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.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Monday, August 17, 2026
Don't hold on to the poo
8/17/26:
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.
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.
The $10 billion dollar plan to waste taxpayer's money (Houston) [now an AI debate]
8/17/26:
Here's an idea for ya! A debate with AI... This one may go on for awhile. But I'm only getting started here.
Let the debate begin!
When it comes to bonafides, Houston's streets and freeways are in my wheelhouse. Know what I mean, Vern? Yours truly made a living driving on these things-- about a million miles worth of experience.
Houston's city fathers of old were smart to develop a city out of a swamp, and make it a powerhouse. But these people today couldn't plan their way out of a wet paper bag. All the big projects are huge wastes of money, and probably get approved for no other reason than to spend taxpayer money to "solve" a problem. These people couldn't fix a bowl of soup.
Some of the ideas in this video are probably not too bad. There are two that may make some sense. One of these is to make the water run faster out of the area when it rains. Another is to build a retention pond to impound water for awhile while releasing it slowly over time. These could be done relatively cheaply, while not upsetting the region with massive public works projects that are pretty useless.
Merging the Katy Freeway with the North Freeway-Gulf Freeway is about the most idiotic ideas I've ever heard of . Only a professional money grubbing bureaucrat would love this idea. It will make matters worse, not better. It won't cure flooding. It won't cure traffic ills. It won't yield any benefits that justify such an massive amount of taxpayer money.
The problem with traffic has a lot to do with human nature. People clash with each other, and there's no way to coordinate traffic so that it can move the most efficiently. People are individualistic in their preferences and habits. This is not necessarily conducive to efficient traffic flow in a crowded downtown environment.
To deal with traffic in a congested and crowded area would be to take this clash of human wills (and nature) out of the picture. Self-driving cars can do this. The technology is here to do it. Let me tell you, a machine can coordinate better with other machines a whole lot better than a bunch of folks hunched behind their steering wheels, and going into battle in an "arena-like" atmosphere reminiscent of ancient Rome's gladiators.
It may be a mistake to bring computers into this, as I am somewhat leery of relying too much upon machines. But sometimes this makes sense. An intelligent use of machines would be a good thing. Unfortunately, people do not always act intelligently. The solution would be an auto pilot feature to traverse the freeways during rush hour. You could work it like cruise control.
In any case, it would be a lot more efficient to do a few sensible things like those I've mentioned, than to spend billions on digging up a large part of the city, and probably not solving the problem at all.
Why won't it solve the problem? Because the ones they've already done didn't solve the same kind of problems. But some ideas are good. Among these were the construction of toll roads. In this instance, a toll roll COULD be built that would help out the I45 traffic congestion problem. It already exists, but stops at the "Loop", which is a few miles from downtown. The idea would be to extend the Hardy Toll Road right into downtown Houston.
Since the toll road doesn't do this now, it must dump its traffic on the already crowded streets. Why build this toll road as an alternative, and then end it before it gets to its destination? That's why I'm not optimistic about this next boondoggle. Human beings don't necessarily make the best decisions.
One more thing: This "problem" with Pierce elevated. In my view, it isn't the problem these boondogglers say it is. If you don't like the way it looks, make a suspension bridge out of it. It might beautify the city a bit, and I wouldn't make an argument out of that one.
To sum it up, do the following instead: 1) Build the retention pond, but make it DEEPER. Deeper than what they're probably planning. Make the water a RESOURCE, not an enemy. 2) Sraighten out the bend in Buffalo Bayou, making the waters flow better. 3) Build out the Hardy Toll Road so that it goes into the Downtown area. 4) Do what it takes to get people to adopt self-driving car tech that could manage your car during rush hour traffic. It would take a lot of stress out of driving, and the traffic would move better.
Here's the video, in case your interested. The dude isn't much of a thinker. Anybody can just repeat what they've heard.
Here's an idea for ya! A debate with AI... This one may go on for awhile. But I'm only getting started here.
Let the debate begin!
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.
