Jane's grandmother took Jane to the opera last night. It's the first time Jane has ever been tortured....err..taken to see opera. It was Richard Wagner's 'The Flying Dutchman'. That one is sung in German, fitting that the world's biggest sadists (Those Germans) would torture humans in an opera theater. I suppose you have figured out now that I don't want to see opera of any sort. My parents were merciful and never dragged me to the opera, so other than seeing film clips of those fat men and women screaming in Latin and other unknown languages I know little about opera. What I have seen and heard on those clips kills any desire to see more.
Opera is the art of the well educated and wealthy class. I think they like being separated from riff-raff like me, and opera does that since it is an esoteric niche art. Not many people want to hear fat people singing very loudly in dead languages, dressed in antediluvian costumes. I think opera is like rap music, the modern opera. Haha It may be a stretch to call rap music the new opera but I think rap is as equally unintelligible as is opera. In opera they scream their songs. In rap the talk them loudly. Opera is often violent. So many characters in an opera are killed. Rap music tells the listener to kill people, particularly the police and women. Both rap music and opera have appeal to a single market segment.
I might like to see, as a novelty act one time, a rapper doing his song in operatic form and an opera singer rapping. Maybe Lady Gaga could make a guest appearance in both of those performances. I thought it was hysterical when Pavaratti and Domingo sang pop songs a few times on TV specials. Watching an opera singer try to sing the Village people's classic YMCA is like asking your plumber to do heart surgery. And one time I also saw pop singer Michael Bolton, he of the horrible screeching voice, sing a opera score to prove "I really can sing". He not only can't sing pop songs. He is even worse singing the operatic form.
Maybe someone who knows the low taste of the audiences watching TV will have an American Idol Opera/Rap contest. But I am not sure if it would be billed as a music contest or a comedy. Sigh....I just hope Jane wasn't traumatized by that German language opera last night.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Fine Print
The U.S. Postal Service, our government supervised postal service that receives no tax money to run itself (it gets revenue to operate from selling delivery letter and package postage to customers) is in financial trouble. This past year the post office lost so much money that Saturday mail delivery may have to be canceled. And it's all your fault for sending E mails and texts to people instead of writing letters. The post office need you to buy more stamps. Nonetheless, I will miss receiving all that junk mail that comes if the post office decides to give it up completely one day. No mail means no junk mail. The thought of it is almost unbearable.
I am amused by junk mail. The average piece of junk mail is the equivalent of one politician...wordy, confusing, and dishonest in its offers. What I like to read most before throwing away all my junk mail is the "fine print". That is usually the only text that is truthful among the myriad of offers to sell you the junk the rest of the mailing makes sound like is the Hope Diamond. For legal reasons, the advertisers who use junk mailings must post a modicum of truth in their sale offer letters....but it's so tiny and hard to locate one might as well be on a scavenger hunt when trying to find it. I doubt magnifying glasses would ensure that you can read all of the fine print verbiage in fine print statements. But I can tell you about a few now.
"CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS APPLY" is my favorite fine print disclaimer. They never tell you what the certain restrictions ones are, but I think it means they can place any restriction on their offer they wish, to the point that all false claims made about the product in the rest of the mailing are assumed to be truisms. And what does "VOID WHERE PROHIBITED" mean? Is it prohibited for me, and if so, why even send me the junk mailing at all?
When I see a "QUANTITIES LIMITED" fine print remark I know they want me to think I should buy the product before they run out... but then..if they really are low on inventory why are they sending 10 million junk mail offers to buy it? Maybe they think I want to buy all 10 million copies of the product they are selling.
Most junk mail sale offers come with one of two disclaimers that are hidden away near the bottom of the text. They are "PRICE SUBJECT TO CHANGE" or "SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE". This means you have no right to expect the price offered in the junk mailing to be the one you will actually pay, or items you buy from them could be changed later if they decide to do that. I wonder why no one ever challenged this in court. It would be unconstitutional if I wrote "SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE" that on my income tax form that I send to the government. They might put me in jail without notice if I did say that.
But what fine print baffles me the most is the "SHIPPING AND HANDLING CHARGES" claim. I know the shipping costs are the postal fees the business pays to ship the product. But what is handling? Who handles it? Do they wash their hands when they handle? Why should a business charge me for the normal cost of putting the item in postal packaging? And how do they compute that charge. I notice the "HANDLING" charges are always huge. I should write to one of those businesses and offer to do their HANDLING for half of what they charge the customers. I doubt they would want me to though. The HANDLING charge is to good to them to contract it out to me.
In writing this I thought it might be appropriate to add my own fine print warning. How about "STUPID RANT MAY BE ENCLOSED"
I am amused by junk mail. The average piece of junk mail is the equivalent of one politician...wordy, confusing, and dishonest in its offers. What I like to read most before throwing away all my junk mail is the "fine print". That is usually the only text that is truthful among the myriad of offers to sell you the junk the rest of the mailing makes sound like is the Hope Diamond. For legal reasons, the advertisers who use junk mailings must post a modicum of truth in their sale offer letters....but it's so tiny and hard to locate one might as well be on a scavenger hunt when trying to find it. I doubt magnifying glasses would ensure that you can read all of the fine print verbiage in fine print statements. But I can tell you about a few now.
"CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS APPLY" is my favorite fine print disclaimer. They never tell you what the certain restrictions ones are, but I think it means they can place any restriction on their offer they wish, to the point that all false claims made about the product in the rest of the mailing are assumed to be truisms. And what does "VOID WHERE PROHIBITED" mean? Is it prohibited for me, and if so, why even send me the junk mailing at all?
When I see a "QUANTITIES LIMITED" fine print remark I know they want me to think I should buy the product before they run out... but then..if they really are low on inventory why are they sending 10 million junk mail offers to buy it? Maybe they think I want to buy all 10 million copies of the product they are selling.
Most junk mail sale offers come with one of two disclaimers that are hidden away near the bottom of the text. They are "PRICE SUBJECT TO CHANGE" or "SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE". This means you have no right to expect the price offered in the junk mailing to be the one you will actually pay, or items you buy from them could be changed later if they decide to do that. I wonder why no one ever challenged this in court. It would be unconstitutional if I wrote "SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE" that on my income tax form that I send to the government. They might put me in jail without notice if I did say that.
But what fine print baffles me the most is the "SHIPPING AND HANDLING CHARGES" claim. I know the shipping costs are the postal fees the business pays to ship the product. But what is handling? Who handles it? Do they wash their hands when they handle? Why should a business charge me for the normal cost of putting the item in postal packaging? And how do they compute that charge. I notice the "HANDLING" charges are always huge. I should write to one of those businesses and offer to do their HANDLING for half of what they charge the customers. I doubt they would want me to though. The HANDLING charge is to good to them to contract it out to me.
In writing this I thought it might be appropriate to add my own fine print warning. How about "STUPID RANT MAY BE ENCLOSED"
Monday, March 22, 2010
Kinds Of Talkers
Some people say I talk too much, or am too candid. It may be so if I am interested in the conversation, but most times I am quiet. As a talker I would classify myself as a 'Situational Chatterer'..or whatever you would label that kind of person. Anyway, I am not going to write about me. Instead, I want to make some observations about the kinds of talkers out there. Maybe you will agree with them or just tell me to SHUT UP! Or perhaps you can tell me about some other kinds of talker you meet each day.
The other day while in a holding area with more than 200 other extra actors who were about to be called to the movie set I had plenty of free time to talk to many strangers and acquaintances I know from the working movies over the past few years. There are quite a few regular extras I know and am friendly with, but besides sitting with them and chatting I like to meet new talkers. With time to kill that day I started to observe the talkers and found these types.
*Too Close For Comfort Talker- I don't like this type. They are practically kissing you when they speak. Like the Too Loud Talker (see below) the Too Close one may be deaf or have suffered some hearing loss. The only good Too Close For Comfort talkers are the sexy ones. I never turn away from hot sexy Close babes. But if you talk to a Too Close Talker you may also learn about bad breath. One strategy in dealing with this type is to excuse yourself saying you have to visit the bathroom. Just be hopeful the Too Close doesn't follow you or you may have had the misfortune run into the Gay To Close talker species.
* Too Loud Talker- Besides hearing problems that makes them scream, the Too Loud often is just confident of what they are saying and wants you to hear it. I find that this species is very emotional, the screaming type in general. Do not discuss politics or religion with a Too Loud because those are emotional subjects that can lead to you becoming a Too Assaulted listener.
* Too Soft Talker- This one wants us to pay attention to him or her. many people think soft speakers are intellectuals. I have never understood that rationale. Does being a mute make one a genius? The strategy used by Too Soft Talkers is to speak so softly that we are forced to hear the nonsense. Many boring people are soft talkers. They are so defeated by their lack of personality and charm they almost become mute as a reaction formation. By speaking softly they bring us down to their level. They laugh can be on them too, as in my case, because I am already at the lowest possible level.
