I know you've heard it before too, and maybe you believe it. It's the "violence on TV and in movies makes more people violent". Politicians running for elective office love that statement. They say we should censor ourselves to prevent the violence, but there never has been a cause and effect relationship between watching violence in the media and violence in in everyday life. But it does get allot of those politicians elected because so many people think it's true.
If a child or adult experiences violence at home or in the community first hand, violence effects the child or adult. But all but the youngest children know that TV and movie violence are not real. It's actually often a healthy release for people to see pretended violence. The Japanese are fanatical about watching violent American films. Yet the rate of violent crime there is among the lowest in the world. Surely this suggests that the idea that seeing pretended violence causes violence must not be correct.
Whenever I hear anyone spout that "too much violence on TV is making us violent" line I smile and ask them if too much comedy on TV is making us all clowns? They usually stammer something like "be serious", but if one extreme causes an effect why would not the other? I think what those who advocate censoring violence in media are really saying is that humans are innately violent. But that blaming TV or movies for violence in society is a good way of avoiding admission of that.
All societies at all times have been violent. That includes all that existed before TV or moves. There will always be some humans, due to genetic or environmental influences (but not the influence of visual mediums like movies and TV), who will be violent. Humans are complex and flawed organisms. Civilizing human inventions like religion, government and social class have promoted violence far more than your TV set.
So if you want to watch that slasher movie this Halloween, watch it and just pretend the victim is a political who got elected by blaming violence in society on violence on TV.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
New Orleans: An American Fairy Tale
The Wall Street Journal wrote a nice article about New Orleans ("New Orleans: An American Fairy Tale") just this day in which the author describes New Orleans as "part Cinderella, part Brothers Grimm, the city has held its bones like no other." It's an apt description as is the remark that New Orleans is, "a sensory overload, the city makes no sense, and is all the better for it."
The point of the article, I think, is to give New Orleans an additional label, apart from the one that says it is the city where there is always some activity on going, all of it interesting. The new label adds New Orleans as the city of disaster, given the hurricane of 2005 and the recent oil spill off the Louisiana coast, some 75 Kl. from the city.
If interested, you can see what it says yourself. Note the five local representatives of the city at the bottom, people the writer feels typify the city. They give the names an brief descriptions of some of their favorite haunts in the city (One of them, Lafayette Cemetery No 1, was an originally an old German cemetery that still has the graves of my great grandfather, his wife and several of his children).http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465932802855728.html?KEYWORDS=new+orleans
At any rate, perhaps you can see why New Orleans is, if troubled, a different sort of place from the rest, one that produces (for better and worse) people of distinctly different character and attitude. I see that when I travel. People from and in New Orleans (newcomers quickly adapt to the New Orleans mindset and start behaving like the natives) are more relaxed, friendly, informal and down to earth. What they lack is ambition, and self discipline.
I like Portland and the people here are very nice, but they are not the same as in New Orleans. In New Orleans, for example, while waiting in a physicians office to see a doctor the typical conversation between strangers might include from their high school backgrounds to their "momma's" to a personal family story. And there is instant trust between and the strangers. It's expected and rarely betrayed. In Portland and most other places there is no conversation among strangers, unless it's a polite nod or some perfunctory remark.
I think the heart and soul of New Orleans is its people, their mentality never changes and is predictably unpredictable. Most visitors to the city see that and begin behaving like New Orleans soon after arriving.
The point of the article, I think, is to give New Orleans an additional label, apart from the one that says it is the city where there is always some activity on going, all of it interesting. The new label adds New Orleans as the city of disaster, given the hurricane of 2005 and the recent oil spill off the Louisiana coast, some 75 Kl. from the city.
If interested, you can see what it says yourself. Note the five local representatives of the city at the bottom, people the writer feels typify the city. They give the names an brief descriptions of some of their favorite haunts in the city (One of them, Lafayette Cemetery No 1, was an originally an old German cemetery that still has the graves of my great grandfather, his wife and several of his children).http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465932802855728.html?KEYWORDS=new+orleans
At any rate, perhaps you can see why New Orleans is, if troubled, a different sort of place from the rest, one that produces (for better and worse) people of distinctly different character and attitude. I see that when I travel. People from and in New Orleans (newcomers quickly adapt to the New Orleans mindset and start behaving like the natives) are more relaxed, friendly, informal and down to earth. What they lack is ambition, and self discipline.
I like Portland and the people here are very nice, but they are not the same as in New Orleans. In New Orleans, for example, while waiting in a physicians office to see a doctor the typical conversation between strangers might include from their high school backgrounds to their "momma's" to a personal family story. And there is instant trust between and the strangers. It's expected and rarely betrayed. In Portland and most other places there is no conversation among strangers, unless it's a polite nod or some perfunctory remark.
I think the heart and soul of New Orleans is its people, their mentality never changes and is predictably unpredictable. Most visitors to the city see that and begin behaving like New Orleans soon after arriving.
Doctors
Since the move from New Orleans I have to find doctors for Jane and myself here in Portland. I rarely see doctors but I have to have one in case you need some medication, as in an antibiotic for a sore throat. I do need a dentist and think everyone should see his or her dentist at least twice a year. I have all my teeth and plan on keeping them to the end. Jane is a female and females see doctors far more than do males (we men are too macho to admit we are sick until we are too sick to stand it anymore).
Having written the above I have a few observations on doctors that practice in the U.S. The first one is that they have way too many patients to see. I don't know how any doctor can see so many and truly know the patient well enough to know all their medical problems. before those awful HMO insurance groups forced doctors into becoming "medical groups" a patient knew his or her doctor personally. They were seen for 30 minutes a visit instead of the 5 that is common now. It's a shame doctors sold out to the HMO insurance system because they now make much less money than previously and don't even know their patients( who often are switched from one doctor to another by their insurance company).
Before HMO's primary care doctors made house calls, charged a small basic office visit fee, and didn't over prescribe medications because they weren't afraid of being sued for "negligence" and didn't have an obligation to push the drugs the drug companies want then to prescribe. Pre HMO medical procedures was simpler, far less costly and more competently performed.
Today there is a specialist for every injury or illness. This is because a specialist earns far more money than the old fashioned primary care doctor does. If you need a heart surgeon you can find one easily now, because the field is teeming with them. Heart surgeons make tons of money. This influences medical students to study that field. I suspect that today there are many more heart doctors than primary care doctors. Something is wrong when a system has too many specialists and not enough generalists.
My grandfather was a primary care physician. According to my mom during the depression he was often paid with live chickens, paintings, food whatever people had in those times of economic disaster. Can you imagine a doctor today accepting chickens as payment instead of cash? It would never happen. Doctors today don't know their patients well enough to feel a personal and sympathetic connection that would allow it. Too. their insurance costs and expenses are so high today that doctors are as demanding in payment of a bill owed as is the bookie who threatens to break a leg if not paid on time. Doctors now have "medical corporations" that collect their fees and threaten to ruin the credit ratings if the patient doesn't pay on time.
It's true that technology makes for better treatments and medications, but I think that doctors today have lost so much of the personal relationship and interest in their patients that they do not use the better technology and medicine well. they over-medicate as precaution, and they are coerced by HMO's to prescribe or not prescribe medications or treatments based on costs to the insurance company.
Sigh....Every time I think about the state of doctors today it almost makes me get sick
Having written the above I have a few observations on doctors that practice in the U.S. The first one is that they have way too many patients to see. I don't know how any doctor can see so many and truly know the patient well enough to know all their medical problems. before those awful HMO insurance groups forced doctors into becoming "medical groups" a patient knew his or her doctor personally. They were seen for 30 minutes a visit instead of the 5 that is common now. It's a shame doctors sold out to the HMO insurance system because they now make much less money than previously and don't even know their patients( who often are switched from one doctor to another by their insurance company).
Before HMO's primary care doctors made house calls, charged a small basic office visit fee, and didn't over prescribe medications because they weren't afraid of being sued for "negligence" and didn't have an obligation to push the drugs the drug companies want then to prescribe. Pre HMO medical procedures was simpler, far less costly and more competently performed.
Today there is a specialist for every injury or illness. This is because a specialist earns far more money than the old fashioned primary care doctor does. If you need a heart surgeon you can find one easily now, because the field is teeming with them. Heart surgeons make tons of money. This influences medical students to study that field. I suspect that today there are many more heart doctors than primary care doctors. Something is wrong when a system has too many specialists and not enough generalists.
My grandfather was a primary care physician. According to my mom during the depression he was often paid with live chickens, paintings, food whatever people had in those times of economic disaster. Can you imagine a doctor today accepting chickens as payment instead of cash? It would never happen. Doctors today don't know their patients well enough to feel a personal and sympathetic connection that would allow it. Too. their insurance costs and expenses are so high today that doctors are as demanding in payment of a bill owed as is the bookie who threatens to break a leg if not paid on time. Doctors now have "medical corporations" that collect their fees and threaten to ruin the credit ratings if the patient doesn't pay on time.
It's true that technology makes for better treatments and medications, but I think that doctors today have lost so much of the personal relationship and interest in their patients that they do not use the better technology and medicine well. they over-medicate as precaution, and they are coerced by HMO's to prescribe or not prescribe medications or treatments based on costs to the insurance company.
Sigh....Every time I think about the state of doctors today it almost makes me get sick
Number One Fattest
Those right wing crazies who so frequently shout that the "U.S.A. is Number One", exaggerate often about allot, but now I have to admit they may be right in at least one category. The United States now leads the world's 33 most industrial nations in obesity. Hmmm 'Fat and Proud' should be our new motto. Or 'Fat Proud and Donut Fed'. Whatever the chant there is likely to be plenty of jiggling when we shout it out.
The report is from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which works on policies to promote better economies and quality of life. I wonder how fat those men and women are who work on that committee. Anyway, it cites that two thirds of people in the U.S. are overweight or obese. That's about a third of adults or more than 72 million as obese. Obesity is defined as being roughly 30 pounds over a healthy weight, so don't ask me if I am obese. Eat your donut and let my fat alone.Here are some observations from the report.
- The obesity rates have skyrocketed since the 1980s in almost all the countries.-Countries with the fastest obesity growth rates: the United States, Australia and England- Close behind (as close as anyone can get behind a fat behind) are Mexico (24.2% obesity), U.K. (23%), Slovakia (22.4%), Greece ( 21.9%), Australia(21.7%) and New Zealand (20.9%)_ The lowest obesity rates were found in South Korea (3.2%), Japan (also 3.2%), Switzerland (7.7%) , Norway (8%), Italy ( 8.5%) and Austria (9.1%)- Obesity increases the risk of heart disease, diabetes, several types of cancer, other diseases and early death.
Haha Well one might say that "obesity is important in shaping America". Unfortunately, it's the wrong kind of shaping.The O ECD report made two major recommendations for controlling obesity, ones that will be likely be ignored. They are:.
- Individual lifestyle counseling by family doctors and dietitians
- Health promotion campaigns, compulsory food labeling and cooperation between industry and government in the regulation of food advertising to kids.
One big impetus for the growing obesity rate in the U.S. has been the proliferation and propagandizing of individuals to eat allegedly "healthy food". Much of the the healthy food is high in a caloric content, tastes awful and is too expensive. Walk in any grocery store and you will see endless displays of "healthy choice" food that is often far worse than the noble donut. This and the proliferation of fast food has made it hard for consumers to eat more what is really healthy- fresh fruits vegetables, lean eat and seafood.
But being realistic one must accept that with affluence (the 33 are all affluent nations) comes more fat. To some degree the correlation is inevitable.
The report is from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which works on policies to promote better economies and quality of life. I wonder how fat those men and women are who work on that committee. Anyway, it cites that two thirds of people in the U.S. are overweight or obese. That's about a third of adults or more than 72 million as obese. Obesity is defined as being roughly 30 pounds over a healthy weight, so don't ask me if I am obese. Eat your donut and let my fat alone.Here are some observations from the report.
- The obesity rates have skyrocketed since the 1980s in almost all the countries.-Countries with the fastest obesity growth rates: the United States, Australia and England- Close behind (as close as anyone can get behind a fat behind) are Mexico (24.2% obesity), U.K. (23%), Slovakia (22.4%), Greece ( 21.9%), Australia(21.7%) and New Zealand (20.9%)_ The lowest obesity rates were found in South Korea (3.2%), Japan (also 3.2%), Switzerland (7.7%) , Norway (8%), Italy ( 8.5%) and Austria (9.1%)- Obesity increases the risk of heart disease, diabetes, several types of cancer, other diseases and early death.
Haha Well one might say that "obesity is important in shaping America". Unfortunately, it's the wrong kind of shaping.The O ECD report made two major recommendations for controlling obesity, ones that will be likely be ignored. They are:.
- Individual lifestyle counseling by family doctors and dietitians
- Health promotion campaigns, compulsory food labeling and cooperation between industry and government in the regulation of food advertising to kids.
One big impetus for the growing obesity rate in the U.S. has been the proliferation and propagandizing of individuals to eat allegedly "healthy food". Much of the the healthy food is high in a caloric content, tastes awful and is too expensive. Walk in any grocery store and you will see endless displays of "healthy choice" food that is often far worse than the noble donut. This and the proliferation of fast food has made it hard for consumers to eat more what is really healthy- fresh fruits vegetables, lean eat and seafood.
But being realistic one must accept that with affluence (the 33 are all affluent nations) comes more fat. To some degree the correlation is inevitable.
Don't Send In The Clowns
Do you know what coulrophobia is? It's the clinical term for the fear of clown. I think many kids and adults suffer from it because clowns can be downright eerie looking and menacing. Even as a child I was apathetic about clowns. They impacted me not. But if you ever go to a circus and watch the kids around the circus claws (who from my perspective are a depressing lot to watch because even though they try so hard to be funny they are not). Remember 'The Joker" in the Batman series. The joker is a clown's clown because he is flat out bizarre and is clue less to the fact that he is. Most people who have a fear or aversion for clowns see the joker in every clown that they see.
Coulrophobia, the fear of clowns, is one of the top ten phobias humans have. The term stems from the Greek koulon, meaning limb, and refers to clowns and circus performers who walk on stilts. Coulrophobia sufferers experience symptoms ranging from mild anxiety to outright panic attacks when faced with people in clown outfits or even just makeup. Clown costumes tend to exaggerate the facial features and some body parts, such as hands and feet and noses. This can be read as monstrous or deformed as easily as it can be read as comical and is one reason some hate or fear clowns.
Many psychiatrists believe a fear of clowns may stem from early childhood experience.I once made fun of a politician on Mardi Gras Day by wearing a mask of him and a clown outfit. One one level people could relate that I was comparing him to a clown, while at the same time the clown part of the outfit also gave a creepy lilt to the politician that boosted the effect to a second level. I see clown costumes at Mardi Gras every year, but most are worn by kids who love clowns. The clown haters view clowns like fingernails scraping across a chalkboard. For them, it's all too painful and creepy to bother even spoofing them.
Phases like "send in the clowns" and "those clowns can't do anything right" reflect the negatives associated with clowns. I suspect most clowns must not be happy campers. They at least can take solace in the fact that they aren't layers or politicians. What's your perspective about circus clowns?
Coulrophobia, the fear of clowns, is one of the top ten phobias humans have. The term stems from the Greek koulon, meaning limb, and refers to clowns and circus performers who walk on stilts. Coulrophobia sufferers experience symptoms ranging from mild anxiety to outright panic attacks when faced with people in clown outfits or even just makeup. Clown costumes tend to exaggerate the facial features and some body parts, such as hands and feet and noses. This can be read as monstrous or deformed as easily as it can be read as comical and is one reason some hate or fear clowns.
