Christmas is over. There is a little deflation after the end
of Christmas because people change their outlook and behavior so to a
positive one much during the lead up to and to Christmas Day. Humans
become better people during Christmas, probably a herd mentality
reaction because the masses create that idea. It's a good thing but
impossible to maintain all year, as due to their imperfections most
people can't show "good will and love" toward their fellow humans for
too long. Haha It would kill them to do so.
Next is one of my least favorite holidays, New Year's. It's the one I
call the "Artificial holiday". Other than when I was a child and so
loved to shoot fireworks after Christmas through New Year's Eve, I have
largely ignored New Year's Eve, a time when the drunks and drunk
wannabe's roam and carnage the rest of humanity in the name of....I am
not sure. A drunk at New Year's Eve is only slightly less threatening
than an attacking viking raider.
So while I ignore New Year's Eve and New Year's day I am pondering some
of the old childhood traditions my family had during Christmas. As
children we hardly notice them, but as our family dies and the
traditions disappear we strangely retrieve them from our memories. I
think they give us comfort in dealing with the present since most of us
idealize our childhood and would like to relive it if possible. My mom
was the one in charge of all the holiday festivities. Most moms are,
given they more often have a more pronounced sensitivity than do the
males of the family.
One such tradition I remember was my mother playing her Christmas
record albums in the house. She would start playing those LP albums
after Thanksgiving and could be heard until after New Year's. We all
liked it and it gave us both an appreciation of the holiday and of
music. Now I play Christmas music on my computer every Christmas season
Christmas music is simple, but pure. Sometimes while the records play
my mom would make cheesecake, the same cheesecake recipe that I make
today. Her recipe was excellent and requested by many. My mom used to
bake several to give as presents. One year I remember she didn't make a
cheesecake for a family friend and the friend was very upset. My mom n
ever forgot to make one for her after that mistake.
Another tradition we had was to open the presents Christmas morning. In
our family Santa Claus never came on Christmas Eve, so we didn't open
them at that time a so many families do. The routine was to awaken, eat
breakfast, go to Christmas mass and return to open the presents. My
parents were generous and always satisfied me with the unexpected and
the familiar (one was a box of Russell Stover Chocolate covered
caramels that I adored and got every year). When my daughter was small
we followed the same Christmas present opening ritual.
Decorating for Christmas was always elaborate and started the day after
Thanksgiving. My mother decorated for every holiday and was in charge
of all the interior decorations, while my dad and my brother and I put
up the outside lights and other decorations. I still love decorations.
There are many who think Christmas decorations, either the tacky kind
of the fancy, are silly or "too much work". Those people have no
Christmas soul. I feel sorry for them and hope they will one day find
one. When I was a child we had no led lights. Instead it was the old
and short lived colored bulb. Changing those things was a full time
job, particularly when pranksters (like me) would loosened some of
them, to make them appear to be burned out, at neighborhood houses to
make it appear they were burned out. We thought that kind of Christmas
prank was fun. It was a destructive as we got in those harmless days.
There were quite a few more of those family traditions, but no need to
write about them. Instead, you can think about your own traditions, at
Christmas or anytime. Happy New Year.
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
The Age Of Triviality
This is the Age of Triviality. Well, that's my name for
it. People
everywhere seem more concerned with the trivial than with the
important. It's probably because they either want to be distracted by
triviality in order to escape reality or they have been seduced by it,
since it is everywhere. If we build sandcastles in the air, the air is
the Internet. Further, I think the best place to notice that triviality
has taken over the world is to look at how that social media is used.
Even though I rarely participate in it, and only as a viewer when doing
so, I can see that social media is mostly much ado about nothing.
Most of those "tweets" on Twitter are trivial ones....or annoying ones if you dislike them as much I do. And social media sites like Face book are mostly posts about nothing. "Here I am making coffee this morning", for instance. Posting pictures of things that we don't care about is the norm on most of the social media sites. There is also an excess of exaggeration about what the person posting is trying to convey and often what is posted is untrue or meant to impress the viewer. If friend Mabel posts her photos of the local hangout, for instance, Audrey posts her photos of her recent trip to Paris....just to one up Mabel.
One thing absent from social media is the discussion of any serious subjects. There is no depth there. I guess that's why some talk about Face book being "Fake book". I suspect that allot of what is posted on Face book/Fake book and other social media sites is just not real. But then, the trivial is that way. What's posted is pretentious or egotistical or some other illusion. I doubt you'll find any serious discussions there. Any serious subject gets mentioned only because it is trendy to do so, and the posting is often nonsense rather than reality.
