Hey, Check it Out! 8 Track Tapes Rule!

Remember 8 tracks?  Click on the "Right Side of the Road" tab, just below the "Golden Geese News" header, and take a trip back in time to a groovier era.

8 Track Tapes - The Best Music Was on the Worst Format

Some kids these days, will sink a couple thousand dollars into a car’s sound system.  You can hear ‘em coming a mile away, base turned way up and quarter panels vibrating, and trunk lid rattling.  That never happened when the 70’s, there was no car stereo made that would drown out the sound of dual pipes with glass packs.

People take sound systems two seriously these days.  Sure, we wanted a way to avoid disco on AM radio, but we had our priorities.  First we needed a cool set of wheels and tires, and dual exhaust.  Then, and only then, would we worry about spending money on a car stereo.

It was a fairly high priority item however, and one way or another, we’d find a way to have tunes in our ride.  More often than not, we went with an under the dash, 8 track player.  They were fairly cheap and easy to install.  Nothing needed to be disassembled for installation.  Some guys didn’t even bother to mount them.  They would wire them up with a trailer wire harness, and lay them on the front seat, so they could unplug them and throw them in the trunk, if they ever parked in an area where they were worried about them getting stolen.

Speakers were just as easy.  Two old home stereo speakers in the back seat with about a mile of speaker wire were all that was needed.  That way, you could have an outdoor party anywhere. You just set one speaker on the hood, one on the trunk, and you were a mobile D.J.  I recall many a beer party out in some field, with AC/DC “Highway to Hell”, playing for over four hours straight.

8 track tapes were awesome, just stick it in and it played.  Usually, most of the time, sometimes.  It seemed like there was an inverse relationship between how much you liked a particular tape, and how well it played.  You couldn’t tell the difference between the tapes by looking at them, just some played well, and some didn’t.   Often you could remedy a poorly playing tape, by sticking either a matchbook or pen cap under the end of the tape cartridge when it was in the player.  They were the ultimate 8 track tape accessory, and should have been included with the purchase of both the player and the tapes.

8 track tape player accessories

Neither 8 track tapes, 8 track players, or the popularity of either lasted very long.  About the longest you could get out of either a heavily used tape or player, was about a year.  In the ‘70’s, the shoulders of the roads were littered with the carcasses of old 8 track tapes and ribbons of tape stretching for what seemed like about a mile.  The frequency of seeing that, quickly diminished after the ‘80’s arrived, and by the time that decade was half over, it had disappeared entirely, signifying an end of an era.  Since then, the sound systems have been getting better, while the music has been getting worse.

I Don't BEE-lieve it, and I'm not Falling for Another Environmental Disaster Hoax

Fool me once, shame on you!
Fool me twice, shame on me!

I have written a number of posts dealing with global warming and how I think if is nothing more than a scam cooked up by liberals to tax us and take away even more of our freedom.

I have a real problem with the global warming theory for two reasons.  The first is because it seems like the people who believe in it, are going to believe in it no matter what.  The second is because I used to be one of the believers.  

From 1996, through 2005, I had a lawn and landscape service, and it was just my luck that many of those ten years were extremely hot and dry, with mild winters.  Year after year, we’d go a month or more in the summer without any rain.  Some winters, we only got about half as much snow as we would normally get.  It’s darn hard make any money mowing lawns or plowing snow with weather like that.  I have a small creek and pond on my property and during the first few years of the new millennium, my creek would start to run dry in August.  In 2005, the creek was dry in May, and by the end of June, the pond was completely dry, right to the bottom.  It wasn’t even muddy, just dry ground, filled with large cracks that appeared to be about two feet deep.  

After several years of only being able to do about 15 mowings per year for many customers, when you should be able to count on about 25, and going over an entire month, sometimes two, in the winters without a plowable snow, I decided to call it quits.  I just didn’t want to go through another year of that.  My trucks and equipment were getting old.  My stepsons were going off to college, so I would have to go back to having employees who didn’t give a darn about doing quality work, and I had a chance to sell out to one of my competitors.