Many psychiatrists believe a fear of clowns may stem from early childhood experience.I once made fun of a politician on Mardi Gras Day by wearing a mask of him and a clown outfit. One one level people could relate that I was comparing him to a clown, while at the same time the clown part of the outfit also gave a creepy lilt to the politician that boosted the effect to a second level. I see clown costumes at Mardi Gras every year, but most are worn by kids who love clowns. The clown haters view clowns like fingernails scraping across a chalkboard. For them, it's all too painful and creepy to bother even spoofing them.
Phases like "send in the clowns" and "those clowns can't do anything right" reflect the negatives associated with clowns. I suspect most clowns must not be happy campers. They at least can take solace in the fact that they aren't layers or politicians. What's your perspective about circus clowns?
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Changing Net
There is an unflattering movie out now called "the Social Network' about the founder of Facebook and about the application. I have not seen it and have no interest, but it represents an assault on some of the more popular applications and engines on the Internet. I find that fascinating because until now the internet has been views as an open territory where only the marketplace (success or failure of a site) acted as censor or critic.
Just recently Facebook has been under assault for some of its applications and other big applications and engines like Google and Yahoo have been blasted by everyone from the Chinese government to individual consumers who find fault with some aspect of them. censorship issues, hostility from one user to another, lack of privacy, etc.
Those popular applications have their rules and or the rules imposed on them by government. The domain belongs to them, but few users want to play a strictly by their rules and can ruin the application for all.. Look at the recent furor about the Craigslist "adult section", which in some locals became nothing more than an outlet for prostitution. After a barrage of complaints Craigslist shut the section down, only to see the sex appear in other venues on the list., showing how the users now are in control of that and other sites.
It seems those applications have become dens of chaos, a survival of the most fit has arisen to replace the neat model the applications once were. All of this may be like the bird in the coal mine. It may be the face of what is coming for the internet.....less freedom for the user, less freedom for the site itself and the end of dominance by some of the Goliath's like Google and Facebook. As users and makers get fed up with increasing interference a new phase of the internet that changes user behavior from "one of the pack" to a more individualistic orientation may emerge.
Just recently Facebook has been under assault for some of its applications and other big applications and engines like Google and Yahoo have been blasted by everyone from the Chinese government to individual consumers who find fault with some aspect of them. censorship issues, hostility from one user to another, lack of privacy, etc.
Those popular applications have their rules and or the rules imposed on them by government. The domain belongs to them, but few users want to play a strictly by their rules and can ruin the application for all.. Look at the recent furor about the Craigslist "adult section", which in some locals became nothing more than an outlet for prostitution. After a barrage of complaints Craigslist shut the section down, only to see the sex appear in other venues on the list., showing how the users now are in control of that and other sites.
It seems those applications have become dens of chaos, a survival of the most fit has arisen to replace the neat model the applications once were. All of this may be like the bird in the coal mine. It may be the face of what is coming for the internet.....less freedom for the user, less freedom for the site itself and the end of dominance by some of the Goliath's like Google and Facebook. As users and makers get fed up with increasing interference a new phase of the internet that changes user behavior from "one of the pack" to a more individualistic orientation may emerge.
More Obama Manipulation
The Obama administration, which has been using smoke and mirrors to deceive and half truths, miss statements and lies to promote its policy from day one, has come up with a way to get the illegal immigrant vote, at least the segment of illegal immigrants that are more educated and would want to vote for Obama and his party if granted legal status.
The Democratic leadership under the promoting and manipulation of the Obama administration which is in total control of the Democratic party now is going to try to slip a back-door amnesty for illegal immigrants, disguised as an education initiative, into the Defense Authorization Act bill that Obama calls the "Dream Act". Dream or nightmare is the question.
The portion concerning illegal immigration that is buried in the defense appropriation bill would allow unauthorized immigrants under the age of 35 to apply for legal permanent resident status on a conditional basis if they came to the United States before they turned 16, have lived in the United States for at least the past five years and have obtained a U.S. high school diploma or GED. They would then be able to move from conditional to permanent status if they complete at least two years of college or military service and maintain "good moral character," which is not precisely defined.
Ahhhhhhh. It's nothing more than giving amnesty for illegal entry and it does in a sneaky way because if the opposition votes against the defense bill, Obama and company will claim they do not support funding for the military (the bill is supposed to be about defense spending, not other unrelated matters like illegal immigration). If they vote for it they will be supporting amnesty for illegal imigrants. No doubt this is a tactic the administarion is using to see if Obama can start legalizing illegals so the newly enfranchised and the huge Hispanic block of voters will support his re election campaign in two years. That is makes a mockery of fairness and legality matters little to Obama and his supporters.
In a speech on the matter Obama remarked that, "It's the right thing to do it," without explanation of why supporting illegal behavior is "right". It amazes me how much the Obama administration parallels the corrupt Bush administration it attacked in winning the last presidential election. They both are wholly dishonest and uninterested in the welfare of the nation. They both see winning elections and ego gratification as the primary purpose of politics. One, the Bush administration, used bold faced lies. The other uses lies disguised as truth, stealthful dishonesty. And enough of the American public has supported each as it leads this country to further degradation and irrelevance.
Kind of sad, from my view
The Democratic leadership under the promoting and manipulation of the Obama administration which is in total control of the Democratic party now is going to try to slip a back-door amnesty for illegal immigrants, disguised as an education initiative, into the Defense Authorization Act bill that Obama calls the "Dream Act". Dream or nightmare is the question.
The portion concerning illegal immigration that is buried in the defense appropriation bill would allow unauthorized immigrants under the age of 35 to apply for legal permanent resident status on a conditional basis if they came to the United States before they turned 16, have lived in the United States for at least the past five years and have obtained a U.S. high school diploma or GED. They would then be able to move from conditional to permanent status if they complete at least two years of college or military service and maintain "good moral character," which is not precisely defined.
Ahhhhhhh. It's nothing more than giving amnesty for illegal entry and it does in a sneaky way because if the opposition votes against the defense bill, Obama and company will claim they do not support funding for the military (the bill is supposed to be about defense spending, not other unrelated matters like illegal immigration). If they vote for it they will be supporting amnesty for illegal imigrants. No doubt this is a tactic the administarion is using to see if Obama can start legalizing illegals so the newly enfranchised and the huge Hispanic block of voters will support his re election campaign in two years. That is makes a mockery of fairness and legality matters little to Obama and his supporters.
In a speech on the matter Obama remarked that, "It's the right thing to do it," without explanation of why supporting illegal behavior is "right". It amazes me how much the Obama administration parallels the corrupt Bush administration it attacked in winning the last presidential election. They both are wholly dishonest and uninterested in the welfare of the nation. They both see winning elections and ego gratification as the primary purpose of politics. One, the Bush administration, used bold faced lies. The other uses lies disguised as truth, stealthful dishonesty. And enough of the American public has supported each as it leads this country to further degradation and irrelevance.
Kind of sad, from my view
Dare Not Review Hotels
I have a 2010 nominee for the hotel with the worst hotel customer department. A British couple says they were kicked out of the hotel two days into a three day stay, after the hotel manager accused them of writing a negative review on Trip Advisor. The manager practically kicked in the room door and ousted the guests. It's not hard to understand why The Golden Beach Hotel's in Blackpool, England seems a little sensitive, and also stingy. They not only kicked the couple out after two nights of a pre-paid three night visits, they refused to return the money they paid for the third night.
And the manager, who is in hiding now given the negative press coverage of his action, actually called the police to assist in removing the couple after he stormed into their room and accused them of writing an negative online review on Trip Adviser. The police arrived and told the manager that no crime had been committed, but the two guests decided to vacate (without their refund after the manager refused to give it to them) anyway.
Have you ever heard of anyone banned from a hotel for writing, or allegedly writing as was this case, a negative review on an online review site? Every review I have written about hotels at those sites (the travel sites sometimes ask customers to review services purchased from them, and I often do that), ones in which in which I have stayed and all have been a positive reviews, with an occasional comment about a less than an ideal condition if presented itself during my stay.
The Golden Beach manager over reacted and may have doomed his business by doing so, given the coverage of what happened. On the other hand, I have heard stories of people telling a hotel they would write bad reviews if the hotel didn't give them a free meal, a free night's stay, or pay them to write a good review. The review sites can be misused by the public just as hotel managers can over react to guests. But according to the article about this incident the Golden Beach has so far had a 59% "not recommended" rating form those who did review it on Trip Adviser.
Haha The lesson here might be that it is better to wait until AFTER your vacation to write a review on Trip Advisor.
And the manager, who is in hiding now given the negative press coverage of his action, actually called the police to assist in removing the couple after he stormed into their room and accused them of writing an negative online review on Trip Adviser. The police arrived and told the manager that no crime had been committed, but the two guests decided to vacate (without their refund after the manager refused to give it to them) anyway.
Have you ever heard of anyone banned from a hotel for writing, or allegedly writing as was this case, a negative review on an online review site? Every review I have written about hotels at those sites (the travel sites sometimes ask customers to review services purchased from them, and I often do that), ones in which in which I have stayed and all have been a positive reviews, with an occasional comment about a less than an ideal condition if presented itself during my stay.
The Golden Beach manager over reacted and may have doomed his business by doing so, given the coverage of what happened. On the other hand, I have heard stories of people telling a hotel they would write bad reviews if the hotel didn't give them a free meal, a free night's stay, or pay them to write a good review. The review sites can be misused by the public just as hotel managers can over react to guests. But according to the article about this incident the Golden Beach has so far had a 59% "not recommended" rating form those who did review it on Trip Adviser.
Haha The lesson here might be that it is better to wait until AFTER your vacation to write a review on Trip Advisor.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
No Texbooks To Take Home
One odd thing about my daughter Jane's school classes this year here in Portland is the absence of textbooks for student use at home. That includes no electronic texts as well. Jane has eight classes (four meet each day, then the other four the next day, and so on), yet only one textbook was issued to her (The Shakespeare class). How can a student reference something taught in class that he or she does not understand if there is not a text to refer to?
She had a math homework assignment the other day on the computer. The teacher assigns all homework from a program there and the student does ti on line and prints out a survey result to take to class the next day.. The problem is that the teacher did not explain all of it before assigning it. One segment asked questions about sequences that neither she nor I could understand how to complete. Since there was no reference book or explanation on the homework program, Jane could not answer those two questions.
There are two reasons why so many American schools are no longer using student copies of texts. The first is budgetary. Those books cost so much money the systems are now only purchasing them as classroom sets. The second reason schools are ditching take home copies of textbooks is mostly expressed as educational jargon... "personal learning resources" (both face to face and online) are a replacement because text books are too broad anyway. This means the kid is supposed to search for alternatives to his or her text and use those, or that teachers are supposed to use their spare time to search for alternative materials.
How idiotic to expect that. Kids are not responsible enough, not interested enough to find their own resources and teachers have not the time to locate all the alternatives a textbook offers. This indicates that some schools are dumbing down to teach toward "mandated standardized tests". They are designing the curriculum with a narrow view toward standardized tests as being evidence of learning. They teach only what is "tested".
In education today, teaching to the tests and throwing text books out the window has replaced knowledge and learning to think for self as the goal of education. I do not think it is the case, but I hope this is not the view of Jane's school.
She had a math homework assignment the other day on the computer. The teacher assigns all homework from a program there and the student does ti on line and prints out a survey result to take to class the next day.. The problem is that the teacher did not explain all of it before assigning it. One segment asked questions about sequences that neither she nor I could understand how to complete. Since there was no reference book or explanation on the homework program, Jane could not answer those two questions.
There are two reasons why so many American schools are no longer using student copies of texts. The first is budgetary. Those books cost so much money the systems are now only purchasing them as classroom sets. The second reason schools are ditching take home copies of textbooks is mostly expressed as educational jargon... "personal learning resources" (both face to face and online) are a replacement because text books are too broad anyway. This means the kid is supposed to search for alternatives to his or her text and use those, or that teachers are supposed to use their spare time to search for alternative materials.
How idiotic to expect that. Kids are not responsible enough, not interested enough to find their own resources and teachers have not the time to locate all the alternatives a textbook offers. This indicates that some schools are dumbing down to teach toward "mandated standardized tests". They are designing the curriculum with a narrow view toward standardized tests as being evidence of learning. They teach only what is "tested".
In education today, teaching to the tests and throwing text books out the window has replaced knowledge and learning to think for self as the goal of education. I do not think it is the case, but I hope this is not the view of Jane's school.
Changing Appearances With Phony Lingo
When did the terminology change from Illegal Aliens to Illegal Immigrants? Last year the National Association of Hispanic Journalists (Do journalists really have to group themselves ethnicity to have an identity?) called on news media in the U.S. to stop using the "dehumanizing term illegals" as a noun to refer to undocumented immigrants. I wonder why they think calling a peach an apple will change what it is. maybe because it is working.
It's rare to hear any public figure all an illegal immigrant what he or she is, illegally in this country. "undocumented worker" or "undocumented immigrant" is the politically correct term. But how can someone be undocumented when they never bothered to apply for documentation, walking into the country without permission instead? Further, how can that person be called a "worker" if we don't know the intentions for breaking and entering into the country. Many illegals come here to live off welfare, transport drugs, enrich themselves with entitlements etc. Working is not the only option.
And calling them immigrants is an insult to the term an those who legally apply for and earn an opportunity to immigrate. Illegal aliens are never immigrants. They can't be because they have never applied for permission to enter the country. One can debate whether they should have the right to be here, but the fact is that under the current legal system their being here is not legal. I wish the media would stop pandering to political correctness and start using English correctly.
So for the choice between "illegal alien" and "undocumented immigrant," it seems to me that the former is more reflective of what is actually going on, someone invading a nation without permission. In the case of the latter term, it is an attempt to hide what is actually going on, breaking and entering. If one is writing political advocacy for the illegal immigrant he or she most often deliberately chooses the term Undocumented worker (even though the user risks loses his or her credibility). But if one is trying to be an objective journalist, I "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" is the more objective and correct term.
The fact that politicians and mediums overwhelmingly use the politically correct term indicates both their favoritism for illegality and their continued sinking into a journalistic abyss. How about changing the language with terms that will seem compatible with the idiotic use of "undocumented worker" or "undocumented immigrant". I have a few suggestions I hope the mediums will embrace in their next "objective" articles or broadcast about criminals (the illegal aliens) or criminal behavior.
* a murderer should be- an "undocumented terminator"
* child pornographer- a "juvenile film enabler"
* rapist- a "willing sperm donator"
* arsonist- a "fire technician"
* thief- " a "goods and service relocator"
* forger- a "handwriting specialist"
* traffic speeder- a "hurried auto operator"
* tax cheater- a "financial manager"
Wow! First they solved the illegal immigrant problem by pretending they are something else, and now I have solved most of the crime problem. I must be an "undocumented magician."
It's rare to hear any public figure all an illegal immigrant what he or she is, illegally in this country. "undocumented worker" or "undocumented immigrant" is the politically correct term. But how can someone be undocumented when they never bothered to apply for documentation, walking into the country without permission instead? Further, how can that person be called a "worker" if we don't know the intentions for breaking and entering into the country. Many illegals come here to live off welfare, transport drugs, enrich themselves with entitlements etc. Working is not the only option.
