During a war, one doesn't expose vulnerable assets like an electrical grid. We're in a war of sorts between people trying to get things done with technology -- both good and bad -- and people trying to stop things with technology -- both good and bad. WikiLeaks is a wonderful example of some of the stupidities and vulnerabilities we face. A USA Today article outlines the mess. One guy, evidently, had access to millions of secret documents and sent them electronically to WikiLeaks, who began publishing them, and threatening to publish more unless demands were met. Then, the organizations that were hosting the site backed off, and credit card firms cut their ties. Then, a counterattack began against anyone who dared raise a mouse against WikiLeaks. Denial of service attacks conducted via Twitter, and a threat against Twitter when rumors surfaced saying Twitter was blocking the organizing messages.
So how does this relate to the so-called smart grid? When you can cripple or shut down mature technologies like computers, websites and Internet connectivity, what does that say about new and evolving technologies such as the smart grid? A recent article on smart-grid security -- if there is such a thing -- exposed the many vulnerabilities and the difficulty in bolting the door.
Currently we have a largely analog dispersed collection of electrical grids managed by different groups under different rules. Their very clunkyness make them a lousy target. The very fractured nature of the nation's electrical grid is perhaps its best defense. A lightning strike in 1977, for example, began a chain of events through systems that were connected, that eventually blacked out most of New York City. Stores were looted, cars stolen, airports shut down.
While there appear to be many advantages to a smart-grid system -- households could contribute to the electrical grid with solar panels or wind generation and "turn the electric meter backwards" among other things -- the rollout of such systems should be stopped and the actual return on investment weighed against the many vulnerabilities that would be exposed to hackers, foreign governments, or any nut with an axe to grind and an Internet connection.
If smart grid projects rush forward as planned without such an analysis, I for one will be buying a gasoline-powered generator and stocking up on firewood.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Don't Settle for Less
The key to sustainability is not settling for less. Some spartan types think putting a home together from used wooden pallets or metal shipping containers is cool because -- well, we have lots of them around and this counts as green recycling in the great carbon ledger in the sky. Settling for less -- like a nine-square-foot house is just wrong. A few architects and designers have managed to come up with attractive shipping container and other homes from recycled materials, but they must overcome an inherent design problem: shipping containers are long narrow metal boxes, a lot like family-sized coffins.
The Toyota hybrid is another example. A practical car that seems durable enough, but it's just kind of ugly -- one wag said it resembled an "orthopedic shoe." Nevertheless, lots of people bought them. The VW beetle was an ugly car too, but marketing changed its "ugly" to "cute" and they sold by the millions. That they were small, underpowered, and unsafe at highway speeds were overlooked, because they were -- well, cute.
The New York Times recently looked at the idea of smaller homes for the economic downturn. During the recent good times, said the Times, colonnades, cathedral ceilings and observation towers -- embedded in thousands of square feet -- were all the rage. But now, let's get sensible and buy what one builder calles a "Home for the New Economy." meaning tiny, cramped and cheap to build. The Japanese have taken their homes down to sardine-can proportions, building in what would be considered a parking space here in the U.S.
Some people -- I call them the "think small" people -- just don't like anybody to have things, and have given sustainability a bad name touting the pollution of cars, the wasted space of large homes, the greed of the capitalist and the humble lifestyle of the homeless bum who recycles water bottles, urinates in the doorways of the affluent and gets plenty of exercise and sunshine.
So here's an idea: Let's have it all. Take energy, for example. The sun shines a lot everywhere except Oregon, the wind blows a lot, especially in Wyoming, water always runs downhill and the earth has a lot of heat that's not doing anything.
Instead of burning wood -- which is, by the way, renewable because it grows on trees -- and putting wood smoke into the air, let's get some geothermal action going. The idea is that the center of the earth is molten, and even just a few hundred feet under the soil, the temperature is a consistent 70 degrees or so. The Chilean miners were working in free geothermal heat. Drill a hole into the ground, pipe water down into it, run it around a bit so it gets warm, then up to the surface, to run through a heat exchanger and warm up a house. When it is 10 degrees F outside you get 60 degrees of heating courtesy of the earth. Or, when it's 100 degrees outside, pipe that 70 degree water through the heat exchanger and get 30 degrees of cooling. You need a little electricity to run the pump and a fan or two and there's the initial expense of setting it up. Otherwise you have it all: Cheap heating and cooling, no carbon footprint and the earth's heat should last a few million years at least. Plus, nobody charges for it. The rest is just common sense: install good insulation, keep the doors shut and the flies out.
