If you think those cell phone addicted drivers who text and chat on their phones are bad news on the highways, how about the latest technology intrusion that has surfaced, not on the roads, but in air travel? It's the lap top pilot. According to U.S. federal airline regulators, two Northwest Airline pilots used laptop computers in the cockpit while in flight and didn't pay attention to their duties as they flew past their Minneapolis destination last week. They flew more than 125 kilometers past Minneapolis airport before a stewardess finally told them they had flown too far. The two pilots on that flight later told investigators that they flew for 78 minutes without speaking to controllers because they became so engrossed in a new computer program that arranges pilot schedules. Haha Well....at least they weren't on a chat line or cruising porn sites. Or were they????
To ignore contact with air controllers and fly blindly is not only negligence but is gross incompetence. I doubt any airline will ever let those two fly again and the Federal Aviation Administration may pull their licenses permanently. One would think the safety of the passengers and crew would take precedence over using a computer while in the sky. But even common sense is lost to allure of technology these days. Flying while ignoring the flight progress while instead playing on a computer is like doing a high dive into a river before checking the depth and clearance of the water.
If the technology explanation given is true and explains why the pilots lost touch (there are endless others reason they may have lost contact besides the one given by Northwest Airlines that Northwest might feel had to be hidden from the public), I wonder how many other pilots are playing with technology unrelated to their flight and what else is going on in the cockpit. How safe are passengers? And are the airlines aware of this and hiding the problem from the public?
It used to be stories about drunk pilots were the ones that frightened passengers, but strict rules about drinking before flights were and are strictly enforced some time ago, and that is no longer a problem of any magnitude.Finally, what else threatening safety goes on in the cockpit that we don't know about? On top of many new fees airlines are imposing, delays at airports, silly security checks, cramped flights and canceled or late flights, this latest airline problem surely does not motivate many to fly.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Richest Dead Celebrities
Forbes magazine annual posts a list of the world's richest people. It's interesting. But I just saw another rich list top ten from Forbes that is eerie. It's the top ten money making rich DEAD people for 2009. According to Forbes, the richest dead celebrity isn't Michael Jackson. Although the Jackson's estate has been big news since his death in June, the top-earning dead celebrity is French fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent. Too bad Yves can't toast to be number one. He's dead...remember?
Here is the full list and amounts each dead person made in 2008-2009.
1. Yves Saint Laurent- $350 Million
2. Rogers and Hammerstein (Composers who did in the late 70's)- $235 million
3. Michael Jackson- $90 million
4. Elvis Presley- $55 million
5. J.R. Tolkien- $50 million
6. Charles Schulz- $35 million
7. John Lennon- $15 million
8. Dr. Suess- $15 million
9. Albert Einstein- $10 million
10.Michael Crichton- $9 million
If the list is examined it can be seen that some dad guys (they are all men on the list) persevere in death to keep making money. Einstein has been gone along time, yet he is still in the top ten. Surely, Michael Jackson will climb up some as the estate is inflated with Jackson products that it will sell to cash in on his recent death. last year's top ten dead had five different names, all recently dead celebrities. It seems the closer on is to death the more money he makes.
I wonder if there is a list of the poorest dead celebrities? Haha Well, it would be no less pointless as the dead list is. Somehow I doubt that the dead celebrities care.......they didn't take it with them.
.
Here is the full list and amounts each dead person made in 2008-2009.
1. Yves Saint Laurent- $350 Million
2. Rogers and Hammerstein (Composers who did in the late 70's)- $235 million
3. Michael Jackson- $90 million
4. Elvis Presley- $55 million
5. J.R. Tolkien- $50 million
6. Charles Schulz- $35 million
7. John Lennon- $15 million
8. Dr. Suess- $15 million
9. Albert Einstein- $10 million
10.Michael Crichton- $9 million
If the list is examined it can be seen that some dad guys (they are all men on the list) persevere in death to keep making money. Einstein has been gone along time, yet he is still in the top ten. Surely, Michael Jackson will climb up some as the estate is inflated with Jackson products that it will sell to cash in on his recent death. last year's top ten dead had five different names, all recently dead celebrities. It seems the closer on is to death the more money he makes.
I wonder if there is a list of the poorest dead celebrities? Haha Well, it would be no less pointless as the dead list is. Somehow I doubt that the dead celebrities care.......they didn't take it with them.
.
Halloween Costumes
Given it's Halloween time, it's also time for the costume report. That is, what costumes will the kids and adults most wear this year. With the economy offering consumers more tricks than treats, Halloween spending is lower this year. I can see that in the scarcity of outdoor Halloween decorations this year. It looks like the Halloween Grinch stole them, given one has to look for them much a harder now. Just last year the neighborhoods were teeming with them. Either ghostly spirit for celebrating Halloween is down due to the economic collapse or people are spending fewer boo bucks this year in decorations.
Consumers are expected to spend on average $55.31 on Halloween this year, compared with $66.54 a year ago, that is according to a survey conducted by BIGresearch that was commissioned by the National Retail Federation. The National Retail Federation is the group that makes surveys and statistical studies of your spending so retailers can better target how to separate you from your money. Anyway, total spending on the Halloween holiday is expected to reach $4.75 billion. A good chunk of that spending goes toward costumes. They estimate 47 million adults and 58 million children across the country plan to dress up for Halloween this year.
A poll of 8,526 consumers was conducted from September 1-9, 2009., and here is what the people said they or their kids will wear on Halloween.
Top Ten Halloween Costumes 2009 for Adults
10. Police Officer
9. Athlete
8. Scary Costume/Mask
7. Devil
6. Cat
5. Wench/Tart/Vixen
4. Clown
3. Pirate
2. Vampire
1. Witch
Top Ten Halloween Costumes 2009 For Kids
10. Batman
9. Tinker Bell
8. Star Wars Character
7. Disney Princess
6. Vampire
5. Pumpkin
4. Pirate
3. Spider-Man
2. Witch
1. Princess
What is striking about the list is that they are all traditional and predictable ones. Nothing trendy there in this age of 5 minutes of fame and trendy slavery. Where is the Michael Jackson costume? Where is the Obama Mask? How about a Swine Flu outfit? Surely there will be a few of those and some crazier ones. But it seems the recession has injured the Great Pumpkin and his monsters this year to. I say "Boo" to that!
Consumers are expected to spend on average $55.31 on Halloween this year, compared with $66.54 a year ago, that is according to a survey conducted by BIGresearch that was commissioned by the National Retail Federation. The National Retail Federation is the group that makes surveys and statistical studies of your spending so retailers can better target how to separate you from your money. Anyway, total spending on the Halloween holiday is expected to reach $4.75 billion. A good chunk of that spending goes toward costumes. They estimate 47 million adults and 58 million children across the country plan to dress up for Halloween this year.
A poll of 8,526 consumers was conducted from September 1-9, 2009., and here is what the people said they or their kids will wear on Halloween.
Top Ten Halloween Costumes 2009 for Adults
10. Police Officer
9. Athlete
8. Scary Costume/Mask
7. Devil
6. Cat
5. Wench/Tart/Vixen
4. Clown
3. Pirate
2. Vampire
1. Witch
Top Ten Halloween Costumes 2009 For Kids
10. Batman
9. Tinker Bell
8. Star Wars Character
7. Disney Princess
6. Vampire
5. Pumpkin
4. Pirate
3. Spider-Man
2. Witch
1. Princess
What is striking about the list is that they are all traditional and predictable ones. Nothing trendy there in this age of 5 minutes of fame and trendy slavery. Where is the Michael Jackson costume? Where is the Obama Mask? How about a Swine Flu outfit? Surely there will be a few of those and some crazier ones. But it seems the recession has injured the Great Pumpkin and his monsters this year to. I say "Boo" to that!
Thursday, October 29, 2009
No Burqas
The massive immigration going on all around the world is quite a mess. Nearly every nation with a higher of development is being invaded by legal and illegal immigrants. Immigration is good, but only when it is regulated and the immigrant is self supporting and skilled in a trade his or her new nation needs. The problem now though is that so many immigrants are not self supporting, educated or skilled. So many of them enter their new nation to escape poverty or oppression back home, not because they can envision adapting to a new culture or even want to. They often want to live in their new culture the same way they did in their former one.
The Europeans have their Muslim invasions, the U.S. has its Hispanic hordes pouring in illegally by the millions, China has an invasion from North Korea, Taiwan from China and so on. The only nations free from the influx are those with geographic isolation and restrictive laws against immigration. And they suffer from the opposite effect, too little immigration of the "good kind" (educated, talented immigrants who willingly adapt to the new culture). In short, the world is in flux because of too much movement of its peoples.
One example of the reaction some of those invaded nations are showing against this wave after wave of immigrants comes from probably the least tolerant culture of all- France. France's immigration minister has proposed a debate on French "national identity," saying it should not include face covering Muslim veils such as the burqa. Minister Eric Besson says "the burqa runs counter to national values." he said, "For me, no burqas in the street."
A French parliamentary commission is holding six months of discussions on the wearing of face- and body covering veils, and some politicians have suggested a ban. Minister Besson also defended a government decision to send illegal Afghan immigrants back to Kabul on charter flights last week. Basically, what France is saying is that if the Muslim immigrants don't like living like those natives of the French culture, then they should return to their countries of origin where they can live freely according to their customs and traditions.
But can a democratic nation enforce "conformity"? I think not . Too, from a practical standpoint there will be no purges of immigrants in France. Does the nation conform to the immigrants or the immigrants conform to the nation? Perhaps it is a mix of both. Whatever it is, cultural clashes between immigrants and natives of their new country are bound to happen more often in the future.