And calling them immigrants is an insult to the term an those who legally apply for and earn an opportunity to immigrate. Illegal aliens are never immigrants. They can't be because they have never applied for permission to enter the country. One can debate whether they should have the right to be here, but the fact is that under the current legal system their being here is not legal. I wish the media would stop pandering to political correctness and start using English correctly.
So for the choice between "illegal alien" and "undocumented immigrant," it seems to me that the former is more reflective of what is actually going on, someone invading a nation without permission. In the case of the latter term, it is an attempt to hide what is actually going on, breaking and entering. If one is writing political advocacy for the illegal immigrant he or she most often deliberately chooses the term Undocumented worker (even though the user risks loses his or her credibility). But if one is trying to be an objective journalist, I "illegal alien" or "illegal immigrant" is the more objective and correct term.
The fact that politicians and mediums overwhelmingly use the politically correct term indicates both their favoritism for illegality and their continued sinking into a journalistic abyss. How about changing the language with terms that will seem compatible with the idiotic use of "undocumented worker" or "undocumented immigrant". I have a few suggestions I hope the mediums will embrace in their next "objective" articles or broadcast about criminals (the illegal aliens) or criminal behavior.
* a murderer should be- an "undocumented terminator"
* child pornographer- a "juvenile film enabler"
* rapist- a "willing sperm donator"
* arsonist- a "fire technician"
* thief- " a "goods and service relocator"
* forger- a "handwriting specialist"
* traffic speeder- a "hurried auto operator"
* tax cheater- a "financial manager"
Wow! First they solved the illegal immigrant problem by pretending they are something else, and now I have solved most of the crime problem. I must be an "undocumented magician."
Thursday, September 16, 2010
French Ban
Sometimes the word needs the French, that bungling, arrogant, snobbish nation that shoots itself in the foot and makes itself hated, just when the world needs a villain to scorn. In the case of the United States and its controversy concerning the proposed Muslim Mosque being built near the site of the the former World Trade buildings destroyed by Muslim terrorists, the French have come to our rescue by insulting Muslims even more than the " to allow them to build the mosque" controversy has.
The French Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a bill banning the burqa-style Islamic veil on public streets and other places. The bill was already overwhelmingly passed in July in the French government's lower house, the National Assembly, meaning only French courts can stop France from banning the burka. Many Muslims in France and elsewhere believe the ban is yet another discrimination against Muslim immigrants in France, and risks raising the hate level of Muslims by native french who have already attacked several mosques as targets of hate.
Those French (most natives love the law and hate Islam) who cheer the law to de burka France, say it will preserve the nation's values, including its secular foundations and a notion of fraternity that is contrary to those who hide their faces. Uh...it's the old "Our French culture is the best and no others should intrude" attitude.
So it's likely Islamic hate groups will now first target France for terrorism, relieving pressure on other western countries who, ironically, have opened their doors and allowed in Islamic terrorists to practice their hate on the locals who have allowed them to immigrate. The proposed law is obviously unconstitutional in any democracy, yet French courts often forget democracy when French "traditions and culture" are threatened. Too how can such a ban be enforceable.
Stay tuned, given its recent history of bungling, France may yet even alienate Muslims more.
The French Senate on Tuesday overwhelmingly passed a bill banning the burqa-style Islamic veil on public streets and other places. The bill was already overwhelmingly passed in July in the French government's lower house, the National Assembly, meaning only French courts can stop France from banning the burka. Many Muslims in France and elsewhere believe the ban is yet another discrimination against Muslim immigrants in France, and risks raising the hate level of Muslims by native french who have already attacked several mosques as targets of hate.
Those French (most natives love the law and hate Islam) who cheer the law to de burka France, say it will preserve the nation's values, including its secular foundations and a notion of fraternity that is contrary to those who hide their faces. Uh...it's the old "Our French culture is the best and no others should intrude" attitude.
So it's likely Islamic hate groups will now first target France for terrorism, relieving pressure on other western countries who, ironically, have opened their doors and allowed in Islamic terrorists to practice their hate on the locals who have allowed them to immigrate. The proposed law is obviously unconstitutional in any democracy, yet French courts often forget democracy when French "traditions and culture" are threatened. Too how can such a ban be enforceable.
Stay tuned, given its recent history of bungling, France may yet even alienate Muslims more.
Who Won The War
I think the more powerful a country is the more military wars it wages. Yet, those powers wage them in a more sublime way than do two weak nations who still slug it wars the old fashioned way. Sometimes you don't even know if countries are fighting a war or whether one they have fought has ended. Too, it's impossible these days to tell who won and lost wars because most wars don't involve the old territorial switches that marked old time war. Too, most wars today aren't of the shoot them up military type. They are more often economic or diplomatic now, since weapons are really too powerful to use today as toys. War may have been a game or amusement for despots in earlier centuries. But now it's too risky to start a war unless there is a perceived necessity to do so.
But as to military wars, the United States is surely involved in way too many of the quiet types. Look at the war in Iraq for an example. It started as a military conflict, simmered and now it's impossible to even define what it is. Is there a war going on their now involving United Sates troops, or is it just a military "presence"? I can't tell. I also don't know if the U.S. "won" the war? They did overthrow a dictator, but the Iraqi's have bled the U.S economy so much to pay for that war, I think Iraq may be said to be the victor as much as the United States. The round one military part goes to the U.S. The aftermath clearly is an Iraqi win. American taxpayers are the clearest losers.
One would think that Obama would fulfill his campaign promises to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan in the so called Afghan war. But all politicians lie (Obama is such a master liar that he must make George Bush proud)) and while running for president claim they will withdraw immediately from the conflict. But after being elected, they are seduced into thinking they can "win the war" and gain political benefits. So they continue and expand the war. It rarely happens that way. Almost all politicians wind up suffering for their deceit and losing or being hurt in their re election attempt.
I am also not sure if the Afghanistan escapade is a war. The U.S allegedly entered that broken nation to catch "terrorists" (whatever that means) not to attack the nation's military, government or citizens. Supposedly the U.S was "invited" into the country by the government that was pushed aside by the Taliban. It's hard to fight a military conflict when you don't know who the target is. The Russians learned that lesson and left Afghanistan in the 80's, but the U.S. didn't learn from it, still remains and increases cost and troop counts there fighting an invisible enemy. The loss of life there is an abomination (Obamination).
Often times small nations provoke big ones in order to get them to invade them. Then the small guys quickly surrender and wait for the big conqueror to pour in billions of dollars to "rebuild" the country. Every nation that wins a war now is obliged to bankrupt itself rebuilding the country it destroyed in the war. In that case the clear winner is the small nation which gets brand new every things at the expense of the power, and is almost always quickly left alone to run itself thereafter. Most of the time the big country only wants the right to put a strategic military base in the conquer country, something they could have had far more cheaply if they had just paid a higher premium to the small nation for it. If I were the leader of a poor nation I might want to declare war on the U.S or Japan and then wait for the money to roll in after surrendering.
A good thing about the death of military wars is that it is killing the phony flag waving patriotism that politicians use to slicker constituents into supporting their ambitions. Flag waving as justification for slaughter is becoming a thing of the past. Patriotism as defined in the military terms we most often get it today, really is "the last refuge of the scoundrel". I don't see much flag waving here anymore. People understand that war as policy is archaic. Now if we could just get the politicians to believe the same thing...
But as to military wars, the United States is surely involved in way too many of the quiet types. Look at the war in Iraq for an example. It started as a military conflict, simmered and now it's impossible to even define what it is. Is there a war going on their now involving United Sates troops, or is it just a military "presence"? I can't tell. I also don't know if the U.S. "won" the war? They did overthrow a dictator, but the Iraqi's have bled the U.S economy so much to pay for that war, I think Iraq may be said to be the victor as much as the United States. The round one military part goes to the U.S. The aftermath clearly is an Iraqi win. American taxpayers are the clearest losers.
One would think that Obama would fulfill his campaign promises to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan in the so called Afghan war. But all politicians lie (Obama is such a master liar that he must make George Bush proud)) and while running for president claim they will withdraw immediately from the conflict. But after being elected, they are seduced into thinking they can "win the war" and gain political benefits. So they continue and expand the war. It rarely happens that way. Almost all politicians wind up suffering for their deceit and losing or being hurt in their re election attempt.
I am also not sure if the Afghanistan escapade is a war. The U.S allegedly entered that broken nation to catch "terrorists" (whatever that means) not to attack the nation's military, government or citizens. Supposedly the U.S was "invited" into the country by the government that was pushed aside by the Taliban. It's hard to fight a military conflict when you don't know who the target is. The Russians learned that lesson and left Afghanistan in the 80's, but the U.S. didn't learn from it, still remains and increases cost and troop counts there fighting an invisible enemy. The loss of life there is an abomination (Obamination).
Often times small nations provoke big ones in order to get them to invade them. Then the small guys quickly surrender and wait for the big conqueror to pour in billions of dollars to "rebuild" the country. Every nation that wins a war now is obliged to bankrupt itself rebuilding the country it destroyed in the war. In that case the clear winner is the small nation which gets brand new every things at the expense of the power, and is almost always quickly left alone to run itself thereafter. Most of the time the big country only wants the right to put a strategic military base in the conquer country, something they could have had far more cheaply if they had just paid a higher premium to the small nation for it. If I were the leader of a poor nation I might want to declare war on the U.S or Japan and then wait for the money to roll in after surrendering.
A good thing about the death of military wars is that it is killing the phony flag waving patriotism that politicians use to slicker constituents into supporting their ambitions. Flag waving as justification for slaughter is becoming a thing of the past. Patriotism as defined in the military terms we most often get it today, really is "the last refuge of the scoundrel". I don't see much flag waving here anymore. People understand that war as policy is archaic. Now if we could just get the politicians to believe the same thing...
Vegans
Lady Gaga wore a raw meat dress at a music awards show the other day. This has me thinking about Vegans. As if vegetarianism isn't enough to make this donut munching, Frito gorging tub of goo cringe, the next trendy cause that seems to be catching on is veganism. Vegans, unlike vegetarians, do not eat any animal products or by products of the creatures. That's, no dairy. no honey. no eggs.
They don't even wear clothing that has animal products inside. Scrupulous vegans are like those nutty global warmers who check thermometer readings every day. The vegan checks every food for ingredients that have animal origins; gelatin, for instance, which is derived from collagen in animal bones, is added to hundreds of foods for various purposes. That's a no no for vegans.
One of my daughter Jane's New Orleans friends is a vegetarian, and feeding her is hard enough. The most common reasons for becoming a vegan are human health, ethical commitment or moral conviction concerning the treatment of animals or for spiritual reasons. Jane's friend told me that vegans were "over the top", which is evidence enough for me. one wacky eater trashing another even wackier diet. I love it.
In New Orleans Vegans are almost extinct, and the ones alive there probably hide their eating habits for fear of being shot on the spot. New orleans is a city of great food. That means plenty of animal products and seafood. Here in Portland, a city of trendy liberal causes mixed with a kind of Redneck conservatism, there is a place for plenty of vegan eating spots. Most locals avoid them but at least they don't shoot the vegans in Portland. Chelsea Clinton is a vegan. So are Ellen Degeneris (a fellow New Orleanian), Fiona Apple (she sure has the right name for a vegan), Joaquin Phoenix, and Sinead O'Connor. I think one characteristic of all those is weirdness. Tofu can do that to a person.
I am not eating any vegan foods because I suspect that infamous tofu will be hidden in my portion. Let me die from clogged arteries, fat and well fed with grease. I don't want to suffer in this life from eating foods. Soy products, artificial "meats", almond and plant milk, rice "cheese"...ugh! But there is hope for vegans. I once read that the sacred Oreo cookie is an "accidental" vegan food, since the creme in the middle of the cookies is nothing but sugar and soy. Hmmmm I do love Oreos but am not sure I could exist on those alone. No, I should continue to disparage vegans like those right wing Christians attack Muslims.
There are some tasty foods on the vegan radar. I visited a vegan site to get a sample menu. Here it is.
BREAKFASTcereal/granola with soy/rice milkoatmeal or other hot cerealbagel/toast with jellypancakessoy yogurtfruit smoothie
SNACKS/DESSERTpretzels, popcornpeanuts, almonds, walnutssunflower or pumpkin seedschips & salsabanana, apple, orangeraisins, figs, dried apricotspie, cookies, cake
LUNCH/DINNERpeanut butter & jellygrain/soy burgervegetarian hotdogveggie lunchmeat sandwichbaked/mashed potatoesfrench friestofu, tempeh, or Seitan stir frySeitan casserolepasta with tomato saucetofu lasagnabean burritoseitan casseroletofu lasagna
Well, I like some of the items there, the fresh fruit for example. But who can live on that alone? I need grease and sugar. They run through my veins already and my veins seem to be used to and like them. I am certain if I were put on a vegan diet that I would lapse into depression and then a catatonic state. Veganism must cause mental illness! (Ok, I concede that I am already slightly nuts from my donut diet).
I think I need a donut to forget the whole thing.
They don't even wear clothing that has animal products inside. Scrupulous vegans are like those nutty global warmers who check thermometer readings every day. The vegan checks every food for ingredients that have animal origins; gelatin, for instance, which is derived from collagen in animal bones, is added to hundreds of foods for various purposes. That's a no no for vegans.
One of my daughter Jane's New Orleans friends is a vegetarian, and feeding her is hard enough. The most common reasons for becoming a vegan are human health, ethical commitment or moral conviction concerning the treatment of animals or for spiritual reasons. Jane's friend told me that vegans were "over the top", which is evidence enough for me. one wacky eater trashing another even wackier diet. I love it.
In New Orleans Vegans are almost extinct, and the ones alive there probably hide their eating habits for fear of being shot on the spot. New orleans is a city of great food. That means plenty of animal products and seafood. Here in Portland, a city of trendy liberal causes mixed with a kind of Redneck conservatism, there is a place for plenty of vegan eating spots. Most locals avoid them but at least they don't shoot the vegans in Portland. Chelsea Clinton is a vegan. So are Ellen Degeneris (a fellow New Orleanian), Fiona Apple (she sure has the right name for a vegan), Joaquin Phoenix, and Sinead O'Connor. I think one characteristic of all those is weirdness. Tofu can do that to a person.
I am not eating any vegan foods because I suspect that infamous tofu will be hidden in my portion. Let me die from clogged arteries, fat and well fed with grease. I don't want to suffer in this life from eating foods. Soy products, artificial "meats", almond and plant milk, rice "cheese"...ugh! But there is hope for vegans. I once read that the sacred Oreo cookie is an "accidental" vegan food, since the creme in the middle of the cookies is nothing but sugar and soy. Hmmmm I do love Oreos but am not sure I could exist on those alone. No, I should continue to disparage vegans like those right wing Christians attack Muslims.
There are some tasty foods on the vegan radar. I visited a vegan site to get a sample menu. Here it is.
BREAKFASTcereal/granola with soy/rice milkoatmeal or other hot cerealbagel/toast with jellypancakessoy yogurtfruit smoothie
SNACKS/DESSERTpretzels, popcornpeanuts, almonds, walnutssunflower or pumpkin seedschips & salsabanana, apple, orangeraisins, figs, dried apricotspie, cookies, cake
LUNCH/DINNERpeanut butter & jellygrain/soy burgervegetarian hotdogveggie lunchmeat sandwichbaked/mashed potatoesfrench friestofu, tempeh, or Seitan stir frySeitan casserolepasta with tomato saucetofu lasagnabean burritoseitan casseroletofu lasagna
Well, I like some of the items there, the fresh fruit for example. But who can live on that alone? I need grease and sugar. They run through my veins already and my veins seem to be used to and like them. I am certain if I were put on a vegan diet that I would lapse into depression and then a catatonic state. Veganism must cause mental illness! (Ok, I concede that I am already slightly nuts from my donut diet).
