is an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me --- you can't get fooled again."

When he said this I had heard it on the radio live and was floored. Then I check the news to get it right so I could make fun of it like a proper patriot and all I could find (at the time) was 'President says 'won't get fooled' by enemy'. There were variations on it but I guess it was 2002 and it wasn't yet time to point out (again) what a poor speaker and idiot he is. But the good news is that on the White House web page you can find all those gems directly.

Of course to save time, I just recommend you get the calendar version.

Discourse with an old friend

(for my few regular readers, this post is a response to my comments left in response to this blog of a friend of mine I have known for 20 years)

Welcome to public discourse old friend. A reminder this should be a blogscussion(c, Raleigh Mann) on The Energy Problem but it seems to be deteriorating into a political debate on which side is 'worse' on this subject. As I am not a scientist, I don't claim to be correct but I will say your original blog was chock full of 'hippy' and 'liberal' this and that - as if 'they' got the WORLD into this problem. Yes, $4 gas is expensive for American's - boo hoo.

So if this is a political debate on which party is to blame for high gas prices we can go that route or if this is a debate on what to do about the Peak Oil problem, we can cover that too but lets not try to mix the two issues as they are separate and not equal. One is the same ol, same ol and the other is science meets economics. I am game just tell me what your original post meant to cover and I will readdress my counters.

Counter Point #1: Quoting from a published article on Huffington Post, by the author David Goldstein. Not quoting Huffington, who appears to smoke the same pipe that most blathering talking heads like Bill O'Really seem to puff on...

On your point (on my point) on Ethanol not being an alternative fuel. Yes, it is correctly identified as an alternative fuel. NO, it is NOT answer for solving the fuel 'crisis'. My point was (and is) that growing ethanol from any food crop COSTS MORE ENERGY than it replaces as an additive.

Not only that but it has helped raise the price (I will let you pick which 'web site' this comes from so you don't accuse me of citing a left wing news source) of food crops (older citation just in case you think this is 'news') since there are fewer of them being grown. Your point on ethanol seemed only to say that the price is the same. It seems as if you are talking about price and I am talking about how we are in a fuel crisis. I wouldn't say that the price 'being the same' (as normal gas) is equal to 'deride ethanol as less than advantageous alternative to petrol'. (citing your own words in case you think I am twisting them as leftist rebels would do).

And this is the crux of our 'blogscussion' (c, 2008 Raleigh Mann) is that you don't seem to want to understand that there are bigger problems than drilling or not drilling off the coast or in Alaska. You see, currently India and China have an appetite for oil that far out weighs our ability to pay for it (hence the production of oil has PEAKED while the demand continues to grow). You think drilling is the answer but I don't think you understand the question. The question is 'What is America going to do to get off the oil teet?' and thinking that drilling will even put a dent in that I got bad news for you:

In a 2006 report, the Interior Department offered a wide range of estimates as to how much oil could be recovered offshore. While it estimated that the Outer Continental Shelf could hold as much as 115.4 billion barrels, it also noted that recoverable reserves off U.S. coasts in now-banned areas probably contain only about 19 billion barrels.

The U.S. consumes about 20.6 million barrels a day, about 60 percent from foreign sources.

If 19 billion barrels are available in as-yet-untapped U.S. coastal areas, opening them all to drilling — an unlikely prospect if individual states are allowed to impose their own restrictions, as Bush and McCain recommend — would provide about 920 days, or 2.5 years, of current American consumption.

So according to most people, *IF* we are lucky enough to tap that 19 billion barrels, we get 2.5 years of more oil. Hoo-RAY, lets keep doing everything we have been plus this new drilling and go home. But everyone knows we can't and that even limiting the damage to our coastal waterways with the most careful drilling we end up with an ugly coastline for this 2.5 years of continued oil use. (I have seen the commercial and 'they' (big oil) have giant bendy straws for getting this stuff out environmentally friendly. I am sure big oil wouldn't lie to us on this matter. /end sarcasm/

For the economics of the issue - China's demand for light-sweet crude is up 25% per year over year. At this growth rate, paying $250/barrel for China won't be a problem as the Chinese have $1,000,000,000,000.00 American dollars to pay for it with (the real reason Bush HAD to go to the Olympic opening ceremony, if they ever want their money back for our debt we sold them, we are so S-C-R-E-W-E-D). Add to that mix India's increasing need for oil and now you have a major supply/demand issue on your hands. (Yes, yes, your original post was seemingly on supply being able to be offset by this off-shore drilling but I just covered that fallacy above.)