It turns out that I made the right decision, because I was doing most of my work in Janesville, WI, and a few years later, the General Motors plant, a major employer in that area, closed down.  Right after that came 2008, and we all know what that included.  The area in which I live, was hit especially hard.  Years later, the going rate for mowing a lawn was the same or less than when I was doing it.  Just for grins, I checked the phone book.  Only two of my major competitors still a Yellow Page ad, although there were a lot of new players.  I think some of the people who lost their jobs were taking a stab at the lawn business.  Of course the problem for them was, many of their potential customers had lost their jobs too.

So what I’m trying to say is that I made the right decision to sell out, but for the wrong reason.  I actually believed that we were experiencing a long term trend of hot, dry weather.  Nothing could have been further from the truth.  2007 was one of the wettest years on record for this area.  I have continued to do some amount of snow plowing, and these last five years have been some of my best ever.

What I’m trying to say is that I am embarrassed.  I’m embarrassed that sold out, out of fear rather than common sense, and I’m embarrassed that I ever fell for that global warming crap.  I’ve listened to Rush Limbaugh since 1992, and I know that he never fell for the global warming crap.  I can remember thinking to myself, “Oh boy, Rush, you’re really going out on a limb there, saying that there is no truth to global warming.  You’re going to look pretty dumb if it turns out to be true.”

Well, we all know how things turned out.  It’s been getting colder, not warmer, but we’re not heading to another ice age any more than we’re heading to run away temperatures, melting the polar ice caps and turning what land left that is not under water, into desert.  Rush was right, just like he is on so many other things.  He saw right through that global warming crap, the whole time.  Once I heard him explain how he knew global warming was a just a big hoax, and I wish I had been listening more carefully, because I only remember one part of it.

(If anyone remembers all of it, or has a link to everything he said concerning how he figured it out, please send me an email neilschnurr3@gmail.com, or just leave a comment.  I think this would be handy info to have and use to determine if other things are just hoaxes.)
The part I remember was something like this.  If you ever watch classic science fiction movies, you know, the type where the entire planet is threatened by monsters or aliens, when they get to the point where it looks like the humans are going to win and save the planet, everyone’s happy.  Now if global warming was a real threat, and we started to experience global cooling (like we have), wouldn’t the people who warned us about global warming be happy?  Wouldn’t they be breathing sighs of relief?  Wouldn’t they be jumping for joy, and celebrating?  Wouldn’t they be claiming victory for the human race?  But, they’re not.

They deny any of the good news.  They still insist that global warming is occurring, even though hardly a month goes by without something else happening that further discredits the global warming theory.  This just baffles me.  If the people who believe in the theory of man made global warming, do so because they based their belief upon scientific evidence, why wouldn’t they at least start to have some doubt since all this new scientific evidence has come to light?  Why wouldn’t they start having some doubts when we have all heard the stories that much of the data used to support the theory had been proven to be falsified or faulty?

You can’t cherry pick data and information that only supports one side of an issue and still claim that you are on solid ground, and basing your opinion only on science.  It should be clear to everyone, or at the very least everyone should be suspicious, that global warming is more part of a political agenda than sound theory, based on good science.

At any rate, I’m wise to them now.  I’m no longer going to go into a panic because of what I’ve been told by the MSM.  That’s why I'm not jumping on the “World’s going to end because of Fukushima” band wagon.

I almost fell for it again with this bee thing, and I’m so glad to hear that there is probably nothing to it, but you just know that some people (most of them liberals) are going to hold on to this and believe it, even if the world’s bee population doubles in the next few years.

source:  tpnn.com

Bees are in Danger? Another Environmental Lie Exposed


I cannot say it strong enough. Do not believe the lies that environmental groups, particularly those that receive millions from liberal foundations and from members who never question the “science” they claim to justify massive scare campaigns.

