I have long been skeptical of the miracle that will save us all from certain death by asphixiation sitting in traffic: hydrogen-fueled automobiles. What I heard on the news today clinched it for me; I had no idea that the most economical way to produce hydrogen is an electricity-intensive process converting fossil fuels into hydrogen. I about choked on my teeth when I heard it. "But," you say, "But it also requires a lot of energy to refine oil into gasoline. At least we will have the benefit of cleaner emissions." To that, I refer to scientists who think that the hydrogen escaping into the atmosphere as we transport it and inject it into our cars will realistically cause as much pollution damage as car exhaust does now. If you take into account the energy required to produce the hydrogen, it seems that the only pollution that would be cut significantly is noise pollution, since hydrogen cars run silently. And even that's not all that great, if you think about it. Who wants the person in the next car to be able to hear them warbling along with the radio?
Then there's the fact that even people who have a vested interest in encouraging the hydrogen hype--scientists developing it who depend on interested investors or government money to fund their research--say that hydrogen cars for consumers are twenty to thirty years off, at best. I have yet to hear anything more optimistic from anyone deeply involved in the industry (and I read a lot about this sort of stuff for work).
I admit I'm far from being an expert, but I'm going to hazard to predict that the smart money is on hybrid cars over hydrogen. Why? They're realistic and they're affordable. People are buying them already. They actually cut down on emissions and the use of fossil fuels. I predict that hydrogen cars have been overhyped, and that the hype will die long before mass-produced hydrogen cars roll off the assembly line. And I will be laughing all the way home in my used Prius as I pass all of the unused hydrogen fuelings stations that our esteemed governor apparently will have built by then.
PS Sorry I have no references to back me up on most of this (except the beautiful photo of Arnold). I read a lot of it in business journals and trade magazines for work, and I don't remember exactly where I've read a lot of it. Even if I did, I would be able to link to it online, because most of it is for subscribers only.
I found an interesting article by New York Times columnist David Brooks via the World magazine blog today. He has some interesting things to say about the usefulness of the Christian worldview even for non-Christians.
...when you're pulling into the parking lot at work as the "Morning Sousalarm" is going off on the local classical radio station. *sigh* Ah for the days of rolling out of bed early at 9 to go to class... I'm glad Josh gets up when I do even on days he doesn't have class. Otherwise, I think I might have to kill him. :)
Does anyone actually save money by doing their family grocery shopping at Sam's Club or Costco? I am beginning to wonder. Maybe it's just because there are only two of us. Maybe you need to have a large family to benefit from buying wholesale.
Oh well. At least I have a giant bag of snow peas. Mmmmm.... :)
... you walk in the door, and your husband hands you an article he's printed that contains the sentence: "Like so many before him, Mialon (an economist, of course) was led to focus on orgasms through the study of constitutional law."
Josh and I had the privilege of attending a Los Angeles Philharmonic concert last night, with tickets from work, as always. (Hey, you can knock my mundane job all you want, but I've gotten tickets to some great concerts, and I got to see Frank Gehry in person. Oh, and Leonard Nimoy. All because of my boring market research job.) I say privilege because it was the first concert we've attended in the new Walt Disney Concert Hall. It was the most incredible concert I've ever experienced. I don't usually give standing ovations, but last night I joined the entire audience in a very enthusiastic standing O. It was not because I thought the LA Phil did an exceptional job (They are almost always superb. If they got a standing ovation at all of their good concerts, it would cease to mean anything. Not that it really means anything anymore anway. But I digress. Which is why this is in parentheses. And stuff. Anyway...), but because the hall brought every nuance, every reverberation, small and large, to my ears like no other place I've ever been. I'd heard that the acoustics at the hall were good, but I had no idea how good. It was like listening to a CD for the first time when you're used to phonographs.
You may or may not know that when you lift your fingers off of a stringed instrument after pressing the strings down very hard, the strings resonate a bit. In one very quiet moment of the piece, I heard just that sound coming from a viola. Wow! If any orchestra of less than excellent quality played in that hall, listening would be torture.
The man sitting next to me had season tickets, and leaned over before the concert began to tell me we had the best seats in the house. He'd traded tickets a few times so he could experience all areas of the hall, even behind the orchestra. I said I'd heard the sound is magnificent no matter where you sit. He concurred, but added that our seats had the most leg room. I guess I won't hestitate to buy the cheap tickets when I have to pay for my own. :)
Anyway, I plan to go back as often as I can while we live here. Thank God for rich people like the Disney family who have the wherewithal and the inclination to pump money into such an extravagant project when everyone else has all but abandoned it.
I was going to post a long entry I wrote last night on some highly controversial and piquant topic. When I re-read it before posting, though, I realized that listening to the audiobook of Jane Eyre for about 15 hours over the last few days has made my writing style a bit more, um, stuffy than usual. (And that's saying something.)
It's a sad, sad thing to be unable to put down a book when it is an audiobook.
Since the entry to which I'm referring has already been archived, I am posting my new response to the discussion as a new entry. If you did not read my original post or my mom's comments, please feel free to do so now.
