Buying real estate is a curious and treacherous venture. But it's also interesting to just about everyone. Someone I know turned me on to a TV show on one of those specialized networks, this one called HTV, that deals with everything you would want ot know or not want to know about caring for houses. This includes such things as decorating, cooking, buying and selling and on and on.
Give that I am not a big fan of TV my interest in HTV is limited to the show I mentioned above. It's called House Hunters, and in it a person or couple looks at three houses (well, they look at many more, but the show just uses three of them because of time limitations) and, at the end of each 30 minute episode in which you are able to tour the houses with them and listen to their comments and the real estate sales people showing them, the buyer selects one of the three, makes an offer and in the end either buys it or rarely) fails.
It's quite informative too. Going though a house buying process from the outside, yet being in a close position to see it all makes the viewer more aware of what things to look for when buying a house. And, I also think it makes one more aware and beware of the jargon that real estate uses. If you think lawyers use double speak and esoteric language, listen to a real estate agent talk about a house for sale or read a real estate listing. An interpreter is needed. Just your luck though! I am now fully qualified (well...I watched a few episodes and read some listings..it's not a PHD but I learned a few things) to translate some of those vague and misleading real estate phrases that are thrown about when a person views or reads about a house for sale.
Here are some common phrases you might hear about a house and what I think they actually mean.
* "Park like grounds"- If you read or hear this one it means you better be prepared to buy a riding lawnmower or pay for a landscaping company because the yard is so bit it is going to be impossible for are for normally
* "Cute bungalow"- so small you need a can opener to get through the front door
* "Updated throughout"- the owners painted are rooms and raised the price as a result
* "Historically significant features"- old and in need of repairs
* "Handyman's special"- the house is close to being condemned and falling a part
* "Selling below appraisal"- the house is overpriced and over assessed as to value
* "Landscaped"- the is one or two trees on the grounds and some of the flowers in the flower bed may still be alive
* "Lushly landscaped"- three trees, though one is almost dead
* "Won't last long on the market"- because after two years of no offers the owner is about to give up and withdraw it for sale
* "Quiet, wooded setting"- so far away from civilization you will have to devote a full day just getting to a grocery store
*" Located near convenient transportation"- the free way is directly behind the back door
* "Quaint layout"- It was built without an architect and the rooms are all laid out inconveniently
* "Starter home"- cheap, run down or in an awful area* "Motivated seller"- desperate seller".
Are you ready to buy that new house yet
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Calderon Hypocrisy
Finally, I actually saw a news article about the hypocrisy of Mexico toward the new anti illegal immigration act in Arizona. In this nation of media amour for Illegal immigration it happened. Anyway, about the subject... In a speech before the U.S. Congress Mexican President Felipe Calderon ripped Arizona's new law clamping down on illegal immigrants in front of Congress last week, Democrats and White House officials rose to their feet to cheer, including Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, two officials who have confessed to not even reading the law.
Later, Obama whined about how unfair Arizona is to attempt to catch Mexican illegals. It's disgusting to have a foreign head of state on the floor of the U.S. Congress lecturing about what laws the other country should have. But the lies and pandering to Calderon of the U.S officials make it even more unsettling. Guess what? Mexico has a law that is no different from Arizona's that empowers local police to check the immigration documents of people suspected of not being in the country legally. Too Mexico has long practiced the art of abuse of illegal immigrants in their own country.
In one six month period from September 2008 through February 2009, at least 9,758 migrants were kidnapped and held for ransom in Mexico, 91 of them with the direct participation of Mexican police, a report by the National Human Rights Commission said. Other migrants are routinely stopped and shaken down for bribes, it said. A separate survey conducted during one month in 2008 at 10 migrant shelters showed Mexican authorities were behind migrant attacks in 35 of 240 cases, or 15%. And most of those illegals are in Mexico are Central Americans who are simply passing through on their way to illegally enter into the United States.
Uh, Calderon apparently forgot to mention his own nation's anti illegal laws. Mexican law calls for six to 12 years of prison and up to $46,000 in fines for anyone who shelters or transports illegal immigrants. But then, like Fidel Castro did 30 years ago when he emptied Cuban prisons, mental institutions and deposited other "undesirables on rafts to the U.S. (where they were accepted and given citizenship), Calderon sees the U.S. as a depository for the refuse that he and Mexico can not seem to care for properly itself.
The idea of approval of a nation allowing any person to walk into its territory uninvited and unchecked and establish residence is insanity. When doors are opened for anyone, many of the worst types walk through. And this is what has happened to the United States the past 50 years. Need an example of one area impacted by it? Try these statistics taken from the Los Angles Times.
1 40% of all workers in L. A. County (L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes.This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3.. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7... The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8 Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L.. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.. (There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County .)Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States ' annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens .
We are fools for letting this continue by electing the disgraceful politicians who promote it for personal gain.
Later, Obama whined about how unfair Arizona is to attempt to catch Mexican illegals. It's disgusting to have a foreign head of state on the floor of the U.S. Congress lecturing about what laws the other country should have. But the lies and pandering to Calderon of the U.S officials make it even more unsettling. Guess what? Mexico has a law that is no different from Arizona's that empowers local police to check the immigration documents of people suspected of not being in the country legally. Too Mexico has long practiced the art of abuse of illegal immigrants in their own country.
In one six month period from September 2008 through February 2009, at least 9,758 migrants were kidnapped and held for ransom in Mexico, 91 of them with the direct participation of Mexican police, a report by the National Human Rights Commission said. Other migrants are routinely stopped and shaken down for bribes, it said. A separate survey conducted during one month in 2008 at 10 migrant shelters showed Mexican authorities were behind migrant attacks in 35 of 240 cases, or 15%. And most of those illegals are in Mexico are Central Americans who are simply passing through on their way to illegally enter into the United States.
Uh, Calderon apparently forgot to mention his own nation's anti illegal laws. Mexican law calls for six to 12 years of prison and up to $46,000 in fines for anyone who shelters or transports illegal immigrants. But then, like Fidel Castro did 30 years ago when he emptied Cuban prisons, mental institutions and deposited other "undesirables on rafts to the U.S. (where they were accepted and given citizenship), Calderon sees the U.S. as a depository for the refuse that he and Mexico can not seem to care for properly itself.
The idea of approval of a nation allowing any person to walk into its territory uninvited and unchecked and establish residence is insanity. When doors are opened for anyone, many of the worst types walk through. And this is what has happened to the United States the past 50 years. Need an example of one area impacted by it? Try these statistics taken from the Los Angles Times.
1 40% of all workers in L. A. County (L. A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes.This is because they are predominantly illegal immigrants working without a green card.
2. 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
3.. 75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
4. Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
5. Nearly 35% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
6. Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
7... The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
8 Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
9. 21 radio stations in L. A. are Spanish speaking.
10. In L.. A. County 5.1 million people speak English, 3.9 million speak Spanish.. (There are 10.2 million people in L. A. County .)Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare. Over 70% of the United States ' annual population growth (and over 90% of California , Florida , and New York ) results from immigration. 29% of inmates in federal prisons are illegal aliens .
We are fools for letting this continue by electing the disgraceful politicians who promote it for personal gain.
Printing Accusations
England and Wales may be on to something pertaining to the accusation against alleged criminals that so cover our newspapers and TV news stories. At present, there are no restrictions in those countries (and in most of the rest of the world) on naming criminal case defendants who are over 18 years old. But because of the growing number of false accusations of rape in those two countries, a proposed coalition there has a new standard- No naming an accused of rape, but rather naming only the convicted. What a breath of fresh air that would be if the same standard applied for all crimes everywhere. I have long spoken against printing accusations as an infringement of basic civil rights.
We live in the age of irresponsible reportage and reportage based on ratings and sensation rather than for necessity. So many lives have been ruined by false accusations published or broadcast in the mediums that at times a person falsely accuses another in order to bribe or extract gain from them or from the publication of the accusation for which media sources open the door. In the case of rape, on average less than 10 % of all rape accusations end in a conviction for the crime.
The other 90 percent, the innocent parities currently are subjected to their names and accusations about them published. That's 90% of the innocent accused having their lives ruined by accusation. Even when proven innocent, their lives in the community and beyond are forever destroyed. No retraction of a false accusation story will ever restore the integrity to the person accused. Once printed there will always be a large percentage of readers or viewers who will think the innocent party is a rapist because the accused name was associated with the story.
I have seen cases here of teachers I have known in my school system who were ruined by a false accusation (later retracted after found baseless) from a student that a teacher or other school employee had a sexual relationship with the student. Media reports of it branded the innocent teachers with a scarlet letter that chased them from teaching in the community and a normal life here. Moist were forced to leave the state in search of normality. How does one recapture respect when his or her picture is plastered on the front page of a newspaper with the word "Rapist" underneath? It is impossible.
I think society would be better served (and journalism improved) in protecting the rights of those accused, so that they are not the victims of guilt by accusation or implication. If the standard were to print the story after convicted instead of before, that might be achieved and frivolous accusations would subside dramatically. Fairness should be the guiding standard, not titillation of the audience.
We live in the age of irresponsible reportage and reportage based on ratings and sensation rather than for necessity. So many lives have been ruined by false accusations published or broadcast in the mediums that at times a person falsely accuses another in order to bribe or extract gain from them or from the publication of the accusation for which media sources open the door. In the case of rape, on average less than 10 % of all rape accusations end in a conviction for the crime.
The other 90 percent, the innocent parities currently are subjected to their names and accusations about them published. That's 90% of the innocent accused having their lives ruined by accusation. Even when proven innocent, their lives in the community and beyond are forever destroyed. No retraction of a false accusation story will ever restore the integrity to the person accused. Once printed there will always be a large percentage of readers or viewers who will think the innocent party is a rapist because the accused name was associated with the story.
I have seen cases here of teachers I have known in my school system who were ruined by a false accusation (later retracted after found baseless) from a student that a teacher or other school employee had a sexual relationship with the student. Media reports of it branded the innocent teachers with a scarlet letter that chased them from teaching in the community and a normal life here. Moist were forced to leave the state in search of normality. How does one recapture respect when his or her picture is plastered on the front page of a newspaper with the word "Rapist" underneath? It is impossible.
I think society would be better served (and journalism improved) in protecting the rights of those accused, so that they are not the victims of guilt by accusation or implication. If the standard were to print the story after convicted instead of before, that might be achieved and frivolous accusations would subside dramatically. Fairness should be the guiding standard, not titillation of the audience.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
My Medical Procedure Bill
I received a bill today for the arthroscopic surgical procedure I had on my knee. I think I need surgery for my heart now, because that bill gave me a heart attack. It's not because I have to pay the bill. I don't. I have medical insurance that will pay all but the $100 co pay for that operation. But the bill is an outrage and reflective of the problems of health costs in the United States. Too, I am certain it is a typical bill and thought the insurance company will receive huge discounts for the bill, had I been uninsured I would be forced to pay the entire cost...which was....get ready for this and remember it was a same day surgery (I was in at 6:30 am and out at 4 pm that day)..the total bill for the surgery is $ 19, 771.14. And that does not include the charges going to the physician who did the surgery. Add perhaps, $5000.00 more for that!
The bill is an un itemized bill. That is, specific charges in the categories for which the patient is billed are not shown. Federal law says that if I request an itemized bill I can get one. That would be interesting to see. Often hospitals add charges that are unjustified because the patient did not need the drug or procedure that was anticipated being used. Only by looking at each item and each charge for it (charges for an aspirin tablet, for example, can be more than $50 per tablet...better not have a headache while recovering from surgery) does the patient actually know what he or she is being charged.
You can bet if an uninsured patient got the bill I received today, that request would be made. The fact is though, most people have at least modest to good health insurance coverage that make their interest in seeing an itemized bill a minimal interest. Too, hospitals don't like to list their charges in itemized form because so many are outrageously high.
Here are some of the categorical charges listed on my bill.
Room Charges $2,294.40
Pharmacy $2,406.40
Medical Supplies $4,568.65
Operating Room Service $6,569.81
Therapy Charges $455.20 (I received not therapy the day of the operation because it can not start until a week later...unless the crutches they gave me to use is "therapy")
There is more, some categories about which I am clue less. But you get the idea. American medical care is skilled and I am lucky to have access to it, but the expense is far more than it be should be. Now I am curious to see the operating physician's bill, which has yet to arrive but surely will bring another heart attack.
Hmmmm In thinking about this maybe this bill has a good side. I think that hospital and surgeon must have huge incentive to keep me alive and well. With charges like that for same day procedures I am practically a gold mine to them.
