What a mess we have in New Orleans. I mean a literal mess- of trash and debris. It took my Kenner city garbage pickup crew two weeks to collect trash from the time of the storm until that date. And debris wasn't collected for a month. My sofa, dining room table and chairs, chimney (it blew off the roof) remains, the carpet from my living room and more at on my lawn for a month. But I am not complaining.
The amount of trash the storm left is mind boggling. One need only look at any street curbside to see mounds of personal belongings ruined by rain or flood. Some houses have debris stacked as much as 8 feet high, and it covers the enter view of the once pristine but nor wrecked home. In fact, my newspaper reported that it will take almost 2 years to clean it all up. And that's not including the 350,000 automobiles that were ruined by flood water and will be towed by independent towing services.
This storm was so destructive it left five times the amount of trash that faced by Miami in the horrible Hurricane Andrew in 1992. It is estimated that about 50 million cubic yards or 22 million tons of trash in the New Orleans city limit alone must be picked up..any way possible. That means huge backho and super sized trucks to accept the mess. My front yard has two craters about 1/2 meter deep and 1/2 meter wide from the backho that scooped up my once dear, but now departed personal possessions.
Problems in picking it up quickly include; impassible roads, bags of rotting food and other foul smelling materials that are piled indiscriminately, glass shards shattered on roads, roofing nails and nails from fences that litter the streets and cause flat tires and on and on. The disposal companies hired are charging about 500 million dollars to pick it up, sort it, and dispose it in huge landfills here.
Some of the material can be recycled, but it takes time and is expensive to do that as well. Then there are the termites! We can't dispose of the material elsewhere because New Orleans is rife with termites that would be exported to other areas that received any of the mess. Sigh. I guess I should just hold my nose and wait until it all goes away.
Know any married people who like erotic chat with someone other than their spouse? If so, they may want to stop cooing on the net. It seems that in Belgium the courts have ruled that erotic talk with a virtual partner in chat rooms on the internet is an offense bad enough to be grounds for a spouse to file for divorce. The Belgian legal publication De Juristenkant said the other day that the Brussels Appeals Court ruled that although transcripts of the erotic chat room conversation do not prove adultery, they do constitute proof of "grossly insulting behavior" which is sufficient grounds to file for divorce. That's a new basis for divorce.
What do you think? Is erotic chat being "unfaithful" and grounds for divorce?
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Forget The Textbooks
It was an inevitable revolution to hit schools. The age of technology may officially have hit American education this year as students at Empire High School in Vail, Arizona arrived at school and told they would not be receiving any textbooks this school year. No books..none. Instead, the school issued each student his or her own i Book, those Apple laptop computers. Thus, Empire High School became our first public school to eliminate textbooks in favor of computers. It sounds like a natural progression to me.
Kids today are far more interested and friendly towards computers than books, so why not make computers the text rather than just supplemental media? In the U.S last year approximately 600 school districts tried pilot programs to give their kids laptops as an adjunct to their texts. So far, all are still using those computers as supplemental resources, but it is likely that the text books will be phased out completely and replaced by the laptop as they age and are retired. Most publishers of the textbooks school use also already offer digital formats to use in computers. Schools also use subscription services and free web resources. My own school district has a pilot program of E School for kids too ill to attend classes. they are given a complete course schedule to complete on-line.
At Empire High students get material via the school wireless network, which is filtered to limit what can be downloaded on campus. It also controls chat room visits and instant messaging that might distract the kids. When doing homework the Empire students can turn it in online and a web program checks to verify the assignment was not plagiarized.
So far the students say they like the change- no books to carry around, papers to file and hold on to. Also, any student who objected to the textbook less school model was allowed to transfer to a traditional textbook model system. Oh, books are not completely gone at Empire. There is a library filled with them and instructors often assign outside readings from the selection.
'I think I never did see Something so wonderful as a tree' I believe that's what poet Joyce Kilmer wrote in her classic poem 'Trees". It praised the beauty of trees and how they make our lives better by injecting beauty into it. But I think Diane Kaiser, 57, of Freemont, California may have gone over the edge the other day, far past what Joyce Kilmer meant in her poem.
Diane was so upset that tree trimmers from Pacific Gas & Exploration were going to trim away branches of Diane's trees, that she was arrested with assault with a deadly weapon, theft and resisting arrest- all in the name of saving those branches from the chain saws that wanted to remove them. The four tree trimmers knocked on Diane's door and called into the house but got no answer to their notification that they were here as scheduled (Diane had been notified several weeks earlier by letter that the trimmers would be there).
But Wait! Diana suddenly bolted from the back of the house, cursing and screaming. She picked up several rocks and began throwing them at the workers, picked up a tree trimmer's chain saw and pointed it at them. This caused three of them to flee and the fourth to scurry up one of Diane's trees in an attempt to escape. Police were summoned and Diane was arrested and charged.
My advice to Diane is to either plead guilty and ask the court for mercy or find another tree, climb it and hide.
Kids today are far more interested and friendly towards computers than books, so why not make computers the text rather than just supplemental media? In the U.S last year approximately 600 school districts tried pilot programs to give their kids laptops as an adjunct to their texts. So far, all are still using those computers as supplemental resources, but it is likely that the text books will be phased out completely and replaced by the laptop as they age and are retired. Most publishers of the textbooks school use also already offer digital formats to use in computers. Schools also use subscription services and free web resources. My own school district has a pilot program of E School for kids too ill to attend classes. they are given a complete course schedule to complete on-line.
At Empire High students get material via the school wireless network, which is filtered to limit what can be downloaded on campus. It also controls chat room visits and instant messaging that might distract the kids. When doing homework the Empire students can turn it in online and a web program checks to verify the assignment was not plagiarized.
So far the students say they like the change- no books to carry around, papers to file and hold on to. Also, any student who objected to the textbook less school model was allowed to transfer to a traditional textbook model system. Oh, books are not completely gone at Empire. There is a library filled with them and instructors often assign outside readings from the selection.
'I think I never did see Something so wonderful as a tree' I believe that's what poet Joyce Kilmer wrote in her classic poem 'Trees". It praised the beauty of trees and how they make our lives better by injecting beauty into it. But I think Diane Kaiser, 57, of Freemont, California may have gone over the edge the other day, far past what Joyce Kilmer meant in her poem.
Diane was so upset that tree trimmers from Pacific Gas & Exploration were going to trim away branches of Diane's trees, that she was arrested with assault with a deadly weapon, theft and resisting arrest- all in the name of saving those branches from the chain saws that wanted to remove them. The four tree trimmers knocked on Diane's door and called into the house but got no answer to their notification that they were here as scheduled (Diane had been notified several weeks earlier by letter that the trimmers would be there).
But Wait! Diana suddenly bolted from the back of the house, cursing and screaming. She picked up several rocks and began throwing them at the workers, picked up a tree trimmer's chain saw and pointed it at them. This caused three of them to flee and the fourth to scurry up one of Diane's trees in an attempt to escape. Police were summoned and Diane was arrested and charged.
My advice to Diane is to either plead guilty and ask the court for mercy or find another tree, climb it and hide.
Red Roof
The U.S. Corps of Engineers came to my home yesterday and offered to place "blue tarps" on the damaged areas of my roof. This is a free program to protect damaged homes from further rain damage that could seep through a roof which incurred problems during the hurricane. I had already gotten a roofer to put roofing paper over areas that needed coverage, but the second storm ripped off some of that.
Thus, I now have the blue roof tarp on sections of my house. One of my neighbors is an official in the Corps. It was he who arranged for the blue roof covers for my neighborhood. Too, someone mowed my lawn last week. This was a nice surprise and needed. I think a neighbor with a riding mower did it for us (my home and several adjacent ones). I have seen many kind acts occur after the storm, largely because there is a kind of brotherhood that victims of a common disaster assume. It has a way of unifying people in a struggle to overcome difficulties.
The French Quarter area of the city is back to approaching "normal". It was not flooded and now that electricity has returned, some of the bars and strip clubs are open, not for tourists, as we have none. But relief works and construction crews staying in town are beginning to reinvigorate the Quarter night life. There is even a few music clubs open now.
My city was fortunate, in that the lifeblood of it, The French Quarter, was the least damaged area. It is the highest area of the city, and has never flooded. Too bad the residential part of New Orleans has been obliterated. Disgusting hurricane aftermath note- The Bush administration is handling out billions of dollars in relief and repair contracts to companies that are political supporters Bush and his party.
Because the hurricane is a disaster event, no bid contracts are allowed, meaning Bush is rewarding his supporters with to generous contracts for their work. Often the companies chosen are incompetent, corrupt or charge excessively high rates for their work. It seems that the politicians are raping the taxpayers during a time when politics should be set aside in favor of efficiency.
You do not need to praise the net for me, I know very well its utility. During the time when I had no news from you, I connected to the Kenner site and could read the messages and see what was happening in your area.
Thus, I now have the blue roof tarp on sections of my house. One of my neighbors is an official in the Corps. It was he who arranged for the blue roof covers for my neighborhood. Too, someone mowed my lawn last week. This was a nice surprise and needed. I think a neighbor with a riding mower did it for us (my home and several adjacent ones). I have seen many kind acts occur after the storm, largely because there is a kind of brotherhood that victims of a common disaster assume. It has a way of unifying people in a struggle to overcome difficulties.
The French Quarter area of the city is back to approaching "normal". It was not flooded and now that electricity has returned, some of the bars and strip clubs are open, not for tourists, as we have none. But relief works and construction crews staying in town are beginning to reinvigorate the Quarter night life. There is even a few music clubs open now.
My city was fortunate, in that the lifeblood of it, The French Quarter, was the least damaged area. It is the highest area of the city, and has never flooded. Too bad the residential part of New Orleans has been obliterated. Disgusting hurricane aftermath note- The Bush administration is handling out billions of dollars in relief and repair contracts to companies that are political supporters Bush and his party.
Because the hurricane is a disaster event, no bid contracts are allowed, meaning Bush is rewarding his supporters with to generous contracts for their work. Often the companies chosen are incompetent, corrupt or charge excessively high rates for their work. It seems that the politicians are raping the taxpayers during a time when politics should be set aside in favor of efficiency.
You do not need to praise the net for me, I know very well its utility. During the time when I had no news from you, I connected to the Kenner site and could read the messages and see what was happening in your area.
Thanks To The Internet
I have to give the Internet a "plug" today for the way it has been so useful to all of the victims of the two hurricanes that have hit and mostly destroyed my city. Since the first storm on August 28th and the second of September 23rd millions have relied on the internet.
In fact, after the electricity is restored in a home a working computer is a godsend. Those cell phones I hate so much have been a disaster, more often unusable as cell towers were destroyed and lines are clogged. But the internet has been reliable and comprehensive. We have used the internet to access information, find missing relatives and loved ones, file for insurance claims and government help, read local and state message boards, stay in touch with friends (that's you) to let them know how we have coped and are coping.
The Internet has given us a sense of normality too, a chance to forget the flooded homes and torn roofs, the uncomfortable environment we have suddenly been forced to cope with, and the daily, no hourly, frustrations we have due to the limitations imposed by the storm. There is even a local web support group called "Neighborhoods of New Orleans" that sent me an E mail asking me to join so that we might share information and sorrow.
The locator search sites have reunited thousands of people who were separated during rescue operations as Hurricane Katrina roared through. This is because one can narrow a search and be both precise and quick when using the net. Having to rely on humans to locate others is more cumbersome and less likely to be successful.
When I evacuated my home and was away for almost 2 weeks, I did not "miss the Internet" because I knew it was not a tool that was available. But when I returned and saw so many E mails, from so many people I care about it and be feel much less injured by the storm. So I salute both the Internet.
A bizarre Hurricane Katrina story to relate that would be funny if not so scurrilous. My local Kenner police department got a search warrant the other day to arrest the city Chief Administrative Officer, Cedric Floyd, on a charge of malfeasance in office for stealing four truckloads of hurricane relief supplies and diverting them to his home!
That's right. The second in command in my city stole the very bread from the mouths of those devastated by the storm. Police said they retrieved the trucks of donated supplies that included new clothes, tools, food, bottled water and medicine. One would think "Hurricane Cedric" would not need to steal from the needed. his salary as the Kenner CAO is $83,000 per year. Military workers who had been assisting Cedric in handing out the supplies had complained and said they saw Cedric stealing boxes of it.
They issued the complaint to police that resulted in his arrest. Cedric says he was "securing the supplies at his home" and was intending to give them away later (but policy Cedric himself is sworn to uphold says that is illegal). Anyone who would accept that excuse would have to have had hurricane damage to the brain. Maybe the judge who sentences Cedric should require that he live off those supplies while he serves his time in jail.
In fact, after the electricity is restored in a home a working computer is a godsend. Those cell phones I hate so much have been a disaster, more often unusable as cell towers were destroyed and lines are clogged. But the internet has been reliable and comprehensive. We have used the internet to access information, find missing relatives and loved ones, file for insurance claims and government help, read local and state message boards, stay in touch with friends (that's you) to let them know how we have coped and are coping.
The Internet has given us a sense of normality too, a chance to forget the flooded homes and torn roofs, the uncomfortable environment we have suddenly been forced to cope with, and the daily, no hourly, frustrations we have due to the limitations imposed by the storm. There is even a local web support group called "Neighborhoods of New Orleans" that sent me an E mail asking me to join so that we might share information and sorrow.
The locator search sites have reunited thousands of people who were separated during rescue operations as Hurricane Katrina roared through. This is because one can narrow a search and be both precise and quick when using the net. Having to rely on humans to locate others is more cumbersome and less likely to be successful.
When I evacuated my home and was away for almost 2 weeks, I did not "miss the Internet" because I knew it was not a tool that was available. But when I returned and saw so many E mails, from so many people I care about it and be feel much less injured by the storm. So I salute both the Internet.
A bizarre Hurricane Katrina story to relate that would be funny if not so scurrilous. My local Kenner police department got a search warrant the other day to arrest the city Chief Administrative Officer, Cedric Floyd, on a charge of malfeasance in office for stealing four truckloads of hurricane relief supplies and diverting them to his home!
That's right. The second in command in my city stole the very bread from the mouths of those devastated by the storm. Police said they retrieved the trucks of donated supplies that included new clothes, tools, food, bottled water and medicine. One would think "Hurricane Cedric" would not need to steal from the needed. his salary as the Kenner CAO is $83,000 per year. Military workers who had been assisting Cedric in handing out the supplies had complained and said they saw Cedric stealing boxes of it.
They issued the complaint to police that resulted in his arrest. Cedric says he was "securing the supplies at his home" and was intending to give them away later (but policy Cedric himself is sworn to uphold says that is illegal). Anyone who would accept that excuse would have to have had hurricane damage to the brain. Maybe the judge who sentences Cedric should require that he live off those supplies while he serves his time in jail.
Storm Impact Observations
Some observations about the storm gleaned from my morning newspaper....
1) A big worry here is that preservationists say that the old homes that are architecturally unique to certain parts of my city may have to be bulldozed. And the huge canopy of 200 year old oaks that line much of the city has been drastically thinned by the storm.
2) School systems outside the New Orleans area are so overcrowded with area students transfers that they can't meet their budgets. About 1/2 million kids have been displaced to other parts of Louisiana (and in some other states). Private schools here are losing so many students (because their family homes are destroyed and they must relocate) that many will close. They won't be able to meet their expenses due to the loss of tuition revenue.
3) The negative publicity of the storm, particularly the media fixating on a segment of thugs and drug addicts who briefly looted the center of the city after the storm, has given New Orleans a "third world image" that may be very hard to overcome in the future. Tourism will decline radically, even if the city is repaired enough to function "normally".
4) In some parts of the city of New Orleans, it may be 6 months before clean drinking water comes from taps. There is so much oil, waste and toxic residue in the water lines the city says it will be some time in 2006 until tap water can be used there.
5) More than 200,000 cars and other autos were completely destroyed by the flooding. Insurance companies are getting hit hard in two directions- car losses and losses from homes and other property. One companies may file for bankruptcy because of the volume of claims.
6) Weeks after the storm, only one branch of my bank is open. Business here has halted to a trickle, but identity theft is on the rise.
7) New Orleans is likely to lose it's two top professional sports teams, the NBA Hornets and the New Orleans Saints foot ball team. The New Orleans Superdome (largest indoor stadium in the world, suffered 100 million dollars of damage, most from vandalism by the people given sanctuary there. Officials are trying to decide whether to repair it or tear it down. Either way, no sports team can play there for quite some time.
8) About 250,000 New Orleanians and hundreds of thousands of others in the area have relocated to other states where housing and jobs have been offered. This instant depopulation is likely to be permanent. There is simply no available shelter left in this area. Area restaurants and other service businesses say they can't reopen their businesses because many of their workers are gone. Some chains will have to bring in workers from their other sites in other states. But where will those people live? There is no housing available.
1) A big worry here is that preservationists say that the old homes that are architecturally unique to certain parts of my city may have to be bulldozed. And the huge canopy of 200 year old oaks that line much of the city has been drastically thinned by the storm.
2) School systems outside the New Orleans area are so overcrowded with area students transfers that they can't meet their budgets. About 1/2 million kids have been displaced to other parts of Louisiana (and in some other states). Private schools here are losing so many students (because their family homes are destroyed and they must relocate) that many will close. They won't be able to meet their expenses due to the loss of tuition revenue.