The president's desire to put money toward charitable programs that work is understandable, even laudable. I can certainly identify with anyone's frustrations with the current ineffective programs. Still, isn't it possible that one of the reasons religious charities still work so well is that they have not been hampered by government backing and the inevitable regulation that comes with it? While it may seem like a gold star on the president's record to try to steer government funding to programs with proven track records of helping people, it could also be the mark of slow and painful death on the programs themselves. When has government funding ever improved anything? And when has it ever come without strings attached?
Even if organizations receiving funding under the faith-based initiatives are not constrained by government policies that go against their Christian charters during the Bush administration (and even that is a faint possibility, in my opinion), who's to say that such constraints won't appear under subsequent administrations? I would hate for the fate of useful Christian charities in the future to depend on Christians' willingness between now and then to overfund, or even sufficiently fund, the programs in spite of generous government financial support. We should feel under no obligation to seek or accept government funds for Christian programs simply because the president means well in offering them.
I must atone for not wearing green today. (Even the cashier at Costco pinched me!) As I write this, I am munching on some Guinness Stout Ginger Cake from my favorite recipe website, Epicurious.com. It's very yummy, and my wonderful husband can attest to that because he's now eating his third slice. Three suggestions, if you are inclinded to make this cake:
1. Don't worry if the batter is runny. I added extra flour because mine had the texture of a thick milkshake after I'd mixed it, and it turned out a bit dry for my taste.
2. You don't need to line the pan with anything. Just grease it. There's enough oil in this bread to grease a pig, so parchment is unecessary.
3. Don't add extra fresh ginger, even though one of the reviewers on the site recommends it. Ginger is one of my favorite spices, so I added a bit more fresh gingerroot than the 2 tbs the recipe requires. It was too much.
In spite of all that (and even in spite of the fact that I realized, too late, that I was out of nutmeg), it's worth cleaning the three bowls, the sauce pan, and the loaf pan to make it. Or at least having your husband clean them for you. :)
And, yes, you can taste the Guinness in it.
I saw an old Ghirardelli ad over the weekend that made my English major's skin crawl. It's so bad that it rivals the McDonald's billboard ad for Chicken McNuggets. (If you've seen it, you know exactly which one I'm talking about. If you haven't, it features a picture of a mother saying, "I love them as much as my kids.")
The Ghirardelli ad read:
"Ghirardelli: Pure as the roses that glow upon the cheeks of little children". Serve with 1 cup bits of metaphors, mixed well.
I can finally touch my heels to the ground while in the yoga position that is unfortunate enough to be called "down dog". It has only taken five months of going to yoga classes for me to become flexible enough to do it. Three cheers for me! Hep-hep-Huzzah! (Cheered serenely, of course.)
I read this in the letters to The Economist this week:
Scientists have proven
A fact I find distracting.
When we fall in love
It's just chemicals reacting.
I console myself however
At their lack of sensitivity,
In the knowledge that their thinking's
Just electrical activity.
Ha HA! Take that, scientists!
Er, I'm making up for all the entries I haven't made in the last week or so. :) Starsky & Hutch comes out this weekend. We happened upon a sneak preview of it the weekend before last, and it was well worth the exorbitant movie theatre price. Not that there are a lot of special effects that look best on the big screen. It was just so good that I would probably pay to see it in the theatre again. It's been awhile since I've seen a comedy that has laugh-out-loud jokes scattered so plentifully and consistently throughout the entire movie. In fact, I can't really remember one. If you liked Zoolander, you will love Starsky & Hutch. How's that for a cheesy plug?
El Presidente Bush was visiting the area today, and there was a clip of him on the news talking about the cooperative efforts of the government and churches to reform America. Am I the only Christian in the country who is bothered by the fact that Bush wants these cooperative efforts take the form of easier access to government funding for religious charities and other programs? Maybe it's because I get a lot of my news from NPR, but the only people I've heard speaking out against the faith-based initiatives are people on the anti-religious end of the separation of church and state spectrum. (Of course, I also read WORLD magazine from time to time, and I have seen nothing in it to the contrary.)
Does anyone remember that the separation of church and state was also intended to protect the church? Why would we open ourselves up to the possibility of having to meet all of the weighty requirements the government currently demands of organizations that receive federal funds? To do so is to ask for a world of trouble down the road when our charitable programs have come to depend on government funds and are faced with the option of compromising core beliefs or ending the programs. It is hard to imagine that competing "on equal footing" with other, non-religious organizations for federal funds would not lead to any sort of significant compromise. (quote from White House website description of the faith-based initiatives)
Even more alarming is the thought that we Christians would forfeit the responsibility and privilege of supporting these programs entirely out of our own pockets. I'm not convinced of the wisdom of giving more to Caesar in the hope that Caesar will give to God's work what is rightfully God's to begin with, provided such work fits Caesar's qualifications. I suppose it's not enough that we've already allowed welfare and other government social programs to usurp some of our responsibilities as Christians in the name of equality.
Some days there are distinct advantages to living in Southern California (and far outside of LA proper, even if it does mean a long commute). Check out the view from our porch this morning. Of course, those of you who visited us in the summer probably couldn't even see these mountains. :)
All I have to say is, "Steal a motor carriage? Show me the money, English!"