Nowhere-Fast.net

The AP has decided to stop reporting on Paris Hilton.

Finally, a tiny glimmer of hope is appearing on the horizon.  Maybe - just maybe - we can save society.  It’s just a small step, but it is a step.

Over the last few days people have been talking about Al Gore and his performance at the Oscars on Sunday night. Comments range from calls for Mr. Gore to run for office again to taunts about his home energy expenditures.

There seems to be this belief that Gore is the new golden child of American politics and if he deigns to run for office he’ll be swept into power on the shoulders of a grateful, environmentally-conscious electorate. Clinton and Obama will either bow their heads in defeat or be swept away by a tidal wave of Gore. Our newly enlightened nation will then become a beacon of peace, environmental friendliness and human dignity as the world’s problems melt away like so many polar ice caps. Oh but it will be a wondrous time to be alive!

Hyperbole aside, it seems as though the consensus is that Gore could easily slip into the presidential race and win with little or no effort. I can’t help but feel as though much of the support that Gore finds in Hollywood exists precisely because he is not running. Tinseltown is already split along the Obama/Clinton divide and I don’t see how Gore The Candidate could draw the same kind of support that Gore The Filmmaker is seeing. It feels as though he’s currently Hollywood’s “one that got away,” like that person you almost dated back in High School but instead wound up being friends with and who suddenly looks really sexy again after you’ve each had a couple of drinks. The question, Hollywood, is this: do you really want to give up your wonderful friendship?

Right now Gore is uniquely positioned - he can speak the truth without fear of having the dirt that’s flung at him stick. The conservative spin-doctors and pundits will need to target their efforts on the actual candidates in order to focus and expand the schism that’s already beginning to open itself up amongst liberals. Anything thrown Gore’s way can be shaken off like too much water on a mutt because he doesn’t have to court a fickle electorate. At the same time he’s riding a wave of positive feeling and, most importantly, trust.

Ironically this trust exists because he’s not running. People are looking at Gore and they’re seeing someone who’s promoting an agenda out of a passionate desire to improve our world rather then to get himself more social and financial capital. The fact that he already ran once and lost makes him vulnerable and easier to relate to as does his brief descent into depression. Even people that wanted Bush to win felt bad for Gore after the fiasco that was the 2000 elections. People can understand Gore and they’re rooting for him because they see him as the lovable underdog who’s finally getting his due.

This is why when he says something that people have heard a thousand times before - we’re hurting our planet and if we don’t fix things humanity is fucked - they’re actually starting to pay attention. His “political agenda” is no longer thrown out as a motive for what he’s saying and big business isn’t working to denounce him because they need to focus more on the people who are actually in power. Money and effort needs to be expended by those companies now to get their agendas through before the Democrats take back the Oval Office in two years.

If he announced that he was running for the Presidency he would have alienated so many of the conservatives who are finally nurturing a seed of doubt about our energy policies. They would have turned on him in the blink of an eye and began hurling about the accusations that all of his actions over the past few years were merely political posturing. And to do so during the Oscars - the very heart of the evil, liberal beast that poisons our society? He wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in Antarctica.

So what is Gore to do other then continue the media blitz about Global Warming? The way I see it he’s got two options. First, if none of the Democratic potentials rise up to become a really strong, unifying force he could jump into the race late in the game as a “reluctant hero” type. I don’t think that’s too likely, but it could happen. Second, and more likely, he could make overtures at the candidates regarding a position in a future administration that would allow him real power to enact change in exchange for his support. Gore’s support will be desperately craved over the next year and a half and you’d better believe that he’ll use that to his advantage.

Hell, I could even see Gore coming out in support of Giuliani if Rudy maintains his liberal social policies. Now that would be interesting.

Now I know to look out for Dodge Chargers when I’m speeding in Virginia. Virginia, like other states, is dropping twenty-one grand a piece on Dodge Charger Police Interceptors. According to the article they cost $1,500 more then the standard Crown Victorias but offer much more in the way of performance and comfort. We’re talking 0-60 in 6.0 seconds and a top speed of over 150 mph. That’s not too shabby.

Oooh - Presidential chopper flying by the window.

Sorry about that - back to our regularly scheduled post.