* Mumbler Talker- This type of talker is the hardest of all to understand. I had a few as a student in college which was probably fortuitous because I could blame them for my low grades courses. "I can't understand him! Why else did I flunk that class"? Most people knew I flunked because I am a numbskull, but I loved that rationalization anyway. The move extra Mumble is spoke with that day seemed tired or on something. That's one reason people mumble. Another might be because they don't understand much and mumble to make us misunderstand too. I notice allot of Mumblers work at train or bus stations announcing the arrival or departures. They must hire them so we miss the bus and have to buy another ticket.
* Repeater Talker- We meet repeaters all the time. They keep saying the same thing over and over because they think we don't listen to them, are too stupid to understand the first time or because they are incapable of elaborating on a subject. One Repeater extra I talked to the other day repeatedly asked me if I had worked in a particular film now being shot. No matter how many times I told him I had, he kept asking the same thing. The repeater can clear an area quickly because everyone has heard his dialogue already and wants to vanish. One good strategy in handling the Repeater is to lithely introduce him or her to the Mumbler. It's like seeing two piranha fish go after each other.
*Gesture Talker- I enjoy talking to this one but always stand away from him or her to avoid be plunked by an out of control arm or hand. The Gesturer must be hyperactive because they never stop making signs and waving body parts when they speak. I think Italians gesture more than non Italians. 'Hey! Vinnie!(waving hands and gesturing obscenely) Waddda ya talkin bout." (gun drawn now). You have to remember to never mention the Mafia when conversing with a Gesturer. Otherwise, it might become your last conversation. I am sure Joe Pesci is a Gesture talker.
* Questioner Talker- I always feel like a student again when I talk with a Questioner. They asks questions of you as they speak. "Isn't that right"? is a typical one they use. But these are rhetorical questions and should never be nor are expected to be answered. Otherwise, the Questioner gets off track and that is what he or she most hates. Questioners seem to be reading from a script loaded with questions. Make sure you study hard before talking to a member of that species. Do you understand? Are you sure?
* Unfinished Talker- If you don't feel like talking to anyone this is the guy or gal to converse with. The Unfinished talker never lets you get a word in the conversation and appears to be talking mainly to himself (some have even been observed talking to air in an empty room). You can ignore the Unfinsihed talker and it won't bother him or her at all. They are talking because they like to hear themselves, not to engage you. Most of the time Unfinished doesn't pause at the end of the sentence because to do so would allow the listener to talk too. These talkers are convinced of their position on everything and see no reason anyone else should speak. Most politicians are Unfinished Talkers
I think I am about all talked (written) out now.
The other day while in a holding area with more than 200 other extra actors who were about to be called to the movie set I had plenty of free time to talk to many strangers and acquaintances I know from the working movies over the past few years. There are quite a few regular extras I know and am friendly with, but besides sitting with them and chatting I like to meet new talkers. With time to kill that day I started to observe the talkers and found these types.
*Too Close For Comfort Talker- I don't like this type. They are practically kissing you when they speak. Like the Too Loud Talker (see below) the Too Close one may be deaf or have suffered some hearing loss. The only good Too Close For Comfort talkers are the sexy ones. I never turn away from hot sexy Close babes. But if you talk to a Too Close Talker you may also learn about bad breath. One strategy in dealing with this type is to excuse yourself saying you have to visit the bathroom. Just be hopeful the Too Close doesn't follow you or you may have had the misfortune run into the Gay To Close talker species.
* Too Loud Talker- Besides hearing problems that makes them scream, the Too Loud often is just confident of what they are saying and wants you to hear it. I find that this species is very emotional, the screaming type in general. Do not discuss politics or religion with a Too Loud because those are emotional subjects that can lead to you becoming a Too Assaulted listener.
* Too Soft Talker- This one wants us to pay attention to him or her. many people think soft speakers are intellectuals. I have never understood that rationale. Does being a mute make one a genius? The strategy used by Too Soft Talkers is to speak so softly that we are forced to hear the nonsense. Many boring people are soft talkers. They are so defeated by their lack of personality and charm they almost become mute as a reaction formation. By speaking softly they bring us down to their level. They laugh can be on them too, as in my case, because I am already at the lowest possible level.
* Mumbler Talker- This type of talker is the hardest of all to understand. I had a few as a student in college which was probably fortuitous because I could blame them for my low grades courses. "I can't understand him! Why else did I flunk that class"? Most people knew I flunked because I am a numbskull, but I loved that rationalization anyway. The move extra Mumble is spoke with that day seemed tired or on something. That's one reason people mumble. Another might be because they don't understand much and mumble to make us misunderstand too. I notice allot of Mumblers work at train or bus stations announcing the arrival or departures. They must hire them so we miss the bus and have to buy another ticket.
* Repeater Talker- We meet repeaters all the time. They keep saying the same thing over and over because they think we don't listen to them, are too stupid to understand the first time or because they are incapable of elaborating on a subject. One Repeater extra I talked to the other day repeatedly asked me if I had worked in a particular film now being shot. No matter how many times I told him I had, he kept asking the same thing. The repeater can clear an area quickly because everyone has heard his dialogue already and wants to vanish. One good strategy in handling the Repeater is to lithely introduce him or her to the Mumbler. It's like seeing two piranha fish go after each other.
*Gesture Talker- I enjoy talking to this one but always stand away from him or her to avoid be plunked by an out of control arm or hand. The Gesturer must be hyperactive because they never stop making signs and waving body parts when they speak. I think Italians gesture more than non Italians. 'Hey! Vinnie!(waving hands and gesturing obscenely) Waddda ya talkin bout." (gun drawn now). You have to remember to never mention the Mafia when conversing with a Gesturer. Otherwise, it might become your last conversation. I am sure Joe Pesci is a Gesture talker.
* Questioner Talker- I always feel like a student again when I talk with a Questioner. They asks questions of you as they speak. "Isn't that right"? is a typical one they use. But these are rhetorical questions and should never be nor are expected to be answered. Otherwise, the Questioner gets off track and that is what he or she most hates. Questioners seem to be reading from a script loaded with questions. Make sure you study hard before talking to a member of that species. Do you understand? Are you sure?
* Unfinished Talker- If you don't feel like talking to anyone this is the guy or gal to converse with. The Unfinished talker never lets you get a word in the conversation and appears to be talking mainly to himself (some have even been observed talking to air in an empty room). You can ignore the Unfinsihed talker and it won't bother him or her at all. They are talking because they like to hear themselves, not to engage you. Most of the time Unfinished doesn't pause at the end of the sentence because to do so would allow the listener to talk too. These talkers are convinced of their position on everything and see no reason anyone else should speak. Most politicians are Unfinished Talkers
I think I am about all talked (written) out now.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Travel Distractions
When I travel I like to observe more than the native people, place and things of the unfamiliar region. I also observe the tourists who are there too. One thing I notice is they carry their technology everywhere, particularly cameras. While it may or may not be a cliché' that every Japanese tourist has a camera transplanted around his or her neck, most tourists carry and use cameras allot/too much. But why?
Can a person really see a new culture if bending and stretching behind a camera constantly? Don't people miss too much when spending so much time taking pictures of things they never completely observe while ensconced behind their technology? When one travels, a decision should be made to either constantly take pictures for the picture's sake or to enjoy oneself in the new place with cameras only used sparingly.
Both picture taking obsession and travel can rarely be done at the same time. A few pictures are nice remembrances. Many pictures are just images that are often looked at briefly then hidden away in a folder and eventually forgotten. If accidentally finding the folder many years thereafter, the discoverer usually says, "I look old" or My clothes are embarrassing"...and back into the folder go the pictures.
Besides too many cameras I see many tourists playing with their cell phones too much. Isn't the idea of travel to escape the old environment (cell phones included) for awhile? Yet many tourists chatter away constantly to the people they wanted to get away from in the first place. They say that "I have to be in touch", which means they know nothing both about travel and about communication. I think when away in travel those types probably eat the same fast food they eat in their home town instead of the local foods they could try as part of the travel experience.
Maybe the worst addicted to technology are the travelers who bring and use a lap top computer or use a computer in a hotel or internet cafe. It makes me suspect that their real home isn't the country they left or even the country they are seeing for the first time. Rather, it is inside their computer. Bringing a computer on a pleasure vacation is like wearing old and dirty sneakers with the new suit just purchased.
And the ipod and game addicts, they insult the country to which they travel by tuning it out completely......I guess most people today are just prisoners of their technology and the art of travel a dying one.
Can a person really see a new culture if bending and stretching behind a camera constantly? Don't people miss too much when spending so much time taking pictures of things they never completely observe while ensconced behind their technology? When one travels, a decision should be made to either constantly take pictures for the picture's sake or to enjoy oneself in the new place with cameras only used sparingly.
