Letters to the Editor
Time flies -- even in church!
June 12, 2005: I totally agree with your article about
one's
perception of time that seems to accelerate as one gets older. I've
just
completed a five year parish assignment and have now been reassigned to
a new
one. It seems like I just got here and now it's over. If there are any
other
articles or commentaries that you have on this phenomenon, let me know.
Thanks
for the great insights.
Fr. Greg Jozefiak
[Thanks for writing, Father
Greg. I'm
sure you've read James Kenney's piece on logtime, which is much better
than
mine... If not, take
a look! ... ed.]
The years, they are a-shrinkin'
September 2, 2001: In his letter of May 3, 1998, ("Fractured
fractions - or, the incredible shrinking years"), Jeffrey Steinberg was
probably on the right track in explaining why the years seem to grow
shorter as
we get older. That our brain compares a time period with our age is an
explanation that goes back at least to the 19th century. This
comparison
results in a logarithmic relationship between the subjective time we
perceive
and the objective time of the calendar, with interesting consequences,
as
developed on my web page
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/jmkenney/).
James M. Kenney USA
[This is why I keep the old
columns
on-line -- who'da thunk I'd still be hearing about lousy ol' column #11
in
2001? Mr. Kenney correctly observes that Jeff Steinberg is a sharp guy
-- comes
from having been born the same day as yours truly... ed.]
Fractured fractions -- or, the incredible shrinking years
May 3, 1998: Where the heck does Urbie come
from? You made
an interesting comment about why years go buy so quickly ("How'd I get
here?," April 28). Here is my reasoning: With each passing
year, a year is a relatively smaller portion of your total lifetime, so
it goes by shorter. When I was 4, 1 year was 1/4.5 (average
of 1/4
and 1/5) of my life, but when I turned 35 on 4/29/98, the last year was
only
1/34.5 of my life.
Jeffrey
"Ein" Steinberg
Wormtown, USA
Don't let your mother see you out there with no helmet!
May 21, 2005: Motorcyclist deaths don't cost society
anything
because most of the dead body's vital organs are usually still in good
shape...
transplants anyone?
"rafghan"
rahmadullah@yahoo.com
[I'm assuming this letter is in response to Motorcycle
Issues 101, 7/21/98. When I wrote that piece, I hadn't
considered the
value of donated organs, but the writer does make an excellent case
against the
"social cost" argument usually used to justify helmet laws. I have a
feeling he and I are probably not on the same page about the virtues of
motorcycling in general, but it's nice to know that some members of the
public
recognize the speciousness of the theory that motorcyclists are somehow
costing
society huge amounts of money by not wearing helmets. I would argue we
could
save society a lot of money, and prevent a lot of highway carnage, by
banning
cell-phone use while driving. We might also require special licenses
and testing
for SUV drivers and make killing someone with your motor vehicle a
criminal
offense. Those measures would save many more traffic deaths than
requiring
motorcyclists to wear helmets -- leaving aside the question of whether
or not
it's a good idea to wear one, which I think it is. And in any case, if
we want
to be consistent, we should also require car drivers to wear helmets --
makes
sense in racing; why not on the street? ... ed.]
New Music: Can it sound good?
April
9, 2007: I know it's been
six years since you asked, but I see a letter from January of this
year, so... The easiest (and truest) answer to "Why does modern
music sound so bad?" is simply this: "But it doesn't." Too easy? Well,
name a few pieces that sound bad to you. Forget about all the theories.
Forget about audiences dwindling. Forget about hegemony. Forget about
Mr. Pleasants' agony. Name some things that you think sound bad. What's
bad about them? Now, forget about one more thing, people who agree with
you. What about the people who find these pieces beautiful, who are
exhilarated and enriched by them, who truly don't go to symphony
concerts any more because the music they love is never played there? So
what if thousands of concert-goers agree with you? A thousand blind
people doesn't prove there's no light. I can only offer you my own
experience. Most of what Pleasants' attacks in his book is music I find
very pleasant and satisfying. More, I find music that's been written
since then even more satisfying and pleasant. And I don't mean people
like Erb (whom I quite like, too, by the way). I do mean people like
Feldman, though, and Lachenmann and Dumitrescu and Akita (aka Merzbow).
If you can never like what I like, so be it. But why keep attacking
what I so obviously enjoy, what I so obviously value? Let's say you
don't like dark beer; it tastes harsh and bitter. You only like Miller
Lite. Fine. Drink up. But please leave off criticizing Stouts and
Porters, arguing that no one really likes them, that for every six pack
of Guiness sold, there are a thousand 24 packs of Miller Lite sold, as
if popularity proved anything.
Michael Karman
[Thanks for writing
-- at least you're not in as bad a mood as Barry! If you like
contemporary music, more power to you -- and as I think I pointed out
in the column, there's a lot of contemporary music I like, too.
Namely, the stuff that sounds good -- expresses something, has some
richness of sound, inventiveness, and -- not least -- some technical
skill. The stuff that my wife, the art major, describes as "cats
in heat," however, I can do without. New music I like?
Edgar Meyer, for one. Mark O'Connor, for another. These
guys aren't academic noisemaker-snobs, nor are they minimalist
repetitive-chord specialists -- but neither do they draw attention to
any particular style they're writing in. Which is the whole point
-- back in the day, good music was all about expressing and
communicating, not about shocking and being different for its own sake
(which, of course, is itself about 80 years out of date, at this point).
In any case, thanks for reading, and for
writing! ...ed.]
January
14, 2007: Dear Music Hater: I
think it is
now clear that Henry Pleasants wrote this book as a cover for his spy
activities. It was a very clever diversion. Pleasants had no ear and no
sense
of what art is all about: the activities that go on all the time to
change
people's way of seeing, hearing, feeling when something new comes
along.
Pleasants had no sense of the new, and he was only interested in easy
listening, background music, as you can see from his writings on opera
and
jazz. He finally realized that his paltry ideas were overwhelmed when
in 1988
in an English pub he said to his buddy John Rockwell, "John, we
lost," meaning that the "tenacity" and the determination of men
and women with superb ears and open minds were writing contemporary
music
without stop. And contemporary music has gone through all sorts of
styles, from
using the piano's insides (producing some of the most beautiful effects
imaginable), the voice's ability to sound musical phonemes, to
electronics.
Sure, some of it is bad; that's the way with all art and with history.
George
W. Bush is the lousiest US president in history and we once harbored
slavery,
but that doesn't make all our presidents bad and US history completely
shameful. It's the same with painting, music, literature and theater.
BLC
The
New Music Connoisseur
[First
of all, I am well aware that Henry Pleasants worked for the CIA – this
was explained in the article by Gene Lees that served as my
introduction to
Pleasants and his controversial views on new music.
Why do his detractors insist that his day gig as a spy
negates the merits of his music criticism? Probably
because they can’t stand the fact that – as
concertgoers demonstrate every day, voting with their ticket dollars –
he
was right. The quotation you give,
that “we lost,” is not news, either – Lees mentions it in his article
as
well. What he meant was not that
new music had gotten good all of a sudden – quite the contrary; that
contemporary composers, by and large, had stuck to their guns, empty
seats be
damned.
