The internet sites are a blaze with year end lists and one I have found that has some variance and is fun is the 'Top Political Phrase's' of 2010 lists. There are several and the duplications aren't as frequent as one might think, probably because in this age of mean spirited political election campaigns, deliberate attempt to obscure or lie by using catchy words, and because most voters have such a limited vocabulary theses days suing deceitful phrases or words like we see on car bumpers seems to work well ion politics.
So in the spirit of the horrid political worlds in which we all live, here are twelve of 2010's most overused, attention getting and perplexing words and phrases used by those politicians (and suck-up-to-them journalists) we so love to hate.
* Refudiate- This is a word Sarah Palin accidentally coined when she confused the real word "repudiate" with her own uneducated version, "refudiate". When caught in her mistake in saying the non word several times in a speech, Sarah said she meant to misuse the word because "English is a living language" and 'Shakespeare liked to coin new words too' Haha I don't think Shakespeare and Sarah are much of an intellectual.
* Anchor baby- These are babies born to illegal immigrants. Because the U.S. Constitution says that anyone born on U.SA. spoil is given automatic U.S. citizenship, during the past 40 years, 40 million illegal immigrants from the border of Mexico and the U.S. have poured in to stay for good, many intending to have a baby so they and their baby can never be deported. The chant for those wanting the illegal immigrant invasion stopped is often, "No more anchor babies".
* Man up- Female candidates for election in the U.S. said this to their male opponents to disarm them. It was a taunt for all sorts of male politicians who were, according to the female a opponent, weren't being forceful enough. One candidate Christine O'Donnell told her opponent, "This is not a bake off, get your man-pants on".
* Obamacare - the negative connotative name opponents of President Obama's health care plan gave to it to brand his with the mostly unpopular and unwanted socialist medical system passed by Congress at Obama's insistence.
* Inherited- Obama's constant explanation of why his policies have failed so consistently since taking office. "I inherited the mess from George Bush".
* Bailout- The term some politicians in congress use for the latest unpaid entitlement they pass for that segment who will most likely thank them for their freebie by voting for them next election.
*Stop playing political games- what politicians say about anyone who oppose them when they are about to lie to the voters. It's a defense by offense tactic that voters don't seem to understand.
* The change we can believe in- Originally this was a mantra by Obama and his supporters to appeal to voters to elect Obama. Now, after two years of failure and ineptitude, the Republicans say it derisively to point out to voters that the changes Obama promised while campaigning aren't at all the same changes they are currently seeing.
* We need more time to debate the bill- The Republican chant applied to anything the Democrats or President Obama wants. It actually means, "Let's delay and delay this Obama measure until we kill the bill completely".
* Non partisan- when Obama wants a terrible bill passed by Congress and needs Republican votes to do it, he calls for "non partisan" cooperation. But the reality is that this means he wants Republicans to agree with and vote for their programs.
*Stimulus Bill- A measure passed by Congress that is supposed to stimulated the economy and end the recession, but only stimulates a lot of politicians' pockets.
* Tea party- a completely disorganized grass roots political movement in opposition to the socialism of modern America and Obamaism that has upset the balance of power in the U.S. government.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Is It Really A Crime?
Can a wife can expect to have privacy with a computer she shares with her husband? That is, is it identity theft for a husband or wife to enter the other's mailbox and read his or her mail, even if in a despearte attempt to catch the other committing a wrong? Well, the head prosecutor in Michigan thinks it is. He has accepted felony charges against a man named Leon Walker after Leon did just that in an attempt to try to see if his wife was having an affair with another man.
Oh, my. Now Leon could go to jail (up to 5 years in this case) for spying in his soon to be ex wife's computer cheating. The Mrs. was so upset at getting caught cheating that she filed not only for divorce from Leon, but also asked that Leon be arrested and charged with hacking into another E mail. Leon says he was protecting his child from a cheating mom because mom was having a relationship with a registered wife beater who was a danger to Leon's son. Anyway, Leon has been arrested, charged and goes to trial soon.
I find the whole idea of a prosecutor trying to send a person to jail for the common "crime" of looking at a spouse's mail a bit extreme application of a law that is meant for more malicious instances of identity theft, stealing secrets for financial gain, slandering others etc.? Is listening in on a telephone conversation one's wife is having with a lover a crime too? What about the wife's adultery in this instance, which has been admitted by her? Is that prosecutable offense too? Technically that isalso illegal, but no charges have been filed against Mrs. Walker by that prosecutor for the "crime" of adultery.
This application is a perversion of the anti hacking law. Remember, Leon did nothing malicious after entering her mailbox. He checked to see if she was cheating, and when he found the evidence o confirm his suspicion he printed it to confront the parties who were cheating. Surely, it is wrong to spy on another person and to use their E mail boxes in do so. But making a crime for it is extreme.
To make every dispute between the husband and wife illegal would make a farce of any marriage. If for example, Mrs. Walker threw a rolling pin at Leon for coming in late at night, would that be a battery offense a prosecutor should charge Mrs. Walker with? Suppose Leon took $10 from his wife's wallet to pay the pizza delivery man for pizza ordered for their child? Is that a crime of theft to prosecute too? There are a plethora of similar "crimes" that married couples commit between each other. Haha Well, maybe that proves that marriage really is a crime, but prosecuting for it makes no sense.
The cuckolded husband should be excused for trying to protect his son. Unless a marriage contract specifies that one cannot read his wife's email, the husband is only ethically guilty of spying, not criminally guilty for doing it. Hmmm I suppose, like so many cheated spouses do, he should have hired a private investigator to check on Mrs. Walker because the law says that's not a crime. Strange!
But the whole idea that a district attorney would bring charges for something like this is....well, criminal.
Oh, my. Now Leon could go to jail (up to 5 years in this case) for spying in his soon to be ex wife's computer cheating. The Mrs. was so upset at getting caught cheating that she filed not only for divorce from Leon, but also asked that Leon be arrested and charged with hacking into another E mail. Leon says he was protecting his child from a cheating mom because mom was having a relationship with a registered wife beater who was a danger to Leon's son. Anyway, Leon has been arrested, charged and goes to trial soon.
I find the whole idea of a prosecutor trying to send a person to jail for the common "crime" of looking at a spouse's mail a bit extreme application of a law that is meant for more malicious instances of identity theft, stealing secrets for financial gain, slandering others etc.? Is listening in on a telephone conversation one's wife is having with a lover a crime too? What about the wife's adultery in this instance, which has been admitted by her? Is that prosecutable offense too? Technically that isalso illegal, but no charges have been filed against Mrs. Walker by that prosecutor for the "crime" of adultery.
This application is a perversion of the anti hacking law. Remember, Leon did nothing malicious after entering her mailbox. He checked to see if she was cheating, and when he found the evidence o confirm his suspicion he printed it to confront the parties who were cheating. Surely, it is wrong to spy on another person and to use their E mail boxes in do so. But making a crime for it is extreme.
To make every dispute between the husband and wife illegal would make a farce of any marriage. If for example, Mrs. Walker threw a rolling pin at Leon for coming in late at night, would that be a battery offense a prosecutor should charge Mrs. Walker with? Suppose Leon took $10 from his wife's wallet to pay the pizza delivery man for pizza ordered for their child? Is that a crime of theft to prosecute too? There are a plethora of similar "crimes" that married couples commit between each other. Haha Well, maybe that proves that marriage really is a crime, but prosecuting for it makes no sense.
The cuckolded husband should be excused for trying to protect his son. Unless a marriage contract specifies that one cannot read his wife's email, the husband is only ethically guilty of spying, not criminally guilty for doing it. Hmmm I suppose, like so many cheated spouses do, he should have hired a private investigator to check on Mrs. Walker because the law says that's not a crime. Strange!
But the whole idea that a district attorney would bring charges for something like this is....well, criminal.
Climate Science
I have a selection below from a scientist written in the Oregonian newspaper, about the never ending Global Warming/Climate Change propaganda we get so often today. The problem for those of us who don't accept the global warming postulates because there is no real evidence present beyond speculations and "must be's", is that we are inundated with Global Warming scare tactics on a daily basis. We are told continuously that the "debate is over", and that this is the warmest decade on record. This of course should be nonsense. But the power of the mediums to shape opinion today is great, even when it is done with opinion rather than fact.
In the piece below, Fulks updates the string of climate lies that get perpetuated continuously throughout the year and are getting more absurd and irrational by the day, and speculates (as global warmers do) as to the truth about what is driving this rush to judgment scam. The latest inanity I read was from Judah Cohen who is promoting the idea that warmer temperatures produce more cold and snow. His New York Times laden fantasy was printed there recently.
History is full of examples where junk science has been accepted as correct even after it has been proven such. In my view global warming is an example because it is not based on verifiable evidence The Scientific Method gets a new treatment every time global warmers present their facts. As a non scientist who does not have any more measure of truth than facts as a basis for belief, until I see evidence to the contrary, I will not accept the speculations, often wild and based on lies and manipulation of data. In my view being trendy (we how deny the global warming religion as said to be out of touch) isn't as important as waiting for evidence before accepting dogma.
Fact is there has been no proof ever offered to date that any recent warming was caused by human carbon emissions or carbon dioxide. That conclusion is the great leap of faith people in Global warming must make, the must be, has to be explanation basis). Co2 is not even the controlling greenhouse gas of the earth. It is radiatively inferior to water vapor and clouds. The global warmers claim that humans are causing a warming of the earth is like saying my spitting in the ocean is polluting it.
The selection below won't change your mind about your belief in global warming, but perhaps seeing SOMETHING besides the continued nonsense the mediums print and the public apes agreement to will at least let you know that there may be a hole, not in the ozone, but in the theories of the global warming advocates.
by, Gordon J. Fulks
From near record high to near record low temperatures, this November in the Pacific Northwest, from relatively warm ocean conditions and "dead zones" to relatively cold ocean conditions and fabulous salmon runs off our Pacific Coast, from an unusually cold winter to an unusually hot summer in Russia, from near record low Arctic sea ice to near record high Antarctic sea ice, our climate displays wide variability.But an army of psychologists, journalists, and even scientists make sure that the warm swings they deem alarming get the greatest attention.These propagandists know that the selling of global warming is all about perception, not reality.
If the data will not support their story line for another United Nations climate conference in Cancun, an army of data manipulators stand ready. They re-work averages to show continued warming during the last decade when honest assessments show flat or slightly declining temperatures.Some can be relied upon to say that 2010 was the warmest year "ever," when honest scientists say that the El Nino this year was very similar to 1998. Also, the recent warm period was not as warm as the previous Medieval Warm Period, something climate alarmists deny ever existed. The simple truth is that there is nothing unusual going on today, let alone anything related to human carbon dioxide emissions.
Climate variations are expected on a planet with vast oceans and atmosphere that are never in complete equilibrium. Climate variations are expected with a sun that varies slightly in total solar irradiance, varies more in X-ray and ultraviolet output, and varies substantially in magnetic irregularities which modulate galactic cosmic rays.Climate variations are also expected in a solar system with large planets like Jupiter that alter the earth's orbit and produce the huge climate changes called Ice Ages. But how is someone who never studied science going to figure out who is telling the truth?Science is not what I say, just because I have a good education and long experience. It is all about honesty, logic, and evidence.
The simplest solution is to look out the window. The British Met Office, the United Kingdom's national weather service, used its new $50 million super computer to predict a mild winter in Britain, 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than last year. So far, the reality is record breaking cold, heavy snow and paralyzing ice.But what if the New York Times, President Obama, the National Academy of Sciences, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Yale University say to be very worried? Perhaps you should question their expertise.
President Obama relies on scientists whom he funds to give him the answers he wants. The National Academy of Sciences is run to support government programs by an electrical engineer. He discovered that global warming is far more lucrative than electrical engineering.The UNIPCC is run by a railroad engineer who writes romance novels. Yale University promoters are really psychologists who want you to believe that they are climate experts when their real expertise is propaganda. News mediums rely on all the above.
The interlocking relationships are highly incestuous, with vast conflicts of interest and/or little scientific expertise. Among scientists, belief in global warming comes down to cold cash. Those who benefit most from government largesse -- an estimated $100 billion to date -- are typically true believers, while independent scientists easily spot the scam.
This creates a split based on age and experience. Young scientists like Juliane Fry of Reed College, are eager for fame, funding and tenure, all of which are more likely if they support global warming.Older scientists like Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the greatest meteorologist alive today, oppose climate hysteria. They built their fame on an approach now considered quaint: the scientific method.
Among global warming advocates there is occasional candor about their real goals. Christiana Figueres, the new executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, said of the U.N. climate efforts: "This is the greatest societal and economic transformation that the world has ever seen."Global warming is about politics, not legitimate science. Figueres calls herself a "global climate change analyst." Her formal education in climate science consists of Al Gore's training program to promote "An Inconvenient Truth."
That should worry everyone.
*Gordon J. Fulks, PhD can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.
In the piece below, Fulks updates the string of climate lies that get perpetuated continuously throughout the year and are getting more absurd and irrational by the day, and speculates (as global warmers do) as to the truth about what is driving this rush to judgment scam. The latest inanity I read was from Judah Cohen who is promoting the idea that warmer temperatures produce more cold and snow. His New York Times laden fantasy was printed there recently.
History is full of examples where junk science has been accepted as correct even after it has been proven such. In my view global warming is an example because it is not based on verifiable evidence The Scientific Method gets a new treatment every time global warmers present their facts. As a non scientist who does not have any more measure of truth than facts as a basis for belief, until I see evidence to the contrary, I will not accept the speculations, often wild and based on lies and manipulation of data. In my view being trendy (we how deny the global warming religion as said to be out of touch) isn't as important as waiting for evidence before accepting dogma.
