In 1990 in the U.S. a law called The American Disability Act was legislated, ostensibly to help those who have disability get through life more easily by prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, transportation, public accommodation communications, and governmental activities. Nice law to help those in need. Oh, it defines disabled as "an individual with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities".
But under that act is also the infamous disabled "handicap" parking spot provision. Every business must set aside a certain percent of it's parking lot spaces for those labeled disabled, and that area must be closest to the entrance of the business. The problem is, most of the people who have "handicapped parking stick privileges" are not really handicapped. They are lazy and spoiled cheaters. To get a sticker all one need do is have his or her physician declare on paperwork sent to the state department that issues the stickers, that the person applying is in some way "handicapped". In order to be accommodating doctors fill them out for their patients ever asked, with few questions asked, and some people even get the stickers because they are obese.
I think a fat person who is unwilling to park his or her car normally and walk into the business from there is not handicapped. He or she is merely fat and can freely choose to either park normally or lose weight. From my observation, many of the handicapped parkers are fat people who waddle into the business, not truly disabled people. I wonder what a truly disabled person in a wheelchair must think when he or she notices the same thing as I, that most handicapped spots are taken by non handicapped people.
I've seen more than one young man or woman dash from the car into a store after leaving the handicapped parking spot they have grabbed. I think those people may be using a handicap sticker that belongs to someone else in the family who is really handicapped. It's the "me" generation protocol to take advantage of whatever brings "me" ease and comfort.
Well, today I saw a very able lady bolt from her car that was parked in a handicapped spot. She clearly had no trouble getting inside the store, and I wondered why she would selfishly deprive a real handicapped person of that parking spot. I decided to observe a few of the spots in the lot to see who else was there. What did I find? Not a single person who parked in those spots was in a wheelchair, had a limp, showed difficulty breathing or any other physical impairment. Most of the spots were taken by fat, middle aged women. Hmmm Some looked to have a mental disability though- stupidity!
It's sad when government tries to do the right thing by helping those who are disabled and at a disadvantage, but the non disabled instead play the law for their benefit alone. It's clear to me that too many spaces are set aside for handicap parking, because most are used by non handicapped people. Maybe the police should, observe the spots occasionally, investigate and ticket those who selfishly abuse the concept.
I think a good sentence for those found guilty is a few months of Saturdays and Sundays at parking lots where they would assist the truly handicapped get to and from their cars. Maybe that would cure the cheaters true disability- not being able to tell the difference between right and wrong.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
No Business Accuntability
The BP (British Petroleum) oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has gotten me thinking again. Too bad for you. I was thinking about one good aspect of yet another private business destroying and polluting on its way to making bigger profits. The good thing about this crisis is that it is making news media types probe and report more on the evil a business can do.
Politicians are sometimes bad, but at least we know or can find out what evil they do and put them in jail once tried. But with the exception of that big Enron scandal years ago and that Bernie Madoff fellow who cheated so many people a few years ago, we don't know what business is doing to us. In fact, business is more powerful and secretive than those crooked politicians. We need more reporting on what they are doing so another BP event won't happen again.
Big business buys the politicians (see the huge donations of campaign funds BP made to Obama, for instance) and the politicians let them get away with too many shenanigans. Citizens can vote out bad politicians, but not bad businesses.
And sadly, while we need politicians to control the excess of big business, but instead they more often get in bed with business to share in the fruits obtained by cheating and abusing citizens. Business closes its doors and hides its books from us. And they advertise slick messages about how much they love us and how they operate only to serve us.
The huge economic meltdown on 2009 was more a product of corrupt markets and business than of the politicians. Surely, the politicians allowed business to operate unethically, but business did the dirty work and who did the media castigate the most? It wasn't the businesses. It was the politicians. I guess the media finds it harder to dig up the evidence of the dirt left by business than on politicians, but that is no excuse. It should report on that which most troubles society, even if it takes more work and the dumbed down societies in which live today prefer the stupidity of trivial news.
The only way business can be made responsible is to expose what wrongs it commits and make the business give retribution in those cases of wrongs. But don't hold your breath. People prefer the latest Lindsay Lohan story, reporters prefer writing it and politicians like being bought and sold by business anyway.
Politicians are sometimes bad, but at least we know or can find out what evil they do and put them in jail once tried. But with the exception of that big Enron scandal years ago and that Bernie Madoff fellow who cheated so many people a few years ago, we don't know what business is doing to us. In fact, business is more powerful and secretive than those crooked politicians. We need more reporting on what they are doing so another BP event won't happen again.
Big business buys the politicians (see the huge donations of campaign funds BP made to Obama, for instance) and the politicians let them get away with too many shenanigans. Citizens can vote out bad politicians, but not bad businesses.
And sadly, while we need politicians to control the excess of big business, but instead they more often get in bed with business to share in the fruits obtained by cheating and abusing citizens. Business closes its doors and hides its books from us. And they advertise slick messages about how much they love us and how they operate only to serve us.
The huge economic meltdown on 2009 was more a product of corrupt markets and business than of the politicians. Surely, the politicians allowed business to operate unethically, but business did the dirty work and who did the media castigate the most? It wasn't the businesses. It was the politicians. I guess the media finds it harder to dig up the evidence of the dirt left by business than on politicians, but that is no excuse. It should report on that which most troubles society, even if it takes more work and the dumbed down societies in which live today prefer the stupidity of trivial news.
The only way business can be made responsible is to expose what wrongs it commits and make the business give retribution in those cases of wrongs. But don't hold your breath. People prefer the latest Lindsay Lohan story, reporters prefer writing it and politicians like being bought and sold by business anyway.
Most Spoken Languages
Since I was an English teacher for many years and truly like the English language for all its great and terrible aspects, you get language mail today. Go ahead and use a four letter word in any language if you want, but I am going to write about English and other languages anyway. Every speaker of a language thinks his or her language is the "best one", so that shows it is ridiculous to say one language has a quality higher than another. All languages foster good communication. Ergo, they are all equal as to quality.
Usage is another thing. More of the world speaks Chinese than any other language, over 1.2 billion people in fact (most of them in China itself). English is the second most spoken with 480 million speakers spread all throughout the world. The top two represent languages that are the good examples of why so many people speak a certain language. Chinese being spoken because the population of the countries in which it is native is so large. In the case of English, it is because English has been spread worldwide through military, social, cultural and economic imperialism.
There will always be many Chinese speakers, given the huge Chinese population. But English may one day suffer the ignominy of French, once the dominant language of the west and the language of the courts but now almost a footnote. The decline of the nation of France in nearly ever way since the 1800's has pushed it down to the 14th most spoken language in the world (only 72 million people world-wide use it as their dominant language). It may be trendy for parents in a number of countries to want their kids to speak French because it they think of it as the "best language", but it is virtually useless because France itself is a nation with an atavistic culture and a dying language that one day may wind up with the same number of speakers as those who speak dead language Latin.
The third most spoken language is Spanish, with 332 million people who use it as a primary language.. This is the result of the Spanish colonialism that took place from the 1500's until late in the 18th century, and because Spanish speaking people also have a very high birthrate. In fourth place is Arabic with 235 million speakers. There is no truth to the rumor that at least half of them want to blow up the non Arab speakers with explosive devices.
Two Indian languages, Bengali (189 million speakers) and Hindu (182 million) rank fifth and sixth. Russian is in 7th place with 180 million speakersOne language that may never grow but that is widely spoken is Japanese. It is the ninth most spoken with 125 million but is almost entirely spoken within Japan. The Japanese don't like to share their language and none wants to capture it. And the least spoken language...is something called Ter Sami. Only 2 million people who live along the Ural mountains in Russia use that one.
I doubt if we need to learn that one.
Usage is another thing. More of the world speaks Chinese than any other language, over 1.2 billion people in fact (most of them in China itself). English is the second most spoken with 480 million speakers spread all throughout the world. The top two represent languages that are the good examples of why so many people speak a certain language. Chinese being spoken because the population of the countries in which it is native is so large. In the case of English, it is because English has been spread worldwide through military, social, cultural and economic imperialism.