One such organization is Friends of the Earth (FOE) and its latest claim is that bees are dying all over the world as the result of the use of pesticides in agriculture and by people protecting their gardens.  It is a lie.

The attack on the use of pesticides began in 1962 with the publication of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” that claimed that their use posed a threat to human life. She said “Only within the moment of time represented by the present century has one species — man — acquired significant power to alter the nature of the world.”

The problem with her opinion is that humanity cannot alter nature, but can protect itself against the diseases and other problems. Humanity endures nature in the form of climate that currently is cooling much of the Earth. Were it not for science, we would not have put an end to polio and reduced other diseases such as malaria by killing the mosquitoes that spread it. We would not have learned how to create water purification systems that protect the residents of cities worldwide. We would not have learned how to increase crops that feed millions thanks to genetic modification.

Is humanity at risk? There are seven billion of us, more than any previous time on Earth.

Why do I defend pesticides? Because, since the 1980s, I have served pest control trade associations by providing communications programs, too often ignored by the mainstream press. In the 1980s I worked for a corporation that produced one of the most extraordinary pesticides invented; one that was applied with water! It so alarmed the Environmental Protection Agency, that it insisted that its multi-million dollar registration be repeated and that company decided to cease making it available in the U.S.

What do pesticides do? They protect us against trillions of insect and rodent pests that spread diseases while some represent millions in property damage—termites—every year. In June 2011, the EPA announced it intended to ban the sale of “the most toxic rat and mouse poisons, as well as most loose bait and pellet products” to residential customers. The only result of such a ban would be millions more rats and mice in their homes!
Rachel Carson’s book predicted the massive loss of bird species due to the use of pesticides. It was a bestseller and is still in print. She was wrong, but she triggered the beginning and growth of environmental groups that have used the same bad “science” to unleash all manner of fears on Americans and worldwide. Friends of the Earth is just one of them.
Recently I received a FOE email from Lisa Archer, its food and technology program director, in which she reported a Valentine’s Day project to stop Home Depot and Lowe’s stores from selling pesticides. The project is based on the totally false claim that all the bees are dying from the use of pesticides; in particular neonicotid pesticides that are widely used in agriculture.

The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) disputes this while acknowledging that “In the last decade, a massive decline in bee populations was detected. It was given the name of “Bee Colony Collapse Disorder” and “while the problem seems to have abated somewhat after 2010, periodic declines continued, and fears of recurrent major extinctions persisted.” The fears have been fanned by environmental organizations, but the ACSH revealed new research by scientists affiliated with the Department of Agriculture here and in China, reviewed in “The Scientist” that “provides the first evidence that the bee problem in fact, stems from the tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV), not from pesticides.”

Not from pesticides despite the FOE’s claim that “neonicotinoid pesticides are killing bees” noting that Europe is banning them. Europe is a hotbed of environmental fears and, ironically, is reversing its trend toward solar and wind energy after it has driven up the cost of electricity there and harmed its economic growth.

The ACSH reports that “the bees may pick up the virus from the pollen of plants that they feed upon, and that the virus may be spread to other bees by mites that feed on them. Once it has gained a foothold in a bee, the researchers determined that TRVS can replicate itself in the bee’s body.”

“This process of a virus moving from one species to another is call ‘host shifting’”.

Writing in 2012, Rich Kozlovich, a pest control expert, reported that “it is not true that there has been a mysterious worldwide collapse in honey bee populations. In fact managed bee hives (which contain the bees which do the vast majority of our pollinating) have increased by a remarkable 45 percent over the last five years.”

He also noted that “most staple foods—wheat, rice and corn—do not depend on animal pollination at all. They are wind-pollinated, or self-pollinating.”

These well-established facts mean nothing to FOE or other environmental organizations seeking to demonize pesticides. It means nothing to the EPA that has banned many extraordinarily effective pesticides from use to protect humans and property.