As
for contemporary composers having produced “some of the most beautiful
effects
imaginable,” I’ll give you that.
But you’re proving my point.
Most new music is just that – effects. A
small percentage of good modern composers have grown up,
gone past mere effects and shock value, and have written music that
sounds good
and communicates a lot. Leslie Bassett, who I note is one of your
contributors,
is a good example. There are
certainly many good composers alive today – nowhere do I say otherwise
(Pleasants does, but my column does not). Others, like the recently
departed
Daniel Pinkham, leave an ample legacy demonstrating that good music has
not
entirely gone out of fashion. They
also demonstrate that modern music does not have to sound bad.
I’ll
stick with Leonard Bernstein’s response to Pleasants’s book. I don’t have the exact quote offhand,
but he said something to the effect that “Pleasants says what the rest
of us
are thinking.” … ed.]
September 16, 2005: Even a cursory appraisal of pop culture
supports the
assertion that prevailing tastes change over time; our own generation
no longer
listens with as much aplomb to the music of Palestrina, for example.
How does
this change come about if not through the gradual acceptance of
elements
initially at such variance to popular taste? Pleasants's argument seems
implicitly to favor the notion of Platonic Form to which the principles
of
classical harmony adhere more closely than modern practice. And yet, if
there
exists such a celestial beast as Music, wouldn't the constant shifting
preclude
popular taste from being its representative, or at the very least point
up to a
much broader paradigm?
I am a dedicated champion of
serial music,
and in the end I find no rational argument for personal preference. In
discussing matters of this kind we must at last come to that shadowy
impasse
where reason breaks down...there being fewer things more spurious or
tiresome
than blind faith in the ability of logic to vaunt or decry whatever it
finds
there.
Michael (no last name given)
[I think I see what you're
saying, with
regards to "gradual acceptance of elements initially at such variance
to
popular taste." But Pleasants goes to great lengths to debunk the myth
that great music has always been unpopular in its own time as well as
Slonimsky's
specious 40-year time lag between a piece's appearance and its
acceptance by
the listening public. History speaks for itself -- great music has not always been unpopular in its own time.
... ed.]
March 15, 2005: As publisher of a magazine I started with
my own money,
I have no axe to grind. I decided on the subject of "New Music"
because it was one that nobody else (or maybe a tiny population) cared
much
about. And in those 13 years now I have spent lots of copy chastising
the halls
of academe for fostering an artform that mostly offended people and
certainly
kept them from coming into the concert hall until the "damn thing was
over." (They used the same phrase for Beethoven's 'Eroica' Symphony,
didn't they?) But on occasion I will still rave about the really great,
highly
listenable works of the last 50 years that were not driven by the
universities
or tightly wound musical organizations, works like George Crumb's
'Makrokosmos'
and 'Ancient Voices of Children,' or Milton Babbitt's 'Phonemena,' or
Leslie
Bassett's 'Echoes from an Invisible World,' or John Adams's 'Nixon in
China'
and 'Harmonielehre' or Gunther Schuller's 'Paul Klee Studies' or --
well, I
could go on and on without even mentioning some of the great choral and
operatic works since 1950 nor the works of European composers. Yes,
there are
differences between today and yesteryear, not exactly a brilliant
conclusion.
But one of the most conspicuous differences went unmentioned in your
piece: the
availability of the phonograph record. Why does it matter? Because we
hear more
junk on that medium than any society ought to bear. Plenty of it -
believe me -
is of the so-called popular variety. They didn't have the LP or the CD
in 1800.
So a musical event was really AN EVENT!
I don't recall Henry Pleasants
saying much
about the phonographic technology in his book either. Yes, you admit
that you
disagree with several of his premises. But are you aware that just
before his
death he said to his friend, the critic John Rockwell, that we lost the
battle?
What he was saying was that the sheer tenacity of living composers has
kept
that "slag pile" (as he referred to contemporary music idea) quite
alive. So we should no more denounce tenacity than we should put up on
a pedestal
the new investor society of today that is destroying true American
values with
its bottom line mentality. I would much rather hear a cling-clang-clong
piece
by David Lang than listen to another speech by El Presidente telling
Americans
how proud they should be to see democracy being spread to the rest of
the world
... If tenacity to continue to explore the art of sound is what it
takes to
keep our ears alive and in critically good condition, then I am for it.
Barry L. Cohen
Publisher, New Music
Connoisseur
[This letter is a response to
my 2001
column, "Why does modern music sound so
bad?"
Thanks for writing. There
certainly is some good new music being produced in our era.
I just
came out of a rehearsal with the Northern Arizona University trombone
choir,
which is playing a couple of interesting contemporary pieces this
semester.
When I lived in Boston, I used to go to a lot of new-music performances
at
Mobius -- and some of them were provocative and edifying. The school of
modern
music I'm not interested in is that typified by the
amplified-compass-needle
guy I dissed in my column. Who did he think he was kidding, with that
sort of
nonsense?
As for the "Eroica" having
been controversial in its day, well, it certainly was -- but by and
large,
Beethoven and his contemporaries were considered modern geniuses --
sometimes,
they even made some money from ticket sales and music publishing. They
cared
about reaching an audience. If you don't write music that speaks to
people,
you're not accomplishing anything. And that's just as true of jazz as
"legit" composers/performers. That's why I pointed to Bela Fleck and
the whole progressive-bluegrass school -- who play to more people in
one night
than most jazz musicians see in a year -- as the true heirs to the
art-music
throne, in the jazz/improvised music arena.
Not sure what to say about
recorded
music, except that especially when it's portable, it has trivialized
the act of
listening; when there's music everywhere, all the time, we forget how
to
listen. One of the most valuable lessons I learned in my collegiate
music study
(the first time I went through college, that is) was the simple fact
that music
is something you SIT DOWN AND LISTEN TO. If it's not getting 100% of
your
attention, you're wasting your time. But try explaining that to the
iPod
generation. People laughed at John Philip Sousa's worries that recorded
music
would displace the live product -- but in retrospect, he wasn't as
wrong as
everyone thought.
Agreed on El Presidente Shrub,
by the
way -- you may have missed my 2000 election column in which I described
him as
a "dunce." Some 4-1/2 years later, I'd say that was one of my better
calls.... ed.]
Still blowin' in the wind
November 19, 2003: he yoo some of us make our living doing
this kind of
work if you cant stand the noise plug your ears ha ha ha thanks john
[As usual in such cases, I'm
running this
letter unedited -- sic! sic! sic!, as they used to say in Verbatim, the
Language Quarterly. I guess it goes to show that maybe leaf-blowing is
a viable
career path -- it made this clown enough money to buy a computer, if
not to
learn how to use it properly. In case you want to, er, sound off
regarding his
attitude toward leaf-blower noise, have
at it... ed.]
Noise -- even in Idaho!