There are some very "have it all" types running around innovating because they are smart, and also want a big house, and nice car, money for their kids college, etc. etc. Some of these HIA people are building electric cars that anybody would want. Like the Tesla, the Fisker and even the big automakers like Chevrolet and its Volt.
The "think small people" want you to have less, so if you hate people and love weeds, then follow them. It's not sustainable -- sustainability and survival require abundance. If however, you want it all, then follow the innovators, the capitalists, the bright idea people who will help us have it all -- beautiful cars, aesthetic homes, clean air and water, flourishing plant and animal life, and abundant opportunities for anyone with a bright idea to keep the game going and keep the game getting better and better.
The Toyota hybrid is another example. A practical car that seems durable enough, but it's just kind of ugly -- one wag said it resembled an "orthopedic shoe." Nevertheless, lots of people bought them. The VW beetle was an ugly car too, but marketing changed its "ugly" to "cute" and they sold by the millions. That they were small, underpowered, and unsafe at highway speeds were overlooked, because they were -- well, cute.
The New York Times recently looked at the idea of smaller homes for the economic downturn. During the recent good times, said the Times, colonnades, cathedral ceilings and observation towers -- embedded in thousands of square feet -- were all the rage. But now, let's get sensible and buy what one builder calles a "Home for the New Economy." meaning tiny, cramped and cheap to build. The Japanese have taken their homes down to sardine-can proportions, building in what would be considered a parking space here in the U.S.
Some people -- I call them the "think small" people -- just don't like anybody to have things, and have given sustainability a bad name touting the pollution of cars, the wasted space of large homes, the greed of the capitalist and the humble lifestyle of the homeless bum who recycles water bottles, urinates in the doorways of the affluent and gets plenty of exercise and sunshine.
So here's an idea: Let's have it all. Take energy, for example. The sun shines a lot everywhere except Oregon, the wind blows a lot, especially in Wyoming, water always runs downhill and the earth has a lot of heat that's not doing anything.
Instead of burning wood -- which is, by the way, renewable because it grows on trees -- and putting wood smoke into the air, let's get some geothermal action going. The idea is that the center of the earth is molten, and even just a few hundred feet under the soil, the temperature is a consistent 70 degrees or so. The Chilean miners were working in free geothermal heat. Drill a hole into the ground, pipe water down into it, run it around a bit so it gets warm, then up to the surface, to run through a heat exchanger and warm up a house. When it is 10 degrees F outside you get 60 degrees of heating courtesy of the earth. Or, when it's 100 degrees outside, pipe that 70 degree water through the heat exchanger and get 30 degrees of cooling. You need a little electricity to run the pump and a fan or two and there's the initial expense of setting it up. Otherwise you have it all: Cheap heating and cooling, no carbon footprint and the earth's heat should last a few million years at least. Plus, nobody charges for it. The rest is just common sense: install good insulation, keep the doors shut and the flies out.
There are some very "have it all" types running around innovating because they are smart, and also want a big house, and nice car, money for their kids college, etc. etc. Some of these HIA people are building electric cars that anybody would want. Like the Tesla, the Fisker and even the big automakers like Chevrolet and its Volt.
The "think small people" want you to have less, so if you hate people and love weeds, then follow them. It's not sustainable -- sustainability and survival require abundance. If however, you want it all, then follow the innovators, the capitalists, the bright idea people who will help us have it all -- beautiful cars, aesthetic homes, clean air and water, flourishing plant and animal life, and abundant opportunities for anyone with a bright idea to keep the game going and keep the game getting better and better.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Something's Rotten
A popular bathroom deodorant advertises "kills bacteria that cause odors." So using it will kill some bacteria that cause odors -- the weak ones. The few strong ones that survive will multiply and will become the dominant bacteria. Over time, we have bacteria that are invulnerable to all the sprays, antiseptics, antibiotics etc.
And as for bad odors -- our noses are sensitive to bad odors, they were designed that way to keep us from eating rotting stuff and dying. Sensitivity to bad odors saves a lot of refrigerator browsers from trips to the hospital. Smell the milk to see if it's sour before taking a big lumpy swig. Smell the eggs when you break them to see if they've rotted. Smell that packaged chicken that's been in the refrigerator for a week or so and you can tell if it's "beginning to turn."