I think I need a donut to forget the whole thing.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Edwin Newman Dies
Edwin Newman has died. No doubt you might not know him or how much he influenced people to speak clearly and without the overused jargon language is infested with today. Newman was a prominent newscaster on NBC TV, documentarian, news forum host from the 50's through the early 80's and the author of several books on language that were both funny and amazingly insightful in showing how to and not to use English properly.
One of Newman's books that I read long ago was called "Strictly Speaking". I still have the book in my bookcase as a security blanket to remind me that not all people have dumbed down their English usage and that there is hope one day that people will speak and write much better than most do today.
In another of his books, Civil Tongue, he described what our ordinary language should resemble. "A civil tongue means to me a language that is not bogged down in jargon, not puffed up with false dignity, not studded with trick phrases that have lost their meaning. It is direct, specific, concrete, vigorous, colorful, subtle and imaginative when it should be, and as lucid and eloquent as we are able to make it. It is something to revel in and enjoy."
Do you think we have a civil tongue today? I don't. Even on the mediums that are supposed to be edited and guardians for standard English use, language today is used badly more often than not, and is so couched in slang and repetitive jargon it's a wonder anyone understands what is said. Oh perhaps they don't. It may explain the demands and dissent so many special interest groups express. Maybe if they communicated better some of that turmoil would evaporate.
Edwin Newman was educated at Louisiana's (my state)own LSU, so he always had a local lilt to his style that I liked. I remember as a boy that I liked Newman more than the ballyhooed Walter Cronkites of broadcasting. he made me want to speak and write clearly without ever seeming to ask that. Newman just did his work using language well and inspired a bit in the process.
Sadly, his type of journalist doesn't appear much anymore. Journalism today belongs more to those who scream loudest and make the most outrageous comments about the most insignificant people, places and things.. They more often create news that shouldn't exist as news and ignore what is important to the audience. In fact, they're not journalists at all, they're entertainers. I doubt they inspire anyone or that they will be missed like Newsman will be.
One of Newman's books that I read long ago was called "Strictly Speaking". I still have the book in my bookcase as a security blanket to remind me that not all people have dumbed down their English usage and that there is hope one day that people will speak and write much better than most do today.
In another of his books, Civil Tongue, he described what our ordinary language should resemble. "A civil tongue means to me a language that is not bogged down in jargon, not puffed up with false dignity, not studded with trick phrases that have lost their meaning. It is direct, specific, concrete, vigorous, colorful, subtle and imaginative when it should be, and as lucid and eloquent as we are able to make it. It is something to revel in and enjoy."
Do you think we have a civil tongue today? I don't. Even on the mediums that are supposed to be edited and guardians for standard English use, language today is used badly more often than not, and is so couched in slang and repetitive jargon it's a wonder anyone understands what is said. Oh perhaps they don't. It may explain the demands and dissent so many special interest groups express. Maybe if they communicated better some of that turmoil would evaporate.
Edwin Newman was educated at Louisiana's (my state)own LSU, so he always had a local lilt to his style that I liked. I remember as a boy that I liked Newman more than the ballyhooed Walter Cronkites of broadcasting. he made me want to speak and write clearly without ever seeming to ask that. Newman just did his work using language well and inspired a bit in the process.
Sadly, his type of journalist doesn't appear much anymore. Journalism today belongs more to those who scream loudest and make the most outrageous comments about the most insignificant people, places and things.. They more often create news that shouldn't exist as news and ignore what is important to the audience. In fact, they're not journalists at all, they're entertainers. I doubt they inspire anyone or that they will be missed like Newsman will be.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Sunday Newspapers
The Sunday morning newspaper is one of life's greatest pleasures for me, and always has been. Sunday papers today are what newspapers used to be like long ago- big, filled with everything from the important to the trivial and entertainment that could literally keep a person busy all day if he or she read all of what is in it.
In an age of increasingly smaller newspapers and some disappearing ones, the Sunday paper struggles to maintain its identity. I think it is a cultural icon of sort and hope it never does dissolve into an "on-line" edition as some daily newspapers are and have.
There's something inside of ever Sunday newspaper to suit every person. I like the general expanse of it, that every section is bigger and that some special sections appear, even some special weekly supplement magazines are inside. Some people but the Sunday paper because that is the day it is filled with grocery off coupon supplements. Too, the Sunday paper is filed with advertisements for shoppers.
I don't think those people really read much of the newspaper or have much interest in world affairs. But they are partly responsible for newspapers publishing many more Sunday copies than copies of the paper other days of the week. For that I commend them, despite their apathy toward reading it, At least they provide some profits to the newspaper to keep it operating.
Another group that buys the Sunday paper, but never buys a newspaper other days of the week, is the sports fan. The Sunday sports section is packed and loaded with information even the non reader seek out. It is the "toy section" of the newspaper, and in these times of superficiality newspapers have even expanded the Sunday sports section to appeal to that.
Sunday also has an expanded business section for that interest group. I only glance at that section because it is too technical and dry for me. But it does summarize the investment markets and have quite a bit of local economic news. It's similar to the Sunday travel section or the weekly TV listing enclosure for the week in that only a segment of the readership is interested enough beyond a glance.
One aspect of the Sunday paper I most like is the expanded news coverage in it. Daily papers now often only give a surface view of the news, almost as shallow as TV news. That's because the daily paper (exclusive of the Sunday edition) has such limited pace now and so much of that must be entertainment related or the public won't buy the paper at all. That's a sad aspect of today's newspapers. They are not serious anymore. But this reflects the triviality of the world at large. However, on Sunday.....with the silly is a great deal of serious news reporting and analysis.
There's lots more inside a Sunday newspaper. Instead of me writing about it, you should read one yourself, analyze it and tell me your own impressions.
In an age of increasingly smaller newspapers and some disappearing ones, the Sunday paper struggles to maintain its identity. I think it is a cultural icon of sort and hope it never does dissolve into an "on-line" edition as some daily newspapers are and have.
There's something inside of ever Sunday newspaper to suit every person. I like the general expanse of it, that every section is bigger and that some special sections appear, even some special weekly supplement magazines are inside. Some people but the Sunday paper because that is the day it is filled with grocery off coupon supplements. Too, the Sunday paper is filed with advertisements for shoppers.
I don't think those people really read much of the newspaper or have much interest in world affairs. But they are partly responsible for newspapers publishing many more Sunday copies than copies of the paper other days of the week. For that I commend them, despite their apathy toward reading it, At least they provide some profits to the newspaper to keep it operating.
Another group that buys the Sunday paper, but never buys a newspaper other days of the week, is the sports fan. The Sunday sports section is packed and loaded with information even the non reader seek out. It is the "toy section" of the newspaper, and in these times of superficiality newspapers have even expanded the Sunday sports section to appeal to that.
Sunday also has an expanded business section for that interest group. I only glance at that section because it is too technical and dry for me. But it does summarize the investment markets and have quite a bit of local economic news. It's similar to the Sunday travel section or the weekly TV listing enclosure for the week in that only a segment of the readership is interested enough beyond a glance.
One aspect of the Sunday paper I most like is the expanded news coverage in it. Daily papers now often only give a surface view of the news, almost as shallow as TV news. That's because the daily paper (exclusive of the Sunday edition) has such limited pace now and so much of that must be entertainment related or the public won't buy the paper at all. That's a sad aspect of today's newspapers. They are not serious anymore. But this reflects the triviality of the world at large. However, on Sunday.....with the silly is a great deal of serious news reporting and analysis.
There's lots more inside a Sunday newspaper. Instead of me writing about it, you should read one yourself, analyze it and tell me your own impressions.
September 11th Anniversary
The 9th anniversary of the three plane crashes perpetrated by Islamic fanatics in the name of religion, 911, has come and gone. I am glad to see it pass by. As sad as it was, a deluded group murdered so many and killed themselves for a perverted and hateful cause, nothing more. The event has become such a political issue that I would rather see remembrance of it just disappear altogether. Politicians pandered to the phony "patriotism" mode of Americans and made empty speeches to please the chauvinist mentality that so often votes the into office. Most of the speeches (see Obama's for a prime example) got it as wrong as the Muslim extremists do, but pandering to voters is what politicians do best.
Somewhere after the Munich massacre of Jewish athletes (the Israeli olympic team) in 1976 by Islamic nuts, Islam allowed itself to be infiltrated and hijacked by terrorists and those who desire to kill people of other religions as an anecdote to the modernization they see as estranging their flock from belief in traditional Muslim culture. Those Muslims who didn't and don't like the hijacking of their faith have mostly just watched and let it happen. Just like good Germans who did not resist Nazism in the decade before World War II, good Muslims today are way to passive about their religion being reshaped into negativism and hatred.
I wonder where the "good' Muslims are and if they are either afraid to fight islamic extremism or if they secretly don't mind some of that among their believers. They were absent during the remembrances of 911 except, incredibly, for some to claim they themselves are victims (of non muslim abuse), which I believe is because of the fact that non Muslims have reacted to the Islamic extremists in their place and Muslims feel some shame for not reacting themselves.
I am still looking and hoping for prominent mainstream Muslim leaders to organize an anti hate crusade against the fanatical Muslims who inhabit their own faith and who have created a new Islam that most of the world cringes at and does not understand. A "take back Our faith' campaign would not only send messages to the flock that Allah isn't a blood thirsty killer and to remind members of Islam that they can empower themselves to fight against evil, even when the evil is from within.
The only way to remove the negative image that non Muslims have of Islam is for members of the Islamic churches to attack the problem themselves. But that is unlikely to happen If anyone has been defeated by Muslim extremists, it is the good Muslim who long ago lost his or her religion to a fanaticism that is in some ways a demented, nihilistic and intellectually hollow dogma which is so insecure that it throws a tantrum every time some one offends it.
Somewhere after the Munich massacre of Jewish athletes (the Israeli olympic team) in 1976 by Islamic nuts, Islam allowed itself to be infiltrated and hijacked by terrorists and those who desire to kill people of other religions as an anecdote to the modernization they see as estranging their flock from belief in traditional Muslim culture. Those Muslims who didn't and don't like the hijacking of their faith have mostly just watched and let it happen. Just like good Germans who did not resist Nazism in the decade before World War II, good Muslims today are way to passive about their religion being reshaped into negativism and hatred.
I wonder where the "good' Muslims are and if they are either afraid to fight islamic extremism or if they secretly don't mind some of that among their believers. They were absent during the remembrances of 911 except, incredibly, for some to claim they themselves are victims (of non muslim abuse), which I believe is because of the fact that non Muslims have reacted to the Islamic extremists in their place and Muslims feel some shame for not reacting themselves.
I am still looking and hoping for prominent mainstream Muslim leaders to organize an anti hate crusade against the fanatical Muslims who inhabit their own faith and who have created a new Islam that most of the world cringes at and does not understand. A "take back Our faith' campaign would not only send messages to the flock that Allah isn't a blood thirsty killer and to remind members of Islam that they can empower themselves to fight against evil, even when the evil is from within.
The only way to remove the negative image that non Muslims have of Islam is for members of the Islamic churches to attack the problem themselves. But that is unlikely to happen If anyone has been defeated by Muslim extremists, it is the good Muslim who long ago lost his or her religion to a fanaticism that is in some ways a demented, nihilistic and intellectually hollow dogma which is so insecure that it throws a tantrum every time some one offends it.
Bike Against Auto
Portland is a bike friendly city. In fact, it has more bicycle trails than any city in the U.S. Every road here has an adjacent and well spaced bike path that walkers and joggers also use. This is good for everyone, ar users and those on bikes or foot, because it makes the roads much wider than in most other places. I think one reason Portland has low car accident rates (and the accompanying low auto insurance rates that go along with that) is because the roads are so wide. this gives the driver more latitude if making a mistake.
Oregon law says the bicycle commuter had just as much right as a car to be in that traffic lane. But this also means they have as many responsibilities as those driving in motorized vehicles. Though I haven't seen evidence of it, the locals here seem to feel the latter is neglected too often by the bikers and that they cause safety hazards for motorists. Some wonder if Portland bike community has a death wish? Not stopping for stop signs, racing at high speeds downhill toward pedestrians, cutting into lanes that cars use ae all some of the complaints here.
I find this interesting. It's almost like the old horse versus man feud that happened in the early 1900's when motorized vehicles pushed the noble horse from the street and made horse riding almost extinct on public roads. The many "green" nuts who praise anything that is involved with oil and gas and cheer walkers and bikers regardless of how they do it, are gritting their teeth against the extremists on the motor car side and both are slamming into each other.
I used to ride a bike in New Orleans quite often, but in my neighborhood here the roads are so steep that it isn't practical to ride unless one transports the bike by car to a more flat terrain and gets out and rides there. I have one foot on the gas peddle and one on the bike peddle and can see both sides of the feud. Fact is though, the car drivers will win the battle because people want the technology and convenience of motor cars more often than they want bike riders sharing their roads.
Yet, bike riders pay not one dollar in fees or taxes from the roads they use. Auto and motor vehicles pay license, registration and insurance for each vehicle. It even goes beyond that with trailer fees and other misc. items like boats. Bicycles aren't part of that list because they ride unlicensed and free of charge. So maybe they are the winners after all.
On the other hand, bike riders don't pollute like cars do, the health cost due to lack of exercise because of car use is sometimes horrific and expensive to society, car accidents kill over 30,000 people in the U.S each year while bike rider accidents kill very few, and most bike riders are car owners as well.
Sigh...maybe to deflect the biker/auto controversy we should just bring back the horse back on the streets here in Portland.
Oregon law says the bicycle commuter had just as much right as a car to be in that traffic lane. But this also means they have as many responsibilities as those driving in motorized vehicles. Though I haven't seen evidence of it, the locals here seem to feel the latter is neglected too often by the bikers and that they cause safety hazards for motorists. Some wonder if Portland bike community has a death wish? Not stopping for stop signs, racing at high speeds downhill toward pedestrians, cutting into lanes that cars use ae all some of the complaints here.
I find this interesting. It's almost like the old horse versus man feud that happened in the early 1900's when motorized vehicles pushed the noble horse from the street and made horse riding almost extinct on public roads. The many "green" nuts who praise anything that is involved with oil and gas and cheer walkers and bikers regardless of how they do it, are gritting their teeth against the extremists on the motor car side and both are slamming into each other.
I used to ride a bike in New Orleans quite often, but in my neighborhood here the roads are so steep that it isn't practical to ride unless one transports the bike by car to a more flat terrain and gets out and rides there. I have one foot on the gas peddle and one on the bike peddle and can see both sides of the feud. Fact is though, the car drivers will win the battle because people want the technology and convenience of motor cars more often than they want bike riders sharing their roads.
Yet, bike riders pay not one dollar in fees or taxes from the roads they use. Auto and motor vehicles pay license, registration and insurance for each vehicle. It even goes beyond that with trailer fees and other misc. items like boats. Bicycles aren't part of that list because they ride unlicensed and free of charge. So maybe they are the winners after all.