Both picture taking obsession and travel can rarely be done at the same time. A few pictures are nice remembrances. Many pictures are just images that are often looked at briefly then hidden away in a folder and eventually forgotten. If accidentally finding the folder many years thereafter, the discoverer usually says, "I look old" or My clothes are embarrassing"...and back into the folder go the pictures.
Besides too many cameras I see many tourists playing with their cell phones too much. Isn't the idea of travel to escape the old environment (cell phones included) for awhile? Yet many tourists chatter away constantly to the people they wanted to get away from in the first place. They say that "I have to be in touch", which means they know nothing both about travel and about communication. I think when away in travel those types probably eat the same fast food they eat in their home town instead of the local foods they could try as part of the travel experience.
Maybe the worst addicted to technology are the travelers who bring and use a lap top computer or use a computer in a hotel or internet cafe. It makes me suspect that their real home isn't the country they left or even the country they are seeing for the first time. Rather, it is inside their computer. Bringing a computer on a pleasure vacation is like wearing old and dirty sneakers with the new suit just purchased.
And the ipod and game addicts, they insult the country to which they travel by tuning it out completely......I guess most people today are just prisoners of their technology and the art of travel a dying one.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
On Hatred
I heard a couple of people chatting the other day when I was in a grocery store. They were mad and mad at Barrack Obama. Steam was emitted from the ears of one of those guys as he ranted about the evils Barrack is doing to the country. It struck me as being a bit over the top. I think it's not wise to be that upset that about people or the things they do when we don't even know them beyond an image.
So many in this country despise Osama bin laden. I mean they hate the guy more than the bad deeds he does. It makes me wonder what Osama is really like. Maybe he likes coffee, and football, believes in a higher power and sneak a look at porno on line..a regular guy side to him. I don't like the evil Osama does and think he is twisted, but I can't hate someone, the person him or herself, that I don't truly know. In fact I don't think that I have ever hated anyone. It's too negative and self destructive to hate. I don't believe in it nor ever feel hate in me. Better to just hate their behavior when that is bad than to hate the human being him or herself.
Perhaps some people need a symbol to hate, and people like Osama out of necessity are made into symbols. And it's easier to hate a symbol of evil than to hate a person we really know, even if that person is evil. Could that be why we stereotype those we feel a need "hate" (like the two guys in the grocery store did with Obama), to make it easier to hate them?
One odd thing about those here who used to hate George Bush (I also notice that since George left office so did much of the hate directed at him) or those who now hate Barrack Obama, is that they are hating someone who has much less influence on their daily lives than they think. In fact, the teacher of a child has more effect on the child than a U.S. President has. yet, few parents take as much interest in what the teacher is doing to his or her child every day in school, than take interest in some policy the U.S. president believes in and attempts to legislate. Maybe investing so much hate in the wrong direction is why our priorities get turned upside down.
I am amused by people who get worked up in a hate frenzy about politicians. Politicians are much less important than we think. The system in which they operate is the important thing, that which endures and impacts us the most. Shouldn't hate be directed toward inanimate objects, systems things..anything but people. We humans are allowed to live too little time to ever hate each other. We need support, encouragement, acceptance love, not hate.
Oh...by the way...I hope you don't hate me for wasting your time with my remarks.
So many in this country despise Osama bin laden. I mean they hate the guy more than the bad deeds he does. It makes me wonder what Osama is really like. Maybe he likes coffee, and football, believes in a higher power and sneak a look at porno on line..a regular guy side to him. I don't like the evil Osama does and think he is twisted, but I can't hate someone, the person him or herself, that I don't truly know. In fact I don't think that I have ever hated anyone. It's too negative and self destructive to hate. I don't believe in it nor ever feel hate in me. Better to just hate their behavior when that is bad than to hate the human being him or herself.
Perhaps some people need a symbol to hate, and people like Osama out of necessity are made into symbols. And it's easier to hate a symbol of evil than to hate a person we really know, even if that person is evil. Could that be why we stereotype those we feel a need "hate" (like the two guys in the grocery store did with Obama), to make it easier to hate them?
One odd thing about those here who used to hate George Bush (I also notice that since George left office so did much of the hate directed at him) or those who now hate Barrack Obama, is that they are hating someone who has much less influence on their daily lives than they think. In fact, the teacher of a child has more effect on the child than a U.S. President has. yet, few parents take as much interest in what the teacher is doing to his or her child every day in school, than take interest in some policy the U.S. president believes in and attempts to legislate. Maybe investing so much hate in the wrong direction is why our priorities get turned upside down.
I am amused by people who get worked up in a hate frenzy about politicians. Politicians are much less important than we think. The system in which they operate is the important thing, that which endures and impacts us the most. Shouldn't hate be directed toward inanimate objects, systems things..anything but people. We humans are allowed to live too little time to ever hate each other. We need support, encouragement, acceptance love, not hate.
Oh...by the way...I hope you don't hate me for wasting your time with my remarks.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
St. Patrick's Day
Happy St. Patrick's Day! Today is the Irish national holiday and it's celebrate just about everywhere in the world by anyone there who is of Irish heritage. The Irish have spread about the globe and brought their Shillelagh with them. In New Orleans we have quite a nice sized Irish heritage population, even a section of the city called 'The Irish Channel' where poor Irish immigrants came in the 1800's. Since most Irish immigrants to the U.S were dirt poor farmers who were starving in Ireland they were not treated well when and after arriving. Unlike today's immigrants who receive financial aid, subsidized housing, job opportunities etc., the Irish rose to the top of society through hard work, perseverance and self reliance.
Since my maternal grandmother's family was from County Cork Ireland (though my mom's dad like the rest of my ancestors was of German extraction) my mother always cooked an Irish meal on St. Patrick's day. My German heritage father practically denied his German roots as most German Americans do. Immigrant Germans tend to have a low profile, as opposed to the Irish boisterous celebration of the old country.
I have carried on the tradition and do cook, if not an entire Irish meal, at least some components of it. Today's St. Patty menu is roast leg of lamb with mint, boiled potatoes with parsley butter (well, every Irish meal seems to have potato somewhere) and creamed cabbage. Dessert will be my grandma's ice box cookies. Irish food is simple and lightly seasoned fare because ingredients in Ireland were limited due to the constant battle with poverty and starvation in Ireland.
Anyway...If you want to be lucky this St. Patrick's Day follow the traditional Irish advice on how to do it: Find a four-leaf clover, Wear green (so you don't get pinched), Kiss the blarney stone, and Catch a Leprechaun if you can.
I leave you with an Irish blessing...May the best day of your past be the worst day of your future.! Today is the Irish national holiday and it's celebrate just about everywhere in the world by anyone there who is of Irish heritage. The Irish have spread about the globe and brought their Shillelagh with them. In New Orleans we have quite a nice sized Irish heritage population, even a section of the city called 'The Irish Channel' where poor Irish immigrants came in the 1800's. Since most Irish immigrants to the U.S were dirt poor farmers who were starving in Ireland they were not treated well when and after arriving. Unlike today's immigrants who receive financial aid, subsidized housing, job opportunities etc., the Irish rose to the top of society through hard work, perseverance and self reliance.
Since my maternal grandmother's family was from County Cork Ireland (though my mom's dad like the rest of my ancestors was of German extraction) my mother always cooked an Irish meal on St. Patrick's day. My German heritage father practically denied his German roots as most German Americans do. Immigrant Germans tend to have a low profile, as opposed to the Irish boisterous celebration of the old country.
I have carried on the tradition and do cook, if not an entire Irish meal, at least some components of it. Today's St. Patty menu is roast leg of lamb with mint, boiled potatoes with parsley butter (well, every Irish meal seems to have potato somewhere) and creamed cabbage. Dessert will be my grandma's ice box cookies. Irish food is simple and lightly seasoned fare because ingredients in Ireland were limited due to the constant battle with poverty and starvation in Ireland.
Anyway...If you want to be lucky this St. Patrick's Day follow the traditional Irish advice on how to do it: Find a four-leaf clover, Wear green (so you don't get pinched), Kiss the blarney stone, and Catch a Leprechaun if you can.
I leave you with an Irish blessing...May the best day of your past be the worst day of your future.
Since my maternal grandmother's family was from County Cork Ireland (though my mom's dad like the rest of my ancestors was of German extraction) my mother always cooked an Irish meal on St. Patrick's day. My German heritage father practically denied his German roots as most German Americans do. Immigrant Germans tend to have a low profile, as opposed to the Irish boisterous celebration of the old country.
I have carried on the tradition and do cook, if not an entire Irish meal, at least some components of it. Today's St. Patty menu is roast leg of lamb with mint, boiled potatoes with parsley butter (well, every Irish meal seems to have potato somewhere) and creamed cabbage. Dessert will be my grandma's ice box cookies. Irish food is simple and lightly seasoned fare because ingredients in Ireland were limited due to the constant battle with poverty and starvation in Ireland.
