Four Billion people are expected to watch the 2012. Olympic Games. And in this world of political correctness, I expect quite a few of the 4 billion are of that PC ilk. The games themselves are traditional, so they are a little PC as well. Anyway, just to update you about this aspect of the Games, I have a few examples for you to think about when watching the more the boring of the events like synchronized swimming or the biathlon.

* The Olympic Oath (If you want to play in these Games just like when testifying in court, you have to take the pledge.) “In the name of all the competitors I promise that we shall take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules which govern them, committing ourselves to a sport without doping and without drugs, in the true spirit of sportsmanship, for the glory of sport and the honor of our teams.” The part about doping and drugs was added at the 2000 Olympics. I wonder if the Olympic organizers really believe many athletes abide by that drug free part.

* Over 200 national anthems have been arranged by British composer, conductor and cellist Philip Sheppard and were recorded by the London Philharmonic Orchestra at the world famous Abbey Road Studios. Using 36 musicians, it took 50 recording hours over 6 days and will now be played at over 100 Team Welcome Ceremonies and 805 Victory Ceremonies in the run up to and during the Games. It's still important to divide the world with jingoism at the Olympics by labeling an athlete with his nationality instead of his individual identity.

* Forget about naked athletes in ancient Greece competing on the fields of play au natural. The old days of  naked competitors an the modern of a few wacky fans streaking naked in the area will probably be killed by political correctness. To dissuade fans from baring it all,  in the land of Lady Godiva, London police say they will hand out fines of up to $30,000 to anyone who streaks.

* With women boxers entering the boxing ring this summer for the first, the 2012 Games will mark the first time female athletes are competing in all 26 Olympic sports. But political correctness is still alive in the Olympic world. Each gender is barred from certain disciplines, women from Greco-Roman wrestling, for example, and men from rhythmic gymnastics and synchronized swimming. And of course, in all sports the athletes compete in separate categories for male and for female competitors.

* Advitisers/sponsors of the Games are making their political correctness obvious, even when the product the advertise is far from one the politically correct would use. So Coke, for example,  produced two campaigns, one for the U. S. and one for everywhere else to motivate couch potatoes everywhere to get up and start working off the empty calories they consumed from slugging down Cokes. McDonald's is running an Olympic ad campaign to "encourage fun, active play as well as smart eating." I guess I must be smart for eating those sausage biscuit sandwiches Mc Donald's sells. Most of the other sponsors and advertisers of the Games produce the least politically correct products, but one would never know it  if seeing the claims made in their ads.

* Ankie Spitzer whose husband was murdered by Palestinian terrorists during the 1972 Munich Olympics has been fighting to have a minute of silence at the London Games to remember the eleven murdered victims. Her efforts have been supported by the governments of much of the western world, but the International Olympic Committee rejected her pleas on the grounds it might politicize the Games. That's like saying that athletes should be banned taking a bath because it might remove the purity of the dirt ion the competitors bodies. Hmmmmm I guess we must not upset the Muslims by reminding them of their hate for Jews....

* In most countries, including democratic ones like Australia, the Olympic athletes must agree to social media protocols that restrict their use of it. The common theme of political correctness is that the athletes "have an obligation to use social media responsibly" . Greek triple jumper Voula Papachristou is the first casualty. She was sent home by the Olymipic Committee before the games even started because she posted,  "So many Africans in Greece at least West Nile mosquitoes will eat homemade food."  I guess one has to give up his or her freedom of expression if they want to win a medal.

London Olympics

Here we go with another Olympic Games. Some are wondering aloud if the Olympics are the old typewriter of today's high tech world, worn and pointless. But every four years the grumbling about the Olympics is silenced by the excitement of the event itself as it gets nearer to the opening ceremonies (with that awful nationalism as its theme). But despite the rampant and idiotic nationalism of the Olympic Games, the expensive facilities, and the drug inflated athletes, we will still watch and enjoy much of it.

There's a lot that is good about the Olympic Games. The world gets to see its better side (Ok, maybe it is like putting lipstick on a pig) on display, showing the great cultural diversity that makes life interesting, and what I most like about the games apart from the great competition on the fields is the many firsts that happen at or because of the Olympics. The last Summer Olympic Games can be remembered as a first for site of its venue. When China put on the games so well it showed that the Olympic Games belonged to every person wherever he or she lives, despite the ideology of the place.

Now having them in London has brought the games back to a more traditional and less opulent venue, London (which is hosting for the third time). Londoners don't feel the need to impress outsiders with expensive facilities, they want tradition to be the attraction, a reminder that in the Games themselves there is also rooted much inherent ceremony and tradition that can be as appealing as those obscenely expensive "Bird's Nest" stadiums.

Too, this year there are some other great firsts that we already know will happen They will be remembered along with the surprise firsts we are not yet aware of but that are being germinated and will be revealed during the games. There is, for an example, the announcement by the crazy Iranian government that it will pretend to stop hating Israel long enough to compete against Israeli athletes in London because, even when competing against Jews, the Iranian government said, "We will be true to sport and play every country." Of course a few days after announcing that the only Iranian athlete, a judo contestant, who was scheduled for a match against an Israeli withdrew because of a "critical digestive system infection". Oh well, at least it's a first that Iran pretends not to be paranoid. (They do however retain their first place for the hypocrisy medals.)

And another first in this version of the Games is especially nice for the ladies of the world. Women athletes from Brunei, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia will be allowed to compete at the Olympics for the first time ever as those countries finally recognize the existence of something not male. It's a crack in the stone for women's rights there, but is a start nonetheless. One of the handful of women athletes from those three Muslim countries will also carry the nation's flag in the opening ceremonies. The desire to fit in and join the Games and not be seen as the crazy aunt who lives in the attic, even reaches fundamentalist Muslim dictatorships.

