three minutes...

In the mid 1970s, it was found that, because of synthetic materials and other combustibles in homes, it took just over 4 minutes for life to be insupportable in the average house fire...

That was 4 minutes from the time the fire was detected until you had not chance of surviving.

How many of us assume that working smoke detectors give us "more time" and that our houses are "safer" than they were in the 1970s?

In fact, our houses are less safe when it comes to fire. Our homes are filled with plastic children's toys, fabrics, cushion stuffing, clothing, upholstery, carpeting, electronics and a myriad of other materials and products which, in a fire, increase combustibility and release of toxic smoke and gases during a fire.

Experts now have determined that, in the average house fire, from the moment that a fire is detected until life becomes unsupportable, you have 3 minutes to get out of your house.

3 minutes before you die.

This means that, rather than trying to locate valuables... rather than trying to put out the fire yourself... you should be getting yourself and your loved ones out of the house.

Some facts:

• In only 3 1/2 minutes, the heat from a house fire can reach over 1100 degrees Fahrenheit.
• In rooms that are not even on fire the temperature can reach over 300 degrees; this is hot enough to melt plastic and kill the people in those rooms.

An excellent PDF on fire escape planning

While this video involves a Christmas tree, I think it amply proves how quickly a fire can become fully involved.

Take a note of the time from the start of the video and the time at the end of the film...

If you think this is unusual behaviour for people knowing that there is a fire, I can tell you it is not.

When I worked in the book store, we had two occasions when we had small fires in the ceiling lights and tried to evacuate the store while the fire department arrived. On both occasions, the customers insisted on being allowed to shop until the firemen arrived, even congregating directly under the lights which were dropping molten metal and sparks below.... in a book store crammed to the rafters with paper.

We quite literally had to threaten them with police charges is they did not leave the store.

What to do when a pan of grease catches fire

"Milk"

Keith Olbermann on Proposition 8

Thank you, Keith, for probably the best and most impassioned speech in support of the right for same-sex couples to marry.

It is offensive that on the eve of the final emancipation of African Americans, America chooses to embark on yet another campaign to not just deny but to destroy the civil rights of another segment of its population.

Transcription:

Finally tonight as promised, a Special Comment on the passage, last week, of Proposition Eight in California, which rescinded the right of same-sex couples to marry, and tilted the balance on this issue, from coast to coast.

Some parameters, as preface. This isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics, and this isn't really just about Prop-8. And I don't have a personal investment in this: I'm not gay, I had to strain to think of one member of even my very extended family who is, I have no personal stories of close friends or colleagues fighting the prejudice that still pervades their lives.

And yet to me this vote is horrible. Horrible. Because this isn't about yelling, and this isn't about politics. This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it.

If you voted for this Proposition or support those who did or the sentiment they expressed, I have some questions, because, truly, I do not understand. Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world.

Only now you are saying to them—no. You can't have it on these terms. Maybe something similar. If they behave. If they don't cause too much trouble. You'll even give them all the same legal rights—even as you're taking away the legal right, which they already had. A world around them, still anchored in love and marriage, and you are saying, no, you can't marry. What if somebody passed a law that said you couldn't marry?

I keep hearing this term "re-defining" marriage. If this country hadn't re-defined marriage, black people still couldn't marry white people. Sixteen states had laws on the books which made that illegal in 1967. 1967.

The parents of the President-Elect of the United States couldn't have married in nearly one third of the states of the country their son grew up to lead. But it's worse than that. If this country had not "re-defined" marriage, some black people still couldn't marry black people. It is one of the most overlooked and cruelest parts of our sad story of slavery. Marriages were not legally recognized, if the people were slaves. Since slaves were property, they could not legally be husband and wife, or mother and child. Their marriage vows were different: not "Until Death, Do You Part," but "Until Death or Distance, Do You Part." Marriages among slaves were not legally recognized.

You know, just like marriages today in California are not legally recognized, if the people are gay.