When it comes to bonafides, Houston's streets and freeways are in my wheelhouse. Know what I mean, Vern? Yours truly made a living driving on these things-- about a million miles worth of experience.
Houston's city fathers of old were smart to develop a city out of a swamp, and make it a powerhouse. But these people today couldn't plan their way out of a wet paper bag. All the big projects are huge wastes of money, and probably get approved for no other reason than to spend taxpayer money to "solve" a problem. These people couldn't fix a bowl of soup.
Some of the ideas in this video are probably not too bad. There are two that may make some sense. One of these is to make the water run faster out of the area when it rains. Another is to build a retention pond to impound water for awhile while releasing it slowly over time. These could be done relatively cheaply, while not upsetting the region with massive public works projects that are pretty useless.
Merging the Katy Freeway with the North Freeway-Gulf Freeway is about the most idiotic ideas I've ever heard of . Only a professional money grubbing bureaucrat would love this idea. It will make matters worse, not better. It won't cure flooding. It won't cure traffic ills. It won't yield any benefits that justify such an massive amount of taxpayer money.
The problem with traffic has a lot to do with human nature. People clash with each other, and there's no way to coordinate traffic so that it can move the most efficiently. People are individualistic in their preferences and habits. This is not necessarily conducive to efficient traffic flow in a crowded downtown environment.
To deal with traffic in a congested and crowded area would be to take this clash of human wills (and nature) out of the picture. Self-driving cars can do this. The technology is here to do it. Let me tell you, a machine can coordinate better with other machines a whole lot better than a bunch of folks hunched behind their steering wheels, and going into battle in an "arena-like" atmosphere reminiscent of ancient Rome's gladiators.
It may be a mistake to bring computers into this, as I am somewhat leery of relying too much upon machines. But sometimes this makes sense. An intelligent use of machines would be a good thing. Unfortunately, people do not always act intelligently. The solution would be an auto pilot feature to traverse the freeways during rush hour. You could work it like cruise control.
In any case, it would be a lot more efficient to do a few sensible things like those I've mentioned, than to spend billions on digging up a large part of the city, and probably not solving the problem at all.
Why won't it solve the problem? Because the ones they've already done didn't solve the same kind of problems. But some ideas are good. Among these were the construction of toll roads. In this instance, a toll roll COULD be built that would help out the I45 traffic congestion problem. It already exists, but stops at the "Loop", which is a few miles from downtown. The idea would be to extend the Hardy Toll Road right into downtown Houston.
Since the toll road doesn't do this now, it must dump its traffic on the already crowded streets. Why build this toll road as an alternative, and then end it before it gets to its destination? That's why I'm not optimistic about this next boondoggle. Human beings don't necessarily make the best decisions.
One more thing: This "problem" with Pierce elevated. In my view, it isn't the problem these boondogglers say it is. If you don't like the way it looks, make a suspension bridge out of it. It might beautify the city a bit, and I wouldn't make an argument out of that one.
To sum it up, do the following instead: 1) Build the retention pond, but make it DEEPER. Deeper than what they're probably planning. Make the water a RESOURCE, not an enemy. 2) Sraighten out the bend in Buffalo Bayou, making the waters flow better. 3) Build out the Hardy Toll Road so that it goes into the Downtown area. 4) Do what it takes to get people to adopt self-driving car tech that could manage your car during rush hour traffic. It would take a lot of stress out of driving, and the traffic would move better.
Here's the video, in case your interested. The dude isn't much of a thinker. Anybody can just repeat what they've heard.
What's wrong with this picture?
8/17/26:
You will have to go there to find out. Hint: the eyes have it.
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 |
Sunday, August 16, 2026
Promethean Action Reviews Current State of the Middle East as it Evolves
CTH
Well, now. It begins to look like a plan to upend America's prominence, and replace it with China's.
But why would Kissinger do this? The left hated Nixon, but Nixon acted more like one of them than a real traditional Republican.
Look at what Nixon did, and what happened during his Administration. He started the EPA. He ended the molten-salt reactor experiment, which would have supercharged the nuclear power industry. He closed the gold window, and gave us the current trading system we now have.