The Europeans have their Muslim invasions, the U.S. has its Hispanic hordes pouring in illegally by the millions, China has an invasion from North Korea, Taiwan from China and so on. The only nations free from the influx are those with geographic isolation and restrictive laws against immigration. And they suffer from the opposite effect, too little immigration of the "good kind" (educated, talented immigrants who willingly adapt to the new culture). In short, the world is in flux because of too much movement of its peoples.
One example of the reaction some of those invaded nations are showing against this wave after wave of immigrants comes from probably the least tolerant culture of all- France. France's immigration minister has proposed a debate on French "national identity," saying it should not include face covering Muslim veils such as the burqa. Minister Eric Besson says "the burqa runs counter to national values." he said, "For me, no burqas in the street."
A French parliamentary commission is holding six months of discussions on the wearing of face- and body covering veils, and some politicians have suggested a ban. Minister Besson also defended a government decision to send illegal Afghan immigrants back to Kabul on charter flights last week. Basically, what France is saying is that if the Muslim immigrants don't like living like those natives of the French culture, then they should return to their countries of origin where they can live freely according to their customs and traditions.
But can a democratic nation enforce "conformity"? I think not . Too, from a practical standpoint there will be no purges of immigrants in France. Does the nation conform to the immigrants or the immigrants conform to the nation? Perhaps it is a mix of both. Whatever it is, cultural clashes between immigrants and natives of their new country are bound to happen more often in the future.
Worry Warts
I have always liked the attitude of Alfred E Neuman, the fictitious character and symbol who graces every cover of Mad Magazine. His motto is "What, Me Worry?" Alfred is more than a little laid back. He's practically in a coma when it comes to worry, believing that nothing is truly worth worrying about. So why do I admire the empty headed Alfred? It's because he is the antithesis of the "What should I worry about next generation" in which we now live. Too many people today worry too much about the wrong things.
Humans are just not good at assessing risk, and today's improved communication mediums means they get information about matters big and small that can cause them confusion about what is important and what is not. often the mediums propagandize silly matters and convert them into things about which we are told we should worry. Further, modern communication devices themselves can cause humans to turn the trivial matter into the worrisome one. Maybe that's why so many today worry about "terrorism" and "global warming" and so little about things like not using their credit cards too much or making sure they are parenting correctly.
So how can we find out what's is truly dangerous enough to worry about? We humans tend to respond to uncertainty with irrational emotion, fear, blame, paralysis than we should exhibit. Uncertainty also has a nasty way of making us conjure the very worst possibilities. With the questionable theory of global warming, for instance, the reaction is to imagine hellish temperatures, rising oceans, a planet in chaos. How many times have we read about "saving the planet" or that "we are all going to die because of global warming"? Truth is, we can neither save nor destroy the planet and the earth will not smother us in heat.
Whether global warming is real or not it makes no sense for us to exhibit hysterical behavior as a reaction to it. Most real problems humans face have solutions, and every generation has had some imagined problems that worried them too much. But instead of panicking and collectively wringing hands, those who were more focused on solution than worry did solve the problems of the age. In ancient times people worried about the sun burning our or burning up earth, in medieval times too many worried about witches casting evil spells and promoting devilish deeds. In the modern age we have worried too much about nuclear holocaust.
Most problems humans face are quickly solvable. Virtually every unsolvable problem we've faced in the past has turned out to be solvable, and the script has nearly always been the same for solving them. A band of clever, motivated people most often inventors and scientists, usually found an answer to the real problems and exposed the phony ones. the phony problems that worried people then....they just died of their own lack of credibility.
What we all should do is examine the worry we are told is critical in order to see if it is real and, more importantly, if it effects us whether we can do anything to thwart it. Check the source of information about the alleged next worry. Check it at many sources. Question what is stated. We should be skeptical and objective in evaluating something before blindly worrying ourselves about it . And if what we are told is a problem and seems to be much ado about nothing, don't let trendiness or media sources manipulate us into worrying about it.
We must become Alfred E Neuman and look the worry mongers in the eye and say, "What, me worry"?
Humans are just not good at assessing risk, and today's improved communication mediums means they get information about matters big and small that can cause them confusion about what is important and what is not. often the mediums propagandize silly matters and convert them into things about which we are told we should worry. Further, modern communication devices themselves can cause humans to turn the trivial matter into the worrisome one. Maybe that's why so many today worry about "terrorism" and "global warming" and so little about things like not using their credit cards too much or making sure they are parenting correctly.
So how can we find out what's is truly dangerous enough to worry about? We humans tend to respond to uncertainty with irrational emotion, fear, blame, paralysis than we should exhibit. Uncertainty also has a nasty way of making us conjure the very worst possibilities. With the questionable theory of global warming, for instance, the reaction is to imagine hellish temperatures, rising oceans, a planet in chaos. How many times have we read about "saving the planet" or that "we are all going to die because of global warming"? Truth is, we can neither save nor destroy the planet and the earth will not smother us in heat.
Whether global warming is real or not it makes no sense for us to exhibit hysterical behavior as a reaction to it. Most real problems humans face have solutions, and every generation has had some imagined problems that worried them too much. But instead of panicking and collectively wringing hands, those who were more focused on solution than worry did solve the problems of the age. In ancient times people worried about the sun burning our or burning up earth, in medieval times too many worried about witches casting evil spells and promoting devilish deeds. In the modern age we have worried too much about nuclear holocaust.
Most problems humans face are quickly solvable. Virtually every unsolvable problem we've faced in the past has turned out to be solvable, and the script has nearly always been the same for solving them. A band of clever, motivated people most often inventors and scientists, usually found an answer to the real problems and exposed the phony ones. the phony problems that worried people then....they just died of their own lack of credibility.
What we all should do is examine the worry we are told is critical in order to see if it is real and, more importantly, if it effects us whether we can do anything to thwart it. Check the source of information about the alleged next worry. Check it at many sources. Question what is stated. We should be skeptical and objective in evaluating something before blindly worrying ourselves about it . And if what we are told is a problem and seems to be much ado about nothing, don't let trendiness or media sources manipulate us into worrying about it.
We must become Alfred E Neuman and look the worry mongers in the eye and say, "What, me worry"?
Carry-On Mess
Have you flown lately? It isn't getting any more pleasurable to fly from or into the U.S. With fees increasing on just about everything overcrowded planes and dysfunctional flight schedules the passenger's comfort is the last thought on the minds of the airlines. But what is turning my stomach these days is the infamous "carry-on bag rule".
Just board a flight today and try to stow your carry on. The passengers scramble to stow gear before others fill the overhead bins, drag bags heavier than allowed, slip aboard with more than the two items typically permitted and bump into seat mates while cramming in belongings. It's havoc on board. Because the airlines charge so much to check in regular bags fliers try to cram as much in the overhead bins or next to their seat .
The problem has become bad since the major airlines began imposing fees for the first checked bag on domestic flights. Congress is considering legislation to limit and standardize carry on size and to ensure enforcement at airport checkpoints. This is something the airlines probably don't want because some frustrated passengers, fed up with fees, would revolt against those limitations on the basis of the costs they impose in checking in more luggage. If they stop flying the airlines would lose even more revenue amidst the huge losses they already gave these days.
The mantra for fliers today is "It's a fight for the overheads". By the time the last boarding group races for space in the compartments on a typically packed flight, there is panic. Some passengers are left standing in the aisle with no place to put their belongings and they take extra time looking for a spot for their bags, which can delay the flight even further. But the airlines have brought this on all by themselves by charging for checking bags. It's like the Great Race when boarding zones are called out as everyone races to get on the plane as fast as possible in order to not be left without a bin to stow their luggage What I most dislike about the carry on crunch is:
- People who bring full-size luggage on flights
- People who board early, before their zone is called, many times the airport checkers let them through
- People who bring on more than 3 bags
- People who have carry on bags deemed too large at the boarding gate, checked when there's no room on the plane, fly free
- People breaking the carry on rules because the policy is not or unevenly enforced.
Good luck with your bags next time you fly.
Just board a flight today and try to stow your carry on. The passengers scramble to stow gear before others fill the overhead bins, drag bags heavier than allowed, slip aboard with more than the two items typically permitted and bump into seat mates while cramming in belongings. It's havoc on board. Because the airlines charge so much to check in regular bags fliers try to cram as much in the overhead bins or next to their seat .
The problem has become bad since the major airlines began imposing fees for the first checked bag on domestic flights. Congress is considering legislation to limit and standardize carry on size and to ensure enforcement at airport checkpoints. This is something the airlines probably don't want because some frustrated passengers, fed up with fees, would revolt against those limitations on the basis of the costs they impose in checking in more luggage. If they stop flying the airlines would lose even more revenue amidst the huge losses they already gave these days.
The mantra for fliers today is "It's a fight for the overheads". By the time the last boarding group races for space in the compartments on a typically packed flight, there is panic. Some passengers are left standing in the aisle with no place to put their belongings and they take extra time looking for a spot for their bags, which can delay the flight even further. But the airlines have brought this on all by themselves by charging for checking bags. It's like the Great Race when boarding zones are called out as everyone races to get on the plane as fast as possible in order to not be left without a bin to stow their luggage What I most dislike about the carry on crunch is:
- People who bring full-size luggage on flights
- People who board early, before their zone is called, many times the airport checkers let them through
- People who bring on more than 3 bags
- People who have carry on bags deemed too large at the boarding gate, checked when there's no room on the plane, fly free
- People breaking the carry on rules because the policy is not or unevenly enforced.
Good luck with your bags next time you fly.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Bronze John Visited
New Orleans has the reputation for being the most haunted of cities in the U.S. We still have ghost sightings on a regular basis. voodoo is practiced even today, and the history of the city is rife with tales of the dead and un dead walking and creating havoc with the locals. I could give many examples of why the city of Anne Rice and literal ghosts and goblins is Halloween ready every day of the year. But today I will write to you about one of the many of our cemetery legacies to the past frights in New Orleans.