It is the advances of modern science that have protected and extended human life. Banning them just exposes Americans to a range of diseases, some of which kill. Until more Americans understand that the real threat is the EPA and the environmental groups spreading baseless fears, they will continue to be at risk.
- See more at: http://www.tpnn.com/2014/01/30/bees-are-in-danger-another-environmental-lie-exposed/#sthash.6zh1AHAw.dpuf

New "Right Side of the Road" Post

Click on the "Right Side of the Road" tab, just below the "Golden Geese News" header.

The Formula

Some kids these days don’t even bother getting their driver’s licenses until they’re 17 or 18.  This amazes me.  I cannot even comprehend it.  I on my eighth birthday, I got rubber ball, about the size of a volleyball, only it looked like big eightball.  I remember holding that ball, looking at the number eight, and thinking to myself, “Eight years old, I’m half way there.”  That wasn’t the first day I started waiting to get my license.  I had been from the earliest times I can remember.  Everyone I knew, could hardly wait to get their license, but that was only half the battle.  To really get to where you wanted to be, you had to have your own car.

All of my friends and I, had dreams of what type of car they’d like to have once they got their license.  What we actually got was always something different, and that was always due to lack of money.  Usually kids got whatever some family member or relative either sold to them cheaply, or just gave away.  More often than not, it ended up being something like this:

No hot rod potential at all here, but these cars usually did pretty good one wheel burnouts, and they were great cars for road drinking.  

Occasionally, a kid would get lucky. Not  Camaro or Mustang lucky,  but at least, a two door.  Something like this:

Not an Impala (few kids were so lucky), but a Bel-Air or Biscayne was close enough.  They looked kinda like Impalas.  

Those first few days owing your own car were the greatest.  You could sit in it for hours, paging through the J.C. Whitney catalog, imagining all the things you were going to do.  You’d tell your dad all your big plans.  Fathers were almost always wet blankets.  They'd usually say something like, “It’s fine just the way it is. Leave it alone.”

There was a formula for sixteen year olds to turn their mundane grandma hand-me-downs into fire breathing street machines.  All that was required was a willingness to swap out perfectly good stock components for old, worn out “high performance” parts, accessories, and other goodies.

The first item on the list, you could do on day one, and it didn’t cost a dime.  Turn the air cleaner lid upside down.  This didn’t help performance at all, it just made your car louder.  You had to love that VWOOOOOOOM sound it made, when you mashed the gas pedal to the floor.  

Next on the list were tires and wheels.  Those whitewalls and hubcaps had to go.  If your car actually had the power to do burnouts, you would peel that tread right down to the cords... on the right side that is.  The left was fine, so you’d swap rear tires, and burn off the other tread.  The front tires, you might save.   Used 50’s on mag wheels often come only in sets of two, and that’s probably all you could afford to spend at one time anyways.  By the time you were done with this step, you managed to go from a set of practically new steel belted radials, to two bald, dry rotted, bias ply tires. Now they say that you’re not supposed to mix bias and radial tires on the same car, but they say a lot of things.  Never mind snow, with these babies, you could get stuck in the rain, if you ever ventured off the pavement and onto the grass.  In stock form, those tires wouldn’t even fit on your car.  That’s wasn’t a problem because step three would take care of that.

What you now needed were some air shocks and extra long spring shackles. Once you got those tires fit, your car was starting to look pretty good, but you still had those white walls in the front to deal with.  A can of black spray paint took care of those just fine until the day came that you could find a good deal on some wheels for the front.  

OK, you car was looking mean, now its had sound mean.  That six month old exhaust with the lifetime Midas muffler just wouldn’t cut it, but you would, with a hacksaw.  A new crossover pipe might have cost half of what you paid for the entire car, but you didn’t let that stop you. You hacked that sucker off just before the two halves met, and then you fired up the motor, just to hear what that beast sounded like, once it could breath.  It was irresistible.  You just had take it out on the road and run it with “open headers” just once before you put on your new “exhaust system”.  It was now, time to go to the autoparts store and stock up on flex pipe and muffler clamps.  You saved that piece of hacked off y-pipe to give to your friend who’s car had a straight six.  Maybe he could reverse it, and make his own set of duals.