3) The negative publicity of the storm, particularly the media fixating on a segment of thugs and drug addicts who briefly looted the center of the city after the storm, has given New Orleans a "third world image" that may be very hard to overcome in the future. Tourism will decline radically, even if the city is repaired enough to function "normally".
4) In some parts of the city of New Orleans, it may be 6 months before clean drinking water comes from taps. There is so much oil, waste and toxic residue in the water lines the city says it will be some time in 2006 until tap water can be used there.
5) More than 200,000 cars and other autos were completely destroyed by the flooding. Insurance companies are getting hit hard in two directions- car losses and losses from homes and other property. One companies may file for bankruptcy because of the volume of claims.
6) Weeks after the storm, only one branch of my bank is open. Business here has halted to a trickle, but identity theft is on the rise.
7) New Orleans is likely to lose it's two top professional sports teams, the NBA Hornets and the New Orleans Saints foot ball team. The New Orleans Superdome (largest indoor stadium in the world, suffered 100 million dollars of damage, most from vandalism by the people given sanctuary there. Officials are trying to decide whether to repair it or tear it down. Either way, no sports team can play there for quite some time.
8) About 250,000 New Orleanians and hundreds of thousands of others in the area have relocated to other states where housing and jobs have been offered. This instant depopulation is likely to be permanent. There is simply no available shelter left in this area. Area restaurants and other service businesses say they can't reopen their businesses because many of their workers are gone. Some chains will have to bring in workers from their other sites in other states. But where will those people live? There is no housing available.
Cost Of The Storm
To say that the past month has been challenging is the understatement of a lifetime. What you have seen in the mediums about New Orleans does not begin to describe the destruction here. In effect, New Orleans is dead. The latest estimate is that 350,000 homes in this area must be bulldozed because of Hurricane Katrina.
One entire parish that is adjacent to New Orleans, St. Bernard, was under 10 feet of water. There is no usable home or business left. Another parish, Plaquemines was half reclaimed by the Gulf of Mexico. That part does not exist because it is now an extension of the Gulf. About 60% of my parish, Jefferson, had flood water in houses. Most of those residents have tom out walls cabinets and furniture and will sit and wait for months to repair. Many have left the area because their jobs were washed away or because three is no livable home or apartment. Every house, including mine, suffered significant wind damage.
New Orleans itself no has about 25,000 residents that have moved back in, Sections of the city were under water and are no longer usable (houses have mold to the ceilings there). The one blessing for the city is that the French Quarter and CBD, the heart of the city, were the only two areas spared of flooding. Humans will be moving back in there to restart a down sized New Orleans that may reach 60% of it's former population in a couple of years.
I was called back to work on Sept. 21st, to help rebuild the system's central office. It was destroyed by the storm and now operates out of a school system warehouse. I moved furniture and assited in the new offices. Friday was my last day, and I am officially retired now. Most of our schools were severely wind damaged or flooded, and have been temporarily repaired for Monday's first day of school. About 1/2 of the students are gone though, having moved out of the area due to unlivable homes.
Jane's school was one of a small few that had little damaged. it reopened to a smaller student body on September 26th. She has just finished her first week back. Too bad, her two best friends in the class have moved to Texas. This has been tagged as the greatest natural disaster is history, because of property loses that total 200 billion dollars. Because the area was 90% evacuated before the storm, only 1000 died. Had it not been evactuated the total would have been closer to 100,000.
Media reports have been false, inaccurate and have focused on isolated incidents more than giving a clear view of what happened here. The local state and federal governments performance has been inept at best. More on that later, and you can image how badly the Bush crowd botched the aftermath of the storm. I have been nearly oblivious to the world events since the storm, trapped here without much communication or information.
All the local TV stations still have 24 hour hurricane coverage to pass on information that citizens can not get any other way. The Red Cross trucks, Fema and other relief agencies are still in my city, even though residents have been allowed to come back home. But then, poor people here have nothing and will depend on charity for some time to come.
It will be interesting to see if Bush finally stops his phony message that taxes are bad and unnecessary. The cost of Hurricane Katrina relief will be far more than the cost of the entire Iraqi war he implemented. Because it is estimated that the cost of the storm will exceed 200 billion dollars, there must be a realistic approach to paying for this mess. This country is in debt and the debt is mounting. Politicians like Bush pander to voters by telling them they need never pay taxes.
But now, the debt is so high, even that kind of politician may have to tell the voters the truth- that they must pay for theses and other services. I do not feel confident this country will act fiscally responsibly with Bush and his administration in power.
One entire parish that is adjacent to New Orleans, St. Bernard, was under 10 feet of water. There is no usable home or business left. Another parish, Plaquemines was half reclaimed by the Gulf of Mexico. That part does not exist because it is now an extension of the Gulf. About 60% of my parish, Jefferson, had flood water in houses. Most of those residents have tom out walls cabinets and furniture and will sit and wait for months to repair. Many have left the area because their jobs were washed away or because three is no livable home or apartment. Every house, including mine, suffered significant wind damage.
New Orleans itself no has about 25,000 residents that have moved back in, Sections of the city were under water and are no longer usable (houses have mold to the ceilings there). The one blessing for the city is that the French Quarter and CBD, the heart of the city, were the only two areas spared of flooding. Humans will be moving back in there to restart a down sized New Orleans that may reach 60% of it's former population in a couple of years.
I was called back to work on Sept. 21st, to help rebuild the system's central office. It was destroyed by the storm and now operates out of a school system warehouse. I moved furniture and assited in the new offices. Friday was my last day, and I am officially retired now. Most of our schools were severely wind damaged or flooded, and have been temporarily repaired for Monday's first day of school. About 1/2 of the students are gone though, having moved out of the area due to unlivable homes.
Jane's school was one of a small few that had little damaged. it reopened to a smaller student body on September 26th. She has just finished her first week back. Too bad, her two best friends in the class have moved to Texas. This has been tagged as the greatest natural disaster is history, because of property loses that total 200 billion dollars. Because the area was 90% evacuated before the storm, only 1000 died. Had it not been evactuated the total would have been closer to 100,000.
Media reports have been false, inaccurate and have focused on isolated incidents more than giving a clear view of what happened here. The local state and federal governments performance has been inept at best. More on that later, and you can image how badly the Bush crowd botched the aftermath of the storm. I have been nearly oblivious to the world events since the storm, trapped here without much communication or information.
All the local TV stations still have 24 hour hurricane coverage to pass on information that citizens can not get any other way. The Red Cross trucks, Fema and other relief agencies are still in my city, even though residents have been allowed to come back home. But then, poor people here have nothing and will depend on charity for some time to come.
It will be interesting to see if Bush finally stops his phony message that taxes are bad and unnecessary. The cost of Hurricane Katrina relief will be far more than the cost of the entire Iraqi war he implemented. Because it is estimated that the cost of the storm will exceed 200 billion dollars, there must be a realistic approach to paying for this mess. This country is in debt and the debt is mounting. Politicians like Bush pander to voters by telling them they need never pay taxes.
But now, the debt is so high, even that kind of politician may have to tell the voters the truth- that they must pay for theses and other services. I do not feel confident this country will act fiscally responsibly with Bush and his administration in power.
Hurricane Destruction
Ater returning home after the hurricane Katrina evacuation I live another day to write. I hope. Jane is safe in Toronto an I am here in my (damaged) home. I feel lucky to be alive and to have only property damage loses for this is analogous to a combat situation in which one's city has been bombed to ruination.
Unlike the great tsunami in S.E. Asia, there won't be the large loss of life here, as we were warned of the in coming storm and evacuated the city. But property destruction is incredible and widespread, easily the greatest single act of property loss ever. There are many homeless and unemployed now. Though New Orleans has been largely destroyed and probably forever lost it's uniqueness and greatness, some of the surrounding areas, including my suburb of Kenner, will recover largely their former status.
Others, like St. Bernard Parish were covered with 15 feet of water, all home being destroyed and covered win an oily toxic waste. They may never rebuild. Or Plaquemines Parish home to our oyster and other great seafood industry was decapitated by the winds and floods. Half of that parish is lost to the Gulf of Mexico. It no longer exists. What an ordeal it has been the past few weeks in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I have some food and plenty of water, electricity, even some TV.
The cleanup of my home will last on through the year. And soon businesses here will re-open and life resume for most residents. I am one of about 10% of the residents in my home due to a ban on anyone entering my city that has yet to be lifted. All residents were allowed to enter my parish on September 5th, 6th and 7th, and told that we could either stay permanently or exit in 3 days and not return until several weeks later.
Because I was blessed with electricity so early, I decided to stay here, and I remain. The day before the storm hit I evacuated to central Louisiana and stayed there for 8 days. And so it goes for me and others here. Of course, I am always optimistic and eager to return to normality (Hehe Was I ever normal?) and will tell my many hurricane adventures in the days ahead as well as right my typical blogs
Unlike the great tsunami in S.E. Asia, there won't be the large loss of life here, as we were warned of the in coming storm and evacuated the city. But property destruction is incredible and widespread, easily the greatest single act of property loss ever. There are many homeless and unemployed now. Though New Orleans has been largely destroyed and probably forever lost it's uniqueness and greatness, some of the surrounding areas, including my suburb of Kenner, will recover largely their former status.
Others, like St. Bernard Parish were covered with 15 feet of water, all home being destroyed and covered win an oily toxic waste. They may never rebuild. Or Plaquemines Parish home to our oyster and other great seafood industry was decapitated by the winds and floods. Half of that parish is lost to the Gulf of Mexico. It no longer exists. What an ordeal it has been the past few weeks in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. I have some food and plenty of water, electricity, even some TV.
The cleanup of my home will last on through the year. And soon businesses here will re-open and life resume for most residents. I am one of about 10% of the residents in my home due to a ban on anyone entering my city that has yet to be lifted. All residents were allowed to enter my parish on September 5th, 6th and 7th, and told that we could either stay permanently or exit in 3 days and not return until several weeks later.
Because I was blessed with electricity so early, I decided to stay here, and I remain. The day before the storm hit I evacuated to central Louisiana and stayed there for 8 days. And so it goes for me and others here. Of course, I am always optimistic and eager to return to normality (Hehe Was I ever normal?) and will tell my many hurricane adventures in the days ahead as well as right my typical blogs
Computer Age
I guess the personal computer revolution isn't over after all. One would think that the market for PC's would be declining now that so many that can afford one have one., but statistics just out show otherwise. Worldwide shipments of personal computers rose 16.6 per cent in the second quarter of the year as surging international demand (U.S. demand is much lower than international demand) and lower prices are driving new purchases.
The 16.6 % growth rate was the fastest growth rate since a 18 % rise in the third quarter of 2000. At some point this would have to let up, but The computer price wars have lowered prices so much that a lower income segment of the market has been created.
Aside from this statistic, I think the computer revolution has changed the world dramatically in the past 10 years or so. Instant personal communication, availability of news that is freely written apart from government propaganda, speedier personal and business transactions have made our world smaller (Well, that is my view). The concept of nationalism and borders is shrinking with each new computer used.
I believe this is a good thing for society at large, though it may kill some regional cultural distinctions and tend to homogenize the world's cultures (The KFC is everywhere concept). But isn't it better to have a world connected and aware than disconnected and apart?
What do you think? Is the computer age a better thing for us, not only technologically, but in non technological aspects as well? It had to happen.
The cell phone is now aiding another unpleasant cause- illegal immigration. It seems that another group of the millions of illegal immigrants here becomes stranded in the parched Arizona desert where they were making an illegal entry into the U.S. But because they had cell phones they were able to call for "rescue services" from the U.S. border control.
Lost and low on water, (It takes about 3 or 4 days to make an illegal entry at the Arizona border) they used a cell phone after their guide had abandoned them in the desert. Rescue helicopters located the group shortly thereafter. In the past many illegal immigrants have died of heat exhaustion while making that crossing through eastern Arizona. More than half a million illegals have been arrested there, just a fraction of the 20 million or so who have poured across the border in the past few years.
I am not one to want anyone to die in the desert and am happy they were rescued (and I hope promptly deported back to Mexico). But why do people who allege to be impoverished, and seeking food and a new life have cell phones? It's yet another indication of the cell phone addiction in society. Sigh.. I hope the border patrol will catch and send them al back..and ..surely send their cell phones to.
The 16.6 % growth rate was the fastest growth rate since a 18 % rise in the third quarter of 2000. At some point this would have to let up, but The computer price wars have lowered prices so much that a lower income segment of the market has been created.
Aside from this statistic, I think the computer revolution has changed the world dramatically in the past 10 years or so. Instant personal communication, availability of news that is freely written apart from government propaganda, speedier personal and business transactions have made our world smaller (Well, that is my view). The concept of nationalism and borders is shrinking with each new computer used.
I believe this is a good thing for society at large, though it may kill some regional cultural distinctions and tend to homogenize the world's cultures (The KFC is everywhere concept). But isn't it better to have a world connected and aware than disconnected and apart?
What do you think? Is the computer age a better thing for us, not only technologically, but in non technological aspects as well? It had to happen.
The cell phone is now aiding another unpleasant cause- illegal immigration. It seems that another group of the millions of illegal immigrants here becomes stranded in the parched Arizona desert where they were making an illegal entry into the U.S. But because they had cell phones they were able to call for "rescue services" from the U.S. border control.
Lost and low on water, (It takes about 3 or 4 days to make an illegal entry at the Arizona border) they used a cell phone after their guide had abandoned them in the desert. Rescue helicopters located the group shortly thereafter. In the past many illegal immigrants have died of heat exhaustion while making that crossing through eastern Arizona. More than half a million illegals have been arrested there, just a fraction of the 20 million or so who have poured across the border in the past few years.
I am not one to want anyone to die in the desert and am happy they were rescued (and I hope promptly deported back to Mexico). But why do people who allege to be impoverished, and seeking food and a new life have cell phones? It's yet another indication of the cell phone addiction in society. Sigh.. I hope the border patrol will catch and send them al back..and ..surely send their cell phones to.
Eat Slowly And Improve Your Health
Want to improve your overall health with an easy methodology? Then just do this- eat slowly. That's right. Savor your food, appreciate the company you dine with and pause frequently between bite to converse. That means no more eating while in the car or on the tram or wolfing down your lunch to avoid being late for an appointment.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the price Americans pay (about 65% of us are at least slightly overweight) for rushing through meals is meals that are lodged around our waist, thighs, arms and even internal organs like the heart and liver. That's because when one eats too quickly he or she also tends to eat more. This is because the body's natural impulse to regulate food intake is confused by fast eating.
Thus, the signals that get the stomach and intestines ready, that enhance digestion and that tell us we are "full" and should stop eating, do not work properly when food is eaten too quickly. Mom must have been right when she said to "slow down" as I shoveled the food in (I am still a "fast eater").
And the truth is that eating more slowly means eating less and losing weight. In clinical trials at my own state university, Louisiana State University, participants who were forced to eat slowly reduced their caloric intake by more than 25%. To my knowledge there are few studies that attempt to prove or disprove the correlation of eating speed to the number of kilos we are overweight. But that would be an interesting on to see.
It makes sense to me bec....oops! I dropped a potato chip on the keyboard. Sigh....you guessed it. I am shoveling down chips as I type this blog. And they taste too good to slow down!
The latest cosmetic fad in the U.S. seems to be "pump parties", particularly among the transgendered groups who want to look more "pumped" and sexy. What is a pump party? Glad you asked... It's a cheap and fast way for people to inject black market silicone into breasts, butts, hips, and cheeks to make a boy look more girlish and attractive.
In San Diego recently, two people were put into a coma after silicone injections went wrong at a pump party. This has alerted police to the practice at which people receive the injections from unlicensed, and untrained "pump docs", who use non medical silicone and charge between $200-$1,000 per treatment. Industrial-grade silicone, floor products and sealers, motor oil and even paraffin have been found to be in the silicone injections. This is all illegal and dangerous, yet the transsexual community seems more concerned with appearance that safety.
In the U.S. the law prohibits the direct injection of silicone and says that only "medical-grade" silicone can be inserted into bodies legally, and that only if it is encapsulated in a sac (as in a breast implant) that does not come into contact with body tissue. Having written all of this I ask, have you ever had or would you have any kind of silicone implant (legal or illegal)?
Hehe Not that I have noticed any dropping on your part....
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention the price Americans pay (about 65% of us are at least slightly overweight) for rushing through meals is meals that are lodged around our waist, thighs, arms and even internal organs like the heart and liver. That's because when one eats too quickly he or she also tends to eat more. This is because the body's natural impulse to regulate food intake is confused by fast eating.
Thus, the signals that get the stomach and intestines ready, that enhance digestion and that tell us we are "full" and should stop eating, do not work properly when food is eaten too quickly. Mom must have been right when she said to "slow down" as I shoveled the food in (I am still a "fast eater").
And the truth is that eating more slowly means eating less and losing weight. In clinical trials at my own state university, Louisiana State University, participants who were forced to eat slowly reduced their caloric intake by more than 25%. To my knowledge there are few studies that attempt to prove or disprove the correlation of eating speed to the number of kilos we are overweight. But that would be an interesting on to see.
It makes sense to me bec....oops! I dropped a potato chip on the keyboard. Sigh....you guessed it. I am shoveling down chips as I type this blog. And they taste too good to slow down!
The latest cosmetic fad in the U.S. seems to be "pump parties", particularly among the transgendered groups who want to look more "pumped" and sexy. What is a pump party? Glad you asked... It's a cheap and fast way for people to inject black market silicone into breasts, butts, hips, and cheeks to make a boy look more girlish and attractive.