What's wrong with this deodorant picture? The bathroom deodorant that "kills bacteria that causes odors" is like a boot camp for bacteria. The weak ones die and what emerges are stronger more resistant bacteria and they reproduce, or whatever it is that bacteria do, building back in a few minutes new generations of newly resistant strains. Filling the house with perfume covers a multitude of stinks. Run a bathroom fan instead. Wash the bacteria down the drain. Keep bacteria weak. if something stinks, clean it up.
Bacteria are organisms that are trying to survive. They've been around a long time, are very adaptable, and their numbers are staggering. So nobody's ever successfully committed bacterial genocide. Some of the really deadly ones -- like polio and the black death -- have been attacked relentlessly and have retreated to swamps or jungles to bide their time and pick on stupider hosts. Like people spraying around mildly antiseptic perfume bombs to kill bacteria.
And as for bad odors -- our noses are sensitive to bad odors, they were designed that way to keep us from eating rotting stuff and dying. Sensitivity to bad odors saves a lot of refrigerator browsers from trips to the hospital. Smell the milk to see if it's sour before taking a big lumpy swig. Smell the eggs when you break them to see if they've rotted. Smell that packaged chicken that's been in the refrigerator for a week or so and you can tell if it's "beginning to turn."
What's wrong with this deodorant picture? The bathroom deodorant that "kills bacteria that causes odors" is like a boot camp for bacteria. The weak ones die and what emerges are stronger more resistant bacteria and they reproduce, or whatever it is that bacteria do, building back in a few minutes new generations of newly resistant strains. Filling the house with perfume covers a multitude of stinks. Run a bathroom fan instead. Wash the bacteria down the drain. Keep bacteria weak. if something stinks, clean it up.
Bacteria are organisms that are trying to survive. They've been around a long time, are very adaptable, and their numbers are staggering. So nobody's ever successfully committed bacterial genocide. Some of the really deadly ones -- like polio and the black death -- have been attacked relentlessly and have retreated to swamps or jungles to bide their time and pick on stupider hosts. Like people spraying around mildly antiseptic perfume bombs to kill bacteria.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Female Viagra Depressing
According to HealthDay News, a U.S. Food and Drug Administration advisory panel on Friday was considering whether to approve flibanserin, also known as "female Viagra." The drug started out as an anti-depressant but didn't work. In fact one of its side effects was depression. The dopes who concocted flibanserin -- Boehringer Ingelheim -- are now trying to get FDA approval for the drug. Since it doesn't work as an anti-depressant, somebody must have had the bright idea "hey, we can say it makes women interested in sex, that should boost our stock" and a marketing campaign was born.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The Purpose of Sex
A new report from the Pew Research Center says that of children born in 2008, 41 percent were to unmarried women -- a record high. Nearly half the mothers said that the children "just happened."
By comparison, in 1990, 28 percent of births were to unmarried women. While the report carried some good news as well -- fewer teens are becoming mothers, and many more mothers have some college education -- the unavoidable fact is that the American family -- as the foundation of a free and prosperous society -- is broken.
The purpose of sex, according to most sources, is to ensure the future of human beings. To make sure it wasn't ignored or neglected, nature, or God, made it fun. Things that improve survival for the individual, the race and mankind often have pleasure as a vital component. But pleasure and sex have through history been hijacked to sell products, make money and provide an alternative to effort and accomplishment. And the old restrictions -- many of which fell in the rebellion of the 1960s -- are absent.
In the past, sex was seen as dangerous to society and was repressed. Heavy penalties were levied against promiscuity, "illegitimacy," nudity, etc., and nature chimed in with a blizzard of sexually transmitted diseases that punished those who dared to offend against the morals of society. People still offended, but society didn't approve.
But since the 1950s things changed in the United States and elsewhere. Promiscuity is said to be common, and revelations of celebrities, even presidents, having affairs are now almost ordinary. We've solved some of the complications of promiscuity with condoms, vaccinations, antibiotics, the pill, divorce and abortions. In the 1960s the attitude was "anything goes," and in our liberal enlightenment, it still does. Now television programs bring mom and her three or four boyfriends on stage and have them fight it out -- then DNA testing reveals the actual father. And now we have female Viagra and legalized prostitution in at least one state. "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" says the advertising -- possibly the most jaded campaign in recent memory.