On the other hand, bike riders don't pollute like cars do, the health cost due to lack of exercise because of car use is sometimes horrific and expensive to society, car accidents kill over 30,000 people in the U.S each year while bike rider accidents kill very few, and most bike riders are car owners as well.
Sigh...maybe to deflect the biker/auto controversy we should just bring back the horse back on the streets here in Portland.
Tourists
My former home, New Orleans, is a tourist city. It gets plenty of tourists at all times of the year except during the oppressive heat of its summer. Ironically, summer is the low tourist season in New Orleans. So I have been observing those tourists and the fewer here in Portland and have a few remarks about them. You and I are tourists too, but not all tourists fit the stereotypical ones. I'm more interested in the stereotypes though, since so many fit into that category.
First, I see the typical tourist as one who tries very hard to have fun while on a trip. They exhaust themselves, sit on planes and buses for endless hours, are herded in groups to venues that in some cases are more artificial than real (cities and towns often create or embellish their sites with fake sites than in some cases are nothing to do with the natural character of the place), and they take lots of pictures (I suspect that all Japanese tourists have their cameras sewn onto their bodies) so they can make people jealous about their trip after they get back home.
In many cases those tourists have more fun planning and or reviewing their trip with others than they had while on the trip itself. This shows that travel is as much or perhaps more a psychological journey than a physical one. They feel a need to "get away" to a new environment, even if they are physically exhausted by the process. The typical tourist is looking for some experience that often never exists and will a spend a fortune chasing it. If it does exist there are usually too many other tourists there to make it worthwhile anyway.
The fatal flaw to which some tourists succumb is an essential fact of life for all of us, tourist or not. That is, when you try too hard to have fun or try too hard make a desire happen, it usually doesn't. That's why most people have their best travel experiences when they are off the tour schedule and just stumble across something or some person accidentally. In most lives an accident creates more fun than a planned event.People who travel often want to travel even more. Like a drug, each trip, good or bad, seems to add to their desire for another. Some people are addicted to gambling or alcohol, but as many or more are addicted to travel. I think it is usually an addiction more positive than negative.
Happy travel!
First, I see the typical tourist as one who tries very hard to have fun while on a trip. They exhaust themselves, sit on planes and buses for endless hours, are herded in groups to venues that in some cases are more artificial than real (cities and towns often create or embellish their sites with fake sites than in some cases are nothing to do with the natural character of the place), and they take lots of pictures (I suspect that all Japanese tourists have their cameras sewn onto their bodies) so they can make people jealous about their trip after they get back home.
In many cases those tourists have more fun planning and or reviewing their trip with others than they had while on the trip itself. This shows that travel is as much or perhaps more a psychological journey than a physical one. They feel a need to "get away" to a new environment, even if they are physically exhausted by the process. The typical tourist is looking for some experience that often never exists and will a spend a fortune chasing it. If it does exist there are usually too many other tourists there to make it worthwhile anyway.
The fatal flaw to which some tourists succumb is an essential fact of life for all of us, tourist or not. That is, when you try too hard to have fun or try too hard make a desire happen, it usually doesn't. That's why most people have their best travel experiences when they are off the tour schedule and just stumble across something or some person accidentally. In most lives an accident creates more fun than a planned event.People who travel often want to travel even more. Like a drug, each trip, good or bad, seems to add to their desire for another. Some people are addicted to gambling or alcohol, but as many or more are addicted to travel. I think it is usually an addiction more positive than negative.
Happy travel!
The Benefits Of A Spell Checked Education
I am amused by the big controversy over primary and secondary education here in Oregon. Once touted as a leader in education, Oregon's students have slipped quite a bit in standardized test scores because of two factors. A decrease in spending on education because of a worsening economy the past several years and the typical Oregon trend "feel-good attitude" toward most things (They love "global warming" ecology at all costs here) has arrived at the education school desk to the point where there is a de-emphasis on thinking skills and shift tends toward frill courses in middle and high school years.
The latest education drama is about state testing of 7th- 12th graders. It seems that the state has mandated that..I am not kidding...that all kids in those grades will be able to use spell check on their state required writing skill tests. Oregon's education officials officials explained that spell check is an accepted part of life "in the workplace, college, post secondary training and the military." Hmmm It's sort of like giving a student half the answers to a test beforehand. But since being trendy is more important than being educated here, Oregon is leading the way in spell check education.
I have been reading the banter between pro spell check advocates and anti spell checkers, but today one letter caught my eye for originality and for making the point for why spell checking in testing is such a silly idea. I think you would give the writer of this letter an A+ for his efforts. Here is his letter in full."Watt a good lessen two no that student's kin now use spell check on there state proficiency exams ("Oregon students will be able to use spell check to pass state writing test," Sept. 2). Its good that Oregon has it's students well fare in mind with this grate decision.
All sarcasm aside: The best way to eradicate stupidity, it seems, is to make stupidity the norm. Hooray to Oregon for being so progressive "
GREG BOESHANS
I think we should make Greg the Superintendent of Education for the State of Oregon. But Wait! In fairness to the other side. here is an example, one letter published today with Greg's on the subject to let you know what that spell check mob is thinking."I applaud the Oregon Department of Education's decision to allow the use of spell check on the seventh grade writing assessment. First, we should acknowledge that it takes spelling knowledge to use spell check correctly.
Second, by seventh grade you are either a good speller or not; poor spellers need to be proficient at using spell check to succeed in the modern workplace, and good spellers won't be harmed by it.
Third, using spell check consistently actually teaches students to be better spellers. And last, I have always disagreed with the Department of Education's weighting of conventions twice as much as any of the other characteristics of writing (including organization, voice and sentence fluency), so I see allowing spell check as a long needed correction to a system that overemphasized spelling and punctuation at the expense of content.
This is a time to embrace technology as a way to level the playing field and to silence our inner Luddite
"SUZY HARRIS
Southeast Portland
Fact is... spell checking 1) doesn't correct all errors (as when we write a word that is a homonym and it "corrects it" to the wrong homonym 2) an important party of learning to use the language properly is understanding spelling nuances. Spell checkers prevent one from ever learning that. 3) the decision to let students artificially enhance their spelling skills might create a fake boost in state writing scores next year ("We are doing so well now" 4) Employers crave workers who can draw up handwritten signs, job estimates, menus, paper receipts and quick notes without spelling errors. They don't crave more spell check stars. 5) The more deeply and thoroughly a student knows a word, the more likely he or she is to recognize it, spell it, define it and use it appropriately in speech and writing."
Uh..if you find spelling errors in my comments today, blame it on spell check, not me
The latest education drama is about state testing of 7th- 12th graders. It seems that the state has mandated that..I am not kidding...that all kids in those grades will be able to use spell check on their state required writing skill tests. Oregon's education officials officials explained that spell check is an accepted part of life "in the workplace, college, post secondary training and the military." Hmmm It's sort of like giving a student half the answers to a test beforehand. But since being trendy is more important than being educated here, Oregon is leading the way in spell check education.
I have been reading the banter between pro spell check advocates and anti spell checkers, but today one letter caught my eye for originality and for making the point for why spell checking in testing is such a silly idea. I think you would give the writer of this letter an A+ for his efforts. Here is his letter in full."Watt a good lessen two no that student's kin now use spell check on there state proficiency exams ("Oregon students will be able to use spell check to pass state writing test," Sept. 2). Its good that Oregon has it's students well fare in mind with this grate decision.
All sarcasm aside: The best way to eradicate stupidity, it seems, is to make stupidity the norm. Hooray to Oregon for being so progressive "
GREG BOESHANS
I think we should make Greg the Superintendent of Education for the State of Oregon. But Wait! In fairness to the other side. here is an example, one letter published today with Greg's on the subject to let you know what that spell check mob is thinking."I applaud the Oregon Department of Education's decision to allow the use of spell check on the seventh grade writing assessment. First, we should acknowledge that it takes spelling knowledge to use spell check correctly.
Second, by seventh grade you are either a good speller or not; poor spellers need to be proficient at using spell check to succeed in the modern workplace, and good spellers won't be harmed by it.
Third, using spell check consistently actually teaches students to be better spellers. And last, I have always disagreed with the Department of Education's weighting of conventions twice as much as any of the other characteristics of writing (including organization, voice and sentence fluency), so I see allowing spell check as a long needed correction to a system that overemphasized spelling and punctuation at the expense of content.
This is a time to embrace technology as a way to level the playing field and to silence our inner Luddite
"SUZY HARRIS
Southeast Portland
Fact is... spell checking 1) doesn't correct all errors (as when we write a word that is a homonym and it "corrects it" to the wrong homonym 2) an important party of learning to use the language properly is understanding spelling nuances. Spell checkers prevent one from ever learning that. 3) the decision to let students artificially enhance their spelling skills might create a fake boost in state writing scores next year ("We are doing so well now" 4) Employers crave workers who can draw up handwritten signs, job estimates, menus, paper receipts and quick notes without spelling errors. They don't crave more spell check stars. 5) The more deeply and thoroughly a student knows a word, the more likely he or she is to recognize it, spell it, define it and use it appropriately in speech and writing."
Uh..if you find spelling errors in my comments today, blame it on spell check, not me
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Inflaming The Quran And The Muslims
The anti Muslim/anti Christian "war' is being revved up a little here as a Florida "Christian" Pastor Terry Jones, head of the Dove World Outreach Center in Florida, says he will go on with plans to hold a Sept. 11 burning of the Muslim holy book, The Quaran. Islam is a very oppressive religion, and the Koran is definitely a dangerous book," he said in a newspaper article profile his burning mission. We want to send a clear message to radical Muslims."
Of course the U.S. government and the head of troops in Afghanistan are dead set against the provocation, saying that the plan to burn the Quran in Florida could endanger U.S. troops and the safety of Americans worldwide. No doubt, images of the Quran burning would be used by Islamic extremists to inflame and incite violence among the largely uneducated and unsophisticated flock of Muslims who obey all the Mullahs tell them to do.
Pastor Jones says America should quit apologizing for its actions and bowing to kings and that destroying a Muslim symbol is much less that what Muslims did to Christians in New York on September 11th, 2000. But anger by Muslims about his plans to burn it has already started in Kabul, Afghanistan where nutty Muslims protested the planned burning by....what else...burning an effigy of Jones.
Oh, the depths of stupidity that religious fanatics will sink to. And of course, the protesters shouted the obligatory "Death To America" to show their lack of tolerance and the fact that it isn't hard to brainwash idiots to behave idiotically. When reporters talked to some of the crazy Muslims at the burning they all said that, "Obama and the U.S. government are behind the burning if the Quran".
I guess all of this is proof that one fanatical religion acting stupidly begets another one to act the same way. Maybe they don't understand that people who burn books or effigies are ignorant and hateful. Sadly, the rest of us suffer because of it. But I suspect that in the coming days pastor Jones will change his mind, with a little help from some friends such as the IRS, CIA and FBI who will threaten him with a financial and licensing conflagration that will be far more intense for Jones as any book burning he can orchestrate.
Oh well, at least the atheists and agnostics are loving this whole episode
Of course the U.S. government and the head of troops in Afghanistan are dead set against the provocation, saying that the plan to burn the Quran in Florida could endanger U.S. troops and the safety of Americans worldwide. No doubt, images of the Quran burning would be used by Islamic extremists to inflame and incite violence among the largely uneducated and unsophisticated flock of Muslims who obey all the Mullahs tell them to do.
Pastor Jones says America should quit apologizing for its actions and bowing to kings and that destroying a Muslim symbol is much less that what Muslims did to Christians in New York on September 11th, 2000. But anger by Muslims about his plans to burn it has already started in Kabul, Afghanistan where nutty Muslims protested the planned burning by....what else...burning an effigy of Jones.
Oh, the depths of stupidity that religious fanatics will sink to. And of course, the protesters shouted the obligatory "Death To America" to show their lack of tolerance and the fact that it isn't hard to brainwash idiots to behave idiotically. When reporters talked to some of the crazy Muslims at the burning they all said that, "Obama and the U.S. government are behind the burning if the Quran".
I guess all of this is proof that one fanatical religion acting stupidly begets another one to act the same way. Maybe they don't understand that people who burn books or effigies are ignorant and hateful. Sadly, the rest of us suffer because of it. But I suspect that in the coming days pastor Jones will change his mind, with a little help from some friends such as the IRS, CIA and FBI who will threaten him with a financial and licensing conflagration that will be far more intense for Jones as any book burning he can orchestrate.
Oh well, at least the atheists and agnostics are loving this whole episode
Shredding Identities
I was shredding documents today. It's almost as hard to shred papers with those social security and account numbers we don't want anyone to steal, as to tear it manually. Maybe it's my aversion to all technology that makes it resist me and make even simple shredding easier for me than for a machine. But I do it more often than after a move. paper work from brokerages, investment offices, bank accounts etc. are the cheese for the rats who steal identities.
I am still trying to figure out what happened on my drive from New Orleans to Portland in early August. I started the drive with a working credit card, used it only twice even though I wanted to pay cash (sad to say that some business "require" a credit card and don't want cash, which is the legal tender established by law). After I got to Portland and tried to use my credit card for "Jane furniture" at an Ikea store, Ikea said it was refused and inactive. Someone in Kansas or Wyoming, where I used it at hotels had stolen ti and tried to buy stock on line with it.
I didn't shred much because that machine is a pain. But what I manually shredded and tore by hand amounted to the following categories: tax records and worksheets, credit card statements, canceled checks, insurance forms, investment transactions and quarterly financial reports, and any documents that contained Social Security numbers. Other records I kept, at least for awhile. I just wanted to reduce the paper buildup and get rid of Louisiana documents that are no longer active records.
Supposedly, people do look in trash cans for the golden papers with numbers they can use to wipe out the owner. Despite what many people think, most identity theft doesn't involve cyberspace. Today, most identity thieves still rely on proven methods to get their hands on paper records. A stolen Social Security card, driver's license or a credit or debit card today is worth more than money itself. And grabbing your mail before you do after that postal guy delivers it is as common as way to get those documents.
Anyway, I think there is little we can do to stop identity theft if someone targets is. Uh, after your reading this if someone steals your financial identity, I swear it wasn't I.
I am still trying to figure out what happened on my drive from New Orleans to Portland in early August. I started the drive with a working credit card, used it only twice even though I wanted to pay cash (sad to say that some business "require" a credit card and don't want cash, which is the legal tender established by law). After I got to Portland and tried to use my credit card for "Jane furniture" at an Ikea store, Ikea said it was refused and inactive. Someone in Kansas or Wyoming, where I used it at hotels had stolen ti and tried to buy stock on line with it.
I didn't shred much because that machine is a pain. But what I manually shredded and tore by hand amounted to the following categories: tax records and worksheets, credit card statements, canceled checks, insurance forms, investment transactions and quarterly financial reports, and any documents that contained Social Security numbers. Other records I kept, at least for awhile. I just wanted to reduce the paper buildup and get rid of Louisiana documents that are no longer active records.
Supposedly, people do look in trash cans for the golden papers with numbers they can use to wipe out the owner. Despite what many people think, most identity theft doesn't involve cyberspace. Today, most identity thieves still rely on proven methods to get their hands on paper records. A stolen Social Security card, driver's license or a credit or debit card today is worth more than money itself. And grabbing your mail before you do after that postal guy delivers it is as common as way to get those documents.
Anyway, I think there is little we can do to stop identity theft if someone targets is. Uh, after your reading this if someone steals your financial identity, I swear it wasn't I.