In San Diego recently, two people were put into a coma after silicone injections went wrong at a pump party. This has alerted police to the practice at which people receive the injections from unlicensed, and untrained "pump docs", who use non medical silicone and charge between $200-$1,000 per treatment. Industrial-grade silicone, floor products and sealers, motor oil and even paraffin have been found to be in the silicone injections. This is all illegal and dangerous, yet the transsexual community seems more concerned with appearance that safety.
In the U.S. the law prohibits the direct injection of silicone and says that only "medical-grade" silicone can be inserted into bodies legally, and that only if it is encapsulated in a sac (as in a breast implant) that does not come into contact with body tissue. Having written all of this I ask, have you ever had or would you have any kind of silicone implant (legal or illegal)?
Hehe Not that I have noticed any dropping on your part....
Iranian Outrage
I think world opinion is shifting more toward the concept of respecting human rights. It seems now that dictators and nations who flaunt those concepts are being criticized and in some cases steered away from their brutality.
A recent example is the religious dictatorship of Iran. The Mullahs there publicly hanged an 18 year old and 16 year old boy after condemning them of raping younger boys in northeastern Iran. that punishment- executing juveniles, has right groups and many citizens world wide up in arms.
Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi condemned the hangings, and action that would have been unthinkable years ago. perhaps the dictators are now not terrorizing their countrymen as before? Ebadi pointed out that Iran had violated its obligations under the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (which bans executing children). Further, he said he will help lead the fight against Iran's policy of executing child criminals. Mahmoud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhonit, 18 (but 17 when the crimes were allegedly committed) were hanged publicly in Mashhad. they said before the executions that they were not aware that homosexual acts were punishable by death. (They were accused of having sex with a 13 year old boy).
Various gay rights groups are protesting and many other human rights organizations are demanding Iran change it's policy toward children accused of crimes against pregnant women and against the mentally disabled. All three categories are ignored under iranian "law". Human rights groups have cited "dozens" of child executions and under the laws of Iranian dictatorship girls older than 9 and boys older than 15 face execution if they commit crimes such as murder or rape.
Too, some children are executed for "engaging in illegal sexual relations". Perhaps Iran's attempts to be seen as a legitimate and civilized country will force a change in this and other abominations the regime there routinely commits in the name of "Islamism". I do think many other dictators are aware of public opinion and realize to alienate the world is to lock out self economically.
If Iran can be forced to alter some of it's brutality, there is hope that other nations will too. Anyway....that's my optimistic view.
Need a good reason to be a virgin (a hypothetical question. Hehe)? Maybe the promise of one Ugandan legislator might make you move to Uganda and profit from his offer. Bbaale County MP Sulaiman Madada has pledged to reward girls for chastity by paying for entire university fees if they are virgins when they leave school. That's right..Any woman in Madada's district who wants the scholarship need only take a gynecological exam to prove her virginity.
But wait! Because proving male virginity s next to impossible, Madada has not offered males the same deal. Still Madada is serious. "Our children should be told of the risks they face if they are involved in early and unprotected sex."
At first glance the idea seems crazy, but Madada's district is an AIDS haven. More than 80% of families who live there have lost at least one family member to AIDS. But uh...given that statistic I wonder if there are any virgins left to win those scholarships?
A recent example is the religious dictatorship of Iran. The Mullahs there publicly hanged an 18 year old and 16 year old boy after condemning them of raping younger boys in northeastern Iran. that punishment- executing juveniles, has right groups and many citizens world wide up in arms.
Nobel Peace laureate Shirin Ebadi condemned the hangings, and action that would have been unthinkable years ago. perhaps the dictators are now not terrorizing their countrymen as before? Ebadi pointed out that Iran had violated its obligations under the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (which bans executing children). Further, he said he will help lead the fight against Iran's policy of executing child criminals. Mahmoud Asgari, 16, and Ayaz Marhonit, 18 (but 17 when the crimes were allegedly committed) were hanged publicly in Mashhad. they said before the executions that they were not aware that homosexual acts were punishable by death. (They were accused of having sex with a 13 year old boy).
Various gay rights groups are protesting and many other human rights organizations are demanding Iran change it's policy toward children accused of crimes against pregnant women and against the mentally disabled. All three categories are ignored under iranian "law". Human rights groups have cited "dozens" of child executions and under the laws of Iranian dictatorship girls older than 9 and boys older than 15 face execution if they commit crimes such as murder or rape.
Too, some children are executed for "engaging in illegal sexual relations". Perhaps Iran's attempts to be seen as a legitimate and civilized country will force a change in this and other abominations the regime there routinely commits in the name of "Islamism". I do think many other dictators are aware of public opinion and realize to alienate the world is to lock out self economically.
If Iran can be forced to alter some of it's brutality, there is hope that other nations will too. Anyway....that's my optimistic view.
Need a good reason to be a virgin (a hypothetical question. Hehe)? Maybe the promise of one Ugandan legislator might make you move to Uganda and profit from his offer. Bbaale County MP Sulaiman Madada has pledged to reward girls for chastity by paying for entire university fees if they are virgins when they leave school. That's right..Any woman in Madada's district who wants the scholarship need only take a gynecological exam to prove her virginity.
But wait! Because proving male virginity s next to impossible, Madada has not offered males the same deal. Still Madada is serious. "Our children should be told of the risks they face if they are involved in early and unprotected sex."
At first glance the idea seems crazy, but Madada's district is an AIDS haven. More than 80% of families who live there have lost at least one family member to AIDS. But uh...given that statistic I wonder if there are any virgins left to win those scholarships?
Little Invention That Changed Things
Today I pay tribute to a little known inventor, who's little recognized and simple idea changed the world in a simple way. Gerry Thomas, 83, died from cancer a couple of years ago, though few know it. What did Gerry do that merits my taking time in this E mail to pay tribute? He changed the way Americans, and later everyone everywhere eat-for better or worse....with his invention. You see, Gerry was the inventor of the TV dinner. You know it. The "TV Dinner" is that pre-packaged frozen meals in those disposable containers (originally aluminum, but with the invention of the microwave, replaced with microwave able trays). Gerry said he named it that because at the time he invented it in 1954 TV was a booming interest. The first TV dinner was a Swanson turkey with cornbread dressing, gravy, sweet potatoes and buttered peas. It sold for $1 and was cooked (while mom watched TV with the family) in about 25 minutes. Since it was fast, convenient and fit nicely on a "TV tray" mom, dad and the kids could watch TV while they ate.
Oh, I remember how popular those things were. Sure, this was a less than gourmet dinner, probably much less nutritious and trivialized or eliminated family dinners, but it made it even more possible for TV to "take over" the routine of family evenings. One could call the TV dinner a tool for enabling the TV age to bloom. Gerry said the inspiration for his TV dinner invention was when he saw a metal tray developed for an experiment in the preparation of hot meals on airlines (airlines had not yet begun to serve hot food).
He came up with a three compartment tray because "I spent five years in the military. I knew what a mess kit was. You could never tell what you were eating because it was all mixed together." Ok, maybe TV dinners (and the many frozen compartmentalized dinners now sold in groceries) aren't the best in nutritional history. But they are a milestone in the world's culture, one of those inventions that changed the way we lived our daily lives.
I bow to Gerry for his creativeness...but..I think I will pass on eating on of those frozen TV dinners.
Since I am writing about cultural changes here's the latest statistics on marriage and divorce. Both the U.S. marriage and divorce rates are dropping while the number of unwed couples living together is rising, according to a study by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.
The numbers show a gradual shift in this country toward the lifestyles most found in Scandinavia (particularly Sweden), where unmarried cohabitation with children is common. Here are some statistics from the report.
1) The number of unmarried couples living together in the U.S. grew to more than 5 million last year.
2) More than half of all first U.S. marriages are preceded by living together.
3) The ratio of married U.S. adults has fallen to its lowest since 1960, to about 55% from 69%.
4) The divorce rate dropped to 17.7 per 1000 married women in 2004 from 18.8 in 2000 and a high of 22.6 in 1980.
5) 11 percent of adult U.S. women and 8% of U.S. men are currently living in a divorced state. this is up from 3% of women and 2% of men in 1960.
6) Almost 35% of last year's babies were born to unmarried women. Of those, 40% were born to unmarried couples living together.
7) The ratio of U.S. households with children has been dropping since 1960, when it was almost half. The figure dropped to 33% in 2003 and is expected to fall to 28% in 2010. So what does all this statistical mess show?
Well, it means that those people who marry might have a little stronger marriage than they once did, but fewer people are marrying and more people are living together outside of marriage (Are you confused yet?) And one more conclusion I might add...If you serve your lover or spouse too many of those TV dinners the odds for a good marriage may be a little rocky at best.
Oh, I remember how popular those things were. Sure, this was a less than gourmet dinner, probably much less nutritious and trivialized or eliminated family dinners, but it made it even more possible for TV to "take over" the routine of family evenings. One could call the TV dinner a tool for enabling the TV age to bloom. Gerry said the inspiration for his TV dinner invention was when he saw a metal tray developed for an experiment in the preparation of hot meals on airlines (airlines had not yet begun to serve hot food).
He came up with a three compartment tray because "I spent five years in the military. I knew what a mess kit was. You could never tell what you were eating because it was all mixed together." Ok, maybe TV dinners (and the many frozen compartmentalized dinners now sold in groceries) aren't the best in nutritional history. But they are a milestone in the world's culture, one of those inventions that changed the way we lived our daily lives.
I bow to Gerry for his creativeness...but..I think I will pass on eating on of those frozen TV dinners.
Since I am writing about cultural changes here's the latest statistics on marriage and divorce. Both the U.S. marriage and divorce rates are dropping while the number of unwed couples living together is rising, according to a study by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University.
The numbers show a gradual shift in this country toward the lifestyles most found in Scandinavia (particularly Sweden), where unmarried cohabitation with children is common. Here are some statistics from the report.
1) The number of unmarried couples living together in the U.S. grew to more than 5 million last year.
2) More than half of all first U.S. marriages are preceded by living together.
3) The ratio of married U.S. adults has fallen to its lowest since 1960, to about 55% from 69%.
4) The divorce rate dropped to 17.7 per 1000 married women in 2004 from 18.8 in 2000 and a high of 22.6 in 1980.
5) 11 percent of adult U.S. women and 8% of U.S. men are currently living in a divorced state. this is up from 3% of women and 2% of men in 1960.
6) Almost 35% of last year's babies were born to unmarried women. Of those, 40% were born to unmarried couples living together.
7) The ratio of U.S. households with children has been dropping since 1960, when it was almost half. The figure dropped to 33% in 2003 and is expected to fall to 28% in 2010. So what does all this statistical mess show?
Well, it means that those people who marry might have a little stronger marriage than they once did, but fewer people are marrying and more people are living together outside of marriage (Are you confused yet?) And one more conclusion I might add...If you serve your lover or spouse too many of those TV dinners the odds for a good marriage may be a little rocky at best.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
TV Observations
I spent a couple of hours the past few days checking my local TV selections. It is of note because I watch little TV and for years have found it to be about on the same level with most Hollywood films- not very good and rarely possessing so much as a speck of intelligence. Having said that, TV does offer some very good channels.
The CNN, C-Span, History, ESPN, and a number of special interest channels that offer some depth and entertainment. But on the whole, TV here in the U.S. is vapid, appealing to the same low level as do many Hollywood films.
If one is 12 years old, TV offers a challenge, but adults are more numbed by it and see it as "something to keep me company" more than an enlightening medium. Several I thumbed through the 80 plus channels I have on my TV and found many starling things. There were times when I was entertained, times when educated, but most of the time I found it had mostly distracting and...well..stupid programming.
The observation I have today is that TV is now filled with so called "reality shows", the survivor mentality in which real people pretend to be in real situations (they are not real, but rather highly controlled by the TV producers), struggling against some force that is supposedly a threat to them.
One kind of reality show I saw at least 8 times when browsing through the channels, and the most odd of all, was the "reality make-over" show. In those programs the people ( Or are they "contestants"?) had their clothes, their bodies or their homes redone by total strangers, alleged "professionals".
Take the case of the home remodel. The premise is that the owners are such slobs that they are incapable of designing their living spaces and need "help" to change the decor. The show starts with a tour of an obviously exaggerated decor that is presented as the original one of the owners. The owners agree to leave the house and the pros enter to redo one or more rooms, spending what is termed "a moderate amount" of money and using their creativity as the balance in bringing about the "needed" changes. The program shows the crew as it transforms the home into what it believes is a more stylish looking an comfortable place.
At the conclusion of the hour the owners are brought back to see what has been done (Can you imagine anyone allowing strangers to literally throw away their home furnishings and replace them without showing what is to be put in their place?). In the three house remodeling shows I saw at the program end the owners gushed enthusiastic joy at seeing their new decor.
In two of them the ladies cried (I guess it was in the script), but the astounding thing for me was that in two of the three I thought the remodeled rooms looked far worse than the original. I guess we will never know if they were pleased or displeased by the remodeling.
The same kind of remaking was done in the shows that changed the person's clothes, though the pros were much more cruel in that one. They practically insulted the person they were there to help, ridiculing their very being because the clothes they wore were not trendy fashions. The same happened in the personal makeover shows. The man or woman being remade was made to appear a dork, stupid and hopeless. I wondered why they would subject themselves to that charade, but then some people will do anything to be on TV.
In sum, here are my observations.
1) This kind of popular program is pointless. It is negative, disparaging and contrived. Why would anyone want to appear or watch that mess. yet those shows must be popular. They can be found in abundance on TV here.
2) They reflect the dumbing down of the culture. I wondered when watching if they were intentionally stupid, whether the producers of the shows felt the audience was such an idiotic crew it had to be treated as such.
3) I think this type of show further degrades from the potential good programing because viewers flock to it an spur intelligent fare.
4) Is this kind of programming appearing elsewhere or is it just an American phenomenon? Sigh...next time I am tempted to sample TV I'll leave the TV alone and read your E mail....Hehe Even that has to be better than a TV make-over.
The CNN, C-Span, History, ESPN, and a number of special interest channels that offer some depth and entertainment. But on the whole, TV here in the U.S. is vapid, appealing to the same low level as do many Hollywood films.
If one is 12 years old, TV offers a challenge, but adults are more numbed by it and see it as "something to keep me company" more than an enlightening medium. Several I thumbed through the 80 plus channels I have on my TV and found many starling things. There were times when I was entertained, times when educated, but most of the time I found it had mostly distracting and...well..stupid programming.
The observation I have today is that TV is now filled with so called "reality shows", the survivor mentality in which real people pretend to be in real situations (they are not real, but rather highly controlled by the TV producers), struggling against some force that is supposedly a threat to them.
One kind of reality show I saw at least 8 times when browsing through the channels, and the most odd of all, was the "reality make-over" show. In those programs the people ( Or are they "contestants"?) had their clothes, their bodies or their homes redone by total strangers, alleged "professionals".
Take the case of the home remodel. The premise is that the owners are such slobs that they are incapable of designing their living spaces and need "help" to change the decor. The show starts with a tour of an obviously exaggerated decor that is presented as the original one of the owners. The owners agree to leave the house and the pros enter to redo one or more rooms, spending what is termed "a moderate amount" of money and using their creativity as the balance in bringing about the "needed" changes. The program shows the crew as it transforms the home into what it believes is a more stylish looking an comfortable place.
At the conclusion of the hour the owners are brought back to see what has been done (Can you imagine anyone allowing strangers to literally throw away their home furnishings and replace them without showing what is to be put in their place?). In the three house remodeling shows I saw at the program end the owners gushed enthusiastic joy at seeing their new decor.
In two of them the ladies cried (I guess it was in the script), but the astounding thing for me was that in two of the three I thought the remodeled rooms looked far worse than the original. I guess we will never know if they were pleased or displeased by the remodeling.
The same kind of remaking was done in the shows that changed the person's clothes, though the pros were much more cruel in that one. They practically insulted the person they were there to help, ridiculing their very being because the clothes they wore were not trendy fashions. The same happened in the personal makeover shows. The man or woman being remade was made to appear a dork, stupid and hopeless. I wondered why they would subject themselves to that charade, but then some people will do anything to be on TV.
In sum, here are my observations.
1) This kind of popular program is pointless. It is negative, disparaging and contrived. Why would anyone want to appear or watch that mess. yet those shows must be popular. They can be found in abundance on TV here.
2) They reflect the dumbing down of the culture. I wondered when watching if they were intentionally stupid, whether the producers of the shows felt the audience was such an idiotic crew it had to be treated as such.
3) I think this type of show further degrades from the potential good programing because viewers flock to it an spur intelligent fare.
4) Is this kind of programming appearing elsewhere or is it just an American phenomenon? Sigh...next time I am tempted to sample TV I'll leave the TV alone and read your E mail....Hehe Even that has to be better than a TV make-over.
Bigger And Bigger Burgers
They must be trying to clog my arteries... I mean those fast food places. No matter. I rarely eat there. But for those who do there is a surge in high calorie, artery clogging, huge sandwich options being introduced. How about these e new offerings.
1) Monster Thickburger- This one is from hamburger seller Hardee's and it has a huge 1410 calories and 107 fat grams. Ouch! If you add an order of greasy french fries the Thickburger meal is over 200 calories, an amount to suffice for the average female adult each day.
