If I can't have a flying car, I want a supertrain, damn it

From The Pinstriped Bible:

Parenthetically, it's amazing that we live in the greatest country in the world, but our high-speed trains between New York and Boston putter along like a toddler's wind-up toy. Why is it that France, Germany, and Japan get the cool transportation toys? Okay, part of the answer is because we spend all our money protecting those countries and freeing them up to buy choo-choos. Still, it's frustrating.

The poor quality of our rail and commuter systems in this country drive me absolutely bonkers. There's no reason why the greatest country in the world (yes, as an American, I am biased, but still) should not have kick-ass train systems equivalent to those in Japan, Germany and France. France! France beats us out! That's just wrong, America!

If I ever hit the jackpot in some way or form, after paying off my debts and the rest of Mom's mortgage, I will start a campaign to get a decent commuter rail system set up here in the Capital Region. There is no reason on God's little green Earth that the commute from Saratoga to Albany should take over an hour. That's just retarded. (No, not mentally or physically disabled, retarded. There's a difference.) Once I succeed there, I will move on to doing something about our interstate rail system. ...and then pigs will fly out from my tuchus and soar through the sky. ::sigh::

Update: April 3, 2007, 13:37 GMT

From BBC News | Europe | French set new rail speed record:

A French high-speed train (TGV) has smashed the world record for a train on conventional rails by a big margin, reaching 574.8km/h (356mph).

...

The absolute train speed record was set by a Japanese magnetic levitation train - Maglev - in 2003. It reached a top speed of 581km/h (361mph).

...

After the record was broken, President Jacques Chirac conveyed his congratulations on "this new proof of the excellence of the French rail industry."

::crickets::

AAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUGH!!!

::head goes 'splodey::

Awesome!

Ancient, giant things are, by their very nature, awesome. #54398 in the series of Things I've Learned About By Watching Nova: Glacial Lake Missoula and the Ice Age Floods.

A note on grammar

I've been thinking for years now that I ought to start up a blog where my mom gives daily or weekly grammatical tips for English writers. Honestly, interweb. Your English blows. Even the better-written posts have sucktacular English. Mom's busy with her divorce, and I'm busy with my crappy-ass temp job, so, instead of the new blog, I bring you the

ENGLISH LANGUAGE GRAMMATICAL TIP OF THE DAY:

There is a difference between "fewer" and "less." Here's the way you can remember it. Say some lucky schmuck is walking down the beach, ducks down and scoops up a handful of sand. Not paying attention, the schmuck opens his and a little, allowing some of the sand to slip between his fingers. You can now either say that lucky schmuck has LESS sand in his hand or FEWER grains of sand.

"Less" applies to overall amount, or a mass which cannot be divided so that you can count it (sand, water, control...). "Fewer" applies to things you would count individually (grains of sand, raisins, controls...). If you pour water out of a glass, you have less water in the glass, as you can't count a mass such as water individually. (Granted, if you're an asshole, you could say you have fewer drops of water, but then, again, that'd make you an asshole.) If you poured peanuts out of a bowl, you would have fewer peanuts in that bowl, as you could, technically, count the number of peanuts which you poured out.

Less is for mass, fewer is for items. Capice?