The bill is an un itemized bill. That is, specific charges in the categories for which the patient is billed are not shown. Federal law says that if I request an itemized bill I can get one. That would be interesting to see. Often hospitals add charges that are unjustified because the patient did not need the drug or procedure that was anticipated being used. Only by looking at each item and each charge for it (charges for an aspirin tablet, for example, can be more than $50 per tablet...better not have a headache while recovering from surgery) does the patient actually know what he or she is being charged.
You can bet if an uninsured patient got the bill I received today, that request would be made. The fact is though, most people have at least modest to good health insurance coverage that make their interest in seeing an itemized bill a minimal interest. Too, hospitals don't like to list their charges in itemized form because so many are outrageously high.
Here are some of the categorical charges listed on my bill.
Room Charges $2,294.40
Pharmacy $2,406.40
Medical Supplies $4,568.65
Operating Room Service $6,569.81
Therapy Charges $455.20 (I received not therapy the day of the operation because it can not start until a week later...unless the crutches they gave me to use is "therapy")
There is more, some categories about which I am clue less. But you get the idea. American medical care is skilled and I am lucky to have access to it, but the expense is far more than it be should be. Now I am curious to see the operating physician's bill, which has yet to arrive but surely will bring another heart attack.
Hmmmm In thinking about this maybe this bill has a good side. I think that hospital and surgeon must have huge incentive to keep me alive and well. With charges like that for same day procedures I am practically a gold mine to them.
Educational Reform
There is another one of those educational reforms happening in the state legislature here in order to "produce better teachers". It looks like it will become law. Basically, it says teachers will be evaluated by how well their students do on "test scores". Sigh, test score mania is one of the problems of education today. On my view, getting rid of those tests would be a huge boom to better educating kids. But politicians love to use test scores to gain support.
Let's see.....how many times have the politicians "reformed" education by making teachers seem to be incompetent boobs? Let me count the ways. But I can't count that high (Yes, I was educated in Louisiana, so I should blame the teachers for my counting deficiency).
Just what we don't need here in Louisiana, or anywhere for that matter, the politicians are going to attack teachers again so the kids won't be so stupid. It does not follow, but to a politician that is seeking re election it makes sense. There are plenty of votes to be gained from parents who wonder why their little darling is so stupid and think that little Johnny will become Einstein if teachers would be punished and held to idiotic standards .
I say reform the parents, not the stupid kids they produce. If you want smarter kids make the parents smarter, because the parent is the biggest single factor in the lives of children that will determine if junior is bright and informed or just another illiterate fan of reality TV. Surely, there are many factors in modern society that contribute to the dumbed down schools we see not only in this country, but in most others as well. The lack of an educated populace is a great modern societal problem driven by endless factors that I won't rant about now (you should thank me for that). But I will say that poor teaching is a minor factor in producing the modern industrial dolt, and that teachers haven't gone bad in the past 50 years. But bad or loose parenting is the biggest factor of all.
Hmmmm How could we make modern parents better able to guide their children's intellectual development? Besides working, parents also have time to rot their own brains with TV and other frivolities that deaden their own brains. They surely don't want to give up any free time to their kids. I think we have to reward those neglectful parents in order to prod them to take their child's brain as an important part of the child himself. Perhaps we should send the parents to school too.
Why not? The Obama administration wastes tax money on cash for clunkers, appliances and other consumer freebies. How about setting aside tax money for the parents of the kids who are the lowest achievers (Uh, the dumbest ones)? If my tax money is to be used for others, better to educate them than to buy them a free washing machine.
I wonder how many of the parents of dumb kids would accept cash bonuses and free tuition to attend night classes to educate themselves on not only being better stewards of their kids' education, but also to enroll themselves in local night university classes to expand their own intellectual world? I think a lot would go for it. Waving cash in front of them would be like waving a donut at a police officer as a bribe. It's a seduction made in heaven.
We could take the $8000 Obama gave per people to buy a new car, and instead, give it to colleges to educate parents. There is a big correlation between the educational level of a parent and that of his or her child. Mom and dad can do homework right along side their brain impaired children. Haha It could be inspiring to junior. Why...the little one might even put down his or her electronic gadgets long enough each day to open a book
But this fantasy is too good to be true. Better for the politicians to keep society dumb and malleable. It's easier to get reelected that way.
Let's see.....how many times have the politicians "reformed" education by making teachers seem to be incompetent boobs? Let me count the ways. But I can't count that high (Yes, I was educated in Louisiana, so I should blame the teachers for my counting deficiency).
Just what we don't need here in Louisiana, or anywhere for that matter, the politicians are going to attack teachers again so the kids won't be so stupid. It does not follow, but to a politician that is seeking re election it makes sense. There are plenty of votes to be gained from parents who wonder why their little darling is so stupid and think that little Johnny will become Einstein if teachers would be punished and held to idiotic standards .
I say reform the parents, not the stupid kids they produce. If you want smarter kids make the parents smarter, because the parent is the biggest single factor in the lives of children that will determine if junior is bright and informed or just another illiterate fan of reality TV. Surely, there are many factors in modern society that contribute to the dumbed down schools we see not only in this country, but in most others as well. The lack of an educated populace is a great modern societal problem driven by endless factors that I won't rant about now (you should thank me for that). But I will say that poor teaching is a minor factor in producing the modern industrial dolt, and that teachers haven't gone bad in the past 50 years. But bad or loose parenting is the biggest factor of all.
Hmmmm How could we make modern parents better able to guide their children's intellectual development? Besides working, parents also have time to rot their own brains with TV and other frivolities that deaden their own brains. They surely don't want to give up any free time to their kids. I think we have to reward those neglectful parents in order to prod them to take their child's brain as an important part of the child himself. Perhaps we should send the parents to school too.
Why not? The Obama administration wastes tax money on cash for clunkers, appliances and other consumer freebies. How about setting aside tax money for the parents of the kids who are the lowest achievers (Uh, the dumbest ones)? If my tax money is to be used for others, better to educate them than to buy them a free washing machine.
I wonder how many of the parents of dumb kids would accept cash bonuses and free tuition to attend night classes to educate themselves on not only being better stewards of their kids' education, but also to enroll themselves in local night university classes to expand their own intellectual world? I think a lot would go for it. Waving cash in front of them would be like waving a donut at a police officer as a bribe. It's a seduction made in heaven.
We could take the $8000 Obama gave per people to buy a new car, and instead, give it to colleges to educate parents. There is a big correlation between the educational level of a parent and that of his or her child. Mom and dad can do homework right along side their brain impaired children. Haha It could be inspiring to junior. Why...the little one might even put down his or her electronic gadgets long enough each day to open a book
But this fantasy is too good to be true. Better for the politicians to keep society dumb and malleable. It's easier to get reelected that way.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Who Pays For The Oil Spill
The oil continues to spew and out of the coastline from the Deepwater Horizon oil break. Go to many areas along the Louisiana coast and you can see it polluting the shores, marshes and wildlife and fisheries. My newspaper today says the oil may continue to come ashore more than a year after the broken oil well is capped. And the subsurface oil may linger below the surface and pollute for more than 100 years.
The cost of clean-up will be many billions, and British Petroleum is the prime candidate to pay much of it. There are many subsidiary companies working at that broken rig too. Any company that is in a contractual relationship with British Petroleum can be found to be negligent. So when BP hired companies to perform services and they violated the law and were grossly negligent, they lost their liability cap." Evidence abounds that BP and many of those other companies did not follow basic drilling and support procedures as required by law. The oil break itself would never have happened had BP had in place the required drill break cap. It said it was trying to save money by not adding it.
What percentage of damage they each be levied is up in the air. In fact, it will take many years of litigation to determine and many at fault may declare bankruptcy to avoid paying anything. Already here, many experts are saying the environmental cost and economic loss will be far greater than the hurricane of 2005. BP estimated last week that it already had spent $625 million on responding to the disaster. That includes payments to hundreds of seafood fisherman and women, millions in financial grants to pay for lost tourist revenue in this tourist dependent area and, and costs associated with reducing the flow of oil from the broken riser at the mile deep well head and drilling of two relief wells to permanently seal the original well. It is but a drip of the amount needed to clean and repair damage caused by the break.
Here's the problem in getting the 20 billion or so that would actually be needed to fix the mess. The Oil Pollution Act has a limit on liability of $75 million per incident, with another $1 billion available to pay claims from a single event from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund after the cap is reached. These limits were placed by the U.S. Congress whose members receive huge financial support in their election campaigns from...you guessed it..the oil companies. The petroleum industry here and in every other country is a strong political force. One would not be wrong in euphemistically saying that the petroleum companies and the politicians sleep in the same oil bed.
Congress, under pressure after the big oil spill, is "considering legislation" that would retroactively raise the cap on corporate liability to as much as $10 billion It's a very slow process to even determine the amount of loss and cost to repair (or try to repair) it. There has never before been this large of an oil spill and never one in which chemical dispersants have been used to keep the oil below the surface. The dispersants have added another layer of chemical pollution that caused the oil to travel so slowly and to clump and pollute for what should be another 100 years.
It appears the entire Gulf Coast could become a dead-zone, below and above. In short the people of Louisiana and the wildlife there are losing their livelihoods and paradise, their way of life, everything they cherish on the gulf, the bayou, the marshes, the swamps. There is no fix for that.
The cost of clean-up will be many billions, and British Petroleum is the prime candidate to pay much of it. There are many subsidiary companies working at that broken rig too. Any company that is in a contractual relationship with British Petroleum can be found to be negligent. So when BP hired companies to perform services and they violated the law and were grossly negligent, they lost their liability cap." Evidence abounds that BP and many of those other companies did not follow basic drilling and support procedures as required by law. The oil break itself would never have happened had BP had in place the required drill break cap. It said it was trying to save money by not adding it.
What percentage of damage they each be levied is up in the air. In fact, it will take many years of litigation to determine and many at fault may declare bankruptcy to avoid paying anything. Already here, many experts are saying the environmental cost and economic loss will be far greater than the hurricane of 2005. BP estimated last week that it already had spent $625 million on responding to the disaster. That includes payments to hundreds of seafood fisherman and women, millions in financial grants to pay for lost tourist revenue in this tourist dependent area and, and costs associated with reducing the flow of oil from the broken riser at the mile deep well head and drilling of two relief wells to permanently seal the original well. It is but a drip of the amount needed to clean and repair damage caused by the break.
Here's the problem in getting the 20 billion or so that would actually be needed to fix the mess. The Oil Pollution Act has a limit on liability of $75 million per incident, with another $1 billion available to pay claims from a single event from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund after the cap is reached. These limits were placed by the U.S. Congress whose members receive huge financial support in their election campaigns from...you guessed it..the oil companies. The petroleum industry here and in every other country is a strong political force. One would not be wrong in euphemistically saying that the petroleum companies and the politicians sleep in the same oil bed.
Congress, under pressure after the big oil spill, is "considering legislation" that would retroactively raise the cap on corporate liability to as much as $10 billion It's a very slow process to even determine the amount of loss and cost to repair (or try to repair) it. There has never before been this large of an oil spill and never one in which chemical dispersants have been used to keep the oil below the surface. The dispersants have added another layer of chemical pollution that caused the oil to travel so slowly and to clump and pollute for what should be another 100 years.
It appears the entire Gulf Coast could become a dead-zone, below and above. In short the people of Louisiana and the wildlife there are losing their livelihoods and paradise, their way of life, everything they cherish on the gulf, the bayou, the marshes, the swamps. There is no fix for that.
Muslim Non Fanatacism
Rima Fakih, a Lebanese Muslim from Michigan won the Miss USA beauty contest the other day. It's not important news in itself, but that a Muslim lady won is a far greater result than otherwise. Rima is spectacularly beautiful by anyone's standards, you can Google her name and see photos yourself. There was no affirmative action or political correctness in her winning.
Rima is the first Arab American to win Miss USA, and her victory is dividing the Muslim community in her hometown of Dearborn, Michigan. Dearborn is an overwhelmingly Arabic city that has been so for generations. Muslims there are both traditionally conservative and modern "Americanized" as Rima is herself. There is also the newer, mostly younger emigrant generation in the west that is fanatically anti western. What do you get with that mixture? Controversy about Rima's win. It is good.
Rima told the Detroit Free Press before the pageant she was aware that some in metro Detroit's Middle Eastern communities may object to women parading their beauty, but she said her family supports her. In fact, her mother encouraged her to compete. "I think the community in Michigan, in Dearborn, might be a little on the strict side," Rima said. "But my family, in general, are not."