There will always be many Chinese speakers, given the huge Chinese population. But English may one day suffer the ignominy of French, once the dominant language of the west and the language of the courts but now almost a footnote. The decline of the nation of France in nearly ever way since the 1800's has pushed it down to the 14th most spoken language in the world (only 72 million people world-wide use it as their dominant language). It may be trendy for parents in a number of countries to want their kids to speak French because it they think of it as the "best language", but it is virtually useless because France itself is a nation with an atavistic culture and a dying language that one day may wind up with the same number of speakers as those who speak dead language Latin.
The third most spoken language is Spanish, with 332 million people who use it as a primary language.. This is the result of the Spanish colonialism that took place from the 1500's until late in the 18th century, and because Spanish speaking people also have a very high birthrate. In fourth place is Arabic with 235 million speakers. There is no truth to the rumor that at least half of them want to blow up the non Arab speakers with explosive devices.
Two Indian languages, Bengali (189 million speakers) and Hindu (182 million) rank fifth and sixth. Russian is in 7th place with 180 million speakersOne language that may never grow but that is widely spoken is Japanese. It is the ninth most spoken with 125 million but is almost entirely spoken within Japan. The Japanese don't like to share their language and none wants to capture it. And the least spoken language...is something called Ter Sami. Only 2 million people who live along the Ural mountains in Russia use that one.
I doubt if we need to learn that one.
Lottery Fever
Do you ever get those scam E mails that say you won a lottery somewhere? If my E mail is truthful I have won the British lottery at least 10 times over the years. Hmmm No checks have been sent yet though. Those lousy Brits! They are holding my winnings until I give them my bank account so they can empty that. But really, to think that anyone would be stupid enough to think they won a lottery they never entered, and many do believe it and are scammed, shows the greed motive among we humans. We just want to believe someone, somewhere is going to give us lots of money for gambling.
What's sad is that as bad as those crooks are that send those e mails claiming people won a lottery, the real state and national lotteries are more conniving and dishonest than are the E mail mythical lottery scams. It has been calculated that the total revenue taken in by a government from lotteries run by a state or nation averages almost 60% o the total spent on lottery tickets. That means there are plenty of losers buying lottery tickets. A typical gambling trip for a person trip to private casino averages a return of only about 15% for the gambling casino, quite a bit smaller that what the state takes from gullible citizens it is supposed to protect. I know of no gambling enterprises with a bigger take for the administrator than government lotteries.
But states and nations say they need lotteries to finance schools, roads etc., and that a lottery is a painless way to raise money. I am doubtful of that claim and think places that didn't have lotteries previously have probably the same amount of spending on schools after they fleece the lottery ticket holders as they did before. Too, governments say people "will gamble anyway, so why not tax them?" Ha! If they will gamble anyway, why do those governments spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting their lotteries to seduce those people ("who will gamble anyway") to buy lottery tickets?
I also don't understand why the media publicizes the name and story of every big lottery winner. It's old news that a tiny few will be lucky and win. If they want to publish the winner's name they should also publish the long, long lists of every loser's name. That would bring some objectivity to the equation so people would understand that they have a greater chance of being hit by lightening than of winning a state or national lottery.
Telling people they can be lucky and win money is a bad concept for governments to promote. I can understand unsavory people promoting gambling, but when a government sinks to that level it degrades those it is supposed to represent. Governments should not be in the gambling business when seeking revenue. Instead, they should be honest with their citizens and tell them to pay more taxes or accept fewer government services.
But then, I am willing to BET that will never happen...
What's sad is that as bad as those crooks are that send those e mails claiming people won a lottery, the real state and national lotteries are more conniving and dishonest than are the E mail mythical lottery scams. It has been calculated that the total revenue taken in by a government from lotteries run by a state or nation averages almost 60% o the total spent on lottery tickets. That means there are plenty of losers buying lottery tickets. A typical gambling trip for a person trip to private casino averages a return of only about 15% for the gambling casino, quite a bit smaller that what the state takes from gullible citizens it is supposed to protect. I know of no gambling enterprises with a bigger take for the administrator than government lotteries.
But states and nations say they need lotteries to finance schools, roads etc., and that a lottery is a painless way to raise money. I am doubtful of that claim and think places that didn't have lotteries previously have probably the same amount of spending on schools after they fleece the lottery ticket holders as they did before. Too, governments say people "will gamble anyway, so why not tax them?" Ha! If they will gamble anyway, why do those governments spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting their lotteries to seduce those people ("who will gamble anyway") to buy lottery tickets?
I also don't understand why the media publicizes the name and story of every big lottery winner. It's old news that a tiny few will be lucky and win. If they want to publish the winner's name they should also publish the long, long lists of every loser's name. That would bring some objectivity to the equation so people would understand that they have a greater chance of being hit by lightening than of winning a state or national lottery.
Telling people they can be lucky and win money is a bad concept for governments to promote. I can understand unsavory people promoting gambling, but when a government sinks to that level it degrades those it is supposed to represent. Governments should not be in the gambling business when seeking revenue. Instead, they should be honest with their citizens and tell them to pay more taxes or accept fewer government services.
But then, I am willing to BET that will never happen...
Age Stereotypes
The older we get the more we notice age. Or perhaps it is "the older we get, the more deeply we are aware of age differences rather thant sterotypes", since even the youngest of children comment on age all the time (though without truly understanding what it is, given experiences gained through time can only teach that). When younger a perosn sees age in a compartmentalized realm and rarely takes it out of that arena, so that the "old woman" across the highway must be feeble in mind and body while the teenager near her has to be more alert and healthier than the old woman. But life does not give us age in such a way. We age differently and for many reasons.
What seems to be the same about aging is our perceptions about people at a certain age (see Shakespeare's poem the 'Seven Ages Of Man' for details). Since I am "slightly older" now I notice some perceptions about my age that I don't like. My whitish beard provokes stereotypes about me that somehow my thoughts and views are "older" than when I was in college or some other younger period in my life. Theses perceptions mostly are not true, yet widely believed. I see the world as I saw it when 18, not in the way that many assume it should be seen when we are older. Sadly maybe people who age faster do so partly because they believe those false perceptions and start to imitate them.
More than being mean to older people, younger ones tend to be patronizing. This can be as annoying to the over 40 crowd as is just openly treating them as old and useless. ("Never trust anyone over 30", we used to say as kids) For example, ask any teen if a 32 year old woman is old and the teen can give you a hundred reasons why he or she thinks so. They won't respect her opinion or life experiences either because she isn't dressed like them , speaking their slang or listening to their music. Perhaps they take this stance in order to separate themselves from other age groups, given a specific age identity for teens seems mandatory for maintaining peace of mind. Thus, they brand other ages with cruel thoughts and behaviors toward them.
But even other "old folks" have perceptions about aging too, even about their aged contemporaries. For example, the healthy, active 65 year old is probably more patronizing than all others to the 65 year old who has aged far more quickly and has physical and mental "old age" problems. They tell their more aged contemporary "You look great!" when meeting them. But what they mean is, "For a broken down old timer you are at least not completely feeble...but I sure am glad I am not like you."
When they say, "Are you still living in a house by yourself"? This means , "I hope your kids have sold your home and put you in nursing home." And they always want to help the more aged 65 year old, especially when they don't need the help. I suspect one older person treats another of the same age that way was a means of reassuring him or herself that aging is for the other guy, not he or she.
Its' true some societies treat the elderly more reverently, but that is fading, and even those have stereotypes about the more elderly that are patronizing. I think if we all wore bags over our heads we might relate a little better to each other. Surely the bags would hide "our age" and even the playing field and eliminate some of those crazy age perceptions. Fact is, every age is good and bad for many reasons. None is ideal and age should vever define us, never be the criteria for any relationship. The trick to enjoying life at every age is to love whatever your age is and not let anyone else assign a stereotype as to what you should be like at "your age"....
Oh, just wondering, when did you start dying your hair....
What seems to be the same about aging is our perceptions about people at a certain age (see Shakespeare's poem the 'Seven Ages Of Man' for details). Since I am "slightly older" now I notice some perceptions about my age that I don't like. My whitish beard provokes stereotypes about me that somehow my thoughts and views are "older" than when I was in college or some other younger period in my life. Theses perceptions mostly are not true, yet widely believed. I see the world as I saw it when 18, not in the way that many assume it should be seen when we are older. Sadly maybe people who age faster do so partly because they believe those false perceptions and start to imitate them.