I can’t help but wonder if there’s any real need for these swank new rides. They can go over 150 mph - but will the cops ever actually need that much power? Not during a car chase, I can tell you that much. If a car chase reached those speeds the cops would back off because it would put too many civilians in harms way. One might suggest that such a high top speed would be useful in getting to an emergency and that may be true - but it would only make a real difference on a highway when the emergency is far away from the cop in the Charger. Chances are that other cops would be closer. The acceleration would be helpful in getting behind speeders but current Interceptors haven’t had many problems in that regard. Shaving an extra second or two off of the zero to sixty time won’t change this.

On the plus side, the cars get better gas mileage then the aging Crown Vics and that’s a good thing. They’re also more comfortable and I can get behind that. Anyone who’s ever taken a road trip understand the importance of a well-designed interior and, much as I hate traffic cops, I don’t want them to sit in pain for hours on end. It’s the system’s fault, not theirs. The new Chargers handle better and that’s something I can really get behind. In a car chase it’s much more important to have a car that holds the road rather then a car that’s built for pure speed - at least, that’s what I’ve heard. A car that handles better will be more effective at catching traffic violators where it counts - on back roads or in downtown, urban areas. If someone’s speeding on the highway then it’s really no big deal. If they’re speeding through a residential area then they need to be stopped as soon as possible. There’s also the undeniable emotional satisfaction derived from driving a big, fast, mean car and in the “man’s world” of law enforcement that must have been a major plus.

When you lay the situation out like it is above then it’s understandable to get behind the new fleet. The question that keeps popping into my head, though, is this: the Police exist to protect us and is this the best way to do that? The new fleet would cost $672,000. A cursory glance showed the starting salary for police officers in Virginia to be between $36,000 a year and $40,000 a year. Looking at those numbers, the cost of the new fleet would equal paying about 17 officer’s salaries for a year. While that is a bad argument - what do you do after the first year is up? - it illustrates a point. This money could go to increasing the amount of police officers on the force or it could increase the pay for current officers. Would that further the goal of increasing public safety more then a fleet of new cars? Considering that there is no “cop car emergency” at the moment I would say that more actual human bodies or officers with higher moral would make us safer then shiny new Dodge Chargers.

I suppose that this explains the whole South Carolina speed trap, then. They need to make money to afford their swank new rides!

The Oscars are going on right now as Hollywood once again engages in an orgy of self-aggrandizement.  The only categories that are really interesting are already done - Best Short and Best Animated Short.  I’m going to have to find a copy of “West Bank Story.”

I won’t go into my feelings on the Oscars any further, instead I’m going to jump back into the beta of Lord Of The Rings Online.

That’s right, George!  LOTR Online!  Ha!

Some cops in South Carolina set up a speed trap on an overpass and caught 175 drivers speeding over the course of five hours. No, really. It’s all right here.

What does this say to you? You’ve got a five hour period on a stretch of highway in North Carolina during which 175 cars are ticketed for speeding. Now, I’ve done no research on this but I would imagine that 35 cars an hour in North Carolina probably accounts for a full half of all cars. Even if it’s not half I would imagine that it’s still a percentage that is definitely not small.

Does this say that too many people are speeding or does this say that the speed limit is too low? I think you all already know what I think.

Seriously, if that many people are “speeding” in a 65 mph zone isn’t it time to consider changing the speed limit to 75? I’m fairly certain that this isn’t one of the “Deadliest Miles!!!” or we would have all heard about it already. The odds are pretty damned good that the stretch of highway in question is no more dangerous then any other highway in the state of North Carolina or, probably, the country at large. In fact, it’s probably orders of magnitude safer then many other highways. Why? Because it’s North Carolina! Have you ever driven through North Carolina? It’s not exactly rush hour on the BQE.

They’re not going to change the speed limit, though. Hell no. Honestly, in one afternoon those caps made at least twenty grand - and that’s with an average ticket of less then $115. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had a ticket for less then $150 - of course, when I speed I tend to do it right.

They’re not going to change that speed limit because speed limits and speeding tickets are a huge source of revenue for the government. It’s like a little extra road tax that we have to pay. In countries where the speed limit is orders of magnitude higher then it is on that stretch of road in North Carolina - hell, in states where it’s higher - there has been shown to be NO correlation between speed limits and accidents. There is, however, a correlation between lower speed limits and revenue.