Social media is a mirror of what concerns humans, and a look at social media sites today shows that we are concerned more about nothing than about something. I realize that social media is seductive to some, that it is a "toy" and that many don't want or see it as appropriate to use for intelligent postings. But nonetheless, what we see on social media is mostly triviality that confirms that we are not thinking very deeply during our days on earth. . And that is troubling.
Most of those "tweets" on Twitter are trivial ones....or annoying ones if you dislike them as much I do. And social media sites like Face book are mostly posts about nothing. "Here I am making coffee this morning", for instance. Posting pictures of things that we don't care about is the norm on most of the social media sites. There is also an excess of exaggeration about what the person posting is trying to convey and often what is posted is untrue or meant to impress the viewer. If friend Mabel posts her photos of the local hangout, for instance, Audrey posts her photos of her recent trip to Paris....just to one up Mabel.
One thing absent from social media is the discussion of any serious subjects. There is no depth there. I guess that's why some talk about Face book being "Fake book". I suspect that allot of what is posted on Face book/Fake book and other social media sites is just not real. But then, the trivial is that way. What's posted is pretentious or egotistical or some other illusion. I doubt you'll find any serious discussions there. Any serious subject gets mentioned only because it is trendy to do so, and the posting is often nonsense rather than reality.
Social media is a mirror of what concerns humans, and a look at social media sites today shows that we are concerned more about nothing than about something. I realize that social media is seductive to some, that it is a "toy" and that many don't want or see it as appropriate to use for intelligent postings. But nonetheless, what we see on social media is mostly triviality that confirms that we are not thinking very deeply during our days on earth. . And that is troubling.
No Kisses Allowed
It's time for another episode of 'The Stupid Politically
Correct is at
it Again'. This one involves a 6 year old boy who is bring treated like
a sexual predator, but in actuality is acting like 6 year olds were
expected to in the pre politically correct madness that is out of hand.
It seems that a 6-year-old boy was suspended from school the other day
for kissing a girl at school. He kissed the hand of a classmate as
normal 6 year olds tend to do from time to time. The idiots that run
the school system in the Colorado county thinks that 6 year olds are
hitting on 6 year old girls because they want sex. They considered it
sexual harassment.
The "predator" boy's mother said officials at Lincoln School of Science and Technology in Canon City, a southern Colorado city of 16,000, are over-reacting. Jennifer Saunders said her son Hunter has a crush on a girl at school and she likes him back. Uh...that would be a 6 year old crush, not a post puberty one. I'm surprised the geniuses at the school didn't make the 6 year old victim take a pregnancy test after Hunter "molested" her.
To prove that six year olds often make more sense than bubble headed politically correct school officials, Hunter summed up what happened. "It was during class, yeah. We were doing reading group, and I leaned over and kissed her on the hand. That's what happened," he said. Didn't that also happen a lot to you when you were 6 years old? Is that not normal 6 year old curiosity? The school's principal brought up the term "sexual harassment" during a meeting with mom. "Now my son is asking questions. What is sex mommy? That should not ever be said, sex. Not in a sentence with a six year old," said mom.
In recent years, Colorado and other politically correct oriented states have been moving to relax zero tolerance disciplinary policies blamed for increasing the dropout rate and giving students criminal records for relatively minor infractions. However, those policies have dealt mostly with safety issues, such as students fighting or bringing a replica gun to school, not sexual harassment. Psychologists say what the school did to the boy is idiotic.
Hunter's branding as a sexual harrasser could have negative consequences for his future. Kissing is normal behavior for children of that age. In fact, it is a normal stage in social development, just as important if not more than their academic subjects. Six year olds are simply curious about the differences between boys and girls and do not benefit when Politically correct adult hang-ups about sexual harassment are thrust upon them.
The "predator" boy's mother said officials at Lincoln School of Science and Technology in Canon City, a southern Colorado city of 16,000, are over-reacting. Jennifer Saunders said her son Hunter has a crush on a girl at school and she likes him back. Uh...that would be a 6 year old crush, not a post puberty one. I'm surprised the geniuses at the school didn't make the 6 year old victim take a pregnancy test after Hunter "molested" her.
