PHOTOGRAPHY BANS ARE STUPID.

In yesterday’s blog my partner was complaining about the photography ban in the famous mansion he was visiting. As prolific travelers and photographers, we come up against bans all the time. My daughter, Kristanne, happened upon two articles on the subject and sent them to me.

First, let me explain that I visited the Louvre in 1987 and I was amazed that they allowed flash photography. They obviously weren’t worried about flash damaging their treasures. Tests have proved that flash is no more damaging than the gallery lighting. Jim and I rarely use flash. I like it in a darkened bar with intended gloom and colored neon lights.

Now, the excuse is, they think you won’t buy post cards or other items in the museum store if you take photos. That doesn’t hold water either. In the Louvre I bought beautiful prints of famous artwork as gifts. I buy post cards all the time. And sometimes books.

Another excuse, the copyright laws are trampled upon. Sure, people in droves are going to take a picture of someones work, copy it, sell it,  and pass it off as their own?  It is ludicrous. I doubt it has ever happened.

Most galleries allow photos, some don’t. The bans are laughable, really, because every gallery, save one exception, where the owners control the gallery, they love it when you photograph their work. They are getting free advertising. You name their gallery and give an example of what they do. If the owners love it, why wouldn’t all artists like it?

And, my final point on the subject, any brochure advertising a mansion, a ghost town, a gallery, an event, a visitors center, shows a picture because a picture entices you to want to see more. Any magazine describing  a circus, an event, a beautiful town, provides a picture. And, most telling, magazines constantly tout food at restaurants. They usually publish a picture and a famous recipe or two. And providing the recipe does NOT keep customers away, as they used to believe.

We obey their bans but our readers who can’t ever get there miss out. That is why I resent the bans.

THE GOP HATES BIKES?

—By Stephanie Mencimer

| Tue Oct. 25, 2011 9:24 AM PDT

Bill McNeil/Flickr photo

Over the past few months, as Republicans have focused their attention on cutting what they see as wasteful government spending, they’ve zeroed in on a surprising new target: bicyclists, and the programs that serve them.
The federal government spends about $40 billion a year on transportation projects. Of that, about $928 million has been devoted to what’s known as a “transportation enhancement” program, which provides funding for projects—including rails-to-trails conversions, bike lanes, and bridges—that make cycling safer, and thus more viable as a commuting option. But as Congress gears up to reauthorize the massive transportation funding bill this year, Republicans are arguing that states shouldn’t be forced to use scarce transportation funds to encourage bike commuting when bridges for cars are falling down.
“We’re doing all these things that, if we had extra money, if we were running a surplus, sure, nobody would really be complaining about it,” Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told the Washington Post. But, Coburn added, “We can no longer have silly priorities get in the way of real needs.”
States spend only about 1 percent of all transportation funds on projects devoted to cycling or pedestrian improvements. Yet Republicans see this as an area ripe for cutting. Over the summer, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) targeted DC’s nascent Capitol Bikeshare program, which provides cheap rental bikes at subway stations and other strategic locations in the Washington Metro area (including northern Virginia) to encourage bike commuting.
The program has been wildly successful and has inspired other cities to replicate it as a good way of reducing traffic congestion and air pollution (not to mention obesity). But Cantor sees only waste. As TBD reported in August, Cantor used the GOP’s “YouCut” website to highlight Capitol Bikeshare as a foolish venture ripe for elimination. Cantor also complained that bike-sharing programs were one reason that federal transportation spending was vastly exceeding the revenues brought in by the gas tax.
The actual reason that gas tax revenues aren’t meeting demand for infrastructure improvements is that Congress hasn’t raised the tax since 1993, so its value has been eaten up by inflation. But no matter. Targeting bike programs to try to tame the federal budget seems to fall in line with the GOP’s belief that the whole deficit problem could be solved if we just got rid of NPR and Planned Parenthood. It’s an ideological battle rather than a viable budget solution. Bike programs are associated with liberal Democrats who believe in climate change and care about the environment, so Republicans like Cantor would like to get rid of them, even if those programs make it much easier for some of his constituents to get to work every day.

Thank you Stephanie Mencimer for writing my blog today.

What a bunch of horseshit.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA DARK AGES

Don’t you know that drinking, and using drugs and especially marijuana use, is a sin?  This sin has been particularly noticed since marijuana clinics are legal in Calaveras County.  And, since we live in a very moral county, with a very moral staff, some very moral doctors at Mark Twain St. Josephs Hospital will not provide you medical services unless you sign a Patient Responsibility Agreement that reads:  “Patient will not use any illegal controlled substances, including marijuana, etc. …and  if provider advises, patient will not use alcohol.”

Awww, maybe this is to protect them from lawsuits.  That is always the excuse given when an entity doesn’t want to deal with a problem.   Nope.  Several medical marijuana patients have been denied care at MTSJ  Hospital clinics unless they sign the agreement and agree to a list of conditions in order to receive or continue treatment already started.  And, it doesn’t matter if you hold a card as a contracted Medical Marijuana Patient.

Tom Liberty of Mountain Ranch,  a Collective Patient Resources counselor  said: “I could not believe that any doctor would let people stay in pain, and I did not believe any hospital would implement such a legally risky policy.”

To make things even more interesting,  while some doctors working at MTSJ’s clinics are recommending that their patients use medical marijuana, others are refusing to provide care for patients if they do use it.  This is very much aimed at marijuana.   Drug abusers and alcoholics have been routinely treated at MTSJ.  