Anyway...If you want to be lucky this St. Patrick's Day follow the traditional Irish advice on how to do it: Find a four-leaf clover, Wear green (so you don't get pinched), Kiss the blarney stone, and Catch a Leprechaun if you can.
I leave you with an Irish blessing...May the best day of your past be the worst day of your future.! Today is the Irish national holiday and it's celebrate just about everywhere in the world by anyone there who is of Irish heritage. The Irish have spread about the globe and brought their Shillelagh with them. In New Orleans we have quite a nice sized Irish heritage population, even a section of the city called 'The Irish Channel' where poor Irish immigrants came in the 1800's. Since most Irish immigrants to the U.S were dirt poor farmers who were starving in Ireland they were not treated well when and after arriving. Unlike today's immigrants who receive financial aid, subsidized housing, job opportunities etc., the Irish rose to the top of society through hard work, perseverance and self reliance.
Since my maternal grandmother's family was from County Cork Ireland (though my mom's dad like the rest of my ancestors was of German extraction) my mother always cooked an Irish meal on St. Patrick's day. My German heritage father practically denied his German roots as most German Americans do. Immigrant Germans tend to have a low profile, as opposed to the Irish boisterous celebration of the old country.
I have carried on the tradition and do cook, if not an entire Irish meal, at least some components of it. Today's St. Patty menu is roast leg of lamb with mint, boiled potatoes with parsley butter (well, every Irish meal seems to have potato somewhere) and creamed cabbage. Dessert will be my grandma's ice box cookies. Irish food is simple and lightly seasoned fare because ingredients in Ireland were limited due to the constant battle with poverty and starvation in Ireland.
Anyway...If you want to be lucky this St. Patrick's Day follow the traditional Irish advice on how to do it: Find a four-leaf clover, Wear green (so you don't get pinched), Kiss the blarney stone, and Catch a Leprechaun if you can.
I leave you with an Irish blessing...May the best day of your past be the worst day of your future.
Airline Passenger Complaints
According to a 2,000 person poll by websiteairfarewatchdog.com, 52% of the poll's respondents say the thing they hate most about the airlines is the fee some charge to pick their seats. A few U.S. airlines currently charge customers for picking any seat on a flight. Assigning a seat, which can be done online for virtually no transaction cost to the airline. It's simply a way to generate revenue and not to cover a tangible expense. I think passengers realize this and that's why they're so annoyed by it. Paying for meals and even checking in bags involve some extra expense for airlines, but choosing a seat does not.
Air travel ceased be fun a long time ago and I think, in the U.S. market at least, that most travels are irritated by the travel process that government regulations have imposed, as compare to irritation with individual airlines themselves. Passengers are aware that flight delays, cancellations, idiotic and un necessary security checks etc.. are more the fault of government rules than airline policy.
But the airlines attempts to stay solvent with nickel and dime fees is driving many passengers to have negative feelings towards those airlines that impose the most fees on fliers. This can be seen in the view passengers have toward Southwest Airline. It is almost wholly favorable and probably more the result of a fee less extras policy and an efficiency that others do not display. A recent TIA (Travel Industry Association) survey said that 39% of all airline travelers feel their time is not respected when flying and that 33% of all air passengers are dissatisfied with the air travel system as a whole. 78% believe the system is broken and 62% that it is deteriorating.
With most airlines losing money rapidly this is not good news for them. But they have the power to make flying more pleasant, and the one that makes the best and most successful attempt to do that should be among the more profitable. But some things are beyond their control. Security (my biggest annoyance when flying) rules and procedures are imposed by the government and not changeable. Yet, the consumers understand that and do not expect the airlines to act on those. It's the other trivial and/or hidden fees that make passengers angry. Enforcing the carry-on baggage policy limits, providing more leg room...that sort of thing airlines have control over and are blamed for when they become issues.
I think as the profitability ratio improves the airlines will become more user friendly, but until then I'll have to sit next to the man with 4 carry-ons crammed under the seat and impeding my leg room so I can't kick that screaming baby that is crying on the lap of the mom who refuses to attend to him
Air travel ceased be fun a long time ago and I think, in the U.S. market at least, that most travels are irritated by the travel process that government regulations have imposed, as compare to irritation with individual airlines themselves. Passengers are aware that flight delays, cancellations, idiotic and un necessary security checks etc.. are more the fault of government rules than airline policy.
But the airlines attempts to stay solvent with nickel and dime fees is driving many passengers to have negative feelings towards those airlines that impose the most fees on fliers. This can be seen in the view passengers have toward Southwest Airline. It is almost wholly favorable and probably more the result of a fee less extras policy and an efficiency that others do not display. A recent TIA (Travel Industry Association) survey said that 39% of all airline travelers feel their time is not respected when flying and that 33% of all air passengers are dissatisfied with the air travel system as a whole. 78% believe the system is broken and 62% that it is deteriorating.
With most airlines losing money rapidly this is not good news for them. But they have the power to make flying more pleasant, and the one that makes the best and most successful attempt to do that should be among the more profitable. But some things are beyond their control. Security (my biggest annoyance when flying) rules and procedures are imposed by the government and not changeable. Yet, the consumers understand that and do not expect the airlines to act on those. It's the other trivial and/or hidden fees that make passengers angry. Enforcing the carry-on baggage policy limits, providing more leg room...that sort of thing airlines have control over and are blamed for when they become issues.
I think as the profitability ratio improves the airlines will become more user friendly, but until then I'll have to sit next to the man with 4 carry-ons crammed under the seat and impeding my leg room so I can't kick that screaming baby that is crying on the lap of the mom who refuses to attend to him
Monday, March 15, 2010
Internet Usage
I read some statistics, which I shall share with you, about the current state of the internet. Has any technology grown in usage as fast as the net has? Take these stats as proof that it has been a meteoric ride for the internet.
- Today there are currently 1, 720, 876, 288 users in the world population of approximately 6 billion. Given the short period of time the internet has been in operation, to have more than 1 in 4 humans using it is astounding. The internet usage growth rate for the past 20 years has been almost 400%. In 1995 only .04% of humans used the internet.
- Because of its huge population, China is by far the largest Internet country with 384 million Internet users, and 346 million broadband subscribers.
- Today approximately 77 billion E mails are sent
- There are approximately 164,000 blogs posted (and probably only a handful have any literary or informational worth) today
- Today there were more than 820,000,000 Google searches
- Though English is still the most common language used on line, with 27% of users, Chinese language penetration is now approximately 22%.. The next most frequently used internet languages are: Spanish 8%, Japanese 5 1/2 %, French 4 1/2 % and Portuguese 4 %
It's a given that the Internet today is the common medium for communication worldwide..or is it? The net has made the world smaller by improving communication. However, language differences make it a somewhat divided communication medium. It can also be said that in addition to being the world uniter, the net is the world divider preventing a one world view because of the many languages used on it.
The difference between Internet communication and most other communication technologies is that the user him or herself determines the content. There is no such thing as the last page or end with the internet. The user sets her or his or her own limits. So two factors making the Internet so appealing are the unlimited content and the wide amount of alternatives the user has when logging on. It is hard to propagandize or control users with the net because the platform is too big and is inexpensive or free in many cases.
I often wonder if there will be a new technology to come forward in my lifetime that will have a greater impact on the world than the Internet. The unqualified answer I conclude is a resounding NO.
- Today there are currently 1, 720, 876, 288 users in the world population of approximately 6 billion. Given the short period of time the internet has been in operation, to have more than 1 in 4 humans using it is astounding. The internet usage growth rate for the past 20 years has been almost 400%. In 1995 only .04% of humans used the internet.
- Because of its huge population, China is by far the largest Internet country with 384 million Internet users, and 346 million broadband subscribers.
- Today approximately 77 billion E mails are sent
- There are approximately 164,000 blogs posted (and probably only a handful have any literary or informational worth) today
- Today there were more than 820,000,000 Google searches
- Though English is still the most common language used on line, with 27% of users, Chinese language penetration is now approximately 22%.. The next most frequently used internet languages are: Spanish 8%, Japanese 5 1/2 %, French 4 1/2 % and Portuguese 4 %
It's a given that the Internet today is the common medium for communication worldwide..or is it? The net has made the world smaller by improving communication. However, language differences make it a somewhat divided communication medium. It can also be said that in addition to being the world uniter, the net is the world divider preventing a one world view because of the many languages used on it.
The difference between Internet communication and most other communication technologies is that the user him or herself determines the content. There is no such thing as the last page or end with the internet. The user sets her or his or her own limits. So two factors making the Internet so appealing are the unlimited content and the wide amount of alternatives the user has when logging on. It is hard to propagandize or control users with the net because the platform is too big and is inexpensive or free in many cases.