Fact is there has been no proof ever offered to date that any recent warming was caused by human carbon emissions or carbon dioxide. That conclusion is the great leap of faith people in Global warming must make, the must be, has to be explanation basis). Co2 is not even the controlling greenhouse gas of the earth. It is radiatively inferior to water vapor and clouds. The global warmers claim that humans are causing a warming of the earth is like saying my spitting in the ocean is polluting it.
The selection below won't change your mind about your belief in global warming, but perhaps seeing SOMETHING besides the continued nonsense the mediums print and the public apes agreement to will at least let you know that there may be a hole, not in the ozone, but in the theories of the global warming advocates.
by, Gordon J. Fulks
From near record high to near record low temperatures, this November in the Pacific Northwest, from relatively warm ocean conditions and "dead zones" to relatively cold ocean conditions and fabulous salmon runs off our Pacific Coast, from an unusually cold winter to an unusually hot summer in Russia, from near record low Arctic sea ice to near record high Antarctic sea ice, our climate displays wide variability.But an army of psychologists, journalists, and even scientists make sure that the warm swings they deem alarming get the greatest attention.These propagandists know that the selling of global warming is all about perception, not reality.
If the data will not support their story line for another United Nations climate conference in Cancun, an army of data manipulators stand ready. They re-work averages to show continued warming during the last decade when honest assessments show flat or slightly declining temperatures.Some can be relied upon to say that 2010 was the warmest year "ever," when honest scientists say that the El Nino this year was very similar to 1998. Also, the recent warm period was not as warm as the previous Medieval Warm Period, something climate alarmists deny ever existed. The simple truth is that there is nothing unusual going on today, let alone anything related to human carbon dioxide emissions.
Climate variations are expected on a planet with vast oceans and atmosphere that are never in complete equilibrium. Climate variations are expected with a sun that varies slightly in total solar irradiance, varies more in X-ray and ultraviolet output, and varies substantially in magnetic irregularities which modulate galactic cosmic rays.Climate variations are also expected in a solar system with large planets like Jupiter that alter the earth's orbit and produce the huge climate changes called Ice Ages. But how is someone who never studied science going to figure out who is telling the truth?Science is not what I say, just because I have a good education and long experience. It is all about honesty, logic, and evidence.
The simplest solution is to look out the window. The British Met Office, the United Kingdom's national weather service, used its new $50 million super computer to predict a mild winter in Britain, 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than last year. So far, the reality is record breaking cold, heavy snow and paralyzing ice.But what if the New York Times, President Obama, the National Academy of Sciences, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Yale University say to be very worried? Perhaps you should question their expertise.
President Obama relies on scientists whom he funds to give him the answers he wants. The National Academy of Sciences is run to support government programs by an electrical engineer. He discovered that global warming is far more lucrative than electrical engineering.The UNIPCC is run by a railroad engineer who writes romance novels. Yale University promoters are really psychologists who want you to believe that they are climate experts when their real expertise is propaganda. News mediums rely on all the above.
The interlocking relationships are highly incestuous, with vast conflicts of interest and/or little scientific expertise. Among scientists, belief in global warming comes down to cold cash. Those who benefit most from government largesse -- an estimated $100 billion to date -- are typically true believers, while independent scientists easily spot the scam.
This creates a split based on age and experience. Young scientists like Juliane Fry of Reed College, are eager for fame, funding and tenure, all of which are more likely if they support global warming.Older scientists like Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the greatest meteorologist alive today, oppose climate hysteria. They built their fame on an approach now considered quaint: the scientific method.
Among global warming advocates there is occasional candor about their real goals. Christiana Figueres, the new executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, said of the U.N. climate efforts: "This is the greatest societal and economic transformation that the world has ever seen."Global warming is about politics, not legitimate science. Figueres calls herself a "global climate change analyst." Her formal education in climate science consists of Al Gore's training program to promote "An Inconvenient Truth."
That should worry everyone.
*Gordon J. Fulks, PhD can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.
RIP For Personal E mailing
Every year I notice more and more decline in personal E mail account usage. Now the question that I ask is whether personal E mail correspondence will only be a footnote within the next few years. Fact is, the youngest (and the future of computer usage) computer users much prefer online chatting, text messaging and phone tweets to old reliable E mail. Just like the old fashioned phone call from a land line home phone is dying, so is E mailing personal information.
As an oldie, like many others who came on line when there was no IM or chat alternative, I am clinging to E mail and still prefer it, probably for the opposite reason younger computer users like their own favored mode of communication. They want immediacy and I don't. The problem with E mail, according to those liking the faster methods of reaching another person, is that it involves time consuming signing into the mail box, typing in a subject heading and composing a literate paragraph or two.The young users like words, phrases, slang and want to get on with it immediately because they also want an immediate reply. They see time differently than the average person who prefers the slow, more thoughtful and more precisely written E mail. Too E mail users don't want to have communication immediately. They separate their E mail and personal lives far more than do the users who like instantaneous responses.
Now that social networking sites have chat areas and other more instant response attributes, the younger user feels no need to bother with E mail messages for normal social discourse. People can conduct the same activities on the social networks as they did before via email, IM, and other communication properties, but now they can do so more efficiently. This is more appealing to younger users who have grown up and are more comfortable with the newer modes.
A quirky irony to this movement away for personal communication by E mail is that you need an e-mail account as an id to sign in to face book or whatever other social media site you prefer more than E mailing. To, business hates the social networking sites for the very reason many like it- it's too open. An E mail account ensures a business more privacy and does not have an open or vulnerable platform that could reveal what the business does not want others to see.
So E mail may become an almost exclusive business province, while the faster alternatives to E mail are used for personal contacts. As the number of personal contacts I have through E mailing decreases each year I see that. It's a kind of downgrading of E mail to a segment market as opposed to universal usage. But then greater choice is a good thing. Others can tweet and chat and Im all they want. My first preference is still E mail.
As an oldie, like many others who came on line when there was no IM or chat alternative, I am clinging to E mail and still prefer it, probably for the opposite reason younger computer users like their own favored mode of communication. They want immediacy and I don't. The problem with E mail, according to those liking the faster methods of reaching another person, is that it involves time consuming signing into the mail box, typing in a subject heading and composing a literate paragraph or two.The young users like words, phrases, slang and want to get on with it immediately because they also want an immediate reply. They see time differently than the average person who prefers the slow, more thoughtful and more precisely written E mail. Too E mail users don't want to have communication immediately. They separate their E mail and personal lives far more than do the users who like instantaneous responses.
Now that social networking sites have chat areas and other more instant response attributes, the younger user feels no need to bother with E mail messages for normal social discourse. People can conduct the same activities on the social networks as they did before via email, IM, and other communication properties, but now they can do so more efficiently. This is more appealing to younger users who have grown up and are more comfortable with the newer modes.
A quirky irony to this movement away for personal communication by E mail is that you need an e-mail account as an id to sign in to face book or whatever other social media site you prefer more than E mailing. To, business hates the social networking sites for the very reason many like it- it's too open. An E mail account ensures a business more privacy and does not have an open or vulnerable platform that could reveal what the business does not want others to see.
So E mail may become an almost exclusive business province, while the faster alternatives to E mail are used for personal contacts. As the number of personal contacts I have through E mailing decreases each year I see that. It's a kind of downgrading of E mail to a segment market as opposed to universal usage. But then greater choice is a good thing. Others can tweet and chat and Im all they want. My first preference is still E mail.
A Woman's First Impression
True or false? It takes a woman just three minutes to make up her mind about whether she likes a man or not? According to a study of 3000 women, most women believe 180 seconds is long enough to decide whether or not a man could be Mr. Right, or Mr. Wrong. The instinct thing, I guess. Women do claim to have more instinctual ability than men and to act on instinct for most of their decisions. But three minutes to determine if the woman likes the man or doesn't?
This study also said that only infrequently do women change their impressions of the man that they perceived in that first brief meeting time. First impression becomes last impression in those incidences. Gee, I hope the man doesn't step on the lady's foot or spill his drink on her. According to this survey that would doom him to be perceived as a not right man.
The average female spends the time observing the man's looks, physique and dress style as well as his smell, accent and his eloquence. Women also quickly judge how he interacts with her friends and whether he is successful or ambitious. Of course all of those are subjective qualities that may be perceived differently by each lady. So what is the man to do? Should he douse himself in smelly cologne and hope it's a pleasing odor or buy the trendiest outfit to wear in case there is a first meeting with lady he likes?
Hmmm Most women believe 180 seconds is long enough to judge a male. Haha Then why does it take weeks for her to choose a dress or pair of shoes when in the mall? The study also found women rarely change their mind about a man after their initial reaction and that 88% of the women studied believe they are always right in their assumptions and judgments Then why do women always take back that blouse they purchased at the mall back for a refund?
Maybe this is why we men hear so often from women what lousy choices they make in choosing their boyfriends or husbands. They might do better throwing men into the mall shopping choice category, the logical way women a careful choose what they wish to buy and quickly return what was a "mistake purchase". Oh well, 180 seconds is probably about 175 longer than some men take to judge the woman they first meet. Those men just look, see big boobs and then declare the woman fit and ready for action....
This study also said that only infrequently do women change their impressions of the man that they perceived in that first brief meeting time. First impression becomes last impression in those incidences. Gee, I hope the man doesn't step on the lady's foot or spill his drink on her. According to this survey that would doom him to be perceived as a not right man.
The average female spends the time observing the man's looks, physique and dress style as well as his smell, accent and his eloquence. Women also quickly judge how he interacts with her friends and whether he is successful or ambitious. Of course all of those are subjective qualities that may be perceived differently by each lady. So what is the man to do? Should he douse himself in smelly cologne and hope it's a pleasing odor or buy the trendiest outfit to wear in case there is a first meeting with lady he likes?
Hmmm Most women believe 180 seconds is long enough to judge a male. Haha Then why does it take weeks for her to choose a dress or pair of shoes when in the mall? The study also found women rarely change their mind about a man after their initial reaction and that 88% of the women studied believe they are always right in their assumptions and judgments Then why do women always take back that blouse they purchased at the mall back for a refund?
Maybe this is why we men hear so often from women what lousy choices they make in choosing their boyfriends or husbands. They might do better throwing men into the mall shopping choice category, the logical way women a careful choose what they wish to buy and quickly return what was a "mistake purchase". Oh well, 180 seconds is probably about 175 longer than some men take to judge the woman they first meet. Those men just look, see big boobs and then declare the woman fit and ready for action....
The Ban Mode
They are banning grocery store plastic bags here in most cities in Oregon. The ban chant is the favorite of those who call themselves "environmentalists". Though they are most often well intentioned in their chanting for their causes (both good and bad), they are more and more just plain wrong and intolerant in their pursuit of them. The plastic grocery bag ban that is soon to go into effect here is a microcosm of the problem and why so many more Americans are having a hard time swallowing their alleged "science" and their strong arm tactics in implementing what they say is best for humans.
They have banned coal, phosphate detergent, Styrofoam and on and on. Now plastic grocery bags? Environmental organizations have as their real goal the imposition of their particular view of the world on everyone. The individual causes they champion are far less important to them than that, The problem is that their world is less of a factual and more emotional one. In the case of plastic grocery bags, they have said that these bags end up in the ocean, take too long to break down and are just all-round unhealthy for the environment. Their solution here has been to lobby government along with self interested paper companies funding their campaign in order to eliminate this choice entirely for consumers and retailers.
Yep! The big lumber mills here are bankrolling the anti plastic bag propaganda because those companies stand to make a whole lot more money if paper becomes the required bag in retail stores. What those environmental lobbyists don't say is that paper bags take much more energy to produce than a single plastic bag. This definitely conflicts with environmentalist goals of reducing energy use.
Comparing entire life cycles, one paper bag produces almost five times the atmospheric pollutants and 15 times the waterborne pollutants of a single plastic bag. Ironically, the major reason why plastic bags were developed was to improve the environment. And when used properly, it does. There is an irrefutable evidence that they do when they are recycled. That is the real environmental problem, not paper versus plastic. They are not being recycled as they should be. Might a wiser policy be to stop making those polluting paper bags and instead require that the lazy shopping public bring back plastic bags and place them into a bin for recycling on their next shopping trip.
I did that in New Orleans, and it's even easier to recycling plastic here....but the environmental paper lobby instead wants to pollute more with paper bags. Odd, huh? I guess the multi millions the environmental groups get in contributions here may have some influence on their siding with paper mils on this issues. Too, I wonder why the environmental crazies (Global Warmers included) never mention banning all the other plastic products made and consumed in U.S. They overlook the fact that grocery and other retail stores plastic bags are but a tiny component of that. Why don't the environmentalists call for a ban of all plastics everywhere? It's because even the confused public can't be hoodwinked into such a preposterous idea and if they were, the world economies would rapidly crash and burn.
The only problem with plastic is littering and the lack of effort by communities to enforce littering and recycling rules. Yet, plastic bags are demonized and the mostly trendy and uninformed public believes as much of the nonsense about plastic as they believe that humans control and are changing climate in the world. Maybe the environmental extremists should point the finger where it really belongs, at the misuse of plastic. But then, that won't garner them any money from the paper manufactures who finance their wacky programs.
They have banned coal, phosphate detergent, Styrofoam and on and on. Now plastic grocery bags? Environmental organizations have as their real goal the imposition of their particular view of the world on everyone. The individual causes they champion are far less important to them than that, The problem is that their world is less of a factual and more emotional one. In the case of plastic grocery bags, they have said that these bags end up in the ocean, take too long to break down and are just all-round unhealthy for the environment. Their solution here has been to lobby government along with self interested paper companies funding their campaign in order to eliminate this choice entirely for consumers and retailers.
Yep! The big lumber mills here are bankrolling the anti plastic bag propaganda because those companies stand to make a whole lot more money if paper becomes the required bag in retail stores. What those environmental lobbyists don't say is that paper bags take much more energy to produce than a single plastic bag. This definitely conflicts with environmentalist goals of reducing energy use.