Oh how nice to hear! It's about as affective way possible to taunt the crazy Muslim fanatics who virtually bind Muslim women in chains and preach hatred of all things non Muslim (and of their version of Muslim). That the whole nation sees Muslim women as hot looking women who have integrated into the culture in which they have entered is a feel good story that Muslim fanatics can't like.
As with most winners in those silly beauty pageant, the detractors have searched the internet and wider to find embarrassing information on Rima to discredit her. The best they have found is a few photos of her winning a stripper contest in which she kept her clothes on in 2007 for a Detroit radio station. That's it! It's about as apple pie as can be for pretty young girls of all religious faith in the west to play on a pole that way once in awhile. In digging up what the fanatical Muslim detractors see as "dirt" they merely show how integrated Rima is in her home nation.
It's just more proof that there are Muslims who don't set off bombs and preach hate, that Muslims girls can be beautiful, free thinking, and comfortable in their non Muslim nation's culture. That's more powerful ammunition against the crazy Muslims than a multitude of their terrorist bombs is to reason.
If she was in one of many Middle Eastern country, she'd be flogged and thrown in prison, perhaps stoned to death in Afghanistan. Muslims everywhere should cheer on Rima and appreciate both her beauty and her freedom to be normal
Rima is the first Arab American to win Miss USA, and her victory is dividing the Muslim community in her hometown of Dearborn, Michigan. Dearborn is an overwhelmingly Arabic city that has been so for generations. Muslims there are both traditionally conservative and modern "Americanized" as Rima is herself. There is also the newer, mostly younger emigrant generation in the west that is fanatically anti western. What do you get with that mixture? Controversy about Rima's win. It is good.
Rima told the Detroit Free Press before the pageant she was aware that some in metro Detroit's Middle Eastern communities may object to women parading their beauty, but she said her family supports her. In fact, her mother encouraged her to compete. "I think the community in Michigan, in Dearborn, might be a little on the strict side," Rima said. "But my family, in general, are not."
Oh how nice to hear! It's about as affective way possible to taunt the crazy Muslim fanatics who virtually bind Muslim women in chains and preach hatred of all things non Muslim (and of their version of Muslim). That the whole nation sees Muslim women as hot looking women who have integrated into the culture in which they have entered is a feel good story that Muslim fanatics can't like.
As with most winners in those silly beauty pageant, the detractors have searched the internet and wider to find embarrassing information on Rima to discredit her. The best they have found is a few photos of her winning a stripper contest in which she kept her clothes on in 2007 for a Detroit radio station. That's it! It's about as apple pie as can be for pretty young girls of all religious faith in the west to play on a pole that way once in awhile. In digging up what the fanatical Muslim detractors see as "dirt" they merely show how integrated Rima is in her home nation.
It's just more proof that there are Muslims who don't set off bombs and preach hate, that Muslims girls can be beautiful, free thinking, and comfortable in their non Muslim nation's culture. That's more powerful ammunition against the crazy Muslims than a multitude of their terrorist bombs is to reason.
If she was in one of many Middle Eastern country, she'd be flogged and thrown in prison, perhaps stoned to death in Afghanistan. Muslims everywhere should cheer on Rima and appreciate both her beauty and her freedom to be normal
Thursday, May 20, 2010
New And Improved
I saw another "new and improved" label in the grocery store today. What does that mean? Why is the new placed besides improved on the label. Does this imply that something new is always improved? If that were the case they would need not included "new" next to "improved" or "improved" with "new". Either word would suffice. I am puzzled why those two words would be put in juxtaposition unless it is to use amateur psychology on the consumer, tricking him or her into thinking the product has had a major upgrade.
But is that the case? Can you name any products that had "new and improved" on the label, that were actually better? Wouldn't we be able to remember if that was the case? I can't remember any stated claim on a product I had been using all along that appeared with the new and improved label that was actually as stated...improved. I too have general doubts that newness means improvement. Let me give you examples of the new but not improved condition.
Remember "new and improved" coke? The taste of the new coke was too sweet and consumers rebelled. While the new coke remained for sale old coca cola was brought back with the name "Classic Coke". In less than 6 months the new and improved coke was pulled from the shelves and never seen again.
How about 'Web TV' in the 90's. It offered consumers Internet connection via their television sets as the new and better way to use a TV. Microsoft which bought WebTV in 1997, scrapped the brand after it failed miserably. It never passed the one-million-subscriber mark.
Then there was Life Saver's soda. Yep, the Famed life Saver candy company decided it would bring a new and improved taste to candyholics by making a soft drink that tasted like the flavors in Life Saver candy. But consumers didn't want to drink their candy. They preferred the old reliable Life Saver they always knew.
"Earring Magic Ken" of Barbie fame as supposed to be the modern style Ken. No more tuxedos and suits and instead Ken appeared in a mesh T-shirt, purple leather vest, and earring. Pretty soon "New Ken" was dubbed "Gay Ken". Parents were not pleased that this new and improved style of Ken was suitable for their little girls. It was another new and improved idea that was quickly killed and gay Ken disappeared.The idea behind Kellogg's Breakfast Mates was fairly simple. It was a new and improved Kellogg pack a box of cereal with milk and a spoon, and the child would have a tasty meal to eat anytime. Well kids don't like warm milk. The product died.
So "new" is not always "improved" in products consumers buy. But not just in direct product sales. How many people really think that all the new products are better than the established ones. Those nice electric lights are great but people actually read more by candle light than they do now with electricity. (now they rot their brains by electricity driven TV and other electronic mediums) In that sense the old candle lights were better for the brain than the improvement brought by electric lighting. Uh..speaking of TV, do the new and improved TV sets bring us better programing than what was original to TV? I doubt it.
What abut the new and improved invention of the zip code to sped up delivery of mail? I don't think it ever did that. Or the cell phones that have a clock inside to tell time....is it better than old reliable wrist watches that seemed to ensure better punctuality than is shown today?
It's a good thing humans can't be replaced new and improved products....though I think it might be easy to find a new and improved model for me..
But is that the case? Can you name any products that had "new and improved" on the label, that were actually better? Wouldn't we be able to remember if that was the case? I can't remember any stated claim on a product I had been using all along that appeared with the new and improved label that was actually as stated...improved. I too have general doubts that newness means improvement. Let me give you examples of the new but not improved condition.
Remember "new and improved" coke? The taste of the new coke was too sweet and consumers rebelled. While the new coke remained for sale old coca cola was brought back with the name "Classic Coke". In less than 6 months the new and improved coke was pulled from the shelves and never seen again.
How about 'Web TV' in the 90's. It offered consumers Internet connection via their television sets as the new and better way to use a TV. Microsoft which bought WebTV in 1997, scrapped the brand after it failed miserably. It never passed the one-million-subscriber mark.
Then there was Life Saver's soda. Yep, the Famed life Saver candy company decided it would bring a new and improved taste to candyholics by making a soft drink that tasted like the flavors in Life Saver candy. But consumers didn't want to drink their candy. They preferred the old reliable Life Saver they always knew.
"Earring Magic Ken" of Barbie fame as supposed to be the modern style Ken. No more tuxedos and suits and instead Ken appeared in a mesh T-shirt, purple leather vest, and earring. Pretty soon "New Ken" was dubbed "Gay Ken". Parents were not pleased that this new and improved style of Ken was suitable for their little girls. It was another new and improved idea that was quickly killed and gay Ken disappeared.The idea behind Kellogg's Breakfast Mates was fairly simple. It was a new and improved Kellogg pack a box of cereal with milk and a spoon, and the child would have a tasty meal to eat anytime. Well kids don't like warm milk. The product died.
So "new" is not always "improved" in products consumers buy. But not just in direct product sales. How many people really think that all the new products are better than the established ones. Those nice electric lights are great but people actually read more by candle light than they do now with electricity. (now they rot their brains by electricity driven TV and other electronic mediums) In that sense the old candle lights were better for the brain than the improvement brought by electric lighting. Uh..speaking of TV, do the new and improved TV sets bring us better programing than what was original to TV? I doubt it.
What abut the new and improved invention of the zip code to sped up delivery of mail? I don't think it ever did that. Or the cell phones that have a clock inside to tell time....is it better than old reliable wrist watches that seemed to ensure better punctuality than is shown today?
It's a good thing humans can't be replaced new and improved products....though I think it might be easy to find a new and improved model for me..
Bangkok Rebellion
It's distressing to see the pictures of fires burning under the Bangkok Sky Train and in the most expensive, modern and important shopping and commercial buildings in the city. I have been to Bangkok three times and like it very much. The aura of Bangkok was always that it is a "safe city" for locals and tourists. Walking about at any hour of night was not a big concern wherever one went. Unlike some other S.E Asian countries, Thailand has always had the rightful reputation of being a mellow and tolerant place where gentility is the rule. It's the "Land of smiles". Perhaps that is not the case anymore.
I haven't figured out why the rioting and opposition to the government has crested so suddenly in a nation where peace is far more often the rule than is opposition and violence. Is this a "poor peoples' uprising" against the inequities of a modern emerging nation? Is it a political outburst by a crazed rabble of poor people who came to the city from the under-developed north expecting much, and who flaunt their love for a former, but not overthrown prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, and being paid to make trouble to express their desire for his return to the government?You choose or give me another explanation.
Bangkok has had protests before, and Thailand had coups and a number of constitutions since it was declared a constitutional monarchy in the 1930's. But the so called "Red Shirt" violence is random and seemingly arbitrarily cruel. This is a different kind of protest than seen before in Thailand. It would be a tragic outcome, regardless of what political position wins (and it looks like the reigning government is the victor), if Bangkok and Thailand were to now be seen as just another nation, if the uniqueness of Thailand is lost.
While the country re gathers itself, the overwhelming number of ordinary Thai's who are not connected to the protest or even interested in it, wait to be given the word that they can return to work, to grocery stores, and to recreation as before. But will Bangkok be the same to them? Will they face more political disarray and uncertainty. And what of the image of Bangkok, the happy stereotype the world has of it?
We know hot and sticky Bangkok as a great city, an inexpensive place to eat wonderful food, 5 star hotels at 2 star prices, silk suits made in an hour, sexy transvestites who make even the most masculine male doubt his sexuality, smiling beautiful people, bawdy sex districts, a bustling multicultural aura of tolerance, cheap but skilled surgery and more.
Long live Bangkok, in whatever form it chooses to take.
I haven't figured out why the rioting and opposition to the government has crested so suddenly in a nation where peace is far more often the rule than is opposition and violence. Is this a "poor peoples' uprising" against the inequities of a modern emerging nation? Is it a political outburst by a crazed rabble of poor people who came to the city from the under-developed north expecting much, and who flaunt their love for a former, but not overthrown prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, and being paid to make trouble to express their desire for his return to the government?You choose or give me another explanation.
Bangkok has had protests before, and Thailand had coups and a number of constitutions since it was declared a constitutional monarchy in the 1930's. But the so called "Red Shirt" violence is random and seemingly arbitrarily cruel. This is a different kind of protest than seen before in Thailand. It would be a tragic outcome, regardless of what political position wins (and it looks like the reigning government is the victor), if Bangkok and Thailand were to now be seen as just another nation, if the uniqueness of Thailand is lost.
While the country re gathers itself, the overwhelming number of ordinary Thai's who are not connected to the protest or even interested in it, wait to be given the word that they can return to work, to grocery stores, and to recreation as before. But will Bangkok be the same to them? Will they face more political disarray and uncertainty. And what of the image of Bangkok, the happy stereotype the world has of it?
We know hot and sticky Bangkok as a great city, an inexpensive place to eat wonderful food, 5 star hotels at 2 star prices, silk suits made in an hour, sexy transvestites who make even the most masculine male doubt his sexuality, smiling beautiful people, bawdy sex districts, a bustling multicultural aura of tolerance, cheap but skilled surgery and more.
Long live Bangkok, in whatever form it chooses to take.
Oil Clean-up Ideas
The huge oil leak under the sea from a British Petroleum drill site has drawn the interest of many amateurs who suggest ways of capping the leak. One local New Orleans radio station said it received more than 100 suggestion on one day recently. BP has set up a separate hotline in Houston to handle the flood of incoming proposals and, the company says, eventually forward them up the chain for their engineers to consider. Hmmmm Could be desperation and an admission that they do not know what to do.
Given BP's inept attempts to stop the damage, it may not be such a crazy source of solution. BP first tried the deep-sea robots. Then they put an underwater dome on top of the leak to trap the oil. Now they play with insertion tubes. All have failed miserably, except a small amount of success with the tube insertion, and most "experts" are having problems coming up with the solution to an oil break at one of the deepest levels ever drilled.