I often wonder if there will be a new technology to come forward in my lifetime that will have a greater impact on the world than the Internet. The unqualified answer I conclude is a resounding NO.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Super Cenentarians
A woman who lives in Iowa, Neva Morris, is America's oldest person and the second oldest person in the world behind A Japanese resident named Kama Chinen, who is 100 days older than Neva. Oldie Morris belongs to an elite group. Only 75 super centenarians, those 110 years and older, are alive worldwide today, according to the Gerontology Research Group. That's an astoundingly few number when one considers the population of the world is about 6 billion people. Statistics show that only 1 in 50,000 people who reach age 100 make it to age 110. Given that there are almost 100,000 centenarians (those over 100 years of age) alone in the U.S (the US. has the most over 100's world wide) making it to Neva's age seems a difficult achievement.
My grandmother was 102 when she died and her sister was 104 (she died of a stroke at that age while gardening in the back yard of the home in which she lived..alone!). Neither of those two were ever really sick, as I have never been. But their personalities were completely different, one being sweet and the other difficult. Of course the common thread for those two was the genetic link , one that runs deeply on my paternal side.
I think it foolhardy to point to any one factor in a person who is past 110 as what keeps them going and to try and imitate that oneself. Every variation of life style is shown in the super centenarians, from abusive like smoking and drinking alcohol excessively to the pious who live like cloistered monks. People who live in poorer countries of course are susceptible to disease, famine, wars etc...that make it even harder to become a super centenarian.
But in reading about the oldest residents of earth I found that when one passes 100 he or she gets some nice perks for being the oldest in town, city, state or country. For example:
-In the United States, centenarians traditionally receive a letter from the president upon reaching their 100th birthday, congratulating them for their longevity
-In the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms, the Queen sends greetings (formerly as a telegram) on the 100th birthday and on every birthday starting with the 105th.
-Centenarians born in Ireland receive a €2,540 "Centenarians' Bounty" and a letter from the President of Ireland, even if they are residents abroad.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder if I will still be ranting here when I am 110....
My grandmother was 102 when she died and her sister was 104 (she died of a stroke at that age while gardening in the back yard of the home in which she lived..alone!). Neither of those two were ever really sick, as I have never been. But their personalities were completely different, one being sweet and the other difficult. Of course the common thread for those two was the genetic link , one that runs deeply on my paternal side.
I think it foolhardy to point to any one factor in a person who is past 110 as what keeps them going and to try and imitate that oneself. Every variation of life style is shown in the super centenarians, from abusive like smoking and drinking alcohol excessively to the pious who live like cloistered monks. People who live in poorer countries of course are susceptible to disease, famine, wars etc...that make it even harder to become a super centenarian.
But in reading about the oldest residents of earth I found that when one passes 100 he or she gets some nice perks for being the oldest in town, city, state or country. For example:
-In the United States, centenarians traditionally receive a letter from the president upon reaching their 100th birthday, congratulating them for their longevity
-In the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth Realms, the Queen sends greetings (formerly as a telegram) on the 100th birthday and on every birthday starting with the 105th.
-Centenarians born in Ireland receive a €2,540 "Centenarians' Bounty" and a letter from the President of Ireland, even if they are residents abroad.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm I wonder if I will still be ranting here when I am 110....
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
The Razzies
Those Hollywood types surely are a stuffy and pompous lot. They gave out there Oscar awards this week and the only thing bigger than the suspense in the room was the ego of the nominees. My oh my, they have made the self congratulatory more interesting than the lousy films they produce. Well, I didn't watch it, because I didn't see any of the nominated films (or watch the oscar Awards Broadcast), mainly because I had no interest or desire to. Hollywood movies are generally a vacuous exercise in non sequitors. This past Oscar year I saw only three films at theaters, so I shouldn't and won't comment specifically about the winners.
Instead I want to mention a better awards show for films, the Golden Razzie awards or Razzies, for short. The Razzies are an annual award ceremony held in Los Angeles to recognize the worst in film. And there is more worst than best out for which people can waste their money. The Razzberry event precedes the corresponding Academy Award ceremony by one day and surprise of surprises, the Oscar winner for best actress in a film also won a Razzie for worst actress in another film. Sandra Bullock picked up her Razzie for 'All About Steve' and her Oscar for 'The Blind Side'. Bullock attended the Razzies in person to pick up her award and even brought a toy wagon filled with 'All About Steve' DVD's as "gifts" for the Razzie audience.
Since paid members (you may become a member of the foundation by visiting the web site at www.razzies.com). of the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation vote to determine the winners it is a far more democratic way of recognizing the industry than those stale and rigged Oscar awards for excellence.Here are this years winners....or is it "losers"?
Worst Picture of 2009:
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen(Aka Trannies, Too)(DREAMWORKS/PARAMOUNT)
Worst Actress of 2009:
Sandra BullockALL ABOUT STEVE
Worst Actor(s) of 2009:
All Three Jonas BrothersJONAS BROTHERS: THE 3-D CONCERT EXPERIENCE
Worst Screen Couple:
Sandra Bullock & Bradley CooperALL ABOUT STEVE
Worst Supporting Actress:
Sienna MillerG.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA
Worst Supporting Actor:
Billy Ray CyrusHANNAH MONTANA: THE MOVIE
Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel(Combined Category for 2009
Land of The Lost(UNIVERSAL PICTURES)
Worst Director:
Michael BayTRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN (AKA TRANNIES, TOO)
Worst Screenplay:
Transformers: Revenge Of The FallenWRITTEN BY EHREN KRUGER & ROBERTO ORCI & ALEX KURTZMAN,BASED ON HASBRO’S TRANSFORMERS ACTION FIGURESSpecial 30th RAZZIE®-versary Awardz
Worst Picture of the Decade:
Battlefield EarthNOMINATED FOR 10 RAZZIES® / “WINNER” OF 8(INCLUDING WORST DRAMA OF OUR FIRST 25 YRS)
Worst Actor of the Decade:
Eddie MurphyNOMINATED FOR 12 “ACHIEVEMENTS” / “WINNER” OF 3 RAZZIES®ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH, I SPY, IMAGINE THAT,MEET DAVE, NORBIT, SHOWTIME
Worst Actress of the decade
Paris HiltonNOMINATED FOR 5 “ACHIEVEMENTS,” “WINNER” OF 4 RAZZIES®THE HOTTIE & THE NOTTIE, HOUSE OF WHACKS,REPO: THE GENETIC OPERA
Tempted to see any of those? There's probably not much difference between the Razzie films and the Oscars. Be prepared to visit the snack bar often regardless of whether you see an Oscar film or a Razzie. The view from Hollywood is best seen away from the screen itself.
Instead I want to mention a better awards show for films, the Golden Razzie awards or Razzies, for short. The Razzies are an annual award ceremony held in Los Angeles to recognize the worst in film. And there is more worst than best out for which people can waste their money. The Razzberry event precedes the corresponding Academy Award ceremony by one day and surprise of surprises, the Oscar winner for best actress in a film also won a Razzie for worst actress in another film. Sandra Bullock picked up her Razzie for 'All About Steve' and her Oscar for 'The Blind Side'. Bullock attended the Razzies in person to pick up her award and even brought a toy wagon filled with 'All About Steve' DVD's as "gifts" for the Razzie audience.
Since paid members (you may become a member of the foundation by visiting the web site at www.razzies.com). of the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation vote to determine the winners it is a far more democratic way of recognizing the industry than those stale and rigged Oscar awards for excellence.Here are this years winners....or is it "losers"?
Worst Picture of 2009:
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen(Aka Trannies, Too)(DREAMWORKS/PARAMOUNT)
Worst Actress of 2009:
Sandra BullockALL ABOUT STEVE
Worst Actor(s) of 2009:
All Three Jonas BrothersJONAS BROTHERS: THE 3-D CONCERT EXPERIENCE
Worst Screen Couple:
Sandra Bullock & Bradley CooperALL ABOUT STEVE
Worst Supporting Actress:
Sienna MillerG.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA
Worst Supporting Actor:
Billy Ray CyrusHANNAH MONTANA: THE MOVIE
Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel(Combined Category for 2009
Land of The Lost(UNIVERSAL PICTURES)
Worst Director:
Michael BayTRANSFORMERS: REVENGE OF THE FALLEN (AKA TRANNIES, TOO)
Worst Screenplay:
Transformers: Revenge Of The FallenWRITTEN BY EHREN KRUGER & ROBERTO ORCI & ALEX KURTZMAN,BASED ON HASBRO’S TRANSFORMERS ACTION FIGURESSpecial 30th RAZZIE®-versary Awardz
Worst Picture of the Decade:
Battlefield EarthNOMINATED FOR 10 RAZZIES® / “WINNER” OF 8(INCLUDING WORST DRAMA OF OUR FIRST 25 YRS)
Worst Actor of the Decade:
Eddie MurphyNOMINATED FOR 12 “ACHIEVEMENTS” / “WINNER” OF 3 RAZZIES®ADVENTURES OF PLUTO NASH, I SPY, IMAGINE THAT,MEET DAVE, NORBIT, SHOWTIME
Worst Actress of the decade
Paris HiltonNOMINATED FOR 5 “ACHIEVEMENTS,” “WINNER” OF 4 RAZZIES®THE HOTTIE & THE NOTTIE, HOUSE OF WHACKS,REPO: THE GENETIC OPERA
Tempted to see any of those? There's probably not much difference between the Razzie films and the Oscars. Be prepared to visit the snack bar often regardless of whether you see an Oscar film or a Razzie. The view from Hollywood is best seen away from the screen itself.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Shooting Treme
Yesterday I worked in an episode of an upcoming HBO series called 'Treme' (a lower income and heavily black neighborhood famous for great musicians in New Orleans partially destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005) that has been filming here since November. The series Treme starts at about three months after the hurricane and is about the lives of some struggling locals (many of whom are musicians made homeless by the floods of the storm) as they try to rebuild the city.