Comparing entire life cycles, one paper bag produces almost five times the atmospheric pollutants and 15 times the waterborne pollutants of a single plastic bag. Ironically, the major reason why plastic bags were developed was to improve the environment. And when used properly, it does. There is an irrefutable evidence that they do when they are recycled. That is the real environmental problem, not paper versus plastic. They are not being recycled as they should be. Might a wiser policy be to stop making those polluting paper bags and instead require that the lazy shopping public bring back plastic bags and place them into a bin for recycling on their next shopping trip.
I did that in New Orleans, and it's even easier to recycling plastic here....but the environmental paper lobby instead wants to pollute more with paper bags. Odd, huh? I guess the multi millions the environmental groups get in contributions here may have some influence on their siding with paper mils on this issues. Too, I wonder why the environmental crazies (Global Warmers included) never mention banning all the other plastic products made and consumed in U.S. They overlook the fact that grocery and other retail stores plastic bags are but a tiny component of that. Why don't the environmentalists call for a ban of all plastics everywhere? It's because even the confused public can't be hoodwinked into such a preposterous idea and if they were, the world economies would rapidly crash and burn.
The only problem with plastic is littering and the lack of effort by communities to enforce littering and recycling rules. Yet, plastic bags are demonized and the mostly trendy and uninformed public believes as much of the nonsense about plastic as they believe that humans control and are changing climate in the world. Maybe the environmental extremists should point the finger where it really belongs, at the misuse of plastic. But then, that won't garner them any money from the paper manufactures who finance their wacky programs.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Peculiar Christmas Traditions
If you ask most people what is the most peculiar Christmas tradition they know, they''ll probably give you a soliloquy of Uncle Fred's Sweater with the picture of a big fat naked Santa, or Aunt Midlred's inedible cranberry surprise dessert that mom forced you to eat and smile afterward as you uttered "It Tastes as fresh as snow". (Mom said no gifts unless you gave a unique compliment every year. I think we do personalize weird Christmas because most of us have weird relatives in the family that show up at Christmas time. Hmmmmm I wonder if you and I are the weird ones in their eyes? Never mind....
I thought about this today on a broader scheme, as in what are the world's peculiar Christmas traditions? Not being an expert on weird (despite my seemingly obvious behavioral qualifications) I decided to research the subject and found that, yes, there is a lot of weirdness at Christmas in many different places on earth. So to make your holiday bright ( as the song says) here are some peculiar Christmas traditions to inspect and perhaps implement yourself this year.
*Kiviak- this one comes from a weird place, Greenland. Any place that calls itself Greenland but is in a constant state of freezing temperatures deserves to be first on the list. Kiviak is a bird that is wrapped in seal skin and buried under a rock in the frost several months before Christmas. The Christmas tradition is to dig up the kiviak, squeeze out the rotted guts, and then eat the auk. No, I'm not kidding. I would love to feed Kiviak to Aunt Mildred as revenge for the cranberry surprise.
* Kallikantzaroi- This one comes from Greece. A Kallikantzaroi (I bet you can't say that while you drink your egg nog!) are evil spirits that live deep inside the earth most of the year, but wreak havoc on Greek homes over the Christmas holiday. Sound kind of like a reality TV show cast don't they? But aside from that, the Greeks hang a pig jaw inside the chimney to keep them from coming down it.. I guess the pigs of Greece are the real victims of Kallikantzaroi.
* Church skating- they do this in Venezuela at Christmas....not skating inside the church as the priest says mass or skating to get away from church as I do if called to attend. In this peculiar traditions. The streets in Caracas are closed off in order to allow churchgoers to get there by roller-skate. I assume at the mass prayers are said for the injured and maimed skaters who didn't make it to the church.
* Lose a shoe, gain a man- If you're a woman you can do this simple Christmas Eve tradition from the Czech Republic. Just go outside in the daytime, stand with your back to your door, and toss one of your shoes over your shoulder. If it lands with the toe facing the door, it means you'll get married within the year. Rumor has it Angelina Jolie adapted this tradition to adopting babies. For Jolie, the shoe has fallen for adoption quite a few times. Anyway, trading your shoe for a man seems a losing proposition to me. In most cases a shoe is infinitely better than the man inside it.
* El Caganer. This is a Catalonian tradition that translates to mean “the great defecator”. Yep, it's a statue of a little man pooing, pants down and all, that is supposed to be a monk or peasant. He is placed a little bit away from the rest of the figures in your nativity scene and when you see El Caganer and his load underneath his naked butt it allegedly means the year will yield a good harvest for the region's farmers. I bet Lindsay Lohan has done a few El Caganer imitations both in season and out.
* Guess Who's Coming to dinner- This one is Portuguese, It says that on Christmas Day you set extra places at your dinner table for the souls of the dead. Offer them food and they will bring you luck throughout the year. This free meal concept has been taken to new heights here by Barack Obama. If you drop by the White House for Christmas dinner (and you promise to vote for him and donate campaign contributions) I am sure you'll get a free meal and and get many more unfunded entitlements this Christmas. No rush though. Barack has been and will pass out freebies all year long.
Not that's' really peculiar...
I thought about this today on a broader scheme, as in what are the world's peculiar Christmas traditions? Not being an expert on weird (despite my seemingly obvious behavioral qualifications) I decided to research the subject and found that, yes, there is a lot of weirdness at Christmas in many different places on earth. So to make your holiday bright ( as the song says) here are some peculiar Christmas traditions to inspect and perhaps implement yourself this year.
*Kiviak- this one comes from a weird place, Greenland. Any place that calls itself Greenland but is in a constant state of freezing temperatures deserves to be first on the list. Kiviak is a bird that is wrapped in seal skin and buried under a rock in the frost several months before Christmas. The Christmas tradition is to dig up the kiviak, squeeze out the rotted guts, and then eat the auk. No, I'm not kidding. I would love to feed Kiviak to Aunt Mildred as revenge for the cranberry surprise.
* Kallikantzaroi- This one comes from Greece. A Kallikantzaroi (I bet you can't say that while you drink your egg nog!) are evil spirits that live deep inside the earth most of the year, but wreak havoc on Greek homes over the Christmas holiday. Sound kind of like a reality TV show cast don't they? But aside from that, the Greeks hang a pig jaw inside the chimney to keep them from coming down it.. I guess the pigs of Greece are the real victims of Kallikantzaroi.
* Church skating- they do this in Venezuela at Christmas....not skating inside the church as the priest says mass or skating to get away from church as I do if called to attend. In this peculiar traditions. The streets in Caracas are closed off in order to allow churchgoers to get there by roller-skate. I assume at the mass prayers are said for the injured and maimed skaters who didn't make it to the church.
* Lose a shoe, gain a man- If you're a woman you can do this simple Christmas Eve tradition from the Czech Republic. Just go outside in the daytime, stand with your back to your door, and toss one of your shoes over your shoulder. If it lands with the toe facing the door, it means you'll get married within the year. Rumor has it Angelina Jolie adapted this tradition to adopting babies. For Jolie, the shoe has fallen for adoption quite a few times. Anyway, trading your shoe for a man seems a losing proposition to me. In most cases a shoe is infinitely better than the man inside it.
* El Caganer. This is a Catalonian tradition that translates to mean “the great defecator”. Yep, it's a statue of a little man pooing, pants down and all, that is supposed to be a monk or peasant. He is placed a little bit away from the rest of the figures in your nativity scene and when you see El Caganer and his load underneath his naked butt it allegedly means the year will yield a good harvest for the region's farmers. I bet Lindsay Lohan has done a few El Caganer imitations both in season and out.
* Guess Who's Coming to dinner- This one is Portuguese, It says that on Christmas Day you set extra places at your dinner table for the souls of the dead. Offer them food and they will bring you luck throughout the year. This free meal concept has been taken to new heights here by Barack Obama. If you drop by the White House for Christmas dinner (and you promise to vote for him and donate campaign contributions) I am sure you'll get a free meal and and get many more unfunded entitlements this Christmas. No rush though. Barack has been and will pass out freebies all year long.
Not that's' really peculiar...
Guess Who Got Laid Off This Holiday Season?
Guess who is finding it hard to work this year during the recession. It's Santa Clause, and all his clones. For freelance Santas, this holiday season has been more "no, no, no," than "ho, ho, ho." Bookings have declined dramatically and pay for the traditional Santa at an office or house party is down by 50% or more. Yep! Some Santa's are being laid off this Christmas. This year has been a bust and Santa's sleigh is being grounded all over the U.S. Even at shopping malls parents are telling the mall Santa they just can't afford a photo with Santa, and that promising big gifts for their little ones is not a good idea. No wonder Santa is unemployed. Mom and dad haven't the money to spend that they had last year.
Nicholas Trolli is the name of the "real" Santa who is the president of the Amalgamated Order of Real Bearded Santas. That group of more realistic looking Santa Clauses has 1,700-members, and they report their wages from personal appearance fees average only about $100 as opposed to the $200 or more per event price they have been getting in recent years. If the "The Nation's Premier Fraternity of A-List Santas," as that group is called, can't get work at normal pay, then who could? Santa Trolli says that the Santa's all around the nation in good years, booked 40 events a season but are down to fewer than 10 o average now. A few who once booked 10 events a year are down to none.
So Santa is stressed out for money this year. Hmmmm It could be a coincidence...but did you hear about the Santa in Rhode Island? Police In Rhode Island say a man dressed as Santa Claus (or perhaps the real one) has robbed a Rhode Island yacht club. The police say that a bartender was alone in the East Providence Yacht Club Sunday night when a large man wearing a red suit, red hat, white beard and carrying a sack walked into the bar and brandished a gun. Could it be? The bartender fled and ran to a nearby business where she called 911, and as of now Santa is still on the loose. I wonder why? It shouldn't be hard to ID that guy, especially when he wears that ridiculous red outfit.
I think that the recession must be worse than we thought. Because when Santa Clause starts robbing at gunpoint (it's not a toy cap pistol) I'm not trusting anyone, not even that carrot stealing Easter Bunny.
Nicholas Trolli is the name of the "real" Santa who is the president of the Amalgamated Order of Real Bearded Santas. That group of more realistic looking Santa Clauses has 1,700-members, and they report their wages from personal appearance fees average only about $100 as opposed to the $200 or more per event price they have been getting in recent years. If the "The Nation's Premier Fraternity of A-List Santas," as that group is called, can't get work at normal pay, then who could? Santa Trolli says that the Santa's all around the nation in good years, booked 40 events a season but are down to fewer than 10 o average now. A few who once booked 10 events a year are down to none.
So Santa is stressed out for money this year. Hmmmm It could be a coincidence...but did you hear about the Santa in Rhode Island? Police In Rhode Island say a man dressed as Santa Claus (or perhaps the real one) has robbed a Rhode Island yacht club. The police say that a bartender was alone in the East Providence Yacht Club Sunday night when a large man wearing a red suit, red hat, white beard and carrying a sack walked into the bar and brandished a gun. Could it be? The bartender fled and ran to a nearby business where she called 911, and as of now Santa is still on the loose. I wonder why? It shouldn't be hard to ID that guy, especially when he wears that ridiculous red outfit.
I think that the recession must be worse than we thought. Because when Santa Clause starts robbing at gunpoint (it's not a toy cap pistol) I'm not trusting anyone, not even that carrot stealing Easter Bunny.
Superior Auto Biographical Memory
I watched an interesting segment of '60 Minutes', the TV news magazine show that is on for an hour each Sunday. It looked at a rare condition called "superior auto biographical memory". With this the person can remember each day of your life as if it happened yesterday. They never forget their routine day, including what the wore, what they did, their feelings each day etc. Just as we can easily recite the events of yesterday, they can do the same for any day of their lives with equal imagery.
The person doesn't try to remember every day of his or her life lives. It just happens that way. But they also remember the bad things in their live too. Family members who died and everything most people don't care to remember are a s vibrant as the good memories. In their case, memory can't be quashed or selected. They remember, for example, a Tuesday in April of 1990 just as clearly as you and I remember yesterday.There were five of the auto bio memory subjects shown in the profile 60 minutes did and none was a savant, had any affliction or showed any difference in behavior to any non auto bio except for a more "ordered or ritual" way of thinking (they have neat closets, want everything in a place etc....but not in a pathological way).
A human behaviorist scientist was interviewed about this condition and related that when brain scans of these people are done they show enlargement in two areas of the brain that are associated with memory. Other than that, their brain scans are identical to any others. Speculation is as to whether they were born with those enlarged brain areas that made them capable of such memory or whether those brain areas became enlarged only after using that memory skill over time.
Replaying your life over and over again isn't the best thing to have. Thinking about your mother or father dying and having that day in your head for the rest of your life is not desirable. Yet all of the subjects say they are glad they have the ability. I wonder whether if science can break through and find what causes this could also assist in learning how to cure Alzheimer's and other diseases of the mind. Haha Just think! You would never be able to forget my comments here...
The person doesn't try to remember every day of his or her life lives. It just happens that way. But they also remember the bad things in their live too. Family members who died and everything most people don't care to remember are a s vibrant as the good memories. In their case, memory can't be quashed or selected. They remember, for example, a Tuesday in April of 1990 just as clearly as you and I remember yesterday.There were five of the auto bio memory subjects shown in the profile 60 minutes did and none was a savant, had any affliction or showed any difference in behavior to any non auto bio except for a more "ordered or ritual" way of thinking (they have neat closets, want everything in a place etc....but not in a pathological way).
A human behaviorist scientist was interviewed about this condition and related that when brain scans of these people are done they show enlargement in two areas of the brain that are associated with memory. Other than that, their brain scans are identical to any others. Speculation is as to whether they were born with those enlarged brain areas that made them capable of such memory or whether those brain areas became enlarged only after using that memory skill over time.
Replaying your life over and over again isn't the best thing to have. Thinking about your mother or father dying and having that day in your head for the rest of your life is not desirable. Yet all of the subjects say they are glad they have the ability. I wonder whether if science can break through and find what causes this could also assist in learning how to cure Alzheimer's and other diseases of the mind. Haha Just think! You would never be able to forget my comments here...