March 4, 2003: I agree wholeheartedly about the leaf
blowers and
other similar noise (Leaf Blower Power Squadrons,
10/27/98). I live in Idaho and they have the same noise ordinance.
What's a
person suppose to do during the day to stop noise? We are dealing with
neighbors that allow their kids to bounce basketballs into their
portable hoop
in the driveway for three hours a day average and more on weekends. It
penetrates through all the walls of our house. The ball often rolls or
gets
rebounded off our car.
The police say they can't do
anything. Do
you have any ideas or tips to get this to stop?
Thanks,
Barb Rowling
[Wow -- I guess noise problems
aren't
just for big cities anymore! Although I barely mentioned bouncing
basketballs
in my column, they were actually a more serious annoyance, back in
Highland
Park, than the leaf blowers. We were sandwiched in between two houses
with
small children -- and, as this was suburban Chicago during the height
of the
Michael Jordan era, basketball mania was in full swing. We often had
marathon
hoop games going on on both
sides of our house simultaneously.
The effect was
much like living inside a big snare drum -- at times, I had to wear ear
plugs
just to take a nap, in my own house, on a weekend afternoon. The kids'
parents
were completely unresponsive to our requests that they do something
about the
noise; their attitude was, "This is a suburb, and the main purpose of a
suburb is to function as a kids' playground. If you don't like it, get
lost."
Well, we did get lost -- we got
the heck
out of Highland Park and moved to Flagstaff late in '99. What's more,
we bought
five acres of land, off a dirt road in an area where no one's got a
paved
driveway. I can't say it was entirely to get away from noise that we
did this,
but that certainly had something to do with it.... ed.]
Let the good times blow
March 15: [Noise] sounds like a small price to pay
for living
in a nice place ("Leaf Blower Power Squadrons," October 27,
1998). Neat lawns are nice to look at and alot of work to keep
up.The bottom
line the guy that owns this lawn care business wants to make money same
as
yourself .
Gabe Moore
Proprietor, Screamin' Poulan Performance Exhausts
[I think we can safely assume
Mr. Moore
works the 7:00-to-3:00 shift.... ed.]
Blowin' in the wind
October 27: In my old 'hood the [leaf blower] noise
was
incessant. And, as you say, they're usually used
incorrectly. I
almost choked once because some guy was clearing the dirt that had
accumulated
at the end of the lane. All he did was blow up huge clouds of
dust.
Maybe they should give you an IQ test before allowing you to use one!
Phrenchy
Vancouver, BC
Warm this!
March 28, 2007: Okay,
let's see here. Since you seem incapable of acknowledging any
possibility of accuracy in other letters (go ahead, show me I'm wrong)
this letter's much more for other readers than you, good sir.
Nonetheless, if you take interest, respond as you will.
Just a degree. I would like to point out to you that, the oft sited
Little Ice Age was a cooling of, by the largest estimates, 0.6 degrees
C. The warming that has occured since 1900, by the most modest
estimates, is an increase of 0.6 degrees C. You pointed out yourself
how strong an effect this cooling had, allowing the Thames to freeze
over regularly. Another factor, is that the LIA, according to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, actually only effected the
northern hemisphere of the earth, while our current issues effect all
of it.
Though solar output may be responsible for climate change in the past,
it is not to blame for global warming now. We can see on these graphs
here (from NASA scientists, whom I hope we can agree are more
knowledgeable on the subject than us) :
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/space/solterr/output.html
that there is no noticeable correlation between solar output and
temperature. I'm not ruling out the possibility entirely, as it would
be unwise to base an opinion solely on some obscure graphs, but it
would be much more logical to blame it on CO2 levels, which show a
perfect correlation (and, which also meet any requirements of logic and
common sense, one might have, taking for example, Venus.)
Back to the Little Ice Age again, I would like to now point out that
the rate of the temperature change occuring now and then, are
drastically different. The LIA and Medieval Warm periods, as previously
mentioned were a change in - .6 degrees C, and back up to slightly
above normal temperatures. Giving an opponent of GW the benefit of the
doubt, we can safely say this temperature change (decrease and
increase) was no more than 1.5 degrees celsius.....ah, but the catch?
It took place over 800 years. 1.5 degrees over 800 years, versus 0.6
(exponentially growing) over 100 years. I'll let you do the math my
friend.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/images/MWP_LIA_present_NOAA_gif_image.html
This graph provides a decent means of comparison from the American
Geological Union.
It's not a warm summer. It's warm summer, after warm summer, after warm
summer. Consider that 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004 were the hottest years
on record in February of 2005.
Even if all the above stated is totally incorrect, we can safely say,
that depositing 6 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions a year (as we
did in 2000) into the atmosphere isn't going to help climate change in
any way. We can also say with great certainty that the Earth is indeed
warming up. Personally (and I have the greater half of the scientific
community on my side) I attribute this to humans. 7 Billion people is
so far over the amount of humans that should "normally" exist on earth.
We're way over capacity, and we're going to feel the repercussions of
our missuses of the earth, very soon. I'm happy to say, I won't need to
defend the theory of global warming in 50 years when we have 70 degree
winters in NY.
-- Nate
Somewhere in New York
[I've
basically spoken my peace on this subject, so I'll let this one stand
pretty much on its own. I'm not interested in playing "I've got
more scientists than you," as the Gore-o-philes seem bent on
doing. But I will note, once again, that the IPCC itself -- if
you read the actual report, not the executive summary -- is much more
equivocal than the snippets we read in the popular press would
indicate. And by most reputable accounts, the Medieval Warm
Period featured a temperature increase of several degrees, not
.6. As for today's temperature trend being "exponential," sorry
-- Michael Mann's Hockey Stick has been thoroughly debunked by McIntyre
and McKitrick at Climate Audit.
But read the research yourself... ed.]
February 15, 2007: hello.
your article sounds very biased. i
have no political or reglious affliations. my only affliation is to
science. looking at phenomena and trying to explain them using the
scientific method. to me, science is the closest mankind will come to
reaching any kind of truth. being an educated person yourself, i'm
surprised by the lack of scientific information in your article.... [blah-blah-blah -- no need to read the
rest of what this guy sent me. Why did I set a policy of running
all letters received, again? ... ed.]
Dan (no last name given -- he's at ohio.edu)[I'll let this one stand on its own, unedited. With so many errors of spelling, grammar, and punctuation, I'm assuming the writer is not a faculty member at Ohio! As for the "lack of scientific information in [my] article," well, it's not a scientific paper; it's a column. (I'm assuming it's in response to my first piece on global climate, from 2002. With the release of the IPCC's summary to its Fourth Assessment Report, the column has been getting a lot of hits lately.) I might add that my column does not say "nothing bad will happen, we are insignificant," etc. I take a decidedly skeptical view of the current political consensus on global climate -- but I also state, and I quote, that cutting down our fossil-fuel consumption would be "a decidedly good thing," because of the limited supply of oil, the pollution caused when we burn it, etc. I also state, in several of my pieces on climate, that as someone with a degree in Earth sciences, I am not unconcerned about possible human effects on climate. Most likely, we are having some effect on global climate through carbon dioxide and other factors. Where I get off the bus is when Al Gore and his friends start trying to scare the uninitiated with alarmist films and propaganda pieces that are entirely unsupported by science.
