Life Kills: December 2006 Archives
Another very... interesting... aspect of Jeep ownership is driving into the wind. The Jeep is the least aerodynamic vehicle in existence. They couldn't make it less aerodynamic, in fact, if they tried. The new JK looks like they tried to streamline things somewhat, and the TJ has some smoothing in some kind of effort to decrease wind resistance, but for the most part it's like driving a brick around.
Bricks don't move fast. My speed literally fluctuates (significantly) depending on whether I have a tail or head-wind. I'm talking about fluctuations in excess of 10mph. If I get a cross-wind, that's when things get really exciting. Depending on the strength/speed of the wind and the speed of the Jeep, you'll get anywhere from a half to full lane change, quite spontaneously. There's several disadvantages to this, of course, not the least of which is the fact that there might be other cars in those lanes, and they rarely appreciate it when you suddenly drive over them every time there's a gust of wind. Thing is, I don't even have a full soft-top... all this crazy movement is being caused by the soft windows (and the square body) acting like a huge sail. Can't wait to see what happens when I have more square footage of sail-cloth material to really catch the wind.
Head-winds are pretty exciting too. Loss of speed, gas mileage, and even (to a much smaller extent than cross-winds) steering control are all joyous effects of driving your brick straight into a strong wind. I think it might be less obvious if I had a 6-cylinder, but I'm not so sure - the brickyness of the Jeep is pretty freakin' compelling.
All this combines to make Jeeps difficult to control at higher speeds. Luckily, Jeeps don't go very fast; mine has a top speed of about 70-75mph without wind helping out... about 80mph or so with a tail-wind, and about 60-65mph with a head-wind. And when I say 'top speed', that's pedal to the floor, engine screaming, gas mileage down to 10mpg, not 'cruising speed' which is considerably lower. It also makes you look like you're drunk as hell. Can't wait for a cop to stop me for that. Devin's right: for some reason, cops love to stop Jeeps. Great.
But I'm not gonna let 'em catch me, no, not gonna let 'em catch the midnight rider. Allman Brothers rock out.
Finally saw Miami Vice. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like Colin Farrell simply can't shake the Irish accent. I mean, yeah, it totally scores the ladies, no doubt, but it's kind of hurting his acting (which really isn't too fabulous to begin with.) Nobody can replace Don Johnson, of course, but Farrell does a passable job, I suppose. Foxx does an acceptable job with Tubbs, although the original was a way deeper character. The story isn't much, but the camera-work and directing is superb. The cinematography is well put together and rendered. The movie is also 2.5 hours long, which is about an hour beyond what it probably ought to have been, considering the depth of the story and characters.
I'm glad it was a rental, because I'm not convinced it's a full-screen movie. Entertaining, though.
I wish there was something more interesting going on right now, but I'm just trying to crank out two projects. I have two additional prospects on the horizon, which means all 4 burners are on, and that's my limit on taking new clients unless I add some more burners (i.e. additional resources like T-Bone). We'll see. I might consider expanding my own cooking range if two of the projects turn out to be gigs I can let simmer (i.e. webmaster/maintenance contracts). In the meantime, just gonna line up and get 'em rolling. I suppose this means that I'll have to crank out a site for Sillysmart. Again. I'm just never happy with that site... hmph.
So apparently there's a guy who is me. Runs in a Jeep, used to drive an Audi (2001, no less). Does geeky things. Probably climbs rocks, too. The craziest thing? His name is Jose Sierra too.
SD-6 must've cloned me back when I was an international superspy. Too wild. But is he as good-lookin' and stylish as me? Of course not! That's impossible!
Apparently he was lookin' to set up a sweet site, and wanted to use our name, but lo, there's already a pretty sweet site chillin' on this here domain... an unfortunate circumstance, to be sure (especially for him.) However, I hope he goes through with his site and lets me know the domain, because I'll be more than happy to link up the sites!
Hmmm. Maybe I'll set up a separate blog on this site... one where I just add Jose Sierra's from around the world as authors... and they can just write whatever they want. It can be like a Jose Sierra collective!
Driving home after dinner last night, we were rumbling (rumbling is what you do in a Jeep, by the way) down Yamato and we saw a Boca Raton cop harassing a homeless guy (or what seemed like a homeless guy) who was sleeping against a light-post. Thing about it is, the guy was just sleeping.
I didn't know there was a law against sleeping. Why is it illegal to lay down and take a nap, if you're tired?
The argument was posited that it's technically not illegal to sleep in public, what's illegal is vagrancy. Fact is, it is illegal to sleep in public, apparently, and it's true, vagrancy is also illegal. So apparently, the poor homeless guy - the guy who doesn't have two nickels to rub together - probably got two tickets last night, and maybe (hopefully, I guess?) he won himself a night in jail. I mean, I wouldn't want to spend a night in jail, but in my experience(s) you do get to sleep in a sheltered environment (and air-conditioned too!) and you get fed at least once, maybe even twice. So it's possible that might be desirable, I don't know.
What's unbelievably upsetting to me is that it is illegal to be poor. It's illegal to sleep wherever you want. There is something fundamentally wrong with this. I can see the arguments against this: "Would you rather there be bums everywhere?" I don't know, I suppose not... but I definitely wouldn't want the cops to be able to dictate where and when I can lay down and sleep.
Okay, a little unfair - it's not the cops who dictate, they just enforce. It's the über-rich politicos who've had their existence handed to them and have never known a hard day in their lives that dictate the laws. And even then, they're (technically) just the instruments of 'the people'. Of course, 'the people' are mostly anybody who can pay to be one of 'the people', so really the homeless man has no representation, despite being a citizen. Do you think vagrants would vote for a law stating they can't curl up and sleep in a park when they don't have anywhere else to go?
Yeah, there's homeless shelters, but that's not the point. The point is that I shouldn't be told where and when I can or can't do something that is a basic human function. Sleeping, eating, and even defecating. Society dictates that we do these things in private, and that's fine. But that there's a law against it? That seems extreme. And even so, that shouldn't give the police license to freely harass people. Oh wait, you took offense to the tone an officer took with you? Perhaps you don't feel like complying with his request? Then you get arrested for 'failure to comply with an officer's request', or 'talking back to an officer', or even 'passively resisting arrest'. Passively resisting arrest? What the hell is that?
Maybe I just don't like it when cops are hassling people. They get a little too into it sometimes, stopping people randomly on the street and questioning them. The (somewhat) recently passed law that states that a law enforcement officer can require you to show identification (ze papers, now!) is worrisome. Public servants, indeed. While I've had some experiences with police officers that were very pleasant (relatively speaking, of course), and I wouldn't fault them for being professional about their business, I've also witnessed plenty of experiences where they're out of control. The really terrible part is that the experience you have (I believe) depends on their perception of you. Unfortunately, in many cases their perception of you depends on how nice your car is.