Monday, December 20, 2010
Greedy TV Ads
Tis the season to be greedy..fa la la la la la la... Well, at least it is if you watch TV ads selling Christmas gifts. The "gotta have to be a part of Christmas" mentality is raging as fast as Santa's sleigh with pitch after pitch for gifts they say we have to buy or be labeled as Scrooge. In particular, advertisers see children as consumers who can persuade you to buy their products. So they target kids, but the adult targets are just as overt. I saw one TV ad the other day for a diet loss clinic that practically claimed that a husband would cheat on the woman who didn't lose "that ugly fat".
Adults tend to be aware of Christmas ads that target their kids and screen them (though the kiddies out there are no doubt learning a little greed in watching the ads shown during their kid friendly programs). But the problem, is more about adult ads that are designed to make the viewer feel inadequate or cheap if not buying the gift as a present.
The two worst offenders are, for women, jewelry sales and for men, the ultimate male aphrodisiac- the automobile. In one commercial I have seen more than I want, music plays softly as a man hands a lady an expensive diamond and the women reacts beamingly smiling with in an orgasmic (picture me seeing Jennifer Lopez, "oh, God!".
Yep she implores the father of the guy we celebrate the Christmas holiday for as thanks to have that diamond rock. Of course, this implies that any man who does not give diamonds is both cheap and abusive to his lady, but also not in touch with God.There are many other jewelry ads just as over the top, but the most ridiculous avaricious ad is the one that is for we men. In it, we see a rather opulent looking estate and a huge gift box the size of...you guessed it...an expensive new car. The man's lady leads him outside and the gift box somehow pulls away to reveal a new expensive Lexus. (Haha I guess the woman used the guy's bank account to pay for it. What a surprise when he gets the bill for it). the man beams lovingly and kisses the woman in thanks that she must love him because only a person who gives a Lexus could love him.
You get the idea. TV ads are rife with messages that greed, particularly within holiday themed TV shows. Christmas has become generally secular in America and that's ok, but it almost implies we are what we give, and if what we give isn't expensive and garish we just don't have the holiday spirit or love in out hearts. New and silly things are pushed on people at this time of year. Haha Remember the "snuggie"?
I believe that one was first marketed for Christmas. But I suppose most of those greed centered ads are as harmless as a snuggie, since few would be motivated to spend $50,000 on a car or $10,000 on a ring unless they already had that intention (and have the money) before seeing those ads. But if it were up to me, I would see that Santa brought a snuggie and a chia pet to anyone who aired those commercials.
Bah Humbug to them!
Adults tend to be aware of Christmas ads that target their kids and screen them (though the kiddies out there are no doubt learning a little greed in watching the ads shown during their kid friendly programs). But the problem, is more about adult ads that are designed to make the viewer feel inadequate or cheap if not buying the gift as a present.
The two worst offenders are, for women, jewelry sales and for men, the ultimate male aphrodisiac- the automobile. In one commercial I have seen more than I want, music plays softly as a man hands a lady an expensive diamond and the women reacts beamingly smiling with in an orgasmic (picture me seeing Jennifer Lopez, "oh, God!".
Yep she implores the father of the guy we celebrate the Christmas holiday for as thanks to have that diamond rock. Of course, this implies that any man who does not give diamonds is both cheap and abusive to his lady, but also not in touch with God.There are many other jewelry ads just as over the top, but the most ridiculous avaricious ad is the one that is for we men. In it, we see a rather opulent looking estate and a huge gift box the size of...you guessed it...an expensive new car. The man's lady leads him outside and the gift box somehow pulls away to reveal a new expensive Lexus. (Haha I guess the woman used the guy's bank account to pay for it. What a surprise when he gets the bill for it). the man beams lovingly and kisses the woman in thanks that she must love him because only a person who gives a Lexus could love him.
You get the idea. TV ads are rife with messages that greed, particularly within holiday themed TV shows. Christmas has become generally secular in America and that's ok, but it almost implies we are what we give, and if what we give isn't expensive and garish we just don't have the holiday spirit or love in out hearts. New and silly things are pushed on people at this time of year. Haha Remember the "snuggie"?
I believe that one was first marketed for Christmas. But I suppose most of those greed centered ads are as harmless as a snuggie, since few would be motivated to spend $50,000 on a car or $10,000 on a ring unless they already had that intention (and have the money) before seeing those ads. But if it were up to me, I would see that Santa brought a snuggie and a chia pet to anyone who aired those commercials.
Bah Humbug to them!
Year End Thoughts
Another year is about to end and I always get reflective at this time during December. I am not a resolution person because I don't think planning one's life is a very useful strategy. Most of what we are and what happens to us is accidental. Why try to plan or make resolutions with that hanging over our heads. So, I have no new year resolutions, or resolutions of any kind. What I have for you is a reflection or two about some of the simple, but usually unnoticed, changes in the life of an "older person".
In this era of fast changes, immediate technological absorption, and in an age in which tradition is almost disdained and ridiculed, it's no wonder that many changes in our lives go un recognized. More, we lose our remembrance of the little things in our lives, now gone, but somehow forgotten in the face of the mass of new things to which we must adapt. OPS! What ever hapened to....sometimes comes to us, and then is quicly forgotten once more., because we are overwhelemed in keeping up with the new.
For example, when I walk outside I see things I never dreamed of just a few years ago but I don't see things I once saw but thought would never be lost. When I shop it's at a big chain grocery store that has all the same things, mostly of little quality, not the corner grocery stores that made many of their own products and serviced the customer's individual wants. A gorcery t sore or bakery isnlt apart of us anymore. It is just aplace to buy something. Now I have to go to a "hair saloon" to get a haircut and pay three times as much as when I used to go to a barbershop. We are losing barber shops every day.
The people I see when I out in public are dressed like tramps, in T-shirts things and what people 30 years ago would call 'inappropriate" clothes. It shout, "me, me, me...my comfort is more important than is dressing respectfully." The days of men in suits and well dressed ladies casually walking down the street are long gone. We no longer dres for everyone's appeal. instead we clothe ourseleves wiht only comfort in mind.
When I take that trip outside now I expect other drivers to give me the finger, to barge their way in my traffic lane and to act rudely, behavior the age of rudeness in which we now live seems to expect. But I still remember courteous drivers, drivers who weren't always in a rush and who never forgot ettiquette as a result. If you are handicapped or old and weak and get on a bus today be prepared to stand when there are no seats. Today it is "the right' of the seat holder to keep his or her seat regardless as to whether another is more in need of it. Offering a seat, holding open a door for a person....these are rare now because today individual rights precede common sense and common courtesy.
When I go out today I expect to hear blaring music, ringing or loud chatter on cell phones, people walking in a daze listening to their electronic devices and ignoring strangers as if the world belongs only to they and their electronics. But I remember when walking the street or being in a public venue meant getting a smile from others, a hello nod, or even an impromptu friendly conversation. People were connected to other people then. Now they are connected to their electronics.
When I take that walk or drive out into the public morass today I don't see the humanity as much as before, and I miss that. Do you?
In this era of fast changes, immediate technological absorption, and in an age in which tradition is almost disdained and ridiculed, it's no wonder that many changes in our lives go un recognized. More, we lose our remembrance of the little things in our lives, now gone, but somehow forgotten in the face of the mass of new things to which we must adapt. OPS! What ever hapened to....sometimes comes to us, and then is quicly forgotten once more., because we are overwhelemed in keeping up with the new.
For example, when I walk outside I see things I never dreamed of just a few years ago but I don't see things I once saw but thought would never be lost. When I shop it's at a big chain grocery store that has all the same things, mostly of little quality, not the corner grocery stores that made many of their own products and serviced the customer's individual wants. A gorcery t sore or bakery isnlt apart of us anymore. It is just aplace to buy something. Now I have to go to a "hair saloon" to get a haircut and pay three times as much as when I used to go to a barbershop. We are losing barber shops every day.
The people I see when I out in public are dressed like tramps, in T-shirts things and what people 30 years ago would call 'inappropriate" clothes. It shout, "me, me, me...my comfort is more important than is dressing respectfully." The days of men in suits and well dressed ladies casually walking down the street are long gone. We no longer dres for everyone's appeal. instead we clothe ourseleves wiht only comfort in mind.
When I take that trip outside now I expect other drivers to give me the finger, to barge their way in my traffic lane and to act rudely, behavior the age of rudeness in which we now live seems to expect. But I still remember courteous drivers, drivers who weren't always in a rush and who never forgot ettiquette as a result. If you are handicapped or old and weak and get on a bus today be prepared to stand when there are no seats. Today it is "the right' of the seat holder to keep his or her seat regardless as to whether another is more in need of it. Offering a seat, holding open a door for a person....these are rare now because today individual rights precede common sense and common courtesy.
When I go out today I expect to hear blaring music, ringing or loud chatter on cell phones, people walking in a daze listening to their electronic devices and ignoring strangers as if the world belongs only to they and their electronics. But I remember when walking the street or being in a public venue meant getting a smile from others, a hello nod, or even an impromptu friendly conversation. People were connected to other people then. Now they are connected to their electronics.
When I take that walk or drive out into the public morass today I don't see the humanity as much as before, and I miss that. Do you?
Most Annoying Christmas Tunes
First let me say that I love almost all of the Christmas music I hear from Thanksgiving day until New Year's day. It's played in stores, at malls, on the radio. on Tv and I even have quite a few Christmas tunes in a folder on my computer that I play during the Christmas season. But some Christmas music can be annoyingly bad. What is the most annoying Christmas song of all time? Haha The Bulgarians may have given us the answer this week.
A Bulgarian web site (in fact, those Bulgarians are really crazy about English language Christmas tunes) did a poll for the most annoying Christmas song and 28,110 voters gave the answer It is the 1984 'Wham' tune "Last Christmas". I hate that one too! I think more because it is played on Christmas music radio stations incessantly, but it does become irritating quickly. Doesn't every song that is played too much become a hated one? That old British pop group edged out Mariah Carey's for the top spot on this year's poll by www.nohohoho.org. Mariah's "All I want For Christmas' is so annoying dogs howl when Mariah does the usual falsetto cry about the missing one she needs for Christmas.
I think the Bulgarians and I are alike minded because Marah's tune is number two on my list. But then anything she sings is an audio version of chalk scraping a school blackboard...Ugh! Why can't she sing something without the crying falsetto? I have been thinking about the Christmas music that I find most annoying. here is my list, and the order could change rapidly depending on whether I am subjected to hearing any of them any time soon.
1) 'The Little Drummer Boy'- (It doesn't matter who sings it), because I will hate it most of all. If a choir sings this, I am out the door before the little brat rump pa pus or whatever they are prattle about.. If I see that drumming twit I'll shove those drum sticks where it won't be merry! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1NYT768yls&feature=related
2) 'All I Want For Christmas'- (by Mariah Carey) I have the feeling that even if we give Mariah what she wants for Christmas, she will not shut up.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXQViqx6GMY&feature=related
3) 'Ave Maria' (by any of those fat male opera singers). No opera singer should be allowed to sing any Christmas song. It's equivalent to me wearing spandex. The fit will never be right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPvAQxZsgpQ
4) 'The Christmas Song'- (by the Chipmunks) What could be more endearing than a bunch of cartoon rodents wailing a Christmas song? I can think of a million other things. The Chipmonks, with "Alvin' were huge when they began in the late 50's, but though their creator has died they keep in chipping that stupid song. After hearing that one I begin to agree with Scrooge. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dnrosVyamY
5) 'Macarena Christmas'- (by Los del Rio) The original Macarena song was bad enough. But 'A Macarena Christmas' song is worse than getting coal in your stockings this Christmas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgw549Vy0U
6) 'Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer'- (by 'Elmo')- I think grandma was murdered. but I also think someone should strangle the Elmo guy for giving us this song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTHxMjVivg
7) 'Do They Know It's Christmas'- (by 'Band Aid') Remember the 1989 Band Aid "feed the children" campaign. This was the theme song. I think the kids were probably suffering from an upset stomach and could not after heard this schmaltz. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rnaDOGmQO0
8) 'I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus'- (originally by Jimmy Boyd but the worst rendition is by Michael Jackson). Another of the 50's novelty songs (the 50's were a bountiful era for new Christmas music, both good and bad) in which an obnoxious kid sings badly after seeing Santa smooching with mom..sort of tune displaying infantile voyeurism, holiday adultery and lifelong trauma. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TSbNJEeoVA
9) 'Jingle Bells'- (by the barking Dogs). Even though I used to like the Jingle Bells tune, the Barking Dogs have now ruined it for me. Every time I hear it I wonder if those barking dogs had their mouths on my Christmas cookies. Dogs (and Mariah Carey) should bark, not sing Christmas songs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xam01uaj6Vg
10) 'Santa Claus Go Straight to the Ghetto" (by James Brown). The greatest soul singer of all, James Brown, tells Santa to go straight to the ghetto with those presents. What? In that red suit? They would mug him 10 seconds after he got there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryKRcVqsph8
There we have my worst ten. I dare you to listen to them all and still be able to hold down your eggnog.
A Bulgarian web site (in fact, those Bulgarians are really crazy about English language Christmas tunes) did a poll for the most annoying Christmas song and 28,110 voters gave the answer It is the 1984 'Wham' tune "Last Christmas". I hate that one too! I think more because it is played on Christmas music radio stations incessantly, but it does become irritating quickly. Doesn't every song that is played too much become a hated one? That old British pop group edged out Mariah Carey's for the top spot on this year's poll by www.nohohoho.org. Mariah's "All I want For Christmas' is so annoying dogs howl when Mariah does the usual falsetto cry about the missing one she needs for Christmas.
