Have we seen this before?

Here's a question: Why aren't the speed limits changing?

I was just born the last time gas prices were this ungodly. And that's when we got the 55-mph speed limit (which lasted until the 90s).

Now, I know that a modern vehicle can handle those high speeds a lot better than a 1970s-vintage hunk of Detroitness. But can the drivers? These days, we have Hummers zipping around at 80 mph or more; all the windows are rolled up, the air conditioning could freeze a polar bear, and odds are good that the driver is on a cell phone.

So we've got a distracted speeder in a gas guzzler.

What's the harm in slowing down?

I've been doing a little experiment in my Subaru Forester (2006, 5-speed manual, 173 horsepower). When I drive for performance and keep my RPMs high, I get about 300 miles to a tank. When I back off and choose to drive 5-10 mph slower on the highway and shift to a higher gear on city streets, that figure goes to about 340. I'm going to do a nice, long highway run to see if I can bump that even higher this weekend. By the way, I rarely use my air conditioning, even in the summer heat. I've lived in Arizona for nearly 30 years - scurrying to the nearest source of AC is the best way to ensure you never get used to it.

Anyway, I can handle driving a little slower. How 'bout you?

Hit the Sports Parents Out of the Park

Every week, I meet a friend at some local tennis courts. A good percentage of the time, we'll be into our second set when the Forced Tennis Labor Camp rolls into the parking lot in an ominous gray minivan. The minivan will park and disgorge a seemingly endless stream of children, most of them related. None of the children is older than 9.

There is at least one parent with them, who leads a relentless round of drills, exercises and criticism. I know too well who is playing badly that night, but I have no idea who is playing well. I certainly have no clue if any of these kids are enjoying themselves. I think each of them is a bit too young to be "focused and committed" to the degree that the taskmaster of the day would prefer.

These kids can all play tennis, no doubt about it. Maybe one day they'll be professional players. Maybe they'll just get a college scholarship. On the other hand, maybe they'll just burn out.

It would be nice to see the parents work as hard developing their kids' love of the game as hard as they work on their two-handed backhands. With a lighter touch, the worst thing that could happen is they'd develop a healthy, stimulating hobby that will stick with them throughout their lives.

I recently read a really interesting book called The Ethical Assassin. I'll spare you the book review, and get right to the heart of what really interested me. By the way, this book was a little too old for me to review in Java. That's unfortunate, because I'd like to expose more people to this book.

Okay, let's get down to it: The protagonist is a college student. He somehow gets mixed in with this assassin who is, of all things, a vegan. He explains to our young college student that he doesn't dig on products of the flesh because 1) of the environmental damage caused by big box farms, and 2) that animals die as a result. I won't get into the contradiction of saving animals by killing humans. I'd like to ruminate about his reasons for being vegan.

1) I can agree with this. I don't believe in unneeded cruelty, and the conditions you'll find on the commercial farms and ranches are appalling. However ... there are the free-range and line-caught options (for the fish lovers like me). For me, that negates this argument. You may feel differently. But we're not all wired the same.

2) Animals definitely die because we eat them, whether it's a cow that lives the Kobe life of luxury before becoming a burger, a wild elk felled by a hunter or a beakless chicken in a poultry farm outside of Akron. To be honest, I have no qualms with this. It is impossible for any creature to sustain itself without harming something else that's alive.

I'm not saying I have all the answers for everyone on this, or even that I do it right every time (I'd have a hard time dining out if I did). But I do the best I can, especially when I'm throwing it on the grill.

Hi-Def: Does it make it better?

Some people think seeing and hearing everything on their televisions really makes it all better.

When it comes to watching soccer, I'd agree. Having cable or satellite service also helps; but if I had either, I'm worried that I'd swell to elephantine proportions while obsessing over futbol on Setanta Sport.

But what about the rest? The only television show I watch regularly is Battlestar Galactica. The new one, now, not the 1970s version. Now, how do I do that with a pair of rabbit ears perched upon my paltry little screen? The kind folks from the Sci-Fi Network post the latest episode online the day after it runs, and I watch it on my laptop. Brilliant!

As you might guess, that adds up to much less definition, jerky images and so-so sound.

Wanna know something? It's more fun watching the show that way. The Galactica and its fleet have been on the run and under the hammer for three years. Stuff is wearing out and falling apart. Somehow, watching it lo-fi style adds an extra layer of steel wool to an already gritty show.

Try it sometime: Turn off your plasma screen. Tune into Battlestar (if you're a fan) and watch it Colonial style. Bet you'll have more fun!