The series uses many real life local musicians and chefs in an attempt to be realistic and to capture the character of the city.The Treme section of the city is slowly being rebuilt. It is one of the poorer and older sections and the home of many black residents, and though it was less damaged than other sections (including some affluent white areas that were completely
destroyed), it has the appeal of a "poor section rising again", and thus was picked as the focus of the show. I have worked in three of the episodes, two of which were shot in Treme itself to give the show more authenticity. This makes me curious as to whether the series will be another vacuous Hollywood spectacle or a real life study of this city after the hurricane.
There are other signs this may be a more serious and realistic series. For example, on Mardi Gras day when in the French Quarter section I saw Treme shooting real life scenes of locals celebrating the festival rather than the more typical Hollywood idea of recreating carnival here in an artificial Hollywood image. Too, almost all the musicians being used as performers or actors/actresses in Treme are New Orleanians. The episode I worked in yesterday had a "real" Cajun zydeko band performing (all I did, with about 100 other extras, was to look excited and cheer on the band's performance). There was a fiddle player, an accordionist, two guitar players and a drummer, and the singer sang a lively standard in the Arcadian French dialect one still hears in Acadiana, (about 80 kilometers from New Orleans) just as almost all Cajun bands do. The club used for the shoot is a famed local joint, Tipitana's. It all seemed authentic that day.
It's my understanding that many of the kinds of "characters" (uh.. some of the eccentric people here) that New Orleans is famous for will be models for the fictional characters that will appear beside the real life ones. I hope a balanced view of the city will be shown and that it will not be made to appear that Treme is New Orleans and New Orleans is Treme. It is not. The city is far more diverse and interesting than any one of it's neighborhoods, even Treme. But then, I think the show intends to show Treme as a microcosm of the struggle of the city, and that it will make it clear to viewers who know nothing about New Orleans that what is being shown is only one component of the city. I'll know when I see some of the episodes of the show later this year.
The series uses many real life local musicians and chefs in an attempt to be realistic and to capture the character of the city.The Treme section of the city is slowly being rebuilt. It is one of the poorer and older sections and the home of many black residents, and though it was less damaged than other sections (including some affluent white areas that were completely
destroyed), it has the appeal of a "poor section rising again", and thus was picked as the focus of the show. I have worked in three of the episodes, two of which were shot in Treme itself to give the show more authenticity. This makes me curious as to whether the series will be another vacuous Hollywood spectacle or a real life study of this city after the hurricane.
There are other signs this may be a more serious and realistic series. For example, on Mardi Gras day when in the French Quarter section I saw Treme shooting real life scenes of locals celebrating the festival rather than the more typical Hollywood idea of recreating carnival here in an artificial Hollywood image. Too, almost all the musicians being used as performers or actors/actresses in Treme are New Orleanians. The episode I worked in yesterday had a "real" Cajun zydeko band performing (all I did, with about 100 other extras, was to look excited and cheer on the band's performance). There was a fiddle player, an accordionist, two guitar players and a drummer, and the singer sang a lively standard in the Arcadian French dialect one still hears in Acadiana, (about 80 kilometers from New Orleans) just as almost all Cajun bands do. The club used for the shoot is a famed local joint, Tipitana's. It all seemed authentic that day.
It's my understanding that many of the kinds of "characters" (uh.. some of the eccentric people here) that New Orleans is famous for will be models for the fictional characters that will appear beside the real life ones. I hope a balanced view of the city will be shown and that it will not be made to appear that Treme is New Orleans and New Orleans is Treme. It is not. The city is far more diverse and interesting than any one of it's neighborhoods, even Treme. But then, I think the show intends to show Treme as a microcosm of the struggle of the city, and that it will make it clear to viewers who know nothing about New Orleans that what is being shown is only one component of the city. I'll know when I see some of the episodes of the show later this year.
For Dummies
I was thinking the other day (yes, a rare day for me) . I don't think about serious things very often because I am less serious rather than more serious about most of life. So what stuck my mind yesterday was those "For Dummies" books. What is it with those things. They are everywhere and seemingly about every subject. I think every nation has 'For Dummy' books, probably because allot of us are dummies. So I had to do a little research to see how many of them have been printed.
I found that there are almost 2000 'For Dummy' books in print. WOW! There must be many dummies everywhere because those books are big sellers. They are the ones with the yellow and black covers. Each subject area of the Dummy book is written by an expert in the field to give the books some aura of expertise. I have never bought any of them, but I have browsed some at bookstores or wherever they appear. The literary level really is dummy based. All of them are written on a lower, simple level as one would expect given the title. You don't have to be a dummy to read and understand them, but being a smarty probably won't help either. Most 10 year olds can read and understand a Dummy book.
The Dummy series tells us about some subject we are interested in but know little about in a painless way. It's a good concept for the novice. I wonder why no one has come up with a "Graduate Dummy" series of books to make even more money for the publishers. 'A Grad Dummy' book could be a higher level book that goes into detail the 'Dummy' book can't because we are too stupid to understand when we read it. I like my idea, so if you steal it and make money off of it....remember....I may be a dummy but even a dummy can hire a lawyer to sue you for property theft. Ahhhhhhhh I knew I should have read the 'Patent and Copy writing For Dummies" book.
Maybe you haven't paid as much attention the the Dummy book series as I. It would probably be a good sign if you didn't because Dummies like me know about such things. Here are a few of the actual (I am not kidding about these titles) 'For Dummy' books I have seen: Living Gluten Free For Dummies (Gluten Free gets it's own book...shows the state of the world today); FaceBook For Dummies (not an oxymoron I think); Raising Chickens For Dummies (Do you have to be smart to raise chickens? They are already everywhere); Spanish For Dummies (Spain must not be happy that only Dummies are learning to speak its language): Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi/450D For Dummies (What?); Iphone Apps For Dummies (Shouldn't it instead be 'Iphone Apps For Cell Phone Addicts'?); Home Buying For Dummies (I don't think the should sell homes to stupid people. They never pay their mortgages); The Bible For Dummies (I would make one of my cynical remarks but God might strike me dead if I do); Pressure Cookers For Dummies (How can they fill an entire book with pressure cooking information? Maybe pressure cooking fanatics can't read and the pages are all the same); Quantum Physics Workbook For Dummies (I always wanted that book!)
Because there are many more dummy titles, you'll have to find the names yourself because although I'm a dummy I am also too lazy to list them for you. You might think I am making up all of this, that those books don't exist. Forget it. I am too much of a dummy to make up anything this crazy.
I found that there are almost 2000 'For Dummy' books in print. WOW! There must be many dummies everywhere because those books are big sellers. They are the ones with the yellow and black covers. Each subject area of the Dummy book is written by an expert in the field to give the books some aura of expertise. I have never bought any of them, but I have browsed some at bookstores or wherever they appear. The literary level really is dummy based. All of them are written on a lower, simple level as one would expect given the title. You don't have to be a dummy to read and understand them, but being a smarty probably won't help either. Most 10 year olds can read and understand a Dummy book.
The Dummy series tells us about some subject we are interested in but know little about in a painless way. It's a good concept for the novice. I wonder why no one has come up with a "Graduate Dummy" series of books to make even more money for the publishers. 'A Grad Dummy' book could be a higher level book that goes into detail the 'Dummy' book can't because we are too stupid to understand when we read it. I like my idea, so if you steal it and make money off of it....remember....I may be a dummy but even a dummy can hire a lawyer to sue you for property theft. Ahhhhhhhh I knew I should have read the 'Patent and Copy writing For Dummies" book.
Maybe you haven't paid as much attention the the Dummy book series as I. It would probably be a good sign if you didn't because Dummies like me know about such things. Here are a few of the actual (I am not kidding about these titles) 'For Dummy' books I have seen: Living Gluten Free For Dummies (Gluten Free gets it's own book...shows the state of the world today); FaceBook For Dummies (not an oxymoron I think); Raising Chickens For Dummies (Do you have to be smart to raise chickens? They are already everywhere); Spanish For Dummies (Spain must not be happy that only Dummies are learning to speak its language): Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi/450D For Dummies (What?); Iphone Apps For Dummies (Shouldn't it instead be 'Iphone Apps For Cell Phone Addicts'?); Home Buying For Dummies (I don't think the should sell homes to stupid people. They never pay their mortgages); The Bible For Dummies (I would make one of my cynical remarks but God might strike me dead if I do); Pressure Cookers For Dummies (How can they fill an entire book with pressure cooking information? Maybe pressure cooking fanatics can't read and the pages are all the same); Quantum Physics Workbook For Dummies (I always wanted that book!)