I think the Bulgarians and I are alike minded because Marah's tune is number two on my list. But then anything she sings is an audio version of chalk scraping a school blackboard...Ugh! Why can't she sing something without the crying falsetto? I have been thinking about the Christmas music that I find most annoying. here is my list, and the order could change rapidly depending on whether I am subjected to hearing any of them any time soon.
1) 'The Little Drummer Boy'- (It doesn't matter who sings it), because I will hate it most of all. If a choir sings this, I am out the door before the little brat rump pa pus or whatever they are prattle about.. If I see that drumming twit I'll shove those drum sticks where it won't be merry! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1NYT768yls&feature=related
2) 'All I Want For Christmas'- (by Mariah Carey) I have the feeling that even if we give Mariah what she wants for Christmas, she will not shut up.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXQViqx6GMY&feature=related
3) 'Ave Maria' (by any of those fat male opera singers). No opera singer should be allowed to sing any Christmas song. It's equivalent to me wearing spandex. The fit will never be right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPvAQxZsgpQ
4) 'The Christmas Song'- (by the Chipmunks) What could be more endearing than a bunch of cartoon rodents wailing a Christmas song? I can think of a million other things. The Chipmonks, with "Alvin' were huge when they began in the late 50's, but though their creator has died they keep in chipping that stupid song. After hearing that one I begin to agree with Scrooge. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dnrosVyamY
5) 'Macarena Christmas'- (by Los del Rio) The original Macarena song was bad enough. But 'A Macarena Christmas' song is worse than getting coal in your stockings this Christmas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNgw549Vy0U
6) 'Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer'- (by 'Elmo')- I think grandma was murdered. but I also think someone should strangle the Elmo guy for giving us this song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTHxMjVivg
7) 'Do They Know It's Christmas'- (by 'Band Aid') Remember the 1989 Band Aid "feed the children" campaign. This was the theme song. I think the kids were probably suffering from an upset stomach and could not after heard this schmaltz. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rnaDOGmQO0
8) 'I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus'- (originally by Jimmy Boyd but the worst rendition is by Michael Jackson). Another of the 50's novelty songs (the 50's were a bountiful era for new Christmas music, both good and bad) in which an obnoxious kid sings badly after seeing Santa smooching with mom..sort of tune displaying infantile voyeurism, holiday adultery and lifelong trauma. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TSbNJEeoVA
9) 'Jingle Bells'- (by the barking Dogs). Even though I used to like the Jingle Bells tune, the Barking Dogs have now ruined it for me. Every time I hear it I wonder if those barking dogs had their mouths on my Christmas cookies. Dogs (and Mariah Carey) should bark, not sing Christmas songs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xam01uaj6Vg
10) 'Santa Claus Go Straight to the Ghetto" (by James Brown). The greatest soul singer of all, James Brown, tells Santa to go straight to the ghetto with those presents. What? In that red suit? They would mug him 10 seconds after he got there. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryKRcVqsph8
There we have my worst ten. I dare you to listen to them all and still be able to hold down your eggnog.
Wilkepedia Where?
Can you believe it? Cuba, that last bastion of old line communism, that prison of an island that has tried to kill internet connections at every turn, is now in the Wilkipedia business. Yep! Their is a Cuban version of Wilkipedia that is up and running with nearly 20,000 entries posted at ecured.cu The site says the aim is "to spread knowledge without a profit motive". Uh, or perhaps the intent is to spread false propaganda and keep the natives from reading the truth about Cuba and it's thugs that are in charge.
I assume you know that the "other" Wilkipedia is the world's biggest free-content encyclopedia. For all it's faults of misinformation that is occasionally deviously posted, Wilipedia is a quick source of information about less than earth shattering subjects. But the Cuban version will have all entries approved by "administrators approval", so Cubans will need good luck trying to post anything there that challenges the dictatorship's viewpoint.
According to The Cuban Wilkipedia site, it was developed "to create and disseminate the knowledge of all and for all, from Cuba and with the world". "Its philosophy is the accumulation and development of knowledge, with a democratizing, not profitable, objective, from a decolonizer point of view." The word "decolonizing" is of course a slap at the United States, which I think is what the Cuban Wilkipedia is about.
It's another propaganda barrage, aimed not to convince the United States citizens that it is a horrible despotic place, but rather to tell the uninformed Cuban population that so they won't dream of more than the bare bones lifestyle the thugs have given them..In one segment of the entry on the United States, for example, describes it as the "empire of our time, which has historically taken by force territory and natural resources from other nations, to put at the service of its businesses and monopolies". "It consumes 25% of the energy produced on the planet and in spite of its wealth, more than a third of its population does not have assured medical attention," Makes you want to run to Cuba , doesn't it?
The fact that nearly every dictatorship, big and small, has it's own Wilkipedia has watered the Wilkipedia concept down eve more. First there were the false entries posted on Wilkipedia, which was followed by revisions to pages made by editors in the name of eliminating false information. Now we have a dictator's personal encyclopedia for all his or her enslaved subjects to learn all the news the dictator feels is fit to print.
But isn't that the way the internet should work? To be a truly free platform it must be subject to the rhetoric of the Cuba's of the world.
I assume you know that the "other" Wilkipedia is the world's biggest free-content encyclopedia. For all it's faults of misinformation that is occasionally deviously posted, Wilipedia is a quick source of information about less than earth shattering subjects. But the Cuban version will have all entries approved by "administrators approval", so Cubans will need good luck trying to post anything there that challenges the dictatorship's viewpoint.
According to The Cuban Wilkipedia site, it was developed "to create and disseminate the knowledge of all and for all, from Cuba and with the world". "Its philosophy is the accumulation and development of knowledge, with a democratizing, not profitable, objective, from a decolonizer point of view." The word "decolonizing" is of course a slap at the United States, which I think is what the Cuban Wilkipedia is about.
It's another propaganda barrage, aimed not to convince the United States citizens that it is a horrible despotic place, but rather to tell the uninformed Cuban population that so they won't dream of more than the bare bones lifestyle the thugs have given them..In one segment of the entry on the United States, for example, describes it as the "empire of our time, which has historically taken by force territory and natural resources from other nations, to put at the service of its businesses and monopolies". "It consumes 25% of the energy produced on the planet and in spite of its wealth, more than a third of its population does not have assured medical attention," Makes you want to run to Cuba , doesn't it?
The fact that nearly every dictatorship, big and small, has it's own Wilkipedia has watered the Wilkipedia concept down eve more. First there were the false entries posted on Wilkipedia, which was followed by revisions to pages made by editors in the name of eliminating false information. Now we have a dictator's personal encyclopedia for all his or her enslaved subjects to learn all the news the dictator feels is fit to print.
But isn't that the way the internet should work? To be a truly free platform it must be subject to the rhetoric of the Cuba's of the world.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Those Gift Cards
What is the most given but least appreciated Christmas gift? No it isn't a fruitcake or an electric mixer for a woman. It's the gift card! Consumer reports magazine has just reported that 62% of all gift givers will give a gift card as a present this year. The problem is, only 13% of the recipients said a gift card was among the most wanted gifts. Hmmm It might be because when you give a gift card (and I like to give them) it says "I didn't know what you liked or what to get you, so I took the easy way out and am giving you a gift card for use at a store you might not like to buy something you probably won't use."
Still, those gift cards are easy to regift and..oh never mind that. The news about them this years is that merchants are trying everything to make them more attractive gifts. The profit margin on gift cards that are misplaced or never used is enormous, so every retailer wants in on the racket. And , when you buy a gift card the retailer gets your money interest free until the recipient redeems it for merchandise. I did a little research on new gift card gimmicks that stores hope will make you buy one to give aa gift. here are a few.
* If you buy an American Eagle Outfitters gift card you can send it in a text message...kind of the ultimate in impersonal gifts, I think.
* Home Depot's gift card lets you hold it in front of a web cam and see products that you might like to use the card on.
* When Wal Mart cards are scratched they smell like gingerbread (which Wal mart sells, too)
* Amazon.com's gift card can be sent as a Face book posting (well it beats getting one of those farm animal application requests)
* Wildcard lets the gift card giver send them through a phone application. (yet another way cell phones can intrude on our lives).
Last year, by the end of October, 25% of all people surveyed about their gift cards, still had not redeemed them for merchandise. Consumer reports says that it translated into consumers losing almost 5 billion dollars. And because of that, new gift card trading/sale sites a have sprouted up where you can sell that unwanted gift card for, on average, 70% of the card value. "Plastic Jungle" is the biggest one if you care to have a look at it).
Anyway, any gift cards you get and don't want you can give to me. I won't complain.
Still, those gift cards are easy to regift and..oh never mind that. The news about them this years is that merchants are trying everything to make them more attractive gifts. The profit margin on gift cards that are misplaced or never used is enormous, so every retailer wants in on the racket. And , when you buy a gift card the retailer gets your money interest free until the recipient redeems it for merchandise. I did a little research on new gift card gimmicks that stores hope will make you buy one to give aa gift. here are a few.
* If you buy an American Eagle Outfitters gift card you can send it in a text message...kind of the ultimate in impersonal gifts, I think.
* Home Depot's gift card lets you hold it in front of a web cam and see products that you might like to use the card on.
* When Wal Mart cards are scratched they smell like gingerbread (which Wal mart sells, too)
* Amazon.com's gift card can be sent as a Face book posting (well it beats getting one of those farm animal application requests)
* Wildcard lets the gift card giver send them through a phone application. (yet another way cell phones can intrude on our lives).
Last year, by the end of October, 25% of all people surveyed about their gift cards, still had not redeemed them for merchandise. Consumer reports says that it translated into consumers losing almost 5 billion dollars. And because of that, new gift card trading/sale sites a have sprouted up where you can sell that unwanted gift card for, on average, 70% of the card value. "Plastic Jungle" is the biggest one if you care to have a look at it).
Anyway, any gift cards you get and don't want you can give to me. I won't complain.
Ruminations
Since I have nothing specific to rant about today (must be the spirit of the holiday season that has set in) I thought I would make some random comments about issues of the day, or in some cases non issues that the media wants to make into issues. Here we go..
* Are you also tired of reading about Sarah Palin, Kate Gosselin and every over-exposed reality TV celebrity? I am so bored with the substance and content of news that is reported today that the days of reading economics textbooks in high school seem more interesting than today's news coverage.
* I love the court ruling that the so called Obama care health plan is partially unconstitutional and may be wiped out completely by the courts. Might this be attend here. it would be nice to move away from the dependency level in which the government hands out entitlements to those who don't pay taxes while the taxpayer is charged with being financier of a list of things that a government should never do in a capitalist state.
* I haven't heard the Christmas classic "Grandma Got Run over by a Reindeer" one time yet this December. It's sad because grandma probably needs Obama care if she was injured.
* The "Pop Candy 11th annual compilation of the 100 People of the Year" came out and I never heard of half of the ones selected. But strangely, after reading about them, I am glad I haven't. What a cultural sewer we live in today.
* Obama and Congress have teamed for yet another outrageous infringement on personal responsibility as the president has signed into law "The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010". It's $4.5 billion program that provides more free school meals to the pool of non taxpayers (the trend today is to make every law filed with freebies the non payers love, since they outvote those who pay for the garbage in the bills), and gives the government more power to decide what foods can offered in those meals, as well as in school vending machines. Wow! No mommy and daddy government is telling parents what their kids can eat. I guess they feel that parents are too stupid or irresponsible to do that? Sigh..they will probably pass a law next telling me what toilet I can use.
* Who buys that eggnog I see in grocery stores? I can't imagine too many people actually liking the taste. but now they sell other versions of it. I saw Chocolate eggnog, pumpkin eggnog and peppermint eggnog in a grocery store yesterday. They should take the unsold eggnog to the prisons and make the prisoners drink that instead of milk.
* The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, known as A&P to anyone over 40 here, was once the nation's largest grocery chain. It dominated that industry for almost 100 years. But Sunday it filed for bankruptcy protection after years of struggling with debt and rising competition from those low-priced (and less interesting) competitors. This is the equivalent of the death of a president or kind in many minds here because so many of us thought A&P would always be there and was immune from modern shopping trends. I remember my mom and I going to a local A&P and buying the most delicious "Anne Parker" (that was the A&P brand name of it's store produced products) French Apple Pie... for 59 cents! That's two big pies for about a dollar. Sigh , not only is the death of a familiar person hard to accept, so would be the death of A&P.
Ok, that's what was on my mind. And what about yours?
* Are you also tired of reading about Sarah Palin, Kate Gosselin and every over-exposed reality TV celebrity? I am so bored with the substance and content of news that is reported today that the days of reading economics textbooks in high school seem more interesting than today's news coverage.
* I love the court ruling that the so called Obama care health plan is partially unconstitutional and may be wiped out completely by the courts. Might this be attend here. it would be nice to move away from the dependency level in which the government hands out entitlements to those who don't pay taxes while the taxpayer is charged with being financier of a list of things that a government should never do in a capitalist state.
* I haven't heard the Christmas classic "Grandma Got Run over by a Reindeer" one time yet this December. It's sad because grandma probably needs Obama care if she was injured.
* The "Pop Candy 11th annual compilation of the 100 People of the Year" came out and I never heard of half of the ones selected. But strangely, after reading about them, I am glad I haven't. What a cultural sewer we live in today.
* Obama and Congress have teamed for yet another outrageous infringement on personal responsibility as the president has signed into law "The Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010". It's $4.5 billion program that provides more free school meals to the pool of non taxpayers (the trend today is to make every law filed with freebies the non payers love, since they outvote those who pay for the garbage in the bills), and gives the government more power to decide what foods can offered in those meals, as well as in school vending machines. Wow! No mommy and daddy government is telling parents what their kids can eat. I guess they feel that parents are too stupid or irresponsible to do that? Sigh..they will probably pass a law next telling me what toilet I can use.
* Who buys that eggnog I see in grocery stores? I can't imagine too many people actually liking the taste. but now they sell other versions of it. I saw Chocolate eggnog, pumpkin eggnog and peppermint eggnog in a grocery store yesterday. They should take the unsold eggnog to the prisons and make the prisoners drink that instead of milk.