To prove that six year olds often make more sense than bubble headed politically correct school officials, Hunter summed up what happened. "It was during class, yeah. We were doing reading group, and I leaned over and kissed her on the hand. That's what happened," he said. Didn't that also happen a lot to you when you were 6 years old? Is that not normal 6 year old curiosity? The school's principal brought up the term "sexual harassment" during a meeting with mom. "Now my son is asking questions. What is sex mommy? That should not ever be said, sex. Not in a sentence with a six year old," said mom.
In recent years, Colorado and other politically correct oriented states have been moving to relax zero tolerance disciplinary policies blamed for increasing the dropout rate and giving students criminal records for relatively minor infractions. However, those policies have dealt mostly with safety issues, such as students fighting or bringing a replica gun to school, not sexual harassment. Psychologists say what the school did to the boy is idiotic.
Hunter's branding as a sexual harrasser could have negative consequences for his future. Kissing is normal behavior for children of that age. In fact, it is a normal stage in social development, just as important if not more than their academic subjects. Six year olds are simply curious about the differences between boys and girls and do not benefit when Politically correct adult hang-ups about sexual harassment are thrust upon them.
Krampus Is Coming To Town
Beware! It's Christmas time and besides the fat. old guy (No
not me, I
refer instead to that Santa Clause fellow) who spreads good cheer and
gifts to everyone, there is his alter ego, Krampus Claus. Krampus is
the mean version/companion of St. Nicholas, aka Santa Claus, who
rewards good children each year with those toys that soon litter the
house. Our much loved Ho Ho Santa doesn't like punishing the bad ones
among us, so legend has it kindly old Saint Nick leaves the task of
punishing bad children to his enforcer, Krampus. I wonder if Santa
watches too many Godfather films?
Krampus goes by many names there's, Ruprecht, Certa, Perchten, Black Peter, Schmutzli, Pelznickel, Klaubauf, and the most recognizable... Krampus. He's usually seen as as our traditional devil........... with horns, hooves and monstrous tongue, sort of am imitation of that rock band Kiss, I guess. I haven't met Krampus personally, but I am probably on his hit list, I'll so leave the negative descriptions of him at that. When Krampus thinks you might recognize him he avoid detection by changing his look, instead dressing as a man in black or as a hairy man beast. And what does Krampus do? He punishes the naughty children, swatting them with switches and rusty chains before dragging them in baskets to a fiery place below. It's a real Christmas in Hell for those victims.
Krampus was born and promoted in Austria, the same place that gave the world Hitler. So much for Austria. In Austria and in other Northern European countries Krampus parties are a kind of sordid, wild teen frat style party of sex, booze and drugs. I suppose you could find that punk kid Justin Beiber at one of those Krampus parties. But I guess they don't serve egg nog at those parties, meaning Krampus isn't so bad after all. He keeps that brat Beiber occupied and away from us, and he discourages egg nog consumption. Think of Santa as God and Krampus as the devil and you get the idea.
In researching the growing Krampus attention I found that there are many Krampus events in many cities here in the U.S. and abroad. Hmmmmm This may reflect the decline of civilization today, or perhaps it's just a place for politicians to have fun in December. The desire for people to add a darker Xmas holiday has made the evil aspect of Santa Claus more evident. Movies like 'Nightmare Before Christmas', books like ' Santa's Twin' or 'Krampus: The Christmas Devil' and the increasing numbers of people in flash mobs dressed as Santa reflect a growing thirst for enlivening Santa with a naughty Santa too. Maybe the belief in Krampus is just a way for humans to get in touch with their animalistic side.
So Krampus is making a comeback now, thanks partly to a "bah, humbug" attitude in or sick pop culture. Now people are searching for more exciting ways to celebrate the yuletide season in non-traditional ways. You, know...no more chatting with Aunt Mildred and eating her dry fruitcake on Christmas Eve. For that alone, I say "Long Live Krampus"
Krampus goes by many names there's, Ruprecht, Certa, Perchten, Black Peter, Schmutzli, Pelznickel, Klaubauf, and the most recognizable... Krampus. He's usually seen as as our traditional devil........... with horns, hooves and monstrous tongue, sort of am imitation of that rock band Kiss, I guess. I haven't met Krampus personally, but I am probably on his hit list, I'll so leave the negative descriptions of him at that. When Krampus thinks you might recognize him he avoid detection by changing his look, instead dressing as a man in black or as a hairy man beast. And what does Krampus do? He punishes the naughty children, swatting them with switches and rusty chains before dragging them in baskets to a fiery place below. It's a real Christmas in Hell for those victims.