Doing the exhaust system was kind of fun, because it’s one of the few times you actually bought something new for your car. (Used flex pipe... isn’t) Time to check out mufflers.  Notice how I said mufflerS, plural, the whole point of the project was a ‘high performance” dual exhaust system.  Shopping for mufflers was fun.  What should you go with?  Most kids went with glasspacks, and the most common brand was Cherry Bomb.  What a cool name, and that red paint!  Man, that looked cool!  Sure beat plain old bare steel.

If you really liked painted mufflers, you might have wanted to go with a pair of Thrush mufflers. I always loved the way they sounded on a V8.

Or, you could have gone with something a little more exotic.

Of course, these were my favorite.

You just couldn’t beat mufflers with a paint job.  Of course, in a about six months, they looked like this.

While you were at the auto parts store, you’d check out the side pipes.  Too cool.  Too expensive.  Maybe someday.  Now, you had to go home and fabricate your new system.  The most common varieties consisted of mufflers hung off of the head pipes and that’s it.  The “deluxe version included two tail pipes, exiting in front of the rear wheels at a 45 degree angle.  The finished product usually left something to be desired.  It usually hung down lower than you envisioned.  It’s a good thing you had those air shocks and spring shackles.

Once you finished the exhaust, you started up your car, and it souned...  not as good as you expected, but it was still, pretty cool.  A lot better than that quiet Midas muffler and single pipe.  At least now, your friends could hear you coming.

You managed to make your car ride rougher, handle worse, have less traction and make more noise.  Success!  One last thing item in the formula.  You had to make make your car run worse and decrease it’s fuel economy too.  The time had come to ditch that two barrel carb.  Now a brand new intake and carb would set you back at least $300.  That was probably more than you paid for the entire car.  You already spent most of your money on previous “improvements”, so cheap and used was your only option.  The four barrel carb you got, needed a complete rebuild, had worn throttle shafts, and dripped gas that puddled in the low spots of the intake manifold, but included a cast iron intake.  You could take care of it’s faults later.  For the time being, you painted the intake, aluminum silver, (you weren’t fooling anybody), and maybe took the opportunity to install a chrome air cleaner and valve covers. If you were feeling really ambitious, you degreased and repainted the engine while you were at it.

Even though everything you did to your car up to that point, made it less safe, valuable, practical, and economical, it got the approval of your friends, and they were the only people that really mattered.  You set out to make your car cool, and your mission was a success.  

This is the Best Article About Gun Control and Rights that You Will Ever Read

Why? Because I wrote it.  

If you have been a regular reader of the Geese for awhile, you might have seen this before.  Quit your bitching.  It’s not like you haven’t watched every Andy Griffith Show, and Gilligan’s Island 17 times, plus it’s great.  You bloggers, should repost it, and new readers must see it.

Wrong About Rights and the Caveman Test

           There’s a lot of talk going on about rights, - rights to healthcare, rights to affordable housing, rights to free contraception, rights of free speech, rights to bear arms, etc.  Rights are good.  Right?  Right.  It would seem then, that all the people in favor of all these rights would be on the same side.  Right?  Wrong.  How can this be?  Rights are good.  Rights are right.  Doesn’t everyone deserve all these rights?  Who’s wrong?  Who’s right?

           Everyone is entitled to equal rights, but not everyone knows what rights are.  The Declaration of Independence states that we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the constitution says, eh, the constitution says, the constitution says a lot of things.  Here is where the problem is.  Only a small percentage of people in this country have ever read the constitution and even a smaller percentage understand it.  Here’s a very, very brief and simplified explanation of it.