The power of the symbolism of the Olympic Games is enormous. When a billion people are watching we all try to behave a little better, and that's a good thing.

Save Me From Safety Rules

One of the unpleasant aspects to living today, in the age of political correctness and government "protection" of our safety, is the policy of the government to protect us too much with crazy safety regulations that are costly and ineffective. No one, not even the government, can make life safe from accidents and no government should try. But they do because special interest groups that benefit from more expensive safety regulations insist. I think there is also a voting constituency (the global warming mentality crowd) that rewards politicians who pass stupid safety regulations, as in print on coffee cups that say..."Warning, beverage inside is hot".

How about those "child protective" medicine cap bottles that most adults can't open? They may prevent a small child from getting into a bottle of medicine the idiotic adult leaves within reach, but how many people die from not being to open and obtain their medicine when a life threatening emergency occurs. I think more of the latter than former happens.

Need more examples of stupid government safety measures? I just read that builders are non allowed to stand more than three rungs up on ladders when doing work, and that they must keep their body in contact with at least one rung. So this means they have to use expensive scaffolding instead of the standard ladder, passing on the costs to the consumer who uses the builder's service. That's just one of the tens of thousands of new safety regulations imposed (most of them nonsensical) in the U.S. the past decade to save us from whatever it is the government thinks threatening us.

There are many people who will be hurt every day doing normal activities in life. They might even be hurt getting out of bed in the morning. Please don't let the government know that or they may pass bed exit regulations too. Car regulations are often crazy. To be completely safe in cars we would have to stop using them altogether. And maybe crossing streets should be prohibited because so many people are hurt or killed by cars while crossing them.

Fact is, many of those the safety regulations just add cost and inconvenience to the majority of humans in order to protect the few idiots who need such things. I say to the government to keep the meaningful safety regulations everyone needs, like traffic lights and food safety inspection, but stop making rules to impress us that you are protecting us form imagined danger. If it did so we would see the vast majority of safety warnings and safety rules evaporate, and that would make our lives little less stressed and happy.

No law can make life foolproof. Life itself is about risk and adults should be able to access, react to and control most risks themselves. I wish governments would only regulate with safety measures the real risks instead of the almost impossible one. Hmmmm But perhaps they would even place a restraint on my idea on the grounds that it is dangerous protest about mindless control of our lives.

Cars

Buying my daughter Jane her first car was an interesting experience for me because it forced me to notice more things about cars. Unlike most men, I have little interest in and usually ignore automobiles. I never have known much or cared much about cars, probably because as a child I had other interests than the mechanical ones. All the kids in my neighborhood felt the same way. But as long as cars take me where I want or need to go without any mechanical breakdown I appreciate them. People, usually men, who love their cars are a special breed. I find that the attitude about cars is similar to one's attitude about dancing. The individual most often either hates to dance with intensity or he or she likes it very much. I personally hate dancing even more than I dislike cars. In the case of females, few like to think about cars but most love to dance. I wonder why it is so.

After taking test rides in the new cars Jane and I looked at before she selected one to buy, some observations about the state of the automobile today came to me. You get those today. First, I must say that cars are well made today, far better than in the previous decades. Even the tires today rarely get flats. I remember when I was a young driver having so many mechanical problems with cars I owned. I appreciate the few problems today. I think if the buyer of a new car tends to it according to the owners manual suggestions he or she will have few mechanical problems today (and the person who services the car with the many costly suggested maintenance trips that manual for the car posts will be wealthier).

I also notice how much cars look and act alike. It's almost as if there is a master blueprint to make them and that every manufacturer shares it when building a new car. Most of the time the differences are in the gimmicky design or features that have little to do with whether the cars run any better or worse. Too, there is great snob appeal in owning a car that is expensive, much as there is when wearing an expensive watch or fur coat. If you ask someone what kind of car he or she has and they reply, "A BMW", the status of the owner himself immediately goes up. If the reply is, " my dad's old Chevy" there is an air of discomfort in the room.

And some models have mixed status. Those eco friendly hybrid cars that pollute less or run on electricity to "burn cleaner" are highly treasured by the liberal, eco trendy crowd. I think every Hollywood type must own at least one of those kinds of cars. Rednecks and the common men, however, see them as sissy cars and wouldn't drive one even if it were given to them as a gift. I suppose the personality of the car owner can be indicated by the type of car he or she owns.

Another thing I noticed about cars was that the government feels it can saves us by mandating safety features be included in them, some good and some annoying. Most people agree seat belts are a great invention. But car air bags injure or kill passengers when they malfunction (as they often so) and there is uncertainty as to where they are necessary. In the U.S. there is a multitude of safety features manufacturers must add to the car they make. They can increase the cost of cars dramatically. So I wonder, for example, if that extra iron bar on the sides of the car that are placed to make the rider safer are worth the price they add to them.

It's also odd to me that the government misses on some safety features it should require but does not. I think all cars should be the same size and same height. If you drive a mini car and one of those huge cars that have jacked-up wheels crashes into your small car from behind, you may be decapitated by the monster car. And why do cars have speeds that far exceed the legal speed limit. "My car can do 120 mph", a driver may utter proudly. But for obvious safety reasons, no road legally allows that rate of speed. Shouldn't manufacturers be required to make cars that only go as fast as the highest legal speed limit?

I think I have mentioned enough about cars, given I care little about them. Oh, Jane choose to buy a new Honda Civic, a "highly rated" car....But the accuracy of car ratings are a whole other story left for another discussion. Happy Driving!

Screwed Generation

There is a cover article in Newsweek Magazine about today's Americans under age 35, what  is sometimes called "Millennials" or "Generation Y" but now is hearing a new title- the “screwed generation, And the reason they are screwed is the economy. Their parents (that's me) and the Y's (that would include Jane) are over-educated, underemployed and with a far less glowing possibility for the future. The unemployment rate for those 18 to 29 is 50 percent above the national average, and even those who have jobs are often overqualified and underpaid. They have great debt to repay, feel hopeless and have unprecedented levels of stress, and most will never be able to achieve the economic status or lifestyles their parents enjoy.