2) Wendy's Classic Triple Burger- That's right. They are now putting three hamburgers on one bun. This one has 1000 calories and 60 grams of fat. Does anyone know a good cardiologist to unclog arteries?
3) Burger King's Enormous Omelet- This one ONLY has 760 calories (almost half a days caloric need) and 50 grams of fat and is an egg and cheese glob with a choice of either sausage or bacon and slathered on an oversized bun.
Holy Hamburger! The Big Mac, once the symbol of a to big to eat sandwich, now looks small in comparison at only 560 calories and 30 grams of fat. And there is more than obscene sized burgers, including a calorie busting dessert from Starbucks called the Chantico Drinking Chocolate. (390 calories and 21 grams of fat) Why the sudden movement into huge portion junk food?
It's probably a backlash buy Americans to the health food craze and low carb mess that we have endured for the past few years. Consumers are tired of the food police and tasteless "health food". And the fast food sellers see it. they are now catering to the notion that the consumer wants to eat healthy at home but splurge on those oversized offerings when out. The bottom line is that big sells. The patron seems less concerned with his or her big waistline and more with pushing the limit with fast food. Ugh.. don't ask me what I ate for lunch..
1) Monster Thickburger- This one is from hamburger seller Hardee's and it has a huge 1410 calories and 107 fat grams. Ouch! If you add an order of greasy french fries the Thickburger meal is over 200 calories, an amount to suffice for the average female adult each day.
2) Wendy's Classic Triple Burger- That's right. They are now putting three hamburgers on one bun. This one has 1000 calories and 60 grams of fat. Does anyone know a good cardiologist to unclog arteries?
3) Burger King's Enormous Omelet- This one ONLY has 760 calories (almost half a days caloric need) and 50 grams of fat and is an egg and cheese glob with a choice of either sausage or bacon and slathered on an oversized bun.
Holy Hamburger! The Big Mac, once the symbol of a to big to eat sandwich, now looks small in comparison at only 560 calories and 30 grams of fat. And there is more than obscene sized burgers, including a calorie busting dessert from Starbucks called the Chantico Drinking Chocolate. (390 calories and 21 grams of fat) Why the sudden movement into huge portion junk food?
It's probably a backlash buy Americans to the health food craze and low carb mess that we have endured for the past few years. Consumers are tired of the food police and tasteless "health food". And the fast food sellers see it. they are now catering to the notion that the consumer wants to eat healthy at home but splurge on those oversized offerings when out. The bottom line is that big sells. The patron seems less concerned with his or her big waistline and more with pushing the limit with fast food. Ugh.. don't ask me what I ate for lunch..
Cancer
I did a little research about the subject of death and cancer. I have some statistics on cancer survival rates today. These come from the National Cancer Institute and are on U.S. patients only. Here are the percentages of people who survive (are cured) the various forms of cancer. A person is considered cured when he or she is still alive five years after a cancer diagnosis. From most curable to least curable these are based on the years 1995-2000.
Cancer Type Percentage cured
1) Prostate- 99% 2) Thyroid- 97% 3) Testicular- 96% 4) Melanoma- 91% 5) Breast- 88% 6) Uterine corpus- 85% 7) Urinary bladder- 82% 8) Uterine cervical- 73% 9) Laryngeal- 65% 10) Kidney- 64% 11) Colorectal- 63% 12) Ovarian- 44% 13) Stomach- 23% 14) Lung/bronchus- 15% 15) Esophageal- 14% 16) Liver- 8% 17) Pancreatic- 4%
These figures are for five year survivals. Some 5 year survivors do develop the same cancer or another, and some pass away. But for the most part, a 5 year cancer free patient will live many more years beyond, often dying of "natural causes".
The total death rate for the 5 most deadly cancers in the year 2005 is projected to be:
1) Lung /bronchus- 164,000 Americans will die of this type, the most of any form of cancer. And 85% will be smokers. That means stopping or never smoking would save the majority of these victims. 2) Colorectal - 56,000 deaths 3) Breast- 40,000 deaths 4) Pancreatic- 32,000 deaths 5) Ovarian- 16,000 deaths
And after looking at the survival rates and the instances of cancers what would you think is the most funded cancer research? Logically, it would be Lung cancer, which has the largest death rates from cancer and is only 15% curable. Or it would be pancreatic cancer which has only a 4% survival rate and is the fourth most common cause of death from cancer.
But they are not even close to the money winner. It is the high profile breast cancer that receives the most research funding, more than twice as much as any of the other cancers. But then, .there is quite the profit in breast cancer prevention and little preventive measures for lung cancer (except not smoking) and pancreatic cancer from which to garner extra profit. So all cancer isn't equal, in prevalence, in severity and in how much effort is put into preventing and curing them.
Cancer Type Percentage cured
1) Prostate- 99% 2) Thyroid- 97% 3) Testicular- 96% 4) Melanoma- 91% 5) Breast- 88% 6) Uterine corpus- 85% 7) Urinary bladder- 82% 8) Uterine cervical- 73% 9) Laryngeal- 65% 10) Kidney- 64% 11) Colorectal- 63% 12) Ovarian- 44% 13) Stomach- 23% 14) Lung/bronchus- 15% 15) Esophageal- 14% 16) Liver- 8% 17) Pancreatic- 4%
These figures are for five year survivals. Some 5 year survivors do develop the same cancer or another, and some pass away. But for the most part, a 5 year cancer free patient will live many more years beyond, often dying of "natural causes".
The total death rate for the 5 most deadly cancers in the year 2005 is projected to be:
1) Lung /bronchus- 164,000 Americans will die of this type, the most of any form of cancer. And 85% will be smokers. That means stopping or never smoking would save the majority of these victims. 2) Colorectal - 56,000 deaths 3) Breast- 40,000 deaths 4) Pancreatic- 32,000 deaths 5) Ovarian- 16,000 deaths
And after looking at the survival rates and the instances of cancers what would you think is the most funded cancer research? Logically, it would be Lung cancer, which has the largest death rates from cancer and is only 15% curable. Or it would be pancreatic cancer which has only a 4% survival rate and is the fourth most common cause of death from cancer.
But they are not even close to the money winner. It is the high profile breast cancer that receives the most research funding, more than twice as much as any of the other cancers. But then, .there is quite the profit in breast cancer prevention and little preventive measures for lung cancer (except not smoking) and pancreatic cancer from which to garner extra profit. So all cancer isn't equal, in prevalence, in severity and in how much effort is put into preventing and curing them.
Cancer Misconceptions
Can cancer cells be spread through the body by surgery? Are pain medications effective against cancer? Think about those questions and come up with an answer because I will tell you the correct answers later. Those questions and more were all put to 957 adults in a survey conducted by the journal 'Cancer' in an attempt to see whether the myths of cancer are widely believed today.
Having had most of my family lost to cancer I know quite a bit about the subject, and I agree with the survey results that show many people simply do not understand what cancer does to the body. As a results many patients who have cancer may fail to get treatment or may fail to stick with it.
Here are some highlights of the survey
1) The most prevalent misconception was that treating cancer with surgery causes it to spread though out the body (Did you get that one right?). 41% of the respondents mistakenly believed that was true.
2) The second most prevalent misconception was that the medical industry is "withholding a cure for cancer from the public in order to increase their profits." 27% of the people asked that believed it was the truth.
3) Only 38% believed the falsehood that pain medications are ineffective against cancer.
4) 13% thought there is no treatment that is effective in treating cancer.
5) 11% believed that it takes only a positive attitude to defeat cancer.
In sum, the survey shows that the public (the survey was of the American public) is badly informed about the nature of cancer and that most people over estimate how much they know about it. Only 25% of the respondents answered all 5 misconception questions correctly. Further, this may explain why some people are more likely to die of cancer than others.
Having had most of my family lost to cancer I know quite a bit about the subject, and I agree with the survey results that show many people simply do not understand what cancer does to the body. As a results many patients who have cancer may fail to get treatment or may fail to stick with it.
Here are some highlights of the survey
1) The most prevalent misconception was that treating cancer with surgery causes it to spread though out the body (Did you get that one right?). 41% of the respondents mistakenly believed that was true.
2) The second most prevalent misconception was that the medical industry is "withholding a cure for cancer from the public in order to increase their profits." 27% of the people asked that believed it was the truth.
3) Only 38% believed the falsehood that pain medications are ineffective against cancer.
4) 13% thought there is no treatment that is effective in treating cancer.
5) 11% believed that it takes only a positive attitude to defeat cancer.
In sum, the survey shows that the public (the survey was of the American public) is badly informed about the nature of cancer and that most people over estimate how much they know about it. Only 25% of the respondents answered all 5 misconception questions correctly. Further, this may explain why some people are more likely to die of cancer than others.
Phuket Ghosts
The ghosts are coming! The Ghosts are coming! Relax..not here in my mailbox, but in Phuket, Thailand. At least that's what many tourists think. Worries about another tsunami in Phuket is just one reason many Asian tourists are staying away from the famous resort island of Phuket. They also are avoiding it because they fear the ghosts of thousands of victims may be haunting the beaches and bungalows where so many died that day.
This is because of the ancient Chinese superstition that holds that if bodies are not recovered and properly buried, the spirits restlessly wander the world. And too, according to the legends, those spirits may try to drag living beings into their own lost existence.
So some four years after the tsunami, travel specialists say that, in addition to other Asian countries, Taiwanese, Chinese and Korean tourists are avoiding Phuket. Of course the media fuels rumors of the haunting of Phuket, saying that bodies have been seen floating in the waters off the coast.
One Korean newspaper, Sports Korea, recently ran a story about three popular Korean celebrities who were filming a television show in Phuket. They reported that the stars heard "voices at their hotel" and believed they were spirits. The once popular solo Asian traveler has disappeared from Phuket. Now most Asian vacationers in Phuket come in large groups, because they are scared to go alone. The Holiday Inn Resort in Phuket reports a 71% decline in room bookings in the past two months compared to the same months prior to the tsunami. That hotel said that guests from Japan, mainland China and Hong-Kong were down 93%, 91% and 83% respectively.
Business is so bad that many Asian airlines have cut their direct flights to Phuket. This is contrast to western visitors who come in the same numbers as before the tsunami. Where are those Asian traveler going when they avoid Phuket. Japan and South Korea have seen big increases in their tourism, and many attribute it to the spill over from those who would have vacationed in Phuket.
It's interesting how superstitions still rule largely in a modern technological world. Though many of those who fear "ghosts" in Phuket know the concept is illogical, their cultural training rules their heads and they avoid Phuket "just in case" there may really be ghosts. Well, how it? Do you believe in ghosts?
This is because of the ancient Chinese superstition that holds that if bodies are not recovered and properly buried, the spirits restlessly wander the world. And too, according to the legends, those spirits may try to drag living beings into their own lost existence.
So some four years after the tsunami, travel specialists say that, in addition to other Asian countries, Taiwanese, Chinese and Korean tourists are avoiding Phuket. Of course the media fuels rumors of the haunting of Phuket, saying that bodies have been seen floating in the waters off the coast.
One Korean newspaper, Sports Korea, recently ran a story about three popular Korean celebrities who were filming a television show in Phuket. They reported that the stars heard "voices at their hotel" and believed they were spirits. The once popular solo Asian traveler has disappeared from Phuket. Now most Asian vacationers in Phuket come in large groups, because they are scared to go alone. The Holiday Inn Resort in Phuket reports a 71% decline in room bookings in the past two months compared to the same months prior to the tsunami. That hotel said that guests from Japan, mainland China and Hong-Kong were down 93%, 91% and 83% respectively.
Business is so bad that many Asian airlines have cut their direct flights to Phuket. This is contrast to western visitors who come in the same numbers as before the tsunami. Where are those Asian traveler going when they avoid Phuket. Japan and South Korea have seen big increases in their tourism, and many attribute it to the spill over from those who would have vacationed in Phuket.
It's interesting how superstitions still rule largely in a modern technological world. Though many of those who fear "ghosts" in Phuket know the concept is illogical, their cultural training rules their heads and they avoid Phuket "just in case" there may really be ghosts. Well, how it? Do you believe in ghosts?
Top Movie Lines
You probably know I am very selective about movies, watching few and thinking most are boring or inane. But movies have changed the language of modern culture by contributing slang. For better or worse, language here in the U.S. and most other places (Cultural contamination from the idiots in Hollywood) has been influenced by movies.
We get some of our "street talk" from it, and I must say sometimes it can be annoying when overused. Having written this, I must tell you about an article in my newspaper today that discussed what the American Film Institute felt were the 100 top movie quotes, quips, comebacks and catch phrases that have seeped into every day language. here are some of the 100 I think you may recognize.
1) "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn"- (Gone With The Wind)
2) "Here's looking at you, kid."- (Casablanca
3) "I'll be back"- (Terminator)
4) "Show me the money"- (Jerry McGuire)
5) "Do ya feel lucky, punk?"- (Dirty Harry)
6) "I'm mad as Hell, and I am not going to take it anymore!"- (Network)
7) "May the force be with you"- (Star Wars)
8) "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse"-(The Godfather)
9) "It's the stuff that dreams are made of"- (The Maltese Falcon)
10) "I'm the king of the world"- (Titanic)
11) "Love means never having to say you are sorry"-(Love Story)
12) "What we have here is a failure to communicate"-(Cool Hand Luke)
13) "Sure, baby!" (Austin Powers) Any other movie lines you hear repeated when out and about?
What's your favorite movie line?
We get some of our "street talk" from it, and I must say sometimes it can be annoying when overused. Having written this, I must tell you about an article in my newspaper today that discussed what the American Film Institute felt were the 100 top movie quotes, quips, comebacks and catch phrases that have seeped into every day language. here are some of the 100 I think you may recognize.
1) "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn"- (Gone With The Wind)
2) "Here's looking at you, kid."- (Casablanca
3) "I'll be back"- (Terminator)
4) "Show me the money"- (Jerry McGuire)
5) "Do ya feel lucky, punk?"- (Dirty Harry)
6) "I'm mad as Hell, and I am not going to take it anymore!"- (Network)
7) "May the force be with you"- (Star Wars)
8) "I'll make him an offer he can't refuse"-(The Godfather)
9) "It's the stuff that dreams are made of"- (The Maltese Falcon)
10) "I'm the king of the world"- (Titanic)
11) "Love means never having to say you are sorry"-(Love Story)
12) "What we have here is a failure to communicate"-(Cool Hand Luke)
13) "Sure, baby!" (Austin Powers) Any other movie lines you hear repeated when out and about?
What's your favorite movie line?
An Image Worse Than China
There was a poll taken throughout the world recently that gave and interesting result. It shows how George Bush has damaged the image of the U.S., perhaps irreparably. The international poll shoes the United States' popularity in many countries, including long-time allies in Europe, since the election of Bush, is lagging behind even totalitarian China.
The image of the U.S. slipped sharply in 2003 after Bush's one man invasion of Iraq, and two years later has shown few signs of rebounding either in Western Europe or the Muslim nations. "the image has improved only slightly but is still broadly negative," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "It's amazing when you see the European public rating the United States so poorly, especially in comparison with China." Here are some of the highlights of that poll.
1) In Britain, which has always had the closet relationship to the U.S., almost two-thrids of those polled, 65% saw China favorably, compared with 55% who held a positive view of the U.S.
2) In France, 58% of the respondents saw China favorably, compared with 43% who viewed the U.S. that way. The results were almost the same also in Spain and Holland.
3) The United States favorable rating was lowest among the three Muslim countries that are also supposedly U.S. allies- Turkey, Pakistan and Jordan.
Only 19% of those poled there saw the U.S. as a favorable country, and in that region only India viewed the U.S more positively than China. This is just another indication of the destructive power of George Bush. How else could a Communist country that gives little individual freedom be seen as more positive than a nation with the most democratic freedoms ever in the history of the world. that people see China s the hope and the U.S. as a cancer is part of the legacy Bush is creating. Yet, almost half of Americans still support Bush and believe him to be a champion of justice.
Unbelievable, isn't it? During the Clinton years the image of the U.S. abroad was positive almost everywhere on the globe.
The image of the U.S. slipped sharply in 2003 after Bush's one man invasion of Iraq, and two years later has shown few signs of rebounding either in Western Europe or the Muslim nations. "the image has improved only slightly but is still broadly negative," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "It's amazing when you see the European public rating the United States so poorly, especially in comparison with China." Here are some of the highlights of that poll.
1) In Britain, which has always had the closet relationship to the U.S., almost two-thrids of those polled, 65% saw China favorably, compared with 55% who held a positive view of the U.S.
2) In France, 58% of the respondents saw China favorably, compared with 43% who viewed the U.S. that way. The results were almost the same also in Spain and Holland.
3) The United States favorable rating was lowest among the three Muslim countries that are also supposedly U.S. allies- Turkey, Pakistan and Jordan.
Only 19% of those poled there saw the U.S. as a favorable country, and in that region only India viewed the U.S more positively than China. This is just another indication of the destructive power of George Bush. How else could a Communist country that gives little individual freedom be seen as more positive than a nation with the most democratic freedoms ever in the history of the world. that people see China s the hope and the U.S. as a cancer is part of the legacy Bush is creating. Yet, almost half of Americans still support Bush and believe him to be a champion of justice.
Unbelievable, isn't it? During the Clinton years the image of the U.S. abroad was positive almost everywhere on the globe.