The Yellow fever epidemics of the 19th century gave the city tens of thousands of lost souls who crowded the cemeteries as wave after wave of the yellow fever (brought by mosquitoes, not evil spirits, it affected the liver to the extent that the sufferer turned a yellow tint of color) epidemic ravaged the city in the last century, giving New Orleans a reputation as graveyard of the nation. They called the fever, Bronze John . . . Yellow Jack . . . the Saffron Scourge and more. New Orleanians then always listened for the first whispers of the fever outbreak. During the plague season, from July to October, as much as a third of the population evacuated the city to escape not only the heat and mosquitoes, but death itself.
In the worst plague years, from 1851 to 1855, up to 10 percent of the people of New Orleans who didn't flee town died in the epidemics. The mortality rate was about 60 percent for those who caught not only Bronze John, but also smallpox, malaria and cholera. As thousands died in the brief months of the plague season, New Orleans' already scarce burial space was jammed beyond capacity.
Many of the cemeteries that are now tourist attractions are crammed with victims of the plague . . . in some cases buried in mass graves. There was a rapid expansion of cemeteries as they struggled to stay ahead of the growing demand. That's why the tourists here always make the cemetery tour. Just reading the tombstones of our above ground burial sights is an education about the city then and now.
But how to cope with so many deaths??? Because of fear of infection, funerals had been banned for decades at the famous St. Louis Cathedral (site where Napoleon sold Louisiana to the U.S. and oldest Catholic Church in the U.S.). The priests of St. Louis Cathedral built a little chapel now known as Our Lady of Guadalupe beside St. Louis Cemetery No. 1 (where some of my own relatives are buried), so that yellow fever victims could be blessed before they were buried.
The sheer mass of corpses demanded quick and shallow burial. Bodies buried only a foot underground surfaced quickly during the torrential rains, because of the extremely shallow water table here, it exposed the public to the sight of their decaying neighbors. Ugh! No wonder the huge Mausoleums later became so popular. No one wants to see Uncle Claude pop up from the ground after a heavy rain storm.
It was nearly 50 years after the New Orleans Yellow Fever plagues before scientists identified the virus as the carrier. New Orleans, with its above ground sewage gutters, filthy streets, surrounding swamps and stagnant runoff pools was a perfect breeding ground for the mosquitoes that carried yellow fever.
But alas! I am safe from Bronze John. Modern eradication programs, underground sewage and more sophisticated medical and public health expertise has ended the visits of Bronze John.
On Aug. 11, 1853 the New Orleans Daily Crescent newspaper reported the scene at one of the cemeteries. To get you in the mood for Halloween spooks. Here is what people in New Orleans read that day.
“At the gates, the winds brought intimation of the corruption lurking within. Not a puff was not laden with the rank atmosphere from rotting corpses. Inside they were piles by the fifties, exposed to the heat of the sun, swollen with corruption, bursting their coffin lids…what a feast of horrors. Inside, corpses piled in pyramids and without the gates, old and withered crones and fat huxter women . . .dispensing ice creams and confections, and brushing away . . . the green bottleflies that hovered on their merchandise and that anon buzzed away to drink dainty inhalations from the green and festering corpses."
Happy Halloween!
The Yellow fever epidemics of the 19th century gave the city tens of thousands of lost souls who crowded the cemeteries as wave after wave of the yellow fever (brought by mosquitoes, not evil spirits, it affected the liver to the extent that the sufferer turned a yellow tint of color) epidemic ravaged the city in the last century, giving New Orleans a reputation as graveyard of the nation. They called the fever, Bronze John . . . Yellow Jack . . . the Saffron Scourge and more. New Orleanians then always listened for the first whispers of the fever outbreak. During the plague season, from July to October, as much as a third of the population evacuated the city to escape not only the heat and mosquitoes, but death itself.
In the worst plague years, from 1851 to 1855, up to 10 percent of the people of New Orleans who didn't flee town died in the epidemics. The mortality rate was about 60 percent for those who caught not only Bronze John, but also smallpox, malaria and cholera. As thousands died in the brief months of the plague season, New Orleans' already scarce burial space was jammed beyond capacity.
Many of the cemeteries that are now tourist attractions are crammed with victims of the plague . . . in some cases buried in mass graves. There was a rapid expansion of cemeteries as they struggled to stay ahead of the growing demand. That's why the tourists here always make the cemetery tour. Just reading the tombstones of our above ground burial sights is an education about the city then and now.
But how to cope with so many deaths??? Because of fear of infection, funerals had been banned for decades at the famous St. Louis Cathedral (site where Napoleon sold Louisiana to the U.S. and oldest Catholic Church in the U.S.). The priests of St. Louis Cathedral built a little chapel now known as Our Lady of Guadalupe beside St. Louis Cemetery No. 1 (where some of my own relatives are buried), so that yellow fever victims could be blessed before they were buried.
The sheer mass of corpses demanded quick and shallow burial. Bodies buried only a foot underground surfaced quickly during the torrential rains, because of the extremely shallow water table here, it exposed the public to the sight of their decaying neighbors. Ugh! No wonder the huge Mausoleums later became so popular. No one wants to see Uncle Claude pop up from the ground after a heavy rain storm.
It was nearly 50 years after the New Orleans Yellow Fever plagues before scientists identified the virus as the carrier. New Orleans, with its above ground sewage gutters, filthy streets, surrounding swamps and stagnant runoff pools was a perfect breeding ground for the mosquitoes that carried yellow fever.
But alas! I am safe from Bronze John. Modern eradication programs, underground sewage and more sophisticated medical and public health expertise has ended the visits of Bronze John.
On Aug. 11, 1853 the New Orleans Daily Crescent newspaper reported the scene at one of the cemeteries. To get you in the mood for Halloween spooks. Here is what people in New Orleans read that day.
“At the gates, the winds brought intimation of the corruption lurking within. Not a puff was not laden with the rank atmosphere from rotting corpses. Inside they were piles by the fifties, exposed to the heat of the sun, swollen with corruption, bursting their coffin lids…what a feast of horrors. Inside, corpses piled in pyramids and without the gates, old and withered crones and fat huxter women . . .dispensing ice creams and confections, and brushing away . . . the green bottleflies that hovered on their merchandise and that anon buzzed away to drink dainty inhalations from the green and festering corpses."
Happy Halloween!
Monday, October 26, 2009
Where Have All The Nicknames Gone?
You know what is disappearing today? It's the old fashioned nickname. I don't hear many nicknames anymore and it's a shame. In most cases nicknames are endearing or ennobling appellations (or as comic W.C. Fields used to exclaim when he heard an odd name, "What a euphonious appellation"). I know some kids can be cruel when nicknaming their friends or foes. But on the whole a good nickname stamps a person as a distinct individual and the vast majority are given with good intention.
When I was a boy just about everyone in my neighborhood had a nickname. Celebrities had nicknames, adults, kids, everyone....I suppose this generation is too politically correct to brand others with nicknames. Parents today seem to cut short any nicknames their kids get from other children at school or on the playground. The scream in protest to the school or the other parents that their little one will be stigmatized if the other kids call him "Four Eyes" because he wears glasses or "Fatty" if he shows too much girth. I think the adults are he ones who nip the nicknaming practice in the bud theses days. It's too bad because they erase the stamp of individuality when they do that.
I can't think of any of Jane's friends who has a nickname, and that is the norm today. In my school days we all wanted one. My nickname when I was a little one was taken from a very popular pop song called "Bony Marony". It was about a very skinny girl that displayed more bones than sex appeal. The song said something like, "Here comes Bony Morony...Run guys, Run"! Because I was so skinny my bones showed when I took off my shirt, I got the name in shortened form. I was "Marone". I liked it, my parents didn't object and it was fun to have a reputation as the skinny kid called Marone. Everyone knew Marone.
Too, there were allot worse nicknames among my friends than the one I had. The best was given by my older brother to a kid also with the same name as my own "Jimmy". When too many kids were named Jimmy it was not good for communication. Distinctions had to be made by renaming them. This fellow, the other Jimmy, had a bit of a belly and an even bigger rear end. One day my brother remarked that he had a chubby butt and so named him "Chub Butt". Haha My brother was a comic of sort. I remember him once saying, "Here comes Chub Butt...and he is carrying a full load." All the kids picked it up and would utter it too.
Uh, yes...Chub Butt liked his nickname too..no stigmas at all because nicknames were normal to us. The silly nicknames like we had as kids usually die a natural death as the kids get older or the personality or physical characteristic for which they were named dies. I think the kids that used to get nicknames most often were either the ones who have too common names or who had some characteristic about them that was obvious and too different to ignore. The kids with unusual first names or no distinction didn't get nicknames very often. They seemed to not need one. Kids then understood that most of the time a nickname wasn't given in malice. Instead it was often a form of recognition and affection. As for the kids who got cruel nicknames....it was at least better than being physically attacked and usually was not of lasting consequence to the nicknamed person.
We kids gave nicknames so much then (and I still give people nicknames today!) because we grew up with so many adult celebrities and sport stars who had nicknames. For example, nicknames like "Pee Wee " Reese instead of Harold Reese, the given name of that famed short baseball star were part of the players persona. Take Pee Wee's away and he might as well be naked. Often the nickname is a better fit for the person than the birth name. How about these examples of nicknames compared to birth name?
- "Lawrence of Arabia" (T. E. Lawrence)
- "Madonna" (Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone)
- "Babe" Ruth (George Ruth)
- "Pele" (Edson Arantes do Nascimento)
- "Ringo" Starr (Richard Starkey)
- "Cher" (Cherilyn LaPierre)
-"Twiggy" (Leslie Hornby)
- "Mahatma" Ghandi (Mohandas Ghandi)
- "Mr. Bean" (Rowan Atkinson)
- "The Red Baron" (Manfred Von Richtofen)
- "Dr. Suess" (Theodore Geisel)
- "Jet Li" (Li Laianjie)
- "Typhoid" Mary (Mary Mallon)
- "Uncle Ho" (Ho Chi Minh)
- "Woody Allen" ( Allen Konigsberg)
- "Bono" (Paul Hewson)
- "Sting" (Gordon Matthew Sumner)
Can you say any of the of birth names is better than the nickname? Uh...think about it while I think about a nickname to call you...