A Theme Park for Arizona

Back when TVs came only in black-and-white and huge tailfins were hip for the family car, some crazy guy bought some land in Florida. Wait - let's not mince words. It was a swamp. He drained it and turned it into the Happiest Place on Earth.

Today, we know that kook as the late Walt Disney. Well, kook no longer. I need not outline the empire he created.

And some investors think they can do the same in Eloy, Arizona, of all places. Eloy isn't quite a swamp, but it's hardly Big Sur.

Anyway, the investors want to call it Decades, and its theme would be rock & roll (not terribly original, that). This cabal of developers is a bit nervous about revealing its identity. Its public relations team and lobbyists, however, aren't so shy that they won't ask for huge tax breaks. According to The Arizona Republic, the project would:

"• Have the authority to impose its own retail tax.
• Be able to issue up to $750 million in bonds.
• Pay no income tax.
• Pay no property tax."

But let's tackle the real question: Will a theme park plunked between Tucson and Phoenix succeed?

1. Summer Heat - The place is going to be a ghost town in the summer, if it's open at all. Some backers fairly point out that in the Midwest, some places make money being open just four months a year. Fair enough. They, however, aren't quite stuck in the middle of nowhere. Summer in Eloy also means monsoon storms: big, windy, dusty electrical storms that will sweep in just about every afternoon. The winters will be awfully nice, but there's another problem. See the next entry.

2. The Competition - People go to theme parks 'cause their kiddies want to. This is Walt Disney Co.'s strength. It ain't just a theme park - it's well-known characters that span generations, new-fangled movie heroes like Buzz Lightyear and rides that get turned into movies of their own (Arr, Cap'n Jack!). Rides themed after Alice Cooper will not have the same cache with the kiddies. People spend days at Disney parks and the similar structures that spring up around them. I predict very little tourism for this, and most of the visitors will be locals - and the novelty will wear thin in a hurry. As will the gas costs, which will probably hit harder than the park tickets!

3. Taxpayer Support - Really, if this idea is such a sure money maker, why the need for the handouts? Shouldn't investors be beating the door down?

4. The Concept - So tepid, so lukewarm, so unoriginal. Rock & roll? Google rock and roll theme parks - it's been done (to death). Also, music is incredibly polarizing. You can bet that some people will linger in certain spots, and beat feet through others trying to get away from the acts and styles they hate. I dare them to put in a Limp Bizkit ride - no, I double-dog-dare 'em!

5. Natural Resources - Rumor has it that, to combat the heat, most of the rides will be water-based. Where do the backers plan to get that water?

6. Legacy of Failure - The Phoenix area once had a theme park called Legend City. It wasn't very big, much less grandiose than this $800 million monster. And even then we couldn't sustain it right in the middle of the state's biggest city.

7. The Cast of Characters - Jason Rose is the mouthpiece for the project. Name one project he's touted that was genuinely in the public interest. He told the Casa Grande Dispatch "Anything we do waterwise will be good for Eloy and good for the environment." He provided no details, of course. But somehow the Dispatch staff allowed that quote (or "soundbite," as he loves to call it) without the obvious follow-up question. Anytime this guy pops up, I'm tempted to put my wallet in safe, drop it into a barrel filled with concrete and bury it at an abandoned uranium mine.

8. We've Heard it All Before - Really, I've heard variations on the phrase "most amazing projects Arizona has ever seen!" too many times to count. It seems these phrases are most often tied to short-lived debacles like the Scottsdale Galleria or Biosphere 2. We see where those wound up.

Unfortunately, our state legislature disagreed and passed the bill to form a "regional attraction district." I'm hoping Governor Napolitano shoots it out of the saddle.

If she doesn't and this thing survives its infancy, I predict it will flame out within a few years and be another sad, dusty plot of land that makes drivers gawk and say "hmm, wonder what that was?"

Banish it!

I'm not the first one to point out that some words just need to be cast out of the English language. Seriously, just about all the "ize"-heavy bloviation you'll hear anytime more than three people wearing ties gather should get the heave-ho.

But this one is a critical darling. Even my buddy Chuck Klosterman, one of the better writers of our generation, just can't get anough of it.

It is "seminal." As in "a seminal influence." It seems no pop culture critic can so much as mention music that involves an electric guitar without identifying the act's "seminal" influences.

The first person to use this was pretty clever. If you're using it now, though, you're just a few laps behind the greyhound.

I propose tossing this into the linguistic penalty box for a few decades - in other words, until there are truly some new seminal influences.