And uncountable in our history are the number of men and women, forced by society into marrying the opposite sex, in sham marriages, or marriages of convenience, or just marriages of not knowing, centuries of men and women who have lived their lives in shame and unhappiness, and who have, through a lie to themselves or others, broken countless other lives, of spouses and children, all because we said a man couldn't marry another man, or a woman couldn't marry another woman. The sanctity of marriage.

How many marriages like that have there been and how on earth do they increase the "sanctity" of marriage rather than render the term, meaningless?

What is this, to you? Nobody is asking you to embrace their expression of love. But don't you, as human beings, have to embrace... that love? The world is barren enough.

It is stacked against love, and against hope, and against those very few and precious emotions that enable us to go forward. Your marriage only stands a 50-50 chance of lasting, no matter how much you feel and how hard you work.

And here are people overjoyed at the prospect of just that chance, and that work, just for the hope of having that feeling. With so much hate in the world, with so much meaningless division, and people pitted against people for no good reason, this is what your religion tells you to do? With your experience of life and this world and all its sadnesses, this is what your conscience tells you to do?

With your knowledge that life, with endless vigor, seems to tilt the playing field on which we all live, in favor of unhappiness and hate... this is what your heart tells you to do? You want to sanctify marriage? You want to honor your God and the universal love you believe he represents? Then Spread happiness—this tiny, symbolic, semantical grain of happiness—share it with all those who seek it. Quote me anything from your religious leader or book of choice telling you to stand against this. And then tell me how you can believe both that statement and another statement, another one which reads only "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

You are asked now, by your country, and perhaps by your creator, to stand on one side or another. You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight. You are asked now to stand, on a question of love. All you need do is stand, and let the tiny ember of love meet its own fate.

You don't have to help it, you don't have it applaud it, you don't have to fight for it. Just don't put it out. Just don't extinguish it. Because while it may at first look like that love is between two people you don't know and you don't understand and maybe you don't even want to know. It is, in fact, the ember of your love, for your fellow person just because this is the only world we have. And the other guy counts, too.

This is the second time in ten days I find myself concluding by turning to, of all things, the closing plea for mercy by Clarence Darrow in a murder trial.

But what he said, fits what is really at the heart of this:

"I was reading last night of the aspiration of the old Persian poet, Omar-Khayyam," he told the judge. "It appealed to me as the highest that I can vision. I wish it was in my heart, and I wish it was in the hearts of all: So I be written in the Book of Love; I do not care about that Book above. Erase my name, or write it as you will, So I be written in the Book of Love."

First Snow

Deja-vu all over, again....

Dateline, July 24, 1967....

Charles de Gaulle, then France's President, gives a barely disguised pro-Quebec liberation speech and shouts "Vive le Québec libre!" (Long live Free Québec!) to a crowd in Montreal, setting off a media frenzy, outrage from most Canadians, frenzied delight from supporters of Quebec Separatism, and a major diplomatic incident.

"It is a great emotion that fills my heart to see before me the French city of Montréal!

In the name of the old country, in the name of France, I salute you! I salute you with all my heart!

I would tell you a secret that you cannot repeat. Here this evening, and all the length of my trip, I found myself in the same sense of atmosphere as the Liberation! And all the length of my trip, in addition, I have noticed what immense efforts of progress, of development, and consequently of empowerment that you have accomplished here, and that it is to Montréal that I must give this statement, because, if there is a city in the world exemplary of modern success, it is yours! I say it is yours, and I permit myself to say, it is ours!

If you knew what confidence France, waking up after immense troubles, now carries for you, if you knew what affection she has started to feel again for the Frenchmen of Canada, and if you knew to what point she feels obliged to further your march that is before you, to your progress.

It's why she has finalised with the Government of Quebec, with my friend Johnson here, the agreements for which the French on this side and the other of the Atlantic can work together towards the same French undertaking. And, of course, the aid that France brings here, each day a little more, she knows well that you will reciprocate because you are building the best factories, enterprises, laboratories, which will be an astonishment for all, and which, one day, I know you will allow to aid France.

This is what I have come this evening to say, and that I will bring back from this unforgettable Montréal reunion, an unforgettable souvenir! The entirety of France knows, sees, hears that which is happening here, and I would tell you, she is better for it!