When I was a boy just about everyone in my neighborhood had a nickname. Celebrities had nicknames, adults, kids, everyone....I suppose this generation is too politically correct to brand others with nicknames. Parents today seem to cut short any nicknames their kids get from other children at school or on the playground. The scream in protest to the school or the other parents that their little one will be stigmatized if the other kids call him "Four Eyes" because he wears glasses or "Fatty" if he shows too much girth. I think the adults are he ones who nip the nicknaming practice in the bud theses days. It's too bad because they erase the stamp of individuality when they do that.
I can't think of any of Jane's friends who has a nickname, and that is the norm today. In my school days we all wanted one. My nickname when I was a little one was taken from a very popular pop song called "Bony Marony". It was about a very skinny girl that displayed more bones than sex appeal. The song said something like, "Here comes Bony Morony...Run guys, Run"! Because I was so skinny my bones showed when I took off my shirt, I got the name in shortened form. I was "Marone". I liked it, my parents didn't object and it was fun to have a reputation as the skinny kid called Marone. Everyone knew Marone.
Too, there were allot worse nicknames among my friends than the one I had. The best was given by my older brother to a kid also with the same name as my own "Jimmy". When too many kids were named Jimmy it was not good for communication. Distinctions had to be made by renaming them. This fellow, the other Jimmy, had a bit of a belly and an even bigger rear end. One day my brother remarked that he had a chubby butt and so named him "Chub Butt". Haha My brother was a comic of sort. I remember him once saying, "Here comes Chub Butt...and he is carrying a full load." All the kids picked it up and would utter it too.
Uh, yes...Chub Butt liked his nickname too..no stigmas at all because nicknames were normal to us. The silly nicknames like we had as kids usually die a natural death as the kids get older or the personality or physical characteristic for which they were named dies. I think the kids that used to get nicknames most often were either the ones who have too common names or who had some characteristic about them that was obvious and too different to ignore. The kids with unusual first names or no distinction didn't get nicknames very often. They seemed to not need one. Kids then understood that most of the time a nickname wasn't given in malice. Instead it was often a form of recognition and affection. As for the kids who got cruel nicknames....it was at least better than being physically attacked and usually was not of lasting consequence to the nicknamed person.
We kids gave nicknames so much then (and I still give people nicknames today!) because we grew up with so many adult celebrities and sport stars who had nicknames. For example, nicknames like "Pee Wee " Reese instead of Harold Reese, the given name of that famed short baseball star were part of the players persona. Take Pee Wee's away and he might as well be naked. Often the nickname is a better fit for the person than the birth name. How about these examples of nicknames compared to birth name?
- "Lawrence of Arabia" (T. E. Lawrence)
- "Madonna" (Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone)
- "Babe" Ruth (George Ruth)
- "Pele" (Edson Arantes do Nascimento)
- "Ringo" Starr (Richard Starkey)
- "Cher" (Cherilyn LaPierre)
-"Twiggy" (Leslie Hornby)
- "Mahatma" Ghandi (Mohandas Ghandi)
- "Mr. Bean" (Rowan Atkinson)
- "The Red Baron" (Manfred Von Richtofen)
- "Dr. Suess" (Theodore Geisel)
- "Jet Li" (Li Laianjie)
- "Typhoid" Mary (Mary Mallon)
- "Uncle Ho" (Ho Chi Minh)
- "Woody Allen" ( Allen Konigsberg)
- "Bono" (Paul Hewson)
- "Sting" (Gordon Matthew Sumner)
Can you say any of the of birth names is better than the nickname? Uh...think about it while I think about a nickname to call you...
Car Seat Abuse
First a fact, then an anecdotal story to support it. More than 8,700 infants end up in the emergency room each year because their car seats are used improperly outside the car, according to study presented Monday at the American Academy of Pediatrics'. Most of the injuries found by the study occurred when car seats fell off tables, countertops or other high surfaces. In some cases, babies who weren't securely buckled fell out of the seats. Babies also were injured when car seats flipped over on soft surfaces, such as beds and couches, where infants can suffocate. It's a huge problem and I have a quick anecdote for you to show why.
The other day while in a grocery store I was stunned at the sight of a young woman who was pushing her grocery cart with one hand and chattering on her cell phone with the other. She nearly collided into me, as she was completely transfixed (the idiotic giggly smile cell addicts show was on her face) by her telephone conversation. Problem is, her infant baby rested in a car seat on top of the grocery cart, precariously unsecured and an accident waiting to happen. Had she run over me or bumped into another person or a store displace the baby would have fallen off onto the floor. Yet, she seemed unconcerned with her child and totally absorbed with her phone.
No doubt the lady loves her child, but her careless, unthinking behavior is so common today. But car seats aren't a safe way to carry babies for lengthy periods outside the car and certainly should never be placed on top of a grocery shopping cart. Yet, it is a common sight to see now. Too, spending too much time in car seats can cause other problems. Physical therapists are seeing more babies with "container syndrome," or weak muscles and flat heads caused by too much time spent lying on their backs. (No my "weak head/brain" is my natural stupidity...not from car seats).
It seems, sadly, we are a busy society (got to chat on those cell phones) and we don't have time to spend watching and playing with our children. We are to busy consumed with ourselves and our amusements to worry about someone or something outside ourselves, even when they are our most precious gift...our children. If I were a cynical man (Haha Ok, I am) I would simply say that if stupid people weren't allowed to reproduce there would be few of these kinds of accidents.
What do you think?
The other day while in a grocery store I was stunned at the sight of a young woman who was pushing her grocery cart with one hand and chattering on her cell phone with the other. She nearly collided into me, as she was completely transfixed (the idiotic giggly smile cell addicts show was on her face) by her telephone conversation. Problem is, her infant baby rested in a car seat on top of the grocery cart, precariously unsecured and an accident waiting to happen. Had she run over me or bumped into another person or a store displace the baby would have fallen off onto the floor. Yet, she seemed unconcerned with her child and totally absorbed with her phone.
No doubt the lady loves her child, but her careless, unthinking behavior is so common today. But car seats aren't a safe way to carry babies for lengthy periods outside the car and certainly should never be placed on top of a grocery shopping cart. Yet, it is a common sight to see now. Too, spending too much time in car seats can cause other problems. Physical therapists are seeing more babies with "container syndrome," or weak muscles and flat heads caused by too much time spent lying on their backs. (No my "weak head/brain" is my natural stupidity...not from car seats).
It seems, sadly, we are a busy society (got to chat on those cell phones) and we don't have time to spend watching and playing with our children. We are to busy consumed with ourselves and our amusements to worry about someone or something outside ourselves, even when they are our most precious gift...our children. If I were a cynical man (Haha Ok, I am) I would simply say that if stupid people weren't allowed to reproduce there would be few of these kinds of accidents.
What do you think?
Marie Laveau
Bringing flowers to the tomb of a dead ancestor is a common practice in New Orleans. But the 125th anniversary of voodoo priestess Marie Laveau is just in time for Halloween. Madam Laveau was so well known that her obituary was published in 1881 not only in her home New Orleans but also and in The New York Times. Only the grave of Elvis Presley draws more visitors to an individual American burial site. Madam Laveau is buried in historic and supposedly the haunted St. Louis Cemetery in New Orleans.
A hairdresser by trade, Laveau was a devout Catholic freed slave with incredible healing powers. Marie and her daughter (also named Marie Laveau) taught and used the Voodoo religion's magical powers to control ones lovers, acquaintances, enemies, and sex. Voodoo had been secretly practiced by blacks around New Orleans since the first boat load of slaves. New Orleans was more French-Spanish than English-American, and the slaves had came from the same parts of Africa that had sent blacks to work the French and Spanish plantations in the Caribbean.
If one visits various cemeteries in New Orleans today he or she may see the remains of a Voodoo ritual that was performed at one or more of the tombs the night before. Voodoo is still actively practiced here. Marie Laveau was always a devoted Catholic and added influences of Catholicism such as holy water, incense, statues of the saints, and Christian prayers to the already sensational ceremonies of voodooism. All of those practices and rituals are still used in Voodoo today.
At any rate, Marie promoted her skills and even had Voodoo performances. People began to buy her spells because..well...they seemed to always work. She became the most powerful woman in New Orleans and today is the most powerful dead woman! In the St. Louis Cemetery there is another vault bearing the name of Marie Laveau. This vault has red crosses on it and is called the "wishing vault." Young women often still come to it to petition when seeking husbands. Stories also say that Marie rests in various cemeteries in the city. Legend tells she frequently visits the cemeteries, as well as the French Quarter, and her voodoo haunts.
We have real Halloween ghosts in New Orleans. It's no wonder we are called America's most haunted city.
A hairdresser by trade, Laveau was a devout Catholic freed slave with incredible healing powers. Marie and her daughter (also named Marie Laveau) taught and used the Voodoo religion's magical powers to control ones lovers, acquaintances, enemies, and sex. Voodoo had been secretly practiced by blacks around New Orleans since the first boat load of slaves. New Orleans was more French-Spanish than English-American, and the slaves had came from the same parts of Africa that had sent blacks to work the French and Spanish plantations in the Caribbean.
If one visits various cemeteries in New Orleans today he or she may see the remains of a Voodoo ritual that was performed at one or more of the tombs the night before. Voodoo is still actively practiced here. Marie Laveau was always a devoted Catholic and added influences of Catholicism such as holy water, incense, statues of the saints, and Christian prayers to the already sensational ceremonies of voodooism. All of those practices and rituals are still used in Voodoo today.