I recommend following the New York Times's coverage of climate issues. They've been doing a fairly good job of providing a non-alarmist assessment of what climate researchers -- on all sides of the issue -- are saying. John Tierney's "Findings" column is a good example of this. A brief sample:
The report concludes that it’s “very likely” that humans are now the main factor warming the climate. But even as the panel’s scientists are becoming surer of the problem, and warning of grim consequences this century and beyond, they’re eschewing crowd-thrilling catastrophes. Since the last I.P.C.C. report, six years ago, they haven’t raised the estimates of future temperatures and sea levels.
While Mr. Gore’s movie shows coastlines flooded by a 20-foot rise in sea level, the report’s projections for the rise this century range from 7 inches to 23 inches. The panel says Greenland’s ice sheet will shrink and might eventually disappear, but the process could take “millennia.” The Antarctic ice sheet is projected to grow, not shrink, because of increased snowfall.
The scientists acknowledge uncertainties and worrisome new signs, like the sudden acceleration in the flow of Greenland’s glaciers several years ago. But the panel, unlike Mr. Gore, didn’t extrapolate a short-term trend into a disaster, and its caution is vindicated by a report in the current issue of Science that the flow of two of the largest glaciers abruptly decelerated last year to near the old rate.
Tierney's piece is a much more responsible presentation of the issue than most of what we get in the mainstream media. In any case, thanks for writing... ed.]
November 30, 2006: Global warming is real. At first the
climate fluctuated
up and down up and down for several decades, but now with the increase
of
carbon dioxide with a growing population it has started to skyrocket
exponentially. Once exponential growth begins it is very hard to stop
it until
it reaches as certain level, but not before increasing significantly.
It has
been growing exponentially since
the 1800's exponentially, the temperature of the earth and CO2
levels.
Ironically, this is the same time as the Industrial revolution when we
started
putting fossil fuels into the atmosphere. Coincidence? I think anyone
can see
that we are the cause of increased exponential global warming and that
there is
a balance we need to keep of a temperate world. We cannot let it go to
hot or
too cold. Perhaps a little global warming was good to prevent a future
ice age,
but this is getting out of control now. We have already lost half the
arctic
ice and the antarctic is losing ice rapidly. Mt Kilimanjaro's Ice pack
is
almost gone and other mountains are losing snowpack as well. Greenland
and
Iceland are losing ice as well as Northern Canada and Siberia. Nations
and
states that once had significant snow are finding more rain now in the
spring
rather than snowfall. We have floods now in Boston instead of April-May
snow.
Polar bears are dying and many species habitats are being altered by
the
climate. We are experiencing a rise in sea level which will increase
dramatically the next century, so some places like the florida keys,
the
mangroves of the everglades, some islands, and cape hatteras may be
underwater
by 2100. The problem is today the changes in climate are relatively
small,
though increasing, but they have been relatively at the lower end of
the
exponential curve. So people think that its just a climate flucuation
and
nothing serious so they say why worry it wont change that much and wont
impact
me so why worry. We need to change this attidut because it will impact
humans
in the coming centuries. If we want our race to survive and our planet
we need
to sign the Kyoto Agreement and make renewable energy a law. We need to
stop
producing oil and introduce fission and fusion as well. Hydrodgen cars
and more
hybrids are a must and we need more solar panels and wind farms. We
need to
change the way we think and do things if we want to survive before it
is too
late. Unfortunately The american government will probably wait until we
are at
the top of the exponential curve and its
too late.
Jeff Dearman
[This is getting tiresome. I’ve already addressed every single one
of the writer’s points in my series on global warming, and in responses
to
previous letters, the last one of which was from him!
Nonetheless, in keeping with our policy of running every
letter we get: Yes, there has been an increase in global temperature
since
roughly 1850. However, the
Industrial Revolution is not the only factor affecting climate – or
even,
arguably, the main one. It has
been clearly established that solar output has increased slightly
during the
past 150 years – this trend correlates remarkably well with the
temperature observations during that time, the possible exception being
the
past 30 years or so, during which the correlation isn’t that clear.
However, 30
years is the blink of an eye, in climatic terms – far too short a time
period to use as the basis for any meaningful conclusions.
As for the “rise in sea level,”
what rise in sea level? There simply hasn’t been any – and even the
most
alarmist forecasts only show a rise of roughly one foot over the next
century
– not enough to flood anything.
Where you read about Pacific islands disappearing, etc., this is
not a
rise in sea level; it’s a subsidence of the Earth’s crust. If sea level
were
rising, it would be rising everywhere in the world. But it isn’t.
And while it would make sense,
as a
precaution, to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, the “overwhelming
consensus” for catastrophic global warming, which we keep reading about
in the
mainstream press, simply isn’t there.
Climatologists are not in agreement as to what’s going on. Al Gore may have invented the Internet,
but he didn’t invent climatology… ed.]
July 14, 2006: [This letter sets a Kafalas.com record
for the
longest letter to the editor. It's actually the writer's second
missive
-- a reply to my reply to his letter about one of my columns on global
warming. As is our policy around here, I'm running it in its
entirety, or
almost its entirety anyway. I'm sure it'll come as no surprise
that I
disagree pretty much 100% with his views on global climate -- but
there's room
for opposing points of view around here, and I'll let you be the
judge.
However, it's also worth noting that coincidentally, the U.S. House
Committee
on Energy and Commerce today issued a report by three statisticians,
which
calls into question Michael Mann's much-ballyhooed "hockey stick"
global temperature graph. Here's the
committee's news release on some related hearings they're
holding
next week... ed.]
I think if you look at the
satellite images
of the Arctic you will notice that we've lost about half the sea ice
already.
And the antarctic is melting faster than ever before. Deserts and arid
lands
are increasing in the western us and plains and sea levals have begun
to rise.
Yes
maybe its not as quick as they once thought, perhaps because we've made
some
changes in how we do things, such as more recycling and less fossil
fuels, but
if
we continue on the course we are on it will only get worse. The
evidence
is clear, the temperatures in summer and winter have been going up ever
since
the industrial revolution began. Before the industrial revolution
temperatures
were fairly steady.
Now they are skyrocketing each year, the last two decades have been the
warmest
on record and it continues to get hotter. Sea surface temperatures are
increasing. Polar bears are dying off
because they
dont have ice to walk on anymore and end up drowning. We are
losing
massive amounts of species who cannot cope with the increased
development by
humans in their habitats which should remain wild. You know, I think
its
actually good that Al Gore brought the worst case scenario out to the
public. I
mean at least he's not chicken to stand up and let everyone know what
will
happen if we continue down this path over the next couple centuries.
Sure it
wont happen right away, but if we continue doing what we're doing and
relying
on big oil, we will end up exactly like Al Gore says. The problem is
too many
conservatives think that just because it isn't a big threat right now,
that
means we should just ignore the future problem and not spend any money
trying
to fix it. That is the wrong thing to
do. We need to be developing alternative fuels and move away from oil.