The strangest source of a clean-up panacea is from actor Kevin Costner. He suggests a $24 million oil-water separator that he says could clean every drop. Costner came forward last week with an oil spill cleanup technology he said he started devising after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. Surrounded by local and state politicians here, he demonstrated a $24 million centrifuge device that he said could be placed on barges and used to suck in oily water, separate the oil and spit out mostly pure water."I'll put as many of these on the water to actually start cleaning up the water and taking out the oil, as opposed to surrounding it or watching it sink or hoping that it disappears, or blaming the next hurricane on dispersing it," Costner said. "We've been working in very crude ways. We see these images and we're going to see them tomorrow and we're going to see them the next day, and it feels feeble. It feels ineffectual." The only problem with Costner's idea (if you admit it would work) is that it might take 50 years or more to absorb all the oil. Too, every oil rig of the coast of Louisiana already has that same kind of old technology.
A large amount of ideas are cropping up on YouTube and across the Internet, with oil-cleaning techniques demonstrated in kiddie swimming pools and large mixing bowls. Other ideas sent to local government officials have suggested using a Navy sub to torpedo the well; spray huge amounts of grease busting Dawn dishwashing soap across the spill; or float enormous pumice stones near the well site to soak up the oil, oil eating bacteria, the "smart sponge," which manages to absorb only oil and permanently locks it inside the sponge, massive amounts of hay to soak it up.
And perhaps the best idea of all is the unlikeliest. Many seafood fisherman and locals who live along the coast point out that here has been crude oil on the Louisiana beaches and in the Marsh. It is unprocessed and it seeps out of the ground naturally. They claim that the environment will take care of itself. It always does.
Cleanup aside. I wonder what will happen to that oil/water in a month or two when hurricanes and tropical storms start swirling it and depositing it on towns an cities ashore. Then they may start speculating how to clean the oil off Bourbon Street in New Orleans.
Given BP's inept attempts to stop the damage, it may not be such a crazy source of solution. BP first tried the deep-sea robots. Then they put an underwater dome on top of the leak to trap the oil. Now they play with insertion tubes. All have failed miserably, except a small amount of success with the tube insertion, and most "experts" are having problems coming up with the solution to an oil break at one of the deepest levels ever drilled.
The strangest source of a clean-up panacea is from actor Kevin Costner. He suggests a $24 million oil-water separator that he says could clean every drop. Costner came forward last week with an oil spill cleanup technology he said he started devising after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. Surrounded by local and state politicians here, he demonstrated a $24 million centrifuge device that he said could be placed on barges and used to suck in oily water, separate the oil and spit out mostly pure water."I'll put as many of these on the water to actually start cleaning up the water and taking out the oil, as opposed to surrounding it or watching it sink or hoping that it disappears, or blaming the next hurricane on dispersing it," Costner said. "We've been working in very crude ways. We see these images and we're going to see them tomorrow and we're going to see them the next day, and it feels feeble. It feels ineffectual." The only problem with Costner's idea (if you admit it would work) is that it might take 50 years or more to absorb all the oil. Too, every oil rig of the coast of Louisiana already has that same kind of old technology.
A large amount of ideas are cropping up on YouTube and across the Internet, with oil-cleaning techniques demonstrated in kiddie swimming pools and large mixing bowls. Other ideas sent to local government officials have suggested using a Navy sub to torpedo the well; spray huge amounts of grease busting Dawn dishwashing soap across the spill; or float enormous pumice stones near the well site to soak up the oil, oil eating bacteria, the "smart sponge," which manages to absorb only oil and permanently locks it inside the sponge, massive amounts of hay to soak it up.
And perhaps the best idea of all is the unlikeliest. Many seafood fisherman and locals who live along the coast point out that here has been crude oil on the Louisiana beaches and in the Marsh. It is unprocessed and it seeps out of the ground naturally. They claim that the environment will take care of itself. It always does.
Cleanup aside. I wonder what will happen to that oil/water in a month or two when hurricanes and tropical storms start swirling it and depositing it on towns an cities ashore. Then they may start speculating how to clean the oil off Bourbon Street in New Orleans.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Safe And Unsafe Lists
In this politically correct world one quickly learns who to praise and who to criticize, who to condemn and who to excuse, who to give to and who to take from and more... There is an order of perception in society today which reverses the older ones but which are equally unfair to all. I think the political correctness that started in Western Europe, spread to the U.S and the rest of the west, has now entrenched itself everywhere to the point that it matters greatly what race you are, what religion you hold, the brand of your economic status, which sex you are a member of and endless more pre defined "realities" of today.
But I wont speak about the world's political correctness sickness. Instead. I have an observation about one aspect of the unfairness that is all about us and which threatens both equal treatment and reasonableness. It is the "safe list" and "unsafe list" of persons and issues who we are told not to criticize on the first hand and on the other hand what who we are encouraged to kick as hard as possible. here is my short safe and unsafe list, about which you can agree or disagree.
SAFE LIST (Never utter any criticism or be condemned as racist or worse)
UNSAFE LIST ( Feel free to trash these people and things)
Green activists-S
Politicians-U
Obama-S
George Bush-U
Gays and lesbians-S
Right-wing Christians-U
Global Warming proponents-S
Global Warming Deniers-U
The poor-S
The wealthy-U
Hispanics in the country illegally-S
Muslims in the country illegally-U
Affirmative action plans-S
Self reliance-U
Minorities-S
Caucasians, particularly white males-U
Women-S
Men-U
Entitlements-S
Taxation to pay for entitlements-U
Those who receive entitlements and don't work-S
Those who work and pay for them-U
Doctors-S
Irresponsible patients-U
Bad parents-S
Bad kids-U
The voters who elect the government-S
The government they voters elect-U
Minority profiling preferences in aid, scholarships etc.-S
Minority profiling by police-U
Small businesses-S
Big Business-U
Students and their parents-S
Teachers-U
Diversity policies-S
Reward based on merit-U
Israel-S
France-U
There you have a few I either see or imagine. Any comments about the list, or any additions or subtractions to offer???
But I wont speak about the world's political correctness sickness. Instead. I have an observation about one aspect of the unfairness that is all about us and which threatens both equal treatment and reasonableness. It is the "safe list" and "unsafe list" of persons and issues who we are told not to criticize on the first hand and on the other hand what who we are encouraged to kick as hard as possible. here is my short safe and unsafe list, about which you can agree or disagree.
SAFE LIST (Never utter any criticism or be condemned as racist or worse)
UNSAFE LIST ( Feel free to trash these people and things)
Green activists-S
Politicians-U
Obama-S
George Bush-U
Gays and lesbians-S
Right-wing Christians-U
Global Warming proponents-S
Global Warming Deniers-U
The poor-S
The wealthy-U
Hispanics in the country illegally-S
Muslims in the country illegally-U
Affirmative action plans-S
Self reliance-U
Minorities-S
Caucasians, particularly white males-U
Women-S
Men-U
Entitlements-S
Taxation to pay for entitlements-U
Those who receive entitlements and don't work-S
Those who work and pay for them-U
Doctors-S
Irresponsible patients-U
Bad parents-S
Bad kids-U
The voters who elect the government-S
The government they voters elect-U
Minority profiling preferences in aid, scholarships etc.-S
Minority profiling by police-U
Small businesses-S
Big Business-U
Students and their parents-S
Teachers-U
Diversity policies-S
Reward based on merit-U
Israel-S
France-U
There you have a few I either see or imagine. Any comments about the list, or any additions or subtractions to offer???
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Most Influential Nominees 2010
The annual list of 100 Most Influential persons of the Year has just closed voting (by the magazine's readers or any other interested party) for the leaders, artists, innovators and icons who they think are the most influential people in the world. Unlike the list of say...25 years ago... this year's list is revealing for having and almost majority of celebrities and entertainers on it. Surely, it reflects the trivialized nature of of society, the dumbed down intellectual status of the alleged "educated class", and the misplaced priorities and lack of understanding of which people and what events are more important to the individual.
Take for example the top ten leading vote-getters. Of the top ten listed, here are numbers 4-9
4. Rain- A Korean singer5. Lady Gaga- the current darling performer for teens6. Adam Lambert- the gay guy singer from that inane American idol TV show7. Susan Boyle- The unlikely but pretty voiced British singer8. Liu Xiabo- Alas! This is the lone substantive choice was a chief author of "Charter '08," a pro-democracy manifesto that called on the Chinese Communist Party to enact political reforms and uphold the constitutional rights of Chinese citizens9.Sachin Tendulkar- a cricket player! I am not kidding.
If these (exclusive of Liu) are who most influences the voters, what kind of world have we created? And the list is littered with many other bizarre choices from actor Ben Stiller to golfer Tiger Woods I find myself wondering in what way the celebrities offer influence it the lives of the voters? If amusing them is enough to assign such importance for them are the voters (and by implication, we) now living a Disney World existence? Influential? No, just the flavor of the month. Time has really declined from a serious in depth analysis of the important news to trendy mush for the intellectually challenged.
News magazines are dying and One must see this kind of list as an attempt to keep the readers entertained enough to pull them from their cell phones, computers, ipods and other myriad technology long enough to actually read. My favorite newsmagazine News week, itself is said to be in trouble that could led to a cessation of it in print and a morphing into yet another "People Magazine" style gossip and entertainment magazine.
Society is losing it's screen of the events that we should deem important, replaced by "news" of the trivial. The world should weep at the decline
Take for example the top ten leading vote-getters. Of the top ten listed, here are numbers 4-9
4. Rain- A Korean singer5. Lady Gaga- the current darling performer for teens6. Adam Lambert- the gay guy singer from that inane American idol TV show7. Susan Boyle- The unlikely but pretty voiced British singer8. Liu Xiabo- Alas! This is the lone substantive choice was a chief author of "Charter '08," a pro-democracy manifesto that called on the Chinese Communist Party to enact political reforms and uphold the constitutional rights of Chinese citizens9.Sachin Tendulkar- a cricket player! I am not kidding.
If these (exclusive of Liu) are who most influences the voters, what kind of world have we created? And the list is littered with many other bizarre choices from actor Ben Stiller to golfer Tiger Woods I find myself wondering in what way the celebrities offer influence it the lives of the voters? If amusing them is enough to assign such importance for them are the voters (and by implication, we) now living a Disney World existence? Influential? No, just the flavor of the month. Time has really declined from a serious in depth analysis of the important news to trendy mush for the intellectually challenged.
News magazines are dying and One must see this kind of list as an attempt to keep the readers entertained enough to pull them from their cell phones, computers, ipods and other myriad technology long enough to actually read. My favorite newsmagazine News week, itself is said to be in trouble that could led to a cessation of it in print and a morphing into yet another "People Magazine" style gossip and entertainment magazine.
Society is losing it's screen of the events that we should deem important, replaced by "news" of the trivial. The world should weep at the decline
No More Letter Songs
I heard an old classic late 50's song by the Marvelettes (and made even more famous by the Beatles in the early 60's) this morning, Mister Postman. Here are some of the lines from it.
'Please Mister Postman, look and see(Oh yeah)
If there's a letter for me(Please, Please Mister Postman)
Why's it takin' such a long time(Oh yeah)
For me to hear from that boy of mine''
There must be some word today
From my boyfriend so far away
Pleas Mister Postman, look and see
If there's a letter, a letter for me'
The point is that it got me to thinking that since personal letters are now about extinct what will take their place in song lyrics of the future E mail songs? Haha I doubt it. Perhaps it's because letters are the unknown and are dramatic. There is no telling when, or even if, they will reach their destination and we imagine so many things about their content as we waited day after day fro snail mail to arrive. But E mails are blandly immediate, unless you have server problems.
Nobody wants to sing about server problems. It's not romantic. Most letter songs feature absent lovers, loneliness and none high anxiety of separation from the loved one. In the pre personal computer era letter songs illustrated everything from the breathless excitement of receiving a long awaited letter better than the 70 pop group, 'The Box Tops' classic "The Letter"
'Well, she wrote me a letter
Said she couldn't live without me no more
Listen mister, can't you see
I got to get back To my baby once-a more'
Sarah Vaughan the late great jazz singer as long ago as pre World War II sang the classic letter song, 'I'm Gonna Sit Right Down and Write Myself a Letter' In it Sarah is reduced to penning her own love letters, complete with kisses at the bottom.
'I'm gonna sit right down and write myself a letter
And make believe it came from you.