At any rate, Marie promoted her skills and even had Voodoo performances. People began to buy her spells because..well...they seemed to always work. She became the most powerful woman in New Orleans and today is the most powerful dead woman! In the St. Louis Cemetery there is another vault bearing the name of Marie Laveau. This vault has red crosses on it and is called the "wishing vault." Young women often still come to it to petition when seeking husbands. Stories also say that Marie rests in various cemeteries in the city. Legend tells she frequently visits the cemeteries, as well as the French Quarter, and her voodoo haunts.
We have real Halloween ghosts in New Orleans. It's no wonder we are called America's most haunted city.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Straight On A Gay Cruise
I just read about an Italian couple who is suing a cruise line after the heterosexual couple ended up on board Italy's first gay cruise. Haha There were 1500 passengers and one straight middle aged couple who were both surprised and upset that they were booked on the cruise without being told it was for homosexuals. Events on board were gay-focused, so that couple must have been lost in gay space. News reports said the the couple was embarrassed after spotting people they knew but had not realized were gay on the ship.
This could be the plot for a movie, a comedy of course. Hollywood will use any idea it can get since it has been out of original ideas for so many years. It makes me think (a dangerous habit for me) about some other uncomfortable concepts that movie makers might use for a script. How about these odd premises.
* George Bush reads a book- In this action show George actually picks up a book (though only a comic book) and tries to read. Given George's intellectual skills it may take some time to film his completion of the book. Episodes may take years to see it completed.
* The world's most pierced woman, Elaine Davidson adds more punctures to her body, bringing the grand total to 6,005.- But what is Elaine to do now that there is no space left on her body? In this movie she kidnaps un tattooed men , ties them up and tattoos them where it hurts...
* A man is addicted to prostate exams- in this medical drama a man goes for a prostate check and loves having the doctor stick his finger up there. Since after he asks other people to check it for me" and gets punched out when he does, the guy schedules daily appointments with doctors to have the prostate fingered.
* Obama is not God- after rumors start that Barack Obama isn't "always right" or immortal, critics dare to say the unthinkable in this politically correct world, that Obama is flawed like other humans.
* Al Gore's Global Warmed Life- Cameras follow the global warming chief as he behaves very much like a man who knows that Global warming is a hoax. Al is caught polluting with his private jet, living in an energy inefficient huge mansion, driving gas guzzler cars, and buying non degradable products.
Oh...maybe I am odd for even writing this stupidity.
This could be the plot for a movie, a comedy of course. Hollywood will use any idea it can get since it has been out of original ideas for so many years. It makes me think (a dangerous habit for me) about some other uncomfortable concepts that movie makers might use for a script. How about these odd premises.
* George Bush reads a book- In this action show George actually picks up a book (though only a comic book) and tries to read. Given George's intellectual skills it may take some time to film his completion of the book. Episodes may take years to see it completed.
* The world's most pierced woman, Elaine Davidson adds more punctures to her body, bringing the grand total to 6,005.- But what is Elaine to do now that there is no space left on her body? In this movie she kidnaps un tattooed men , ties them up and tattoos them where it hurts...
* A man is addicted to prostate exams- in this medical drama a man goes for a prostate check and loves having the doctor stick his finger up there. Since after he asks other people to check it for me" and gets punched out when he does, the guy schedules daily appointments with doctors to have the prostate fingered.
* Obama is not God- after rumors start that Barack Obama isn't "always right" or immortal, critics dare to say the unthinkable in this politically correct world, that Obama is flawed like other humans.
* Al Gore's Global Warmed Life- Cameras follow the global warming chief as he behaves very much like a man who knows that Global warming is a hoax. Al is caught polluting with his private jet, living in an energy inefficient huge mansion, driving gas guzzler cars, and buying non degradable products.
Oh...maybe I am odd for even writing this stupidity.
Death Of Big Screens
It looks like the state of California's Energy Commission regulators appear to be on track to pass the nation's first ban on energy hungry, big screen TVs. Yep! They want to stop Californians from watching the boob tube on big screens. They will vote in three weeks to set maximum energy consumption standards for TVs to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. In effect. any one living in California could forget about watching a TV set over 50" because those would be banned in the name of "energy efficiency".
So it now appears we have a new industry for the politicians to demonize: "BIG TV" !!! Yet, it does not follow... When electricity becomes more expensive people will conserve naturally without government regulation. Hmmmmm A bigger concern is the amount of time couch potatoes spend in front of the TV's.I am in disbelief that anyone would support this bill. How much the consumer wants to spent for electricity is his own business. If he wants to save he will buy a power saver set. What will the government do next limit the size of a person's house?
That would save energy but who wants the government regulating every aspect our life in the name of a dubious "energy saving" policy. The Energy Commission says that California's 35 million TVs and related gear account for about 10% of all household electricity consumption, a small pittance when compared, for example, to the energy used by the estimated 6 million illegal immigrants now residing in California. If done, consumers could save $30 per set each year from reduced electricity use. That's not a whole lot gained in exchange for taking away the consumer's free choice.
Too, the TV manufacturers say they, like all other manufactures have, are already making more efficient big screen Tv's and that there is no need to regulate production of Tv's as a result.I am all for saving energy and being more "green". lets start by getting rid of cars and instead ride our horses. We could quit building houses since the involve killing trees. We could live in caves and heat those caves with horse dung.
No T.V.'s anymore??? Well, we could make shadow puppets on the cave wall from the light of your dung fire. And you cell phone addicts, say good-bye to your cell phones and hello to carrier pigeons and smoke signals. Thanks California!
So it now appears we have a new industry for the politicians to demonize: "BIG TV" !!! Yet, it does not follow... When electricity becomes more expensive people will conserve naturally without government regulation. Hmmmmm A bigger concern is the amount of time couch potatoes spend in front of the TV's.I am in disbelief that anyone would support this bill. How much the consumer wants to spent for electricity is his own business. If he wants to save he will buy a power saver set. What will the government do next limit the size of a person's house?
That would save energy but who wants the government regulating every aspect our life in the name of a dubious "energy saving" policy. The Energy Commission says that California's 35 million TVs and related gear account for about 10% of all household electricity consumption, a small pittance when compared, for example, to the energy used by the estimated 6 million illegal immigrants now residing in California. If done, consumers could save $30 per set each year from reduced electricity use. That's not a whole lot gained in exchange for taking away the consumer's free choice.
Too, the TV manufacturers say they, like all other manufactures have, are already making more efficient big screen Tv's and that there is no need to regulate production of Tv's as a result.I am all for saving energy and being more "green". lets start by getting rid of cars and instead ride our horses. We could quit building houses since the involve killing trees. We could live in caves and heat those caves with horse dung.
No T.V.'s anymore??? Well, we could make shadow puppets on the cave wall from the light of your dung fire. And you cell phone addicts, say good-bye to your cell phones and hello to carrier pigeons and smoke signals. Thanks California!
Death Of Persuasion
Are we moving steadily closer to the day when persuasion becomes officially extinct because people will refuse to let their minds be changed. I see the intolerance and closed minds more and more today. For example, most people looking for news on the Internet go to sites that will confirm what they already believe to be true. People don't seek truth or knowledge as much as they seek affirmation of their current belief. And the Internet makes it easy for us to read only the opinions we have that we want to confirm as being true. Just look at all the special interest opinion web sites who appeal to like minded people and which are never objective.
We have, as a world, become increasingly suspicious of folks we think don't believe as we do and more and more convinced of the righteousness of our own positions. From the fanatical Muslim terrorists to the intransigence of leaders like George Bush we see so many people who never conceive they could be wrong or could compromise on an issue. And I do not mean one should give up his or her beliefs, only that he or she should open the mind to hear the other views. We are doing much less of that now.
In my own country now one is scorned on if criticizing President Obama. It's as if because Obama is our first minority president we must agree with and worship him. To do otherwise means we are branded as "racist".
One dare not even dispute and discuss an Obama policy as that too is defined as a"racist" attitude. When George Bush was president his own supporters took a similar stance of "George is God and thou shall not criticize or question him". This intolerance and refusal to look objectively at the other side is a modern trend here and world-wide.
I find it sadly ironic that in the age of so much mass communication, personal communication is in such decline and the art of debate and persuasion are becoming dinosaurs.
We have, as a world, become increasingly suspicious of folks we think don't believe as we do and more and more convinced of the righteousness of our own positions. From the fanatical Muslim terrorists to the intransigence of leaders like George Bush we see so many people who never conceive they could be wrong or could compromise on an issue. And I do not mean one should give up his or her beliefs, only that he or she should open the mind to hear the other views. We are doing much less of that now.
In my own country now one is scorned on if criticizing President Obama. It's as if because Obama is our first minority president we must agree with and worship him. To do otherwise means we are branded as "racist".
One dare not even dispute and discuss an Obama policy as that too is defined as a"racist" attitude. When George Bush was president his own supporters took a similar stance of "George is God and thou shall not criticize or question him". This intolerance and refusal to look objectively at the other side is a modern trend here and world-wide.
I find it sadly ironic that in the age of so much mass communication, personal communication is in such decline and the art of debate and persuasion are becoming dinosaurs.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Throwing Mud At Christopher Columbus
Columbus Day has passed. In some parts of the U.S. it is a big holiday, and it is a federal holiday for all federal employees and many schools are closed on Columbus Day. It's one of those quiet holidays in that few people pay attention to it because Columbus has been seen as a brave explorer who contributed greatly to western civilization with his voyages to "the new world', and that Columbus discovered the America continent so long ago that even though it was a major achievement it is hardly that important to people now. Why would anyone object to a day honoring such great explorer? A heroic and positive image of Christopher Columbus was always presented in U.S. schools. Until now.