Oil and
fossil fuels are the main problem with global warming and it wouldn't
be that
hard to switch over. We just need a national campaign and a leader who
wants to
change and help our environment. I care deeply about our environment
and I am
saddened at what we are doing to it. We are encroaching on wildlife
habitat, polluting
our seas, polluting our air, and causing species to die off. We are
building on
every last acre of land we have. In my area, despite the fact that
Boston is
really built up, people still tearing down what was once beautiful open
space
and woods and putting up more condos and houses to sell. Farmers in the
midwest
are being pressured to sell their land to big developers instead of
keeping
their land green. We need a fundamental change in the way we view our
planet
and the environment if the human race is to survive the next 1000
years.
Otherwise one day we will wake up and see that global warming was real
and
realize we were stupid as usual and waited till the last minute,
typical
republican way of dealing with situations. Just like how bush is going
to deal
with North Korea. We should be bombing the hell out of them right now
and
putting them back into the stone age, yet bush is doing nothing. North
Korea
has stated its missled were aimed at Hawaii, is that not a threat? I
also do
not agree we should be spending so much money in iraq. We should Train
the
Iraqi army now, Bush has had 3-4 years now to train them and if they
aren't
trained in another year or two we should start pulling
out. Its ridiculous that the iraqi people are not competent enough to
fight and
defend their own country. Why do innocent americans have to fight a war
for
them. Train the Iraqi people to defend their coutnry and get the hell
out.
We'll have bigger wars to deal with in 2-3 years like N.Korea and the
resurgance of the Taliban in Afghanistan which bush supposedly stopped.
;)
Funny they're resurging again in power isn't it?
Bush is also not doing enough at home. he is not solving crime, in my
city of
Boston Crime is higher than ever before, because the Bush
administration is
weakening gun laws, allowing criminals to get weapons easier around
govt. Loop
holes. And in every major city crime rate is up. Just watch the news
every day
and all you hear about is the latest murder or armed robbery. The no
Child Left
Behind Act is a joke. Bush
pledged to America when he got elected that every child in america
would be
able to afford education and college by his 4th year in office. He also
said
schools would be fixed and would have computers and smaller classes.
And
exactly the opposite has
happened. Schools are in disrepair, facing budget cuts everywhere and
the inner
city schools which were promised to get computers, textbooks and
smaller
classes, and renovations are left behind. Kids are dumber than ever
before, and
many just get fed up with the lack of personal attention they drop out
and
revert to crime and gangs for support, another reason Crime has
increased under
bush. No Child Left Behind is a joke, it also punishes students who
can't do
well on exams. I had a hard time taking timed exams. It was not because
I
wasn't smart, I'd get B's and A's in school, its just I had
trouble when
under pressure from timed exams. Now they make timed exams the only way
you can
graduate. That is ridiculous. It should only be a way to judge who
might need
help but should not be a requirement to graduate. Your GPA and
attendance
should be the requirement for graduation and college admission. its not
fair to
punish smart students who cant do well on timed tests. Why Don't we
have a
health care system yet? Didn't Bush promise us that too? Bush is
wasting so
much
money on this war, when we could have protected our environment by
developing
alternative energy program, provided more education funding, provided a
health
care system, yet he just doesn't seem to care. Most of america is
having a
difficult time paying for health insurance with the cost of everythng
else and
the lack of jobs. I know I cannot afford to pay $300 a month for health
insurance because in the jobs I get when I have one, I only make about
that
much a month. My parents have to help me out and I still live at home
because I
can't afford the cost of living away from
home right now. The health care system is a joke in this country and
caters
only to the super rich. Bush has made cuts to the social security and
medicare.
I thought Bush supported the elderly? Its funny that elderly vetrans
support
bush because of his so called war on terror, yet he went Awol in the
Vietnam
war, and did not really see any action unlike Kerry> The Swift Boat
Vterans
for Bush are liars. Kerry was right in the middle of the action and
even took
bullets for his shipmates. he was constantly in
danger every day he was out there unlike Bush who took the easy way out
in the
National Guard and didn't even really serve. So the vetrans support
bush yet
don't
realize their benefits get cut thanks to him. Nice guy isn't he? Shows
you what
the republican priorities are eh? Tax cuts for the wealthy, cost
increases for
everyone else due to lack of services, screwing our environment,
leading a war
we should not be fighting (Iraqi people should be fighting it), and
underfunding everything that the people of the nation want. Oh I forgot
to
mention discriminating against certain people just because of who they
are. You
know its sickening to think that Bush is allowing
to happen what we tried to move away from after World War II. We saw
how the
Nazi's discriminated against jews and how we as americans had once
treated
Blakcs. Now a new discrimination against gays is happening in america.
Gay
people do not harm anyone. They just keep to themselves mostly. All
they want
to be is accepted in society. And some people just can't seem to
accept
that because of the religion factor. But being gay has nothing to do
with
religion. The line about gays going
to hell was taken out of context and misused by conservative
evangelicals to
try to spin that gay=bad=hell. But that is wrong. I ask you this, if
gays were
meant to go to hell, why are the majority of the good people on this
planet
gay? Why are so many
actors, theater people even politicians, and musicians gay? Why are
people who
advocate for human rights, the suffering of children , and why are
there gay
teachers
as well who are helping our kids learn? Why would god make so many good
gay
people if they were only to go to hell. It just doesnt make since.
Notice how
Bush
and the conservative base only bring up the gay issue around election
time like
this year we will be hearing more and more about it since its mid
terms, but
next
year you 'll hardly hear a peep about gay rights. It is completely
ridiculous
and Bush and the republicans should by law not be allowed to use that
as
a campaign issue. because frankly it is a non issue. Gays should
have the
right to marry like everyone else and live their lives. Lets get
over it
and move to bigger topics. Just about anything Bush does is wrong and
he has
been a terrible president. He is in support of Big Oil which is the
main
problem that could create global warming and sea level rise in the near
future
if we do nothing. Al Gore is a good man for standing up to big oil who
wants to
have people think exactly the way you do, that oh global warming hasn't
really
happened yet and won't impact me in my lifetime so why should I
care. This is the typical conservative one sided thinking that gets
this
country into trouble constantly... [Well, you get the idea.
Jeff goes
on for a few more paragraphs in the same vein. And I certainly
agree with
a lot of his Bush-bashing -- regular readers will be aware that I rate
Bush the
worst President in my lifetime. But the Democrats are not much
better --
that's why I've been voting mostly Libertarian lately... ed.]
Jeff Dearman
Boston, MA
December 27, 2002: Your piece on global warming presents many
interesting facts. Your thoughts on sun spots and their relationship to
warm
and cool periods here on Earth are particularly intriguing. I took
Geology as
my lab science in college many years ago along with a relatively new
discipline: Environmental Chemistry. At the time it struck me that
everything I
was learning in the one class seemed to conflict with the other. In
Geology we
learned that warming and cooling trends are as old as Earth itself,
some
lasting hundreds, some thousands of years. In Environmental Chemistry
we
learned Global Warming was a real and present danger caused certainly
by
automobile emissions and deforestation. We learned that petroleum
resources
were if not unlimited then at least plentiful in one and that they
would
certainly be gone before the 70s were over in the other.