On counter-counter point #3 - hybrids are great if you don't already own a car. Go get in line to buy one. Check, we seem to almost agree here. But then you throw out this liberal media bias shit that is really pandering to the core of the republican spin zone that drives me bananas. If liberals owned media then I would have seen coverage of the articles of impeachment of Bush filed recently. It wasn't even covered on my hippie media news from San Francisco. Can you believe that? /ok, really end sarcasm/

The GIGANTIC CORPORATIONS that own the news outlets aren't forthright and keeping you and me in the know. Hell, if the liberals owned the media Bush wouldn't have had the Supreme Court rule to make him president. The news would have covered the database mis-use for culling the Florida vote registration, the insiders at the Supreme Court on the Bush payroll and all the other "Oh SNAP" moments during the recount days. Liberals owning the media - Hollywood - sure thing, 'THE MEDIA', no.

General Electric owns NBC (GE is the 11th largest corporation in the world) , Westinghouse owns CBS and the entire list of media owners is downright scary. Geesh, if the liberals have this much cash, then why is the world seemingly run by the republicans and their cohorts? I am sure each party takes turns taking care of their own but this would be me pulling this discussion on energy shortages back into party politics. Please get your facts straight when talking about liberal media. Last I heard, Air America (radio, not the CIA drug running operation during Vietnam) wasn't doing so well and that was about the extent of liberal owned media.

Next point: I know who BP is, I was there when we filmed a commercial for them about 12 years ago to introduce them to American's watching their boob tubes. I know they generate electricity - IN OTHER COUNTRIES. What about Exxon-Mobil? This country's largest oil producer doesn't generate electricity or participate in the production of electricity outside of making diesel. Not only do they not do much besides count major cash, oh yeah - they also donate to the right. FAR RIGHT:

Political contributions

The ExxonMobil political action committee (PAC) contributed $698,450 to federal candidates in the 05/06 election cycle - 7% to Democrats and 93% to Republicans.

This is about as fair and balanced as Fix news. (No, I am not saying they should equally distribute their donations to political campaigns just showing you how stacked the deck is...)

Ok, back to power generation - I don't care what you get in Virginia, (btw, I thought you were back in Alabama?) for the United States of America - we get about EXACTLY 50% of ALL ELECTRICITY IN THE US from....COAL.
I suppose our liberal government facts are wrong but for now, I will accept your apology on accusing my facts as being 'fake' somehow in your counter-point. Yes, we import oil - we also export it for some reason (I actually know the reason, do you?). But the number one country we get oil from is Canada.

I suppose we will invade as soon as some evidence of WMDs can be manufactured and subsequently forgotten about. Oh wait, maybe we could say Osama bin Laden is hiding there - remember that name??! Its been a while since he was spoken of - last I recall, he was the dude responsible for the Tower collapse and not anyone or anything from Iraq. (here I go making this a political debate which it is clearly not)

Second to last point - correct, I have never lived over seas. I have, however, fully used my govt issued passport (pre-chip thank you very much) and after visiting over 30 countries and five continents I have seen the love of the small car. I would love one of the numerous little hatchbacks I get to rent every where I go, but alas on American streets and highways (paid for by our tiny little Federal Tax on Gasoline which doesn't quite cover the tab) they simply aren't the safest thing to drive.

And as a liberally leftist bent hippie in California, I drive two vehicles that get a combined average of 15.5 mpg. I do this because I like to drive and drive fast in my 350+hp V8 2 seater and my 550+hp 6.3 liter V8 for the 5 passengers to feel what its like to go from 0 - 60 in 4.3 seconds. It sometimes makes my dogs throw up but then I get the car cleaned and all is well. Worse, I chose to pay something around $2500 gas guzzler tax on both vehicles. I don't mind personally. I am paying a luxury tax that I can afford or I would choose another car to buy. And smaller cars are sold (and sometimes even made) in this country.