An Image Worse Than Chna
There was a poll taken throughout the world recently that gave and interesting result. It shows how George Bush has damaged the image of the U.S., perhaps irreparably. The international poll shoes the United States' popularity in many countries, including long-time allies in Europe, since the election of Bush, is lagging behind even totalitarian China. The image of the U.S. slipped sharply in 2003 after Bush's one man invasion of Iraq, and two years later has shown few signs of rebounding either in Western Europe or the Muslim nations. "the image has improved only slightly but is still broadly negative," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. "It's amazing when you see the European public rating the United States so poorly, especially in comparison with China." Here are some of the highlights of that poll. 1) In Britain, which has always had the closet relationship to the U.S., almost two-thrids of those polled, 65% saw China favorably, compared with 55% who held a positive view of the U.S. 2) In France, 58% of the respondents saw China favorably, compared with 43% who viewed the U.S. that way. The results were almost the same also in Spain and Holland. 3) The United States favorable rating was lowest among the three Muslim countries that are also supposedly U.S. allies- Turkey, Pakistan and Jordan. Only 19% of those poled there saw the U.S. as a favorable country, and in that region only India viewed the U.S more positively than China. This is just another indication of the destructive power of George Bush. How else could a Communist country that gives little individual freedom be seen as more positive than a nation with the most democratic freedoms ever in the history of the world. that people see China s the hope and the U.S. as a cancer is part of the legacy Bush is creating. Yet, almost half of Americans still support Bush and believe him to be a champion of justice. Unbelievable, isn't it? During the Clinton years the image of the U.S. abroad was positive almost everywhere on the globe. Think you had a bad day? No way. It could not possibly be as bad as an unnamed 62 year citizen of Brezovica, Slovenia. It seems that even the Gods harassed that guy on the fateful day of his death. According to the Slovenian news agency STA, he died after lightening struck a metal; cross he was holding during a funeral in his village. That's right! He was struck down from above. The news reports say he died in a hospital Wednesday, several hours after the incident and one other person as slightly injured by the lightening. Now if we could just get Bush to trade his plastic cross for a metal one...
It is true that Moslems were berated for not helping their brothers during the tsunami. They also do not condemn enough the terrorist acts committed. After all it is only a small minority that is involv
It is true that Moslems were berated for not helping their brothers during the tsunami. They also do not condemn enough the terrorist acts committed. After all it is only a small minority that is involv
Duck and Cover
Get ready to "duck and cover", that is, if a survey that was conducted by the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee is an accurate one. There is a 70% chance of an attack somewhere in the world with a "weapon of mass destruction" in the next ten years, arms experts predicted. Eighty five experts in weapons said that with 5 more countries likely to acquire such weapons, the threat of a catastrophic attack is not only real but increasing with time.
This is true despite any increased democratization and stability in some trouble spots in the world, probably because terrorist groups will be more easily able to obtain the lethal weapons. The survey respondents said there is a 16.4 % risk of a nuclear attack within the next 5 years and a 29.2% risk over the next 10 years.
Asked to consider the possibility of a nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack on any nation, they concluded the chance to be one in four to as much as 50 % over five years and 70 % over 10 years. The most likely scenario of attack is the radiological one, with a "dirty bomb" (that kills people with radiation but does not destroy property).
They concluded there is a 40% probability of that happening within the next 10 years. And what is the recommendation of the 84 experts in preventing this? It is the feeble one that is unlikely to have any affect on stopping terrorists groups- to increase spending and attention world wide on non-proliferation programs.
Though only the U.S. Russia, Britain, France and China have admitted to having nuclear weapons, three others-India, Pakistan and Israel are known to have them. All three are considered far less stable and likely to use such weapons if threatened. Too North Korea, a mad man in the world and a likely source for terrorists to obtain such weapons is close to developing the weapons.
It all makes one feel a little less secure about the future, particularly with the current political leadership in the U.S and some other nations. Can you say "Duck and Cover"?
This is true despite any increased democratization and stability in some trouble spots in the world, probably because terrorist groups will be more easily able to obtain the lethal weapons. The survey respondents said there is a 16.4 % risk of a nuclear attack within the next 5 years and a 29.2% risk over the next 10 years.
Asked to consider the possibility of a nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological attack on any nation, they concluded the chance to be one in four to as much as 50 % over five years and 70 % over 10 years. The most likely scenario of attack is the radiological one, with a "dirty bomb" (that kills people with radiation but does not destroy property).
They concluded there is a 40% probability of that happening within the next 10 years. And what is the recommendation of the 84 experts in preventing this? It is the feeble one that is unlikely to have any affect on stopping terrorists groups- to increase spending and attention world wide on non-proliferation programs.
Though only the U.S. Russia, Britain, France and China have admitted to having nuclear weapons, three others-India, Pakistan and Israel are known to have them. All three are considered far less stable and likely to use such weapons if threatened. Too North Korea, a mad man in the world and a likely source for terrorists to obtain such weapons is close to developing the weapons.
It all makes one feel a little less secure about the future, particularly with the current political leadership in the U.S and some other nations. Can you say "Duck and Cover"?
Expanding Deserts
Forget the Global Warming concerns for few minutes. Let's think about Expanding Deserts? That's right. Though it isn't a trendy topic like global warming, the world's deserts are expanding faster than the earth is cooling, and it is just as big a problem for humans. Millions of people could lose their homes and livelihoods as the world's deserts expand because of climate change and the destruction by humans to the earth.
The First Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report warns that approximately 60 % of the world's ecosystem supporting life on Earth is being degraded or used unsustainably, and that the consequences of degradation could grow significantly worse in the next fifty years. This report comes on the eve of the 11th anniversary of a United Nations agreement to tackle the problem of spreading deserts.
Scientists say that up to 20 % of "dry lands" (deserts) have suffered some loss of plant life or economic use as a consequence of desertification. Besides the popular global warming idea we all hear so much, human factors are contributing even more to the growth of deserts and the decline of the ecosystems within our deserts. Over-grazing, over-farming, misuse of irrigation, and unsustainable demands of a growing world population are fueling the growth of deserts. Without strong efforts to stop this growth (particularly in poorer areas of the world with the biggest deserts), the areas with growing deserts will see a tremendous decline in development, increased health problems (mostly from dust storms), poverty, lessened farm production, and a growth in infant mortality rates.
This report also said that those problems have a ripple effect on non deserts areas as well, a causing a degradation there too. What does the report recommend to halt desertification? Alternative livelihoods should be employed, such as ecotoruism and fish farming as an alternative to crop farming on land. Controlling population growth, better government actions, improved management of crops and irrigation, and adopting alternative sources of energy will also help.
The First Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report warns that approximately 60 % of the world's ecosystem supporting life on Earth is being degraded or used unsustainably, and that the consequences of degradation could grow significantly worse in the next fifty years. This report comes on the eve of the 11th anniversary of a United Nations agreement to tackle the problem of spreading deserts.
Scientists say that up to 20 % of "dry lands" (deserts) have suffered some loss of plant life or economic use as a consequence of desertification. Besides the popular global warming idea we all hear so much, human factors are contributing even more to the growth of deserts and the decline of the ecosystems within our deserts. Over-grazing, over-farming, misuse of irrigation, and unsustainable demands of a growing world population are fueling the growth of deserts. Without strong efforts to stop this growth (particularly in poorer areas of the world with the biggest deserts), the areas with growing deserts will see a tremendous decline in development, increased health problems (mostly from dust storms), poverty, lessened farm production, and a growth in infant mortality rates.
This report also said that those problems have a ripple effect on non deserts areas as well, a causing a degradation there too. What does the report recommend to halt desertification? Alternative livelihoods should be employed, such as ecotoruism and fish farming as an alternative to crop farming on land. Controlling population growth, better government actions, improved management of crops and irrigation, and adopting alternative sources of energy will also help.
Hollywood Films
Here's a new poll result that I like! It's about Hollywood films, those movies I just don't really like very often. And now it seems more Americans agree with my view. According to an Associated Press-AOL poll of 1,000 adults taken this past week, most Americans think that movie stars are poor role models and most films that are made today just aren't very good.
The first proposition is not hard to believe, as Russell Crowe's recent telephone toss at a hotel employee illustrates. Whether it's actor Christian Slater grabbing the buttocks of a woman in aNew York grocery store, Winona Ryder's conviction for shoplifting or Hugh Grant being caught im a car with a prostitute, these occurrences help explain the drop in attendance at American movie theaters (But why are those dumb Hollywood films so popular in most other countries?) Here are some other statistics from the poll.
1) 73% of the respondents said they prefer to stay home and watch a movie on their DVD player, VCR or pay-per view because they can easily tune out at home than in a theater and do something more productive when the film is bad.
2) 47% said that movies are getting worse, while only 30% said they were getting better (perhaps the brain dead 30% of the audience?)
3) the drop in attendance at theaters this past year was a 9%, a record drop in attendance declines for movies.
4) respondents said they most liked comedies, followed by dramas and action adventure movies. Hmmmm Comedies a first preference. It makes sense.
The first proposition is not hard to believe, as Russell Crowe's recent telephone toss at a hotel employee illustrates. Whether it's actor Christian Slater grabbing the buttocks of a woman in aNew York grocery store, Winona Ryder's conviction for shoplifting or Hugh Grant being caught im a car with a prostitute, these occurrences help explain the drop in attendance at American movie theaters (But why are those dumb Hollywood films so popular in most other countries?) Here are some other statistics from the poll.
1) 73% of the respondents said they prefer to stay home and watch a movie on their DVD player, VCR or pay-per view because they can easily tune out at home than in a theater and do something more productive when the film is bad.
2) 47% said that movies are getting worse, while only 30% said they were getting better (perhaps the brain dead 30% of the audience?)
3) the drop in attendance at theaters this past year was a 9%, a record drop in attendance declines for movies.
4) respondents said they most liked comedies, followed by dramas and action adventure movies. Hmmmm Comedies a first preference. It makes sense.
Diet Drink War
The diet soft drink wars are on now. I notice many changes in the battle for Coke, Pepsi and other soft drink makers to distinguish their diet soda products and to expand consumers with new drinks at lower prices.
I drink very few regular soft drinks, but do partake of diet drinks (to avoid the sugar and calories of regular ones). Now there seems to be an endless line of new, better tasting diet drinks,. Pepsi introduced a "Diet Lime Pepsi" a year or so ago and it is actually refreshing and without little "diet taste".
Coke has copied that success with a Diet Coke Lime, equal in taste to the Pepsi product. There is also a new "Coke One" diet drink that uses the more expensive artificial sweetener, Splenda. In addition many drink manufacturers are putting out new product lines and coupons for reduced prices. I have gotten several free 2 litter Diet Lime Pepsi coupons just this last week, as the soft drink companies try to get consumers to taste their new products.
Having written all of that, I ask you. Are diet drinks readily available in your grocery stores? Are they popular with consumers (It is a huge part of the soft drink market in the U.S.)? And is there a bigger, less nasty tasting selection of diet soda's to purchase in your favorite grocery store?
I drink very few regular soft drinks, but do partake of diet drinks (to avoid the sugar and calories of regular ones). Now there seems to be an endless line of new, better tasting diet drinks,. Pepsi introduced a "Diet Lime Pepsi" a year or so ago and it is actually refreshing and without little "diet taste".
Coke has copied that success with a Diet Coke Lime, equal in taste to the Pepsi product. There is also a new "Coke One" diet drink that uses the more expensive artificial sweetener, Splenda. In addition many drink manufacturers are putting out new product lines and coupons for reduced prices. I have gotten several free 2 litter Diet Lime Pepsi coupons just this last week, as the soft drink companies try to get consumers to taste their new products.
Having written all of that, I ask you. Are diet drinks readily available in your grocery stores? Are they popular with consumers (It is a huge part of the soft drink market in the U.S.)? And is there a bigger, less nasty tasting selection of diet soda's to purchase in your favorite grocery store?
Bad Girls Gone Wild...SHHH Cards
Forget the "bad boys" for a few minutes. Today I want to write about the bad girls. That is, about the pre and teenage girls who have suddenly become very mean spirited and criminal. It seems that more and more in the U.S (and perhaps elsewhere?) the news headlines are about girl-on-girl violence.
But why? Do girls now have the same violent instincts as boys? Apparently that is the trend. According to statistics from the FBI the number of girls arrested for aggravated assault has doubled over he last 20 years. The number of boys the same age, arrested for the aggravated assault rose only only slightly. Girls had a125% rise in arrests for possession of weapons while boys had a 22% increase.
In the U.S today, one in three juveniles arrested (a huge percentage of crime in the U.S. is committed by juveniles) for violent crimes are females. So today, little girls are not always made of "sugar and spice". As a teacher that girls fight more than do boys and that their fights tend to bear grudges that carry on long after the initial confrontation. So why?
I think part of it is the change in sex roles today. Girl "heroes" in silly Hollywood films are often projected as being violent people, not helpless damsel's in distress. While the old cultural message was for boys to be aggressive, now Tv, movies, and literature glorify the girl as a violent creature.
Young girls see this and imitate it. They are barraged with images of "sheroes", laughably unrealistic in many instances, but so are many of the male hero images that have always been projected. Does this message from the culture impel some girls to be aggressive, to think that a good role model can be a violent one?
Of course the culture can not be entirely blamed for this. Parents who are close to their kids and who set good examples and give their time to them, will likely not produce a violent girl. But that's another subject (the irresponsible parent). Any comments on this?
Get ready for SHHH cards! SHHH cards are the antidote to those loud, boorish cell users who pollute innocent ears with their endless public cell phone yaking. An online agency called The Society for handHeld Hushing (SHHH) is now offering annoyed citizens download able notes that can be filed out and handed to one of those cell phone jerks who speaks too loudly about something too personal. More than 400,000 downloads have been sent to sufferers already. Here's one example of a SHHH card you might want to download.
Dear Cell User, We are aware your ongoing conversation about YOUR HUSBAND"S VASECTOMY is very important to you, but it doesn't interest me in the least. In fact, your babbling disregard for others is more than a little annoying.
Of course the rude cell user is likely to react rudely to the humorous request that he or she shut up, so one who gives a SHHH note must take that into account. Oh..wait....Maybe I am giving those cell abusers too much credit by assuming they can read and understand a SHHH note
But why? Do girls now have the same violent instincts as boys? Apparently that is the trend. According to statistics from the FBI the number of girls arrested for aggravated assault has doubled over he last 20 years. The number of boys the same age, arrested for the aggravated assault rose only only slightly. Girls had a125% rise in arrests for possession of weapons while boys had a 22% increase.
In the U.S today, one in three juveniles arrested (a huge percentage of crime in the U.S. is committed by juveniles) for violent crimes are females. So today, little girls are not always made of "sugar and spice". As a teacher that girls fight more than do boys and that their fights tend to bear grudges that carry on long after the initial confrontation. So why?
I think part of it is the change in sex roles today. Girl "heroes" in silly Hollywood films are often projected as being violent people, not helpless damsel's in distress. While the old cultural message was for boys to be aggressive, now Tv, movies, and literature glorify the girl as a violent creature.
Young girls see this and imitate it. They are barraged with images of "sheroes", laughably unrealistic in many instances, but so are many of the male hero images that have always been projected. Does this message from the culture impel some girls to be aggressive, to think that a good role model can be a violent one?
Of course the culture can not be entirely blamed for this. Parents who are close to their kids and who set good examples and give their time to them, will likely not produce a violent girl. But that's another subject (the irresponsible parent). Any comments on this?
Get ready for SHHH cards! SHHH cards are the antidote to those loud, boorish cell users who pollute innocent ears with their endless public cell phone yaking. An online agency called The Society for handHeld Hushing (SHHH) is now offering annoyed citizens download able notes that can be filed out and handed to one of those cell phone jerks who speaks too loudly about something too personal. More than 400,000 downloads have been sent to sufferers already. Here's one example of a SHHH card you might want to download.
Dear Cell User, We are aware your ongoing conversation about YOUR HUSBAND"S VASECTOMY is very important to you, but it doesn't interest me in the least. In fact, your babbling disregard for others is more than a little annoying.
Of course the rude cell user is likely to react rudely to the humorous request that he or she shut up, so one who gives a SHHH note must take that into account. Oh..wait....Maybe I am giving those cell abusers too much credit by assuming they can read and understand a SHHH note
Inventions
I was thinking about inventions today. Well, more about technological changes, which led me to think about inventions. We have more new inventions and faster rates of inventing today than at any previous time in history. So you an I are witness to the "Age of Invention" (I made that up, so don't quote me).
Yet I was thinking about the nature of the inventions today. Most seem less impacting than in previous centuries, eras or decades. We don't see an invention like the automobile or a miracle drug like penicillin. Instead we have inventions that take us small steps forward, rather than leaps.
For example, the "upgrades' in entertainment technology and cell phones. These are amusing and comforting to people, but not really important to their general welfare. To some extent this may be because most of the leaps we are capable of discovering have already been invented, and other generations will more likely make the leap inventions. Any comment about this rambling I am doing?
How about the world's greatest invention (I think it was the invention of the printing press that had the most impact on the world and to the future of it)? What is your list of the top 3 inventions? And what about the greatest invention of the 20th century? Was that the automobile? Antibiotics? Radio? Telephones (But God! Not that ---- cell phone) TV? The computer? Or do you have a another one you think is more important than those?
Yet I was thinking about the nature of the inventions today. Most seem less impacting than in previous centuries, eras or decades. We don't see an invention like the automobile or a miracle drug like penicillin. Instead we have inventions that take us small steps forward, rather than leaps.