It seems that some teachers and some schools are trying to present a more "balanced picture" of cruelties Columbus and the Caucasian sailors hurled at the Indians who met Columbus when he landed. Schools now focus on the spread of disease those explorers started in America when the new viruses and bacteria they carried on their filthy bodies (they never bathed then) infected and sometimes killed the Indians they dealt with. In other words, in this age of political correctness, they are making Columbus an evil man, replacing his achievements with a concept of "evil treatment" of Indians based on our current standards of morality.
How stupid! Using 21st century standards to judge a 15th century man is a case study in elementary illogic. Educators should know better. Here are some examples of political correctness winning over reason in the matter of the once honored name of Christopher Columbus:
* Kids are being taught that Columbus was a bad fellow.... very mean, very bossy. Uh, I think any ship captain who explored at that time in history was "mean". It was the mores of the age and for an educator to single out Captain Columbus is strange. Focusing on Columbus' achievements might be a better teaching strategy
* In some schools students are learning about the "Colombian Exchange" which consisted not only of his taking gold, crops and goods from the American land back to Spain (the country for which Columbus sailed) but also his "infecting" the natives with diseases that decimated the native populations.
* In McDonald, Pennsylvania, for instance, fourth-grade students at Fort Cherry Elementary put Columbus on trial this year, charging him with misrepresenting the Spanish crown and thievery. They found him guilty and sentenced him to life in prison. Haha The teacher that conducted that idiotic lesson should be forced to walk a gangplank!
* Many schools say Columbus did not discover America, because how could he discover America if there were already people living here? Kind of crazy to define discovery that way, given the European continent that Columbus sailed for did discover the land and people of America for the first time when he landed there. According to the Columbus revisionists it appears that individuals are incapable of discovering truths or anything else for themselves or their contemporaries unless no other single being has also "discovered" it.
* In one school's Columbus lesson last year students were forced to stand in a cafeteria and not allowed to eat while other students teased and intimidated them, apparently so they could better understand "the suffering indigenous populations endured because of Columbus".
The impression one might get today is that in some classrooms here, there is not a balanced presentation of Columbus, nor a separation between the man and his achievements. Political correctness and trendy movements to demonize anything traditionally honored has produced a very negative about Columbus which is a matter of great concern because that is not accurate. I think this is true in many other cases in the U.S. not just in school classes fro kids. Truth has become what those with an agenda say it is.
Surely, every hero (Columbus in this case) is somebody else's villain. But schools should not propagandize kids by rewriting or distorting history in order to promote their own agendas. Someone should tell those schools and teachers to stop hurling mud at Columbus and instead start to search and teach the truth....maybe first becoming a student of that lesson themselves... before they teach kids. Oh...I forgot...they say that only ONE person can discover anything and the truth about Columbus must have already been discovered.
Hmmmmmm What is the lesson taught by these politically correct exercises? Is it "How to be irrational"? Maybe we should just put those Columbus revisionists in that same prison in which they have already put Christopher Columbus
It seems that some teachers and some schools are trying to present a more "balanced picture" of cruelties Columbus and the Caucasian sailors hurled at the Indians who met Columbus when he landed. Schools now focus on the spread of disease those explorers started in America when the new viruses and bacteria they carried on their filthy bodies (they never bathed then) infected and sometimes killed the Indians they dealt with. In other words, in this age of political correctness, they are making Columbus an evil man, replacing his achievements with a concept of "evil treatment" of Indians based on our current standards of morality.
How stupid! Using 21st century standards to judge a 15th century man is a case study in elementary illogic. Educators should know better. Here are some examples of political correctness winning over reason in the matter of the once honored name of Christopher Columbus:
* Kids are being taught that Columbus was a bad fellow.... very mean, very bossy. Uh, I think any ship captain who explored at that time in history was "mean". It was the mores of the age and for an educator to single out Captain Columbus is strange. Focusing on Columbus' achievements might be a better teaching strategy
* In some schools students are learning about the "Colombian Exchange" which consisted not only of his taking gold, crops and goods from the American land back to Spain (the country for which Columbus sailed) but also his "infecting" the natives with diseases that decimated the native populations.
* In McDonald, Pennsylvania, for instance, fourth-grade students at Fort Cherry Elementary put Columbus on trial this year, charging him with misrepresenting the Spanish crown and thievery. They found him guilty and sentenced him to life in prison. Haha The teacher that conducted that idiotic lesson should be forced to walk a gangplank!
* Many schools say Columbus did not discover America, because how could he discover America if there were already people living here? Kind of crazy to define discovery that way, given the European continent that Columbus sailed for did discover the land and people of America for the first time when he landed there. According to the Columbus revisionists it appears that individuals are incapable of discovering truths or anything else for themselves or their contemporaries unless no other single being has also "discovered" it.
* In one school's Columbus lesson last year students were forced to stand in a cafeteria and not allowed to eat while other students teased and intimidated them, apparently so they could better understand "the suffering indigenous populations endured because of Columbus".
The impression one might get today is that in some classrooms here, there is not a balanced presentation of Columbus, nor a separation between the man and his achievements. Political correctness and trendy movements to demonize anything traditionally honored has produced a very negative about Columbus which is a matter of great concern because that is not accurate. I think this is true in many other cases in the U.S. not just in school classes fro kids. Truth has become what those with an agenda say it is.
Surely, every hero (Columbus in this case) is somebody else's villain. But schools should not propagandize kids by rewriting or distorting history in order to promote their own agendas. Someone should tell those schools and teachers to stop hurling mud at Columbus and instead start to search and teach the truth....maybe first becoming a student of that lesson themselves... before they teach kids. Oh...I forgot...they say that only ONE person can discover anything and the truth about Columbus must have already been discovered.
Hmmmmmm What is the lesson taught by these politically correct exercises? Is it "How to be irrational"? Maybe we should just put those Columbus revisionists in that same prison in which they have already put Christopher Columbus
Climate Debate Heating
For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. Yep! 1998 was the hottest year and things have cooled since. Even global warming propagandists like Al Gore are hiding from the facts that they didn't expect to see.Global warming non believers like me and also the many and ever growing number of skeptical climatologists say that man's influence on our climate is overstated. Natural cycles, over which we have no control, dictate how warm or cold the planet is. It always has been that way and always will be. That man thinks he can control climate is absorb. We are like gnats that buzz at a picnic, insignificant bugs on the planet are not Gods which control climate. 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun, so instead blame the changes in temperature that naturally occur on the Sun God.
The global surface temperature correlates with ocean temperatures and in the last few years the Pacific Ocean been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down. The global cooling (that the same global warming nuts said would bring "a new ice age" then) from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles and we may be heading into a cooler cycle now. That is why the global warming believers have changed their cause form "global warming" to "climate change". "Climate change" allows them to claim that man is making the earth either cooler or warming. They want to cover all bases. How silly!
Fact is, there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is slightly warming the planet, it is a tiny part compared with nature. Temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling. It is normal because climate varies in temperature all the time. It is not a stable entity, so there is no "normal" temperature to measure other temperatures toward.And of course there is the opposite view from the global warming crowd. Who's to say which is correct.
One thing is certain. I wish the global warmers would cool down their silly propaganda about man killing the planet.
The global surface temperature correlates with ocean temperatures and in the last few years the Pacific Ocean been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down. The global cooling (that the same global warming nuts said would bring "a new ice age" then) from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles and we may be heading into a cooler cycle now. That is why the global warming believers have changed their cause form "global warming" to "climate change". "Climate change" allows them to claim that man is making the earth either cooler or warming. They want to cover all bases. How silly!
Fact is, there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is slightly warming the planet, it is a tiny part compared with nature. Temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling. It is normal because climate varies in temperature all the time. It is not a stable entity, so there is no "normal" temperature to measure other temperatures toward.And of course there is the opposite view from the global warming crowd. Who's to say which is correct.
One thing is certain. I wish the global warmers would cool down their silly propaganda about man killing the planet.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Like, You Know....
If you're like, whatever, don't be surprised if, you know, someone gives you a dirty look, or whatever. Haha No, I don't speak or write that way. But many Americans and speakers of English as a second language ) do. And most people say they don't like to hear that kind of language pollution. But given that the English language has the biggest vocabulary and most complex rules of grammar and use of all languages, it's understandable that some of us fall back into "like" a sloppy usage and grammar.
According to a poll by Marist that asked about some of the specific overused and annoying words and phrases, Americans find "whatever" to be the most annoying word. 47% think so. "You know" is second, at 25%, and 11% selected "it is what it is." The poll says 7% would like to ban "anyway" from all conversation and 2% are fed up with "at the end of the day." But then this misuse depends on age, sex, location and other factors.
For example, have you ever listened to a 14 year old converse with a friend? Good luck interpreting what is said. Only another teen could decipher it. "Whatever"! But I do have a list of some more annoying English phrases to pass on to you today, and perhaps you might give me some of your own.
Problem is, today's slang and overuse isn't even clever as it was in earlier generations. It's probably because people today are less educated and skilled in using their language (our technology has killed it!) . The world/nation now all speaks informally. Formal language (even in writing) is on vacation. I suppose we can already pronounce the coming death of proper language use. "Like", it is on the horizon.Besides the Marist tested words and phrases, tell me if you find these others also annoying:
* You betcha!
* I'm just saying.....
* No problem
* It is what it is
* I hear ya
* We can't afford to wait
* Pre owned
* Senior citizen
* You can clearly see
* Think out of the box
* At the end of the day
* Go with the flow
* The ball is in your court
* I couldn't care less
* What would Jesus do
* Praise the lord
* Have a nice day
* To be honest with you
* I'm so not going
* Carbon footprint
* Global warming
* Oddly enough
* To make a long story short
* Past history
Sigh, even I can't take it anymore. "To be honest with you", I have to stop before your brain dies as mine did.