Krampus was born and promoted in Austria, the same place that gave the world Hitler. So much for Austria. In Austria and in other Northern European countries Krampus parties are a kind of sordid, wild teen frat style party of sex, booze and drugs. I suppose you could find that punk kid Justin Beiber at one of those Krampus parties. But I guess they don't serve egg nog at those parties, meaning Krampus isn't so bad after all. He keeps that brat Beiber occupied and away from us, and he discourages egg nog consumption. Think of Santa as God and Krampus as the devil and you get the idea.
In researching the growing Krampus attention I found that there are many Krampus events in many cities here in the U.S. and abroad. Hmmmmm This may reflect the decline of civilization today, or perhaps it's just a place for politicians to have fun in December. The desire for people to add a darker Xmas holiday has made the evil aspect of Santa Claus more evident. Movies like 'Nightmare Before Christmas', books like ' Santa's Twin' or 'Krampus: The Christmas Devil' and the increasing numbers of people in flash mobs dressed as Santa reflect a growing thirst for enlivening Santa with a naughty Santa too. Maybe the belief in Krampus is just a way for humans to get in touch with their animalistic side.
So Krampus is making a comeback now, thanks partly to a "bah, humbug" attitude in or sick pop culture. Now people are searching for more exciting ways to celebrate the yuletide season in non-traditional ways. You, know...no more chatting with Aunt Mildred and eating her dry fruitcake on Christmas Eve. For that alone, I say "Long Live Krampus"
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Old Time Christmas Radio
I've been listening to old time radio broadcasts of Christmas shows
from the late 30's, 40's and 50's. That was the "golden age of radio",
long gone and never to return but a great age for entertainment and
imagination. Radio broadcasts require that the imagination be in full
mode. In my view that makes it superior to what we get today, he visual
images that require nothing more than a pair of eyes to view.
The shows that I listen to on my computer are broadcast by Christmas Old Time Radio http://tunein.com/radio/Christmas-Old-Time-Radio-p476480/ They present quite a view of the age of innocence in which they were played. The weekly radio shows range from comedy by greats like Jack Benny and Milton Berle to Christmas episodes of westerns, variety shows, Christmas dramas, Christmas music shows etc. The one overarching theme of each is the lack of the crass, violent or vulgar entertainment that is almost inescapable in any entertainment today. Alas! People on those shows really respected and liked each other much more than in today's entertainment world, and there is evident a unity in the culture that has been lost in the numerous subcultures today.
People who listened live then knew what was right and wrong, what was expected and tolerated, what behavior was "normal". It was a simpler time, and that may be a good thing. The shows are a microcosms of the history of social relations and beliefs of the day. There is a corny element to it all too. Commercial advertisements that promise the sponsor's products are uh...more than they really are appear on every show. I find the ads for cigarettes fascinating, for some actually praise the health benefits of a "good smoke".
One can close his or her eyes, listen and be transformed to a more stable period. I wish the transformation could be permanent, for it was a more civil age.
The shows that I listen to on my computer are broadcast by Christmas Old Time Radio http://tunein.com/radio/Christmas-Old-Time-Radio-p476480/ They present quite a view of the age of innocence in which they were played. The weekly radio shows range from comedy by greats like Jack Benny and Milton Berle to Christmas episodes of westerns, variety shows, Christmas dramas, Christmas music shows etc. The one overarching theme of each is the lack of the crass, violent or vulgar entertainment that is almost inescapable in any entertainment today. Alas! People on those shows really respected and liked each other much more than in today's entertainment world, and there is evident a unity in the culture that has been lost in the numerous subcultures today.
People who listened live then knew what was right and wrong, what was expected and tolerated, what behavior was "normal". It was a simpler time, and that may be a good thing. The shows are a microcosms of the history of social relations and beliefs of the day. There is a corny element to it all too. Commercial advertisements that promise the sponsor's products are uh...more than they really are appear on every show. I find the ads for cigarettes fascinating, for some actually praise the health benefits of a "good smoke".
One can close his or her eyes, listen and be transformed to a more stable period. I wish the transformation could be permanent, for it was a more civil age.