Ok, they are saying I  and parents of that generation in the U.S. and in many other countries screwed our children by being greedy and hoarding all the cash and opportunity. It is not true. I am innocent., but I won't speak for everyone else. Hmmmm have we been so greedy and sloppy that the economy our children have today is broken and useless to the Y Generation? It's true that most of the wealth in the world is held by the older generations, and that never before in history has the economic gap between Y and us been bigger. But we just took advantage of the opportunities we had, while many of the Y's seems less motivated and too self absorbed to take advantage when opportunities arise.

I also think you might call the Y group the "entitlement or Welfare" Generation.  Many of them expect to be given what they want and need. Governments everywhere have passed out "free stuff" so much that Y types expect an endless stream of them. And when mommy and daddy government doesn't give "stuff" to the Y's they borrow it with no intention of paying it back. The average student, according to Forbes, already carries $12,700 in credit card and other kinds of debt. Student loans have grown consistently over the last few decades to an average of $27,000 each. (mostly so high because the Y generation thinks it should borrow for the prestigious and expensive private universities instead of for the cheaper public ones).

I do think the social welfare state today gives too much to everyone and kills initiative in the process. The biggest difference I see between the two generations is that the older one was willing to work harder and sacrifice more to achieve its goals.  Too many Y's expect gifts and do not see working and paying taxes as the source of those  gifts.  The social welfare state killed Europe and is about to do the same to the U.S.  Governments today are more in the business of pleasing as many people as possible for as long as possible. That's it! There are now vast constituencies dependent on the federal government, Generation Y being one of the biggest.

I want the Y generation to succeed but my only advice for them is to stop whining. They should wait out the recession and work...work, work, hard, just like their parents did.

What Is A Hero

I'm reading a lot about heroes these days. The media keeps reporting about this hero or that who in truth seem not so heroic at all, and as a result, I am confused as exactly what hero is.  Just the other day my local newspaper said a guy who jumped in a shallow river and pulled out a swimmer who was in distress was a "hero". Since that rescuer was in no peril himself I don't call him a hero. There has to be some grave risk on the part of the person if he or she is a hero. And can a person be a hero if he or she commits only one "heroic act", but is ordinary or even meek the rest of the time?  I always thought heroes were predictable, that you could count on heroism from them whenever it was needed. And that implies that there must be very few heroes out there.

The poet Ralph Waldo Emerson had a good definition of a hero. He wrote once that a hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but he is braver five minutes longer. It's probably as good a definition as any because heroes have always been defined by the times in which they lived. Our own confused age is reflected by the fact that there is no universal definition of a hero today, just as most things in our lives are viewed from a relative standpoint so are "heroes". How do you identify a real hero in an age of moral relativism? It's not easy.

Everyone would probably agree that heroes exhibit certain qualities. Bravery, courage,  selflessness, a sacrifice, perseverance are all heroic qualities. But non heroes can exhibit those, for the wrong or bad reasons, too.  Some of the worst thugs in history had all four of those qualities present, yet their behaviors were so cruel we would not consider them to be heroes. Then again, misguided people in Libya who supported Mummar Ghadaffi probably identified him as a hero.

Sometimes we only regard public figures as heroes, a child may regard the football star who wins the game  as a hero. But when that child is grown and mature he will long have forgotten the football "hero" and defined a parent or someone else who is unknown to the public as a hero.  And what about the patriotic types who claim that soldiers are heroes. Surely, not every soldier is a hero. Being placed in danger does not constitute heroism. Maybe those who make soldiers heroes just do it because they need someone to be a hero in the confusing world in which we live.

I suppose there will never be a universal definition about who is a hero because heroes are not real anyway. They are more often just creations of our imagination that we use to help us cope with our "ordinary" lives

Why I Won't Use Cell Phones

There are just a few things in life that the majority of people accept as absolutes. There is the idea that it is better to be good than evil, that politicians lie, that children should be loved and protected, etc. But one absolute I am resisting is the recent one, that anyone who doesn't own and use a cell phone is nuts. There are a few of us non cell users out here, and while I don't object to anyone saying I am crazy (there is abundant evidence besides the cell phone thing to make that contention) I do contest the idea that my craziness is because I hate and refuse to use cell phones.

Every time I tell someone I don't have a cell phone, I notice a constipated look on their face. And when I disclose that I have never had one and do not want to have one anytime in my lifetime, they give me a look of shock (constipated shock). I know it is because they are addicted to their electronic device and they know no they are addicts, but still I find it hard to believe in their view that there is no life without cell phones. So I now make my case to you for not wanting to go near a cell phone.

First, that "You need to stay connected" reason they always declare makes no sense. I can be connected with my email, computer or land line. I surely don't want to carry those with me every second of every day as cell owners do. Cell phones are not just connections, they are the leashes the monkeys who use them are tied to. The very nature of them makes the user more and more addicted to them, moving away from real world experiences to electronic slavery. They may appear to be choosing to use their cells, but in fact, they are dragged by them into their short term gratification.....all the while not seeing the big picture of life. I don't want to "be in touch" every moment of my life as they are. Rather, choosing when to connect is a far better and healthier life style choice than being on a constant state of alert for the next cell phone vibration.

"But you will be inconvenienced not having a cell phone," the cell addicts claim. I say, thank God for that! If someone needs or want something from me or I of them, it can wait. I don't want people to find me whenever they want to. That is stalking, not communicating! Often not being available shows we didn't need "to be in touch" anyway, and that as a result we found better experiences as a substitute to the one the cell call would have brought. It is often through the inconveniences that we experience the difficulties that make life more unpredictable and interesting.