Because there are many more dummy titles, you'll have to find the names yourself because although I'm a dummy I am also too lazy to list them for you. You might think I am making up all of this, that those books don't exist. Forget it. I am too much of a dummy to make up anything this crazy.
Friday, March 5, 2010
The Sugar Police
They are attacking sugar again! First it is always mom that attacks, "Sugar will give you diabetes..will give you pimples...make you fat" Bla, bla, bla, bla. That's bad enough to we sugar addicts. But in this politically correct age the media is the new mom as it warns us about the "evils" (Is anything pure anymore that is not trendy?) The latest comes from a media release about one of those (probably a Nazi) nutritionists who tell us to kill our taste buds in order to extend out lives. The Sugar Police is on the prowl. Beware!
Bonnie Liebman, a nutritionist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, offers these ideas for the consumption of added sugars in 'The Nutrition Action Newsletter'. Her comments are all sour to me, so I have a few remarks to offer after each of her points.
• Follow the American Heart Association guidelines and limit yourself to 100 calories a day of added sugar (6 1/2 teaspoons or 25 grams) if you're a woman; 150 calories (9 1/2 teaspoons or 38 grams) if you're a man. Even less may be better for your heart.- Can and would anyone really want to compute this level? Too, 100 calories from sugar would be easily reached with the natural sugars found in all those fresh fruits they keep telling us we must eat. That means no Oreo cookie, no candy bar, no pie or cake!..ridiculous! Humans need to eat what taste good too. Otherwise their souls become diseased. I'd rather have a diseased body than a diseased nutritionist soul.
• Don't drink beverages sweetened with sugar, high fructose corn syrup or other caloric sweeteners- But they all seem to have that kind of sugar. The old pure granulated sugar (which the Sugar Police only dislike a little more than corn syrup) has been discontinued by most food and drink sellers because it cost more to use than granulated sugar. One would have to look carefully to find no high fructose corn syrup or "other caloric sweeteners". This idea from Libeman is an unrealistic one.
• Limit fruit juices to no more than one cup a day- Wait! Didn't the Sugar Police, as recently as 10 years ago, tell us repeatedly that we should stop drinking soda and other sugared drinks and drink fruit juices instead? It's enough to make me add to my morning coffee an extra spoon of that deadly corn syrup. Maybe if the Sugar Police had more sweet they would quit changing their minds so much.
• Limit all added sugars, including high fructose corn syrup, cane or beet sugar, evaporated cane juice, brown rice syrup, agave syrup and honey- Does that mean limiting all natural sugars too? Most foods have natural sugar in them, some an abundance of it. Take carrots, for example. They are loaded with sugar. Should we dump the noble, nutritious and tasty carrot as well? Hmmmmm This idea of the Sugar Police makes me think they are hatching a plot to make us eat only tofu!
• Don't worry about naturally occurring sugar in fruit, milk and plain yogurt- Why? If sugar is bad, and there are lost of sugars in natural foods, why is it the ones naturally found in food are better than the ones added to improve the taste of foods. Do not diabetics also have to watch the intake of natural sugars in foods?
Sigh..I need a candy bar to help me calm down.
Bonnie Liebman, a nutritionist with the Center for Science in the Public Interest, offers these ideas for the consumption of added sugars in 'The Nutrition Action Newsletter'. Her comments are all sour to me, so I have a few remarks to offer after each of her points.
• Follow the American Heart Association guidelines and limit yourself to 100 calories a day of added sugar (6 1/2 teaspoons or 25 grams) if you're a woman; 150 calories (9 1/2 teaspoons or 38 grams) if you're a man. Even less may be better for your heart.- Can and would anyone really want to compute this level? Too, 100 calories from sugar would be easily reached with the natural sugars found in all those fresh fruits they keep telling us we must eat. That means no Oreo cookie, no candy bar, no pie or cake!..ridiculous! Humans need to eat what taste good too. Otherwise their souls become diseased. I'd rather have a diseased body than a diseased nutritionist soul.
• Don't drink beverages sweetened with sugar, high fructose corn syrup or other caloric sweeteners- But they all seem to have that kind of sugar. The old pure granulated sugar (which the Sugar Police only dislike a little more than corn syrup) has been discontinued by most food and drink sellers because it cost more to use than granulated sugar. One would have to look carefully to find no high fructose corn syrup or "other caloric sweeteners". This idea from Libeman is an unrealistic one.
• Limit fruit juices to no more than one cup a day- Wait! Didn't the Sugar Police, as recently as 10 years ago, tell us repeatedly that we should stop drinking soda and other sugared drinks and drink fruit juices instead? It's enough to make me add to my morning coffee an extra spoon of that deadly corn syrup. Maybe if the Sugar Police had more sweet they would quit changing their minds so much.
• Limit all added sugars, including high fructose corn syrup, cane or beet sugar, evaporated cane juice, brown rice syrup, agave syrup and honey- Does that mean limiting all natural sugars too? Most foods have natural sugar in them, some an abundance of it. Take carrots, for example. They are loaded with sugar. Should we dump the noble, nutritious and tasty carrot as well? Hmmmmm This idea of the Sugar Police makes me think they are hatching a plot to make us eat only tofu!
• Don't worry about naturally occurring sugar in fruit, milk and plain yogurt- Why? If sugar is bad, and there are lost of sugars in natural foods, why is it the ones naturally found in food are better than the ones added to improve the taste of foods. Do not diabetics also have to watch the intake of natural sugars in foods?
Sigh..I need a candy bar to help me calm down.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
PEW News Reading Study
The way in which people (at least those who are interested) are learning "the news" has evolved, for better or worse, with the advent of the internet. In the U.S today. According to Pew ResearchReading the news online is now the third most popular way of finding and or learning news, behind local and national TV stations. News awareness" is becoming an anytime, anywhere, any device activity for those who want to stay informed," Pew determined.
But this also implies that knowing the news is a secondary matter, and we all know that an informed public is necessary to a decent society and honest, representative government. In my view, the great irony of the more easy access to news information is that it has decreased the knowledge base of many people as they use the access to read or view triviality that is printed or filmed to amuse them rather than inform.
Here are some stats from the Pew survey.
-Sixty-one per cent of readers surveyed said they got their news online on a typical day, compared with 78% from local news channels and 71% from a national TV network such as NBC or cable channels such as CNN or Fox News.
-Fifty-four per cent said they listened to radio news programs at home or in the car.
-More than 90% use more than one method to get news, and 57% consult between two and five web sites as part of their news gathering, the survey found.
- Most online news consumers regularly draw on just a handful of different sites. They generally don't have one favorite web site but also don't search aimlessly
-Regular readership of newspapers, either local ones or national papers such as the New York Times, have dropped to 50%
Ouch! These are not findings that are compatible to being a serious news reader. Isn't it the responsibility of the citizen to take the time and make effort to be informed? The Pew study indicates that we see news gathering more as an entertainment (which explains why so much of it given to us today is idiotic and mind numbing), just another amusement and not a civic responsibility. Our improved technology is making it easier to shun that civic responsibility. I wonder if the implication of not knowing 'the news' (what is happening in and impacting lives in the community) will make us less able to respond intelligently to both a crisis and to the every day needs a citizen faces.
As real news sources decline in breadth and depth of coverage or die altogether and citizens begin to obtain their news from the less serious and less intelligent and challenging sites. Society declines bit by bit because of it not being informed about that which really matters. I see that happening today, but wonder how (beyond better educational systems) consumers can be more attracted to discovering serious and important news. Any ideas?
But this also implies that knowing the news is a secondary matter, and we all know that an informed public is necessary to a decent society and honest, representative government. In my view, the great irony of the more easy access to news information is that it has decreased the knowledge base of many people as they use the access to read or view triviality that is printed or filmed to amuse them rather than inform.
Here are some stats from the Pew survey.
-Sixty-one per cent of readers surveyed said they got their news online on a typical day, compared with 78% from local news channels and 71% from a national TV network such as NBC or cable channels such as CNN or Fox News.
-Fifty-four per cent said they listened to radio news programs at home or in the car.
-More than 90% use more than one method to get news, and 57% consult between two and five web sites as part of their news gathering, the survey found.
