This reminds me of the Batman movie line in which the Joker says: "This town needs an enema!".
Oh, yeah!
Update:
As you can see the video was taken down. Let's replace it with the actual commercial that they were creating at that time.
This reminds me of the Batman movie line in which the Joker says: "This town needs an enema!".
Question:
The following blog post: https://greg-bno.blogspot.com/2026/08/the-10-billion-dollar-plan-to-waste.html ... is critical of the video embedded in the post. Could you provide some additional commentary that may shed some more light upon the subject?
Answer:
The blog post you're referring to is Greg's "Boots and Oil" post from August 16, 2026, titled "The $10 billion dollar plan to waste taxpayer's money (Houston)". He's critiquing a video (which he embeds and calls "this next boondoggle") that lays out a massive infrastructure plan for Houston—apparently involving flood control projects, freeway expansions, and the controversial idea of merging the Katy Freeway with the North/Gulf Freeway corridor.
The video itself appears to be from some local government or think-tank proposing ~$10 billion in public works spending. Greg's core complaint isn't that Houston lacks problems—it's that the plan treats symptoms with expensive, disruptive mega-projects rather than addressing root causes with cheaper, targeted solutions. Let me unpack his arguments and add some context:
Greg's Four Counter-Proposals:
1. Build a Deeper Retention Pond — He argues for making flood detention basins deeper (not just wider), treating stormwater as a resource rather than an enemy. This is actually consistent with modern "green infrastructure" thinking. Houston's bayous are notoriously shallow and flat, and the city relies heavily on detention ponds, but many were designed for 2% (50-year) storms, not the 500-year events we've seen recently (Harvey 2017, Imelda 2019, the May 2024 derecho). Deeper ponds = more storage volume per acre = less land required.
2. Straighten Buffalo Bayou's Bend — This touches on a real, longstanding debate. Buffalo Bayou is one of the few naturally meandering waterways left in the Houston area, and environmentalists have fought channelization for decades. Straightening it would speed floodwaters downstream faster—but would likely worsen flooding downstream (toward the Ship Channel and Galveston Bay), and would destroy a significant ecological habitat. Engineers have proposed this before, but it's politically and environmentally radioactive.
3. Extend the Hardy Toll Road into Downtown — This is actually a smart, low-cost observation. The Hardy Toll Road currently terminates at I-10/McKinney Street area, dumping traffic onto city streets. Extending it into the core (or connecting it to the Pierce Elevated or I-45) would give commuters a true bypass. This has been studied before (the Grand Parkway and Hardy extensions are perennial TxDOT wishlist items), and while not cheap, it's far cheaper than the massive I-45 rebuilding plan.
4. Promote Self-Driving Car Tech for Rush Hour — This is where Greg gets speculative. He suggests using autonomous vehicle features (like Tesla Autopilot or similar) to create platooned, coordinated traffic during peak hours—essentially letting machines coordinate where humans can't. This is an interesting idea, though far-fetched for the near term. It would require:
- Ubiquitous V2V (vehicle-to-vehicle) communication
- Legal liability frameworks for accidents involving automation
- Public acceptance (which is still mixed)
- Compatible tech across manufacturers
It's more of a long-term vision than a solution for today's congestion.
What the Video Probably Proposes (and Why Greg Hates It):
Based on his critique, the video likely proposes:
- I-45 North Freeway rebuild (a multibillion-dollar TxDOT project that's been on the books for years—it involves rerouting the freeway through the East End, which has been contentious with the "New Hope Housing" displacement controversy).
- Hardy Toll Road / I-45 connector (the "merging" he calls idiotic).
- Massive flood tunnel infrastructure (like the proposed $8–12 billion "Ike Dike"-adjacent projects, or the "Barge Canal"-style conveyance tunnels).
Greg's core argument is correct in one respect: Houston's approach to infrastructure has historically been "spend big, build big, hope it works." The Katy Freeway is the world's widest (12–14 lanes in places), yet it still bottlenecks daily. Widening freeways to solve congestion is like loosening your belt to solve obesity—it attracts more traffic (induced demand).
However, I'd offer a few counterpoints to Greg's critique:
1. The "merging" concept has merit in certain designs. The I-45/I-10 interchange rebuild (the "Downtown Confluence") isn't just about connecting them—it's about eliminating dangerous weaving patterns and improving throughput. Done right, a well-designed interchange can reduce crashes and congestion. Greg dismisses it as pure boondoggle, but the engineering case isn't zero.