Cell phones make communicating so simple we become sloppy in out relationships. Some people even define themselves by the amount and frequency of cell phone communications they have. And they often find those phone calls to be the most meaningful relationships they have each day and plan there days around their phones. It's sad.

"Why don't you join the modern world and get a cell phone", some tell me. Fact is, I don't like the "modern world" (as they define it) enough to want one. I find that the more modernity I adopt the less I appreciate the things that matter most to me, and those are the simple non technological ones. When I see the cell robots chattering away about inconsequential mess on a beautiful, sunny, cool day I know they are far more likely to not notice what nature is showing them (my real world). Appreciating the beauty of a rainbow or sunset is one of life's glories. When the cell addict is chattering, he or she is unlikely to notice that. That's also sad.

Another reason for not owning or using a cell phone is the coarseness they bring to society. It's probably because cell phones are addictive and addicts behave badly that this happens. Society has become a colder and more rude place since cell phones and other recent technology captured humans and estranged them from each other. I have no desire to add to that by carrying the greatest modern weapon of cultural assault- the cell phone. Truth is, cell phones are crutches that enable people to be disorganized and self absorbed. Cell phones make people less organized, less capable of short term planning, less able to function on their own and make them much, much less polite to others. Every ring tone heard is the death knell for civility.

"But it's great technology," they say. Well, not all improvements in technology translate as being beneficial for humans. For example, nuclear weapons are a better and newer technology for armies today, but they surely are not weapons humans should use. New doesn't mean better, nor does convenience mean improvement. Every day I wonder why people follow the habits of others and blindly embrace cell phones without once evaluating whether those habits are an asset or liability to them.

Fact is, despite all the reasons cell phones can be convenient for users, in the end, they are like any other addictive product, giving the user a rush and exacting a heavy price to the health and welfare of the user.

Make my graveside epitaph this and I will rest in eternal peace..... 'He never Used a cell phone'

Sitting To Death

I am a confused man (again). Don't tell me to "sit down" and relax, because what confuses me is the so called research that says sitting is bad for humans. Yep! They say that people who sit too much have "sitting disease". I think we are supposed to stop saying "sit down and relax" and substitute "stand up and live longer" instead. Data research from the Pennington Biomedical Research Center was just released that says that sitting cuts off as many years of life as smoking. I suspect the sitting research people may have been smoking something that made them bleary headed when they concluded that, but it is what they claim.

Supposedly, if we spent less than three hours a day sitting, it would add two years to our average life expectancy. I am not sure if office employees will start typing while standing up, or if standing too much shortens lives too. But it seems impractical. And, the research says, that if you like to sit on the couch and watch TV for more than two hours a day you can add about 1 1/2 years to your life.

Pennington claims that sitting is as much of a risk to health as not only smoking, but being obese. I guess the fat, smoker who sits on his couch and watches reality TV is headed of a quick death. But then, anyone who watches that much reality TV is already brain dead. Sigh..first they wanted to take away my fatty food and sweets, then they told me I have to exercise vigorously every day, and now they tell me I can't sit and be lazy. What's next...a ban on donuts!

There is no food, drink or activity that some study won't say is killing us. It's crazy, and I suggest that we kill the studies instead. When we live our lives the way we wish and the way we most feel comfortable, most often we will live the best and longest because we eliminate the stress the researchers place on us to live up to their beliefs. I am not going to take this "sitting down"! As far as I am concerned those researches can just sit on their studies.

Governments Censoring Google

Remember that  old refrain that the Internet was wonderful because it was a free and open platform for the exchange of information? I guess we soon learned that it isn't so. There are restrictions and censorship all over the Internet. Just ask someone in North Korea, for instance, if he or she can read anything on the Internet.  Google (and its affiliated partner Yu Tube)  probably gets bombarded the most by governments who ask them to remove content or to turn over content that the government can use to harass someone who posted it.

The country by country total of censorship request for the past six months of last year was just released by Google. What is surprising is how many democratic countries ask too. But then, those requests are more often not about censoring free speech. They are most often legitimate attempt  to enforce laws such as those protecting privacy of an individual or restricting hate speech. Dictatorships though, as in China and Iran, often hint to Google to remove content because they want to suppress internal opposition,  they don't like the content or are because they see the content as threatening the governments control over its people. When the dictators don't get Google's cooperation they often censor themselves by blocking out access in their countries to Google and Yu Tube with their self imposed filters.

Google says it gets more than 2 million requests alone just to remove addresses from its search engine. It all makes one wonder if there is any communication platform that is truly free, and whether the increasing attempts of governments to censor, for good or evil reasons, content that used to be seen by Internet users without such filters.

Here is a representative sampling of the highlights of the censorship requests as Google reported during that 6 month period, and why Google faces big problems in trying to obey all the requests, both for real and self-serving censorship attempts.

Brazil

We received the most requests for censorship from Brazil, with 418 requests made. We complied with 61% of them

Canada
We received a request from the Passport Canada Office to remove a YouTube video of a Canadian citizen urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet. We did not comply with this request.

China
We received three requests to remove a total of 121 items from our services. We removed ads that violated our AdWords policies in response to two of those requests, but did not comply otherwise. We have withheld details about one request because we have reason to believe that the Chinese government has prohibited us from full disclosure.
YouTube was inaccessible during this reporting period.

France
A single court order resulted in the removal of 180 items from Google Groups relating to a case of defamation against a man and his wife.

Germany

A court order resulted in the removal of 898 search results that linked to forums and blogs containing statements about a government agency and one of its employees that the court determined were not credible.
We received a request to remove 70 YouTube videos for allegedly violating the German Childrens and Young Persons Act. We restricted some of the videos from view in Germany in accordance with local laws.

India
The number of content removal requests we received increased by 49% compared to the previous reporting period.