MTSJ’s Dr. Rosada not only refused  Sam Slayter, of Valley Springs, treatment for his pain because he was a medical marijuana user, he refused to help him find a primary care physician.  He was told no Mark Twain doctor will treat marijuana users.

David Jack had surgery on a brain tumor in 1999 and has received care from MTSJ  for the 30 years that he’s lived in Calaveras County.  Medical marijuana allows him to avoid taking powerful opiates for pain, helps him keep his balance and staves off trigeminal neuralgia (a searing stabbing or electric-shock-like pain in parts of the face). A migraine was causing Jack horrible pain July 8, and he was concerned that his tumor had caused something serious to go wrong, so he called to make an appointment with Jacobson, his primary care physician. He was told he could not see Dr. Jacobson. He ended up having to go to Sutter Amador Hospital two days later to receive treatment. His blood pressure was  220/110 and he was diagnosed with a thrombotic stroke from which he still is not fully recovered.

“I was really shocked. I felt like I’d been really betrayed,” Jack said. “I watch this tumor slowly growing again. I was in pain. I need to get in to see my doctor to see what’s going on, and I was denied.”

Others have signed the statement to get relief.

Public Health Officer, Dean Kelaita pointed to the card program that has been instituted in Calaveras County, according to state guidelines,  that he feels helps distinguishes between medical marijuana users and recreational users. “The law says that there is appropriate medical use for marijuana. I think that our ID card program helps sort that out.”
MM users sign contracts with their  prescribing physicians. Contracts are common and  there is no problem with them. The contract is for a legal substance, recommended by a doctor.

Is this bizarre or what?  Back to the dark ages for Calaveras County.

(This information was excerpted from Joel Metzger’s piece  from the Calaveras Enterprise.  There were several more examples of pain meds denied on the spot, for ear infection and other maladies that came through Urgent Care Clinics.)

“Away, away, with rum by gum,

with rum by bum, with rum by gum,

away, away, with rum by gum,

the song of the Temperance Union.”

“We’re coming, we’re coming, our brave little band

On the right side of temperance, we do take our stand.

We don’ use tobacco because we do think

That people who use it are likely to drink.”

“We never eat fruit cake because it has rum

And one little bite turns a man to a bum

Now, can you imagine a sorrier sight

than a man eating fruit cake until he gets tight?”

“We never eat cookies because they have yeast

And one little bite turns a man to a beast

Now,  can you imagine a sadder disgrace

than a man in the gutter with crumbs on his face?”

“Away, away, with rum by bum,

with rum by gum, with rum by gum,

away, away with rum by gum

the song of the Temperance Union.”

Author unknown.

LIMBAUGH AND BECK ARE DISTORTIONISTS

I just got a message from the League Of Conservation Voters about a new bill in congress to repeal the mandate for efficient light bulbs enacted with a lot of bi-partisan support in 2007. It seems Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck have been ridiculing them on their shows, and, in the process, distorting the truth about these new bulbs. That, then translated into a bill by a friendly congressman. It always amazes me when congress people listen to rumor and crap and disregard solid science when they make a decision. Kind of makes you wonder if candidates shouldn't have to pass the citizens test given to immigrants before they run for office. 

Truth be told, I didn't like the new bulbs either, at first, because I'd purchased several of them at a high price only to have them fail. You can return, them, yes, but who keeps the receipt? What bulb did you buy where? I began keeping the cardboard backing and attaching the receipt to it and writing where those particular bulbs were inserted. All for naught. In the end, most of the bulbs work just fine and last a long time. And, the cost has come down, down, down. In fact, in Arizona second hand stores (where Jim and I always look first for anything we need in the motorhome), the bulbs are subsidized by the state to encourage their use. 

But all this talk of bulbs made me kind of reflect and chuckle because while working in the Bay Area at the Santa Rita Jail in the 1950's, I was told there was a light bulb still burning in the Livermore fire department that was over 50 years old. I eventually went to look at it and indeed the story was true. Just for kicks, I went into my search engine and asked for the longest burning lightbulb, and sure enough, it's still going. Here is what wikipedia has to say:

The world's longest lasting light bulb is the Centennial Light located at 4550 East Avenue, Livermore, California. It is maintained by the Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department. The fire department claims that the bulb is at least 109 years old and has only been turned off a handful of times. The bulb has been noted by The Guinness Book of World Records, Ripley's Believe It or Not!, and General Electric as being the world's longest-lasting light bulb.
There are some other long lasting light bulb stories on the wikipedia site if you want to check them out at:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest-lasting_light_bulbs

The other reason I didn't like the new bulbs is they didn't fit into my lamps and my light fixture globes didn't fit over the new bulbs. Bare, they are just plain ugly. But, I've dined at some pretty fancy restaurants and seen those same ugly bare bulbs and figured if they can do it. I can do it. And, they are going to transpose the whole lighting fixture industry which translates into more jobs. The real benefit, as I see it, and the reason that the bill won't pass, is because businesses that watch their bottom line already realize the cost savings of these new bulbs. They've already made a $12 billion dollar annual savings in this country alone. So, while Beck and Limbaugh claim the new standards are part of a "nanny state" governance, the reality is the bulb technology is getting much better because of the law and we (or our children's children) may someday be reading about a rare thousand year light bulb.