Coming up next, 101 recipes for goobagoobas!

Jeez, Louise. Next time I’ll mind my own business.

First of all, I do understand the concept of alternative fuels. Give me a break, sports fans. I also, I would add, understand the concept of ketchup as a vegetable, and the fact that the government designating a noun or phrase as denoting something contrary to the noun’s or phrase’s accepted meaning doesn’t exactly change the accepted meaning of the words. But I am well aware that alternative fuels are quite clearly those things you pour into your engine without first drilling for them offshore. Words are only just so objective, however, and if we started calling meatballs goobagoobas, and everyone accepted this new coinage, then eventually every old-fashioned Italian restaurant in the country (and maybe even in some other countries) would start serving spaghetti with goobagoobas, which, not surprisingly, would taste exactly like spaghetti and meatballs.

We live in a strange world.

Secondly, I stand by the Mr. Fusion case. I happen to have a flux capacitor in the box with all the spare district tournament awards that I’ll be passing along to JV any day now (he needs it more than I do), and I do not accept some hastily tossed-off explanation in part 3 of the trilogy for something that is obvious in part 1 of the trilogy. This approach to trilogies has, of course, not put me in good stead when I watch episodes 1 through 6 of Star Wars in sequence, but as O’C reminded me yesterday, in the immortal words of Admiral Ackbar, it’s a trap, and that’s all that needs to be said about it.

Thirdly, apparently while I was simply having some fun with the concept of debating laws that should be passed when everyone reading this blog is a grandparent, others were taking it quite seriously. I gather the PF blogosphere has been quite up in arms. I didn’t even know there was a PF blogosphere. To be honest, I tend to believe that one can debate anything, at least to some extent (and without having to resort to dreaded “theory” arguments, which mostly claim that an argument can’t be argued and that everyone should leave home and move into a condo), including the future of private transportation. For instance, I’d be much happier if the manufacturers of the Tesla were funded for dynamic future research by the feds rather than the manufacturers of the Corvair and the Pinto (to name but two of the most infamous). Battery research, and battery development, are woefully behind the times. I haven’t been hugging trees all these years yet at the same time refusing to imagine alternate scenarios to Bush-like approaches to the environment (i.e., drill it, burn it, dig it or raze it, otherwise sell it to the highest bidder). But still, if a debating activity is, to some extent, supposedly based on research, it is a bit off the deep end to expect meaningful research on the state of the world thirty years hence. For instance, thirty years ago today, there were no personal computers for sale online. There was no online. There were no personal computers. The 1939 World’s Fair in New York promised us superhighways in our (their) lifetime, and by the 1964 World’s Fair in New York, they were a reality. On the other hand, 1964’s General Motors exhibit (and every prognosticator since) has promised us cars that are not directly controlled by the driver, and they are no closer to a reality than they were at the ’64 Fair. (In other news, where’s my jetpack?) In the ‘80s, General Electric, at EPCOT (now Epcot) promised us a machine that would turn useless old rainforests into spanking new highways in one fell swoop! The point being, debating prognostication, while fun as dinner conversation, may fall a little flat in an actual academic debating environment.

But, lo and behold, the stink on this topic in that alleged PF blogosphere has been so strong that the Rippers have officially responded, in effect sticking by their guns. They explain in detail how they came up with the topic, and why it’s peachy, and suck it up, there you are. This surprises me, both that there was a big public stink and that they felt compelled to respond. I think that they’re responding to the wrong thing, though. It’s not this topic so much, although quite honestly my team doesn’t want to debate it, as the somewhat regular flow of topics that are, well, problematic. I get the impression that Rippin’s response is that if you don’t like them, submit better ones. Okay, fine, except, it’s not my job. I’ve already got a job. Two, in fact. Even when I do think of good topics, I never think to submit them by going to their home page and clicking on the “submit topic” button. (Oh, wait. That button doesn’t exist.) Setting up a good committee, as I’m sure the one that exists already is, is mostly what’s needed. I’m sure they are all fine, intelligent, dedicated forensicians. But is submitting the PF topics to review or vote not a reasonable idea? There’s certainly voting on Policy and LD topics (although, as the VCA knows, I’d also like to see more content/wording refinement). They can’t come up with a process for the same thing in PF?

I don’t believe it. And I’ll bet you don’t either.