- Most online news consumers regularly draw on just a handful of different sites. They generally don't have one favorite web site but also don't search aimlessly
-Regular readership of newspapers, either local ones or national papers such as the New York Times, have dropped to 50%
Ouch! These are not findings that are compatible to being a serious news reader. Isn't it the responsibility of the citizen to take the time and make effort to be informed? The Pew study indicates that we see news gathering more as an entertainment (which explains why so much of it given to us today is idiotic and mind numbing), just another amusement and not a civic responsibility. Our improved technology is making it easier to shun that civic responsibility. I wonder if the implication of not knowing 'the news' (what is happening in and impacting lives in the community) will make us less able to respond intelligently to both a crisis and to the every day needs a citizen faces.
As real news sources decline in breadth and depth of coverage or die altogether and citizens begin to obtain their news from the less serious and less intelligent and challenging sites. Society declines bit by bit because of it not being informed about that which really matters. I see that happening today, but wonder how (beyond better educational systems) consumers can be more attracted to discovering serious and important news. Any ideas?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Evolving Free Mail Programs
Hot mail, G mail, Yahoo mail and many other free E mail programs are becoming the dominant behemoths on the net. They are evolving into more than the original concept as a simple platform to send and receive E mail outside of the users servers more restricted mailbox. I like the idea of them and for years had have had a hot mail box as a "junk mail" box for. When I have to give an address to a web site I use the hot mail box so it gets the endless spam and other annoyances that come when one posts his or her address on line.
Those free mail boxes used to be simple, but no more. Google's G mail is leading the way to the free mail program being the heart of the web site rather than an adjunct to it. It has been adding and deleting "cutsie' features to attract users away from the old stand by hot mail and yahoo and to G mail and to Google itself. It now has added a Facebook-like social service aspect (it calls it "Buzz") to the Google site. Strange though, when Buzz first came out it showed users the names and E mail addresses of all the people a person E mailed. That invasion of privacy was objected to so much by the users that Google got rid of the feature.
Fact is, anyone who goes on line today knows that he or she trades some anonymity for the access to the programs used. When we have to fill out the information boxes to use a program we pay the site by giving them our personal information it uses to sell to advertisers who annoy us with spam ads. We buy things using our private information as "currency".
But at what cost? The person who uses one of the free E mail or other sites never knows what costs will arise from surrendering the currency of our private information. Will it be used only to make money from advertisers who use it reasonably, or will it fall into the hands of unscrupulous persons who will misuse it and take away our privacy or even or rape the user financially? The fact that sites like Google value our "data" more than even our cash shows it must be very valuable to them. And to add to that problem is the fact that many users don't realize that when they surrender information they more expose themselves to possible on-line trauma.
Speaking of on-line trauma, Facebook has announced that it will keep active the accounts of users who are deceased in order to "collectively share mourning for the lost one". That is an interesting decision, unique as most accounts are deleted after it has been inactive for six months. this means a person will live eternally on line, kind of a high tech photo memory book where others can revisit as if visiting a grave site.
It seems like the competition among the free sites is getting intense as each looks for traffic that can bring advertising rewards. Our presence at their sites is equal to payments to them, and that means, that as long as we give up our private information, for better or worse we are in the driver's seat
Those free mail boxes used to be simple, but no more. Google's G mail is leading the way to the free mail program being the heart of the web site rather than an adjunct to it. It has been adding and deleting "cutsie' features to attract users away from the old stand by hot mail and yahoo and to G mail and to Google itself. It now has added a Facebook-like social service aspect (it calls it "Buzz") to the Google site. Strange though, when Buzz first came out it showed users the names and E mail addresses of all the people a person E mailed. That invasion of privacy was objected to so much by the users that Google got rid of the feature.
Fact is, anyone who goes on line today knows that he or she trades some anonymity for the access to the programs used. When we have to fill out the information boxes to use a program we pay the site by giving them our personal information it uses to sell to advertisers who annoy us with spam ads. We buy things using our private information as "currency".
But at what cost? The person who uses one of the free E mail or other sites never knows what costs will arise from surrendering the currency of our private information. Will it be used only to make money from advertisers who use it reasonably, or will it fall into the hands of unscrupulous persons who will misuse it and take away our privacy or even or rape the user financially? The fact that sites like Google value our "data" more than even our cash shows it must be very valuable to them. And to add to that problem is the fact that many users don't realize that when they surrender information they more expose themselves to possible on-line trauma.
Speaking of on-line trauma, Facebook has announced that it will keep active the accounts of users who are deceased in order to "collectively share mourning for the lost one". That is an interesting decision, unique as most accounts are deleted after it has been inactive for six months. this means a person will live eternally on line, kind of a high tech photo memory book where others can revisit as if visiting a grave site.
It seems like the competition among the free sites is getting intense as each looks for traffic that can bring advertising rewards. Our presence at their sites is equal to payments to them, and that means, that as long as we give up our private information, for better or worse we are in the driver's seat
Monday, March 1, 2010
Odd Science
Something more today about those "studies we are supposed to blindly accept and cheer.... From the "How to justify an expensive study" department comes this story that I saw on the BBC.com site the other day about a Peruvian frog species. Here's what the site reported. "Genetic tests have revealed that male and females of one species of Peruvian poison frog remain utterly faithful.
More surprising is the discovery that just one thing - the size of the pools of water in which they lay their tadpoles - prevents the frogs straying.That constitutes the best evidence yet documented that monogamy can have a single cause, say scientists."Haha What a shocking conclusion. Maybe they should conduct a multi-million dollar study to se that when a killer is locked in prison he can't kill again..proof that a single cause stops murderous convicts from killing. I doubt anyone will accept the Peruvian frog conclusion is significant, but then, most of the world believes in the pseudo science of the global warmers.
I wonder how the idea of water contained monogamous Peruvian frogs relates to say.....Tiger Woods cheating on his wife. Maybe the wife should put Tiger in the middle of an isolated island between Tiger's golf outings. But then, Tiger isn't a frog. He's a "horny " human male.
(Hornclubbed Tigerhumanis). I am sure some scientist will get a grant to study Tigerhumais too, especially if he or she says the planet will be threatened if money isn't given for such a study.
All this begs a question. Though it is important to study Peruvian or even my local frogs, might not a more relevant study be a better one to undertake, one that gives us something of use when the study is concluded? Do you also notice that allot of speculation is being injected into what was formerly called "science"? It used to be that a hypothesis was tested and was never promoted as valid until empirical evidence showed to to be. Not it's the reverse. I am certain that isn't science. Rather, it's an agenda.
But now, particularly in the environmental fields of study, the hypothesis is immediately accepted as truth and one is asked to disprove what is being hypothesized, a convoluted premise. This absence of the scientific method as the model is curious, unless the one practicing it is trying to promote some cause for a gain (perhaps monetary or to gain or enhance notoriety) perceived to be obtained more easily by the use of untested hypothesis as fact.
Mass communication today makes this trend much easier than one would ordinarily think possible to achieve. Theories like Global Warming are promoted and subtle implications that they are based on fact rather than theory are implied. The public accepts what "the experts say is true', never searching for factual validity or denial of the same.
Sigh... it's so complicated these days that sometimes I wish I were one of those Peruvian frogs.
More surprising is the discovery that just one thing - the size of the pools of water in which they lay their tadpoles - prevents the frogs straying.That constitutes the best evidence yet documented that monogamy can have a single cause, say scientists."Haha What a shocking conclusion. Maybe they should conduct a multi-million dollar study to se that when a killer is locked in prison he can't kill again..proof that a single cause stops murderous convicts from killing. I doubt anyone will accept the Peruvian frog conclusion is significant, but then, most of the world believes in the pseudo science of the global warmers.
I wonder how the idea of water contained monogamous Peruvian frogs relates to say.....Tiger Woods cheating on his wife. Maybe the wife should put Tiger in the middle of an isolated island between Tiger's golf outings. But then, Tiger isn't a frog. He's a "horny " human male.
(Hornclubbed Tigerhumanis). I am sure some scientist will get a grant to study Tigerhumais too, especially if he or she says the planet will be threatened if money isn't given for such a study.
All this begs a question. Though it is important to study Peruvian or even my local frogs, might not a more relevant study be a better one to undertake, one that gives us something of use when the study is concluded? Do you also notice that allot of speculation is being injected into what was formerly called "science"? It used to be that a hypothesis was tested and was never promoted as valid until empirical evidence showed to to be. Not it's the reverse. I am certain that isn't science. Rather, it's an agenda.
But now, particularly in the environmental fields of study, the hypothesis is immediately accepted as truth and one is asked to disprove what is being hypothesized, a convoluted premise. This absence of the scientific method as the model is curious, unless the one practicing it is trying to promote some cause for a gain (perhaps monetary or to gain or enhance notoriety) perceived to be obtained more easily by the use of untested hypothesis as fact.
Mass communication today makes this trend much easier than one would ordinarily think possible to achieve. Theories like Global Warming are promoted and subtle implications that they are based on fact rather than theory are implied. The public accepts what "the experts say is true', never searching for factual validity or denial of the same.
Sigh... it's so complicated these days that sometimes I wish I were one of those Peruvian frogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)