* The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, known as A&P to anyone over 40 here, was once the nation's largest grocery chain. It dominated that industry for almost 100 years. But Sunday it filed for bankruptcy protection after years of struggling with debt and rising competition from those low-priced (and less interesting) competitors. This is the equivalent of the death of a president or kind in many minds here because so many of us thought A&P would always be there and was immune from modern shopping trends. I remember my mom and I going to a local A&P and buying the most delicious "Anne Parker" (that was the A&P brand name of it's store produced products) French Apple Pie... for 59 cents! That's two big pies for about a dollar. Sigh , not only is the death of a familiar person hard to accept, so would be the death of A&P.
Ok, that's what was on my mind. And what about yours?
Rioting Students
If there ever was a best example of the problem with nations handing out entitlement checks to favored constituents, it is the incident Friday in which rampaging student protesters in London attacked a car carrying Prince Charles and his wife Camilla as it drove through London's West End as they, ironically, to go to a charity event. Haha. Charity is what is on those protesters minds too, but it is charity for themselves that motivated the to attack their figure head royal couple.
A group of up about 20 protesters, some chanting "Off with their heads!" (at least they are literate enough to copy the Alice in Wonderland equally bizarre shouter), smashed one of the royal couple's rear car windows and splashed white paint on the vehicle. All of this in protest to the fact that the dying social welfare state that is Britain has decided to stop paying the college tuition for University students. That's right, they want to off the heads of Prince Charles because they are indignant at no longer receiving free college tuition.
How bad is it when rioters storm the gates not for food or shelter, but because they think mommy and daddy government should pay their school bills? And that is what is happening all throughout Europe these days. the entitlements have become needs , not wants, and removing any of them, even in the name of fiscal sanity, just will not do. No doubt, few of the protesting students have ever given thought that they should work themselves to and for their own university education. but then, why should they. Britain and most of Europe has been on a entitlement binge in the name of social welfare since the end of World War II.
And the United States is in am imitating mode, deeply into the same foolhardy mindset of "gimme, gimme, mine" that the Europeans are trying to escape with realistic economic reforms that end many of the entitlements they have been bestowed on the masses. The Obama Health Insurance plan might wind up as the door into which Americans enter the kind of welfare state that has so damaged once great and now nearly irrelevant Western Europe. Once inside, extricating from entitlement heaven is about as easy as weaning oneself from heroine.
A group of up about 20 protesters, some chanting "Off with their heads!" (at least they are literate enough to copy the Alice in Wonderland equally bizarre shouter), smashed one of the royal couple's rear car windows and splashed white paint on the vehicle. All of this in protest to the fact that the dying social welfare state that is Britain has decided to stop paying the college tuition for University students. That's right, they want to off the heads of Prince Charles because they are indignant at no longer receiving free college tuition.
How bad is it when rioters storm the gates not for food or shelter, but because they think mommy and daddy government should pay their school bills? And that is what is happening all throughout Europe these days. the entitlements have become needs , not wants, and removing any of them, even in the name of fiscal sanity, just will not do. No doubt, few of the protesting students have ever given thought that they should work themselves to and for their own university education. but then, why should they. Britain and most of Europe has been on a entitlement binge in the name of social welfare since the end of World War II.
And the United States is in am imitating mode, deeply into the same foolhardy mindset of "gimme, gimme, mine" that the Europeans are trying to escape with realistic economic reforms that end many of the entitlements they have been bestowed on the masses. The Obama Health Insurance plan might wind up as the door into which Americans enter the kind of welfare state that has so damaged once great and now nearly irrelevant Western Europe. Once inside, extricating from entitlement heaven is about as easy as weaning oneself from heroine.
Christmas Hard Candy
I am eating Christmas candy as I type, specifically hard candy. I must have a Pavlovian condition/response to hard candy at Christmas time, because I consume most of the hard candy I eat from late November through January. One explanation beyond the fact that so much of those peppermint candy canes and sticks, Christmas ribbons, "cut rock", peppermint twists, and hard holiday mix stares at me in stores everywhere I go, is the past influence of hard Christmas candy on my brain.
My mom used to put our several Christmas candy dishes, the ones with fat Santa smiling invitingly to eat and make you a fatter person for Christmas. I can still see that candy and everyone grabbing and nibbling or sucking on the peppermint. I love peppermint Christmas candy, and as a boy I would pick out the peppermint candy selections and leave the fruit flavors behind, much to the irritation of my brother who also liked what I did. That hard candy training session of my youth makes me do the same thing my mom did, placing several candy dishes about the house with my flavored hard candy and other selections like chocolates, nougats, jelly beans and those awful, but wonderful tasting, spice drops and slices.
Another thing that makes me crave and eat hard candy at Christmas time is the fact that it makes me feel better about Christmas, acting as link between any ole day and Christmas Day. If we eat a candy cane we think about and anticipate Christmas more. Even after Christmas day passes, eating a candy cane or other Christmas candy almost brings it back. No wonder I put a big peppermint candy stick in Jane's mantle place Christmas stocking every year (as my mom did for me). Food does make much stronger associations for us and Christmas candy and Christmas are very close associations. I can almost hear Santa "Ho Ho Ho" when I eat a green spice drop, a Christmas nougat or barber pole candy cane.
There's hundreds of Christmas candies out there, but the card candy is my favorite. Those Pez Christmas Dispensers, popcorn balls, Reindeer Lip Lollipops and the rest won't do. At Halloween I appreciate novelty candy in monster shapes. but at Christmas I want to see and taste those peppermint stripes. And if you don't agree with me expect to find that awful black Christmas coal candy in your stocking this year!
My mom used to put our several Christmas candy dishes, the ones with fat Santa smiling invitingly to eat and make you a fatter person for Christmas. I can still see that candy and everyone grabbing and nibbling or sucking on the peppermint. I love peppermint Christmas candy, and as a boy I would pick out the peppermint candy selections and leave the fruit flavors behind, much to the irritation of my brother who also liked what I did. That hard candy training session of my youth makes me do the same thing my mom did, placing several candy dishes about the house with my flavored hard candy and other selections like chocolates, nougats, jelly beans and those awful, but wonderful tasting, spice drops and slices.
Another thing that makes me crave and eat hard candy at Christmas time is the fact that it makes me feel better about Christmas, acting as link between any ole day and Christmas Day. If we eat a candy cane we think about and anticipate Christmas more. Even after Christmas day passes, eating a candy cane or other Christmas candy almost brings it back. No wonder I put a big peppermint candy stick in Jane's mantle place Christmas stocking every year (as my mom did for me). Food does make much stronger associations for us and Christmas candy and Christmas are very close associations. I can almost hear Santa "Ho Ho Ho" when I eat a green spice drop, a Christmas nougat or barber pole candy cane.
There's hundreds of Christmas candies out there, but the card candy is my favorite. Those Pez Christmas Dispensers, popcorn balls, Reindeer Lip Lollipops and the rest won't do. At Halloween I appreciate novelty candy in monster shapes. but at Christmas I want to see and taste those peppermint stripes. And if you don't agree with me expect to find that awful black Christmas coal candy in your stocking this year!
Hard To Be A Kid Today
Common Sense Media, a resource on media for kids and parents, released “The Digital Decade,” a comprehensive set of lists that look back at the things that rocked our kids’ world in the last 10 years. The top ten are interesting. take a look.
The 10 Things that Forever Changed Childhood
1. Google
2. Harry Potter
3. Facebook
4. Nintendo Wii
5. YouTube
6. American Idol
7. Wikipedia
8. Cell phones
9. TiVo
10. iTunes
Common Sense says in it's release that, “Some of the innovations have been great, some not so great, but they all have one thing in common in that they have revolutionized how kids communicate, create, learn, and play." This surely brings into focus why raising kids today is hard and why so many kinds are seen as unable to "fit in". The pressures kids have today are far greater than ever before, and the list shows that kids today can not escape anymore.
There are fewer chances for a child to be alone or to play with one or two other children. This is unhealthy, as is always "being connected". The imagination, curiosity, personality, they all need to be "unconnected' at times to develop. I think a truism of the technology is that when we are connected we think less and react more. It is not a good state in which to live. Today kids are prisoners of the technology they so much adore. And adults, who should make them aware of this, are too infatuated with technology themselves to tell them.
Every older generation critiques the newer one and labels it as lacking. But I am not going to do that. I know that each new generation has its own character and it is a subjective one. We But this is the first one to be bombarded with instantaneous communication media. The effect of this technology is a new element seen in today's youth. Surely the age of innocence in kids today is shrinking rapidly. On the surface I think that is bad as we all need innocence to prepare us for the cruelty of real life. But time will tell as this generation develops and matures into adulthood.
The 10 Things that Forever Changed Childhood
1. Google
2. Harry Potter
3. Facebook
4. Nintendo Wii
5. YouTube
6. American Idol
7. Wikipedia
8. Cell phones
9. TiVo
10. iTunes
Common Sense says in it's release that, “Some of the innovations have been great, some not so great, but they all have one thing in common in that they have revolutionized how kids communicate, create, learn, and play." This surely brings into focus why raising kids today is hard and why so many kinds are seen as unable to "fit in". The pressures kids have today are far greater than ever before, and the list shows that kids today can not escape anymore.
There are fewer chances for a child to be alone or to play with one or two other children. This is unhealthy, as is always "being connected". The imagination, curiosity, personality, they all need to be "unconnected' at times to develop. I think a truism of the technology is that when we are connected we think less and react more. It is not a good state in which to live. Today kids are prisoners of the technology they so much adore. And adults, who should make them aware of this, are too infatuated with technology themselves to tell them.
Every older generation critiques the newer one and labels it as lacking. But I am not going to do that. I know that each new generation has its own character and it is a subjective one. We But this is the first one to be bombarded with instantaneous communication media. The effect of this technology is a new element seen in today's youth. Surely the age of innocence in kids today is shrinking rapidly. On the surface I think that is bad as we all need innocence to prepare us for the cruelty of real life. But time will tell as this generation develops and matures into adulthood.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Lennon Death Anniversary
We passed the 30th anniversary of the death of John Lennon at the Dakota in New York City on December 8, 1980. Lennon was murdered by Mark David Chapman who said he killed him because "it would make me famous, make me be somebody". Hmmmm Such perversion os the reality TV mode today where people commit far less of an abomination, but disgrace themselves nonetheless, in a desperate attempt to grab fame. I mention reality TV because there is a link between Lennon and the Beatles and that awful genre.
For all the greatness of Lennon and his mates I think their own break from traditional pop music, in which the performer is compliant and subservient to the media and fans, was what started the kind of craziness by performers today. In a way, the Beatles were the first reality performers, not with their great music, but with the way they handled their celebrity. And John Lennon was the one Beatle who epitomized that idea that her was going to be himself, not a celebrity or a card board cutout of one who behaved the way his fans and media expected him to.
The Beatles tried hard (never succeeded) to live as non celebrity, something that was supposed to be the death of the career at that time. Lennon thought his music and other work should speak for itself, not an image of celebrity. Now we have "celebrities " like Lindsay Lohan who are famous not for any talent (she has none) or artistic contribution, but rather just famous for being Lindsay Lohan. And so it goes with "reality TV stars", people with little or no talent but a voice loudly screaming "Notice me! Notice me! I want to be famous!"
Did not the Lennon and Beatle break of the "celebrity must act like a celebrity" mold bequeath us now, generations later a kind of celebrity that is famous "for nothing". Before Lennon was murdered, ironically, by a person who killed him only because it would bring fame, John Lennon had holed himself in his apartment overlooking Central Park in Manhattan, and had lived the quiet life of desperation most humans live. And he was happy to live that way.
While the world today has become blurred between art and life it's good to remember that celebrity for celebrity sake is not often a fulfilling path. John Lennon surely knew that.
For all the greatness of Lennon and his mates I think their own break from traditional pop music, in which the performer is compliant and subservient to the media and fans, was what started the kind of craziness by performers today. In a way, the Beatles were the first reality performers, not with their great music, but with the way they handled their celebrity. And John Lennon was the one Beatle who epitomized that idea that her was going to be himself, not a celebrity or a card board cutout of one who behaved the way his fans and media expected him to.
The Beatles tried hard (never succeeded) to live as non celebrity, something that was supposed to be the death of the career at that time. Lennon thought his music and other work should speak for itself, not an image of celebrity. Now we have "celebrities " like Lindsay Lohan who are famous not for any talent (she has none) or artistic contribution, but rather just famous for being Lindsay Lohan. And so it goes with "reality TV stars", people with little or no talent but a voice loudly screaming "Notice me! Notice me! I want to be famous!"
Did not the Lennon and Beatle break of the "celebrity must act like a celebrity" mold bequeath us now, generations later a kind of celebrity that is famous "for nothing". Before Lennon was murdered, ironically, by a person who killed him only because it would bring fame, John Lennon had holed himself in his apartment overlooking Central Park in Manhattan, and had lived the quiet life of desperation most humans live. And he was happy to live that way.
While the world today has become blurred between art and life it's good to remember that celebrity for celebrity sake is not often a fulfilling path. John Lennon surely knew that.
I Survived The Mall
I had to ("briefly) endure a shopping mall again today in order to buy a gift for Jane's grandfather. My fault, for I should have purchased it when Jane dragged me to that mall last weekend on our "get the relatives "presents sojourn. Anyway, I did survive using the typical male mall strategy. That is, to go for a specific item, find it, purchase it, and then get out of town before the calvary comes.
As malls go, the one here at Clackamas Town Center is new and very nice, but like most malls it could be dropped anywhere in the U.S., given the uniformity of the stores and the same look of it that all malls possess. Funny thing about this one though, is a mall food court vender that I think reflects the lack of interest in good food here in Oregon. There is a food court outlet there called 'Cajun Express', allegedly a seller of "Cajun food".