Long live Montreal!
Long live Quebec!
Long live free Quebec!

Long live, long live... long live French Canada!
And long live France!"

Dateline October 18, 2008, French President Nicolas Sarkozy gives a speech at the Francophonie Summit in Quebec City which has Canadian officials singing his praises and many in the Sovereignty movement screaming bloody murder.

Sarkozy stressed that France has a special relationship with Quebec based on 400 years of history. "I first want to extend a fraternal greeting to all Quebecois," he said. "I say fraternal because history has made us, French and Quebecois, brothers, because you, Quebecois hold a special place in the hearts of the French." He ended his speech with a distant echo of General de Gaulle: "Long live the friendship between Canada and France, and long live the fraternity between the French people and the Quebecois people."

However, he spent much of his speech dealing with the international financial crisis and called for Quebec to join in an overhaul of the capitalist system. "We have to reintroduce into the economy ethics, principles of justice and a social and moral responsibility," he said.

Later, speaking at a press conference, Sarkozy said:

"I have always been a friend of Canada," he said.

"That has been a constant in my political life, because Canada has always been an ally of France, it is a member of the G8, and frankly, if there is someone who wants to say that the world today needs more division, it means we do not have the same reading of the world,"

Sarkozy also said that he doesn't see how love for Quebec "has to feed proof of defiance toward Canada."

What apparently has some Federalists (pro-Quebec sovereignty) upset was that, unlike de Gaulle, Sarkozy didn't intimate that if Quebec left Canada tomorrow France would be supporting them all the way. In fact, he downright supported a united Canada!

Sovereignists are divided on both the meaning and the import of what Sarkozy said.

Some, like former Parti Québécois leader Lucien Bouchard said it was "inspiring and beautiful", in the other hand, former PQ leader Jacques Parizeau described Sarkozy's remarks as an attack on the movement, a "very anti-sovereignist judgment of Quebec. It means, 'We don't agree with the sovereignty of Quebec.'"

While the night before, after Sarkozy's speech at the Legislature, she declared Sarkozy's words "music to my ears", PQ leader Pauline Marois was tight-lipped about Sarkozy's statement at the press conference. However, she is now telling reporters that "Mr. Sarkozy has perhaps misunderstood our project." "Did he want to talk about division owing to the financial crisis?" she asked. "Maybe he does not understand the Quebec people's sovereignty project, which, on the contrary, is a very inclusive project, open to the world and modern.

"People for decades around the world have given themselves countries, and I think Mr. Sarkozy rejoiced." Marois said that what was important during Sarkozy's visit was his speech in the National Assembly, where, she said, the president made a "solemn declaration" that he wants a privileged - one-on-one and equal - relationship with Quebec.

"In this sense, I think it is a very positive declaration that recognizes us".

Jacques Parizeau called Sarkozy's remarks at the Citadelle "astounding." "It is a very ancient judgment on the sovereignty of Quebec. This is to say, 'We do not agree with the sovereignty of Quebec. We accept other divisions around the world, but not this one.'.... I don't recall ever having seen a state leader say this during all the big debates on Quebec sovereignty, during the entire referendum campaign."

Former PQ [Parti Quebecois] leader Bernard Landry demanded a clarification of Sarkozy's remarks (not that he is likely to get one)....

"I hope the president of the republic expressed himself poorly and that it is not the way he actually thinks," Landry said. "If the president of the French republic came and interfered in our affairs and took a position against the independence of Quebec, well, then it is extremely serious.

"I hope this is not it. This same president of the French republic greeted - and enthusiastically is the least you can say - the independence of Kosovo and he recognized that of Montenegro. If he loves us, let us go toward our destiny.

"It is not up to France to decide - it's Quebec." Landry said he hopes Sarkozy didn't violate the traditional French policy of non-interference toward Quebec, and said "the burden of proof" rests on his shoulders."

Dear me......

Rebranding for charity

Last night, I heard an interview on the CBC with Richard Humphrey, charity co-ordinator for "His Church", a Bedfordshire-based charitable organisation.