2. Self-driving cars won't fix traffic if the roads remain the bottleneck. Even with perfect platooning, capacity is limited by lane count and bottlenecks. AVs help with smooth flow, but they don't create new lanes.
3. The retention pond idea is sound, but Houston's flood problem is regional, not just local. The West and Southwest of Houston drain into the Brazos, and the Addicks/Barker reservoirs (federal dams) are already at capacity during major storms. A single "deeper pond" won't fix the watershed-scale problem. That requires upstream detention, channel conveyance improvements, and buyouts of repeatedly flooded homes.
4. Straightening Buffalo Bayou would likely make downstream flooding worse. The meanders slow water and dissipate energy. Engineering it for speed would push flood peaks toward the Houston Ship Channel and potentially flood the East End and Galveston Bay more severely. Environmental lawyers would tie this up in court for a generation.
Conclusion:
Greg's frustration is understandable—Houston has a long history of taxpayer money poured into megaprojects with questionable ROI (the Monorail that never happened, the light rail that couldn't get funded, the Grand Parkway loops that encourage sprawl, the perpetual I-45 rebuild). His instinct to demand smaller, smarter, cheaper alternatives is healthy.
But his specific proposals are a mixed bag: the Hardy Toll Road extension is pragmatic, the deeper retention pond is sensible (though insufficient alone), the Buffalo Bayou straightening is ecologically reckless, and the self-driving car hopium is premature. The video he's critiquing is probably a mixture of good ideas and expensive wrapping—a common theme in infrastructure politics.
If you want my honest assessment: the real "wrong picture" is the assumption that any one $10 billion megaproject will solve Houston's flooding and traffic simultaneously. The city needs a portfolio of solutions—small, medium, and large—not a single golden hammer.
The original post never gave an answer, and now the link doesn't work. So I quizzed AI on this pressing issue... (I don't like teasing people-- hmm is that really true?)
Anyway, at the following page, a question is asked about the Mona Lisa pic, which is what is wrong with the picture.. A link is provided, but the link no longer works. My question is what is wrong with the picture shown at this page: https://greg-bno.blogspot.com/2011/07/whats-wrong-with-this-picture.html. The link involved on that web page is https://royalynet.com/
Answer:
Based on the content of the page you provided, the original post from July 7, 2011, doesn't actually include or link to the Mona Lisa picture itself—it only says the answer is at a link that no longer works. The linked page () has since been repurposed and now contains spam content about online gambling ("BOS88"), which is entirely unrelated to the original question.
So I cannot tell you definitively what was wrong with the picture, because:
1. The original image is not preserved on the blog page. The post text says "click me to answer the question" and notes the hint "the eyes have it," but the actual image isn't embedded in the archived text you shared.
2. The answer link is dead. The link it pointed to no longer works, so the intended answer page is gone.
3. The current content of royalynet.com is irrelevant — it's been taken over by SEO spam for gambling and contains no trace of the old content.
That said, the hint "the eyes have it" gives a strong clue. There are several well-known "wrong with the Mona Lisa" image puzzles where the eyes are doctored—for example:
- The eyes are made to not look directly at the viewer (contradicting the famous "Mona Lisa effect" where her gaze seems to follow you).
- The eyes are swapped or replicated from another part of the image.
- The pupils are pointed in different directions (crossed or divergent gaze).
- The irises are oddly sized or placed.
Given the hint, the almost certain answer is that in the picture, Mona Lisa's eyes were altered—most likely so they no longer gaze directly at the viewer, which is the hallmark of the original painting.
If you can find the original image (e.g., via the Wayback Machine of the original blog post), that would confirm the exact visual alteration. But based on the available evidence, "the eyes have it" points to a deliberate modification of her gaze.
So now you know. Aren't you glad? I know I am.
7/7/11: The original post:![]() |
| click me to answer the question |
Hmm. My "Kingdom" for a shower. After getting rather sweaty working on this latest project, I need to clean up!
Ok, I'll stop horsing around.
President Trump doesn't enjoy great favorability numbers. So he needs a boost where he can find one. Even though Trump is not on the ballot, a popular president cannot hurt the party in control. An unpopular president might well hurt the GOP's chances.
Here's some good news for the GOP: There's a manufacturing boom that isn't getting much attention. That's not surprising, since the media won't report anything that might help the president.
Another snippet of good news for the midterms: Prescription drug prices have seen the largest drop in more than 60 years. Since Democrats are running on affordability, this should blunt their message.
The rise of the wacko element of the lunatic-fringe-left doesn't hurt either. The down side to that news is that there may be too many who no longer think these people are bad news. But they are.