The problem with extrapolation,
the basis
for many scientific claims on Global Warming, is that it fails to
account for
the external factors and cannot offer a hope of experimental control.
Results
cannot be reliably reproduced since the Earth itself is the laboratory.
I am sure that the motives of
those who see
Global Warming as a threat to civilization are pure. I am just as
certain the
motives of those who disagree and see a bigger picture are as well. One
thing
is certain: neither side is willing to accept, for good reasons I hope,
the
arguments of the other. But the record the Earth makes in a plethora of
media
we can access, tree rings, rocks and so on, is discernible to
scientists
willing to step outside their paradigm. And it does not support the
theory that
the Earth is warming or that mankind is responsible.
Barry Sharpe
[My beef with the environmental
movement
is that they keep jumping on everything as a "crisis." Acid rain --
remember that one? It was supposedly going to wipe out all our forests
and
lakes, or at least those downwind from Midwest power plants. It was --
and is
-- a real phenomenon, but it hasn't caused the devastation predicted in
the
'70s and '80s, despite the fact that we burn more coal now than we did
then.
Nuclear waste -- horrible stuff, true; but keep in mind that nuclear
plants
produce no air pollution, so it's basically a tradeoff.
Out here in Arizona, we have
these
fanatics who want to take out Glen Canyon Dam, which is supposedly
causing the
demise of various endangered fish in the Colorado River (cold water
released
from the bottom of the dam creates an inhospitable environment
downstream). On
the other hand, the dam also generates a lot of power -- again, without
polluting the air. This benefit is dismissed by the Greens, because the
power
plant is only a small part of the nation's supply. I suppose they'd
rather have
us take out the dam and burn more coal instead? It's a sure bet they'd
be
complaining about the air pollution next!
Not to give away my next column
in the
series, but it's going to blast the Forest Service's policy of caving
in to
extremist groups who want to close off the great outdoors to any kind
of
recreational activity not involving hiking boots. This accomplishes
little in
the way of environmental protection but scores a lot of points with
suburban
"environmentalists" who've never actually been anywhere near the
sites their Sierra Club donations are protecting.
My problem with the Greens is
not that
I'm against protecting the Earth, but that the current policymaking
process
doesn't work. Instead of really protecting the environment, we end up
adopting
policies that sound good but don't *do* much good. We close National
Forests
and create National Monuments to lock up millions of acres of land that
aren't
in any danger to begin with. We put draconian restrictions on emissions
from
vehicles that aren't used much in the first place (for example, the EPA
has
virtually banned two-stroke motorcycles, most of which are only ridden
a few
hours a year and in remote areas). At the same time, we don't take
steps that
would really do something about the problems -- e.g., refraining from
fighting
wars to protect oil supplies, or making SUVs and motorhomes adhere to
the same
emissions, gas mileage, and crash-test standards as cars. (On the
latter, the
EPA is moving in the right direction, but not nearly fast enough.)
At the risk of repeating
myself,
politicians are more interested in seeming to enact good legislation
than in
enacting good legislation -- because the latter is much more difficult
and
painful.... ed.]
Telemarketing -- or, the "greater fool" theory in business
November 8, 2005: You're pathetic. If you have this much
time to
devoted to a webpage; telemarketing should be the least of your worries.
[I'm not sure if the writer is
the
former vice-presidential candidate -- who probably has a lot of time on
his
hands these days -- or just someone else with the same name.
But in any case, telemarketing
is the least of my worries, at this point.
Reason #1: the National Do Not
Call Registry, which has enabled millions of Americans to free
themselves from
the scourge of telemarketing. Reason #2: In the Kafalas.com household,
we make
and receive all of our voice phone calls via cell phone -- and it's
illegal for
telemarketers to call cell phones. So it's all good. But thanks for
writing!
.... ed.]
January 30, 2004: I am in the mortgage business and we rely
on
telemarketing to obtain mortgages. We only do a mortgage if its
benefits
someone, so why is it bad for a telemarketer to call and help someone
fill a
need. Not every telemarketer is selling a scam. Telemarketing is a 5
billion
dollar industry. If this industry goes under we will be in a recession
for much
longer than expected. Telemarketers help you feed your family, because
a strong
economy helps you maintain a job and security for your family.
Next time a call comes into your
home with
an "out of your area," pick up the phone and give thanks to the
telemarketer for helping to make our economy strong and if you than
decide not
to purchase a product or service over the phone than politely say I am
not
interested and hang up. Its that easy, and you don't have to have any
special
gadgets.
Since you have all this time to
post a Web
site and to spend much of your time complaining, you should think about
getting
a part time job. May I suggest telemarketing.
Larry
Bonner
Security Financial Group
Elgin, IL
[No, you may not. And given
the
overwhelming public support for the National Do Not Call Registry, it's
safe to
say that more people see it my way than yours. As for telemarketers
"helping to make our economy strong," well, the last time I checked,
we were still in a recession. All is not lost, though. With the massive
outsourcing wave currently battering the U.S. labor force, it's not
unlikely
that telemarketing call centers will soon be a thing of the past, in
this country.
You may have to relocate to Bangalore, if you want to keep your job....
ed.]
Silencing the telemarketers
July 29, 2003: I came across your
article
on telemarketing and agree with the theory that the phone
companies
have suppressed certain features. Back in 1995 I had bought a Caller ID
box
that would block [certain] callers with some message that we don't
accept
blocked calls. Since moving from Kansas City to Dallas, either the box
has
stopped working or the phone company has made it useless. But I have
found
another company selling a similar product with even more features at:
http://intelescreener.com/index.html
In the meantime I've become more
aggressive
in telling callers to remove me from their list, and plan on getting on
the
federal Do Not Call list.
Kirk Schneider
[Thanks for the tip, Kirk. For
those who
missed it, you can sign up for the FTC Do Not Call Registry at http://www.donotcall.gov.... ed.]
March 4, 2003: I found your page on telemarketers (Telemarketing -- my conspiracy theory,
2/13/01) while I
was doing a search on Google for "telemarketer blocking." I was doing
this search because of the number of telemarketing calls that I am
receiving --
extremely annoying!
I know that the Caller ID box
always says
"Unavailable" and also shows no telephone number (this in contrast to
some calls that show a phone number along with the "Unavailable" for
when the system doesn't know the name associated with the number, such
as when
my husband calls from work at Fifth Third Bank). I thought that it
should be a
simple thing for a telephone company to offer a service blocking all
calls with
no number and which say "Unavailable."
There seems to be nothing of the
sort. And
your page certainly confirms what I had thought. [I just had two
telemarketing
calls between paragraphs!] I had just arrived at the same conclusion as
you
before I even read your page: The telephone companies make BIG BUCKS
from the
telemarketing business! They are never going to offer a service which
will make
one of their biggest cash cows go away. It's really sad, but the
lobbyists
bought off the representatives in Washington (who were elected to serve
our interests,
supposedly), and they came up with the "Do Not Call" list, which is
duly ignored. We small people just don't stand a chance.