More than being mean to older people, younger ones tend to be patronizing. This can be as annoying to the over 40 crowd as is just openly treating them as old and useless. ("Never trust anyone over 30", we used to say as kids) For example, ask any teen if a 32 year old woman is old and the teen can give you a hundred reasons why he or she thinks so. They won't respect her opinion or life experiences either because she isn't dressed like them , speaking their slang or listening to their music. Perhaps they take this stance in order to separate themselves from other age groups, given a specific age identity for teens seems mandatory for maintaining peace of mind. Thus, they brand other ages with cruel thoughts and behaviors toward them.
But even other "old folks" have perceptions about aging too, even about their aged contemporaries. For example, the healthy, active 65 year old is probably more patronizing than all others to the 65 year old who has aged far more quickly and has physical and mental "old age" problems. They tell their more aged contemporary "You look great!" when meeting them. But what they mean is, "For a broken down old timer you are at least not completely feeble...but I sure am glad I am not like you."
When they say, "Are you still living in a house by yourself"? This means , "I hope your kids have sold your home and put you in nursing home." And they always want to help the more aged 65 year old, especially when they don't need the help. I suspect one older person treats another of the same age that way was a means of reassuring him or herself that aging is for the other guy, not he or she.
Its' true some societies treat the elderly more reverently, but that is fading, and even those have stereotypes about the more elderly that are patronizing. I think if we all wore bags over our heads we might relate a little better to each other. Surely the bags would hide "our age" and even the playing field and eliminate some of those crazy age perceptions. Fact is, every age is good and bad for many reasons. None is ideal and age should vever define us, never be the criteria for any relationship. The trick to enjoying life at every age is to love whatever your age is and not let anyone else assign a stereotype as to what you should be like at "your age"....
Oh, just wondering, when did you start dying your hair....
Spellign The End Of Dictionaries
You know what is disappearing from ill defined, confusing world? It's the printed dictionary. You don't see them in stores or on tables in people's homes as much anymore. I think they may eventually be an extinct printed paper form of information, like encyclopedias are today. Try to buy a set of encyclopedias and your will be told that you are both crazy and that they all are on line now. This higher tech world is erasing the printed word and making it an electronic one. I shudder at the thought of those E book devices, because if I can't hold a book in my hand it isn't interesting enough for me to read.
I do realize this dictionary concept is a generational one. Having grown up with and depended on paper dictionaries, I have an emotional attachment to them that Jane doesn't, given that she has always had the electronic kind to use...and that spell check "thing". Spell check is like a laxative. It is unpleasant to take but very useful in that it eliminates our own brain check of our own errors or questions. I am not sure, but I think spell check is an example of a technology that is too easy for us. It puts the brain on default, making it fat and lazy.
If an alien species wanted to destroy humans one way would be to make them so dependent on technology that they forget how to think and do things on their own. Taking away our dictionaries is a beginning to that process. But alas! I can still find dictionaries in stores. They are there mostly because not all schools issue computers to kids, and as a result the child has to bring a paper dictionary to school. Who knows when the paper dictionary will disappear, but I think its disappearance will be in correlation with school demands for little Johnny having one at his desk.
Anyway, dictionaries are also changing their form. They are now very liberal about what is in and out. For example, profanity is now in. When I was a kid we could not find vulgarity in a dictionary, but today it is all over the pages. Might this be because this age is a far more vulgar one than previous editions. Do we really need the F word in little Johnny's dictionary? Maybe because dictionaries should include every term used frequently and acceptably. It's hard to believe that society now views the F word as acceptable by society. But it is. Maybe we need both a G and an R rated version of dictionaries. That would be much easier to print than to put on line electronically (yet another advantage of the printed dictionary).
For it to survive, a language is and must be a changing organism, and I guess the form for discovering words should be too. But I prefer the paper version of dictionaries. A paper dictionary requires we exercise our minds when trying to find a word, it is less likely to change its composition "too fast", and it feels good in the hand. If you don't believe me you can.... "look it up"
I do realize this dictionary concept is a generational one. Having grown up with and depended on paper dictionaries, I have an emotional attachment to them that Jane doesn't, given that she has always had the electronic kind to use...and that spell check "thing". Spell check is like a laxative. It is unpleasant to take but very useful in that it eliminates our own brain check of our own errors or questions. I am not sure, but I think spell check is an example of a technology that is too easy for us. It puts the brain on default, making it fat and lazy.
If an alien species wanted to destroy humans one way would be to make them so dependent on technology that they forget how to think and do things on their own. Taking away our dictionaries is a beginning to that process. But alas! I can still find dictionaries in stores. They are there mostly because not all schools issue computers to kids, and as a result the child has to bring a paper dictionary to school. Who knows when the paper dictionary will disappear, but I think its disappearance will be in correlation with school demands for little Johnny having one at his desk.
Anyway, dictionaries are also changing their form. They are now very liberal about what is in and out. For example, profanity is now in. When I was a kid we could not find vulgarity in a dictionary, but today it is all over the pages. Might this be because this age is a far more vulgar one than previous editions. Do we really need the F word in little Johnny's dictionary? Maybe because dictionaries should include every term used frequently and acceptably. It's hard to believe that society now views the F word as acceptable by society. But it is. Maybe we need both a G and an R rated version of dictionaries. That would be much easier to print than to put on line electronically (yet another advantage of the printed dictionary).
For it to survive, a language is and must be a changing organism, and I guess the form for discovering words should be too. But I prefer the paper version of dictionaries. A paper dictionary requires we exercise our minds when trying to find a word, it is less likely to change its composition "too fast", and it feels good in the hand. If you don't believe me you can.... "look it up"
Iman Muda
Just when I thought reality TV had sunk to its lowest possible level news comes of a new reality TV show in Malaysia, that..hold on to your hat.. is hoping to find an "Imam Idol". Yep! The winner of what the producers call 'Iman Muda' (young Iman) becomes a full fledged Iman. Let's hope the winner can preach better than those American idols can sing.
Contestants on the show, 10 in all that have been preselected for the show, are given a variety of tasks and an Islamic scholar chooses who goes through to the next round. They are tested on things such as islamic knowledge, delivering a prayer service and even a prepare the dead sequence. But only a couple of Imans can chose the winner. No viewers are allowed to vote, in keeping with the dictatorial nature of Islam that says only the Iman knows best.
The producers of the show hope the format will appeal to Malaysia's young Muslims and make the mosque crowds bigger. Hmnm I wonder if trivializing religion this way will make the Mosques rock or if it will bring down Islam to a level of well....reality TV. As hard as islam fights modernization and secularization it seems odd to put itself on display in a reality TV format. But then, culture have been dumbed down already, everywhere.
Since Muslims now have their own reality TV show I have my usual stupid suggestions for other versions, the religious reality TV shows of the future. How about these ideas?
* Pick Your Pedophile- This would fit the Catholic Church well. A group of suspected child molesting priests could compete to chose their favorite altar boy and win him as a prize. I think this one should be shown on the pay per view porno cable tier.
* Give Me Your Money- Evangelical preachers could compete to see which ones can fleece the most people of the most money, and then use it for personal vacation homes, cars, and buying hot chicks while cruising in their favorite brothels.
* Circumcision Circus- The Jewish crowd would love this one, as prospective rabbis race to see which can circumcise the most screaming babies in the shortest amount of time. The winner gets free use of a condo in Miami and a set of ginzu knives
* Mormon Bike Racing- Finally, all those guys dressed in white T shorts and black pants with Mormon Bibles hanging at the side, will get to do more than knock on neighborhood doors and try to convert Mormons. They will compete in a Tour D France style bike race to see which can deliver the mysterious, non rational basis of Mormon theology fastest to the most squirming listeners.
* Bet Buddha- Bet Buddha gives viewers the chance to pick out the hidden lady boy among the 5 candidates for Buddha priest. This one will be a hit for those Buddhists who like to see their preacher decked out in in the finest Lady Gaga outfits while preaching at the pulpit.
I think that's a good enough start on programming.
Uh, I supposed I have offended enough religions for one day
Contestants on the show, 10 in all that have been preselected for the show, are given a variety of tasks and an Islamic scholar chooses who goes through to the next round. They are tested on things such as islamic knowledge, delivering a prayer service and even a prepare the dead sequence. But only a couple of Imans can chose the winner. No viewers are allowed to vote, in keeping with the dictatorial nature of Islam that says only the Iman knows best.