Certain traffic laws exist to keep us safe. For example, there’s this classic: don’t drink and drive. Another good example: don’t talk on your cell phone and drive. Also good: slow down in school zones. Stop signs? Yeah, I’m a fan. Traffic lights? I prefer roundabouts but traffic lights will do in a pinch. Fifty five miles per hour on a six lane highway? Fuck no - that’s just a way to steal money from law-abiding citizens while traffic cops get to feel superior.

Actually, there are plenty of traffic cops who are cool guys that are just doing their job. That one fucker in Connecticut on the Merritt parkway, though - he was a dick.

When I returned to Denver something happened. It appeared at first glance to be a minor tragedy and I considered making a comment on it those weeks ago. Eventually I figured that it would blow over and I decided not to mention it - or anything, for that matter. I had assumed that by the time I got back to DC I’d have plenty of other, important things to talk about.

For one, Murtha’s trying to tie troop funding to troop readiness. Democrats claim that only someone who doesn’t care for the young men and women in uniform could possibly argue with that idea while Republicans claim that it’s a transparent attempt to thwart Bush’s plan by imposing unrealistic restrictions that play more to heartstrings then logic. This is something that warrants extensive debate in the media.

Murtha is promoting an honest-to-god Good Idea. We’re sending troops out to fight for our nation so we should ensure that they’re adequately equipped physically, mentally and technologically. This will make success more likely and ensure less casualties which would improve moral both in combat zones and on the home front. Of course, it would have been much more effective a number of years ago when this war began.

At the same time, making that a requirement does result in tying the hands of the military that we trust to protect us.  We should be able to sit down and say “I may not understand what you’re doing, but I trust that you know what to do.”  If we can’t say that then we shouldn’t saddle the military with the requirements that Murtha proposes - rather we should investigate a military that we can no longer trust.  Is there ever a reason to send a troop into combat with anything less then the best equipment?  My heart says “no” but my head, quite honestly, says “yes.”

Of course no one will even begin to suggest this.  The Democrats won’t because it would be implying that Murtha is using this apparently pristine idea as a shrewd political maneuver.  Honestly, though - the man knows that what he’s proposing would be so expensive as to be impractical and would lead to a withdrawal of the troops.  Anyone who suggests otherwise is naive.  On the other hand, the Republicans won’t suggest this because it would imply a lack of faith in a military in which they have so much of their political futures invested.

The funny thing about all of this is that the implied lack of faith in the military stems from a mismanagement at the highest levels - by G. W. Bush and ‘ole Rummy.  It was Donal Rumsfeld’s hubris that landed our forces in such a sorry state.  He attempted to guide us through a minefield but, despite his best intentions and I do believe that he was well intentioned, we managed to hit every single mine on the way in.  That’s not good.

At any rate, that’s something that we should be talking about.

We should also be talking about Clinton’s reaction to a high-profile Obama supporter’s comments on her integrity.  The problem stems from Obama’s claim that he wanted to run a different type of campaign that was above the petty personal attacks of recent years and yet neither he nor any of his camp have denied the individual or his comments.

Quite honestly, the Clinton camp shouldn’t say anything about this because it appears as though they’re already grasping at straws.  They’re attempting to chide Obama into a conflict over a private individual saying something that tacitly goes against what Obama claimed.  It seems more like Hillary’s annoyed that Hollywood is shifting towards Barack and that some of her former friends and colleagues are speaking what many fear is the truth about her.

At the same time, the media is having a field day with this one - blowing it out of proportion in order to engineer conflict in what has been, thus far, a very cordial campaign.  Well, except for O’Reilley and the whole Edward’s Christian-bashing blogger thing.  Let’s be honest, though - O’Reilley is “rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg,” to quote Stephen Colbert.

The surprising thing, though, is that the media actually mentioned either of these issues at all because there is something much more important facing our country.  See, someone died when I left DC for Denver.  Someone who is, apparently, more important then just about everyone else on the planet, ever.  Yes - Anna Nicole Smith.

Here’s all I’m going to say: it’s a tragedy for her family and loved ones but it is NOT a tragedy for our nation.  The fact that it is being presented as such is the product of a lazy media that doesn’t want to do actual reporting.  Polls (I know, polls are not exactly accurate these days) have shown that people are not interested in Anna Nicole anymore.  Stop it.  Bad media.