But while sex was "invented" to procreate the human race, marriage was invented to protect it. Sex and family were a team, and the family unit was responsible for the products of procreation. Food, clothing, shelter and support are necessary, and a human child is vulnerable for nearly two decades.
But as better-educated women have children that "just happen" and as the men who father them evaporate, the family as a fundamental unit of society is as endangered as the white rhinoceros under the guns of aphrodisiac peddlers.
The experiment of the 1960s succeeded. Drugs and promiscuity are endemic in our cities and towns. In an ironic twist, several states may soon legalize marijuana to benefit from billions of new tax dollars, the bulk of which go to social services, education, law enforcement and other programs made necessary by the disappearing family. Schools now bypass families in matters of discipline, nutrition, health and well-being. They are "a mile wide and an inch deep" in their attempts to prop up a society in the absence of families, and are -- perhaps not surprisingly -- failing to educate children whose morals are learned on the streets, where father is absent and whose default role models include movie assassins, drug dealers and criminals.
It's time to recreate the family. It takes at least two people to care for children while earning a living and maintaining a household. Let's make choice the rule: If you are pregnant and weren't raped, you made your choice. Your family and the father's family are legally responsible for the child's health, well-being and support. If you fathered a child and won't help, you go to a work farm or prison industries, and your earnings go to help support the child. That's just for starters.
Schools concentrate on education not trans fats, dietary sugar, mental health screenings and abortions. In Jewish families, children who turn 13 are invited to join the adult world. That's a wonderful tradition that our society in general should embrace. We have 35-year-old "children" still living at home who have never grown up, and have never been given -- or accepted -- responsibility. It's time to focus on independence and competence, and make men and women who take responsibility for their actions, their lives and their children.
By comparison, in 1990, 28 percent of births were to unmarried women. While the report carried some good news as well -- fewer teens are becoming mothers, and many more mothers have some college education -- the unavoidable fact is that the American family -- as the foundation of a free and prosperous society -- is broken.
The purpose of sex, according to most sources, is to ensure the future of human beings. To make sure it wasn't ignored or neglected, nature, or God, made it fun. Things that improve survival for the individual, the race and mankind often have pleasure as a vital component. But pleasure and sex have through history been hijacked to sell products, make money and provide an alternative to effort and accomplishment. And the old restrictions -- many of which fell in the rebellion of the 1960s -- are absent.
In the past, sex was seen as dangerous to society and was repressed. Heavy penalties were levied against promiscuity, "illegitimacy," nudity, etc., and nature chimed in with a blizzard of sexually transmitted diseases that punished those who dared to offend against the morals of society. People still offended, but society didn't approve.
But since the 1950s things changed in the United States and elsewhere. Promiscuity is said to be common, and revelations of celebrities, even presidents, having affairs are now almost ordinary. We've solved some of the complications of promiscuity with condoms, vaccinations, antibiotics, the pill, divorce and abortions. In the 1960s the attitude was "anything goes," and in our liberal enlightenment, it still does. Now television programs bring mom and her three or four boyfriends on stage and have them fight it out -- then DNA testing reveals the actual father. And now we have female Viagra and legalized prostitution in at least one state. "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" says the advertising -- possibly the most jaded campaign in recent memory.
But while sex was "invented" to procreate the human race, marriage was invented to protect it. Sex and family were a team, and the family unit was responsible for the products of procreation. Food, clothing, shelter and support are necessary, and a human child is vulnerable for nearly two decades.
But as better-educated women have children that "just happen" and as the men who father them evaporate, the family as a fundamental unit of society is as endangered as the white rhinoceros under the guns of aphrodisiac peddlers.
The experiment of the 1960s succeeded. Drugs and promiscuity are endemic in our cities and towns. In an ironic twist, several states may soon legalize marijuana to benefit from billions of new tax dollars, the bulk of which go to social services, education, law enforcement and other programs made necessary by the disappearing family. Schools now bypass families in matters of discipline, nutrition, health and well-being. They are "a mile wide and an inch deep" in their attempts to prop up a society in the absence of families, and are -- perhaps not surprisingly -- failing to educate children whose morals are learned on the streets, where father is absent and whose default role models include movie assassins, drug dealers and criminals.