Italy
We received a request from the Central Police in Italy to remove a YouTube video that satirized Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s lifestyle. We did not comply with this request.

Pakistan
We received a request from the Government of Pakistan's Ministry of Information Technology to remove six YouTube videos that satirized the Pakistan Army and senior politicians. We did not comply with this request.

Norway
Two requests resulted in the removal of 1814 items from AdWords for violating Norwegian marketing laws.

Poland
We received a request from the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development to remove a search result that criticized the agency as well as eight more that linked to it. We did not comply with this request.

Spain
We received 14 requests from the Spanish Data Protection Authority to remove 270 search results that linked to blogs and sites referencing individuals and public figures. The Spanish Data Protection Authority also ordered the removal of three blogs published on Blogger and three videos hosted on YouTube. We did not comply with these requests.

Thailand
We received four requests from the Ministry of Information, Communication and Technology in Thailand to remove 149 YouTube videos for allegedly insulting the monarchy in violation of Thailand's lèse-majesté law. We restricted 70% of these videos from view in Thailand in accordance with local law.

Turkey
We received a request from the Telecommunciations Communication Presidency of the Information and Communications Technologies Authoritiy to remove a YouTube video that contained hate speech and two other videos about Atatürk. We removed the video with hate speech for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines but did not comply with the rest of the request. In addition, we received two requests from the Telecommunications Communication Presidency of the Information and Communications Technologies Authority and a request from the Ankara Public Prosecutor of the Press Bureau to remove a total of seven YouTube videos, claiming that the videos violated law no. 5816 on crimes against Atatürk. We restricted Turkish users from accessing six of these videos.

United Kingdom
We received a request from the UK's Association of Police Officers  to remove five user accounts that allegedly promoted terrorism. We terminated these accounts because they violated YouTube's Community Guidelines and as a result approximately 640 videos were removed.

United States
We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove a blog because of a post that allegedly defamed a law enforcement official in a personal capacity. We did not comply with this request, which we have categorized in this Report as a defamation request.
We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 1,400 YouTube videos
for alleged harassment. We did not comply with this request. Separately, we received a request from a different local law enforcement agency to remove five user accounts that allegedly contained threatening and/or harassing content. We terminated four of the accounts, which resulted in the removal of approximately 300 videos, but did not remove the remaining account with 54 videos.

We received a court order to remove 218 search results that linked to allegedly defamatory web sites. We removed 25% of the results cited in the request.
The number of content removal requests we received increased by 103% compared to the previous reporting period.

Too Many Cookbooks

I was dusting some bookshelves in my house and got ambitious enough to remove all the books to dust properly. This is a major story in itself, a male who dusts properly. But I'll leave that topic until later because I want to write something about all the cookbooks I have here. I have way too many, like so many others who like to cook. Next to the Bible, cook books may be the most common books of all. Yet most people use only a few recipes from a few of the cook books they have, probably because we tend to cook the familiar.

I bought all those cook books from bookstores and thrift stores, when every cookbook or any other kind of book someone else decided was no longer appropriate for them, costs just a couple of dollars. I often shop for books at thrift stores, like Goodwill. There is a huge selection of books in all condition of all subject matter, and it's fun to select readings by impulse rather than following the crowd and reading what every one else thinks is hot. Most books that are big sellers are not literary masterpieces, they are simply manifestations of the human habit of following the herd and pretending to like it.

Cookbooks don't follow that rule. There are cookbooks from every possible source, available and waiting for the buyer. Cook books are easier to write and appeal to so many that endless titles are published. I have many off beat cook books many of which I skim through but never select recipes from. Some are better for their curious content than for their eatable recipes. Among the more than 150 titles I have is the: an Amish cookbook (Those Pennsylvania Dutch immigrants who still live as if they are in the 18th century but who have a good reputations for baking recipes), the Thai and Danish cookbooks I received from friends, celebrity cookbooks (I like the amusing celebrity commentary, not the recipes which are probably not their own anyway), regional cookbooks (country, city or state cookbooks like The Savanna or Charleston cookbook) style cookbooks (like...cooking in one pot, in a microwave, barbecuing, sauté cooking etc. I won't allow any of those awful "healthy or diet cooking" selections in my house), Nationalistic cookbooks (The pretentious French seem to have more "French" cooking books than have any other national selection, but Italian cookbooks are my favorite), Feature cookbooks (desserts breads and meats are popular), cookbooks published by charity organizations (schools, clubs, churches, the women's league, the YMCA etc.), Instructive cookbooks (step by step for cooking novices), and Picture cookbooks (people buy them because of the lush photographs of the food or scenic areas the food represent. These books sit on coffee tables more than in a kitchen and their recipes often are never tried).

There are more types but you get the idea. Cookbooks are as varied as are the humans who write them. My favorite ones are the cookbooks of my favorite foods of my youth and life thereafter, the Cajun/Creole and the New Orleans or Louisiana cookbooks, of which I have many. I like those recipes best and use those books far more than the others.

I think most cookbooks are lightly read and used. They are warm and fuzzy books that give us the promise that we might actually use them for something tasty. Yet, they never pressure us to look at or use. Too, one never knows where the next great recipe can be found, whether in a popular cookbook or an obscure one. Whatever, don't let them gather too much dust on your bookshelves. Get cooking.....