In co-operation with local Trading Standards authorities, legitimate brand-holders (such as Disney and the Manchester United football organizaton) and police, His Church "recycles" goods (everything from t-shirts to cds to toys to computers), which would have once been destined for the dump, into items redistributed to the needy in Europe and Africa.

Richard Humphrey of "His Church" with a Worcestershire
County Council official and seized goods

Counterfeit fabric labels on clothing are covered over with the His Church label, boots and shoes are literally branded using a branding iron, and larger printed logos on t-shirts covered with printed His Church logos. DVDs and videos are blanked and recorded with His Church promotional videos. Even items which cannot be rebranded have their use! CDs are granulated to be recreated into the plastic coating for pencils and clothing that cannot be rebranded is shredded to make labels for those that can be.

Richard Humphrey with a fake and rebranded shirts

Every step of the process from the moment His Church receives the material to its redistribution is carefully documented to ensure that no prodect ends up back in the market as "legitimate goods" and an audit is made available to the Trading Standards authorities.

The value in this sort of project should be fairly evident. Counterfeit and pirated material is confiscated and would normally be destroyed. Prior to destruction, it would need to be stored. Every seized product costs the authorities money. As well, they appreciate the fact that while products are off their hands, it is going to benefit charity.

[Trading Standards] Team leader Gina Green said: "We have a real win/win relationship with the charity. Not only do they solve a storage problem for us, but it's great to know that counterfeit goods will be used to help homeless and underprivileged people, rather than being destroyed."

In some cases, certain items may, working with the legitimate brand-holder, be distributed directly to recipients without rebranding. A shipment of Disney toys were given to children in an orphanage in Africa, with the permission of Disney. As well, Robbie Williams okayed the distribution of shirts with his name on them to orphans in Liberia, and Manchester United likewise permitted branded clothing to be given to orphans in Eastern Europe.

His Church's production centre is located in a former aircraft hangar and in the last six months (as of January 2008) processed 200,000 kg of food and thousands and thousands of kgs of clothing that would otherwise have ended up burned or in a landfill site.

Not all the product they handle is actually counterfeit. Producers who have overstocks of food items which would otherwise be destroyed are more than willing to have them taken off their hands. Items such as 20 pallets of margarine which had been ordered for a promotion that fell through ended up being given to the charity. Pasta which had been produced in the wrong shape and canned goods mislabelled have passed through the doors of His Church before being redistributed to the needy.

Although His Church is a Christian charity, it does not restrict who benefits from its giving.

His Church are fully accredited by the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) to undertake the de-branding and re-badging process and will provide full disposal schedules, ensuring that the goods supplied to them are not fed back into the counterfeit supply chain.

A number of other organizations are finding benefit in the apprehension of pirated and counterfeit products.

An article in the BBC News profiles St. David's Foundation in Wales, which is involved with palliative care, has a program which involves prisoners in Usk Prison rebranding of goods seized by the Welsh Trading Standards authorities and selling the items in their 12 charity shops. Some items are rebranded -- clothing labels changed, while others are otherwise made saleable, such as CDs with are blanked and sold on a blank disks

"Charity worker Alan Devonald said it was an excellent way of recycling goods which had been confiscated from the black market.

"It is the first scheme of its kind in Wales and is a great way of utilising products that would otherwise have to be destroyed," he said.

"Not only are we recycling goods but we are able to make money for the charity."

The Children's Society, a UK-based childrens charity also worked with local Trading Standards groups to rebrand illegal items with their own logo "Subterfuge" for sale in its charity shops. "The project's been running for about 5 years and it's safe to say we have raised £120,000 for The Children's Society,"

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/Illegal-goods-shipped-to-Africa.3620301.jp

http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/todays-choice/VIDEO-Pirate-goods-are-the.3727092.jp

http://archive.lancashireeveningtelegraph.co.uk/2005/1/15/449762.html

Sure, they TASTE good.... but REALLY!

My dear friend az in a posting on her blog, alerted me to a blog which features truly horrific knitted "creations, called "Why Would You Knit That?"."Why Would You Knit That?" is dedicated to.... ermmmm... "unusual" and/or downright horrific knitted creations.