And what was the result? The kind of stuff being mentioned in this video. Massive trade deficits. Inflation. Energy shortages. The rise of leftism.
Once Nixon got into trouble, he would've given the Democrats nationalized health care. Nixon isn't looking to good to me right now.
But I really didn't like him anyway.
Well, now. It begins to look like a plan to upend America's prominence, and replace it with China's.
But why would Kissinger do this? The left hated Nixon, but Nixon acted more like one of them than a real traditional Republican.
Look at what Nixon did, and what happened during his Administration. He started the EPA. He ended the molten-salt reactor experiment, which would have supercharged the nuclear power industry. He closed the gold window, and gave us the current trading system we now have.
And what was the result? The kind of stuff being mentioned in this video. Massive trade deficits. Inflation. Energy shortages. The rise of leftism.
Once Nixon got into trouble, he would've given the Democrats nationalized health care. Nixon isn't looking to good to me right now.
But I really didn't like him anyway.
My Kingdom For A Horse
8/16/26:
The phrase is a little differently defined here than what I thought it would be. But this post has nothing to do with Shakespeare. The meaning I thought that may be applicable is this: if a king had access to this, he may really be wiling to trade his kingdom for it because it was so valuable. I use this phrase with respect to the idea that I've been batting about here: fusion propulsion.
The key here is recognition by way of little bits of pieces of information that convince me of its probable utility. I found another today while browsing the subject. A pdf file produced by none other than Robert Bussard himself. Perhaps the intuition came from listening to him speak on the matter before. At any rate, the Isp for such a rocket appears to be near 1 million- yes 1 million. An incredible number. Bussard's paper gives little detail to this propulsion method, instead describing two other types. Here is a snippet of the file here
Now, Bussard is referring to a polywell fusion device, whereas I am looking at a dense plasma focus. Also, I've been thinking about a less than net energy device. The thought occurred to me, why not mate it with an energy source as described above that will feed into the dense plasma focus in order to produce the reaction mass? A possible energy source: cold fusion device being worked on by Rossi Focardi. In a short time, a device like this may be possible for deep space missions.
The ability to travel at will throughout the solar system may be worth a king's ransom indeed.
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.
The phrase is a little differently defined here than what I thought it would be. But this post has nothing to do with Shakespeare. The meaning I thought that may be applicable is this: if a king had access to this, he may really be wiling to trade his kingdom for it because it was so valuable. I use this phrase with respect to the idea that I've been batting about here: fusion propulsion.
The key here is recognition by way of little bits of pieces of information that convince me of its probable utility. I found another today while browsing the subject. A pdf file produced by none other than Robert Bussard himself. Perhaps the intuition came from listening to him speak on the matter before. At any rate, the Isp for such a rocket appears to be near 1 million- yes 1 million. An incredible number. Bussard's paper gives little detail to this propulsion method, instead describing two other types. Here is a snippet of the file here
Now, Bussard is referring to a polywell fusion device, whereas I am looking at a dense plasma focus. Also, I've been thinking about a less than net energy device. The thought occurred to me, why not mate it with an energy source as described above that will feed into the dense plasma focus in order to produce the reaction mass? A possible energy source: cold fusion device being worked on by Rossi Focardi. In a short time, a device like this may be possible for deep space missions.
The ability to travel at will throughout the solar system may be worth a king's ransom indeed.
Saturday, August 15, 2026
How to play Red Rider Lunatic Fringe
Taking some advice perhaps I could return to the guitar after all. Nah! Just kidding... You know, I DID pick up my gitfiddle again yesterday. I remembered something I had forgotten. You need to get some callouses going on your finger tips. That will take time to build those back up again. Plus, you have to keep your finger nails short as possible. Otherwise it will foul the chords.
It's a thought though. Imagine wowing some folks with a performance of this song. Whoa!
It's a thought though. Imagine wowing some folks with a performance of this song. Whoa!
Some favorable political news for the GOP
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)