Cindy Brooman
Delaware, Ohio
[The little guy does get short
shrift --
certainly here in Arizona, where the state legislature just recently
killed a
bill that would have created a statewide "Do Not Call" list for
consumers to opt into. In an uncharacteristic bit of honesty,
legislators were
quoted in the newspaper as saying, essentially, that the interests of
telemarketing
businesses were more important to them than the interests of consumers
in not
being pestered!
I still haven't found a perfect
call
screener, but the talking Caller-ID unit
we
settled on, shortly after my column was first published, turned out to
be a
great product. Anytime a call comes in with a number, it'll announce
that
number, even if it doesn't know the name of the business -- that should
mean
that if your husband called, it would announce his office phone number,
so you'd
know it was him.
As it turns out, we recently
moved, and
we were able to fire the phone company altogether -- these days, we
just have
wireless phones; and since it IS illegal for telemarketers to call
them, we
don't get any junk calls here. Of course, that option was available
only
because we happen to live right next door to our local ISP, where Meg
works, so
we have a wireless Internet connection. Most people can't do that --
but if you
have a cable modem, you could fire the phone company, as we did. If
enough
people do that, maybe the phone companies will wake up and do something
about
telemarketing scum -- like providing call screening at no extra charge.
Hey, I
can dream, can't I?... ed.]
January 11, 2002: I was looking for a device to block
telemarketing
calls, came across your column about telemarketers, and thought you
would be
interested in www.prefonefilter.com.
I am searching for a device that has a prerecorded message for
telemarketers,
but this device sounds like something you could use.
Lee Fink
[Thanks for the tip, Lee. This
product
sounds like a cheaper alternative to the "home PBX" I mentioned in
the column. I obvously haven't tried it, but I did go to
prefonefilter.com and
look over the product specs. Looks good... ed.]
December 19, 2001: I have read your column
about products that would block telemarketers. Well, there was one (key word "was"). I bought a Caller
ID
Box from Radio Shack a few years ago. It lets you put any number or
'unavailable or blocked calls' in a reject list. When the call comes
in, the
box answers for you and in a rude male voice says, "The number you are
calling does not accept your call," then hangs up on the caller. It
cost
me $60.00.
Well, shortly after buying it and
telling
some friends, [I found out that] the product was discontinued. The
company said
it was because it was not selling. I don't believe that -- nobody knew about it. It was not advertised. I came
upon it as a
fluke. If you want more info on this product, I have it. Maybe if more
people
ask it will be brought back. You are so right, it can be done --they
just don't
want to create it.
Christine M. Lydon
[Knowing Radio Shack, it's
entirely
possible that the product was just too good, so they stopped making it. But
your experience certainly
squares with my "conspiracy theory" that the phone companies have
pressured consumer electronics manufacturers into not making products
that
would block telemarketing calls... ed.]
November 1, 2001: My name is Jeff, IÌm 24 years old, and
have been
blessed with an occupation that allows me to give misdirected people in
my
community a chance to do something with their lives and make them a
valued
member of society.
There is nothing worse than when
IÌm trying
to have a face to face with one of my employees in my office and the
phone
rings; I pick it up thinking it might be important, but it's someone
trying to
sell something . After realizing that itÌs a telemarketer, I say im not
interested and hang up.
These people may be annoying but
this is the
job that they do. IÌve been selling tools to contractors over the phone
for six
years and IÌm good at it. I must be the worst kind of scum because I
own my own
company and hire decent people that donÌt have the best education and
give them
an opportunity and a skill that they can use for the rest of their
lives. I
look around at my sales team or other pieces of scum and see not scum
but
people that would give me the shirt off their back, and I would do the
same for
them. They may have a job that everyone thinks is the worst possible
job on the
face of the earth, but itÌs not and if you donÌt want to talk to us
just say
ÏIÌm not interested" and hang up. I will tell you though, the one thing
that you can do is tell them to take you off their list, and largely
that same
company canÌt call you again. If they do, you can press charges and
they know
it.
Jeff
Flagstaff, AZ
PS -- My office is on Phoenix St.
in
Flagstaff next to the Darra Thai restaurant. So weÌre helping your
local
economy too.
[I hear what Jeff is saying --
but my column was primarily directed at
telemarketers who
call residential phone numbers and those who use computer-generated
lists of
random numbers. Calling a business that's likely to have a need for
what you're
selling is a different thing -- sort of, anyway. If he wants to call
contractors and try to sell them tools, that's OK with me -- just as in
my day
job at Starlite Lanes, I don't mind fielding the occasional
telemarketing call
from a bowling supplier or beverage vendor; we might even buy something
from
them.
As for the effectiveness of
"telling
them to take you off their list," that never used to work -- and
besides,
even in the best-case scenario, all it does is get you off one of the
thousands
of telemarketing lists you're on. These days, I don't need to bother,
because
the talking caller-ID unit just announces
"Number Unknown" when they call, eliminating the need to pick up the
phone in the first place... ed.]
October 16, 2001: I agree with you on the issues and am
trying to
research a solution so my time is not interrupted by Out of
Area/telemarketing
calls. Although my preference would be a piece of hardware designed to
forward
all Out of Area calls to the answering machine, the following link
provides a
potential PC solution.
http://www.voicecallcentral.com/advancedcallcenter.htm
Scott Hornung
September 7, 2001: I just caught a clip on the local news
this morning,
about a gadget that gives the "not a working number" tone to all your
callers. When the telemarketer hears this tone, he hangs up and
normally
removes the number from his database. Your phone continues to ring if
the
caller doesn't hang up, so you just wait 3 or 4 rings before you
answer. The
fellow in the clip said he has told all his friends and family he has
this so
they won't hang up. I didn't catch the name of the gadget, but he said
he found
it on-line.
My local telephone company lists
an address
to contact in the Consumer Information section of their directory. I
have
written to this and it seems to work very well -- I get very few
telemarketing
calls. The address is: Telephone Preference Service, Direct Marketing
Association, PO Box 9014, Farmingdale NY 11735. This service is
designed to
reduce the number of calls you receive from telemarketers.
Another option (which I just
signed up for,
so I don't know how effective it is), is online at
www.CallCompliance.com. This
service blocks your number from access by telemarketers and other
telephone
solicitors.
Sue Smith
West Virginia
August 3, 2001: I read your article dated February, 2001
with your
desire to block calls that do not supply caller ID, including Out of
Area
calls. I want to be able to block calls to and from specific numbers. I
want
the device to be programmable; preferably through a PC. Anyway, I found
a
device that [might] solve your problem. It's called Whozz Calling4
Lite. It
seems a little pricey - but if it solves your problem it might be worth
it. If
you know of any devices that can address my needs, please let me know.