Even More Presription Drugs
I just read that according to a government study, over the last 10 years, the percentage of Americans who took at least one prescription drug in the past month increased from 44% to 48. Further, the use of two or more drugs increased from 25% to 31%, and the use of five or more drugs increased from 6% to 11%. People are spending more and more money on drugs they don't need, but think they do. The real "drug problem" today is not illegal drugs, but rather the abuse of prescribed medications.
To be truly healthy means to not be medicated most or all of the time with drugs. It does not mean a table full of medicines consumed every day. With so many media drugs commercials urging us to ask our doctors to prescribe un necessary medications, it shouldn't surprise anyone if prescribed drug usage is on the rise. Too many people are convinced that the secret of well being depends on the all-mighty pills they see and hear about. Many physicians feel pressured to prescribe what their patients think they need and ask for, but do it anyway. So many cholesterol-lowering drugs, statins, asthma medicines for children; antidepressants for middle-aged adults, and central nervous stimulants for adolescents. Why?
It's partly because of the recent changes in laws concerning drug advertising on TV. Commercials by drug companies glamorize the medications and urge viewers to pressure their doctors to prescribe them. It's probably because in this age of excess access to information we all see ourselves as instant experts on things after we research them on line.
In effect, just as we have become addicted to useless technology, we are becoming addicted to useless prescription drugs. In some cases the over prescribing of drugs has created health problems not previously seen. For the drug manufacturers and doctors, when patients are hooked on pills it means more revenue. They have little incentive to stop the abusive over prescribing of medications. Too, prices for their new drugs seem to be higher and higher than in the past.
The proliferation of "legal" drug addiction is aided and abetted by the addictive technology and careless culture to which we belong. It is a microcosm of what is wrong with society today. Too bad most people never think about it, much less realize their plight. Maybe the drugs they are using are clouding their thinking..
To be truly healthy means to not be medicated most or all of the time with drugs. It does not mean a table full of medicines consumed every day. With so many media drugs commercials urging us to ask our doctors to prescribe un necessary medications, it shouldn't surprise anyone if prescribed drug usage is on the rise. Too many people are convinced that the secret of well being depends on the all-mighty pills they see and hear about. Many physicians feel pressured to prescribe what their patients think they need and ask for, but do it anyway. So many cholesterol-lowering drugs, statins, asthma medicines for children; antidepressants for middle-aged adults, and central nervous stimulants for adolescents. Why?
It's partly because of the recent changes in laws concerning drug advertising on TV. Commercials by drug companies glamorize the medications and urge viewers to pressure their doctors to prescribe them. It's probably because in this age of excess access to information we all see ourselves as instant experts on things after we research them on line.
In effect, just as we have become addicted to useless technology, we are becoming addicted to useless prescription drugs. In some cases the over prescribing of drugs has created health problems not previously seen. For the drug manufacturers and doctors, when patients are hooked on pills it means more revenue. They have little incentive to stop the abusive over prescribing of medications. Too, prices for their new drugs seem to be higher and higher than in the past.
The proliferation of "legal" drug addiction is aided and abetted by the addictive technology and careless culture to which we belong. It is a microcosm of what is wrong with society today. Too bad most people never think about it, much less realize their plight. Maybe the drugs they are using are clouding their thinking..
Decline In Taste In TV
I rarely watch the American made TV series that are so popular in the U.S. and especially in foreign markets. Years ago I gave up on TV series as they got more and more vulgar and more and more idiotic in content. For me, watching them became a vacuous waste of time Surely, one can make the case for watching them based on escapism. "I just watch so I don't have to think too much after a long day at work." But I wonder if the idiocy on TV is affecting society, making it cruder, ruder and more lewd.
Just the other day I saw an advertisement for one of those shows during the live sports program I was watching on TV. In it a boy who looked to be about five shouted at the sitcom parent that someone "sucked". Five years old.....how could a five year old even know the origin and hidden meaning of, "You suck"? Such language in a real home would not be met with the laughter of the other performers in the series and of the audience. It's just not a good way to portray kids.
It appears to me (though I only have knowledge of these shows through commercial advertisements I see of them) that TV show series producers, incapable of producing intelligent content for their shows, have sold out to ratings and profit to now peddle the most inane and vulgar content on mainstream TV. Kids see this, embrace it as real and act it out everyday away from their TV sets. Poorly educated kids today have swallowed this kind of vulgarity as being normal and TV has become as debased as modern music is today. Just go to a school yard today and listen at recess to the kids.
You will hear an enormous amount of vulgarity used casually, just as in those TV series that peddle it. Art (I use the word loosely when referring to those shows as art) has created the new reality, not been created from it. Kids today know as little about quality TV as they do about quality music, and the lowest level has become the standard of attraction for them.
Where are the parents who let their kids watch the vulgarity and utter stupidity that they consume hour after hour on the tube? I know that I would be too embarrassed to watch some of the shows on TV today if my 16 year old daughter were sitting with me. Does exposure to a constant stream of impolite, and vulgar content on TV affect the attitude of the audience of kids watching? I think so.
But those in control of what appears on TV screens, the producers and commercial sponsors of the shows and networks and studios that make them, have no reason to take the vulgarity out of mainstream TV and put it on special pay channels that kids can not have access to without parental approval.
The coarsening of TV is coarsening our lives. Given the average kids spends more time each day viewing to those TV series than to hearing and seeing his own parents, I'd say the heritage we are leaving kids is not a good one.
Uh......"It sucks"!
Just the other day I saw an advertisement for one of those shows during the live sports program I was watching on TV. In it a boy who looked to be about five shouted at the sitcom parent that someone "sucked". Five years old.....how could a five year old even know the origin and hidden meaning of, "You suck"? Such language in a real home would not be met with the laughter of the other performers in the series and of the audience. It's just not a good way to portray kids.
It appears to me (though I only have knowledge of these shows through commercial advertisements I see of them) that TV show series producers, incapable of producing intelligent content for their shows, have sold out to ratings and profit to now peddle the most inane and vulgar content on mainstream TV. Kids see this, embrace it as real and act it out everyday away from their TV sets. Poorly educated kids today have swallowed this kind of vulgarity as being normal and TV has become as debased as modern music is today. Just go to a school yard today and listen at recess to the kids.
You will hear an enormous amount of vulgarity used casually, just as in those TV series that peddle it. Art (I use the word loosely when referring to those shows as art) has created the new reality, not been created from it. Kids today know as little about quality TV as they do about quality music, and the lowest level has become the standard of attraction for them.
Where are the parents who let their kids watch the vulgarity and utter stupidity that they consume hour after hour on the tube? I know that I would be too embarrassed to watch some of the shows on TV today if my 16 year old daughter were sitting with me. Does exposure to a constant stream of impolite, and vulgar content on TV affect the attitude of the audience of kids watching? I think so.
But those in control of what appears on TV screens, the producers and commercial sponsors of the shows and networks and studios that make them, have no reason to take the vulgarity out of mainstream TV and put it on special pay channels that kids can not have access to without parental approval.
The coarsening of TV is coarsening our lives. Given the average kids spends more time each day viewing to those TV series than to hearing and seeing his own parents, I'd say the heritage we are leaving kids is not a good one.
Uh......"It sucks"!
Who Or What Created The Universe?
The famous British physicist and mathematician Stephen Hawking, the guy some say is the most intelligent human alive today, says in his new book, The Grand Design, that there need not be a God behind the creation of the This denies the common idea today that our solar system couldn't have come out of chaos of nature. "Physics can explain things without the need for a "benevolent creator who made the Universe for our benefit.," he writes in the book. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going."
That's an interesting theory and I have little to say about it since my knowledge of both theology and science is tiny. But the reaction to his suggestion has lit afire underneath those who believe God created the universe from nothing.
My question is, does it matter whether a god created life or even if a God exists"? Will affirming that he (or she) does exist change your behavior at all? It won't alter mine. This is a humanistic world in which we live today. Technology and science has removed God from the daily decision making process for the vast majority of people.
Primitive man looked for a God as the answer to all things because he had no knowledge of science to explain even the ordinary things (as in, why it gets dark at night). But as human intellect progressed the old, "Tell me what created whatever it is you think created the universe". is not the only question. One could also ask, "Who created God? How did he appear?"
When at a mall the other day with Jane who was buying school clothes, I sat on a comfy chair while she browsed. An elderly man approached and sat in the adjoining chair. We talked a few minutes and he then said, " May I ask you if you are going to go to Heaven.". Discussing religious views with strangers is not my passion, so I brushed aside the attempt of the man to thrust his religious views toward me, and told him I didn't think about that since I had little control or even interest in speculating about such things.
He handed me a religious pamphlet and started his spiel about God and man and the universe. He knew all the answers, at least to his own questions, sure of his own beliefs and eager to have me accept them as well.
Eventually, as he saw I wasn't listening very intently to is conversion speech, he left. I thought he was a rather sad figure to chase after unknowable theological matters in a mall with a stranger. "Make peace with God, he smiled and said.".....I glanced and fired back, "Peace? But we've never quarreled".
Sometimes people worry too much about the unknowable.
That's an interesting theory and I have little to say about it since my knowledge of both theology and science is tiny. But the reaction to his suggestion has lit afire underneath those who believe God created the universe from nothing.
My question is, does it matter whether a god created life or even if a God exists"? Will affirming that he (or she) does exist change your behavior at all? It won't alter mine. This is a humanistic world in which we live today. Technology and science has removed God from the daily decision making process for the vast majority of people.
Primitive man looked for a God as the answer to all things because he had no knowledge of science to explain even the ordinary things (as in, why it gets dark at night). But as human intellect progressed the old, "Tell me what created whatever it is you think created the universe". is not the only question. One could also ask, "Who created God? How did he appear?"
When at a mall the other day with Jane who was buying school clothes, I sat on a comfy chair while she browsed. An elderly man approached and sat in the adjoining chair. We talked a few minutes and he then said, " May I ask you if you are going to go to Heaven.". Discussing religious views with strangers is not my passion, so I brushed aside the attempt of the man to thrust his religious views toward me, and told him I didn't think about that since I had little control or even interest in speculating about such things.
He handed me a religious pamphlet and started his spiel about God and man and the universe. He knew all the answers, at least to his own questions, sure of his own beliefs and eager to have me accept them as well.
Eventually, as he saw I wasn't listening very intently to is conversion speech, he left. I thought he was a rather sad figure to chase after unknowable theological matters in a mall with a stranger. "Make peace with God, he smiled and said.".....I glanced and fired back, "Peace? But we've never quarreled".
Sometimes people worry too much about the unknowable.
Whose Culture Is This Anyway?
Have you lost interest in contemporary culture? By that I refer to film, music, art etc., not politics and those things that directly affect a person to the extent that being apathetic about it is unwise. Of course, as we age we tend to stay rooted in the past, including the culture in which we grew. We don't want to lose it to the newer cultural identities because it is somewhat theatening to surrender too much of our past identity.
I seem to be less and less informed about the people and events of the current current age. I have no idea who some of the "stars" and events of today are an are about. And when I read the unrecognizable names the author of the story mentions the assumption is that I do or should already know who or she is.
Here are examples of names in pop(ular) culture I read in front page headlines in a major newspaper. Uh...I had not the interest to read beyond the headlines.
* "Bachelor Pad sends three home"- I think that's about a TV show but I am unclear why it is front page news
*"Lambert vs. Finance"- You tell me. Who is this Lambert?
* "Sites Like Groupon hurting Eateries"- I hate when the language is cheapened ("groupon") this way by businesses.
* "Snooky Marries Her Man"- "Snooky"???? I don't want to hear what Snooky will name her child when she becomes a mom.
And those are just some weird names that I am supposed to know about. What about the trivial and crazy events that are published as front page news? My point is that I think it is more than me just being older and losing touch with the mainstream culture. Rather, the mainstream culture is being hijacked by the trial and insignificant, which instead are now portrayed as important.
Maybe it's the technology that causes this, but I do think cultural values should change more slowly in order to have an evaluation period for its members to determine whether the new is good or not. The rapid "here today gone tomorrow" cultural changes today makes the dumbed down and silly less recognized as so. It elevates it.
be valued by the culture something must endure and represent a common worth. Too much of what passes for "the culture" today, seems to me to be more the garbage of the culture elevated to filet mignon status. No wonder I am supposed to know and care about this "Snooky" character. Well, I refuse. They can take my membership in this culture if they want, but they can't bring me down to that level.
I seem to be less and less informed about the people and events of the current current age. I have no idea who some of the "stars" and events of today are an are about. And when I read the unrecognizable names the author of the story mentions the assumption is that I do or should already know who or she is.
Here are examples of names in pop(ular) culture I read in front page headlines in a major newspaper. Uh...I had not the interest to read beyond the headlines.
* "Bachelor Pad sends three home"- I think that's about a TV show but I am unclear why it is front page news
*"Lambert vs. Finance"- You tell me. Who is this Lambert?
* "Sites Like Groupon hurting Eateries"- I hate when the language is cheapened ("groupon") this way by businesses.
* "Snooky Marries Her Man"- "Snooky"???? I don't want to hear what Snooky will name her child when she becomes a mom.
And those are just some weird names that I am supposed to know about. What about the trivial and crazy events that are published as front page news? My point is that I think it is more than me just being older and losing touch with the mainstream culture. Rather, the mainstream culture is being hijacked by the trial and insignificant, which instead are now portrayed as important.
Maybe it's the technology that causes this, but I do think cultural values should change more slowly in order to have an evaluation period for its members to determine whether the new is good or not. The rapid "here today gone tomorrow" cultural changes today makes the dumbed down and silly less recognized as so. It elevates it.
be valued by the culture something must endure and represent a common worth. Too much of what passes for "the culture" today, seems to me to be more the garbage of the culture elevated to filet mignon status. No wonder I am supposed to know and care about this "Snooky" character. Well, I refuse. They can take my membership in this culture if they want, but they can't bring me down to that level.
Hurricane Katrina 5th Year Anniversary
Moving away from a city one has lived in all his life is not the same today as it was pre internet. I keep up with what is happening in New Orleans through reading parts of the same New Orleans newspaper I have read all these years, have book marked some local New Orleans web sites and radio stations and make a point of following stories of "unfinished business" in New Orleans. The number one unfinished business is the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Augst 29, 2010 was the five year anniversary of the storm that changed that city forever.
At the focus of many events surrounding the memory of the storm, in the French Quarter under (ironically) a light rain residents (and some tourists) attended a ceremony commemorating the hurricane, gathering at St. Louis Cathedral in Jackson Square on Sunday afternoon to remember the event and speak words of optimism for the future. A 45 minute ceremony in the cathedral on Jackson Square attracted clergy and members of eight world religions in New Orleans, each offering a short prayer from his or her own tradition.
Barrack Obama was in the city to make his promises of help (promises are something politicians have often made to New Orleans, but rarely followed through on after the speeches were made). And other celebrities and dignitaries were there as well and TV networks have been delivering endless retrospectives on the storm and city. But what of New Orleans five years after the storm? I left even though I loved many things about the city and know it will always be my true home, though I am learning to embrace a new one.
Despite the absurd cheer leading clue less and dishonest speeches of Barrack Obama praising the rebirth of New Orleans and the areas to the east and west of the city that were equally destroyed. Problems abound there today. Higher unemployment, substance abuse and housing instability, for example contribute to a three fold increase in heart attacks among residents and what the Journal of American Child and Adolescent Psychology studies showed is a huge increase in the instances among kids of depression, hyperactivity, eating disorders, fears, or those who had learning difficulties due to the trauma of the storm and the suffering and decrease in lifestyle after it.