The producers of the show hope the format will appeal to Malaysia's young Muslims and make the mosque crowds bigger. Hmnm I wonder if trivializing religion this way will make the Mosques rock or if it will bring down Islam to a level of well....reality TV. As hard as islam fights modernization and secularization it seems odd to put itself on display in a reality TV format. But then, culture have been dumbed down already, everywhere.
Since Muslims now have their own reality TV show I have my usual stupid suggestions for other versions, the religious reality TV shows of the future. How about these ideas?
* Pick Your Pedophile- This would fit the Catholic Church well. A group of suspected child molesting priests could compete to chose their favorite altar boy and win him as a prize. I think this one should be shown on the pay per view porno cable tier.
* Give Me Your Money- Evangelical preachers could compete to see which ones can fleece the most people of the most money, and then use it for personal vacation homes, cars, and buying hot chicks while cruising in their favorite brothels.
* Circumcision Circus- The Jewish crowd would love this one, as prospective rabbis race to see which can circumcise the most screaming babies in the shortest amount of time. The winner gets free use of a condo in Miami and a set of ginzu knives
* Mormon Bike Racing- Finally, all those guys dressed in white T shorts and black pants with Mormon Bibles hanging at the side, will get to do more than knock on neighborhood doors and try to convert Mormons. They will compete in a Tour D France style bike race to see which can deliver the mysterious, non rational basis of Mormon theology fastest to the most squirming listeners.
* Bet Buddha- Bet Buddha gives viewers the chance to pick out the hidden lady boy among the 5 candidates for Buddha priest. This one will be a hit for those Buddhists who like to see their preacher decked out in in the finest Lady Gaga outfits while preaching at the pulpit.
I think that's a good enough start on programming.
Uh, I supposed I have offended enough religions for one day
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Dumpster Diving
You know what "dumpster diving" is? Probably not, but if you lived in New Orleans you'd know. In fact, I did it today. Dumpster diving is looking in trash bins of businesses or retrieving "trash' someone has put out for the trash collectors and their big garbage trucks, to pick up. I went to a popular arts and craft supply store, Gordon's, and checked their dumpster behind the business to see if I could find babble wrap and boxes to use in my move to Portland. Since I have quite a few objects of worth to cram my car which I will drive to Portland, I preferred to get it free rather than pay for it Bubble wrap is very expensive stuff, almost like diamonds these days.
No, I didn't bother to tell the store that I was taking their trash and making it my treasure. In New orleans the Golden rule is "thou shalt not ever reclaim what one trashes". If you dispose of it, it's fair game. And I found enough bubble wrap ( at least $200 worth) to wrap everything 4 or 5 times. It's all in pristine condition too, most having been re stuffed in boxes and thrown in the trash bin. I feel like an honest thief....err..is there such a thing? I am not ashamed of what I did and do when "saving the planet" by recycling other's trash. I sort through your trash when needed and I love it. Why finding that bubble wrap is almost orgasmic in this world of paying to much for too little.
But I am not a regular dumpster diver. Those who are have a philosophy of life that can be condensed into, "Why pay for something when you can wait months and months for it to eventually show up on a curbside?" I find that extreme even in a city where the trash is often worth more than what is sold brand new in your city's best stores.
Yes, old New Orleans is a dumpster diver's paradise. Everything here is so old. Old and wooden and often antique and prized by anyone in the businessbecause New Orleans was often the port of entry for all things brought into the U.S. in the 1700 and 1800's. It reminds me of one time in my college days when an acquaintance went "trashing" one friday night. Trashing is an extension of dumpster diving. The trasher instead of routing through business dumpsters, goes through the trash people put out for trash collector truck to pick up on their regular routes Tuesday and Friday nights here.
Anyway, that acquaintance with assistance from friends rented a truck and trashed in the exclusive garden district area of New Orleans that night. He found a French antique armoire that someone of wealth and carelessness apparently felt didn't match the decor and tossed on the curb. The armoire wound up paying for that student's 4 years of college and for all his books, food and related expenses during the time. It was a priceless object that he sold in return for a free college education.
I haven't ever trashed but dumpster diving is not ever out of my realm. Waiting in the right dumpster is a treasure trove of practical and often expensive treasures that is mine for free. I think that trash speaks to me and other trashy people, which is fine with me.
No, I didn't bother to tell the store that I was taking their trash and making it my treasure. In New orleans the Golden rule is "thou shalt not ever reclaim what one trashes". If you dispose of it, it's fair game. And I found enough bubble wrap ( at least $200 worth) to wrap everything 4 or 5 times. It's all in pristine condition too, most having been re stuffed in boxes and thrown in the trash bin. I feel like an honest thief....err..is there such a thing? I am not ashamed of what I did and do when "saving the planet" by recycling other's trash. I sort through your trash when needed and I love it. Why finding that bubble wrap is almost orgasmic in this world of paying to much for too little.
But I am not a regular dumpster diver. Those who are have a philosophy of life that can be condensed into, "Why pay for something when you can wait months and months for it to eventually show up on a curbside?" I find that extreme even in a city where the trash is often worth more than what is sold brand new in your city's best stores.
Yes, old New Orleans is a dumpster diver's paradise. Everything here is so old. Old and wooden and often antique and prized by anyone in the businessbecause New Orleans was often the port of entry for all things brought into the U.S. in the 1700 and 1800's. It reminds me of one time in my college days when an acquaintance went "trashing" one friday night. Trashing is an extension of dumpster diving. The trasher instead of routing through business dumpsters, goes through the trash people put out for trash collector truck to pick up on their regular routes Tuesday and Friday nights here.
Anyway, that acquaintance with assistance from friends rented a truck and trashed in the exclusive garden district area of New Orleans that night. He found a French antique armoire that someone of wealth and carelessness apparently felt didn't match the decor and tossed on the curb. The armoire wound up paying for that student's 4 years of college and for all his books, food and related expenses during the time. It was a priceless object that he sold in return for a free college education.
I haven't ever trashed but dumpster diving is not ever out of my realm. Waiting in the right dumpster is a treasure trove of practical and often expensive treasures that is mine for free. I think that trash speaks to me and other trashy people, which is fine with me.
The Pain In Flying Today
How bad is flying on a commercial airline today? Today's typical plan is filled with rude, dirty, inappropriately dressed people, with their ill behaved broods of even worse behaved children. They board planes everywhere and cause a stir nearly every time they take a seat, from dragging on oversized carry-ons (and the airline is at fault for allowing that) that prevent many passengers from placing their regulation sized carry-on aloft to abusive behavior toward fight attendants..flying is now more an ordeal than a convenience.
You can also lay plenty of the blame onto the airline industry. They keep making seats and personal space smaller while cramming as many people as they can cram onto the plane. Packed into the plane like sardines, charged for luggage, charged for snacks, charged, charged, charged....it surely doesn't lend to civil behavior by passengers.
I can recall flying years ago when there were people dressed as grown ups, there was a sense of calm and mutual respect between passengers and passengers and passengers and crew. Sadly, those days will never return. It used to be that it was a treat to fly and that flying was expensive and not amass transportation mode. Today people say it's a cattle car on a subway. And people are getting more obnoxious as a result.
Are you as disgusted as I with the loudness, abusiveness towards flight attendants, violation of passenger seat space, pushing while entering and leaving the plane, cell phone abuse on aboard...ahhhhhhhhhhhh It makes me long for the days when flying was for the wealthier citizen. Sometimes bringing product to the masses isn't a great idea. Perhaps airline travel is one such case. If people could only afford to fly infrequently, and had to use alternative methods the rest of the time, perhaps civility might return to air travel.
Ah, but I am dreaming...The rudeness in air travel is merely an extension of the "me, me, first" attitude that permeates our society today. The idea of politeness and manners has been relegated, for the most part, to the trash heap of the past. And, for that both our airline experiences and our society are worse off.
Makes me just want to "fly away" from it all....
You can also lay plenty of the blame onto the airline industry. They keep making seats and personal space smaller while cramming as many people as they can cram onto the plane. Packed into the plane like sardines, charged for luggage, charged for snacks, charged, charged, charged....it surely doesn't lend to civil behavior by passengers.