For example, the "upgrades' in entertainment technology and cell phones. These are amusing and comforting to people, but not really important to their general welfare. To some extent this may be because most of the leaps we are capable of discovering have already been invented, and other generations will more likely make the leap inventions. Any comment about this rambling I am doing?
How about the world's greatest invention (I think it was the invention of the printing press that had the most impact on the world and to the future of it)? What is your list of the top 3 inventions? And what about the greatest invention of the 20th century? Was that the automobile? Antibiotics? Radio? Telephones (But God! Not that ---- cell phone) TV? The computer? Or do you have a another one you think is more important than those?
Monitoring Company E mail
I am amazed at how many foreigners E mail from their work sites. That is, using company E mail sources and company time for personal reasons. It is very rare here in the U.S. because to so so is often grounds for being fired. The reason is not so much that companies are worried about the employees wasting time at work, but rather about their "trade secrets" leaking out in those kinds of E mailings.
To stop this, more than 1/3 of companies with 1000 or more employees have special workers who do nothing but monitor the E mail of employees, and more and more are doing this. Another third of the companies in the U.S. have software installed on company computers to scan for any E mail that contains corporate secrets or content deemed "offensive".
It is legal for U.S companies to monitor employee, Instant Messaging, E mail and Internet use on corporate equipment and networks. But that seems not to be the case in most other countries, or perhaps, the companies just don't use that practice.
With the increase in monitoring more firms are establishing policies for electronic communication in the workplace, and almost all businesses here have policies governing E mail and Internet use. Some now are posting rules about "blogging" on company time.
On the surface it appears that the companies here are "spying" on their employees. But I think it wise to stop the practice of using company E mail to communicate informally with friends while at work. E-mail today is the electronic equivalent of DNA evidence.
It never dies! If a person E mails another he or she can expect the possibility of the content to resurface some other time. So many anti trust cases and other corporate law suits utilize E mail in evidence presented to courts.
To stop this, more than 1/3 of companies with 1000 or more employees have special workers who do nothing but monitor the E mail of employees, and more and more are doing this. Another third of the companies in the U.S. have software installed on company computers to scan for any E mail that contains corporate secrets or content deemed "offensive".
It is legal for U.S companies to monitor employee, Instant Messaging, E mail and Internet use on corporate equipment and networks. But that seems not to be the case in most other countries, or perhaps, the companies just don't use that practice.
With the increase in monitoring more firms are establishing policies for electronic communication in the workplace, and almost all businesses here have policies governing E mail and Internet use. Some now are posting rules about "blogging" on company time.
On the surface it appears that the companies here are "spying" on their employees. But I think it wise to stop the practice of using company E mail to communicate informally with friends while at work. E-mail today is the electronic equivalent of DNA evidence.
It never dies! If a person E mails another he or she can expect the possibility of the content to resurface some other time. So many anti trust cases and other corporate law suits utilize E mail in evidence presented to courts.
Advertising Perscriptive Medications
I have noticed something on TV and in newspapers here recently that is unusual, and in a way disturbing. It's the drug companies advertising their prescription drugs in those mediums. That's right! They place ads glorifying a drug that a patient can only buy with a doctor's prescription. Is wonder if this is happening elsewhere or just in the U.S.? Since the consumer is not allowed to buy prescription medications unless the doctor authorizes the purchase with a prescription, why place ads on TV and in the written news mediums urging the patient to use those drugs?
It implies that the physician must either be too incompetent or lacking knowledge about what medications to use for his patient.
Odd isn't it? The doctor sees the patient and tests him or her. Surely he would know what medicine to prescribe and would not need the "help" of drug companies giving advice to patients to 'ask" their doctor if that medicine isn't the best one.
So that explains why the pharmaceutical companies tell consumers about their drugs- so they will badger their doctors to prescribe it, even when it is not beneficial. Those drugs bring big profits to drug companies. If doctors don't like them, why not convince the patient to ask the doctors to give it to them anyway?
Doctors here are so afraid of lawsuits from patients that they may well patronize a patient by writing a prescription for the medication, even though they know it is of no or little benefit, and even though a better treatment will be lost to the use of the drug the patient has been convinced (by the TV and written medium ads) is the right treatment. After all, doctors are sued so often it might be good policy for the doctor to give the patient what he or she wants.
It implies that the physician must either be too incompetent or lacking knowledge about what medications to use for his patient.
Odd isn't it? The doctor sees the patient and tests him or her. Surely he would know what medicine to prescribe and would not need the "help" of drug companies giving advice to patients to 'ask" their doctor if that medicine isn't the best one.
So that explains why the pharmaceutical companies tell consumers about their drugs- so they will badger their doctors to prescribe it, even when it is not beneficial. Those drugs bring big profits to drug companies. If doctors don't like them, why not convince the patient to ask the doctors to give it to them anyway?
Doctors here are so afraid of lawsuits from patients that they may well patronize a patient by writing a prescription for the medication, even though they know it is of no or little benefit, and even though a better treatment will be lost to the use of the drug the patient has been convinced (by the TV and written medium ads) is the right treatment. After all, doctors are sued so often it might be good policy for the doctor to give the patient what he or she wants.
Help From DNA
We hear about DNA constantly, how it is the key to identifying people, traits, curing disease and more. No doubt breaking the DNA code was a huge breakthrough in science In Israel there is an interesting DNA experiment going on that may reveal quite a bit about genetics. Israeli researchers at the Louis Borick Natural Medicine Research Center in Jerusalem have germinated a date palm tree sapling from seeds 2000 year old, hoping its ancient DNA can reveal medical qualities to benefit humans.
The scientists say they used seeds found in an archeological excavation at Masada, the famous biblical fortress where Jewish rebels choose suicide in stead of being conquered by Roman legions in A.D.73. These sees are the oldest ever brought back to life. (by about 100 years!). The seedling is now about one third meter high and one of its leaves has been sent for DNA analysis to reveal whatever information may be useful to medical researchers, that may have disappeared in the past 1000 years.
There is hope some clue ay be found to aid in treating cancer and other terminal diseases because the date tree of that time was supposedly highly medicinal and were often used in the treatment of tumors. Until the DNA results come back they researchers know little about the differences between this ancient date palm and current ones, but they already see physical differences.
For example, the leaves of the 2000 seedling plant are much longer than current date palm tree leaves. If the plant survives and is a female (only female date plants produce fruit) it will take 30 years or so to produce fruit. The fact that the seedling survived for so long may mean it holds other DNA cues that humans can use for extending the lives of people.
It's too bad we hear so little of this kind of work and so much stupidity in the media- the Michael Jackson trial, runaway brides and the like. Let's hope those stories don't live as long as the 2000 date palm plant did.
The scientists say they used seeds found in an archeological excavation at Masada, the famous biblical fortress where Jewish rebels choose suicide in stead of being conquered by Roman legions in A.D.73. These sees are the oldest ever brought back to life. (by about 100 years!). The seedling is now about one third meter high and one of its leaves has been sent for DNA analysis to reveal whatever information may be useful to medical researchers, that may have disappeared in the past 1000 years.
There is hope some clue ay be found to aid in treating cancer and other terminal diseases because the date tree of that time was supposedly highly medicinal and were often used in the treatment of tumors. Until the DNA results come back they researchers know little about the differences between this ancient date palm and current ones, but they already see physical differences.
For example, the leaves of the 2000 seedling plant are much longer than current date palm tree leaves. If the plant survives and is a female (only female date plants produce fruit) it will take 30 years or so to produce fruit. The fact that the seedling survived for so long may mean it holds other DNA cues that humans can use for extending the lives of people.
It's too bad we hear so little of this kind of work and so much stupidity in the media- the Michael Jackson trial, runaway brides and the like. Let's hope those stories don't live as long as the 2000 date palm plant did.
Religious Intolerance
Religious intolerance worries me. We see how bad it impacted in the the Islamic world, how hateful and antagonistic some Islamic groups are. In my own country I also notice a greater intolerance by right-wing Christian sects, whether that is a reaction to Muslim hatred for non Muslims or something that has come about on it's own, it has already impacted the U.S. greatly, particularly with the George Bush admisnistartions.
It is partly because of the intolerant Christian groups vote for him that Bush was elected twice. A recent provocation is the alleged disparaging of the Muslim Koran in Iraq. It appears that some American soldiers expressed their hate for Islam by showing disrespect for the Koran.
In reaction critics have assailed the U.S. for this behavior. Yet not one Muslim and few non Muslims ever mention their display of intolerance toward the Christian and other non Muslim religions. They call non Muslims infidels, Christianity "a dirty religion", vow to kill all disagree with Muslim interpretation of theology, kidnap and behead "infidels and on and on. Yet they are upset because some American soldiers showed disrespect, toward the Koran? I
t appears their disrespect is far greater and may be the seeds for the bad behavior toward the Koran. All of this is a reflection of the "religious wars" that have appeared throughout the globe. That single problem may transcend all others in the years ahead. For their is nothing more difficult than trying to convince one religion it must be tolerant of the others.
It is partly because of the intolerant Christian groups vote for him that Bush was elected twice. A recent provocation is the alleged disparaging of the Muslim Koran in Iraq. It appears that some American soldiers expressed their hate for Islam by showing disrespect for the Koran.
In reaction critics have assailed the U.S. for this behavior. Yet not one Muslim and few non Muslims ever mention their display of intolerance toward the Christian and other non Muslim religions. They call non Muslims infidels, Christianity "a dirty religion", vow to kill all disagree with Muslim interpretation of theology, kidnap and behead "infidels and on and on. Yet they are upset because some American soldiers showed disrespect, toward the Koran? I
t appears their disrespect is far greater and may be the seeds for the bad behavior toward the Koran. All of this is a reflection of the "religious wars" that have appeared throughout the globe. That single problem may transcend all others in the years ahead. For their is nothing more difficult than trying to convince one religion it must be tolerant of the others.
Bad Advertising for Kids
Here's the latest negative on what many think is a poorly programmed medium-TV. A new study for Health Communication, a trade journal, says that not TV is confusing kids about nutrition too. It's bad enough that TV feasts on low level, dumbed down shows, but now it's sending the wrong signals about nutrition.
In short, it is making it harder for kids to understand what's a healthy diet and what's not. For example, the study cites the phenomenon in which kids equate terms like "diet" and "fat free" with healthy because TV commercials equate weight loss benefits to nutritional benefits.
This ignores the fact that what's good for an adult trying to lose weight won't necessarily meet the nutritional needs of growing children. Too, kids are even less analytical at what they see than adults, so the pabulum and oversimplifications of TV information given to kids is often taken as gospel.
The study, conducted at the University of Illinois, says "Given the plentitutde of advertisements on television touting the health benefits of even the most nutritionally bankrupt of foods, child viewers are likely to become confused about which foods are in fact healthy." By convincing kids that eating diet foods and trendy, but nutritionally empty foods, kids may be deprived of the nutrients needed for growth.
The study asked 100 children in the first through third grade to answer a questionnaire that assessed their nutritional knowledge, nutritional reasoning and their television viewing. They completed the questionnaire once at the start of the study and again six weeks later.
The results! It showed that the more TV the kids watched, the more confused they were about which foods are and aren't going to help them grow up strong and healthy. Too often they selected the diet and fat free choices rather than the nutritionally sound ones. Too, the study showed that increased TV viewing made the kids less capable of sound nutritional reasoning.
It does not surprise me, given the junk that dominates most TV channels. No one ever had to think too much watching TV.
In short, it is making it harder for kids to understand what's a healthy diet and what's not. For example, the study cites the phenomenon in which kids equate terms like "diet" and "fat free" with healthy because TV commercials equate weight loss benefits to nutritional benefits.
This ignores the fact that what's good for an adult trying to lose weight won't necessarily meet the nutritional needs of growing children. Too, kids are even less analytical at what they see than adults, so the pabulum and oversimplifications of TV information given to kids is often taken as gospel.
The study, conducted at the University of Illinois, says "Given the plentitutde of advertisements on television touting the health benefits of even the most nutritionally bankrupt of foods, child viewers are likely to become confused about which foods are in fact healthy." By convincing kids that eating diet foods and trendy, but nutritionally empty foods, kids may be deprived of the nutrients needed for growth.
The study asked 100 children in the first through third grade to answer a questionnaire that assessed their nutritional knowledge, nutritional reasoning and their television viewing. They completed the questionnaire once at the start of the study and again six weeks later.
The results! It showed that the more TV the kids watched, the more confused they were about which foods are and aren't going to help them grow up strong and healthy. Too often they selected the diet and fat free choices rather than the nutritionally sound ones. Too, the study showed that increased TV viewing made the kids less capable of sound nutritional reasoning.
It does not surprise me, given the junk that dominates most TV channels. No one ever had to think too much watching TV.
Changing U.S. Demographics
The U.S. Census bureau issued a report showing why the U.S. is becoming a Hispanic nation. Well..slowly but still transforming itself that way because of massive illegal immigration here. Hispanics now constitute well over half of the total population growth from 2007 to 2008 and one of very seven people in the U.S. is from Mexico or some other Hispanic country.
Not only that! The trend will continue because the Bush administration and Obama administartions have encouraged illegal immigration and because of a very high birth rate of Hispanic immigrants.
This is not a bad thing under normal circumstances. Immigration is what keeps the U.S. alive and growing, and many immigrants bring talent and brain power to the U.S. But in this case, the majority of the growth is in uneducated peasants who walk into the U.S. and put af drain on social services. The population growth for Asians ran second to Hispanics, but that growth is far more in legal and highly educated immigrants.
The good part of the tremendous immigration here is it infuses "new blood". "If we didn't have those elements, we would be moving into a situation like Japan and Europe, where the populations are graying in a way that is very alarming and endangering their productivity and even endangering their social security systems,"said Lewis Goodman, an expert from American University on Latin-American relations.
The population of America is changing it's graphics with Hispanics now the largest minority in the U.S. at 44 million. The black population is 39.2 million and Asian population at 14 million. In fact, the size of the hispanic population rose in nearly every state in the U.S. and the census bureau predicts that Caucasians will become a minority group to Hispanics by 2050 if current immigration continues.
The trick is to shift that Hispanic growth to more educated Hispanics and away from the illiterate immigrant peasant who is far and away the typical Hispanic immigrant. So far, few politicians are interested in seeing that happen. Too many Hispanic votes would be lost if the structure were tampered with.
Not only that! The trend will continue because the Bush administration and Obama administartions have encouraged illegal immigration and because of a very high birth rate of Hispanic immigrants.
This is not a bad thing under normal circumstances. Immigration is what keeps the U.S. alive and growing, and many immigrants bring talent and brain power to the U.S. But in this case, the majority of the growth is in uneducated peasants who walk into the U.S. and put af drain on social services. The population growth for Asians ran second to Hispanics, but that growth is far more in legal and highly educated immigrants.
The good part of the tremendous immigration here is it infuses "new blood". "If we didn't have those elements, we would be moving into a situation like Japan and Europe, where the populations are graying in a way that is very alarming and endangering their productivity and even endangering their social security systems,"said Lewis Goodman, an expert from American University on Latin-American relations.
The population of America is changing it's graphics with Hispanics now the largest minority in the U.S. at 44 million. The black population is 39.2 million and Asian population at 14 million. In fact, the size of the hispanic population rose in nearly every state in the U.S. and the census bureau predicts that Caucasians will become a minority group to Hispanics by 2050 if current immigration continues.
The trick is to shift that Hispanic growth to more educated Hispanics and away from the illiterate immigrant peasant who is far and away the typical Hispanic immigrant. So far, few politicians are interested in seeing that happen. Too many Hispanic votes would be lost if the structure were tampered with.
Anger Management
Is it better to show your anger or hold it in? That's a question that's hard to answer for many. I suppose the answer depends on the personality of the person who is confronted and the situation. But we all have our own ways of dealing with anger. For me, being a laid back and largely un-angerable (hmmmmm This may not be a word) person, it is to defuse a situation before anger ever comes.
Humor is a good device for that, because we all like to laugh. Having written this, there is one more factor in the question of anger management. that is, the age of the person who is being angered. Are older people wiser, or are younger ones just-not necessarily dumb, but not smart enough yet in the ways of the world to know when to fight their battles? In other words, does age and experience make us better at regulating our emotion when we are mad? Anyone who is observant would have to say "yes'.
Younger people are more likely to yell and argue while older ones tend to shrug off the irritation and save emotional display until absolutely necessary. I think the older we get the better we are at picking our battles and regulating our responses to irritations (This computer makes me --- ---- mad! See, I regulated...).
In general, apart from those kinds of people who are "always mad, the older we are the fewer interpersonal problems, less negative feelings and less destructive behavior we feel. We "mellow" with age or maybe when we are younger we just haven't learned yet how to suppress and eliminate angry feelings.
Do you agree or not? Further, is the proposition that it's best "to actively deal with tensions by discussing (sometimes angrily) them and trying to figure them out", or is it better to just ignore all but the important ones? Uh..if you don't answer I promise not to get mad at you.....
Humor is a good device for that, because we all like to laugh. Having written this, there is one more factor in the question of anger management. that is, the age of the person who is being angered. Are older people wiser, or are younger ones just-not necessarily dumb, but not smart enough yet in the ways of the world to know when to fight their battles? In other words, does age and experience make us better at regulating our emotion when we are mad? Anyone who is observant would have to say "yes'.