Essentially, there is a sense of helplessness, the idea that the fate of the city is out of the hands of the residents, given the poor conditions of levees protecting the city, and the loss of wetlands that has put the Gulf of Mexico on the edge of the city itself and made flooding a surety when the next big storm hits. The latest disaster for the area, the BP oil catastrophe has reinforced that those who live in New Orleans have no control over what will happen to the city. Corrupt politics at the state and local levels and apathy beyond words from the federal government add top the problem.
I think New Orleans needs to be "lucky" to be revived fully. Even though people who live there love it far more than most people love their cities elsewhere, another huge storm before the city is protected could be the death knell for it. In some sense New Orleans is already dead as a "big American city". It is now a city remembered as great one, and not a large or great city anymore. How long a city can endure based solely on the reputation of it's last charm and greatness alone is problematic.
New Orleans has always been the mysterious lady....."The City that Care Forgot", the voodoo and ghost city, the city that looks like and has people like no other in the world, the place of a population poorly educated but enormously talented in music, literature, art, and cookery. It's the enigmatic city, so I suppose we are never going to be able to predict its future with any more certainty than as to where the next hurricane in the ocean will land
At the focus of many events surrounding the memory of the storm, in the French Quarter under (ironically) a light rain residents (and some tourists) attended a ceremony commemorating the hurricane, gathering at St. Louis Cathedral in Jackson Square on Sunday afternoon to remember the event and speak words of optimism for the future. A 45 minute ceremony in the cathedral on Jackson Square attracted clergy and members of eight world religions in New Orleans, each offering a short prayer from his or her own tradition.
Barrack Obama was in the city to make his promises of help (promises are something politicians have often made to New Orleans, but rarely followed through on after the speeches were made). And other celebrities and dignitaries were there as well and TV networks have been delivering endless retrospectives on the storm and city. But what of New Orleans five years after the storm? I left even though I loved many things about the city and know it will always be my true home, though I am learning to embrace a new one.
Despite the absurd cheer leading clue less and dishonest speeches of Barrack Obama praising the rebirth of New Orleans and the areas to the east and west of the city that were equally destroyed. Problems abound there today. Higher unemployment, substance abuse and housing instability, for example contribute to a three fold increase in heart attacks among residents and what the Journal of American Child and Adolescent Psychology studies showed is a huge increase in the instances among kids of depression, hyperactivity, eating disorders, fears, or those who had learning difficulties due to the trauma of the storm and the suffering and decrease in lifestyle after it.
Essentially, there is a sense of helplessness, the idea that the fate of the city is out of the hands of the residents, given the poor conditions of levees protecting the city, and the loss of wetlands that has put the Gulf of Mexico on the edge of the city itself and made flooding a surety when the next big storm hits. The latest disaster for the area, the BP oil catastrophe has reinforced that those who live in New Orleans have no control over what will happen to the city. Corrupt politics at the state and local levels and apathy beyond words from the federal government add top the problem.
I think New Orleans needs to be "lucky" to be revived fully. Even though people who live there love it far more than most people love their cities elsewhere, another huge storm before the city is protected could be the death knell for it. In some sense New Orleans is already dead as a "big American city". It is now a city remembered as great one, and not a large or great city anymore. How long a city can endure based solely on the reputation of it's last charm and greatness alone is problematic.
New Orleans has always been the mysterious lady....."The City that Care Forgot", the voodoo and ghost city, the city that looks like and has people like no other in the world, the place of a population poorly educated but enormously talented in music, literature, art, and cookery. It's the enigmatic city, so I suppose we are never going to be able to predict its future with any more certainty than as to where the next hurricane in the ocean will land
State Fares
On Saturday I went to the Oregon State Fair. Never before have I been to one of those state fares, even though Louisiana has one (I am not sure where, but it is far north of New Orleans). Most of those fairs are held in the more rural states, but most states have them and they originally centered around agriculture of the state, with competitions involving livestock and farming. Today, they have evolved into more of a carnival atmosphere with carnival rides, foods and the old state fair activities mixed in with entertainment performances. Big name music acts are often booked at some state fairs.
I am not an expert on state fairs but would guess that Oregon's is a mid level one as to size and scope. I spent more of my time watching shoes and especially enjoyed a very funny hypnotist act that used members of the audience to do hilarious things they probably would never do to the extent they displayed if not under hypnosis.This is what I observed at the fare beyond what was on display. I found it a kind of unifying event for the people of the state. Maybe that's why those fares are most often held at the state capital city (as was Oregon's, in Salem, Oregon). The people who attend those fares are mostly residents of the state and the fares rarely advertise outside of the state to make it a tourist event. State Fares are one of the last large event that is not a tourist one.
I found the people had a sense of pride in their fare and their state that they displayed subconsciously. The attitude of those attending the Oregon State fare, and I assume other state fares, was as a local celebration ( in this case of Oregon), a kind of "this is for us" event. One example of this was the barbecue contest at the fare. I stopped and talked with one of the competitors and asked her if the contestants were local and she said almost all were from Oregon. "This is more for us than a national contest", she told me. The one exception to the local first rule is the big name music acts and an international lumberjack championship that ESPN network was filming and was being held during the entire first week of the two week fare. I think those were hooks used to draw more locals who have been to the fare in previous years and want new attractions.
Another observation that I have to make about the fares is that they can make a person go back in time, to his or her youth or at least to simpler times. Amazingly, I saw only a few people using cell phones at the fair. I think they just don't fit at such a pure and old style event, and social sanctions (though unstated) causes etiquette to return when people attend those fares. This discourages the common cell phone abuse there that is seen in most public places. It was exhilarating for a cell hater like me to finally not be annoyed by the endless idiotic, phone chatter that is commonly conducted in public.
I had fun at the fare and think such events are a healthy sign that people still have the capacity to enjoy simplicity in their entertainment.
I am not an expert on state fairs but would guess that Oregon's is a mid level one as to size and scope. I spent more of my time watching shoes and especially enjoyed a very funny hypnotist act that used members of the audience to do hilarious things they probably would never do to the extent they displayed if not under hypnosis.This is what I observed at the fare beyond what was on display. I found it a kind of unifying event for the people of the state. Maybe that's why those fares are most often held at the state capital city (as was Oregon's, in Salem, Oregon). The people who attend those fares are mostly residents of the state and the fares rarely advertise outside of the state to make it a tourist event. State Fares are one of the last large event that is not a tourist one.
I found the people had a sense of pride in their fare and their state that they displayed subconsciously. The attitude of those attending the Oregon State fare, and I assume other state fares, was as a local celebration ( in this case of Oregon), a kind of "this is for us" event. One example of this was the barbecue contest at the fare. I stopped and talked with one of the competitors and asked her if the contestants were local and she said almost all were from Oregon. "This is more for us than a national contest", she told me. The one exception to the local first rule is the big name music acts and an international lumberjack championship that ESPN network was filming and was being held during the entire first week of the two week fare. I think those were hooks used to draw more locals who have been to the fare in previous years and want new attractions.
Another observation that I have to make about the fares is that they can make a person go back in time, to his or her youth or at least to simpler times. Amazingly, I saw only a few people using cell phones at the fair. I think they just don't fit at such a pure and old style event, and social sanctions (though unstated) causes etiquette to return when people attend those fares. This discourages the common cell phone abuse there that is seen in most public places. It was exhilarating for a cell hater like me to finally not be annoyed by the endless idiotic, phone chatter that is commonly conducted in public.
I had fun at the fare and think such events are a healthy sign that people still have the capacity to enjoy simplicity in their entertainment.
AM Radio
Many kids today don't know or have never heard of AM radio. It's a shame, but probably because in it's current dying form it is unrecognizable even to those of us who grew up listening to it. What has killed AM radio? AM radio signals can be severely disrupted in cities with big metal structures, tall buildings and sources of radio frequency interference (RFI), electrical motors, fluorescent lights, and lightning. It's old technology.
As a result, AM radio in many countries has lost its position as a music broadcaster, and in my city and most others many cities is now a talking head venue. Am radio is a source for news, sports, religious and talk radio stations. Some music, particularly specialized stations that play country, oldies, nostalgia and ethnic/world music are still on AM. But in essence, Am radio as a music source can be mostly found wherever FM frequencies are not available or in rural or mountainous areas where FM broadcast are of poor quality.
So FM radio (Isn't radio as a whole also dying with the current generation of i pod users?) is mostly played by old timers, in automobiles while driving and when the new electronic music sources are not available. But forget FM for now. Even though I am new to Portland, I want to mention what my impressions are of AM radio in New Orleans and the rest of the country. In fact, most AM stations are owned by national corporations who program them uniformly or of single entrepreneurs who crate a very small market of listeners and do not compete with FM stations.
Most AM here is not musical but talk, talk about politics, sports and to a lesser degree religion. In many cases the stations sound as if they are held together with glue and that the budgets for them are minuscule. Here are some of the local New Orleans AM offerings:
* KGLA is a Spanish only language station that plays Latin Music. That kind of music can't be found on FM stations here, so it is a small niche market that works well.
* KLEB is in Golden Meadow, about 50 miles outside of New Orleans and in the beginning of Cajun territory. Naturally, it plays mostly Cajun music.
* WASO bills itself as "Hot Talk Radio". It is an all talk station that lets conservative types vent and rant about politics. There are many of those kinds of conservative talk stations here and in the rest of the U.S. I think it the most common format for AM radio stations.
* WBYU is the local station that broadcasts "Disney Radio", mostly for those under 12 years of age
* WIST is an all sports talk station here, mostly using local announcers but also picking up some national sports radio shows.
* WLNO is one of several "Christian radio" stations. You can figure out that programming without my help. It should be obvious.* WVOG provides religious and gospel programs.
* WWL is the biggest AM station in New Orleans and is a news, sports and talk station that is highly influential in the city. During Hurricane Katrina, when so many broadcast sources were knocked out, WWL was the beacon for information to residents of the city. Many got all news and info only from it.* WYLD is a black oriented radio station.
Looking at those stations one can see that AM radio is a segmented market. It serves a particular and usually small constituency. I think the influence of radio as a whole is small today, but of the two bands, the larger FM music radio and the small, more talk oriented AM, the AM stations play a bigger role in every day life. Too, looking at the examples I gave above (as a representation of the whole of AM radio everywhere) it's obvious that AM radio appeals to older people, not the young. Thus, the future of AM radio would seem to be a dark, downhill one. Just as analogue TV was replaced by digital, AM radio is being be replaced by other alternatives.
But in it's glory days AM radio was the center of attractions for media listeners. I am glad I have my own memories of that (The early days of the Beatles, for instance). Somehow..I just don't think the ipod will engender the same feelings in those who are growing up with it.
As a result, AM radio in many countries has lost its position as a music broadcaster, and in my city and most others many cities is now a talking head venue. Am radio is a source for news, sports, religious and talk radio stations. Some music, particularly specialized stations that play country, oldies, nostalgia and ethnic/world music are still on AM. But in essence, Am radio as a music source can be mostly found wherever FM frequencies are not available or in rural or mountainous areas where FM broadcast are of poor quality.
So FM radio (Isn't radio as a whole also dying with the current generation of i pod users?) is mostly played by old timers, in automobiles while driving and when the new electronic music sources are not available. But forget FM for now. Even though I am new to Portland, I want to mention what my impressions are of AM radio in New Orleans and the rest of the country. In fact, most AM stations are owned by national corporations who program them uniformly or of single entrepreneurs who crate a very small market of listeners and do not compete with FM stations.
Most AM here is not musical but talk, talk about politics, sports and to a lesser degree religion. In many cases the stations sound as if they are held together with glue and that the budgets for them are minuscule. Here are some of the local New Orleans AM offerings:
* KGLA is a Spanish only language station that plays Latin Music. That kind of music can't be found on FM stations here, so it is a small niche market that works well.
* KLEB is in Golden Meadow, about 50 miles outside of New Orleans and in the beginning of Cajun territory. Naturally, it plays mostly Cajun music.
* WASO bills itself as "Hot Talk Radio". It is an all talk station that lets conservative types vent and rant about politics. There are many of those kinds of conservative talk stations here and in the rest of the U.S. I think it the most common format for AM radio stations.
* WBYU is the local station that broadcasts "Disney Radio", mostly for those under 12 years of age
* WIST is an all sports talk station here, mostly using local announcers but also picking up some national sports radio shows.
* WLNO is one of several "Christian radio" stations. You can figure out that programming without my help. It should be obvious.* WVOG provides religious and gospel programs.
* WWL is the biggest AM station in New Orleans and is a news, sports and talk station that is highly influential in the city. During Hurricane Katrina, when so many broadcast sources were knocked out, WWL was the beacon for information to residents of the city. Many got all news and info only from it.* WYLD is a black oriented radio station.
Looking at those stations one can see that AM radio is a segmented market. It serves a particular and usually small constituency. I think the influence of radio as a whole is small today, but of the two bands, the larger FM music radio and the small, more talk oriented AM, the AM stations play a bigger role in every day life. Too, looking at the examples I gave above (as a representation of the whole of AM radio everywhere) it's obvious that AM radio appeals to older people, not the young. Thus, the future of AM radio would seem to be a dark, downhill one. Just as analogue TV was replaced by digital, AM radio is being be replaced by other alternatives.
But in it's glory days AM radio was the center of attractions for media listeners. I am glad I have my own memories of that (The early days of the Beatles, for instance). Somehow..I just don't think the ipod will engender the same feelings in those who are growing up with it.
Overpriced
The cost of a gallon of gas here is Portland is about 10% higher than in New Orleans. It's the same gas, sold by the game companies and at the same kinds of gas stations. But Portland has a high tax on gas and New Orleans doesn't. This made me think of some things I think cost too much today. It's too pedantic to try to explain the prices, but I think its useful to make the observation because you may have similar wonders about your own country's prices. Here are some excessive prices in the U.S.
* Drugs- most drugs are researched, discovered manufactured and sold in America. But Americans pay way more for those drugs, the identical ones, that the American drug companies send oversees and sell at budget prices. For example, the average American discovered and patented drug sells for 45% more than it sells for in Canada. So Americans are paying higher drug prices to subsidize the cheaper ones in Canada (and other countries)
* Water- A plastic bottle of water (even though almost all American tap water is safe and tasty) here now costs more than a cup of coffee (Starbucks excluded) or a bottle of soda pop. And yet water is the key component in the other two drinks.
* Parking- Why should taxpayers pay to park on public streets? It may be a question greater than, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?"
* Athletic shoes- Those nylon, rubber, leather and synthetic shoes now cost on average more than a pair of fine handcrafted leather shoes. When athletic shoes used to be called sneakers, before those price sport star contracts to endorse them, they cost about 1/5 of what the current ones cost.
* College tuition- The cost of a year of college in the U.S, now rises by about 6 percent each year, outpacing wages, inflation, or financial aid, according to the College Board. Some high-priced private colleges now ask more than $50,000 a year. The sticker price for an academic year at a typical public university is $16,400: $5,836 for tuition and fees, almost $7,000 for room and board, and an additional $3,500 or so for books, travel, and entertainment, the College Board estimated. Hmmmm It might pay to be smart, but students shouldn't have to pay that much.