I can recall flying years ago when there were people dressed as grown ups, there was a sense of calm and mutual respect between passengers and passengers and passengers and crew. Sadly, those days will never return. It used to be that it was a treat to fly and that flying was expensive and not amass transportation mode. Today people say it's a cattle car on a subway. And people are getting more obnoxious as a result.
Are you as disgusted as I with the loudness, abusiveness towards flight attendants, violation of passenger seat space, pushing while entering and leaving the plane, cell phone abuse on aboard...ahhhhhhhhhhhh It makes me long for the days when flying was for the wealthier citizen. Sometimes bringing product to the masses isn't a great idea. Perhaps airline travel is one such case. If people could only afford to fly infrequently, and had to use alternative methods the rest of the time, perhaps civility might return to air travel.
Ah, but I am dreaming...The rudeness in air travel is merely an extension of the "me, me, first" attitude that permeates our society today. The idea of politeness and manners has been relegated, for the most part, to the trash heap of the past. And, for that both our airline experiences and our society are worse off.
Makes me just want to "fly away" from it all....
Featured Stories
I am trying to understand the mentality of the news services and the news readers and news watchers who consume their content. Just what is news worthy today and what should be featured news? If you logged on to a newspaper on line or bought one at a news stand recently you got the following stories as features (and some of them long term featured stories).
First, here was the 4 day near news orgy about basketball player Lebron James deciding what city for which he would play basketball. This included one city team owner, that of Lebron's current Cleveland team, ranting about how Lebron was disloyal and immoral for not staying in the city he currently represents. Lebron made a job site change to improve his economic status. Yet we got a long term soap opera about nothing that really matters.
Then we have the "Gibson tapes", a voyeuristic exercise in displaying actor Mel Gibson in a private melt down in which he utters vulgar and racist remarks about his ex gf (with whom he is currently in engaged in a child custody dispute). This one has been in the news, a stolen video of the rant plastered all over the media. But why should we be interested in Gibson's personal domestic problems or his insensitive remarks? In what way does knowing this benefit anyone?
A third non story being pounded to death is the Russian spy saga in which ten amateur and innocuous Russian "spies" were arrested in the U.S. (and eventually traded for several American spies being held in Russia). All media accounts admitted the spies were harmless and gathered no information other than what anyone could not have found with a personal computer. Being no threat to U.S. security apparently elevates oneself to prime time coverage if you "spy" because media outlets know that bogus patriotism angled stories sell among the ignorant masses. It sort of says the mediums think we are awfully dumb.
A fourth prominent story is the Celine Dion pregnancy report. After being badgered by media to tell about her latest pregnancy, uh, she held a press conference to announce she was pregnant with twin boys. What's next, perhaps a bathroom report on Lady Gaga? Should adults with normal IQ's really spend their time reading that kind of story? No wonder so many are so misinformed about issues that really matter to their lives. Well, at least they know about the celebrity baby news.
It's almost as if reality TV producers were managing the news service industry today, choosing what is sensational or amusing and burying news of real importance at the bottom of the page. Surely, given the profit motive, news sellers will report what the public wants, even when the public wants stupidity and triviality. But they seem to have no shame about what news has become (and some even pretend their non news is important news). And I wonder why the public doesn't demand better from the news sources.
Maybe this is just the age of inconsequence in which importance takes to much time or effort to interpret. What do you think?
First, here was the 4 day near news orgy about basketball player Lebron James deciding what city for which he would play basketball. This included one city team owner, that of Lebron's current Cleveland team, ranting about how Lebron was disloyal and immoral for not staying in the city he currently represents. Lebron made a job site change to improve his economic status. Yet we got a long term soap opera about nothing that really matters.
Then we have the "Gibson tapes", a voyeuristic exercise in displaying actor Mel Gibson in a private melt down in which he utters vulgar and racist remarks about his ex gf (with whom he is currently in engaged in a child custody dispute). This one has been in the news, a stolen video of the rant plastered all over the media. But why should we be interested in Gibson's personal domestic problems or his insensitive remarks? In what way does knowing this benefit anyone?
A third non story being pounded to death is the Russian spy saga in which ten amateur and innocuous Russian "spies" were arrested in the U.S. (and eventually traded for several American spies being held in Russia). All media accounts admitted the spies were harmless and gathered no information other than what anyone could not have found with a personal computer. Being no threat to U.S. security apparently elevates oneself to prime time coverage if you "spy" because media outlets know that bogus patriotism angled stories sell among the ignorant masses. It sort of says the mediums think we are awfully dumb.
A fourth prominent story is the Celine Dion pregnancy report. After being badgered by media to tell about her latest pregnancy, uh, she held a press conference to announce she was pregnant with twin boys. What's next, perhaps a bathroom report on Lady Gaga? Should adults with normal IQ's really spend their time reading that kind of story? No wonder so many are so misinformed about issues that really matter to their lives. Well, at least they know about the celebrity baby news.
It's almost as if reality TV producers were managing the news service industry today, choosing what is sensational or amusing and burying news of real importance at the bottom of the page. Surely, given the profit motive, news sellers will report what the public wants, even when the public wants stupidity and triviality. But they seem to have no shame about what news has become (and some even pretend their non news is important news). And I wonder why the public doesn't demand better from the news sources.
Maybe this is just the age of inconsequence in which importance takes to much time or effort to interpret. What do you think?
No More Mullets
Did you see the news out of Iran about hair bans? Yes, those crazy Iranians are banning certain hairstyles on the grounds that they are not traditional enough. Here is the statement of the ban from one of those many "ministry" department officials that totalitarian states love so much. "In designing these hair styles, we have not tried to go backward. On the contrary, we have tried to make our designs a mixture of our traditions and Iranian culture, as well as the latest fashions and by doing so confront the cultural assault by the West (on our country)."
I am still trying to figure out that statement. Funny things is the "assault" of western fashion that the dictators there want to end is on 50 and 60 style hairdos that men have adopted recently. It could be that they are now fighting against a western cultural that was disappeared in the west 50 years ago. Among the banned styles are the mullet, the pompadour and the ponytail. All three are popular with younger Iranian men, and the government thinks it is just to heretical to allow. So large poster displays of what hair styles are permitted have been seen throughout the Iranian cities. I guess it's better that the Iranians worry about hair than about building nuclear weapons. Uh..maybe not. Those mullet hair styles are killers too.
Doesn't the Iranian dictatorship realize how ridiculous the bans are to the western world they so much love to hate (but try to copy from)? But then religious dictatorships are often blind to all but their own agendas. Maybe we in the west should all sport mullet hairstyles and send in photos of them to all Iranian media sources. Mullet warfare sure beats nuclear war. The cultures outside of Iran sure seem to get underneath the Iranian dictator's skin. A full fledged cultural assault on Iran might bring them to their knees. We could besiege them with copies of reality TV shows, news reports on Lindsay Lohan meltdowns, those obscene and child-like rap music lyrics, and even some of the Obama " hope and change" speeches that have sent many of us into cardiac arrest.
Hmmmm On further reflection, as much as I hate totalitarian states, any that ban the mullet and pompadour might not be so bad after all. I should move to Iran (after first cutting my mullet).
I am still trying to figure out that statement. Funny things is the "assault" of western fashion that the dictators there want to end is on 50 and 60 style hairdos that men have adopted recently. It could be that they are now fighting against a western cultural that was disappeared in the west 50 years ago. Among the banned styles are the mullet, the pompadour and the ponytail. All three are popular with younger Iranian men, and the government thinks it is just to heretical to allow. So large poster displays of what hair styles are permitted have been seen throughout the Iranian cities. I guess it's better that the Iranians worry about hair than about building nuclear weapons. Uh..maybe not. Those mullet hair styles are killers too.
Doesn't the Iranian dictatorship realize how ridiculous the bans are to the western world they so much love to hate (but try to copy from)? But then religious dictatorships are often blind to all but their own agendas. Maybe we in the west should all sport mullet hairstyles and send in photos of them to all Iranian media sources. Mullet warfare sure beats nuclear war. The cultures outside of Iran sure seem to get underneath the Iranian dictator's skin. A full fledged cultural assault on Iran might bring them to their knees. We could besiege them with copies of reality TV shows, news reports on Lindsay Lohan meltdowns, those obscene and child-like rap music lyrics, and even some of the Obama " hope and change" speeches that have sent many of us into cardiac arrest.