I'm gonna write word, oh, so sweet
They're gonna knock me off my feet
A lot of kisses at the bottom, I'll be glad I got em'
Kind of sad, but not as bad as the thought of someone trying to write an emotional song about e mail or about internet chat. I could find many more examples of letter songs, but none in recent years. I guess it illustrates that our improved communication and transportation may be faster and more reliable, but it surely lacks any sense of romance.
Someone should write a song about that concept.
'Please Mister Postman, look and see(Oh yeah)
If there's a letter for me(Please, Please Mister Postman)
Why's it takin' such a long time(Oh yeah)
For me to hear from that boy of mine''
There must be some word today
From my boyfriend so far away
Pleas Mister Postman, look and see
If there's a letter, a letter for me'
The point is that it got me to thinking that since personal letters are now about extinct what will take their place in song lyrics of the future E mail songs? Haha I doubt it. Perhaps it's because letters are the unknown and are dramatic. There is no telling when, or even if, they will reach their destination and we imagine so many things about their content as we waited day after day fro snail mail to arrive. But E mails are blandly immediate, unless you have server problems.
Nobody wants to sing about server problems. It's not romantic. Most letter songs feature absent lovers, loneliness and none high anxiety of separation from the loved one. In the pre personal computer era letter songs illustrated everything from the breathless excitement of receiving a long awaited letter better than the 70 pop group, 'The Box Tops' classic "The Letter"
'Well, she wrote me a letter
Said she couldn't live without me no more
Listen mister, can't you see
I got to get back To my baby once-a more'
Sarah Vaughan the late great jazz singer as long ago as pre World War II sang the classic letter song, 'I'm Gonna Sit Right Down and Write Myself a Letter' In it Sarah is reduced to penning her own love letters, complete with kisses at the bottom.
'I'm gonna sit right down and write myself a letter
And make believe it came from you.
I'm gonna write word, oh, so sweet
They're gonna knock me off my feet
A lot of kisses at the bottom, I'll be glad I got em'
Kind of sad, but not as bad as the thought of someone trying to write an emotional song about e mail or about internet chat. I could find many more examples of letter songs, but none in recent years. I guess it illustrates that our improved communication and transportation may be faster and more reliable, but it surely lacks any sense of romance.
Someone should write a song about that concept.
Seafood Damage
The big oil spill has made a big impact on Louisiana seafood. People are buying seafood of all sort and, horror of horror in the fresh seafood only heavenly Louisiana, are and putting it in their freezer in anticipation of shortages in just about every variety of seafood one could eat here. Prices are rising and the Louisiana oyster, universally regarded as so far superior to any other anywhere else that there isn't even a second place (the mix of the Mississippi fresh water at the junction of the Gulf plus the natural oyster beds with perfect nutrition sources make Louisiana oysters so good and incapable of being replicated elsewhere), may soon be unattainable.
Most local restaurants say they will simply not sell oysters while the oil spill closes and or contaminates oil beds, given that locals would not eat the inferior imports if served them. But fine restaurants in Paris, New York, just about everywhere that purchase our oysters for their signatures dishes are just as worried about the supply shortage as the locals here. The fish, shrimp, crabs, oysters and the rest that locals take for granted and consume constantly may be a thing of the past as pollution from the spill and the bankruptcy of local fisherman and seafood processors who are not allowed to fish much of the Gulf of Mexico and earn the money needed to stay in business continues to spiral.
This is, as the license plates on out cars say, a "sportsman's paradise" in which at least one of every two people along the coast has a boat of some kind that is used for recreational fishing. But those boats are grounded now by the ban on use in the Gulf as the oil spill continues to leak and threatens to continue for an indefinite period of time.
Charter boats along the gulf report that at least 75% of their summer clients who fish there have canceled., they too may be put out of business by the spill. Tourists now are expressing worries about the safety of eating Louisiana seafood, even though what is sold in restaurants is not from the affected areas and is completely safe. The false appearance of unsafe seafood may mean a further decline in sales of what is not unsafe. This impacts the many great restaurants of New Orleans which so rely on fresh seafood in many dishes.
So the possible ripple effect of oil impacting our coasts and possibly the entire marsh and inland waterways has already started to ripple in seafood perceptions, sales, livelihoods and in the health of the local fishery supplies. What the final impact will be remains unknown, but taking away our seafood culture is like taking away the oil and gas from your car.
At the very least, it is a huge obstacle to maintaining the quality of life the locals have come to know and love.
Most local restaurants say they will simply not sell oysters while the oil spill closes and or contaminates oil beds, given that locals would not eat the inferior imports if served them. But fine restaurants in Paris, New York, just about everywhere that purchase our oysters for their signatures dishes are just as worried about the supply shortage as the locals here. The fish, shrimp, crabs, oysters and the rest that locals take for granted and consume constantly may be a thing of the past as pollution from the spill and the bankruptcy of local fisherman and seafood processors who are not allowed to fish much of the Gulf of Mexico and earn the money needed to stay in business continues to spiral.
This is, as the license plates on out cars say, a "sportsman's paradise" in which at least one of every two people along the coast has a boat of some kind that is used for recreational fishing. But those boats are grounded now by the ban on use in the Gulf as the oil spill continues to leak and threatens to continue for an indefinite period of time.
Charter boats along the gulf report that at least 75% of their summer clients who fish there have canceled., they too may be put out of business by the spill. Tourists now are expressing worries about the safety of eating Louisiana seafood, even though what is sold in restaurants is not from the affected areas and is completely safe. The false appearance of unsafe seafood may mean a further decline in sales of what is not unsafe. This impacts the many great restaurants of New Orleans which so rely on fresh seafood in many dishes.
So the possible ripple effect of oil impacting our coasts and possibly the entire marsh and inland waterways has already started to ripple in seafood perceptions, sales, livelihoods and in the health of the local fishery supplies. What the final impact will be remains unknown, but taking away our seafood culture is like taking away the oil and gas from your car.
At the very least, it is a huge obstacle to maintaining the quality of life the locals have come to know and love.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
TV While Recuperating
Being laid up after knee surgery has thrust me into the world of television far more than I want to enter into it. But what is one to do after the eye blur from too much reading and the ear ringing from music and talk radio. I have been watching way too much TV, a good thing though in that it motivates me to get well sooner to escape the trap of the idiot box. Unfortunately for you, as always, I never just sit and passively watch anything. I observe. Here are some random observations of mine about what I have been seeing on TV these days.
*The news- I like to watch TV news and sports. Those two programs are the least contrived and least anti intellectual of the programming. TV is at its best when reporting rather than creating, because when creating it ultimately dumbs down the content to fit the low level of the audience who watches. I have watched many news programs lately and am puzzled by a few things. Why do the news anchors and reporters keep thanking each other? "Thanks for the report, Fred", says the anchor to the field reporter. Is it necessary to thank someone for doing what is part of the normal job description?
Also, those news shows are filled with opinions and slants. It matters not what your perspective is, conservative or liberal. Most newscasts are more like editorials, at times overtly and at others covertly. They assume, imply, preach... " As we know global warming is changing the environment", is one refrain I heard quite often when watching newscasts this week. I not only don't know that global warming is changing the environment, I don't believe it. Why do they assume it is accepted as fact? This implies the audience is not smart enough to think for itself, that it needs to be given premises.
I also observe that most news casts love murders, tragedies, terrorism, any affliction of the human condition that it can report. And they keep reporting it over and over until the viewer surrenders and changes the channel. I suppose it is a ratings earner and that people like to see that.
* TV series- Except for the awful idiotic reality TV shows, TV series are the worst of TV. If one needed verification that TV is a vast wasteland, he or she need only watch a few TV series. It is said that most TV shows target the 13 year old intellect. But the majority of TV series never reach that high of a level. I must confess to not having watched more than a minute or so of each TV series I saw when injured. I just couldn't take any more of any of them than that. That they are stupid is bad enough. But those TV series in no way resemble any aspect of real life. This implies that there is money to be made by anyone who can write an intelligent absorbing TV series. Oh wait..I forgot. Most TV viewers are too dumb to watch that kind of show.
* Movies- These are the lifeblood of TV ratings today. There seem to be many TV channels that show nothing but movies. On the whole it is a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly. With so many offering movies I think there is better chance of finding an entertaining show if one sticks to movie channels. I also see that a person must pay extra to watch some movies on TV. Why is it the idiotic TV series are free to watch but movies require use of the credit card?
* Commercials- I like the humorous ones. They are perhaps the most creative part of TV programming. But the informational commercials are more often condescending or bold faced lies. No wonder so many politicans put campaign ads on TV.
* Selectivity- There are channels and programs for everyone on TV. They come in many languages, interests, for many age groups, a wide range of perspectives, free channels and paid for channels, local and national, satellite TV in the languages of far away countries, etc.... It's a great idea, but why are the programs always so dull and dumbed down? The format is good. The content embarrassing. Kind of sad, I think.
I hope I get well soon so that I can escape the TV world. In no way would I want to become a character shown in it, or even a person who actually finds value in watching. TV surely does promotes staying healthy
*The news- I like to watch TV news and sports. Those two programs are the least contrived and least anti intellectual of the programming. TV is at its best when reporting rather than creating, because when creating it ultimately dumbs down the content to fit the low level of the audience who watches. I have watched many news programs lately and am puzzled by a few things. Why do the news anchors and reporters keep thanking each other? "Thanks for the report, Fred", says the anchor to the field reporter. Is it necessary to thank someone for doing what is part of the normal job description?
Also, those news shows are filled with opinions and slants. It matters not what your perspective is, conservative or liberal. Most newscasts are more like editorials, at times overtly and at others covertly. They assume, imply, preach... " As we know global warming is changing the environment", is one refrain I heard quite often when watching newscasts this week. I not only don't know that global warming is changing the environment, I don't believe it. Why do they assume it is accepted as fact? This implies the audience is not smart enough to think for itself, that it needs to be given premises.
I also observe that most news casts love murders, tragedies, terrorism, any affliction of the human condition that it can report. And they keep reporting it over and over until the viewer surrenders and changes the channel. I suppose it is a ratings earner and that people like to see that.
* TV series- Except for the awful idiotic reality TV shows, TV series are the worst of TV. If one needed verification that TV is a vast wasteland, he or she need only watch a few TV series. It is said that most TV shows target the 13 year old intellect. But the majority of TV series never reach that high of a level. I must confess to not having watched more than a minute or so of each TV series I saw when injured. I just couldn't take any more of any of them than that. That they are stupid is bad enough. But those TV series in no way resemble any aspect of real life. This implies that there is money to be made by anyone who can write an intelligent absorbing TV series. Oh wait..I forgot. Most TV viewers are too dumb to watch that kind of show.
* Movies- These are the lifeblood of TV ratings today. There seem to be many TV channels that show nothing but movies. On the whole it is a mix of the good, the bad and the ugly. With so many offering movies I think there is better chance of finding an entertaining show if one sticks to movie channels. I also see that a person must pay extra to watch some movies on TV. Why is it the idiotic TV series are free to watch but movies require use of the credit card?
* Commercials- I like the humorous ones. They are perhaps the most creative part of TV programming. But the informational commercials are more often condescending or bold faced lies. No wonder so many politicans put campaign ads on TV.
* Selectivity- There are channels and programs for everyone on TV. They come in many languages, interests, for many age groups, a wide range of perspectives, free channels and paid for channels, local and national, satellite TV in the languages of far away countries, etc.... It's a great idea, but why are the programs always so dull and dumbed down? The format is good. The content embarrassing. Kind of sad, I think.
I hope I get well soon so that I can escape the TV world. In no way would I want to become a character shown in it, or even a person who actually finds value in watching. TV surely does promotes staying healthy
Browser Changes
Microsoft's Internet Explorer web browser, now accounts for less than 60% of the market, down from 95% at its peak in 2003, according to new figures that a researcher named NetApplications has issued. Internet explorer now has 59.9% of the market, with Fire fox gaining on it, with 24.5%. While third place Google Chrome's 6.7% share of the market looks tiny by comparison it is rising sharply, up from just 1.7% this time last year. Sigh..And the sad part is that the greatest browser ever, Netscape, is now officially dead (but there still is a 1/2 % usage of it), killed by the monolithic Microsoft a couple of years ago when all computer makers were forced by Microsoft to load only Internet Explorer on their new for sale computers.
