Glitter Gulch, babes, and dice

Every so often, a headline just grabs you and demands you read the story. You are mostly disappointed in the story and wonder how they managed to use that particular headline.

In this case, I was intrigued. I admit, it is because I am a male of a certain age...

Casino is looking for a few good 'broads'

it is about downtown Las Vegas, a place I happen to love. I loved the Strip once but no more. It is not what it once was. The small storefront casinos are gone, most of the cheesey souvenir and T-shirt shops are also gone. Heck, most of the strip malls are gone. Replaced by gaudy, over-priced, monstrosities pretending to be something they aren't. The hotel casinos on the Strip have become "theme parkish"; Paris, New York New York, Treasure Island, and so on. And all have been re-arranged to keep you from finding the exit to the Strip in the hopes that you will stay inside their casino.

Apparently, downtown wants to lure us back. And they are doing this by playing up the old Vegas, the one the Mob made. And that means, apparently, broads. My apologies to any woman who finds that term offensive. It's just a term, a slang word for women slightly less offensive than so many others. It was not so long ago that the term was commonly used and socially acceptable. At least in the circles I ran in. Watch a few old movies of the Rat Pack variety and you will hear the word repeated often enough to give NOW a collective fit. It's just a word and words aren't sticks nor stones... as the old rhyme goes...

"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."

Some time ago, someone turned that around and promoted the idea that words are weapons. It caught on. Maybe too well. But it is what it is and I happen to think being civil is a good idea. Still, I miss the Old Days. I especially miss the old days of Las Vegas. The days when you could get a NY Strip steak and eggs for $1.99 in just about any casino cafe. The days when you could run into a Frank Sinatra (who used that word in just about every sentence concerning women), or Sammy Davis Jr., or any number of other stars of the day who were constantly politically incorrect. The days when you could get a room in a nice hotel/casino on the Strip for $15.

Those days are gone. The Mob has slunk off to make their filthy lucre backing mortgage companies.

It's sad, really.

The search for little green men continues

On Saturday morning a wonderful thing happened. The new Mars Rover (dubbed "Curiosity") was launched [link] toward Mars. It will take 8 and a half months to get there. It's primary purpose is to search for evidence of at least microbial life.

It seems that methane is present on Mars and methane is a byproduct of life. And now we are going to make a concerted effort to find some evidence of that life.


A photo gallery of the Rover "Curiosity" [link]


A CBS news report about the project:



I am fascinated by such things. No, not by news reports. But by the search for life on other planets.

Read more about it here (warning: large PDF file) [link]

Lifting bales and toting barges...

As I was perusing the internet the other day, I came across a discussion about immigration on the Atlantic.com website [link]. The story that had the discussion was mostly a hit piece on newt Gingrich and Republicans but, as discussions usually do, the comments wandered far afield of that.

"The vast majority of illegal and legal immigrants work harder than you have at anytime in your life. "
(written by someone calling himself "mtbr1975")

It gave me pause. I realized almost immediately that the vast majority of the nation worked harder that I have at anytime during my life. In other words (even though he wasn't referring to me but some other person), he was correct in my case... in a sense.

Very few people in the U.S. labor all that hard except for short periods, usually very short periods. And the ones who do engage in heavy labor for longer periods often make the least amount in terms of wages. It's a truism and it does not apply absolutely so spare me the stories of how hard you work at your job. This was something I observed in my late teens or early twenties. It's blatantly obvious in places with strict hierarchical structures. Like the military... where I first noticed it. The "unrated" seaman worked the hardest on a regular basis than any "rated" seaman. The terms "rated" and "unrated" refer to official job designations such as Sonar Technician or Radarman or Machinist's Mate. As you moved up the chain in your job, you did less physical labor and got paid more. If you had the brains/skills to get a rating, your initial job was less physically demanding (often, not always) than those who lacked a rating.

Once out of the Navy, I learned this was true in the civilian work force also. The more your job depended on brainpower, the less it depended on physical strength and endurance. Being lazy, I took as much advantage of this as I possibly could.

There was something else I learned in the Navy... work very hard for a short period of time and you are likely to be rewarded with a position where you do not have to work nearly as hard. Being lazy, I tried to keep that short period of hard labor down to a few weeks at most. I was quite successful in that, as I recall.