Hmmmm On further reflection, as much as I hate totalitarian states, any that ban the mullet and pompadour might not be so bad after all. I should move to Iran (after first cutting my mullet).
Hail To The Queen
I just read the latest figures on the cost of having a queen to each British citizen. It's surprisingly low at less than one dollar a year per citizen to pay for the expenses, housing salary etc. of the queen. I like the English tradition of having a queen (or king one day). Where can I donate a dollar as an American to help trade Obama for a queen? Does anyone know what it costs to have a President, Vice President, former Presidents, etc. out of our "public purse?" My guess is that's it's allot more than a dollar a year per person.
Getting rid of the president and the bureaucracy, replacing them with a king or queen and letting the scoundrels in Congress make policy won't change a thing about what the U.S. does at home and abroad. Too, when things go wrong we will all know it will be Congresses fault and scream profanities at Congress because of it. They will be put on the spot to do better, and our king or queen can cut ribbons and of the other public relations work the president normally does.
When this country started, after breaking away from England and King George II at the end of the 18th century, Alexander Hamilton floated the idea of having a king instead of a president. It was almost accepted before being narrowly voted down. Haha Instead of a king we got George Bush and Barrack Obama. I am not sure what those two are.
I am not sure which we should choose first, a king or queen. Queens seem to work well in Britain. So I suggest we pick a queen and boot Obama as soon as possible (before he spends what little money the U.S has left). Hmmmm But who is the best choice? It can't be a politician because we don't need another of those. Maybe someone who is a celebrity would work best. After all, the queen will be a symbol and will perform at events not actually make or execute policy.
As a male I think Meghan Fox might work well. She does have big boobs and that will make all the men interested. But "Queen Meghan" just doesn't sound royal enough. Maybe Lindsay Lohan would be entertaining enough for Queendom? Nah, she would drink too much at the receptions. What about Oprah Winfrey! She seems to be very popular, is fabulously wealthy and would not need to be paid, and she is a politically correct choice because she is a minority member. "Queen Oprah" is a great title too.
It can't hurt to try this approach, given the ineptness of Obama these days. What do you think?
Getting rid of the president and the bureaucracy, replacing them with a king or queen and letting the scoundrels in Congress make policy won't change a thing about what the U.S. does at home and abroad. Too, when things go wrong we will all know it will be Congresses fault and scream profanities at Congress because of it. They will be put on the spot to do better, and our king or queen can cut ribbons and of the other public relations work the president normally does.
When this country started, after breaking away from England and King George II at the end of the 18th century, Alexander Hamilton floated the idea of having a king instead of a president. It was almost accepted before being narrowly voted down. Haha Instead of a king we got George Bush and Barrack Obama. I am not sure what those two are.
I am not sure which we should choose first, a king or queen. Queens seem to work well in Britain. So I suggest we pick a queen and boot Obama as soon as possible (before he spends what little money the U.S has left). Hmmmm But who is the best choice? It can't be a politician because we don't need another of those. Maybe someone who is a celebrity would work best. After all, the queen will be a symbol and will perform at events not actually make or execute policy.
As a male I think Meghan Fox might work well. She does have big boobs and that will make all the men interested. But "Queen Meghan" just doesn't sound royal enough. Maybe Lindsay Lohan would be entertaining enough for Queendom? Nah, she would drink too much at the receptions. What about Oprah Winfrey! She seems to be very popular, is fabulously wealthy and would not need to be paid, and she is a politically correct choice because she is a minority member. "Queen Oprah" is a great title too.
It can't hurt to try this approach, given the ineptness of Obama these days. What do you think?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Freeze Those Eggs
I think the women of the world have caught on to the fact that we men are less than a prize. I say this for many reasons but one indirect one involves having babies with us. The trend is for women to not make babies with the bad boys, the irresponsible ones, the momma's boys drug and alcohol induced men, men who love boast and golf more than children, cheating men...and on and on. Hmmmm That includes most of us. Evidence of this trend comes from a study in Belgium.
A study of women at a Belgian clinic found half of women age 30 and above wanted to freeze their eggs to take the pressure off finding a partner. A third were also having eggs frozen as an "insurance policy" against infertility. In another similar "I don't need those male pig "studies just out, Many younger female students also say they are considering freezing eggs for later use (if a "real" man finally shows up) the procedure to focus on a career before motherhood. That would be a "career" as in job career, not the usually career women take in being baby sitter to their little boy husbands.
The study of those students showed eight in 10 doing a medical degree would freeze their eggs to delay starting a family. Among sports and education students half said they would consider it. Why so now? It is because egg freezing is still a relatively new technology which enables a woman to save eggs for future use. The chance of success is better with younger, healthier eggs, yet most women currently choosing the procedure are in their late 30s and opting for egg freezing as a "last resort". I think they probably have been so disillusioned by males they have met and loved that they freeze in fear of not finding a suitable mate/father of their children. Right now, costs for freezing are moderate and expected to go down.
The Belgian study that I mentioned above was described at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology conference, Dr Julie Nekkebroeck, who carried out the study, said the ladies also that more than 1/4 of them wanted to give their relationship a chance to blossom before bringing up the subject of having a baby. They had not fulfilled their desire to have a child because they thought that they had not found the right man. Also, some indicated career reasons and financial stability as the most common reason for considering egg collection.
My questions is, "What is the suitable mate for a woman who wants to have a baby"? (Feel free to list the characteristics needed) And I wonder what male attitudes are about being a dad.
Believe it or not, we men eliminate many woman's potential wives because of many of the same reasons the ladies think we are so awful. Even though we have no eggs to freeze, someone should study male attitudes about choosing mates. It might be eye opening for females who never consider the idea that we are as concerned about finding a good mom for our children as they are about our fitness as dads.
A study of women at a Belgian clinic found half of women age 30 and above wanted to freeze their eggs to take the pressure off finding a partner. A third were also having eggs frozen as an "insurance policy" against infertility. In another similar "I don't need those male pig "studies just out, Many younger female students also say they are considering freezing eggs for later use (if a "real" man finally shows up) the procedure to focus on a career before motherhood. That would be a "career" as in job career, not the usually career women take in being baby sitter to their little boy husbands.
The study of those students showed eight in 10 doing a medical degree would freeze their eggs to delay starting a family. Among sports and education students half said they would consider it. Why so now? It is because egg freezing is still a relatively new technology which enables a woman to save eggs for future use. The chance of success is better with younger, healthier eggs, yet most women currently choosing the procedure are in their late 30s and opting for egg freezing as a "last resort". I think they probably have been so disillusioned by males they have met and loved that they freeze in fear of not finding a suitable mate/father of their children. Right now, costs for freezing are moderate and expected to go down.
The Belgian study that I mentioned above was described at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology conference, Dr Julie Nekkebroeck, who carried out the study, said the ladies also that more than 1/4 of them wanted to give their relationship a chance to blossom before bringing up the subject of having a baby. They had not fulfilled their desire to have a child because they thought that they had not found the right man. Also, some indicated career reasons and financial stability as the most common reason for considering egg collection.
My questions is, "What is the suitable mate for a woman who wants to have a baby"? (Feel free to list the characteristics needed) And I wonder what male attitudes are about being a dad.
Believe it or not, we men eliminate many woman's potential wives because of many of the same reasons the ladies think we are so awful. Even though we have no eggs to freeze, someone should study male attitudes about choosing mates. It might be eye opening for females who never consider the idea that we are as concerned about finding a good mom for our children as they are about our fitness as dads.
Too Many Hot Dogs
It's was another July 4th, one of my least favorite American holidays, but fun for one reason....the hot dog eating contest televised by ESPN on July 4th. Talk about excess! In last year's Nathan's Famous (that's the name of the restaurant) July Fourth Hot Dog Eating Contest Joey Chestnut won by eating 68 hot dogs and buns in 10 minutes, 3 1/2 more than Takeru Kobayashi of Japan, his arch-rival.
I find the contest, in which competitors stuff water soaked buns and hot dogs into their faces that are swallowed rather than chewed, a train wreck that is fascinating to see. It is quintessentially American in the excessiveness of it. The "too much is a good thing" attitude is not uncommon here, so I find it unsurprising that Americans, me included, are fascinated watching competitors make themselves sick eating too much food...Ugh, isn't that what we fat Americans do everyday, albeit in a less voluminous display? We are watching ourselves in an exaggerated form.