Now back to the gasoline tax that evil Al Gore tie-breaking voted to increase. This tax covers the Federal Highways and several state highways, pays for 'public transportation' (assuming this mostly means AmTrak??!) and up until 1996, 6.8 cents of this tax actually went to pay off some of our deficit. But the final straw is this is an EXCISE TAX (you accidentally called this a general tax). Its a tax on the producers of the gasoline who pay it directly for each gallon of gas they produce. The fact that they then pass it on to the consumer is the real crux of the matter. I am sure you did the research but I included it here for others to read.

I like how your retort goes back to not being a republican puppet that thinks for yourself (bravo sir, bravo) but then there ya go - throwing around labels again as if that were enough of an argument unto itself.

Side note:
I don't know which news source you follow (guessing its Fix News all the time in your house) and I am sure you read things like the Standard perhaps when the Sacramento Union and its all of 15,000 FREE COPIES they manage to distribute gets old in your household - but not all Democrats ARE liberals (very very few are and none of them would admit it thanks to Ronnie making that somehow a cursed word) and certainly not all of them are knee-jerk. Some of them are just jerks - like the many republicans you admire. Further, not all liberals are tree huggers and most tree huggers are not democrats, most of them are green party members.

Last point: I guess I am missing the hypocrisy of incentivizing companies to reduce their carbon footprint and make money doing it at the same time by selling their 'carbon credits' to other companies not reducing theirs. It helps force some change which is better than none. And point of fact, many of the companies who were going to have to reinvest capital due to a normal 'cycle' of such things are finding that its cheaper to reduce their carbon output with the latest technolgies and selling the credits (which do expire btw) is just icing on the cake.

So if you think the Republicants who have been in power for these past 7 years (with a recent congress of almost TWO years of democratic leadership btw, not four as you stated) and have denied global warming, denied peak oil and have fostered oil speculation (although it was Clinton who allowed Enron to start the unregulated oil speculation market that still exists today), provided tax cuts to big oil and then slashed funding for alternative energy - best of luck. It will take much luck for that plan to work. Deriding the Dems for being tree hugging do nothings but somehow characterizing the Republicans as doing nothing 'by placing it to far down the priority list' seems hypocritical to me.

The upshot - I don't believe the Dems will do much better - the American public doesn't seem to understand the current issues on why we pay $4/gal for gas. Its still cheap, its been subsidized for years and now that the dollar is worthless we are paying more for a product that is in global short supply. Drilling off-shore won't help end our need for foreign oil plain and simple - it will buy us less than three more years. Hell, even it were 5 or 10 more years (it isn't, hope is not a strategy and prayer is not a plan) the GLOBAL ECONOMY would still be faltering as its all based on crude oil that will never again be produced enough to meet the current and worse, rising demand.

Unless you mean we can get oil out of the hair of all those old white men republicants that still grease their hair back... (there I go again...)

PS - In case you weren't around the last time this debate was started, it was when we needed to replace whale oil with something else and that turned out to be crude oil from the ground. Texas tea. Black gold. Well, these whales are in short supply so aggressively determining our forward path is the best option, not delaying the innevidable.

Diner's Drive-ins and Dives: TV you want to eat

Maddie 'found' this show for us and if you aren't aware of the Food Network, this is the reason to find it on your cable listing: Diners, Drive-ins and Dives covers the places you'd like to know exist when you visit a new area.

What you need to do is this: have your tivo find the show and record it - go ahead, I'll wait...

Ok, now go to this list of places Guy has gone to (the host of the show) and find one near you to visit yourself. If you are unsure, send me email and I will tell you what places I have seen on the show and would give my eye tooth (side note: do people still say that? Eye-tooth? I dunno, tooth, teeth, one of them sounds right to me) to go to myself and then go there FOR ME.

Tell them Maddie sent you though, for she is the responsible party in all this...aw heck, who am I kidding, she is the 'designated responsible party' for the royal 'WE' - period.