According to a poll by Marist that asked about some of the specific overused and annoying words and phrases, Americans find "whatever" to be the most annoying word. 47% think so. "You know" is second, at 25%, and 11% selected "it is what it is." The poll says 7% would like to ban "anyway" from all conversation and 2% are fed up with "at the end of the day." But then this misuse depends on age, sex, location and other factors.
For example, have you ever listened to a 14 year old converse with a friend? Good luck interpreting what is said. Only another teen could decipher it. "Whatever"! But I do have a list of some more annoying English phrases to pass on to you today, and perhaps you might give me some of your own.
Problem is, today's slang and overuse isn't even clever as it was in earlier generations. It's probably because people today are less educated and skilled in using their language (our technology has killed it!) . The world/nation now all speaks informally. Formal language (even in writing) is on vacation. I suppose we can already pronounce the coming death of proper language use. "Like", it is on the horizon.Besides the Marist tested words and phrases, tell me if you find these others also annoying:
* You betcha!
* I'm just saying.....
* No problem
* It is what it is
* I hear ya
* We can't afford to wait
* Pre owned
* Senior citizen
* You can clearly see
* Think out of the box
* At the end of the day
* Go with the flow
* The ball is in your court
* I couldn't care less
* What would Jesus do
* Praise the lord
* Have a nice day
* To be honest with you
* I'm so not going
* Carbon footprint
* Global warming
* Oddly enough
* To make a long story short
* Past history
Sigh, even I can't take it anymore. "To be honest with you", I have to stop before your brain dies as mine did.
Gourmet Gone
Another long term (it lasted from 1940 to 2009) magazine is shutting down at the end of the year. Gourmet magazine will be shut down, publisher Condé Nast said. It is a special interest magazine focusing on gourmet food recipes and travel articles and was a quality publication in writing and photography. These kinds of magazines are among the first to die in this age of declining numbers of both magazines and newspapers here in the U.S.
Popular food shows on television, the competition reading faces from electronic technology and free online sites have eroded Gourmet magazine's advertising revenue and made it a money loser. This is the same formula killing so many of the more "serious' publications while frivolous ones like "People magazine" still sell at a profitable rate. The current age of the mind numbing media is smothering the more substantive ones. Thus, many are willing to read the latest celebrity gossip and fewer stories of depth requiring an exercise of the intellect. The magazine industry is in a difficult position generally speaking, it's losing revenue to online advertising.
Other publications that promote substance over style will also fall and the lower common denominator will rise. We can see how that happened in TV and in the music industry, with quality declining precipitously in favor of trendy, less complicated and challenging art. And few seem to notice or care...
Popular food shows on television, the competition reading faces from electronic technology and free online sites have eroded Gourmet magazine's advertising revenue and made it a money loser. This is the same formula killing so many of the more "serious' publications while frivolous ones like "People magazine" still sell at a profitable rate. The current age of the mind numbing media is smothering the more substantive ones. Thus, many are willing to read the latest celebrity gossip and fewer stories of depth requiring an exercise of the intellect. The magazine industry is in a difficult position generally speaking, it's losing revenue to online advertising.
Other publications that promote substance over style will also fall and the lower common denominator will rise. We can see how that happened in TV and in the music industry, with quality declining precipitously in favor of trendy, less complicated and challenging art. And few seem to notice or care...
Monday, October 5, 2009
Even Older Generations
The subject of age has come into the news based on a research study of the subject of longevity. It seems that humans born today and thereafter in wealthier "developed" countries will live a whole lot longer that those of us already alive. Professor Kaare Christensen, of the Danish Ageing Research Centre at the University of Southern Denmark, who led the study, said life expectancy had been increasing since 1840 and there was no sign of this trend slowing down. The research says that man could now be regarded as having four stages of life. They include childhood, adulthood, young old age and old old age.
The study points out that until the 1920s, improvements in infant and childhood survival contributed most to the increase in life expectancies. Since then the increases have been brought about largely by progress in the survival of the elderly.Interesting too, is that the study said there was no evidence that the old old age group were unhealthier than their younger counterparts, partly because the frailest people died first, leaving the strongest to survive past 85. In the wealthy nations there is evidence of a postponement in the limitations and disabilities caused by ill health, despite an increase in chronic diseases. This was because of improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of illnesses such as heart disease and cancer.
So what does all of this information mean to us? Do we want to live to be a 100? After all, our patience with society's problems seems to lessen as we age. Haha I know that if Reality TV and cell phone bores, for instance, are still around when I approach 100, I might not want to reach that age. It might be that people who are at or past 100 years of age require a little higher level in life than what the "ignorant masses" accept in their naive youth.
But what would those interests be? Don't we already exhaust all the options in life by old age? Maybe technology will have to come to the "old old age" group rescue with some "virtual pleasure" machine that makes life interesting still. If we could program such a machine to provide experiences we want we would either be more fulfilled and happy about being an "old old' ager, or we would be so immersed in the machine we would lose touch with the reality outside of it. It's an interesting scenario, huh?
The study points out that until the 1920s, improvements in infant and childhood survival contributed most to the increase in life expectancies. Since then the increases have been brought about largely by progress in the survival of the elderly.Interesting too, is that the study said there was no evidence that the old old age group were unhealthier than their younger counterparts, partly because the frailest people died first, leaving the strongest to survive past 85. In the wealthy nations there is evidence of a postponement in the limitations and disabilities caused by ill health, despite an increase in chronic diseases. This was because of improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of illnesses such as heart disease and cancer.
So what does all of this information mean to us? Do we want to live to be a 100? After all, our patience with society's problems seems to lessen as we age. Haha I know that if Reality TV and cell phone bores, for instance, are still around when I approach 100, I might not want to reach that age. It might be that people who are at or past 100 years of age require a little higher level in life than what the "ignorant masses" accept in their naive youth.
But what would those interests be? Don't we already exhaust all the options in life by old age? Maybe technology will have to come to the "old old age" group rescue with some "virtual pleasure" machine that makes life interesting still. If we could program such a machine to provide experiences we want we would either be more fulfilled and happy about being an "old old' ager, or we would be so immersed in the machine we would lose touch with the reality outside of it. It's an interesting scenario, huh?
Nude Reaction To Global Warming
Are you tired of hearing about continued whiny claims about "climate change" (they used to call it "global warming", but renaming it that gives them the right to claim that whenever there is either a both cold and hot extreme it is "man-made)? The silly "save the planet talk" and "it's global warming and we are all going to die" is amusing to hear, but the extremists who claim man himself is changing the climate hit the height of absurdity the other day with two nude climate change protests that were sponsored by Green peace.
Haha Yep! Crazy people do crazy things, and those nudies say they stripped for the camera to "save the planet" (what else do they ever claim to do and how many times have they saved it already?). In the first of the two nude global warming/climate change protests, hundreds of naked people gathered in a French vineyard to pose for photographer Spencer Tunick and illustrate the threat of global warming through "art". They claim the "warming" will kill the French wine they love to drink and that by getting naked, hosting empty wine bottles and shocking their moms it constituted a "meaningful message" on climate change that concentrated on the vulnerability of wines and agriculture in France.
They must have drunk an awful lot of wine before they stripped for the camera, or perhaps their brains' reasoning capacity has been heated too much and damaged. I think the only meaningful aspect to that show is to give Spencer Tunick more publicity so he can have more money for his non climate change activities. (and a chance for us to look at hot naked people) Spencer wasn't satisfied with that first nude display. He wanted more, so he organized more than 1,000 people to take part in a nude protest at Blarney Castle in Cork in southern Ireland. I was at that castle in 2008 and saw no hot, nude bodies, but the video of this event makes me glad I didn't. The 1000 were photographed lying down and holding a plant in the right hand. That's not sexy!
However, Spencer said it symbolized the human destruction of the earth. I am not certain why they had to be naked to make that point. Oh..I forgot..it is because chilly Ireland is supposed to be heating (it is not). These kinds of wacky global warming stunts are fun for the media. They love to report on the crazies and their claims but surely it makes the hypothesis of global warming seem as ridiculous as..well...as it really is
Haha Yep! Crazy people do crazy things, and those nudies say they stripped for the camera to "save the planet" (what else do they ever claim to do and how many times have they saved it already?). In the first of the two nude global warming/climate change protests, hundreds of naked people gathered in a French vineyard to pose for photographer Spencer Tunick and illustrate the threat of global warming through "art". They claim the "warming" will kill the French wine they love to drink and that by getting naked, hosting empty wine bottles and shocking their moms it constituted a "meaningful message" on climate change that concentrated on the vulnerability of wines and agriculture in France.
They must have drunk an awful lot of wine before they stripped for the camera, or perhaps their brains' reasoning capacity has been heated too much and damaged. I think the only meaningful aspect to that show is to give Spencer Tunick more publicity so he can have more money for his non climate change activities. (and a chance for us to look at hot naked people) Spencer wasn't satisfied with that first nude display. He wanted more, so he organized more than 1,000 people to take part in a nude protest at Blarney Castle in Cork in southern Ireland. I was at that castle in 2008 and saw no hot, nude bodies, but the video of this event makes me glad I didn't. The 1000 were photographed lying down and holding a plant in the right hand. That's not sexy!
However, Spencer said it symbolized the human destruction of the earth. I am not certain why they had to be naked to make that point. Oh..I forgot..it is because chilly Ireland is supposed to be heating (it is not). These kinds of wacky global warming stunts are fun for the media. They love to report on the crazies and their claims but surely it makes the hypothesis of global warming seem as ridiculous as..well...as it really is
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Halloween Month Is Here
We have some crisp, cool fall weather now and it motivates me to ride a bike in the neighborhood now. I bought a replacement bike for the one I sold when leaving my home in May, and I have been riding a few times a week (I like doing it at night) for the exercise and because I enjoy the solitude of riding at night. Already I see some homes decorated for Halloween, with orange and black lights and various decorations.