Younger people are more likely to yell and argue while older ones tend to shrug off the irritation and save emotional display until absolutely necessary. I think the older we get the better we are at picking our battles and regulating our responses to irritations (This computer makes me --- ---- mad! See, I regulated...).
In general, apart from those kinds of people who are "always mad, the older we are the fewer interpersonal problems, less negative feelings and less destructive behavior we feel. We "mellow" with age or maybe when we are younger we just haven't learned yet how to suppress and eliminate angry feelings.
Do you agree or not? Further, is the proposition that it's best "to actively deal with tensions by discussing (sometimes angrily) them and trying to figure them out", or is it better to just ignore all but the important ones? Uh..if you don't answer I promise not to get mad at you.....
Insomnia
Felling sleepy? Wake up! I haven't yet begun to bore you with this blog. But then maybe your yawning isn't my fault. Maybe you didn't sleep well last night. If not, this E mail is right for you because it is about the results of research done on 40,000 men and women in Taiwan. to find how social factors effect insomnia.
The participants answered questions about their marital status, employment, educational attainment, household income and number of children living in the home. Insomnia symptoms were rated on a scale of from 1 to 5. Here are some of the key results.
1) Overall, women averaged 1.25 points higher on the insomnia scale than men regardless of socioeconomic level.
2) A higher educational level may help women sleep better at night while men seem to have more sleeping problems when educated better.
3) Women are twice as likely to suffer from insomnia than are men.
4) Both men and women who exercise regularly tend to sleep better.
5) Among the social factors that produced insomnia in both sexes are: divorce or separation, older age, poor health, smoking, low income and living with children at home. Non of these seem surprising, in contrast to the educational aspect affecting women.
I guess th....Oh, you're sleeping. Those researchers should study the effects of my E mail on sleep, as well.
The participants answered questions about their marital status, employment, educational attainment, household income and number of children living in the home. Insomnia symptoms were rated on a scale of from 1 to 5. Here are some of the key results.
1) Overall, women averaged 1.25 points higher on the insomnia scale than men regardless of socioeconomic level.
2) A higher educational level may help women sleep better at night while men seem to have more sleeping problems when educated better.
3) Women are twice as likely to suffer from insomnia than are men.
4) Both men and women who exercise regularly tend to sleep better.
5) Among the social factors that produced insomnia in both sexes are: divorce or separation, older age, poor health, smoking, low income and living with children at home. Non of these seem surprising, in contrast to the educational aspect affecting women.
I guess th....Oh, you're sleeping. Those researchers should study the effects of my E mail on sleep, as well.
Informing the Patient of a Terminal Disease
Something about an unpleasant subject today- being told by the doctor when one is to die after a doctor has disclosed a terminal illness. Having lost many family members to terminal cancer the short news article about the subject I saw caught my eye the other day.
I thought you might also be curious about this, so here is what I read. While most cancer doctors are straight forward in telling their patients if their illnesses are life ending, it seems few are willing to say how long they are likely to live (I remember asking directly about my mom, dad and brother and the physician giving a quick, and as it turned out, accurate, diagnosis as to when the cancer would end each of their lives).
A survey of 12000 cancer doctors from the United States essentially asked each how they communicate with patients when death was expected within 6 to 12 months. 559 doctors who responded to the survey and here are some of the revelations.
1) 98% of the respondents said they tell their terminally ill patients that their cancers will eventually cause their deaths, but only 5% reported that they "always" give the patients an estimate of time left to live.
2) 75% of those same doctors said they themselves would want an estimate of time left if they had terminal cancer.
3) 27% of the cancer doctors said they had been taught in medical school how to discuss prognosis (well, aren't doctors notoriously bad in personal relations?) with their patients.
4) 80% had no training or said training they did have was inadequate. What this means is that when a family member contracts a terminal disease, the doctor treating is liable to not know how to relate the personal side or is unwilling to do so ( afraid of being wrong in reference to the time frame given).
This confirms my own experience in dealing with physicians. It is necessary to be blunt, almost clinical with them if one is to extract the best information about this terrible subject. A patient and family members are helped greatly when a realistic "guess" about the duration of the disease is given. But it seems now that the patient must pull that from the doctor, if he or she is to get it.
I thought you might also be curious about this, so here is what I read. While most cancer doctors are straight forward in telling their patients if their illnesses are life ending, it seems few are willing to say how long they are likely to live (I remember asking directly about my mom, dad and brother and the physician giving a quick, and as it turned out, accurate, diagnosis as to when the cancer would end each of their lives).
A survey of 12000 cancer doctors from the United States essentially asked each how they communicate with patients when death was expected within 6 to 12 months. 559 doctors who responded to the survey and here are some of the revelations.
1) 98% of the respondents said they tell their terminally ill patients that their cancers will eventually cause their deaths, but only 5% reported that they "always" give the patients an estimate of time left to live.
2) 75% of those same doctors said they themselves would want an estimate of time left if they had terminal cancer.
3) 27% of the cancer doctors said they had been taught in medical school how to discuss prognosis (well, aren't doctors notoriously bad in personal relations?) with their patients.
4) 80% had no training or said training they did have was inadequate. What this means is that when a family member contracts a terminal disease, the doctor treating is liable to not know how to relate the personal side or is unwilling to do so ( afraid of being wrong in reference to the time frame given).
This confirms my own experience in dealing with physicians. It is necessary to be blunt, almost clinical with them if one is to extract the best information about this terrible subject. A patient and family members are helped greatly when a realistic "guess" about the duration of the disease is given. But it seems now that the patient must pull that from the doctor, if he or she is to get it.
Predictors of Obesity
Out for discussion is research on one of the biggest concerns among people everywhere- what are the critical times in a person's life that determine whether he or she will be obese throughout life. The annual European Conference on Obesity Research says there is evidence that people's weight at three periods of childhood may be critical in setting them up to be fat in adulthood. The three stages are:
1) being born either too big or too small
2) the early appearance of "puppy fat" and
3) tubbiness in teenage hood are the best indicators of obesity in adulthood.
Ergo, attempts should be made to identify each stage as it appears and to limit or reverse fat that appears in any of those stages. In particular, the scientists believe that what happens around birth is particularly important in determining life-long fatness. Studies show that babies who are born large are more likely to end up fat as adults.
However, bring born very small also seems to increase the risk of obesity in adulthood, especially if the infant is fed intensively to allow him or her to "catch up" to other baby weights. Babies that weigh less than 2.5 kilograms ( 5.5 pounds) are considered to be small. Babies in excess of 3.2 kilograms ( 7 pounds) are considered to be large.
Even though most babies in the developed world are not large, it is important to convince mothers that their smaller babies should not be fed to much to "catch up" to others. "They like to see them get high up in those growth curves. It's pretty ingrained in the maternal and child health nursing system to have a big baby, and it's probably not a smart idea," says Dr. Boyd Swinburn, an obesity expert from Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia.
Studies in the past indicate that about one in three children who are fat in early childhood end up fat as adults. Too, kids who get fat before the age of 8 tend to end more severely obese as adults than those who gain weight after age 8.
Having said all of that.... I am not going to tell you how much I weigh
1) being born either too big or too small
2) the early appearance of "puppy fat" and
3) tubbiness in teenage hood are the best indicators of obesity in adulthood.
Ergo, attempts should be made to identify each stage as it appears and to limit or reverse fat that appears in any of those stages. In particular, the scientists believe that what happens around birth is particularly important in determining life-long fatness. Studies show that babies who are born large are more likely to end up fat as adults.
However, bring born very small also seems to increase the risk of obesity in adulthood, especially if the infant is fed intensively to allow him or her to "catch up" to other baby weights. Babies that weigh less than 2.5 kilograms ( 5.5 pounds) are considered to be small. Babies in excess of 3.2 kilograms ( 7 pounds) are considered to be large.
Even though most babies in the developed world are not large, it is important to convince mothers that their smaller babies should not be fed to much to "catch up" to others. "They like to see them get high up in those growth curves. It's pretty ingrained in the maternal and child health nursing system to have a big baby, and it's probably not a smart idea," says Dr. Boyd Swinburn, an obesity expert from Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia.
Studies in the past indicate that about one in three children who are fat in early childhood end up fat as adults. Too, kids who get fat before the age of 8 tend to end more severely obese as adults than those who gain weight after age 8.
Having said all of that.... I am not going to tell you how much I weigh
Growing Immigration Concerns
A reflection from me today on something I am noticing happening in many areas of the world. What's the next big world issue? I think one may be immigration, both the legal and illegal kind. It already is a major topic here, though our political leaders refuse to call for an end to illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America due to the political backlash that would result in some being defeated in their re election campaigns.
But now it has become a focus in Europe. The recent defeat in France and Holland of the EU constitution happened because of economic fears and because of the fears by citizens of both countries that they would be over run by with more immigrants from Muslim countries and Eastern Europe. They see the mess in the U.S from the policy of closing one's eyes as criminals, drug dealers, terrorists, unskilled, illiterate types rush into a country that has no limits on immigration.
If Europe passes the EU constitution, all immigration limits are off. They will be inundated by , not the desirable immigrant, but more with the type that drains a country and adds to social, economic and political problems. Apart from Europe and the U.S., every industrial country seems to be troubled by the ease at which less desirable immigrants move about. Even developing countries like China (with perhaps a million illegal North Korean immigrants) are getting more of the immigrants they don't want, and fewer of the kind that will benefit the society.
I think there will have to be some international cooperation on immigration, some rule of law to regulate it. If not, there will be problems created in the societies that received the excess, problems unfathomable today, but nightmares tomorrow
But now it has become a focus in Europe. The recent defeat in France and Holland of the EU constitution happened because of economic fears and because of the fears by citizens of both countries that they would be over run by with more immigrants from Muslim countries and Eastern Europe. They see the mess in the U.S from the policy of closing one's eyes as criminals, drug dealers, terrorists, unskilled, illiterate types rush into a country that has no limits on immigration.
If Europe passes the EU constitution, all immigration limits are off. They will be inundated by , not the desirable immigrant, but more with the type that drains a country and adds to social, economic and political problems. Apart from Europe and the U.S., every industrial country seems to be troubled by the ease at which less desirable immigrants move about. Even developing countries like China (with perhaps a million illegal North Korean immigrants) are getting more of the immigrants they don't want, and fewer of the kind that will benefit the society.
I think there will have to be some international cooperation on immigration, some rule of law to regulate it. If not, there will be problems created in the societies that received the excess, problems unfathomable today, but nightmares tomorrow
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Death of News
I want to write something today about the death of fair reporting in American news mediums. I know you aren't American, but U.S. cable news programs like CNN and NBC are shown everywhere today.
This dumbing down of the media in the U.S. effects everyone (the election of Bush is a prime example of how a dumbed down media makes incompetence president), even you. My premise is that the news media has become "infotainment" and is no longer news.
What is featured and dominates in electronic news broadcasts and is the written mediums is pabulum, as in the recent media obsession of the runaway bride, or of the Michael Jackson trial etc. Real news that is important to hear is being muzzled, largely through the efforts of the Republican Party and George Bush.
In their view, to open themselves to impartial reporting would be disaster, for it would expose the lies on which their plurality rests. So the Bush administration tries to silence the media by controlling it.
Reporters have become White House stenographers rather than journalists, and the public has become content enough to accept the Bush/Republican lies as reality. Reporters no longer dig for the truth. They accept the propaganda handouts from the White House. This can be seen in the TV ratings for news programs in the U.S. In the past 5 years viewer ship of news programs has decreased more than 40%.
It's because the public has given up on news and is tired of the pabulum the media gives us in place of what is really important. In a sense, we see there is little relevant news to watch, only propaganda and fluff. Bush officials and their allies (conservative corporate sponsors of TV and written media) punish journalists who dare say what is unpleasant to the Republican agenda. They are labeled as "liberals" or are denied access to information they need to find the truth. The quickest way for a good reporter to be damned by the Republicans is to tell the truth. They often claim the fair journalist is unpatriotic or un American. And too many Americans nod in agreement.
The American people are much to blame for sitting passively and giving up on demands for truth in the media. We have become unconscious and indoctrinated (by the Bush crowd). We have begun to give up the demand for truth and fairness in the media (why else would half of America have supported the attack on Iraq?) This worries me because Bush and the right wing Republicans are trying to take control of the American democracy and instead make it a Republican fiefdom of propaganda and lies.
This dumbing down of the media in the U.S. effects everyone (the election of Bush is a prime example of how a dumbed down media makes incompetence president), even you. My premise is that the news media has become "infotainment" and is no longer news.
What is featured and dominates in electronic news broadcasts and is the written mediums is pabulum, as in the recent media obsession of the runaway bride, or of the Michael Jackson trial etc. Real news that is important to hear is being muzzled, largely through the efforts of the Republican Party and George Bush.
In their view, to open themselves to impartial reporting would be disaster, for it would expose the lies on which their plurality rests. So the Bush administration tries to silence the media by controlling it.
Reporters have become White House stenographers rather than journalists, and the public has become content enough to accept the Bush/Republican lies as reality. Reporters no longer dig for the truth. They accept the propaganda handouts from the White House. This can be seen in the TV ratings for news programs in the U.S. In the past 5 years viewer ship of news programs has decreased more than 40%.
It's because the public has given up on news and is tired of the pabulum the media gives us in place of what is really important. In a sense, we see there is little relevant news to watch, only propaganda and fluff. Bush officials and their allies (conservative corporate sponsors of TV and written media) punish journalists who dare say what is unpleasant to the Republican agenda. They are labeled as "liberals" or are denied access to information they need to find the truth. The quickest way for a good reporter to be damned by the Republicans is to tell the truth. They often claim the fair journalist is unpatriotic or un American. And too many Americans nod in agreement.
The American people are much to blame for sitting passively and giving up on demands for truth in the media. We have become unconscious and indoctrinated (by the Bush crowd). We have begun to give up the demand for truth and fairness in the media (why else would half of America have supported the attack on Iraq?) This worries me because Bush and the right wing Republicans are trying to take control of the American democracy and instead make it a Republican fiefdom of propaganda and lies.
TV is Changing
You know what is changing rapidly here (and I suppose in most other countries as well)? It's TV. I don't watch TV much, but what I do see is different than before, both in the technical and programming areas. Now big wall mounted plasma screens are appearing in homes, as TV becomes a"media center", not just a television monitor.
Soon just about any means of communication (including our computers) will come and go through the monitors on our walls. T.S. Elliot wrote in a poem once, 'Women come and go..speaking of Michaelangelo' to mark that era of change, when high society women sat and talked about inconsequential activities and events instead of the real events and problems in their lives.
So it may become with TV. We may become submerged in the triviality shown before us and miss what is more important for our own personal lives. Is that not what I already rant about when I vent about cell rudeness? Isn't the cell abuser, when he chatters rudely in public, ignoring all civility, a reflection of the loss of contact with the simple but important elements of humanity?
So it may become with TV. In thinking about how TV may make us more rather than less isolated, one need only look at the flood of channels we have offered today. I have more than 100 choices, but watch only a few, and only rarely. This multi/specialized channel offering is not atypical. In fact, even with the abundance of channels today that appeal to even the most extreme interests, most people stick to only a few channels, perhaps 10 of the 200.
What's more, when people are offered more programming choices, they stick to fewer selections and, sad to say, fewer of the shows more important to a society's healthy- news and informational offerings. They become locked in stupidity (as in "Survivor" and "American Idol"). It's because we now want to stick to shows that do not challenge our assumptions and beliefs. It's a question of 4 billion separate islands, and this is not good. Society can not share commonality if it divides into separate worlds.
I think today's Tv, cell phones and even computers are doing that. They don't make us share our world, they allow us to separate from it. It is not a good omen for humans, if they wish to be as one. What do you think?
Soon just about any means of communication (including our computers) will come and go through the monitors on our walls. T.S. Elliot wrote in a poem once, 'Women come and go..speaking of Michaelangelo' to mark that era of change, when high society women sat and talked about inconsequential activities and events instead of the real events and problems in their lives.
So it may become with TV. We may become submerged in the triviality shown before us and miss what is more important for our own personal lives. Is that not what I already rant about when I vent about cell rudeness? Isn't the cell abuser, when he chatters rudely in public, ignoring all civility, a reflection of the loss of contact with the simple but important elements of humanity?
So it may become with TV. In thinking about how TV may make us more rather than less isolated, one need only look at the flood of channels we have offered today. I have more than 100 choices, but watch only a few, and only rarely. This multi/specialized channel offering is not atypical. In fact, even with the abundance of channels today that appeal to even the most extreme interests, most people stick to only a few channels, perhaps 10 of the 200.
What's more, when people are offered more programming choices, they stick to fewer selections and, sad to say, fewer of the shows more important to a society's healthy- news and informational offerings. They become locked in stupidity (as in "Survivor" and "American Idol"). It's because we now want to stick to shows that do not challenge our assumptions and beliefs. It's a question of 4 billion separate islands, and this is not good. Society can not share commonality if it divides into separate worlds.
I think today's Tv, cell phones and even computers are doing that. They don't make us share our world, they allow us to separate from it. It is not a good omen for humans, if they wish to be as one. What do you think?
Back From Bangkok
I am back from Bangkok. It's the day after my return and things are slowing down again. It was a nice but tiring trip. I was with soemone almost the entire time, but was disappointed to miss connections with a Thai friend who I was to meet there. The flight is an arduous one for people who can not sleep on planes (I can sleep on them only when exhausted). My flight was 23 hours total- 19 air time and 4 more in connections. Bangkok has not changed since I was last there in 2000.