Since the U.S. courts ordered Microsoft to stop forcing computer manufacturers to install Internet Explorer as the exclusive browser there has been a battle for the best browser among consumers, rather than the the imposition of Internet Explorer on all. And Microsoft has gradually been losing market share, also largely due to concerns over security. Viruses target Explorer far more often than other less used browsers. In the war between viruses and anti virus systems, the viruses usually win.
There are also more alternatives now. Google has been advertising and there are more people using Macs and Apple's Safari. There is just a great awareness that there are alternatives because Microsoft can no longer force computer sellers to make Internet Explorer mandatory as the default browser. Millions of people who had never really thought about which browser to use are now thinking about making a choice among the many browsers out there who all seem to work better than does Explorer.
Too, Europe has also just been freed of the Explorer ball in chain, which should lead to more alternative browser usage and less Explorer. This is a the result off a legal agreement between Microsoft and Europe's Competition Commission in December in which Microsoft committed to letting Windows PC users across Europe install the web browser of their choice, rather than having Microsoft IE as a default. that's a huge number of computers that are now free to pick the best browser rather than the obligatory one (Internet Explorer).
Now....if we could just find a computer that is easy to use, never crashes or needs continual updates and isn't obsolete a few months after purchased....
Since the U.S. courts ordered Microsoft to stop forcing computer manufacturers to install Internet Explorer as the exclusive browser there has been a battle for the best browser among consumers, rather than the the imposition of Internet Explorer on all. And Microsoft has gradually been losing market share, also largely due to concerns over security. Viruses target Explorer far more often than other less used browsers. In the war between viruses and anti virus systems, the viruses usually win.
There are also more alternatives now. Google has been advertising and there are more people using Macs and Apple's Safari. There is just a great awareness that there are alternatives because Microsoft can no longer force computer sellers to make Internet Explorer mandatory as the default browser. Millions of people who had never really thought about which browser to use are now thinking about making a choice among the many browsers out there who all seem to work better than does Explorer.
Too, Europe has also just been freed of the Explorer ball in chain, which should lead to more alternative browser usage and less Explorer. This is a the result off a legal agreement between Microsoft and Europe's Competition Commission in December in which Microsoft committed to letting Windows PC users across Europe install the web browser of their choice, rather than having Microsoft IE as a default. that's a huge number of computers that are now free to pick the best browser rather than the obligatory one (Internet Explorer).
Now....if we could just find a computer that is easy to use, never crashes or needs continual updates and isn't obsolete a few months after purchased....
Offensive TV Commercials
I think the world can be divided into two parts- those who like TV and those who just bear it and find much of it offensive. I fall in the latter category, so I watch much less TV than most. But what I do watch sometimes offends or annoys me. From the silly plots of TV series to the talking air heads on news programs it makes me reach for the off button more often than not. Watching TV surely promotes reading skills. But what is most offensive are the TV commercials.
One dimension of TV advertising that offends are ads for products related to consumer problems which social norms dictate should not be discussed in public. Those Viagra commercials, for instance, are everywhere. they show nice looking middle aged men getting frisky after asking their equally sexually frustrated doctor for those magic penis pills. It's nice that Viagra pills exist for those who feel a need. But what about the other 95% of the audience that has no interest or need and doesn't want to be exposed to commercials that promise to make you horny and hard?
I also don't want to see ads showing hemorrhoid creams, female sanitary products.....including the douche, men fighting over beer while wearing only their underwear, testimonials about yogurt with probiotics that make you poo regularly, warnings about the prostate that show men lined up to pee at the most embarrassing of times, men and women barely dressed that are shown as sexual objects, and on and on. Some products have such a targeted market I wonder why we all have to view their ads.
Then there are the commercials that insult the intelligence (I hope so) of the viewer. Actors dressed as doctors who pontificate on a drug the advertiser is 'dealing' is one such example. Those drug commercial actually imply that patients should tell their doctors they need a medication because and actor or actress dressed in a lab coat told them to use it. They pretend that patients are better at making diagnosis's and treatments.
And what about those pizza commercials that spend most of the time trashing the competitions pizza, the ingredients used in them, or insinuating that Joe's pizza is actually not an Italian owned parlor so it must be awful. First Papa John Pizza said it had "Better ingredients, Better pizza". Then a rival, Dominoes Pizza said it had reformulated its pizza and 3 out of 4 people who compared' claimed Dominoes was best. The reality is that it mostly tastes like cardboard anyway.
Then there are the TV commercials that lie. Any political advertisement is a good example of that. Some other products that use the lie often when advertising include: ads for petroleum products, car sale ads, real estate commercials, fast food claims, promotions for upcoming TV shows...ahhhhhhhhhh just about all of them lie.
But TV is the mediums for the masses and the the one that also most appeals to those with the lowest level of education. It's kind of like my rant here today, I guess.
One dimension of TV advertising that offends are ads for products related to consumer problems which social norms dictate should not be discussed in public. Those Viagra commercials, for instance, are everywhere. they show nice looking middle aged men getting frisky after asking their equally sexually frustrated doctor for those magic penis pills. It's nice that Viagra pills exist for those who feel a need. But what about the other 95% of the audience that has no interest or need and doesn't want to be exposed to commercials that promise to make you horny and hard?
I also don't want to see ads showing hemorrhoid creams, female sanitary products.....including the douche, men fighting over beer while wearing only their underwear, testimonials about yogurt with probiotics that make you poo regularly, warnings about the prostate that show men lined up to pee at the most embarrassing of times, men and women barely dressed that are shown as sexual objects, and on and on. Some products have such a targeted market I wonder why we all have to view their ads.
Then there are the commercials that insult the intelligence (I hope so) of the viewer. Actors dressed as doctors who pontificate on a drug the advertiser is 'dealing' is one such example. Those drug commercial actually imply that patients should tell their doctors they need a medication because and actor or actress dressed in a lab coat told them to use it. They pretend that patients are better at making diagnosis's and treatments.
And what about those pizza commercials that spend most of the time trashing the competitions pizza, the ingredients used in them, or insinuating that Joe's pizza is actually not an Italian owned parlor so it must be awful. First Papa John Pizza said it had "Better ingredients, Better pizza". Then a rival, Dominoes Pizza said it had reformulated its pizza and 3 out of 4 people who compared' claimed Dominoes was best. The reality is that it mostly tastes like cardboard anyway.
Then there are the TV commercials that lie. Any political advertisement is a good example of that. Some other products that use the lie often when advertising include: ads for petroleum products, car sale ads, real estate commercials, fast food claims, promotions for upcoming TV shows...ahhhhhhhhhh just about all of them lie.
But TV is the mediums for the masses and the the one that also most appeals to those with the lowest level of education. It's kind of like my rant here today, I guess.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Offensive TV Commercials
I think the world can be divided into two parts- those who like TV and those who just bear it and find much of it offensive. I fall in the latter category, so I watch much less TV than most. But what I do watch sometimes offends or annoys me. From the silly plots of TV series to the talking air heads on news programs it makes me reach for the off button more often than not. Watching TV surely promotes reading skills. But what is most offensive are the TV commercials.
One dimension of TV advertising that offends are ads for products related to consumer problems which social norms dictate should not be discussed in public. Those Viagra commercials, for instance, are everywhere. they show nice looking middle aged men getting frisky after asking their equally sexually frustrated doctor for those magic penis pills. It's nice that Viagra pills exist for those who feel a need. But what about the other 95% of the audience that has no interest or need and doesn't want to be exposed to commercials that promise to make you horny and hard?
I also don't want to see ads showing hemorrhoid creams, female sanitary products.....including the douche, men fighting over beer while wearing only their underwear, testimonials about yogurt with probiotics that make you poo regularly, warnings about the prostate that show men lined up to pee at the most embarrassing of times, men and women barely dressed that are shown as sexual objects, and on and on.
Some products have such a targeted market I wonder why we all have to view their ads. Then there are the commercials that insult the intelligence (I hope so) of the viewer. Actors dressed as doctors who pontificate on a drug the advertiser is 'dealing' is one such example. Those drug commercial actually imply that patients should tell their doctors they need a medication because and actor or actress dressed in a lab coat told them to use it. They pretend that patients are better at making diagnosis's and treatments.
And what about those pizza commercials that spend most of the time trashing the competitions pizza, the ingredients used in them, or insinuating that Joe's pizza is actually not an Italian owned parlor so it must be awful. First Papa John Pizza said it had "Better ingredients, Better pizza". Then a rival, Dominoes Pizza said it had reformulated its pizza and 3 out of 4 people who compared' claimed Dominoes was best. The reality is that it mostly tastes like cardboard anyway.Then there are the TV commercials that lie. Any political advertisement is a good example of that. Some other products that use the lie often when advertising include: ads for petroleum products, car sale ads, real estate commercials, fast food claims, promotions for upcoming TV shows...ahhhhhhhhhh just about all of them lie.
But TV is the mediums for the masses and the the one that also most appeals to those with the lowest level of education. It's kind of like my rant here today, I guess.
One dimension of TV advertising that offends are ads for products related to consumer problems which social norms dictate should not be discussed in public. Those Viagra commercials, for instance, are everywhere. they show nice looking middle aged men getting frisky after asking their equally sexually frustrated doctor for those magic penis pills. It's nice that Viagra pills exist for those who feel a need. But what about the other 95% of the audience that has no interest or need and doesn't want to be exposed to commercials that promise to make you horny and hard?
I also don't want to see ads showing hemorrhoid creams, female sanitary products.....including the douche, men fighting over beer while wearing only their underwear, testimonials about yogurt with probiotics that make you poo regularly, warnings about the prostate that show men lined up to pee at the most embarrassing of times, men and women barely dressed that are shown as sexual objects, and on and on.
Some products have such a targeted market I wonder why we all have to view their ads. Then there are the commercials that insult the intelligence (I hope so) of the viewer. Actors dressed as doctors who pontificate on a drug the advertiser is 'dealing' is one such example. Those drug commercial actually imply that patients should tell their doctors they need a medication because and actor or actress dressed in a lab coat told them to use it. They pretend that patients are better at making diagnosis's and treatments.
And what about those pizza commercials that spend most of the time trashing the competitions pizza, the ingredients used in them, or insinuating that Joe's pizza is actually not an Italian owned parlor so it must be awful. First Papa John Pizza said it had "Better ingredients, Better pizza". Then a rival, Dominoes Pizza said it had reformulated its pizza and 3 out of 4 people who compared' claimed Dominoes was best. The reality is that it mostly tastes like cardboard anyway.Then there are the TV commercials that lie. Any political advertisement is a good example of that. Some other products that use the lie often when advertising include: ads for petroleum products, car sale ads, real estate commercials, fast food claims, promotions for upcoming TV shows...ahhhhhhhhhh just about all of them lie.
But TV is the mediums for the masses and the the one that also most appeals to those with the lowest level of education. It's kind of like my rant here today, I guess.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Mom's Day
"God could not be everywhere and therefore he made mothers." That's an old Jewish proverb, and in light of May being the moth mom is honored just about everywhere I thought I would write something about my own mom..not for you, but because it is good for one to remember lost loved ones from time to time. It is fuel for the soul and certainly one reason we have "days" for people. He who is completely separated from those who are gone but helped formulated the character they assumed in their lives, will lose a little each year of what they learned from the the departed loved one. It's healthy to remember.
I had a very close relationship to both my parents all throughout my life. If the childish refrain, "Mom loves you bestest", were really true I think my mom may have loved me "bestest", though she did everything to deny it or show that it might be a subliminally induced trait that she never wanted to exhibit. She would declare equal love for her two sons. But I knew that equality in love is as impossible as equality in everything but mathematics. When my mother was dying of pancreatic cancer I could see that favoritism toward me even more. I became her parent and she my child, as so often happens late in the life cycle.
My mother Jane (same name as my 16 year old Jane) taught me many things, and most of them indirectly. The genius of my parents lay in their modeling truths and lessons rather than "instructing" them. My mother's kindness and selflessness were learned not from a book she read or a speech she gave, but from living those qualities herself. I saw what was right and honorable by observing her.
My mom did many things right. She sacrificed for everyone (I jokingly called her "The Martyr"), she gave us freedom to succeed and fail (and never criticized or doubted us if we failed) she never lost optimism (even in the face of some of the family's greatest tragedies), she believed in all of her family members (she was a woman of faith in more than the ritualistic religious sense), she treated all as if they were carved in gold (no discrimination, no class distinctions, no snobbery, every man woman and child were her family) and on and on.
We all idealize our mothers, but I think mine was really the ideal mom for me. I draw on the memories of my mom (and of my father) frequently and have always tried to be the same kind of parent to Jane as they were to me. My mother exemplified what Oliver Wendal Holmes once wrote,"Youth fades; love droops, the leaves of friendship fall; A mother's secret hope outlives them all.