That ESPN considers this a "sport" (as it claims poker and other dubious enterprises are as well) is interesting. The current champ, Joey Chestnut, appears to be only slightly heavy and claims to run 3 miles three times a week, says he fasts regularly, and when not competing or training for the many kinds of eating contests he and others enter, says he eats a moderate diet.
Those competitive eating "athletes" have a go at every imaginable food food offering (whatever sponsors pay them to gorge on), from fried asparagus to oysters to...well you name it. Someone has contested a binge eating of just about every conceivable food. Among Joey Chestnut's eating "accomplishments" are these: 103 hamburgers in 7 minutes, 242 chicken wings in 30 minutes, 78 matzo balls, drank one gallon of milk in 41 seconds, 231 Gyozas at one sitting, 47 slices of pizza in a pizza eating contest. 4 1/2 kilos of macaroni and cheese in just 7 minutes, and ate a 2 kilo, 17 inch burrito in 3 minutes and 10 seconds.
I saw Joey Chestnut interviewed on CNN one time and he claims his health is excellent, that he is regularly monitored by a physician and that his moderate eating outside of the training (he trains by fasting and by stretching his stomach with milk, water, and protein supplements) keep him healthy. But he is a young man, and his insides have been abused so much. I wonder if his internal parts will be normal when he ages and grays.
To my knowledge no studies have said that binge eating destroys the stomach, but I wonder if the constant stretching of the stomach will take away its elasticity and if the esophagus is damaged from so much food being shoved down it.Anyway, if you have a hot dog today, take my advice. One or two is plenty enough to eat.
I find the contest, in which competitors stuff water soaked buns and hot dogs into their faces that are swallowed rather than chewed, a train wreck that is fascinating to see. It is quintessentially American in the excessiveness of it. The "too much is a good thing" attitude is not uncommon here, so I find it unsurprising that Americans, me included, are fascinated watching competitors make themselves sick eating too much food...Ugh, isn't that what we fat Americans do everyday, albeit in a less voluminous display? We are watching ourselves in an exaggerated form.
That ESPN considers this a "sport" (as it claims poker and other dubious enterprises are as well) is interesting. The current champ, Joey Chestnut, appears to be only slightly heavy and claims to run 3 miles three times a week, says he fasts regularly, and when not competing or training for the many kinds of eating contests he and others enter, says he eats a moderate diet.
Those competitive eating "athletes" have a go at every imaginable food food offering (whatever sponsors pay them to gorge on), from fried asparagus to oysters to...well you name it. Someone has contested a binge eating of just about every conceivable food. Among Joey Chestnut's eating "accomplishments" are these: 103 hamburgers in 7 minutes, 242 chicken wings in 30 minutes, 78 matzo balls, drank one gallon of milk in 41 seconds, 231 Gyozas at one sitting, 47 slices of pizza in a pizza eating contest. 4 1/2 kilos of macaroni and cheese in just 7 minutes, and ate a 2 kilo, 17 inch burrito in 3 minutes and 10 seconds.
I saw Joey Chestnut interviewed on CNN one time and he claims his health is excellent, that he is regularly monitored by a physician and that his moderate eating outside of the training (he trains by fasting and by stretching his stomach with milk, water, and protein supplements) keep him healthy. But he is a young man, and his insides have been abused so much. I wonder if his internal parts will be normal when he ages and grays.
To my knowledge no studies have said that binge eating destroys the stomach, but I wonder if the constant stretching of the stomach will take away its elasticity and if the esophagus is damaged from so much food being shoved down it.Anyway, if you have a hot dog today, take my advice. One or two is plenty enough to eat.
Who To Sue
While reading about the huge number of doctors being sued today I had a thought to present to you. That is, why aren't more lawyers being sued? That's right, lawyers. I wonder if more than a handful of lawyers ever get sued. You surely don't hear of it. The American Bar Association, that lobby organization of lawyers that has so much influence on so much of life in the U.S., keeps statistics as to the number of doctors, teachers, business people and more that involve those professions. But they don't even collect data on the number of lawyers that are sued.
It might be hard to sue a lawyer. What other lawyer would litigate a case where a colleague is being sued? Pigs stay in the slop together. This might also explain why malpractice insurance for doctors is so expensive (on average, for heart surgeons premiums are about $250,000 per year) and why lawyers seem not to even have it.Lawyers advocate suing your doctor, but they never utter a word about suing the lawyer who led you down the wrong path. An attorney is liable for any loss a client sustains that is caused by lack of skill ordinarily possessed by the legal profession. Seems to me many lawyers make mistakes.
But they are not being help accountable for those errors. If the attorney represents a client on a matter in an area of law in which the attorney lacks experience, the attorney may be committing malpractice. I see many TV commercials of lawyers claiming to "do it all". Yet, how can a lawyer master all aspects of litigation.
Hmmm But making it hard to sue a lawyer is that fact that each state's rules about suing one have been written into law by,...you guessed it..lawyers. As a result, it is very hard to sue a lawyer. To protect themselves those laws almost always a have a shorter frame time provision for which person can sue a lawyer. Shakespeare said you must "first shoot the lawyers' to have a just society. Well, maybe we should simply sue them more often as a non violent lesson in restraint.
If you don't like my idea for controlling the litigious habits of lawyers, you can just sue me
It might be hard to sue a lawyer. What other lawyer would litigate a case where a colleague is being sued? Pigs stay in the slop together. This might also explain why malpractice insurance for doctors is so expensive (on average, for heart surgeons premiums are about $250,000 per year) and why lawyers seem not to even have it.Lawyers advocate suing your doctor, but they never utter a word about suing the lawyer who led you down the wrong path. An attorney is liable for any loss a client sustains that is caused by lack of skill ordinarily possessed by the legal profession. Seems to me many lawyers make mistakes.
But they are not being help accountable for those errors. If the attorney represents a client on a matter in an area of law in which the attorney lacks experience, the attorney may be committing malpractice. I see many TV commercials of lawyers claiming to "do it all". Yet, how can a lawyer master all aspects of litigation.
Hmmm But making it hard to sue a lawyer is that fact that each state's rules about suing one have been written into law by,...you guessed it..lawyers. As a result, it is very hard to sue a lawyer. To protect themselves those laws almost always a have a shorter frame time provision for which person can sue a lawyer. Shakespeare said you must "first shoot the lawyers' to have a just society. Well, maybe we should simply sue them more often as a non violent lesson in restraint.
If you don't like my idea for controlling the litigious habits of lawyers, you can just sue me
Airport Fee And Tax Scams
Do you know how much your airline ticket really costs? After purchasing my daughter Jane's ticket to Argentina I am beginning to see the scam that governments are running on unsuspecting airline passengers. That is, the crazy number of taxes and fees (What is a government's definition of a tax and a fee? Are they not the same thing? I always thought that a fee is a charge is for a private use and a tax for a public use..but how does that figure in with airline charges? Are they not all public uses?) one pays in addition to the cost of the actual airline plane ticket.
Without specifically breaking down those taxes and fees on Jane's ticket I can still illustrate by naming them and by giving you the total cost, to show that they are way out of line with fairness. And every country has almost the same taxes and fees on plane passengers. Like sharks in the water seeing blood, governments attack with these charges because they are often hidden ones. When one nation adds a new one, others also charge it.
Her ticket from New Orleans to Buenos Aires was a total of $1202.20...the ticket costing $773.00 and the strange tax and fees charges by the U.S. and Argentine government totaled $429.20. That means the taxes and fees added another 56% cost to the ticket price. Since Jane and her friend were made to pay $131.00 at the Buenos Aires airport in the name of an Argentine Entrance Tax, and since I thought that had been included already in the original $1202.20 ticket cost, I called the airline to see if Jane had been taxed twice. (she hadn't)
After almost two hours of holding on line and speaking with three agents (the final one was allegedly the financially expert agent). I got a breakdown of the name and amounts of each of the taxes and fees that was collected by the U.S. and Argentine government. Here is the name of each.
* Airport enplanement (not a word, but the airlines use it, so you get it) fee- the charge for using the airport...I guess this proves that nothing in life is free.
* XRIO fee- the agent didn't even know what this is, but she was sure I had to pay it. I don't even want to know what it is.