Of course Halloween candy has been out for some time, and I have already started expanding my waist eating chocolate fudge vampires, candy corn pumpkins and assorted other seasonal weight gainers. I always buy the candy I like to eat at Halloween because when there are left-overs after trick or treaters vanish until next Halloween, I can eat what they failed to pick up while trick or treating.
Too, because Halloween is such a strong tradition, the candy makers produce the traditional Halloween candy not seen anymore this time of year or any other. It seems that traditions keep even old time candy (which always tastes better than the newer stuff they make) alive, or at least resurrected once a year.
Some of my strongest memories are of my childhood at Halloween night. That ghost costume my mom used to make ut of an old white bed sheet, always tripped me a few times in my zeal to get to a door and shout "trick or treat". But bruises and scrapes on Halloween are unnoticed until November 1st...and all that candy one collects while trick or treating really does make the wounds feel less damaging the next day. I can remember some other Halloween costumes I wore (I was a dangerous looking 7 year old cowboy one year and would shoot if the candy was not to my liking), But most kids dress like a ghost at least once during childhood. It's a Halloween birth right. An early...Happy Halloween.
Of course Halloween candy has been out for some time, and I have already started expanding my waist eating chocolate fudge vampires, candy corn pumpkins and assorted other seasonal weight gainers. I always buy the candy I like to eat at Halloween because when there are left-overs after trick or treaters vanish until next Halloween, I can eat what they failed to pick up while trick or treating.
Too, because Halloween is such a strong tradition, the candy makers produce the traditional Halloween candy not seen anymore this time of year or any other. It seems that traditions keep even old time candy (which always tastes better than the newer stuff they make) alive, or at least resurrected once a year.
Some of my strongest memories are of my childhood at Halloween night. That ghost costume my mom used to make ut of an old white bed sheet, always tripped me a few times in my zeal to get to a door and shout "trick or treat". But bruises and scrapes on Halloween are unnoticed until November 1st...and all that candy one collects while trick or treating really does make the wounds feel less damaging the next day. I can remember some other Halloween costumes I wore (I was a dangerous looking 7 year old cowboy one year and would shoot if the candy was not to my liking), But most kids dress like a ghost at least once during childhood. It's a Halloween birth right. An early...Happy Halloween.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Free Shots For Ilegals
Strange news from my strange government has crossed my eyes. With swine flu vaccinations set to begin next month being offered to anyone interested, public health officials are mobilizing to ensure that the nation's more the 12 million (or however many illegal immigrants are here) are vaccinated to protect themselves and the public. Haha That's right. They can find illegals to vaccinate them but not find them to deport them for their being here without permission.
The rationale for this program is that leaving so many unvaccinated would put the legal citizens at risk from the alleged dangerous virus. I am very skeptical of that reasoning and think it is yet another lie told by those who benefit from the cheap labor of illegal immigrants and the votes of the Hispanic population which supports the invasion of the U.S. but "undocumented people" from Mexico and central America.. Surely the problems and crimes committed by illegals are a far bigger threat to citizens than is another strain of flu. And the cost of illegals as they drain the system here is likely to be far greater to America than the cost of any disease outbreak that might occur.
The mostly Mexican illegal immigrants are probably not going to show their face for the (free for illegals but not for citizens) shots, even though this country ignores its immigration and deportation laws most of the time. Because they may try to avoid the shot program, the U.S. government says that illegals will get first preference for the free shots, along with pregnant women, health care workers, and young people.
This kind of action by my government is discouraging. The continued gifts thrown at illegal immigrants surely makes legal citizens think there will be more amnesty and citizenship given to lawbreakers who cross the border and ignore and disrespect American law. Too, it would seem easier to deport the illegal aliens as a preventative of a pandemic situation, rather than spending money on vaccinating them. Our politicians, so indebted to the Hispanic vote and businesses who hire illegal immigrants at lower wages and then send campaign contributions to the politicians who support open borders, promote a feel-good ideology that promotes a continued invasion of illegal immigrants. And those who support such policy spin it to be not only a moral issue but a necessary step to disease control. Yet there is not one mention of controlling the border or en forcing laws that apply to it.
Here are a few statistics from the FBI about just one aspect of the evils of mass invasion by poorly educated illegal immigrants.
- In Los Angeles, over 95% of arrest warrants issued for the crime of murder are for illegal aliens. Illegal aliens account for nearly 30% of prison populations nationwide.
- 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the U.S. in 2005 to illegal alien parents, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S. citizens. 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers.
- Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens.
- There are currently over 400,000 unaccounted for illegal alien criminals with outstanding deportation orders.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh....There is so much more but it upsets me to think about it. I wonder which those criminals need to make us all a little safer here, vaccinations or deportation???
The rationale for this program is that leaving so many unvaccinated would put the legal citizens at risk from the alleged dangerous virus. I am very skeptical of that reasoning and think it is yet another lie told by those who benefit from the cheap labor of illegal immigrants and the votes of the Hispanic population which supports the invasion of the U.S. but "undocumented people" from Mexico and central America.. Surely the problems and crimes committed by illegals are a far bigger threat to citizens than is another strain of flu. And the cost of illegals as they drain the system here is likely to be far greater to America than the cost of any disease outbreak that might occur.
The mostly Mexican illegal immigrants are probably not going to show their face for the (free for illegals but not for citizens) shots, even though this country ignores its immigration and deportation laws most of the time. Because they may try to avoid the shot program, the U.S. government says that illegals will get first preference for the free shots, along with pregnant women, health care workers, and young people.
This kind of action by my government is discouraging. The continued gifts thrown at illegal immigrants surely makes legal citizens think there will be more amnesty and citizenship given to lawbreakers who cross the border and ignore and disrespect American law. Too, it would seem easier to deport the illegal aliens as a preventative of a pandemic situation, rather than spending money on vaccinating them. Our politicians, so indebted to the Hispanic vote and businesses who hire illegal immigrants at lower wages and then send campaign contributions to the politicians who support open borders, promote a feel-good ideology that promotes a continued invasion of illegal immigrants. And those who support such policy spin it to be not only a moral issue but a necessary step to disease control. Yet there is not one mention of controlling the border or en forcing laws that apply to it.
Here are a few statistics from the FBI about just one aspect of the evils of mass invasion by poorly educated illegal immigrants.
- In Los Angeles, over 95% of arrest warrants issued for the crime of murder are for illegal aliens. Illegal aliens account for nearly 30% of prison populations nationwide.
- 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the U.S. in 2005 to illegal alien parents, making 380,000 babies automatically U.S. citizens. 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers.
- Twelve Americans are murdered every day by illegal aliens.
- There are currently over 400,000 unaccounted for illegal alien criminals with outstanding deportation orders.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh....There is so much more but it upsets me to think about it. I wonder which those criminals need to make us all a little safer here, vaccinations or deportation???
Never Inapproproate
Did you read about the 92 year old woman from New Hampshire who celebrated her birthday by skydiving from a plane at 4500 meters? It's quite an accomplishment, and she apparently made a clean jump because her instructor and much younger tandem jumper/instructor said she had both perfect form and a precise landing, That makes her the oldest parachute jumper in the world.
But wait! This oldie jumper, Jane Bockstruck, now says she doesn't know what made her do it and has no memory of the jump itself. Haha Given that Jane also says she has been married 7 times, I think she may have lost her mind even before her memory loss set it. This jump was more dangerous than normal ones. I think a 92 year old hip breaks rather easily, even with shorter falls than those from 4500 meters. Perhaps one would have to be out of her mind to make a jump at that age..or perhaps doing the "inappropriate" may really be what we need in life to make us last as long as Jane has.
I have some ideas for the more famous among us to undertake in imitation of the true grit of Jane B. How about these people doing these "inappropriate" things.
* The Kardashian sisters- they might actually try to take a real job and leave TV performances to people who have talent.
* Sarah Palin- Now that she has resigned as Governor of Alaska, how about going away, forgetting about the Presidency and leaving the rest of us alone.
* Britney Spears- She could be daring and take a chance on a car seat for her baby instead of driving with him on her lap.
* Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown- Both should box professionally instead of beating up each other for free.
* Tom Cruise- try to resurrect his failed acting career while stop jumping on couches and preaching scientology to we heathens.
* Ashton Kutcher- Try to find a speck of talent to justify all the gushing about you by the media* Obama- Stop acting like a king and start behaving like a president.
* George Bush- George should go back to school. Probably starting in kindergarten would be the best strategy for him.
* Me- To stop writing all this nonsense.
But wait! This oldie jumper, Jane Bockstruck, now says she doesn't know what made her do it and has no memory of the jump itself. Haha Given that Jane also says she has been married 7 times, I think she may have lost her mind even before her memory loss set it. This jump was more dangerous than normal ones. I think a 92 year old hip breaks rather easily, even with shorter falls than those from 4500 meters. Perhaps one would have to be out of her mind to make a jump at that age..or perhaps doing the "inappropriate" may really be what we need in life to make us last as long as Jane has.
I have some ideas for the more famous among us to undertake in imitation of the true grit of Jane B. How about these people doing these "inappropriate" things.
* The Kardashian sisters- they might actually try to take a real job and leave TV performances to people who have talent.
* Sarah Palin- Now that she has resigned as Governor of Alaska, how about going away, forgetting about the Presidency and leaving the rest of us alone.
* Britney Spears- She could be daring and take a chance on a car seat for her baby instead of driving with him on her lap.
* Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown- Both should box professionally instead of beating up each other for free.
* Tom Cruise- try to resurrect his failed acting career while stop jumping on couches and preaching scientology to we heathens.
* Ashton Kutcher- Try to find a speck of talent to justify all the gushing about you by the media* Obama- Stop acting like a king and start behaving like a president.
* George Bush- George should go back to school. Probably starting in kindergarten would be the best strategy for him.
* Me- To stop writing all this nonsense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)