Mr. Postman

Post office outlets are rapidly closing around the country now, and the end of "snail mail" as we know it is near. It's sad because postal delivery and the buildings that house branches of the post office in every community have been a part of shaping the community feeling (that is also evaporating everywhere in many other ways) that make life more pleasant. First we lost many of the neighborhood bakeries, and now the post office is leaving us too. Progress does leave collateral damage.
As businesses and people more often use E mail, the fax and other electronic methods to pass information along, and as the popularity of the personal letter continues to decline, there is no doubt snail mail is already in intensive care. Speed and cost have killed tradition. Too bad because there is something special about waiting for an important letter. It makes for a more exciting experience. Sending an E mail today is all about immediacy, and there is much less emotion attached to it. To illustrate this listen to one of my favorite Beatle songs about just that, 'Please Mr. Postman'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8BPcNUQy-0
The Lyrics say it all. The lines below from the song not only pine about lost or anxious love, but also about the power of the anticipation of receiving a letter. But in today's instant communication world the anticipation might last a few seconds. Though the song should hold interest forever, given the quality of the music, I wonder if kids today who have never lived in a world where there was only snail mail could fully understand or appreciate the angst the song displays. And that is a pity as well. A life lived only in instant gratification is far less interesting than one lived in anticipation, even in those cases where the anticipation might be negative. Mr. Postman, please bring a letter to me today...

'There must be some word today from my (boy) girlfriend so far away.
Please, Mister Postman, look and see.
Is there a letter, a letter for me?
I've been standing here waiting, Mr. Postman, oh, so patiently
For just a card or just a letter sayin' (s)he'll be comin' home to me.'

'So many days have passed me by.
You saw the tears in my eyes.
You wouldn't stop to make me feel better
By leavin' me a card or a letter'.

Bikini Time

It's a great month for all we men. This is the Sixty-six year anniversary of a sacred  item. The bikini made its first appearance sixty six years ago and it is still a male favorite.. This is significant because the world revolves around who looks good in a bikini,....or something like that. Thank God the bikini is a female clothing item. You might have a nightmare if I wore one, or any other man for that matter. Never was a clothing item more suited for the body beautiful types and unsuitable for the other 99% of humans. Fortunately, those who are misshapen and would look bad in a bikini usually have the sense to not wear one.

Contrary to popular belief, the bikini was not named after Bikini Atoll, the Pacific island where the U.S. military tested the atom bomb (the idea being that the swimsuit was like the atom – small, but powerful). The earliest representation of the bikini was found in an ancient Roman mosaic. The picture depicts several women in skimpy, two piece garments engaged in sporting events such as running, lifting weights and throwing the discus. I am sure Roman fat guys like me must have enjoyed looking at those hot murals. They probably drank beer and ate pizza as they gawked at the bikini ladies.

Once the bikini look arrived there was no stopping it. Even in puritan Victorian England bikinis made the scene. They became a way for women to rebel against society's rules about showing too much skin and its stigma against displaying any part of the female body. Young Victorian ladies ladies flocked to seaside resorts attired in swim wear made of wool or heavy flannel, scandalizing beach goers in costumes that left little to the imagination above the neck and below the ankle. That kind of bikini may not excited me now, but that was revealing attire for those days and leads us to the sensational bikini ancestor, the thong.

I have to give those lousy French a small credit. After the bikini disappeared they brought back and for updated the bikini. They re introduced it to the world after W.W.II  in  the form of the sexy bikinis we love today. We must have become bikini mad now because there is the bikini waxing ritual (thank Goodness kit's also only for women) and that infamous song from the early 60's, "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini". How can anyone resent , even a bad sing when it honors the bikini?

Hmmm I think I am beginning to sound like a dirty old man, so I will stop writing about bikinis, log off and try to find some bikini ladies off line.

Cost Of Raising A Child

As Father's Day has come and gone here's some financial news to make one think twice about being a dad. Dad can expect to raise a child for 17 years or more but at an average cost of $234,000 to do it. I'm sure I spend much more than that on Jane.  A government report  found that a middle income family with a child born last year will spend about that much in child related expenses from birth through age 17. The estimate also includes the cost of transportation, child care, education, food, clothing, health care and miscellaneous expenses. Interestingly, the cost of child care for young children which ws tiny 50 years ago, is now the second largest expense as more moms work outside the home and have to pay for others to tend to little Johnny and Susie.
The $234,000 per year average is for middle income parents. Lower income parents have a much lower cost average at about $169,080 for each child up to age 17 and higher income parents spend on average $389,670. The cost at all levels is based on income levels, the area of the country in which the child and parents live, family size and things such as welfare payments to the lower income levels that pay for the child's expenses rather than the parents themselves. The number of children people have declines as income rises, everywhere, because the opportunity cost is higher when income is higher. When a couple has more money they have more choices and opportunities that are curtailed for children or they just get a dog. As much as I love kids, dogs don't ask for $500 prom dresses...

Also, the cost per child decreases as a family has more children. The report found that families with three or more children spend 22 percent less per child than those with two children. The savings result from hand-me-down clothes and toys, shared bedrooms and buying food in larger quantities. It's not recommended though that Sally's dresses be handed down to and worn by little Fred.

Hmmmm Maybe we parents should cut the child expense budget like those politicians always promise to do for us before the election. From my own perspective being a parent and spending whatever it takes for a little one is worth every penny. That new car or TV wears out, but one's child never stops driving you crazy and, thus, is "priceless".

Older Men Make Longer Living Children

Some good news for the oldies. Older dads and grandfathers may have longer living kids. That's according to a new study by researchers at Northwestern University, who found that children of  fathers in their late 30s to early 50 inherit longer telomeres, those bits of DNA at the end of chromosomes that affect aging and cell death. Typically, the longer your telomeres, the longer you live. Mine must be a mile long. I should get an electrified fence to keep the hot young babes away. Hmmmm Ok,  maybe that statement just proves that older men also hallucinate more. But the study I just cited  about babies with older dads is real. I'm not kidding about that. Though this doesn't imply that I am going to hang out in single bars and approach the young ladies with , "Hi, want to have a baby with me? I make better ones".

The study also says that the older your father's father was when your father was born, the more likely you are to have long telomeres. So the findings suggest being an older dad isn't all risk as we have been led to believe. What a turn around from other studies that say older parents produce more kids with genetic defects. This young generation believes that older people are less intelligent, less able to physically compete etc. We are often assigned with having but one saving grace, the idea that being older means more experienced.
"He may wear diapers and drool, but he knows a lot", those young whippersnappers can be heard to say.