* U.S. Departure tax- you have to pay to take a vacation outside of the country
* U.S. Re entry tax- unless you defect you pay this every time you go home
* Argentine Entry tax- This one is a big charge, $131.00 to fly into Argentina* Argentine departure tax- Just $29 to leave. I guess they want you to go more than to come.* U.S. Immigration fee- to cover checking your passport when you return to the country* U.S. Customs fee- to check for those foreign plants, fruit and drugs, I guess.* Asset user fee- pays for those airport traffic control towers* Airport service charge- the agent said she didn't know the difference between this and the first fee above. I doubt there is a difference. They both are un needed.* U.S. Segment flight fee- the charge for changing planes in the U.S.* Fuel surcharge- The biggest of the charges at $160.00 Supposedly the cost of fuel for the airlines increased that much since Jane's ticket was purchased.* Security fee- Since 911 the government is charging passengers for having to go though (shoe-lessly) security airports checks at the flight gates* Animal and plant fee- It hurts to even comment on the stupidity of this charge
There may be many more because these were all the agents that I conversed with on the telephone could find or knew about. It all goes to show how we are treated so unfairly when flying. Consumers should be shown all the charges for the item purchased at the time of purchase. Yet they are not. Instead, they get a 'ticket price charge' and an 'additional taxes/fees listing' with no break-down on charges. To find out what the taxes and fees are (good luck, I think few employees of the airlines themselves even know that) just grab your phone and start dialing those airline numbers.
To find out what the charges are it should take you about as long as it does to fly from your home to Timbuktu.
Without specifically breaking down those taxes and fees on Jane's ticket I can still illustrate by naming them and by giving you the total cost, to show that they are way out of line with fairness. And every country has almost the same taxes and fees on plane passengers. Like sharks in the water seeing blood, governments attack with these charges because they are often hidden ones. When one nation adds a new one, others also charge it.
Her ticket from New Orleans to Buenos Aires was a total of $1202.20...the ticket costing $773.00 and the strange tax and fees charges by the U.S. and Argentine government totaled $429.20. That means the taxes and fees added another 56% cost to the ticket price. Since Jane and her friend were made to pay $131.00 at the Buenos Aires airport in the name of an Argentine Entrance Tax, and since I thought that had been included already in the original $1202.20 ticket cost, I called the airline to see if Jane had been taxed twice. (she hadn't)
After almost two hours of holding on line and speaking with three agents (the final one was allegedly the financially expert agent). I got a breakdown of the name and amounts of each of the taxes and fees that was collected by the U.S. and Argentine government. Here is the name of each.
* Airport enplanement (not a word, but the airlines use it, so you get it) fee- the charge for using the airport...I guess this proves that nothing in life is free.
* XRIO fee- the agent didn't even know what this is, but she was sure I had to pay it. I don't even want to know what it is.
* U.S. Departure tax- you have to pay to take a vacation outside of the country
* U.S. Re entry tax- unless you defect you pay this every time you go home
* Argentine Entry tax- This one is a big charge, $131.00 to fly into Argentina* Argentine departure tax- Just $29 to leave. I guess they want you to go more than to come.* U.S. Immigration fee- to cover checking your passport when you return to the country* U.S. Customs fee- to check for those foreign plants, fruit and drugs, I guess.* Asset user fee- pays for those airport traffic control towers* Airport service charge- the agent said she didn't know the difference between this and the first fee above. I doubt there is a difference. They both are un needed.* U.S. Segment flight fee- the charge for changing planes in the U.S.* Fuel surcharge- The biggest of the charges at $160.00 Supposedly the cost of fuel for the airlines increased that much since Jane's ticket was purchased.* Security fee- Since 911 the government is charging passengers for having to go though (shoe-lessly) security airports checks at the flight gates* Animal and plant fee- It hurts to even comment on the stupidity of this charge
There may be many more because these were all the agents that I conversed with on the telephone could find or knew about. It all goes to show how we are treated so unfairly when flying. Consumers should be shown all the charges for the item purchased at the time of purchase. Yet they are not. Instead, they get a 'ticket price charge' and an 'additional taxes/fees listing' with no break-down on charges. To find out what the taxes and fees are (good luck, I think few employees of the airlines themselves even know that) just grab your phone and start dialing those airline numbers.
To find out what the charges are it should take you about as long as it does to fly from your home to Timbuktu.
Hate The Soccer, Love The Fans
Are you watching the World Cup Soccer games or ignoring it completely, as I am? Ugh, how I dislike soccer. Reinforcing my "why I can't understand how anyone can enjoy watching soccer" mantra, is a new public opinion poll that may show how far from reasonable soccer fans can be. A recent pre world cup poll in Germany conducted by Reader's Digest found that 95% of those surveyed said they would prefer the German national team's winning the world cup to a night of good sex. We must be near the end of civilization.
I know most of the world adores "fubol" and everyone has the right to adore what he or she wants. But for me, soccer is a game of complete boredom. It's little men running about in short pants and kicking a ball back and forth, rarely ever attempting to challenge a scoring zone. The boring game itself is much ado about nothing. But the fans, I love those crazy fans with their odd and piercing horns (Vuvuzelas) blaring the sound of , "I am bored and must do something of interest in order to bear watching this mess".
How interesting are the fans? Try these few examples. Police say a South African man who wanted to watch a World Cup match instead of a religious program was beaten to death by his family in the northeastern part of the country. In Peru there have been more than 200 games that there have been people stabbed in or outside the stadiums. In Colombia, the fans hanged one the goalies for not blocking a penalty shot in one of the Colombian teams finals. How about a soccer game in which 39 people get killed (or getting killed themselves), as happened in 1985 when English fans rioted at a match in Brussels? Honduras once declared war on Guatemala because of a disputed play in a game between those two nations. And these few examples don't include the rowdy Skinhead English fans and their obnoxiously naughty practices.
Maybe soccer games are so boring they have to go over the top to endure it? Nothing in any other sport comes close to the depths of hell that a rabid soccer fan can live or place other fans in. I may hate the game itself, but enjoy observing the insane soccer fan, with his or her irrational love of a boring game, the nonsensical flag waving nationalism that is projected into world cup games, and his or her overzealous reactions to it. It's like seeing two drama queens battle it out in a boxing ring...too much fun to ignore. Just don't ask me to watch the insipid soccer game itself. In my view, as a sport, soccer is pure style over substance. The atmosphere around the game, particularly the crazed fans, far overshadows what is going on with players on the field of play.
Face it. A real sport, one worth watching for the game being played on the field of combat, would not bring about the side show that is the soccer fan. For me soccer is an "F" game with "A" fans.
I know most of the world adores "fubol" and everyone has the right to adore what he or she wants. But for me, soccer is a game of complete boredom. It's little men running about in short pants and kicking a ball back and forth, rarely ever attempting to challenge a scoring zone. The boring game itself is much ado about nothing. But the fans, I love those crazy fans with their odd and piercing horns (Vuvuzelas) blaring the sound of , "I am bored and must do something of interest in order to bear watching this mess".
How interesting are the fans? Try these few examples. Police say a South African man who wanted to watch a World Cup match instead of a religious program was beaten to death by his family in the northeastern part of the country. In Peru there have been more than 200 games that there have been people stabbed in or outside the stadiums. In Colombia, the fans hanged one the goalies for not blocking a penalty shot in one of the Colombian teams finals. How about a soccer game in which 39 people get killed (or getting killed themselves), as happened in 1985 when English fans rioted at a match in Brussels? Honduras once declared war on Guatemala because of a disputed play in a game between those two nations. And these few examples don't include the rowdy Skinhead English fans and their obnoxiously naughty practices.
Maybe soccer games are so boring they have to go over the top to endure it? Nothing in any other sport comes close to the depths of hell that a rabid soccer fan can live or place other fans in. I may hate the game itself, but enjoy observing the insane soccer fan, with his or her irrational love of a boring game, the nonsensical flag waving nationalism that is projected into world cup games, and his or her overzealous reactions to it. It's like seeing two drama queens battle it out in a boxing ring...too much fun to ignore. Just don't ask me to watch the insipid soccer game itself. In my view, as a sport, soccer is pure style over substance. The atmosphere around the game, particularly the crazed fans, far overshadows what is going on with players on the field of play.
Face it. A real sport, one worth watching for the game being played on the field of combat, would not bring about the side show that is the soccer fan. For me soccer is an "F" game with "A" fans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)