Being as I am a firm believer in following links, I found my way from "Why Would You Knit That?"to "Cake Wrecks".

"A Cake Wreck is any cake that is unintentionally sad, silly, creepy, inappropriate - you name it. A Wreck is not necessarily a poorly-made cake; it's simply one I find funny, for any of a number of reasons. Anyone who has ever smeared frosting on a baked good has made a Wreck at one time or another, so I'm not here to vilify decorators: Cake Wrecks is just about finding the funny in unexpected, sugar-filled places."

Yowsah!

Now, not all the cakes are actual "wrecks" and the blogista sometimes features cakes which are actually kind of cool --the Super Mario wedding cake, ferinstance ( The one she originally intended to feature is shown at the bottom of the post and is... well... somewhat Wreck-ish) -- However, there are quite enough awesomely awful cakes to horrify and delight you. From the blog description, these are not "home made" cakes. These are "professionally" made cakes. That makes them all the more horrifying.

from "Cake Wrecks"

from "Cake Wrecks"

I am thinking that someone scraped all the icing off the "Rose" cake and created the "Ojai" cake. Just a guess....

from "Cake Wrecks"

Yeah... I held a party when I got out of jail and no one ordered me a cake....

The piece de resistance... so far, anyway... the wedding cake which was requested to look like this (but "all white with minor green accents"):

from "Cake Wrecks"

I won't spoil the story which is even worse than the resulting cake. Suffice to say that had I been Vicky the bride, the caterer would be sleeping with the fishes before the reception was over.

Click on the photo to go to the posting about this cake. You will be horrified you did.

Widgety thing from Fotki....

Sigh.....

This morning, I was awakened at 7:30 am by a "tree pruning" company hacking away with chainsaws at the beautiful trees in our co-op.

Apparently, the chopping of 8 to 12 feet of branches from the ground up and rendering the trees a lot less beautiful is for "security reasons". The idea is that we can see anyone lurking about on the property. Of course, I can now see into the living room of the people opposite, now and there are less branches for birds to call home.

Some years ago, I was on the Board for the co-op and we had an on-going problem with kids hanging out in the open area behind our set of units and the community building, as well as vandalism and thefts from the community building and several units. At that time, we ordered that a motion-sensitive security light be installed which would hopefully stop this problem. The committee responsible made all sorts of excuses as to why this wasn't feasible and why they didn't want to do so. We finally ordered them to do it.... It was never done.

So, now, we are back to having our trees hacked up rather than spend a $100 or so dollars on a security light.

Meanwhile, on most summer evenings, groups of teens congregate at the end of one set of units across our parking lot drinking, partying, and breaking bottles until the wee hours or until the police are called. The one street light at that end of the co-op has been broken for years. A security light would solve that problem.

In my missive to the Board this morning, I almost suggested that we chop down all the trees, remove the fences, put up security bars and have roving bands of co-op members armed with baseball bats wander about the co-op at all times to provide "security".

In fact, one of our "security conscious" neighbours actually suggested a few years ago that we have a "security patrol" do night patrols. Oddly, whenever the kids are creating a ruckus requiring the police be called, I haven't seen this particular neighbour out and about "providing security".

Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that the "tree trimming" has less to do with "security" and more to do with a certain member's fetish for ensuring that all vegetation be removed with the exception of small, geometrically planted plots of annuals in front of each unit. This same member came over when my nephew was doing some yard work (preparing for the fence replacements) when I wasn't home and ordered him to yank out all my plants along the fenceline. This despite the fact that he wasn't on the committee in charge of preparing for the fencing and the person who was had visited and we discussed what should and should not come out.

The other member chopped down all the trees around our unit and ordered my nephew to tear up the entire garden, whether or not they would have in any way affected the work to be done.

It must really gall him that many of the plants, though displaced, grew back. Although my garden looks like Hell, I am letting the plants grow as they will and to Hell with him. Sadly, the trees are gone for good.

This is the same person who chopped down a tree rather than fix the retaining wall around our yard. The tree he chopped down wasn't the one causing subsidance... so, of course, the one that was had to be chopped down, as well.