Happy Mother's Day to all the moms and to the children of them.
I had a very close relationship to both my parents all throughout my life. If the childish refrain, "Mom loves you bestest", were really true I think my mom may have loved me "bestest", though she did everything to deny it or show that it might be a subliminally induced trait that she never wanted to exhibit. She would declare equal love for her two sons. But I knew that equality in love is as impossible as equality in everything but mathematics. When my mother was dying of pancreatic cancer I could see that favoritism toward me even more. I became her parent and she my child, as so often happens late in the life cycle.
My mother Jane (same name as my 16 year old Jane) taught me many things, and most of them indirectly. The genius of my parents lay in their modeling truths and lessons rather than "instructing" them. My mother's kindness and selflessness were learned not from a book she read or a speech she gave, but from living those qualities herself. I saw what was right and honorable by observing her.
My mom did many things right. She sacrificed for everyone (I jokingly called her "The Martyr"), she gave us freedom to succeed and fail (and never criticized or doubted us if we failed) she never lost optimism (even in the face of some of the family's greatest tragedies), she believed in all of her family members (she was a woman of faith in more than the ritualistic religious sense), she treated all as if they were carved in gold (no discrimination, no class distinctions, no snobbery, every man woman and child were her family) and on and on.
We all idealize our mothers, but I think mine was really the ideal mom for me. I draw on the memories of my mom (and of my father) frequently and have always tried to be the same kind of parent to Jane as they were to me. My mother exemplified what Oliver Wendal Holmes once wrote,"Youth fades; love droops, the leaves of friendship fall; A mother's secret hope outlives them all.
Happy Mother's Day to all the moms and to the children of them.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Losing Coast And More
As the huge oil spill threatens to destroy much of the Louisiana wetlands, damage the coastline, ruin habitat for wildlife and fish, interrupt or perhaps destroy the food chain leading to massive kill, I thought that today I would pass on an article from my newspaper about the nature of some of the buildings in New Orleans that were destroyed during the "other" great natural disaster of this decade, Hurricane Katrina. Click this link and read and view pictures of some of the styles of architecture we have here that make New Orleans a different looking place from the rest of the United States.
http://www.nola.com/homegarden/index.ssf/2010/05/new_orleans_houses_101_a_guide.html
Interesting housing styles, huh? And quite varied. In the city proper these housing styles are often intermixed in neighborhoods regardless of income area or location. I remember after the hurricane in 2005 how so many of the houses, damaged and not, were stripped of their ornamental features, from copper wiring to hand cut ornate cornices and just about anything one could sell to a person or business interested in old and unique styled architectural craftsmanship. The internet was ablaze with "sales" of stolen products, and some compared the thefts and sales to robbing graves of the newly deceased.
Even the local lumber yards and scrap yards had thieves trying to sell old growth custom swamp cypress doors and other swamp carved cyprus (it is a wood that is almost impervious to water, so highly valued), plus fixtures looted from homes. It was said that a few months after the hurricane one could find just about any 18th or 19th century treasure at many of the unscrupulous scrap dealers who were selling it. Drug addicts in answer to their cravings for a hit had a field day ripping out whatever they knew would bring top dollar, and selling it for a fraction of the true value.
And now with the oil gushing still and threatening the whole Louisiana and Gulf Coast I remember the carnage of the hurricane in 2005 that took away man made edifices that were part of the definition of the city, but which now threaten to destroy so much of the natural environment on which Louisiana relies much on. I wonder if this will be a kind of knockout punch....first hit with hurricane Katrina destroying land, buildings and lives, and now firing at the treasured water of my state and all the resources and life within it. Whatever.... it will test the mettle of man and beast here.
http://www.nola.com/homegarden/index.ssf/2010/05/new_orleans_houses_101_a_guide.html
Interesting housing styles, huh? And quite varied. In the city proper these housing styles are often intermixed in neighborhoods regardless of income area or location. I remember after the hurricane in 2005 how so many of the houses, damaged and not, were stripped of their ornamental features, from copper wiring to hand cut ornate cornices and just about anything one could sell to a person or business interested in old and unique styled architectural craftsmanship. The internet was ablaze with "sales" of stolen products, and some compared the thefts and sales to robbing graves of the newly deceased.
Even the local lumber yards and scrap yards had thieves trying to sell old growth custom swamp cypress doors and other swamp carved cyprus (it is a wood that is almost impervious to water, so highly valued), plus fixtures looted from homes. It was said that a few months after the hurricane one could find just about any 18th or 19th century treasure at many of the unscrupulous scrap dealers who were selling it. Drug addicts in answer to their cravings for a hit had a field day ripping out whatever they knew would bring top dollar, and selling it for a fraction of the true value.
And now with the oil gushing still and threatening the whole Louisiana and Gulf Coast I remember the carnage of the hurricane in 2005 that took away man made edifices that were part of the definition of the city, but which now threaten to destroy so much of the natural environment on which Louisiana relies much on. I wonder if this will be a kind of knockout punch....first hit with hurricane Katrina destroying land, buildings and lives, and now firing at the treasured water of my state and all the resources and life within it. Whatever.... it will test the mettle of man and beast here.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Uniforms
Have you ever worn a uniform? In my case I did it only when I was in the navy long ago. I don't like uniforms and think that in most cases the world fits in one of two categories, those who like them and those who have no use for them. There is little middle ground on this subject. Ask someone if they like a certain personality and you'll get the same kind of divergence of opinion, yet a strong one. Too liking or not liking uniforms is not a measure of the person's worth or ethics.. But people who like them are different from those who do not.
I notice many kids wearing uniforms here in New Orleans, but far fewer in Portland wear them. It's probably because Portland is more liberal than New Orleans. Liberal types don't like the conformity aspect of uniforms. New Orleans also has many Catholic schools. Catholic schools love uniforms because they give the student more of a feeling of community rather than of individuality. Better to have little Johnny identify with the group and all its rules than to think apart from it. It makes keeping order and easier. Just look at any dictatorship and you'll find plenty of people in uniform.
There are plenty of organizations besides the military that like the uniform as required dress. The police wear them and waiters are in a kind of uniform in a restaurant, athletes on sports teams wear them so the referees don't get confused. That makes sense because it reminds them of the expectations that come when wearing that uniform. But why do businesses make their employees wear uniforms? Do you really think the plumber in a uniform that says "Potty Patrol" (or whatever the business is called) will unstop your sink better than one that is un uniformed?
Those examples are of formal uniforms. But there are also informal ones too. Any outfit people wear that is the same with which they are identified is a uniform. That means gang members like the Hell's Angels are uniformed. they all have motor bikes and the same grimy clothes. That helps them identify with the organization, just like the Mafiosi who wear those plain but expensive looking black suits. ( Don't tell the Mafia I am writing about them...they carry guns inside those suit jackets).
It may be a stretch to say but age groups also informally wear uniforms. The teens wear their heavy metal shirts, jeans and converse tennis shoes. The oldies wear their elastic stretch pants (If you wear that I don't need to see your picture in that uniform!). There is a soccer mom uniform, a yuppie uniform, the rock star uniform, and many others. All of those people bond with each other better by dressing alike.
Humans also change their personalities when in uniform. We tend to adapt the expected role the uniform implies or demands we project, and brush aside our own individualism. This can be good or bad, depending on the situation for which the uniform is required. I think those who like to wear uniforms and those that don't can be categorized by behavior. The ones who like them also like patriotic events, don't ever want to see anyone bend the rules, tend to dislike rapid social or political changes. The anti uniform crowd tends to be uninterested in rituals or even politics, less self disciplined, more self oriented, and willing and adaptable to change.
I should try to find my old navy uniform to put on to verify all my rhetoric today, but I am too fat now to fit anyway.
I notice many kids wearing uniforms here in New Orleans, but far fewer in Portland wear them. It's probably because Portland is more liberal than New Orleans. Liberal types don't like the conformity aspect of uniforms. New Orleans also has many Catholic schools. Catholic schools love uniforms because they give the student more of a feeling of community rather than of individuality. Better to have little Johnny identify with the group and all its rules than to think apart from it. It makes keeping order and easier. Just look at any dictatorship and you'll find plenty of people in uniform.
There are plenty of organizations besides the military that like the uniform as required dress. The police wear them and waiters are in a kind of uniform in a restaurant, athletes on sports teams wear them so the referees don't get confused. That makes sense because it reminds them of the expectations that come when wearing that uniform. But why do businesses make their employees wear uniforms? Do you really think the plumber in a uniform that says "Potty Patrol" (or whatever the business is called) will unstop your sink better than one that is un uniformed?
Those examples are of formal uniforms. But there are also informal ones too. Any outfit people wear that is the same with which they are identified is a uniform. That means gang members like the Hell's Angels are uniformed. they all have motor bikes and the same grimy clothes. That helps them identify with the organization, just like the Mafiosi who wear those plain but expensive looking black suits. ( Don't tell the Mafia I am writing about them...they carry guns inside those suit jackets).
It may be a stretch to say but age groups also informally wear uniforms. The teens wear their heavy metal shirts, jeans and converse tennis shoes. The oldies wear their elastic stretch pants (If you wear that I don't need to see your picture in that uniform!). There is a soccer mom uniform, a yuppie uniform, the rock star uniform, and many others. All of those people bond with each other better by dressing alike.
Humans also change their personalities when in uniform. We tend to adapt the expected role the uniform implies or demands we project, and brush aside our own individualism. This can be good or bad, depending on the situation for which the uniform is required. I think those who like to wear uniforms and those that don't can be categorized by behavior. The ones who like them also like patriotic events, don't ever want to see anyone bend the rules, tend to dislike rapid social or political changes. The anti uniform crowd tends to be uninterested in rituals or even politics, less self disciplined, more self oriented, and willing and adaptable to change.
I should try to find my old navy uniform to put on to verify all my rhetoric today, but I am too fat now to fit anyway.
Minority And Majority
What a reaction by Hispanics and some others to the decision that in Arizona police can start asking people to prove they are citizens rather than being illegal immigrants. The cries about minority rights and profiling seem to me more of a mask to hide the illegal immigrant population, not a real complaint of discrimination. If 98% of illegal immigrants are Hispanics who come in largely through your state (Arizona), how is trying to enforce the law against illegal immigration profiling or discriminatory? Just the opposite, not enforcing immigration rules puts everyone, not only the majority, at risk.
The cry of a minority that he or she is being discriminated can be enriching to the complainant, who almost always gets his way given the majority does not want ot make itself to be a discriminator. But crying wolf for personal gain hurts minorities as a whole when they do have a real complaint about a real injustice because the majority might stop taking those complaints seriously, even when real.
I pity the majority a little. It's the great majority in America that is unorganized and does not protect itself, as in the case of the Hispanic protest in Arizona. The majority race, party, culture whatever..is the one that is now most defamed, taxed too much, joked about, portrayed as racist or insensitive by its own mediums, discriminated by affirmative action and quota systems, and expected to do more for the minority than the minority does for it.
When a member of the majority is discriminated against there is little recourse. There is no action group or party that will listen to the complaint because being a member of the majority party is supposed to itself be protection against discrimination. It is not. I effect, most members of the majority are afraid to complain about a minority action because it knows to do so will bring even more minority complaint.
American used to be a diverse nation, and that was a great strength. Now it is divided into a growing number factions that only represent themselves and spend most of the time portraying themselves as victims of the majority group. I can't begin to name the factions but for starters how about these: Hispanic, Gay, Italian American, black, white, Jewish, feminist, single moms, elderly.....and on and on. The one commonality of them all is that they are almost exclusively concerned with their own members and see all others as antagonistic toward them.
Maybe if we stopped defining ourselves as different we might one day discover the truth that we are all too much the same to make the arbitrary differences we hold to so fast.
The cry of a minority that he or she is being discriminated can be enriching to the complainant, who almost always gets his way given the majority does not want ot make itself to be a discriminator. But crying wolf for personal gain hurts minorities as a whole when they do have a real complaint about a real injustice because the majority might stop taking those complaints seriously, even when real.
I pity the majority a little. It's the great majority in America that is unorganized and does not protect itself, as in the case of the Hispanic protest in Arizona. The majority race, party, culture whatever..is the one that is now most defamed, taxed too much, joked about, portrayed as racist or insensitive by its own mediums, discriminated by affirmative action and quota systems, and expected to do more for the minority than the minority does for it.