           The constitution of the United States went into effect in 1789 and is mostly a bunch of stuff about how our federal government is to be set up and run.  There, you can’t get more brief and simple than that.  Now what about all this rights stuff?  

Soon after and even before the constitution went into effect, many people thought there needed to be more stuff in the constitution than just that “how the federal government is to be set up and run” stuff.  They felt that the rights of the country’s citizens needed to be protected and rightly so.  They had just recently been in a big argument with England about that stuff.  So rather than starting over from scratch, they added to the constitution, first ten amendments, which we refer to as the bill of rights.

           The fifth through the eighth amendments deal with prosecution, eminent domain, trials, bail, and other judicial stuff.  The tenth amendment says that any powers not expressly granted to the federal government by the constitution belong to the states and or people.
The third amendment says that citizens cannot be forced to feed and house soldiers in their homes and the fourth amendment prohibits unlawful search and seizure.

The first and second amendments are the ones we are all probably most familiar with.  They are what people are most often talking about to when they are legitimately referring to constitutional rights.  It’s the ninth amendment were things get murky.  It says that people may have other rights that are not listed in the constitution and just because they are not listed, it doesn’t mean that they can be violated.

So what is and what is not a right?  Is health care a right?  Is it one of those unlisted rights that the ninth amendment was referring to?  How can anyone know?

Setting aside the fifth through eight amendments, which deal mostly with our judicial process, I use what I call the “Caveman Test” to determine if something is indeed a right.  What I mean is this.  If someone claims that they have a particular right, I ask myself, “Would that person still have that right if they were a caveman?”  

The Declaration of Independence says that we are endowed by our creator with rights that include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  This means people were born with these rights long before any government was created, and such rights exist always and everywhere regardless of the existence of any government.  True rights are independent of government.  

A government cannot give anyone a right; it can’t even take a right away.  The worst a government can do is to violate rights and the best it can hope to do is to try and protect rights.  Our forefathers were smart enough to know this and defined rights as limitations on what the federal government could do.

There’s an additional benefit to using this criteria to determine if something is a right.  It saves (or least helps prevent the spending of) government money.  It doesn’t cost (or at least directly cost) anything to let people have the freedom of speech or let people own guns.  Financially speaking, health care is an open-ended question limited only by national bankruptcy.

Let’s put the Caveman Test to the test, and apply it to some of these so-called rights.  Is health care a right?  No.  Why?  Health care is a commodity, not an idea.  If healthcare were a right, you should theoretically be able to go back in time, before hospitals or doctors, in an area where there weren’t even any people, demand healthcare and receive it.  The same holds true for affordable housing, and don’t even mention the right to free contraceptives.

What about free speech?  Yes, that is a right.  As soon as the first language was developed, people were saying whatever they wanted, until the first tribal chiefs (government) arrived on the scene.  People have been fighting to protect that right ever since.

What about guns?  Cavemen didn’t have guns.  Wouldn’t this mean that we can’t own guns?  Well let’s look at the second amendment.  It doesn’t actually say, “We have the right to own guns.”  (“What?!!!”, all the NRA dudes are screaming.  “Yes!!!”, the gun control advocates are cheering.)  The second amendment says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  The word gun is not even in it.  Why?  

The first weapon was a rock.  You either threw it at an enemy or hit them with it.  Then came the club, and then the spear.  The guy with the rock was no match for the guy with the spear.  Even at time of the revolutionary war, weapons technology was rapidly evolving.   The proponents of this amendment knew that the guns of tomorrow would be vastly superior to the guns they had at that particular time.  They purposely left out any description of arms in the amendment, because they knew that limiting the people to revolutionary war style muskets would, in the future, leave them just as vulnerable to criminals and tyrannical governments as if they had no weapons at all. 

 Rather than describing what weapons the people could have, they wanted to prevent the government from infringing (read setting limitations) upon the peoples right to own them.  So much for the constitutionality of gun control laws.