I like everything about the city except the climate, which I think is unhealthy due to the extreme heat and humidity. We did quite a bit there and got outside of the city to the Kai National Park in the Northeastern part of Thailand and to the floating market, which is about 2 hours drive from Bangkok. The good news is that no one mistook me for the elephant when I rode that animal in the park.
Here is a brief review of some moments from the trip. Since I like Bangkok, below I give twice as many comments on "goods" as "bads" or "uglys" I took some pictures and will eventually scan a few for you to see here. The Good:
1) The food is excellent, a great mix of a western and Asian cultures as well as Thai cooking. I think Indonesian food is the best in Asia, but Thailand is not far behind. I do think I gained quite a bit of weight as I ate too much of both street food and restaurant offerings. I sampled food in Thailand, Arab/Indian, Korean, Japanese, Laotian, and Chinese restaurants. Most of it was good. Strangely, the best meal was a buffet served at the hotel where the Calypso Cabaret (the drag show we saw there) is performed. We bought the meal before the show as well as the performance. Both were delicious.
2) The hotel, Tai Pan, was nice and a bargain, located on Sukhumvit Road, next to the main overhead tram in Bangkok. It was quite a bargain in cost as well. If you ever go to Bangkok it is a nice moderate hotel to use.
3) It was so inexpensive (One more reason I ate to much), I should have taken back more things from Bangkok. I am in culture shock in New Orleans, a realization of how expensive everything is here relative to Bangkok.
4) The people of Bangkok and Thailand are great. But I already knew what..And the Thai women are not only beautiful but quite stylish in their dress. Hmmmmmmm I think China may have the world's most beautiful women, but Thailand is close second and their ladies are far more stylish than those in China
5) I enjoyed the day trips we took, particularly the to that park and to the floating market. The floating market may be for tourists, but it is fascinating nonetheless. I bought saffron, very expensive in the west, there for practically nothing. Too, the boat ride amongst the market was memorable and scenic.
6) Friendly, helpful people are the rule in Bangkok. I think it a "safe" city most of the time. The Bad:
1) How's this sound- $70 for one small fish, some prawns, a cabbage and a piece of broccoli. That's what one restaurant, Seafood (something) wanted to charge us for "the ingredients" for a meal. We walked into that place and retreated as son as we heard what the restaurant wanted from us. They expected us to buy the ingredients at astronomical prices, and then pay for "the food preparation and service" as well. The bill would have been far more than $100 for what costs about 7 or 8 dollars elsewhere. I think the place was tourist trap, for it was virtually empty when we walked in. We said "no thanks" when told of the food prices. And to think that this one is even recommended at a Bangkok web site for tourists...strange, indeed.
2) The old Bangkok naughty areas (there are two or three) where prostitute sell themselves for a pittance) seem to be dying off. I think the government is concerned about the sex trade being so pronounced in Bangkok, and as a result, there is an attempt to let it flounder. For instance, those areas must close at 1 am now. When I was in Bangkok 5 years ago there was no closing time. No...in case you are wondering..I just looked at the girls, nothing more (Haha I have raised my hand and swear to it). I saw many older western men with Bangkok prostitutes, some who looked less than 18 years of age. Oh well., I hope no one contacts aids from that.
3) The heat, traffic and poverty of Bangkok can be disheartening. I think Bangkok must be an exciting and interesting place to live for those with resources. But the poor do have a difficult time and a struggle to survive.
The Ugly:
1) She wasn't ugly. In fact, she was beautiful. But I think she was a he. I saw her in our hotel and she said "hello" in a masculine voice. My God! I think he/she was the sexist woman (or man) I saw the whole time. My gender is confused today as a result. Hehe
2) What is ugly are the streets of Bangkok. They are in disrepair and dirty. My feet still hurt from walking on them because they are more often an obstacle course than a passage way.
3) The traffic is (typically Asian) too heavy for the too few streets. Thank goodness for the Tuk Tuk and taxi service. But maybe if there weren't so many Tuk-Tuk's and Taxi's there would be manageable traffic. It's a catch-twenty two, I suppose. Off the top of my head (You know that I have a small brain) that's it for my Bangkok impressions.
I like everything about the city except the climate, which I think is unhealthy due to the extreme heat and humidity. We did quite a bit there and got outside of the city to the Kai National Park in the Northeastern part of Thailand and to the floating market, which is about 2 hours drive from Bangkok. The good news is that no one mistook me for the elephant when I rode that animal in the park.
Here is a brief review of some moments from the trip. Since I like Bangkok, below I give twice as many comments on "goods" as "bads" or "uglys" I took some pictures and will eventually scan a few for you to see here. The Good:
1) The food is excellent, a great mix of a western and Asian cultures as well as Thai cooking. I think Indonesian food is the best in Asia, but Thailand is not far behind. I do think I gained quite a bit of weight as I ate too much of both street food and restaurant offerings. I sampled food in Thailand, Arab/Indian, Korean, Japanese, Laotian, and Chinese restaurants. Most of it was good. Strangely, the best meal was a buffet served at the hotel where the Calypso Cabaret (the drag show we saw there) is performed. We bought the meal before the show as well as the performance. Both were delicious.
2) The hotel, Tai Pan, was nice and a bargain, located on Sukhumvit Road, next to the main overhead tram in Bangkok. It was quite a bargain in cost as well. If you ever go to Bangkok it is a nice moderate hotel to use.
3) It was so inexpensive (One more reason I ate to much), I should have taken back more things from Bangkok. I am in culture shock in New Orleans, a realization of how expensive everything is here relative to Bangkok.
4) The people of Bangkok and Thailand are great. But I already knew what..And the Thai women are not only beautiful but quite stylish in their dress. Hmmmmmmm I think China may have the world's most beautiful women, but Thailand is close second and their ladies are far more stylish than those in China
5) I enjoyed the day trips we took, particularly the to that park and to the floating market. The floating market may be for tourists, but it is fascinating nonetheless. I bought saffron, very expensive in the west, there for practically nothing. Too, the boat ride amongst the market was memorable and scenic.
6) Friendly, helpful people are the rule in Bangkok. I think it a "safe" city most of the time. The Bad:
1) How's this sound- $70 for one small fish, some prawns, a cabbage and a piece of broccoli. That's what one restaurant, Seafood (something) wanted to charge us for "the ingredients" for a meal. We walked into that place and retreated as son as we heard what the restaurant wanted from us. They expected us to buy the ingredients at astronomical prices, and then pay for "the food preparation and service" as well. The bill would have been far more than $100 for what costs about 7 or 8 dollars elsewhere. I think the place was tourist trap, for it was virtually empty when we walked in. We said "no thanks" when told of the food prices. And to think that this one is even recommended at a Bangkok web site for tourists...strange, indeed.
2) The old Bangkok naughty areas (there are two or three) where prostitute sell themselves for a pittance) seem to be dying off. I think the government is concerned about the sex trade being so pronounced in Bangkok, and as a result, there is an attempt to let it flounder. For instance, those areas must close at 1 am now. When I was in Bangkok 5 years ago there was no closing time. No...in case you are wondering..I just looked at the girls, nothing more (Haha I have raised my hand and swear to it). I saw many older western men with Bangkok prostitutes, some who looked less than 18 years of age. Oh well., I hope no one contacts aids from that.
3) The heat, traffic and poverty of Bangkok can be disheartening. I think Bangkok must be an exciting and interesting place to live for those with resources. But the poor do have a difficult time and a struggle to survive.
The Ugly:
1) She wasn't ugly. In fact, she was beautiful. But I think she was a he. I saw her in our hotel and she said "hello" in a masculine voice. My God! I think he/she was the sexist woman (or man) I saw the whole time. My gender is confused today as a result. Hehe
2) What is ugly are the streets of Bangkok. They are in disrepair and dirty. My feet still hurt from walking on them because they are more often an obstacle course than a passage way.
3) The traffic is (typically Asian) too heavy for the too few streets. Thank goodness for the Tuk Tuk and taxi service. But maybe if there weren't so many Tuk-Tuk's and Taxi's there would be manageable traffic. It's a catch-twenty two, I suppose. Off the top of my head (You know that I have a small brain) that's it for my Bangkok impressions.
Tattoos
Some comments today about my least favorite body adornment- tattoos. The past 10 years or so in America has been the age of the tattoo, starting with gang members, then athletes, and finally celebrities embracing them. Americans, especially women, are getting tattooed at a record rate, making what used to be considered seedy or only for the uneducated class seem respectable.
Psychology long considered getting a tattoo to be a deviant behavior. No more! I saw a statistic the other day that tattoos are so popular among the 18-25 age group that about 20% of people that age here have at least one tattoo. Women make up more than half of that total. What used to be secret and underground is now hardly noticed.
There are tattoo shops all about where just a few years ago they were hard to find. Some kids now even buy tattoo kits and do it to themselves. For some younger kids a tattoo is as normal as buying a new pair of shoes. But the mass appeal of the tattoo may be what will kill the surge in popularity.
It has become so popular among the young group (though still considered unacceptable among older demographics) that it may be losing it's appeal. A few of the tattooed Hollywood celebs and professional athletes have started to cover or erase their tattoos. What used to be a secret bond has become so commercialized and watered down, the tattoo may be in for a sharp decline. That's fine with me. I am no fan of tattoo, though I respect anyone's right to wear one if he or she wishes. So what is your opinion of tattoos. Is the tattoo gaining or losing appeal there?
Psychology long considered getting a tattoo to be a deviant behavior. No more! I saw a statistic the other day that tattoos are so popular among the 18-25 age group that about 20% of people that age here have at least one tattoo. Women make up more than half of that total. What used to be secret and underground is now hardly noticed.
There are tattoo shops all about where just a few years ago they were hard to find. Some kids now even buy tattoo kits and do it to themselves. For some younger kids a tattoo is as normal as buying a new pair of shoes. But the mass appeal of the tattoo may be what will kill the surge in popularity.
It has become so popular among the young group (though still considered unacceptable among older demographics) that it may be losing it's appeal. A few of the tattooed Hollywood celebs and professional athletes have started to cover or erase their tattoos. What used to be a secret bond has become so commercialized and watered down, the tattoo may be in for a sharp decline. That's fine with me. I am no fan of tattoo, though I respect anyone's right to wear one if he or she wishes. So what is your opinion of tattoos. Is the tattoo gaining or losing appeal there?
The Sun is Good For the Skin?
I have always been told , and believed that exposure to the sun is deadly. Given that my skin is extremely light and I have had skin cancers before, it would seem wise that I avoid the sun and that I wear sun screen when I am in it. Every dermatologist today preaches covering oneself with sunscreen is essential to avoiding skin cancers.
But new studies are now challenging that practice. Now the feeling is that maybe putting on the sunscreen is increasing the probability of cancer (though not skin cancer), because vitamin D (nicknamed "the sun vitamin" because that is the main source of the body acquiring it) seems more important for preventing and even treating many other types of cancers.
Since sunscreen blocks the production of vitamin C, some doctors are now recommending not using it unless an individual is in danger of "burning" in the sun. In the past three months four separate studies found that sun exposure helped protect against lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, and ironically, skin cancer. But most people do not get enough vitamin D, because it is hard to do from food and fortified milk alone.
Supplements are also questionable as to effective acquisition of Vitamin D. So the thinking now among some doctors is that even if too much sun leads to skin cancer, which is much less deadly than the other types I mentioned, too little sun may be an even worse choice for people. Scientists and doctors associated with the testing on sun exposure say that we should all get "safe sun"- 15 minutes or so a few times per week without sunscreen- to help protect against many types of cancer. Doctor Edward Giovannucci, a Harvard University professor of medicine says vitamin D might help prevent 30 deaths for each one that is caused by skin cancer. "I would challenge anyone to find an area or nutrient or any factor that has such consistent anti-cancer benefits as vitamin D," he told other scientists at a recent meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
If this new outlook becomes the accepted norm I wonder whether people (as they always seem to do) will go overboard and instead of brief un sun screened forays, would bake themselves into cases of skin cancer.
But vitamin D has been proven to slow down or stop abnormal cell growth, help cells die when they "are supposed to", and limits the formation of the blood vessels that feed tumors. It has long been known that cancer is more common in the elderly, and that the skin makes less vitamin D as people age.
So what do we do? Should we expose our skin to the sun and retard the growth of many types of cancers or expose our skin to the sun and raise the probability of skin cancer? I'll stick with the sun screen for now.
But new studies are now challenging that practice. Now the feeling is that maybe putting on the sunscreen is increasing the probability of cancer (though not skin cancer), because vitamin D (nicknamed "the sun vitamin" because that is the main source of the body acquiring it) seems more important for preventing and even treating many other types of cancers.
Since sunscreen blocks the production of vitamin C, some doctors are now recommending not using it unless an individual is in danger of "burning" in the sun. In the past three months four separate studies found that sun exposure helped protect against lymphoma, prostate cancer, lung cancer, colon cancer, and ironically, skin cancer. But most people do not get enough vitamin D, because it is hard to do from food and fortified milk alone.
Supplements are also questionable as to effective acquisition of Vitamin D. So the thinking now among some doctors is that even if too much sun leads to skin cancer, which is much less deadly than the other types I mentioned, too little sun may be an even worse choice for people. Scientists and doctors associated with the testing on sun exposure say that we should all get "safe sun"- 15 minutes or so a few times per week without sunscreen- to help protect against many types of cancer. Doctor Edward Giovannucci, a Harvard University professor of medicine says vitamin D might help prevent 30 deaths for each one that is caused by skin cancer. "I would challenge anyone to find an area or nutrient or any factor that has such consistent anti-cancer benefits as vitamin D," he told other scientists at a recent meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
If this new outlook becomes the accepted norm I wonder whether people (as they always seem to do) will go overboard and instead of brief un sun screened forays, would bake themselves into cases of skin cancer.
But vitamin D has been proven to slow down or stop abnormal cell growth, help cells die when they "are supposed to", and limits the formation of the blood vessels that feed tumors. It has long been known that cancer is more common in the elderly, and that the skin makes less vitamin D as people age.
So what do we do? Should we expose our skin to the sun and retard the growth of many types of cancers or expose our skin to the sun and raise the probability of skin cancer? I'll stick with the sun screen for now.
Regulating School Snacks
We have a proposal in my state legislature to ban all "unhealthy" snacks and drinks (junk foods and soft drinks) from school vending machines. This is not an innovative idea, as many states already ban snack machines from their campuses, or regulate the kinds of things that can be sold from them.
It's all allegedly an attempt to emphasize to kids the importance of healthy foods and to cut back on the obesity problem, we have here. The schools in my state allow vending machines, and regulate use to before and after school, and during lunch. Since the time frame for snacking from the machines is small, little is consumed from the machines.
But opposition to taking the machines away or putting "healthy" snacks (fruit juices, unflavored a water, milk and non sugary or fatty snacks) and drinks in them is high. School officials (who use the machine revenue to finance school projects), soft drink companies (who make a profit, but more importantly advertise and addict the kids to their soft drinks, and vending machine companies (who say they will lose too much money if healthy foods replace the more popular junk foods) oppose the change, pointing to the fact that the calorie laden , huge lunches kids eat in the cafeteria are far more fattening an unhealthy than vending machine snacks.
So the dilemma is whether the machines are bad or at least bad examples to kids of what kinds of food to eat, or whether the idea to ban the machines or put other foods in them is political grandstanding. Regardless, those machines have become gold to many schools.
One of the school principals testifying before the state legislature said his school receives $100,000 under a ten year contract with coca cola that might be endangered by the proposal, and that his school budget and other schools like his are also somewhat dependent on those kinds of deals.
It seems silly to me to do this. It's not a school candy bar or soft drink that makes kids fat. it's over consumption (including in the school cafeteria) that does it. Too, the reality is that student consumption from school vending machines is very low. But the the politicians are consuming this issue for as much as they can, getting fat on be sanctimonious about "saving the kids".
It's all allegedly an attempt to emphasize to kids the importance of healthy foods and to cut back on the obesity problem, we have here. The schools in my state allow vending machines, and regulate use to before and after school, and during lunch. Since the time frame for snacking from the machines is small, little is consumed from the machines.
But opposition to taking the machines away or putting "healthy" snacks (fruit juices, unflavored a water, milk and non sugary or fatty snacks) and drinks in them is high. School officials (who use the machine revenue to finance school projects), soft drink companies (who make a profit, but more importantly advertise and addict the kids to their soft drinks, and vending machine companies (who say they will lose too much money if healthy foods replace the more popular junk foods) oppose the change, pointing to the fact that the calorie laden , huge lunches kids eat in the cafeteria are far more fattening an unhealthy than vending machine snacks.
So the dilemma is whether the machines are bad or at least bad examples to kids of what kinds of food to eat, or whether the idea to ban the machines or put other foods in them is political grandstanding. Regardless, those machines have become gold to many schools.
One of the school principals testifying before the state legislature said his school receives $100,000 under a ten year contract with coca cola that might be endangered by the proposal, and that his school budget and other schools like his are also somewhat dependent on those kinds of deals.
It seems silly to me to do this. It's not a school candy bar or soft drink that makes kids fat. it's over consumption (including in the school cafeteria) that does it. Too, the reality is that student consumption from school vending machines is very low. But the the politicians are consuming this issue for as much as they can, getting fat on be sanctimonious about "saving the kids".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)