Mike Shore
[Thanks for the suggestion,
Mike. As
mentioned in my replies to the following letters, I've addressed the
problem
with a talking caller-ID unit that works quite well -- although it
doesn't actually
silence the telemarketers' rings altogether. I can live with hearing
"Number Unknown" when a telemarketer calls. Still, the ideal solution
would be to hear nothing at all.
If anyone knows of a product
that would
do what Mike wants, please let
me
know, and I'll forward the information along to him... ed.]
July 17, 2001: hey dude if you don't like it get rid of
your phone.
can't stand the heat? ... get out of the kitchen. you probably say give
them
the abortion rights but stop telemarketing phone calls. you put that
phone in
your home so that people can call you...right? well then only give that
number
to those whom you want to have it. and put a stop on all others through
the
phone company. use your head if you have one.
[I've reproduced this one
exactly as it
came in. Let it not be said that we impose a minimum-age requirement on
letter
writers, or that you have to agree with me to get your letter onto this
page! I
have no idea who this individual is, but such tripe as the above makes
a more
compelling case for abortion rights than I ever could! As for the heat,
I can
stand it -- but the 9900CW talking caller-ID (see below) is keeping
telemarketers
out of the Kafalas.com kitchen just fine, thanks... ed.]
June 25, 2001: I don't know of a product to do quite what
you want,
i.e., block all out-of-area calls (Telemarketing
--
my conspiracy theory, 2/13/01), but the one product I found
that I
liked is at www.callplex.com. It runs about $100 and supposedly, what
happens
is that when someone calls, they are prompted for the passcode. If they
don't
have the passcode, the call will be routed to your v-mail/answering
machine. If
they have the passcode, the phone will ring and if you don't answer,
it'll
still route to your v-mail/answering machine. If someone doesn't have
the
passcode, the phone won't even ring. I haven't bought one yet, and I
don't know
if it'll really work, but you might want to take a look into it.
"bigman"
a consultant who posts on RealRates.com
[Thanks
for the
tip. As it turns out, though, Meg and I opted for a talking Caller-ID
unit --
specifically, the ClassCo VoiceAnnounce 9900CW, which we got from
SmartHome.com
for around $80.00 -- and after a few months of operation, I'm happy to
report
that it's saved us enough trips to the phone, to check the caller ID,
that we
collectively weigh about 10 pounds more than we did before we got the
unit.
Seriously, hearing the 9900CW announce "Number Unknown," when a
telemarketer calls, has reduced the aggravation level significantly,
here at
Kafalas.com HQ... ed.]
Rice burners forever!
September 18, 2002: I just read your Ode
to a
rice burner and I want to know if it is still alive. I own a
1989
Hyundai Excel with 271,000 Km on the odometer. Like the rice burner it
has
always been an example of reliability, and got through 13 Canadian
winters with
no problem. It's a 4-speed manual running at 4200 Rpm at 65 MPH. After
so many
kilometers and revolutions it runs almost like day 1 and don't burn a
drop of
oil. If you have any spare time, please tell me another part of the
rice burner
history!
Nic B»gin
Canada
[Thanks for writing! As for my
Hyundai,
I'm afraid I no longer have it. In late 1999, my wife and I moved from
Chicago
to Flagstaff, Arizona. We had two other vehicles, and I decided not to
take the
Hyundai. It had about 160,000 miles on it, and although it still ran
well, the
engine was down on compression, the suspension was shot, the front end
wiggled,
and the body was starting to rust. So I gave it to my mechanic (the
Bernardi
Bros. of Highwood, Illinois, who I mentioned in the column). I have no
idea
what they did with it -- but for all I know, it could still be running!]
Rice burners rule!
January 20, 2000: I just came across your website while
surfing for
info on my Hyundai Excel. I have to tell you how much I enjoyed your
article
"Ode to a Rice Burner." I have a 1994 Hyundai Excel Hatchback and
it's the BEST car I've ever had! I haven't had to replace anything
outside the
normal maintenance items, except for a bad O2 sensor last week. It just
turned
80,000 and still runs great. I was teased and ridiculed when I bought
it, but
couldn't afford anything else at the time. It turns out the "teasers"
who drive BMWs and similar types of cars have had MANY things go wrong
with
them -- but not my Hyundai! It starts right up when its 30 below zero,
which is
also when my neighbors's Lexus doesn't. It has never overheated in the
summer
(I don't have air conditioning though). It has gotten me through 6
cold, snowy
Minnesota winters and always starts and never gets stuck. I also like
to take
"road-trip" vacations too; the little Excel has taken me to Disney
World in Orlando, to the top of the Smokey Mountains in Tennessee, to
Pennsylvania and the east coast and also through parts of the old Route
66! I
also followed some of the highways all the way through Missouri and
through
part of Illinois. I smiled when I read your article because your
faithful Excel
sounds a lot like mine. Those cars got such a bad rap and I'm sure
there are
some out there that do have problems (as with any make of car), but it
looks
like we got the good ones! Anyway, I just wanted to let you know I
enjoyed your
story, it brightened my day and makes me think to myself, "See -- I'm
not
the only one who likes my little Excel!".
Best regards,
Deb Rodden
Mpls, Minnesota
No generalization is worth a damn, including this one
September 22, 2003: So you went from one generalization to
another.
Generalizations are always full of holes. I get stinking lousy service
from
some local businesses and stinking lousy service from some big national
ones. I
get exceptional wonderful service from other local businesses and
exceptional
wonderful service from other big national ones (especially [reference
to
specific company deleted -- they don't need a free ad on my site... ed.]). Writers of any level of experience need
to learn
to avoid generalizations. Someone will always call you out on it.
Toni McConnel
Somewhere in northern Arizona
[I'm assuming the writer is
referring to It ain't easy being a
SLOB!, August 10, 2000... ed.]
Fire away!
March 28, 2003: I agree with you on most points concerning
human
ignorance (Learn not to burn -- or else,
6/18/01), but ban fires? Get real! Your [sic] so far out in left field
that
your going to hit the fence.
Suggestion 1. No fires in
wildnerness areas
unless there is 3" or more snow.
2. If you start a forest fire due
to a
campfire or some other ignorance. You go to PRISON.
3. If the forest service and
lawenforcement
in your area can't control the when and where's of camp fires, they
need to be
replaced!
4. ENFORCE the rules and regs you
already
have. Fires are dangerous but also crutial to healthy forests. Don't
ever
forget that! You can't just ban american freedoms because your
community can't
control hazards with BANNING everything.
Jesse Short
[Well, in a perfect world, I'd
agree. But
I fail to see what is so impossible about going camping without
lighting a
fire. My folks, sister, and I did it dozens of times while I was
growing up. If
campfires were banned, there'd be no need for hair-splitting over how
much snow
was present, exactly where the boundary of a campground lay, or any of
that --
NO FIRES, PERIOD, would leave little room for misinterpretation. I'm
sorry,
Jesse, but when houses -- and lives -- are at stake, campfires are a
frivolity
we can't afford. ... ed.]
SLOBs away!
October 6, 2001: As a long time resident, I can say with utmost conviction that the LOB's [that's