But I think the Cajuns in Oregon must be from Beijing, China, not from Louisiana. The food served at that place looks a identical to the food sold at another outlet a few meters away, Panda Express. It sure looks to me like the Cajun food at Cajun Express is the same as what is offered at Panda Express (maybe they cook it at Panda and express it over to Cajun Express?), albeit with Cajun names applied to one and Chinese names to another. Rest assured I have no desire to do a taste test to confirm my suspicion.
Since it was early in the morning when I went to this mall (early is great for avoiding crowds and getting prime parking spaces) but despite that I was able to do my second favorite thing when in a shoping mall (the first is eat the junk food... like....Aunty Annie's pretzel sticks, Pumpkin Jamaba Juice drinks, and a few others make "mall-ing" bearable). My second favorite activity when in the mall is people watching. Malls are always good for that.
I know the mall goers who see there are probably are thinking smarmy things about me (a little paranoia at the mall helps) as I stroll along the corridors of the mall, so I have to evaluate them too. One talent I do posses is that of face reading. Show me a face and I can tell what the person's emotion is at the first moment I see it. Some are easy to read, for example, the chagrined and almost constipated look of males being tortured as they are dragged behind their ladies on the mall adventure. Others are a little harder to read, kids for instance, because children do not often put on obvious false faces like adults do.
Since it was morning time and they are supposed to be in school, the teens were scarcely in sight today. But when they are I see the hormonal surge that malls bring about in that odd age group. If there is a teen equivalent to a pick-up bar it is the mall. No wonder kids like to hang out at the mall so much. Instead of teens most of the kids I saw were infants and toddlers pushed in those goofy looking mall transports for that age group or form the ubiquitous stroller that every new parents seemingly is required by law to have. If someone pushed me around in one of those I would not mind being at a mall, yet no one has offered to yet.
There is another look I see on faces at the mal, this one of older mall denizens. It is the "why I am I here" look, and it is found even among some women. It makes me question why Americans, and most other people in other laces now, have adopted the mall shopping modality for buying. I far prefer stand alone stores I can drive to because there is not the pressure nor distracting stimuli that malls give off. I wonder how much of the mall purchase is impulse buying from subtle pressure. I would think far more impulse buying happens at a mall than at a stand alone shop.
Though I won't, I could go on here and carry on even more about "nothing", but I think that if I had to be tortured with a mall visit today you should be tortured reading about it. Happy shopping!
As malls go, the one here at Clackamas Town Center is new and very nice, but like most malls it could be dropped anywhere in the U.S., given the uniformity of the stores and the same look of it that all malls possess. Funny thing about this one though, is a mall food court vender that I think reflects the lack of interest in good food here in Oregon. There is a food court outlet there called 'Cajun Express', allegedly a seller of "Cajun food".
But I think the Cajuns in Oregon must be from Beijing, China, not from Louisiana. The food served at that place looks a identical to the food sold at another outlet a few meters away, Panda Express. It sure looks to me like the Cajun food at Cajun Express is the same as what is offered at Panda Express (maybe they cook it at Panda and express it over to Cajun Express?), albeit with Cajun names applied to one and Chinese names to another. Rest assured I have no desire to do a taste test to confirm my suspicion.
Since it was early in the morning when I went to this mall (early is great for avoiding crowds and getting prime parking spaces) but despite that I was able to do my second favorite thing when in a shoping mall (the first is eat the junk food... like....Aunty Annie's pretzel sticks, Pumpkin Jamaba Juice drinks, and a few others make "mall-ing" bearable). My second favorite activity when in the mall is people watching. Malls are always good for that.
I know the mall goers who see there are probably are thinking smarmy things about me (a little paranoia at the mall helps) as I stroll along the corridors of the mall, so I have to evaluate them too. One talent I do posses is that of face reading. Show me a face and I can tell what the person's emotion is at the first moment I see it. Some are easy to read, for example, the chagrined and almost constipated look of males being tortured as they are dragged behind their ladies on the mall adventure. Others are a little harder to read, kids for instance, because children do not often put on obvious false faces like adults do.
Since it was morning time and they are supposed to be in school, the teens were scarcely in sight today. But when they are I see the hormonal surge that malls bring about in that odd age group. If there is a teen equivalent to a pick-up bar it is the mall. No wonder kids like to hang out at the mall so much. Instead of teens most of the kids I saw were infants and toddlers pushed in those goofy looking mall transports for that age group or form the ubiquitous stroller that every new parents seemingly is required by law to have. If someone pushed me around in one of those I would not mind being at a mall, yet no one has offered to yet.
There is another look I see on faces at the mal, this one of older mall denizens. It is the "why I am I here" look, and it is found even among some women. It makes me question why Americans, and most other people in other laces now, have adopted the mall shopping modality for buying. I far prefer stand alone stores I can drive to because there is not the pressure nor distracting stimuli that malls give off. I wonder how much of the mall purchase is impulse buying from subtle pressure. I would think far more impulse buying happens at a mall than at a stand alone shop.
Though I won't, I could go on here and carry on even more about "nothing", but I think that if I had to be tortured with a mall visit today you should be tortured reading about it. Happy shopping!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Cameras Almost Gone
Chalk up another defeat for those cell phones that drive me crazy. Not only have they killed manners, privacy and loads of technology-calculatiors, word processors, answering machines, land line phones (becoming extinct), the wrist watch etc., but it looks like the old reliable pint and shoot camera is a dying entity. Stores report sales have fallen dramatically and if you check prices for hand held cameras they are bottoming out as demand for them is shrinking to either the expensive high end models or the cheapest ones manufacturers can sell.
The trend now is for consumers to use their phone cameras because it is easier and they are too lazy to take pictures with a camera and then upload the images on their computer or take the camera's card to be developed into hand held prints. I think hand held prints will also be far less common in the near future too. All of this comes at a time when cell phone camera pictures are improving enough to make that device more appealing for many than is carrying about the hand camera.
People who prefer cell cameras say they always have it ready to shoot (and annoy others while doing it) whatever it is they deem shoot able, and that there are many applications on some high end phones that are equal to or superior to what cameras offer. It's interesting that just as the home desktop computer seems to be moving toward a large screen TV like single device that holds all the mediums the person wants to use while in the house. Now the cell phone is taking over photography and pushing aside the reliable old hand held camera. I make no judgment about this as to being a positive or negative trend but just point out this to show the changing nature of technology today.
With so much technology available, and much of it complicated to understand and use, the desire for a single device to display it is the trend today. It amazes me that the next generation to be born may never see devices such as the wrist watch, home phone and personal camera. Haha And I am still heartbroken about the disappearance of 8 track tapes.
The trend now is for consumers to use their phone cameras because it is easier and they are too lazy to take pictures with a camera and then upload the images on their computer or take the camera's card to be developed into hand held prints. I think hand held prints will also be far less common in the near future too. All of this comes at a time when cell phone camera pictures are improving enough to make that device more appealing for many than is carrying about the hand camera.
People who prefer cell cameras say they always have it ready to shoot (and annoy others while doing it) whatever it is they deem shoot able, and that there are many applications on some high end phones that are equal to or superior to what cameras offer. It's interesting that just as the home desktop computer seems to be moving toward a large screen TV like single device that holds all the mediums the person wants to use while in the house. Now the cell phone is taking over photography and pushing aside the reliable old hand held camera. I make no judgment about this as to being a positive or negative trend but just point out this to show the changing nature of technology today.
With so much technology available, and much of it complicated to understand and use, the desire for a single device to display it is the trend today. It amazes me that the next generation to be born may never see devices such as the wrist watch, home phone and personal camera. Haha And I am still heartbroken about the disappearance of 8 track tapes.
Santa con
I went to Santa con Saturday. This is an offbeat, mass meeting of would be, wannabe, and could never be alleged Santa's in varied costumes, with satire of the traditional red suit more common than the original. Santa cons are held on different days in December in 117 cites in 27 countries and has a registry on line to assist in organizing each. There is no cost for Santa con and the optimum words are "adult", "alcohol", "informal", "fun" and "laughter". That's about it. A person gets to be Santa, an elf, a helper whatever else is associated with Santa and Christmas. In 2006, over 70,000 Santa's showed up the Moscow Santa con. Even Santa Karl Marx would be impressed with that turnout.
I only spent a few hours with the group, there were actually about 8 different Santa con groups and over 250 alleged Santa's Saturday. All the groups met at the Paul Bunyan statue in north Portland, and it was a mass of humanity. I never did find my group, so I was told to pick any and follow along. It was amusing but since the route goes from bar to bar, not being much a drinker of alcohol and not wanting to drink and drive home, I observed in a sober state.
A lot of the participants do this every year and do similar cons (there is big Easter con that is well attended too). One person told me today that she has done twelve in a row and says it ends in an insane drunken state late at night. The fact that we met first in a strip joint with a very well endowed pole dancer in action at 12 pm in the afternoon is a clue to the naughty not nice atmosphere. Everyone was friendly and it was fun being in the midst of it all, though I am a bit too "experienced' to find "getting drunk" a fun activity for a grown-up.
I imagine it gets mildly vulgar at times, but I am sure it must be amusingly so. On the whole, these Portland Santa's were amateurs at mob craziness, when compared to my old New Orleans carnival celebration. In New Orleans the carnival madness (New Orleans also has a Santa con, but I have never been in it) is organized and there is little aimlessness among the celebrants because there is a constant bombardment of stimuli. But people had fun.
I only spent a few hours with the group, there were actually about 8 different Santa con groups and over 250 alleged Santa's Saturday. All the groups met at the Paul Bunyan statue in north Portland, and it was a mass of humanity. I never did find my group, so I was told to pick any and follow along. It was amusing but since the route goes from bar to bar, not being much a drinker of alcohol and not wanting to drink and drive home, I observed in a sober state.
A lot of the participants do this every year and do similar cons (there is big Easter con that is well attended too). One person told me today that she has done twelve in a row and says it ends in an insane drunken state late at night. The fact that we met first in a strip joint with a very well endowed pole dancer in action at 12 pm in the afternoon is a clue to the naughty not nice atmosphere. Everyone was friendly and it was fun being in the midst of it all, though I am a bit too "experienced' to find "getting drunk" a fun activity for a grown-up.
I imagine it gets mildly vulgar at times, but I am sure it must be amusingly so. On the whole, these Portland Santa's were amateurs at mob craziness, when compared to my old New Orleans carnival celebration. In New Orleans the carnival madness (New Orleans also has a Santa con, but I have never been in it) is organized and there is little aimlessness among the celebrants because there is a constant bombardment of stimuli. But people had fun.
Boomer Generation
The "Baby Boomer" generation, those born in the U.S. between 1946 and 1964 that numbers 77 million people, is getting a great deal of attention these days. The Baby Boomers are large in number and have had a huge influence on how things work in the U.S. today. Books have been written about them, business market sales so they appeal to them, they have been branded the "me generation", they changed the nature of politics (I think for the worse) and on and on..... I am a member of this group and see my values and the values of most boomers are far different from the current generation. But it should be that way. A generation that merely copies the preceeding one is not a productive one.
Depending on whether one is a young or old Baby Boomer he or she has experienced everything from the assassination of President Kennedy (the day that ended the age of innocence) to the start of TV (crude but far more entertaining than what is displayed in high def and with extra special effects today. TV is a crude "medium". It is not rare and is rarely well done.), to the Beatles amazing rise and end (which not only changed modern music, but fashion, social habit and probably even more).
These things and more experienced by boomers provide the often cited "generation gap" every generation experiences to some greater or lesser extent. We boomers went form believing "never trust any one over 30" to "kids don't have a proper value system and just won't listen today". The generation gap today is wider than in any previous generation as the electronic , transportation, communication and reordering of social folkways and mores create a huge divide in the experiences and beliefs between non and Baby Boomers. Unquestionably, older boomers redefined American culture and opened it for further definition, the definition today that is as baffling to Baby Boomers as anything they ever experienced in their lives.
I am glad to be a boomer for we lived thought more changes of greater social impact than any previous generation. My memories of the passage through them makes my life seem much longer and richer. Boomers were spoiled enough by the so called "Greatest Generation" that raised them that they were allowed to experience everything and create more.
Still, boomers have given the current generation a mess to clean. The entitlement craze and mentality that someone else is responsible to care for me is a boomer concept that is crumbling not only this society but others. Personal responsibility has never been at a lower level than today. The lack of civility in public life (as in the vulgar protest marches we boomers had in our youth) was paved by the Baby Boomer generation. The institutional breakdowns of marriage, religion, family, public decency all started with boomers and are magnified by today's generation.
I suppose every generation ruminates on the current one with doubt and regret. That's what I am trying to do too. Each one eventually misses "the good old days", but Boomers have some guilt added to the equation. We boomers wonder not only about the seeming decline of this generation, but whether or not the decline is our fault. Maybe some sociologist should rename the "Boomer Generation" to " The Guilty Generation".
Depending on whether one is a young or old Baby Boomer he or she has experienced everything from the assassination of President Kennedy (the day that ended the age of innocence) to the start of TV (crude but far more entertaining than what is displayed in high def and with extra special effects today. TV is a crude "medium". It is not rare and is rarely well done.), to the Beatles amazing rise and end (which not only changed modern music, but fashion, social habit and probably even more).
These things and more experienced by boomers provide the often cited "generation gap" every generation experiences to some greater or lesser extent. We boomers went form believing "never trust any one over 30" to "kids don't have a proper value system and just won't listen today". The generation gap today is wider than in any previous generation as the electronic , transportation, communication and reordering of social folkways and mores create a huge divide in the experiences and beliefs between non and Baby Boomers. Unquestionably, older boomers redefined American culture and opened it for further definition, the definition today that is as baffling to Baby Boomers as anything they ever experienced in their lives.
I am glad to be a boomer for we lived thought more changes of greater social impact than any previous generation. My memories of the passage through them makes my life seem much longer and richer. Boomers were spoiled enough by the so called "Greatest Generation" that raised them that they were allowed to experience everything and create more.