One more thing - Fox recently aired the “1/2 Hour News Hour”, a conservative answer to “The Daily Show.”  It was indescribably horrid.  At issue isn’t the conservative humor - at issue is the poor quality of the humor.  I, and many of the liberal persuasion, would welcome a conservative news satire program.  That show, though, was purely Republican propaganda that used unfunny party-line personal attacks in a base attempt to skew the truth.  Fox News was a joke before this, but now it’s a bad joke.  Worse then the Rabbit Joke.

Oh yes - I figure that since I’m living in DC I might as well be more political.  Expect more politics here from now on.

I just got back to DC from Denver.  It was a great two weeks but it’s time to get back to work.  Rejoice.

When I was a kid I always liked Roller Coasters.  Still do, for that matter - but they’renot as exciting as they once were.  Somehow when you’re a kid you really believe in the danger of that rickety wooden monstrosity that sits in the center of the park.  After all, you need to be this tall to ride.  If you’re not this tall then who knows what might happen!  It’s crazy.

As I got older, though, roller coasters began to lose their luster.  They were still fun, sure.  The pure, visceral thrill of accelration is always enjoyable.  The thing is, though, they’d lost that dangerous edge.  I was no longer just barely big enough to get on there.  Dad wasn’t grabbing the back of my pants and lifting me off the ground so I could squeek past the cartoon character’s outstretched finger.  I was just some guy taking a ride that had been designed and tested and retested to provide the highest thrill while still being safe for as many people as possible.

But damn, when I was a kid I loved those Roller Coasters.  Even if I didn’t really want to ride them I would.  I would force myself to stand in that line and sit down in that seat and pull that bar down no matter how scared I was because I wanted that thrill.

Hmm.  Maybe that’s why I like driving fast.

I spent yesterday travelling from DC to Denver and I learned something.  While in the Charlotte, North Carolina airport I attempted to log on to the free wi-fi network and update the site.  Imagine my surprise when I discovered that the site was blocked because it was deemed adult orientated, mature content.  Apparantly the fine customers of the Charlotte International Airport are unable to access Nowhere-Fast.  You poor bastards.  That’s just not right.

At any rate, I’m in Denver now and I’m going to cheat with this post.  Once I finish it I’m going to alter the timestamp so it comes up as having been posted yesterday.  It’s a cheap trick, I know - but I place the blame on Charlotte, North Carolina for not allowing me to access my own adult orientated, mature content website.

Also, I’ll be in Denver for the next two weeks.  I’ll strive to update every day as I have done while in DC but they might not be “complete” updates.  They’ll be, you know, like this one.

I know, I know, I’ve already talked about those Mac vs PC commercials.  I noticed something today, though.  There’s a commercial where PC guy is going into surgery in order to install Vista.  The implication is that it’ll be expensive and difficult to upgrade, but Macs are easier.

Are they saying that rather then spend a couple hundred dollars upgrading I should instead spend at least a thousand dollars on a comparable Mac?  OK - then I imagine that I wouldn’t have any problem or need to upgrade for quite some time.  That doesn’t exactly fly, though.  This is the first Windows update in about 5 years whereas the Mac OS is updated nearly annually.  Doesn’t that suggest that buying a Mac now will entail more upgrade difficulties over the years?

Quite honestly, upgrading to Vista is not a big deal.  Here’s how it works in three steps:

Step 1) Decide if you need to upgrade.  Things you should consider: does Vista do anything that you need?  If the answer to that question is “no,” then you’re done here.  Move along.

Step 2) Click “Start,” then click “Control Panel,” and then “System.”  Now read what it says under “Computer.”  If that’ll run Vista, get if.  If not, proceed to step 3.

Step 3) Go to Newegg and find out how much it will cost to make your computer run Vista.  If it’s more then a new computer, buy a new computer.  If it’s less, upgrade.

There.  Done.  I guarantee you that this will cost substantially less then getting a new Mac.

I’m not making any judgement on the quality of the Operating Systems.  I’ve never used Vista and I’ve never used the newest Mac OS.  All I’m saying is that those commercials are bullshit and every time I see them I get further and further away from ever buying another Apple product.  Also, whenever anybody uses “M$” instead of “MS” in order to make some sort of a statement I actually like Microsoft a little bit more.

Oh, and one more thing - the only MS software I use is Windows XP.  My browser is Firefox and my office suite is OpenOffice.  If Linux could play my games I’d run Linux instead.