Staycation is now an official word (kinda)

There is no official "American English" dictionary. Such a dictionary would be counter to the basic ideal of Freedom of Speech. However, we do have dictionaries that stand as an authority of sorts. A bunch of new words were just added to Merriam-Webster dictionary. Among those words is staycation, which is defined as a vacation spent at home or nearby. Not mentioned is how close to home "nearby" represents. It is an overnight stay about hour's drive away from home? Or is it just travelling locally and coming back home within the same day?

Allie and I took a short vacation on Thursday and Friday to the Monterey Peninsula. I had originally wanted to take a road trip to Santa Barbara, but that seemed a bit too far for the limited time available to us. By comparison, a trip to Monterey can be called a staycation.

We hit up some of the same old places, like Cannery Row. We also explored something new to both of us; Carmel Valley, with its several wineries.

We stayed overnight at Green Gables Inn in Pacific Grove. This place was once made nationally famous with one of the commercials where Visa brags about being accepted at a place that did not accept American Express. As far as I noticed, they still do not accept American Express, but they do take Discover. I used my MasterCard.

Green Gables Inn just started up a new website where they can take online reservations. It is promoted as a quaint Bed and Breakfast. However, it is kind of a hotel with suites (self styled "boutique hotel"). Some of the rooms are in the main Victorian home, but there are also separate suites in a second slightly more modern building. The suites have old charm (so called "Victorian"). The building is very old, so some modern considerations are not addressed, such as sound dampening between rooms. However, it does have modern amenities too, such as a large romantic bathtub with jets. The location doesn't get much better. The view of Monterey Bay is awesome. It is within walking distance of both Cannery Row and Lover's Point. The staff is very friendly and will make you feel like you are at home. Overall, the experience is very pleasant.

We did lunch on Friday at the Fishhopper on Cannery Row. I asked for a table over the water. They sat us right at the very edge of the dinning room that jets out into the bay. It was like our own personal sea life zoo. We had fun spotting seals lounging on nearby rocks. Then, as a special treat, the sea otters starting show up in the kelp forest. I spotted 5 of them. I believe that is the most I've ever seen at one time. There was a squadron of pelicans that zoomed by skimming across the surface of the water, also the usual gulls chilling out. The only fish we saw in the ocean was actually fulfilling the role of meal for one of the sea otters.

Though I'm from Monterey County, I've not travelled every road. One area I've not explored before is Carmel Valley. A 20 minute short drive from Carmel-by-the-sea, it might as well be a world away. It is in the middle of rolling and lush hills. Several wineries can be found along this route, allowing one to make a day of wine tasting. It isn't over commercialized or crowed like Napa Valley has become. It is very quiet and laid back. We only spent Friday afternoon there. Northern Monterey Country actually has quite a diversity of wineries and might be worth a dedicated wine tasting trip one of these days.

Monterey Excursion

June 9, 2009 to June 10, 2009 with Alice.  Visited Monterey, California, Pacific Grove, California, Carmel, Pebble Beach, Green Gables Inn, A Four Sisters Inn (301 Ocean View Boulevard, Pacific Grove, CA), Cannery Row and 17-Mile Drive. (Original post/backup link).

Super Dog

No, I don't have a wonder dog. He's still a puppy, and still doing puppy things, like ignoring me, pooing when he feels like, and causing trouble. Some days are good and some days are not so good. Right now, he's looking at me wondering when I'm going to get off the computer and give him attention.
...
Ok, it's now 15 minutes later. He's into his chew-toys right now and I'm watching TV. Hmm, should I be tweeting this entry instead of blogging it?

ATTN: Vulcan has been destroyed!

Hey J.J. Abrams, don't let a significant and vital portion of the Star Trek universe get in the way of telling a good story. Though the Star Trek movie was enjoyable and fun, it cuts so deeply that it will be hard to hold validity to the ideals that are behind Star Trek. The destruction of Enterprise in the Star Trek 3 was for a reason. For one character to return from the dead, another had to die. In your movie, one of the four founding member worlds (and 6 billion people) of the Federation is destroyed with nothing gained in return. Either you'll have to find a way to bring back Vulcan, or your going to have end the "alternate time line" at some time to restore balance to the story. This can be done with Spock's death (again) of course, since your whole story hings on the fact that he didn't kill himself at the start of whole story. Anyway, this reboot is a great movie, but it makes the plausible continuation of the franchise very difficult. I guess it does open the door for a second reboot of the franchise in another 20 years.

Grieving family faces more trama

A recent story in the news has caught my attention. There is this family whose daughter died in a traffic accident a couple years ago here in California. As standard practice, the CHP had photographed the accident, including a shot of the young woman's nearly decapitated body. Unfortunately for that woman's family, the CHP officers leaked the gruesome photo some days later, and they ended up all over the internet. As reported, "Even Nikki's grieving father couldn't avoid the pictures. Days after the crash, the real estate developer opened an e-mail he believed was a property listing and found instead a grisly photo of his daughter's body." Ever since, the family has been fighting to get the photos removed, first by going after hosting sites, then by going after the CHP itself. All attempts have failed, thankfully.

Now, I do sympathize with the family for their lose. However, the photographs taken by the CHP are a matter of public record. The CHP actually doesn't have any right to hide those photos from any citizen who requests them. Nor can the law prevent their unlimited disclosure. We live in a free society where the government cannot be allowed to keep information from the public (except for matters of National Security). There are pluses and minus to this, but if we wish to keep our society free, we must prevent the government from hiding any information.

Additionally, this is not a matter of privacy at all. The woman died in an auto accident, which is a public incident. Privacy does not hold any priority in public events. First, I (and every citizen) have the right to photograph anything I wish in public (again, except or matters of National Security). The CHP actually had a responsibility to photograph the accident scene. They actually would've been negligent in their jobs had they not.

So, although privacy is an important right, it is a right that is limited to private acts. With the exception of creative works (protected by copyright), any public incident is a matter that is in the realm of public domain. Side note, in the course of an investigation, any record of evidence collected (photographs of the scene, written reports, etc) by the CHP or any public service is public record.

Bible Self-invalidation

Its funny when the bible is read in parts, its easy to make general statements about the validity and unity of its overall message. However, when taken on the whole, its message just falls apart. As a child, I remember learning the scripture at Proverbs 30:5 that says that every word of God is true. Essentially, the message I was taught that this god can do anything except lie. By extension, the bible consists of his words, so the bible is true without exception.

The problem with this is that the bible's god does lie, and these lies are actually recorded in the bible. This would be irony if it wasn't unexpected. Isn't that ironic?

Several scriptures specifically say that their god either lied himself or caused others to lie, including 1 Kings 22:23, 2 Chronicles 18:22, Jeremiah 4:10, Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9 and 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12. To reconcile this contradiction, believers in the bible will often just excuse it off with a comment like, "God cannot lie, but is able to cause others to either lie or tell a lie." Not only does this not explain the discrepancies where their god is actually said to lie, but it is completely illogical to make this distinction. Their god is said to speak to believers through prophets. If his prophets lie because of his inspiration, that is no different than himself telling the lie.

I don't point all this out to show that the bible is flawed. Its flawed nature is fact. It doesn't need to be pointed out unless someone starts trying to argue that it is some sort of perfect holy book. I point out the flaws to show that the bible cannot be used as justification for beliefs in gods. The god of the bible is just an idea that is used for agendas of individuals or groups of people. That god doesn't really exist; at least not in the way bible believers think.