Still, boomers have given the current generation a mess to clean. The entitlement craze and mentality that someone else is responsible to care for me is a boomer concept that is crumbling not only this society but others. Personal responsibility has never been at a lower level than today. The lack of civility in public life (as in the vulgar protest marches we boomers had in our youth) was paved by the Baby Boomer generation. The institutional breakdowns of marriage, religion, family, public decency all started with boomers and are magnified by today's generation.
I suppose every generation ruminates on the current one with doubt and regret. That's what I am trying to do too. Each one eventually misses "the good old days", but Boomers have some guilt added to the equation. We boomers wonder not only about the seeming decline of this generation, but whether or not the decline is our fault. Maybe some sociologist should rename the "Boomer Generation" to " The Guilty Generation".
Tax Whom?
My blood boils when I hear the disingenuous, phony prattle back and forth between people who want to tax the "rich" more and those who don't. The wealthy in this country have become the whipping boy for all taxes. When the federal government cries about not enough revenue to handle the wasteful spending on entitlements it pays out, there is always a suggestion that the problem with low taxation revenues is that wealthy payers are getting off too easily.
Well, they may or may not. It is a subjective question. But they do pay the highest percentage of taxes in the U.S. (the richest 1% of the U.S. population pays 35% of all taxes collected!) , and their total tax contributions dwarfs the other groups. Whether we should tax them further because "they can afford it" is not the key question about taxation here. What is the real and unstated issue (because politicians lose votes if they attempt to tax ordinary people) should be is "Why do 50% of Americans pay no income tax (they are exempted from it) and why do so many "poor" people who work and have an income, not only not pay any taxes but have a positive flow of taxes coem to them (the government gives them a host of checks when they file for taxation, so that they actually receive revenue refunds rather than paying taxes).
More people here, no all people here, who have an income should pay some income tax every year. Just somthing, to get their attention in their country. It doesn't have to be a lot of taxes, but if one lives here and has an income he or she owes society something for the freebies it provides them.The lost revenue from tax exemptions and positive tax flow filing is killing this economy, all because our politicians fear losing their elective office if they stop the entitlement, non tax game. And each year our Congress excuses more and more people form the taxes they should be paying.
What best illustrates this, and what has my blood boiling today, subject is a report from the U.S. Treasury today. It said that nearly 50,000 prison inmates claimed more than $130 million in tax refunds this year without providing any wage information to the IRS. This prison inmate filing is done because any person with no or too little income people in this country will receive money from the government when filling an income tax refund. Even the jails are on to the scam that is taxation in this country. Sad to say, most of the inmates involved, probably have not violated any law and probably will receive thousands of dollars in "refunds' simply for filing and saying they are "poor". Is this not the canary in the mine..the alert that our tax system is not bad because "rich people pay too little in taxes"? Instead, it's bad because too many wage earners do not pay any taxes at all and additionally reap financial benefits for not doing so.
So today a person in prison has no income, therefore he pays no income tax, but gets a refund check. Am I missing something here???? Not really. It's the age of entitlement here, where crying "I am poor" really means "I am not going to be responsible for myself, so give me money and I will continue to vote for you "Taxes used to be a means to collect money to run the government. But now they are nothing more than another vehicle to redistribute wealth in order for incumbant politicans to more easily win elections.. Hence, our prisoners don't pay any taxes and yet are entitled to a tax refund. But this prisoner question is just a bell of alert to the wider problems of non taxation in the U.S.
The poor and alleged poor will have absolutely no vested interest in this country if they do not pay taxes to support it. As of now, taxpayers with $48,000 of income may qualify for some EIC (EIC is a idiotic program that will pay for all the income tax a filer below that income may owe and provided thousands of dollars of "refund" money checks for the filer) and be completely excused from all federal income taxes. And these are the working poor? No wonder there is a revenue shortage in the U.S. How can a nation survive with only half its members contributing money to pay for it?
Well, they may or may not. It is a subjective question. But they do pay the highest percentage of taxes in the U.S. (the richest 1% of the U.S. population pays 35% of all taxes collected!) , and their total tax contributions dwarfs the other groups. Whether we should tax them further because "they can afford it" is not the key question about taxation here. What is the real and unstated issue (because politicians lose votes if they attempt to tax ordinary people) should be is "Why do 50% of Americans pay no income tax (they are exempted from it) and why do so many "poor" people who work and have an income, not only not pay any taxes but have a positive flow of taxes coem to them (the government gives them a host of checks when they file for taxation, so that they actually receive revenue refunds rather than paying taxes).
More people here, no all people here, who have an income should pay some income tax every year. Just somthing, to get their attention in their country. It doesn't have to be a lot of taxes, but if one lives here and has an income he or she owes society something for the freebies it provides them.The lost revenue from tax exemptions and positive tax flow filing is killing this economy, all because our politicians fear losing their elective office if they stop the entitlement, non tax game. And each year our Congress excuses more and more people form the taxes they should be paying.
What best illustrates this, and what has my blood boiling today, subject is a report from the U.S. Treasury today. It said that nearly 50,000 prison inmates claimed more than $130 million in tax refunds this year without providing any wage information to the IRS. This prison inmate filing is done because any person with no or too little income people in this country will receive money from the government when filling an income tax refund. Even the jails are on to the scam that is taxation in this country. Sad to say, most of the inmates involved, probably have not violated any law and probably will receive thousands of dollars in "refunds' simply for filing and saying they are "poor". Is this not the canary in the mine..the alert that our tax system is not bad because "rich people pay too little in taxes"? Instead, it's bad because too many wage earners do not pay any taxes at all and additionally reap financial benefits for not doing so.
So today a person in prison has no income, therefore he pays no income tax, but gets a refund check. Am I missing something here???? Not really. It's the age of entitlement here, where crying "I am poor" really means "I am not going to be responsible for myself, so give me money and I will continue to vote for you "Taxes used to be a means to collect money to run the government. But now they are nothing more than another vehicle to redistribute wealth in order for incumbant politicans to more easily win elections.. Hence, our prisoners don't pay any taxes and yet are entitled to a tax refund. But this prisoner question is just a bell of alert to the wider problems of non taxation in the U.S.
The poor and alleged poor will have absolutely no vested interest in this country if they do not pay taxes to support it. As of now, taxpayers with $48,000 of income may qualify for some EIC (EIC is a idiotic program that will pay for all the income tax a filer below that income may owe and provided thousands of dollars of "refund" money checks for the filer) and be completely excused from all federal income taxes. And these are the working poor? No wonder there is a revenue shortage in the U.S. How can a nation survive with only half its members contributing money to pay for it?
Banned Books
One of the legacies of the George Bush Jr. years of the presidency is the "don't, can't, not allowed" mentality in the U.S. now. This reactionary ideology is not good for Democracy, but the Obama administration has picked up the ban ball and is following the course (albeit from a liberal rather than conservative angle). The book banners are back! Ugh! Yep, there is an organized and unorganized crusade in the U.S. to ban what is uncomfortable or politically correct. Groups form and march to remove from shelves of libraries, particularly high school libraries, those books that are alleged to be too vulgar, offensive to minority groups, promote idea that make some uncomfortable, or are against what is considered "truth".
I know of at least one group in Portland set up to oppose book banning, so the crusade is noticeable. I think the same mentality that has led Americans give up their freedoms in exchange for idiotic anti terrorism security measures that take away freedom in the name of security, is also driving the ban the book movements in the U.S. These kinds of reactionary attempts have always been around, but now many here don't seem to fight against them as much as before. It's mostly directed at books, but art is also being attacked by the banners. The freedom for adults to access information and express ideas, even if the information and ideas might be considered unorthodox or unpopular, is what a democracy is founded on.
But the banners want to "protect others' from what they see as unhealthy. The most outrageous book ban attempt I can recall was of the group that wanted to remove a book in a school library that allegedly did not show American Indians in a positive light. But it is not so surprising in this age of minority ineffability and majority guilt.
Most book banners are crazies who want to erase every sexual, violent or politically correct reference from books, but it is now becoming a more mainstream issue, as politicians like Sarah Palin crusade for greater censorship. Too, book banning eras are a reflection of general fear among the population of an area. There is a lot of fear in the U.S., partially thanks to Bush and company's exaggerated "war of terrorism" that has implanted negativism in the U.S. population.
What's strange about the book ban group is how they have left film alone. The simple G to X rating system Hollywood uses has seemingly satisfied ban advocates that the world is safe from unworthy movies. I have yet to hear any of them ask for a similar code system for literature. Would that satisfy the or even be possible? Regardless, it is unhealthy to have others control information content for adults. Self censorship is the only fool proof system for bans, but then, many of the people who advocate bans are the fools themselves and incapable of being satisfied with such a system. .
I know of at least one group in Portland set up to oppose book banning, so the crusade is noticeable. I think the same mentality that has led Americans give up their freedoms in exchange for idiotic anti terrorism security measures that take away freedom in the name of security, is also driving the ban the book movements in the U.S. These kinds of reactionary attempts have always been around, but now many here don't seem to fight against them as much as before. It's mostly directed at books, but art is also being attacked by the banners. The freedom for adults to access information and express ideas, even if the information and ideas might be considered unorthodox or unpopular, is what a democracy is founded on.
But the banners want to "protect others' from what they see as unhealthy. The most outrageous book ban attempt I can recall was of the group that wanted to remove a book in a school library that allegedly did not show American Indians in a positive light. But it is not so surprising in this age of minority ineffability and majority guilt.
Most book banners are crazies who want to erase every sexual, violent or politically correct reference from books, but it is now becoming a more mainstream issue, as politicians like Sarah Palin crusade for greater censorship. Too, book banning eras are a reflection of general fear among the population of an area. There is a lot of fear in the U.S., partially thanks to Bush and company's exaggerated "war of terrorism" that has implanted negativism in the U.S. population.
What's strange about the book ban group is how they have left film alone. The simple G to X rating system Hollywood uses has seemingly satisfied ban advocates that the world is safe from unworthy movies. I have yet to hear any of them ask for a similar code system for literature. Would that satisfy the or even be possible? Regardless, it is unhealthy to have others control information content for adults. Self censorship is the only fool proof system for bans, but then, many of the people who advocate bans are the fools themselves and incapable of being satisfied with such a system. .
Christmas Activities
I am experiencing the Christmas season in Portland for the first time. This Saturday was the Sanatcon event. I am not a drinker so I was one of the sober Santa's, and in a couple of weeks a lighted boat parade they have here in Portland. It is a tradition in this city for boats to decorate themselves and for the boats to parade together nightly along the Willamette River. There is also some Christmas theater, caroling in Pioneer Square, food events tailored to the holidays like "Christmas tea and cakes", lighting displays etc. Events are offered often at holiday time. Ho Ho Ho.
I find some similarity in the events here and what was in New Orleans. For instance, both places have their zoos decorated with elaborate light displays and the visitor can walk and see them and engage in various events in the park or just drive through in an automobile to see the displays from there. I think New Orleanians decorate their homes with outdoor lights and displays more than here in Portland. Maybe the heavy Italian influence in New Orleans has something to do with it. For better or worse, most cities in the U.S have a homogenized Christmas tradition in that they copy from each other and do much of the same thing.
I may make a Christmas fruitcake soon. Haha Few like fruitcakes. They are slandered terribly, but good fruitcakes are delicious. And there are many different versions. The standard rule is use a little flour and plenty of fruit (mostly dried fruit, but some candied fruit too). I don't like liquor flavor in sweets, so mine is non alcoholic. I grind one full naval orange with skin and all as the basis for the liquid used in the cake. Surprisingly, the orange does not take over the flavor of it. I always make a cheese cake and Christmas cookies this time of the year because it puts me in a holiday mood. I do hope Jane will do the same when she has small children. I have many good memories of Jane, her friends and I baking Christmas goodies. The enthusiasm of kids when they are actively involved in it is wonderful.
Yesterday I put up decorations inside the house. I have way too many decorations in my attic from all the years of Christmas with Jane (small children love to over decorate the house so one tends to collect many decorations), to the point I can't find what I want to use. But I have the house modestly semi decorated now. Haha At least it doesn't look like a Christmas museum. The theme this year is less decor. I am not going to put up lights outside, just a few decorations.
I leave you with a seasonal Ho Ho Ho.
I find some similarity in the events here and what was in New Orleans. For instance, both places have their zoos decorated with elaborate light displays and the visitor can walk and see them and engage in various events in the park or just drive through in an automobile to see the displays from there. I think New Orleanians decorate their homes with outdoor lights and displays more than here in Portland. Maybe the heavy Italian influence in New Orleans has something to do with it. For better or worse, most cities in the U.S have a homogenized Christmas tradition in that they copy from each other and do much of the same thing.
I may make a Christmas fruitcake soon. Haha Few like fruitcakes. They are slandered terribly, but good fruitcakes are delicious. And there are many different versions. The standard rule is use a little flour and plenty of fruit (mostly dried fruit, but some candied fruit too). I don't like liquor flavor in sweets, so mine is non alcoholic. I grind one full naval orange with skin and all as the basis for the liquid used in the cake. Surprisingly, the orange does not take over the flavor of it. I always make a cheese cake and Christmas cookies this time of the year because it puts me in a holiday mood. I do hope Jane will do the same when she has small children. I have many good memories of Jane, her friends and I baking Christmas goodies. The enthusiasm of kids when they are actively involved in it is wonderful.
Yesterday I put up decorations inside the house. I have way too many decorations in my attic from all the years of Christmas with Jane (small children love to over decorate the house so one tends to collect many decorations), to the point I can't find what I want to use. But I have the house modestly semi decorated now. Haha At least it doesn't look like a Christmas museum. The theme this year is less decor. I am not going to put up lights outside, just a few decorations.
I leave you with a seasonal Ho Ho Ho.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)