I'll counter with, "And my sperm is better than yours too (as I soil my depends diapers and dribble all over myself)." Well, that might not be the most effective way to appeal to those hot young babes who want strong babies. We older men need to come up with some better lines and sell ourselves more (and stop wearing spandex...Yuk).  Maybe we should create some lines for the on-line dating sites that would make the sexy young babes chase after us. Microsoft did well with the slogan 'Intel Inside'. We older guys should wear a sign on our pants that says 'Better Babies Inside'.

On the other hand, I guess senility comes with being older too.............

Banning Sugar

The food police here in the U.S. are now after sugar ! This is a problem for a sugar junkie like me, and I think unfair to rage a politically correct assault to demonize one food as the cause of the growing fatness of America. Surely, Americans are too fat. But is sugar the culpret.....or perhaps is the real villain is both eating too much sugar and eating too much of everything else? I wonder also if governments should have the right regulate what we eat when the content is harmless. Sugar is an empty calorie, not harmful in itself unless, like all other foods we eat, it is eaten in overly large quantities. Maybe the blame for the obesity should be that we simply eat too much and exercise too little, not that sugar makes us fat.

Government is now in full sugar demonization mode as some states and cites have implemented "sugar taxes" to discourage eating it, Disney has announced it will no longer advertise food with sugar on it's TV networks radio station and its web sites, New York has pans to ban the sale of over sized soft drinks and on and on. Ironically, while the known dangerous cancer causing cigarette is allowed to exist freely in the market place, a harmless substance like sugar is declared as to be evil. And what about the devastating health effects of alcohol? I hear nothing about banning that. How crazy! Sugar has been consumed in large quantities for thousand years, and is low in calories (15 calories per tablespoon).

Evidence of the folly of banning sugar laden foods can be seen in the fact that overall consumption of sugary soft drinks has decreased dramatically in the past two decades. So saying we are fat because we drink too much coke is absurd. Though eating too much sugar causes many health problems, so does eating too much of anything else. Consumers do not need governments to regulate what they eat as long as the food they consume is not a toxic product (as is tobacco). Instead, advising and educating the consumer of the hazards of eating too many sweets is a more reasonable approach to curbing the sugar excess. Adding a bit of sugar to food can make our food taste better. It is a natural product and not a "bad" substance. What Americans need to control obesity is self control, limiting the amount of all foods they eat. But then, that takes will power and wisdom. Banning sugar does not.

This is an age of plenty. We eat too much, we play with technology too much, spend too much on "junk" at malls and stores we don't need or use etc. It's the quantity of sugar people eat that is harmful not the sugar itself. Demonizing a single harmless food will only make the public less attentive to real food issues. Obesity is a problem to be addressed, but to single out one component of one's diet as a way to cure the problem is idiotic. Better to forget that stupidity and enjoy a sugary cinnamon roll today!

Towns And Cities To Avoid

I was driving the other day and again saw that sign directing me to "Boring" Oregon. No, it didn't want to make me go there. But it got me to thinking about some of the other silly town names here in Oregon and in my native Louisiana. Oregon and Louisiana have many more crazy named towns than do the sedate states like Nebraska, Ohio, Indiana and other places no one wants to go to unless they have to. But they also have more than bigger states like New York.

So after researching the crazy names of cities and towns in all 50 states I have no conclusion as to why some states have more silly ones that others. But in general, given there are exceptions to the rule... as in boring Kentucky having a huge number, the more dull the boring state the fewer funny town names. States where people are more laid back and have a good sense of humor produce more wacky named towns and places that are conservative and religious produce far fewer.


When a city or town his given an odd or funny name it brands not only the place, but the residents of it. It's similar to naming a new born boy or girl something crazy. It's no wonder, for example, "Moon Unit Zappa", the given name to music great Frank Zappa's boy turned into a troubled child and adult. So if you name your child "Bambi", don't expect academic brilliance.
Here are some weird town/city names from Louisiana and Oregon for your next visit.

Oregon:
Beaver Creek (no the beaver's don't have title to the creek and in fact seemed to have left town. There aren't many beavers there anymore)
Bend ( as in bend over?)
Boring( rumor has it that the town lives up to it's name)
Bridal Veil (men avoid this place whenever possible)
Dork Canal (maybe my future home if I need to be out in a nursing home)
Funny Butte (I have yet to hear a butt tell a good joke. Maybe the funny ones are there)
Idiot Creek (no one has yet to claimed to be the founder of this one)
Poop Creek (be wary of drinking the water if in Poop Creek)
Wanker's Corner (they have seemed to put their wankers in the corner. I wonder why?)

Louisiana:
Bayou Crab (What makes a bayou crab special?)
Belcher (crude place)
Brimstone (another name for sulfur, meaning this places smells bad)
Cut Off (I hope they don't cut off those!)
Dry Prong (not the place to go if thirsty)
False River (if you see a river you there are hallucinating)
Frogmore (it's actually nothing to do with frogs. It's an archaeological site of Indian mounds)
Glasscock (what cab a cock do with a glass love muscle?)
Loco (I know.( after writing about this subject I belong there)
Napoleonville (though named after one of the world's biggest ego maniac, it's a very small town
Vatican (the Italians don't even know it moved)
Waterproof (homeowners never buy flood insurance there)
White Castle (they must be clean people)

D Day

Another anniversary of D Day has past. I won't go through the specifics of the event, but simply write that D Day (Decision Day) was the turning point of W.W. II and the end of the Nazi attempt to expand into other nations and practice some very inhumane doctrines there. There are few survivors, civilian or military, of W.W. II, and as a result few people today note it or think about the slaughter that came about in the world's greatest conflict (per casualty numbers). That is a shame. Our technology and conveniences have robbed us of appreciation of and about previous eras that can instruct us well even today.