It's time to recreate the family. It takes at least two people to care for children while earning a living and maintaining a household. Let's make choice the rule: If you are pregnant and weren't raped, you made your choice. Your family and the father's family are legally responsible for the child's health, well-being and support. If you fathered a child and won't help, you go to a work farm or prison industries, and your earnings go to help support the child. That's just for starters.
Schools concentrate on education not trans fats, dietary sugar, mental health screenings and abortions. In Jewish families, children who turn 13 are invited to join the adult world. That's a wonderful tradition that our society in general should embrace. We have 35-year-old "children" still living at home who have never grown up, and have never been given -- or accepted -- responsibility. It's time to focus on independence and competence, and make men and women who take responsibility for their actions, their lives and their children.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Political Parties are Like Cable Channels
Political parties are like cable channels -- you have to buy the whole package, there is no menu of options from which to choose. If you buy basic cable, you are required to receive the home shopping network and the Spanish language stations even if you never watch them. If you speak Spanish, you still have to buy the English-language stations. In politics, the lesser of two evils becomes the only choice the voter has, in spite of the official party platform which may encompass a single position on a cornucopia of issues. Say the voter, for example, dislikes the health care reform package, but thinks that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are wrong. Who to vote for? Or say the voter thinks torts are an effective remedy to rein in illegal business practices, but also believes in unrestricted gun ownership.
Back when McCain or Obama were the only entrees on the presidential menu, independent voters had to weigh, for example, the thought that McCain would declare war on Iran and "refused to parlay" with enemies against Obama's support of mental health screenings like "teen screen" that would allow government to trump parents' authority over their children (both stupid and arrogant ideas in my opinion). Well, under the "lesser of two evils" we got Obama and the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" medical program.
This exclusivity has led to many of the aberrations in our political system. Third party candidates -- or even moderates in both major parties -- are vehemently opposed by whichever party will lose votes, and encouraged by the party which has nothing to lose and everything to gain. Look at the venom unleashed against Ralph Nader, Ross Perot and Ron Paul by various people and parties. As long as they remain a tiny slice of voters, they can be ignored. But let them gain some footing, as did Perot, and the reds and blues turn purple in their animosity.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry a while back called moderates "the mushy middle" -- obviously preferring extremists whose views are totally polarized and therefore easier for the unwashed to understand in quick sound bytes. Right now, the extremists have it, from Sarah Palin to Barack Obama.
So is there a solution to extremist politics? According to Governor Schwarzenegger there is. On a recent Jay Leno show, he claimed that politicizing the redistricting process creates purely red and blue districts that promote far-right and far-left candidates. Schwarzenegger is promoting a non-partisan redistricting commission that will provide more balanced representation and thus more moderate candidates that will better represent the bulk of voters. Try getting that bit of democracy through the polarized California Legislature....
Back when McCain or Obama were the only entrees on the presidential menu, independent voters had to weigh, for example, the thought that McCain would declare war on Iran and "refused to parlay" with enemies against Obama's support of mental health screenings like "teen screen" that would allow government to trump parents' authority over their children (both stupid and arrogant ideas in my opinion). Well, under the "lesser of two evils" we got Obama and the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" medical program.
This exclusivity has led to many of the aberrations in our political system. Third party candidates -- or even moderates in both major parties -- are vehemently opposed by whichever party will lose votes, and encouraged by the party which has nothing to lose and everything to gain. Look at the venom unleashed against Ralph Nader, Ross Perot and Ron Paul by various people and parties. As long as they remain a tiny slice of voters, they can be ignored. But let them gain some footing, as did Perot, and the reds and blues turn purple in their animosity.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry a while back called moderates "the mushy middle" -- obviously preferring extremists whose views are totally polarized and therefore easier for the unwashed to understand in quick sound bytes. Right now, the extremists have it, from Sarah Palin to Barack Obama.
So is there a solution to extremist politics? According to Governor Schwarzenegger there is. On a recent Jay Leno show, he claimed that politicizing the redistricting process creates purely red and blue districts that promote far-right and far-left candidates. Schwarzenegger is promoting a non-partisan redistricting commission that will provide more balanced representation and thus more moderate candidates that will better represent the bulk of voters. Try getting that bit of democracy through the polarized California Legislature....