* Cell Phones- Let me say it first because you know I will...Cell phones are worthless objects... That felt good! Yet they cost so much. The average cell phone bill is for a family of four users is from $100 to $200, depending on the plan and company cheating the users. Four land line phones that all four can use privately costs about $20 per month. But then any addiction, cigarettes, heroine, crack or cell phones is always expensive.
* Greeting cards- Not the on-line cards that are mostly free, the paper ones. Some of them cost more than the present given with them.
* Starbucks coffee- If I need to explain this then you are an alien from outer space.
* Concert T shirts- The Lada Gaga concert in portland here last week charged $40 for basic T shirts. The mark-up on that one is about 800%, and it's not atypical.
Take a sip of your bottled water while putting on your Gaga T shirt and Nike's and feel free to give me a few more. Those all recalled just off the top of my head.
* Drugs- most drugs are researched, discovered manufactured and sold in America. But Americans pay way more for those drugs, the identical ones, that the American drug companies send oversees and sell at budget prices. For example, the average American discovered and patented drug sells for 45% more than it sells for in Canada. So Americans are paying higher drug prices to subsidize the cheaper ones in Canada (and other countries)
* Water- A plastic bottle of water (even though almost all American tap water is safe and tasty) here now costs more than a cup of coffee (Starbucks excluded) or a bottle of soda pop. And yet water is the key component in the other two drinks.
* Parking- Why should taxpayers pay to park on public streets? It may be a question greater than, "What came first, the chicken or the egg?"
* Athletic shoes- Those nylon, rubber, leather and synthetic shoes now cost on average more than a pair of fine handcrafted leather shoes. When athletic shoes used to be called sneakers, before those price sport star contracts to endorse them, they cost about 1/5 of what the current ones cost.
* College tuition- The cost of a year of college in the U.S, now rises by about 6 percent each year, outpacing wages, inflation, or financial aid, according to the College Board. Some high-priced private colleges now ask more than $50,000 a year. The sticker price for an academic year at a typical public university is $16,400: $5,836 for tuition and fees, almost $7,000 for room and board, and an additional $3,500 or so for books, travel, and entertainment, the College Board estimated. Hmmmm It might pay to be smart, but students shouldn't have to pay that much.
* Cell Phones- Let me say it first because you know I will...Cell phones are worthless objects... That felt good! Yet they cost so much. The average cell phone bill is for a family of four users is from $100 to $200, depending on the plan and company cheating the users. Four land line phones that all four can use privately costs about $20 per month. But then any addiction, cigarettes, heroine, crack or cell phones is always expensive.
* Greeting cards- Not the on-line cards that are mostly free, the paper ones. Some of them cost more than the present given with them.
* Starbucks coffee- If I need to explain this then you are an alien from outer space.
* Concert T shirts- The Lada Gaga concert in portland here last week charged $40 for basic T shirts. The mark-up on that one is about 800%, and it's not atypical.
Take a sip of your bottled water while putting on your Gaga T shirt and Nike's and feel free to give me a few more. Those all recalled just off the top of my head.
To Vote Or Not To Vote
I registered to vote in my county the same day I obtained an Oregon driver's license. States make it easy for their citizens to register to vote by placing voter registration cards at many government agencies. They fill them out in a matter of seconds and the agency forwards them to the registrar of voters. While I am an advocate of democracy and voting, I think not all people should be encouraged to vote. The old adage that all citizens have the responsibility to vote is foolishness. Democracy works best when informed and interested people vote, not just any body that was given a voter registration card at a driver's license station. Some people lack the education, concern or interest need to vote responsibly.
I am surely not qualified to vote in the soon to come Oregon elections. It takes time to know a community, its needs, the candidates etc. I will sit out this governor's election on the grounds of ignorance and inability to cast a responsible vote. But there will be many politicians and media types imploring me to exercise democracy by casting a ballot even though I am ignorant of the candidates and the community. Give me another year here and I will finally be ready to vote, since I do read and study issues and candidates. But I am not ready now.
Democracies function best when informed and caring people vote. But today we have too many fools voting and choosing candidates that appeal to the basest instincts in the constituencies. It's no wonder why entitlements today rule the U.S. The "vote for me and I'll see the government sends you more checks" mentality is all to common in campaigns and all too real after the election is over for taxpayers who pay for the entitlements the dead beats bring about by electing those who pander to them.
If a citizen is naturally inclined to not care about voting he or she should not be told he has responsibility to vote. He or she is probably not competent to choose wisely anyway. Better if those "everyone must vote" campaigns ended and competent voters choose the winners in elections. Hmmmm Unlike the accepted opinion, I feel better about what the results may be when a smaller fraction of voters decided the election. It usually means the more competent citizens decided the election, not a mob of incompetents.
Well, I can't make the fools not vote...uh...except this one fool. I will spare Oregon my vote this time and vote only when I am ready to cast one responsibly.
I am surely not qualified to vote in the soon to come Oregon elections. It takes time to know a community, its needs, the candidates etc. I will sit out this governor's election on the grounds of ignorance and inability to cast a responsible vote. But there will be many politicians and media types imploring me to exercise democracy by casting a ballot even though I am ignorant of the candidates and the community. Give me another year here and I will finally be ready to vote, since I do read and study issues and candidates. But I am not ready now.
Democracies function best when informed and caring people vote. But today we have too many fools voting and choosing candidates that appeal to the basest instincts in the constituencies. It's no wonder why entitlements today rule the U.S. The "vote for me and I'll see the government sends you more checks" mentality is all to common in campaigns and all too real after the election is over for taxpayers who pay for the entitlements the dead beats bring about by electing those who pander to them.
If a citizen is naturally inclined to not care about voting he or she should not be told he has responsibility to vote. He or she is probably not competent to choose wisely anyway. Better if those "everyone must vote" campaigns ended and competent voters choose the winners in elections. Hmmmm Unlike the accepted opinion, I feel better about what the results may be when a smaller fraction of voters decided the election. It usually means the more competent citizens decided the election, not a mob of incompetents.
Well, I can't make the fools not vote...uh...except this one fool. I will spare Oregon my vote this time and vote only when I am ready to cast one responsibly.
Traffic Cameras
I did some research this morning in the persuasiveness of and use of traffic crime cameras. First some facts:
-According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in 2007, almost 900 were killed and nearly 153,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running. About half of the deaths are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light runners.
- The IIHS has reported huge decreases in red light running in several cities in which the cameras were used.
- Exactly half the U.S states have traffic cameras installed. Trained law enforcement officers review the photos before issuing tickets to make sure that a traffic violation did indeed occur. The idea is to catch motorists who intentionally run red lights, not people who get stuck in traffic and are caught in the intersection when the light changes, or people who cross the line while the light is still yellow.
-Some red light cameras photograph only a vehicle's rear license plate, while others record the driver's face as well as the front plate. In some states (In Louisiana I know they can, but do not know about here in Oregon), the driver can dispute the citation if someone else was driving the car at the time of the infraction, in which case the photo itself comes in as handy evidence.
But are those cameras fair and accurate. Many people claim it is unconstitutional to have a mechanical device issues traffic tickets. They say humans (police officers) are more adept at knowing when driver is a caught apparently running a light but was really avoiding a crash in doing so. Cameras lack discretionary ability. Then there is the cost of installing a camera and sensors ( supposedly about $100,000 per traffic signal) that causes some sates (Louisiana is one) to contract with private businesses to furnish the cameras and service them. As a result, many instances have been found in which the yellow caution traffic light is a shorter times one at camera intersections in order to catch more red light runners. Those businesses get a percentage of each ticket and that makes for incentives for them to cheat and try to up the number of violations by tampering with the system.
Here's an example of why people have this negative perception of the cameras. According to an article appearing in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the city of Lilburn, GA issued about 1,500 citations in January 2008. The citations dropped by 80 percent to around 300 in January 2009, after a new Georgia law mandated a longer yellow light duration. The extra second on the yellow light may have reduced the problem of red light running for the driver, but it almost worked too well for the city. Red light cameras were no longer issuing enough citations to keep them "profitable" and as a result, Lilburn and four other cities in the same county suspended their red light programs.
Red light cameras have also been known to cause some rear-end collisions, as drivers may slam on their brakes well short of the intersection when they notice a camera. Also, are those cameras really there for safety or to raise money for the government jurisdictions using them? The fact that so many of them are rigged to give the driver less time to make it through a yellow light indicates that revenue is the main reason for it.
In my former parish in Louisiana, Jefferson Parish, abuse of the cameras caused such an outrage that local politicians there suspended their use and it remains that way more than a year after the decision to "reevaluate the effectiveness of the traffic cameras". In such apolitically correct and more passive place like Oregon I doubt that will ever happen. I don't like traffic cameras and think they are unfair intrusions on drivers. No doubt my first traffic camera ticket will soon be in the mail.
-According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), in 2007, almost 900 were killed and nearly 153,000 were injured in crashes that involved red light running. About half of the deaths are pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles who are hit by the red light runners.
- The IIHS has reported huge decreases in red light running in several cities in which the cameras were used.
- Exactly half the U.S states have traffic cameras installed. Trained law enforcement officers review the photos before issuing tickets to make sure that a traffic violation did indeed occur. The idea is to catch motorists who intentionally run red lights, not people who get stuck in traffic and are caught in the intersection when the light changes, or people who cross the line while the light is still yellow.
-Some red light cameras photograph only a vehicle's rear license plate, while others record the driver's face as well as the front plate. In some states (In Louisiana I know they can, but do not know about here in Oregon), the driver can dispute the citation if someone else was driving the car at the time of the infraction, in which case the photo itself comes in as handy evidence.
But are those cameras fair and accurate. Many people claim it is unconstitutional to have a mechanical device issues traffic tickets. They say humans (police officers) are more adept at knowing when driver is a caught apparently running a light but was really avoiding a crash in doing so. Cameras lack discretionary ability. Then there is the cost of installing a camera and sensors ( supposedly about $100,000 per traffic signal) that causes some sates (Louisiana is one) to contract with private businesses to furnish the cameras and service them. As a result, many instances have been found in which the yellow caution traffic light is a shorter times one at camera intersections in order to catch more red light runners. Those businesses get a percentage of each ticket and that makes for incentives for them to cheat and try to up the number of violations by tampering with the system.
Here's an example of why people have this negative perception of the cameras. According to an article appearing in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the city of Lilburn, GA issued about 1,500 citations in January 2008. The citations dropped by 80 percent to around 300 in January 2009, after a new Georgia law mandated a longer yellow light duration. The extra second on the yellow light may have reduced the problem of red light running for the driver, but it almost worked too well for the city. Red light cameras were no longer issuing enough citations to keep them "profitable" and as a result, Lilburn and four other cities in the same county suspended their red light programs.
Red light cameras have also been known to cause some rear-end collisions, as drivers may slam on their brakes well short of the intersection when they notice a camera. Also, are those cameras really there for safety or to raise money for the government jurisdictions using them? The fact that so many of them are rigged to give the driver less time to make it through a yellow light indicates that revenue is the main reason for it.
In my former parish in Louisiana, Jefferson Parish, abuse of the cameras caused such an outrage that local politicians there suspended their use and it remains that way more than a year after the decision to "reevaluate the effectiveness of the traffic cameras". In such apolitically correct and more passive place like Oregon I doubt that will ever happen. I don't like traffic cameras and think they are unfair intrusions on drivers. No doubt my first traffic camera ticket will soon be in the mail.
Celebrtity Auctions
A toilet described as once having belonged to the late US author JD Salinger has been put on sale on eBay for one million dollars. Haha The world is mad!The listing says the seller obtained the "used toilet commode" from a couple who now own the former home of the Catcher in the Rye author, "uncleaned and in its original condition". Oh my, a crappy toilet for a million bucks.
To further scam the idiots who would bid on the toilet he actually posted this rather poetic remark, "Who knows how many of his stories were thought up and written while Salinger sat on this throne!". The toilet does comes with a letter from the current owners of the Salinger house, who removed the toilet attesting that the toilet was removed during renovations the house. Haha Care to bid? I doubt anyone is stupid enough to pay a million dollars for that crapper, but it will sell for some (much lower price).
I was curious after reading about the toilet auction, so I decided to research other stupid things people wasted money on that once belonged to celebrities. Last year three Marilyn Monroe chest x-rays sold for $45,000. At the same auction costume jewelry faux "diamond emerald" drop earrings, with screw back closure worn by Kate Winslet in her role as Rose DeWitt Bukater in "Titanic" sold for $25,000.
In the world we live in, frivolous spending isn't exactly a new development. Considering how celebrity driven our society is, it should come as no surprise just how much people are willing to spend on their favorite celeb-owned items. Much of it is junk and most has no practical application for the buyer. But some think owning something a celebrity once used will some how boost their own self esteem.
Here are a few more examples and prices of nutty celebrity auction items that sold.
- Judy Garland's ruby red slippers worn in the film 'The Wizard of Ox' sold for $666,000
- Scarlet Johannson once blew her nose on a tissue while appearing on a network TV show. Four days later someone bought the snotty tissue for $5,300.
- One crazed fan shelled out $3,154 to become the owner of Justin Timberlake’s French toast leftovers.
- In 2002 a piece of Britney Spear's chewing gum sold for $14,000. Since her star has fallen so much that the buyer is no doubt "stuck" with that gum forever.
- A glove worn by Michael Jackson in 1983 went for $420,000 at an auction. No word on whether it had been used by Michael to hold any boys on his lap.
- Artist Andy Warhol People pay thousands of dollars for a Warhol painting, but paying $10,800 for his wig is ludicrous. Some one did it.
I don't suppose you would want to buy any of my rants???
To further scam the idiots who would bid on the toilet he actually posted this rather poetic remark, "Who knows how many of his stories were thought up and written while Salinger sat on this throne!". The toilet does comes with a letter from the current owners of the Salinger house, who removed the toilet attesting that the toilet was removed during renovations the house. Haha Care to bid? I doubt anyone is stupid enough to pay a million dollars for that crapper, but it will sell for some (much lower price).
I was curious after reading about the toilet auction, so I decided to research other stupid things people wasted money on that once belonged to celebrities. Last year three Marilyn Monroe chest x-rays sold for $45,000. At the same auction costume jewelry faux "diamond emerald" drop earrings, with screw back closure worn by Kate Winslet in her role as Rose DeWitt Bukater in "Titanic" sold for $25,000.
In the world we live in, frivolous spending isn't exactly a new development. Considering how celebrity driven our society is, it should come as no surprise just how much people are willing to spend on their favorite celeb-owned items. Much of it is junk and most has no practical application for the buyer. But some think owning something a celebrity once used will some how boost their own self esteem.
Here are a few more examples and prices of nutty celebrity auction items that sold.
- Judy Garland's ruby red slippers worn in the film 'The Wizard of Ox' sold for $666,000
- Scarlet Johannson once blew her nose on a tissue while appearing on a network TV show. Four days later someone bought the snotty tissue for $5,300.
- One crazed fan shelled out $3,154 to become the owner of Justin Timberlake’s French toast leftovers.
- In 2002 a piece of Britney Spear's chewing gum sold for $14,000. Since her star has fallen so much that the buyer is no doubt "stuck" with that gum forever.
- A glove worn by Michael Jackson in 1983 went for $420,000 at an auction. No word on whether it had been used by Michael to hold any boys on his lap.
- Artist Andy Warhol People pay thousands of dollars for a Warhol painting, but paying $10,800 for his wig is ludicrous. Some one did it.
I don't suppose you would want to buy any of my rants???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)