Don't get me wrong, I admire those who engage in backbreaking toil most of their working lives. I stand (well, usually "sit" or "recline") in awe of their willingness to work so hard. I do not look down on them. It is just something I am not willing to do and never was.

"mtbr1975" was mostly right... because illegal immigrants (as well as many legal ones) usually start out in physically demanding jobs. But he was especially right when it came to me. He just didn't know how right he was.

Divided we fall?

Have you ever had a discussion with someone that turned into an argument? Of course you have. We all have. Many times, I'd guess. An exchange of ideas only remains civil as long as there is some basic agreement about the validity of those ideas. Two (or more) people can agree on goals set, for instance, but remain civil while disagreeing about how to achieve them. When the way to achieve one or more of them becomes the focus of the discussion, it is likely to lose that civility and the discussion becomes an argument.

When I was younger, much younger, a teacher offered the premise that there was no real difference between the two major political parties when it came to foreign policy. The way she put it was "the differences ended at the shoreline." She maintained that the only differences lay in dometic policy. This was an earlier time... when the political rhetoric was much tamer. It was a period of relatively peaceful political endeavors.

It is not true today. And hasn't been for maybe 45 years. Since the Vietnam War. A lot of people became very political during that time. Lines were drawn, sides were taken, and the country became very divided. After the Vietnam War ended, we didn't really settle back into that more peaceful political environment. Instead, the rancor and distrust continued. It spilled over into domestic policy. Civil Rights, women's liberation, free speech and expression became as important as a foreign war.

In a way, it was much like the country was after war of 1812. Old animosities fueled domestic political debate. Slavery was at the core but economic differences between regions were a great part of it. Eventually, that boiled over into the Civil War.

Is that where we are headed today? Is the country dividing along political and ideological lines? Will it come to blows?

I suspect there will be no civil war. Today's issues aren't regional. But maybe that isn't such a good thing, maybe it will lead to chaos.

I am recommending the following column by John Stossel about freedom of speech.

America: Land of Free Speech -- Sometimes

You might find it interesting.

Shots are fired and conspiracies evolve

November 22nd (three days ago) was the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. I was 17 at the time and in an English class when the announcement came. I was not especially political at the time. I remember the presidential campaign of 1960 and being indifferent to the possible outcome. In 1963, I was just beginning to form complex socio-political ideas. I was more concerned with my dating prospects and finding my place in a new town and a new school.

It was still a shock and an obviously important moment in history. Presidents are not often assassinated. It was a Friday and the TV was filled with stories about all things related to this assassination and all presidential assassinations. And, on that Sunday, the subsequent assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald (the person arrested for Kennedy's assassination) by a man named Jack Ruby.

The Kennedy assassination triggered numerous conspiracy theories. More than one gunman, the grassy knoll, Ruby hired by the Mob, CIA involvement, a Soviet plot, and more.

In the next several the years I looked into Lee Harvey Oswald and a few of the more rational conspiracy theories. Oswald's story is rather interesting and easily permits conspiracy theories to evolve.

Oswald was a U.S. Marine from 1956 to 1959. After receiving a hardship discharge, he defected to the Soviet Union. This resulted in his hardship discharge being changed to undesirable. He spent only a couple of years there before becoming disenchanted with Soviet life and began seeking help from the American Embassy to return to the U.S. He subsequently met a woman, married her, and fathered a child before he and his family were permitted to enter the U.S. in June of 1962.

He later became involved with a group called the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" (FPCC) and tried to form a branch in New Orleans, where he had moved to after leaving the Dallas area in April of 1963. While in New Orleans, he appeared to attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group and was later seen handing out FPCC literature. After a scuffle with the head of the anti-Castro group, he was arrested (along with others). As he was being released, he asked to meet with an FBI agent. The request was granted. All sorts of odd connections with anti-Castro groups and individuals as well as pro-Castro people popped up during his New Orleans stay.

After returning to the Dallas area in September, he apparently started making attempts to return to Russia. He also planned to visit Cuba before returning to Russia. Even though the Cuba embassy in Mexico granted him a visa on October 18th, he did not go there. Instead, he had returned to the Dallas area on October 3.

It gets even weirder. I can understand the conspiracy theories because of all the odd events and behaviors. I can also easily dismiss them because I like to think I am rational.

Still...