Much of the world saw that war as a reluctant crusade to exterminate the horrors and threats of Nazism and as a result, there were few people who protested fighting Germany and her allies because the evil was clear to all. Today such clarity in the evil arena is not what it used to be. With modern communication, and the protests and restraints on government that go with those protests, it is hard to imagine countries being able to mobilize such a great war again.

That's the good news. No doubt, for example, the west would have long ago attacked Muslim countries in response to their support of Islamic terrorists if this were the era of the 40's rather than the 2000's. The public today would instantly oppose a war of that kind today and freeze their governments from executing such a war. It's a nice restraint to have in preventing a foolish rush to judgment.

The bad aspect of this is that renegade nations and groups sheltered by them, as in Iran and many Muslim nations, feel less pressure to behave fairly knowing that an attack on them today is unlikely. In a sense, W.W. II was the last world war to be fought in a conventional way. Such a world wide conflict will be highly unlikely to happen again. And that has a bad connotation as well as the good one I mentioned. That is, nations now may act badly and aggressively against others with much less fear that they will be challenged and stopped in their acting out.

War should always be a last answer. Humans lose lives needlessly in them for wars are most often nothing more than temporary territorial changes. The humans who experience war return from those conflicts physically or emotionally injured, and the civilian population loses much as well. The carnage of D day and W.W. II should be a good reminder to us of that.

Pakistan Stops Twittering

You know, I hate most technology so much that I would probably move into a cave if one were available. But even I am outraged at censorship of free expression.  According to the Pakistan government, Pakistan shut down Twitter for about eight hours recently because Twitter refused to remove content considered objectionable to Muslims. Hmmmm Cooler heads (maybe cooler ....if you like all that tweeting nonsense) prevailed though and Pakistani Prime Minister Raza Gilani intervened to end the ban and restore access. It was banned because of a Twitter contest that asked people to go to face book for a contest that encouraged people to post their idea of what Islam’s prophet Mohammed looked like.Muslims don't like any representations of Mohammed, considering it iconic anc disrespectful.

Trying to censor such harmless speech is idiotic in this age of electronic media. Probably he government initially banned Twitter to please the nutty fundamentalists in Pakistan who seem to run the country.  But it is not possible to control use of the internet.  First, people are used to using electronic media to communicate what they feel and believe., and secondly, it is impossible for governments to censor all the electronics out there.

I think the Prime Minister probably restored twitter in Pakistan  because he wanted to avoid another of the many past situations in which the craziest of Muslims placed death threats on humans who speak about Islam "inappropriately".  He understands that individual can censor how they communicate with others, but governments can no longer effectively censor for the collective citizenry. Unfortunately, the extremists fundamentalist Muslims, the ones who long ago captured modern islam and are controlling it, do not have that understanding.

One would think they would have learned that lesson by now, because the extremists themselves use the western communication technology they claim to hate to plan their agendas and communicate their  (often subversive, deviate) policies and strategies, knowing that their communications can not be controlled by anyone else. Hmmmm.... They reason, the west can't stop us from using their technological inventions for our own purposes, but we can stop our own followers from using it. Apparently, two plus two is not four in the fundamentalist Islamic world.

In banning Twitter, Pakistan joined a list of countries including China, Burma, the United Arab Emirates and Libya that have denied their citizens access to the blogging sites like twitter.  All of them are doomed to fail in their censorship attempts. Some of the Pakistani Twitter users immediately downloaded software to circumvent the ban, while others were able to tweet via "smart phones" (I hate that personification of a phone. I doubt that either the phones or the users of them are in any way smart) . So the ban was immediately unenforceable for those with the tech savvy and desire to circumvent it.

Now....if you could just find a way to

Chat Slang

IDK sup re IM.... Omg! ATM 411 FUBAR. MIRL!!! Did you get that? If not, you are not up to date on some of the common chat slang these days. Here's a translation of what I wrote in those first sentences. "I don't know what's up regarding Instant messaging. Oh my gosh! At the moment information is fouled up beyond all recognition. Meet me in real life not online."

Don't feel badly about not understanding that mess. I didn't either until stumbling on Chatslang.com and creating my little cryptic message above. I think our problem is that we are not teenagers, and thus, don't have much experience in the use of online chat slang abbreviations or emotioncoms. Just call me O.o *-* and :-/ (that's, confused, frustrated and perplexed in case you also don't know your cutsie slang icons)

It seems there is an ever increasingly broader chat alternative language on line today called chat slang. But those using it are a homogeneous group, mostly composed of pre teens and teenagers.

Fine...let them have their on line chat slang. But I have seem some of this chat slang creeping into mainstream language, both verbal and written. And I don't like it. No doubt Shakespeare would be aghast (I wander what the chat icon for aghast is?) But then language must evolve and change over time or it dies (like Latin did and like French seems to want to, given its insular and rigid nature). Maybe Shakespeare would lol if that slang was around in his day.

As a fan of clearer, more precise, grammatically and syntactically clear and standard language usage, I ask a few questions for you about the rise of chat slang (please answer in standard English). Is chat slang a higher or lower form of language? How much of it is a good or bad thing? Do those who chat slang excessively lower their standard language usage level. =D (that's a chat icon for "laugh out loud", which itself was a chat slang that has crept into mainstream written and speech today).

It is probably a temporary and harmless language aberration. But it does seem to me to be another element of the dumbing down and laziness of humans brought about by the ease of modern technology. Sometimes such silly slang is brought about by a subculture (teenagers and pre teens, in this instance) as a way of insulting itself from the main culture. But chat slang is used by adults too. Staying of chat lines is one way to avoid much of that mess. I wonder if you have ever used any chat slang yourself? IHA! bi bi