When a member of the majority is discriminated against there is little recourse. There is no action group or party that will listen to the complaint because being a member of the majority party is supposed to itself be protection against discrimination. It is not. I effect, most members of the majority are afraid to complain about a minority action because it knows to do so will bring even more minority complaint.
American used to be a diverse nation, and that was a great strength. Now it is divided into a growing number factions that only represent themselves and spend most of the time portraying themselves as victims of the majority group. I can't begin to name the factions but for starters how about these: Hispanic, Gay, Italian American, black, white, Jewish, feminist, single moms, elderly.....and on and on. The one commonality of them all is that they are almost exclusively concerned with their own members and see all others as antagonistic toward them.
Maybe if we stopped defining ourselves as different we might one day discover the truth that we are all too much the same to make the arbitrary differences we hold to so fast.
Overpopulation
I read today that China is worried about...hold on to your seat..underpopulation! Yes, I wrote "under" not "over". Is that something to be worried about in a country and world with too many people already? I think not. The theme of the Chines government's worry is that the one child per couple strategy instituted decades ago is so successful that as this generation and the next one in China retires there will not be enough replacement workers to pay for the retired ones. So the concern is purely economic. I find that sad. The one case of population control that worked is now seen as a bad thing.
Finally, one nation finds away to control out of control population with all the stresses it puts on the earth's resources, and instead of rejoicing at the statistical prediction that if the one child program continues China's too big population will be cut in half by the end of the 21st century the Chinese government wants to now encourage Chinese couples to have more babies. But they have already learned from the one child policy that more children means less in material comfort for each family member. The idea that fewer kids is best has sunk in. We need more of that mentality.
The World Clock I am looking at now says the population of the world is now 6,817,078,798. Every second the population grows by 4 humans. It took all of human history until 1800 for the world population to reach a mere 1 billion people. Now the world adds a new billion every 11 years. And the global warming fraud says the earth is in peril because we emit too much carbon??? If the earth is in trouble it's because there are too many humans here using resources too fast.
It's unlikely the earth will be destroyed by temperature rises (a natural fluctuation not caused by humans) but possible life can not continue unless the earth deals with overpopulation. Already, in many parts of the world human water use exceeds replenishment.Convincing people that growth for growth's sake simply can't keep working is a task that should be undertaken. The earth has already gone past the point where adding more people benefits even economically.
The chart below shows past world population data back to the year one and future world population projections through the year 2050.
Year Population
1 200 million
1000 275 million
1500 450 million
1650 500 million
1750 700 million
1804 1 billion
1850 1.2 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion
2006 6.5 billion
2009 6.8 billion
2011 7 billion
2025 8 billion
2050 9.4 billion
The chart is the definition of out of control. Too many people not only threatens all of humanity with survival, it's destructive to having a good quality of life. Bigger isn't always better. We already have too much bigness...too many people, too many cars, too many houses, too many governments to administer and encourage the bigness.How about a one child per couple program for the rest of the world?
Hmmmmmmmmmm The motto could be "Just Don't Do It" .
Finally, one nation finds away to control out of control population with all the stresses it puts on the earth's resources, and instead of rejoicing at the statistical prediction that if the one child program continues China's too big population will be cut in half by the end of the 21st century the Chinese government wants to now encourage Chinese couples to have more babies. But they have already learned from the one child policy that more children means less in material comfort for each family member. The idea that fewer kids is best has sunk in. We need more of that mentality.
The World Clock I am looking at now says the population of the world is now 6,817,078,798. Every second the population grows by 4 humans. It took all of human history until 1800 for the world population to reach a mere 1 billion people. Now the world adds a new billion every 11 years. And the global warming fraud says the earth is in peril because we emit too much carbon??? If the earth is in trouble it's because there are too many humans here using resources too fast.
It's unlikely the earth will be destroyed by temperature rises (a natural fluctuation not caused by humans) but possible life can not continue unless the earth deals with overpopulation. Already, in many parts of the world human water use exceeds replenishment.Convincing people that growth for growth's sake simply can't keep working is a task that should be undertaken. The earth has already gone past the point where adding more people benefits even economically.
The chart below shows past world population data back to the year one and future world population projections through the year 2050.
Year Population
1 200 million
1000 275 million
1500 450 million
1650 500 million
1750 700 million
1804 1 billion
1850 1.2 billion
1900 1.6 billion
1927 2 billion
1950 2.55 billion
1955 2.8 billion
1960 3 billion
1965 3.3 billion
1970 3.7 billion
1975 4 billion
1980 4.5 billion
1985 4.85 billion
1990 5.3 billion
1995 5.7 billion
1999 6 billion
2006 6.5 billion
2009 6.8 billion
2011 7 billion
2025 8 billion
2050 9.4 billion
The chart is the definition of out of control. Too many people not only threatens all of humanity with survival, it's destructive to having a good quality of life. Bigger isn't always better. We already have too much bigness...too many people, too many cars, too many houses, too many governments to administer and encourage the bigness.How about a one child per couple program for the rest of the world?
Hmmmmmmmmmm The motto could be "Just Don't Do It" .
Arizona Illegal Immigration Challenge
I think what I write today isn't politically correct, but that only makes it more valuable to relate. I stand and applaud the state of Arizona today. Arizona has finally had enough of the endless stream of illegal immigrants pouring across the border from Mexico. The Arizona state legislature, fed up with the U.S. government's unwillingness to stop the illegal immigration invasion, has passed an unprecedented immigration law. The law, which will take effect in 90 days, will make it a state crime to be in the country illegally. It requires anyone asked to produce papers verifying their status when asked to do so by a police office.
This could mean that in Arizona there will no longer be of illegals occupying U.S. soil illegally, creating economic stress for the state, committing crimes and milking the system. The Governor of Arizona put it succinctly when signing the measure into law. "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."Since the early 1960's the United States government has refused to enforce immigration laws pertaining to Hispanic illegals who have settled in the U.S. at a rate of over a million per year.
As as result, Arizona, California and several other states are going broke supporting the illegals who are here and who continue to come. By passing a state law allowing state police to question and apprehend illegals (though the U.S. government must be the entity to legally deport them) Arizona has in effect thrown down the challenge to the federal government to do the same. I doubt the U.S. government will approve of Arizona's attempt, but at least it helps force Congress and the Obama administration to deal with the huge problem of illegal immigrations.
Obama today called the Arizona law a "misguided" action and asked Congress to "take action on immigration immediately" (make the illegals legal and continue to keep the borders open for more to cross). In fairness, the federal government has apprehended some the worst elements of the illegals and deported them. But the word has long been out that Mexicans are free to come and go in the U.S., to reap financial benefits and to not fear being apprehended and deported unless caught committing crimes.
No doubt this law is more a symbolic one and intended to force the federal government to make more effort to uphold the immigration laws it has passed. Too, the poor quality of immigrants continues to flow in, with more being illiterate peasants who lack skills and the ability to support themselves once here. This surge of illegals has overwhelmed the various states where they have most settled and caused the federal government to severely limit the quotas of the highly educated immigrants the U.S. needs. In effect, opening the border to the less desirable element has caused a closing of the channel with which educated/skilled immigrants used to flow. Arizonians and many Americans believe it is time to uphold immigration laws, to stop favoring the large Hispanic lobby and to force the U. S. government to show it's true immigration face.
No doubt Obama and Congress will win this skirmish, but it should be a fun battle to watch.
This could mean that in Arizona there will no longer be of illegals occupying U.S. soil illegally, creating economic stress for the state, committing crimes and milking the system. The Governor of Arizona put it succinctly when signing the measure into law. "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."Since the early 1960's the United States government has refused to enforce immigration laws pertaining to Hispanic illegals who have settled in the U.S. at a rate of over a million per year.
As as result, Arizona, California and several other states are going broke supporting the illegals who are here and who continue to come. By passing a state law allowing state police to question and apprehend illegals (though the U.S. government must be the entity to legally deport them) Arizona has in effect thrown down the challenge to the federal government to do the same. I doubt the U.S. government will approve of Arizona's attempt, but at least it helps force Congress and the Obama administration to deal with the huge problem of illegal immigrations.
Obama today called the Arizona law a "misguided" action and asked Congress to "take action on immigration immediately" (make the illegals legal and continue to keep the borders open for more to cross). In fairness, the federal government has apprehended some the worst elements of the illegals and deported them. But the word has long been out that Mexicans are free to come and go in the U.S., to reap financial benefits and to not fear being apprehended and deported unless caught committing crimes.
No doubt this law is more a symbolic one and intended to force the federal government to make more effort to uphold the immigration laws it has passed. Too, the poor quality of immigrants continues to flow in, with more being illiterate peasants who lack skills and the ability to support themselves once here. This surge of illegals has overwhelmed the various states where they have most settled and caused the federal government to severely limit the quotas of the highly educated immigrants the U.S. needs. In effect, opening the border to the less desirable element has caused a closing of the channel with which educated/skilled immigrants used to flow. Arizonians and many Americans believe it is time to uphold immigration laws, to stop favoring the large Hispanic lobby and to force the U. S. government to show it's true immigration face.
No doubt Obama and Congress will win this skirmish, but it should be a fun battle to watch.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Inside The Oil Spill
As the huge oil spill threatens to destroy much of the Louisiana wetlands, damage the coastline, ruin habitat for wildlife and fish, interrupt or perhaps destroy the food chain leading to massive kill, I thought that today I would pass on an article from my newspaper about the nature of some of the buildings in New Orleans that were destroyed during the "other" great natural disaster of this decade, Hurricane Katrina. Click this link and read and view pictures of some of the styles of architecture we have here that make New Orleans a different looking place from the rest of the United States.
http://www.nola.com/homegarden/index.ssf/2010/05/new_orleans_houses_101_a_guide.html
Interesting housing styles, huh? And quite varied. In the city proper these housing styles are often intermixed in neighborhoods regardless of income area or location. I remember after the hurricane in 2005 how so many of the houses, damaged and not, were stripped of their ornamental features, from copper wiring to hand cut ornate cornices and just about anything one could sell to a person or business interested in old and unique styled architectural craftsmanship. The internet was ablaze with "sales" of stolen products, and some compared the thefts and sales to robbing graves of the newly deceased.
Even the local lumber yards and scrap yards had thieves trying to sell old growth custom swamp cypress doors and other swamp carved cyprus (it is a wood that is almost impervious to water, so highly valued), plus fixtures looted from homes. It was said that a few months after the hurricane one could find just about any 18th or 19th century treasure at many of the unscrupulous scrap dealers who were selling it. Drug addicts in answer to their cravings for a hit had a field day ripping out whatever they knew would bring top dollar, and selling it for a fraction of the true value.
And now with the oil gushing still and threatening the whole Louisiana and Gulf Coast I remember the carnage of the hurricane in 2005 that took away man made edifices that were part of the definition of the city, but which now threaten to destroy so much of the natural environment on which Louisiana relies much on. I wonder if this will be a kind of knockout punch....first hit with hurricane Katrina destroying land, buildings and lives, and now firing at the treasured water of my state and all the resources and life within it. Whatever.... it will test the mettle of man and beast here.
http://www.nola.com/homegarden/index.ssf/2010/05/new_orleans_houses_101_a_guide.html
Interesting housing styles, huh? And quite varied. In the city proper these housing styles are often intermixed in neighborhoods regardless of income area or location. I remember after the hurricane in 2005 how so many of the houses, damaged and not, were stripped of their ornamental features, from copper wiring to hand cut ornate cornices and just about anything one could sell to a person or business interested in old and unique styled architectural craftsmanship. The internet was ablaze with "sales" of stolen products, and some compared the thefts and sales to robbing graves of the newly deceased.
Even the local lumber yards and scrap yards had thieves trying to sell old growth custom swamp cypress doors and other swamp carved cyprus (it is a wood that is almost impervious to water, so highly valued), plus fixtures looted from homes. It was said that a few months after the hurricane one could find just about any 18th or 19th century treasure at many of the unscrupulous scrap dealers who were selling it. Drug addicts in answer to their cravings for a hit had a field day ripping out whatever they knew would bring top dollar, and selling it for a fraction of the true value.
And now with the oil gushing still and threatening the whole Louisiana and Gulf Coast I remember the carnage of the hurricane in 2005 that took away man made edifices that were part of the definition of the city, but which now threaten to destroy so much of the natural environment on which Louisiana relies much on. I wonder if this will be a kind of knockout punch....first hit with hurricane Katrina destroying land, buildings and lives, and now firing at the treasured water of my state and all the resources and life within it. Whatever.... it will test the mettle of man and beast here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)