I'm a little stunned over an article concerning a cop being suspended for handing out a Ghetto Handbook. Titled "Wucha dun did now?" the so called handbook appears to factually list slang type Ebonics terms and gives an accurate definition of what they mean.

The article listed a couple terms and their definitions. These terms and definitions outlined in the article do not appear to be written in any type of a derogatory fashion. They appear to be very factual dictionary style definitions.

The thing that confuses me is this: A number of years ago, activists were demanding that Ebonics be deemed a recognized actual language apart from English. There was uproar as to weather or not it should be qualified as such, but the proponents were primarily activists of African American descent.

If activists wanted the language to be recognized, why in the world would they have a problem with an Ebonics To English dictionary being created? To me this would seem like the recognition they were looking for from the beginning.

Essentially speaking, the problem boils down to this: You cannot expect to have Ebonics recognized as its own language, while at the same time complaining when someone creates a guide to help understand the language you are fighting to have recognized.

This is basic hypocrisy on its surface.

I had to make a trip home from work this morning because I forgot my timecard. After getting it (and some breakfast), I headed back to work.

I ended up being stuck in traffic, from what I could see was some type of fire on the conejo grade. When I got close I snapped a picture. I didn't see any students in the area, so I assume the bus was empty at the time (there isn't many places to go on the grade, either up or down along the freeway, as there are no other streets or sidewalks that travel over the grade).

At any rate, I snaped the following picture. Its a bit distorted due to the lens protecter in my iPhone case. I removed it after this.

At any rate, I got a full shot of the bus itself. It was pretty much out by the time I got next to it.

If you were to ask NASA 2 months ago what the warmest year on record is to date, they would have stated 1998, seeming to show Global Warming as a modern and real issue.

Someone wondering why some ominous data was apparent in the graph released by NASA reverse engineered their algorithm, and it interestingly turns out that NASA's software was suffering from a Y2K type bug.

NASA was contacted and they proceeded to quietly fix the error, and released new data. That data shows the warmest year on record did not occur in 1998... It occurred in 1934.

Its interesting to note that many Global Warming theory advocates were spewing this data right and left before (and the originator of the flawed data became visible due to his accusation that the Bush administration was trying to silence his data), however upon release of the correction both NASA and the same advocates have been inexplicably silent... If it weren't for the fact that an outsider discovered the bug in the first place, it would have most likely have never even been detected...

If Global Warming theory advocates are truly unbiased and only site facts, as all of them claim to be doing, then why be so silent about anything that might call in to question many of the arguments? The only logical reason is the pure and simple fact that those professing Global Warming theory are at the very least just as biased as they try to claim those who discount the theory are.

This is a first test post from my iPhone.

Though it was activated yesterday, there is a small problem with my
AT&T account... For some reason, T-Mobile hasn't let go of my phone
number (though they should have). The current result is that I can
make calls, but I can't recieve any...

So all calls go STRAIGHT to voice mail... With any luck this will be
fixed by today...

A short time ago, on my way to dropping my wife off at work, I was driving in the slow lane with a exit only lane to my right. The exit only lane was basically on the down slope of a grade that serves as an extra slow truck lane on the way up... However, less than a quarter mile after the top of the grade (easily within visual distance) the lane ends as an exit only.

So, at any rate I'm driving in my lane (the actual slow lane directly to the left of the exit only lane) behind a car, and I slowed down a bit to allow a white car to come in from that exit only lane. I proceed to signal and look in my right side mirror to see a very large red truck I had basically passed a short time ago... I was going around 65 MPH, the speed limit & the truck, I saw was driving at my same speed, a few car lengths back from my position. I looked forward again to make sure I had a clearing, and I did, so I looked back again, to see the same red truck, a tiny bit closer. The distance change was negligable at this point, so I proceeded to start my entrence into the lane, looking forward again to see where my car was going.

I then looked back again only to see the truck was now practically on top of me. Essentailly indicating that after several seconds of having travled at the legal speed limit, in a lane that was to the right of a slow lane, he made the conceous decision to floor it. This decision was made after several seconds of him traveling at the speed limit, at a distance back, with my signal on the entire time. The thing was, I had looked at him in the same spot after physically passing him and waited an ample amount of time to determine if he would speed up. Leaving me no logical way to determine he was going to floor it and go from 65 to 80 in a matter of a second or two.

The moment I saw him on top of me, I held my car where it was to avoid a collision. I was about 12" over the lane line, and right at that moment he logically honked (logical only in that since he had already floored it, and he hand no way of knowing if I had seen him at that second, it was the only thing he could do to avoid a collision after the fact).

As he passed me he engaged in some kind of gesture seeming to indicate I was doing something wrong. Apparently he doesn't seem to realize it is not courtous, logical, safe, or even legal to exceed the speed limit, several seconds AFTER someone legally indicated a need to enter the lane, in an exiting lane to the right of a slow lane. I also don't understand how he expected me to know that after an ample time following my signal, giving him ample time to see what I was going to do, while he continued to travel at the posted speed limit, I should have logically determined he was instantly going to floor it.

Too many people make lane changes without signaling. In fact in the state of California as of a couple years ago, you can in fact get a $25 ticket every time you make a lane change without signaling. Unfortuantly this ticketing rarely happens. Signals are put on cars for a simple reason: Its the easiest way for a driver to tell the people around them what they are doing.

Another problem is that thoes who don't use signals often have a habit of not bothering to look for others who are. I've had happen, on more than one occasion, situations where I would signal a need to change lanes only to look over at a car to the oppisite side of the lane I'm entering the same spot where I signaled to enter, only they didn't bother signaling and they didn't bother to even look to see that I had my signal on.

The last problem that happens, and is done as a conceous decision direclty directed against others, is that when people do signal, others behind said signaling driver couceously use that as an idicator that they should speed up significantly faster than they were traveling before the singal came on, solely because they somehow feel they are more important than the driver (and seemingly that they own the road so it sould be logical that everybody on that freeway should know exactly what they are going to do before they do it). Logically this is stuipid, because it is much easier for a driver located physically behind someone who has their signal on has a much easier time of compensating than a driver who needs to be able to both see where he is going in front of him, while also trying to see what is going on at the exact same time behind him. Especially considering the fact that the only thing the person who uses the mirror has to go on is what the car is physically doign at that moment. The person twards the rear of them not only has a constant view of the vehicle, but also has direct knowledge of the drivers intent based on the signal being on.

Interestingly enough when the red truck exited the freeway in front of me made a right turn after the exit without signaling... Secondly after making his right (a right I had to make as well), I changed lanes to the left lane and he stayed in the right lane. This essentially means had he remaind behind me he literally would have ended up in the exact same place without any additional delay had he remained behind me.

The thing about driving is, we are all trying to do the same thing. I will always let a signaler in front of me if it's within reason to do so. If I'm travling at a higher rate of speed than the signaler to begin with, and the distance between our cars isn't that great, I obvosuly won't slow down. But if my speed is even relatively close, and or there ample distance to slow down before hand, I will usually make the extra effort to let them in. In the end, if everybody did this, driving would be a more plesant experience for everyone.

For the record this is the second time I've encountered someone doing this exact thing on the road... The last time was several years ago, and following that I was also left shaking my head wondering what that driver had to proove.