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Democratic Basis of Reality
I am crazy and nothing I write should be taken seriously. I took it seriously and now I'm nuts.
Crazy means disagreeing with those around you about things they hold sacred. Agreements build reality. That is a chair, that is a table, they are solid and you can sit on one and put your dinner on the other. Oak makes a good solid reality, yes it does.
But then, scientists said the chair and table were made of tiny particles with great spaces between them and were not solid, they just seemed that way to the ignorant. So scientists were crazy, but the sane were a bit unsure, since they did so poorly in high school science classes.
But then the scientists began a campaign to convert the recalcitrant. And they did. Once the reality changed (reality being a sort of democracy where people vote on what is real and the majority are sane and the minority are crazy) people continued to sit on chairs and put dinners on tables, but now they looked at furniture differently because they suspected that if they looked closely enough, they could see tiny planets and stars in the wooden table top. And even though there were huge empty spaces between those tiny particles, they somehow could still hold up the meatloaf. And a few neurotics may have wondered why the spaces in the glass of lemonaide didn't sink into the spaces in the table, but they were worried about looking stupid and so didn't ask.
History is full of crazy people. Those who thought the Earth rotated around the sun, that life began in pools of mud hit by lightning, that God was dead, that chewing tobacco was a good treatment for hookworms, that area 51 holds an alien spaceship, and that electricity through the brain was helpful in bringing crazy people back into agreement with their neighbors.
Some of those ideas caught on, won elections and those who agreed became sane. Others, not wanting to be crazy, signed on even though they had doubts. Only the holdouts who refused to subscribe to this new religion, this new reality, became insane. Like the guys who still have "Bush/Cheney" bumper stickers on their travel trailers. You can see the milder cases in England which is a sort of museum for odd people. Or here in the U.S. you will find them in backwards areas, chewing tobacco to keep away the hookworms, taking Prozac for constipation and wearing copper bracelets to ward off arthritis. The real stalwarts are strapped to tables in psychiatric hospitals with voltage going through the brain because aunt June is still alive to them and giving good advice on the stock market. When the electricity is turned off they have amnesia and thus become sane: "Aunt June? Huh?" Some of them forget their own names and can start a new life -- just like being born. But I get ahead of myself.
Crazy means disagreeing with those around you about things they hold sacred. Agreements build reality. That is a chair, that is a table, they are solid and you can sit on one and put your dinner on the other. Oak makes a good solid reality, yes it does.
But then, scientists said the chair and table were made of tiny particles with great spaces between them and were not solid, they just seemed that way to the ignorant. So scientists were crazy, but the sane were a bit unsure, since they did so poorly in high school science classes.
But then the scientists began a campaign to convert the recalcitrant. And they did. Once the reality changed (reality being a sort of democracy where people vote on what is real and the majority are sane and the minority are crazy) people continued to sit on chairs and put dinners on tables, but now they looked at furniture differently because they suspected that if they looked closely enough, they could see tiny planets and stars in the wooden table top. And even though there were huge empty spaces between those tiny particles, they somehow could still hold up the meatloaf. And a few neurotics may have wondered why the spaces in the glass of lemonaide didn't sink into the spaces in the table, but they were worried about looking stupid and so didn't ask.
History is full of crazy people. Those who thought the Earth rotated around the sun, that life began in pools of mud hit by lightning, that God was dead, that chewing tobacco was a good treatment for hookworms, that area 51 holds an alien spaceship, and that electricity through the brain was helpful in bringing crazy people back into agreement with their neighbors.
Some of those ideas caught on, won elections and those who agreed became sane. Others, not wanting to be crazy, signed on even though they had doubts. Only the holdouts who refused to subscribe to this new religion, this new reality, became insane. Like the guys who still have "Bush/Cheney" bumper stickers on their travel trailers. You can see the milder cases in England which is a sort of museum for odd people. Or here in the U.S. you will find them in backwards areas, chewing tobacco to keep away the hookworms, taking Prozac for constipation and wearing copper bracelets to ward off arthritis. The real stalwarts are strapped to tables in psychiatric hospitals with voltage going through the brain because aunt June is still alive to them and giving good advice on the stock market. When the electricity is turned off they have amnesia and thus become sane: "Aunt June? Huh?" Some of them forget their own names and can start a new life -- just like being born. But I get ahead of myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