Expanding The One Child Policy
Money really does talk, especially to dictatorships that want
their the economy to move towards a greater
reliance on
consumption by consumers. Besides the usual economic reforms China
implements from time to time it just announced an unusual one that is
expected to create more consumers in an aging society. China has
declared the one child policy null and void and stepped up the baby
mills by now allowing parents to legally have a maximum of two kids per
family. That's not exactly freedom of choice nor the end of the
communist dictatorship there, but for China it is an admission that it
has been pushed, pushed by the reality of the world's free markets to
abandon some of the repressiveness of the state.
Trouble is, the one child policy that was instituted in 1980 as a way of controlling the strain on resources in a country that is vastly overpopulated, was probably one of the few good ideas the dictators every created. Imagine what China's population would be today if the one child policy would not have been implemented then. If not, India, the world's second baby mill nation, would have never threatened to overtake China as the world's most populated country as it is doing now. China today might have 2 billion people instead of the 1.3 it now has had the one child policy not been instituted.
I say China should rethink ending it's one child policy for the good of the world, and it should just deal with the social and economic problems that the policy causes there. On balance, one child is a very positive program for any nation that is too populated and has a culture that mom must make as many babies as possible. Though it is true that China has too many old people who have too few children to take care of them (The Chinese government has no social welfare system to take care of the elderly, so children must do it themselves) and the lack of a growing population undermines the labor and consumption pool that will keep China growing, the population thing is a far greater problem for humans to handle.
The world's overpopulation, all of it occurring in underdeveloped nations, is killing the earth's environment as it puts huge strains on and consumes and pollutes at a rate that is unsustainable. Stop having so many babies, China, Pakistan, India and Africa...... and the other undeveloped areas for that matter that spew out humans who are more and more exporting themselves to developed areas, putting a huge strain on those countries too.
No one in the west talks about it, because one who does is accused of being "racist", since it occurs mostly in nations that are in Asia and Africa. But if ever there was a real world crisis it is overpopulation. Maybe the United Nations should finally address the issue, with China leading the meetings and showing those nations with an obscenely large overpopulation problem how and why they should limit their baby mill culture. Perhaps the wealthy developed countries could pay the baby mill nations with their excess of money, each time the baby mill area shows a significant reduction in its population growth.
The world should chant in unison, "Wherever overpopulation is present Long live the one child policy"!
Trouble is, the one child policy that was instituted in 1980 as a way of controlling the strain on resources in a country that is vastly overpopulated, was probably one of the few good ideas the dictators every created. Imagine what China's population would be today if the one child policy would not have been implemented then. If not, India, the world's second baby mill nation, would have never threatened to overtake China as the world's most populated country as it is doing now. China today might have 2 billion people instead of the 1.3 it now has had the one child policy not been instituted.
I say China should rethink ending it's one child policy for the good of the world, and it should just deal with the social and economic problems that the policy causes there. On balance, one child is a very positive program for any nation that is too populated and has a culture that mom must make as many babies as possible. Though it is true that China has too many old people who have too few children to take care of them (The Chinese government has no social welfare system to take care of the elderly, so children must do it themselves) and the lack of a growing population undermines the labor and consumption pool that will keep China growing, the population thing is a far greater problem for humans to handle.
The world's overpopulation, all of it occurring in underdeveloped nations, is killing the earth's environment as it puts huge strains on and consumes and pollutes at a rate that is unsustainable. Stop having so many babies, China, Pakistan, India and Africa...... and the other undeveloped areas for that matter that spew out humans who are more and more exporting themselves to developed areas, putting a huge strain on those countries too.
No one in the west talks about it, because one who does is accused of being "racist", since it occurs mostly in nations that are in Asia and Africa. But if ever there was a real world crisis it is overpopulation. Maybe the United Nations should finally address the issue, with China leading the meetings and showing those nations with an obscenely large overpopulation problem how and why they should limit their baby mill culture. Perhaps the wealthy developed countries could pay the baby mill nations with their excess of money, each time the baby mill area shows a significant reduction in its population growth.
The world should chant in unison, "Wherever overpopulation is present Long live the one child policy"!
Ugly Christmas Sweaters
Have you ever worn or noticed those ugly Christmas Sweaters?
I don't
have one, but I do have some ugly Christmas T Shirts I trot out and
wear each year. One of my ugly Xmas T's says , "Santa! I can explain
almost everything". Another is a red one that copies fat Santa's
traditional outfit and asks "Does this shirt make me look fat". Those
ugly Christmas sweaters and shirts are a season novelty that I like.
The "uglier" the better, though ugly is in the eye of the beholder. I
find those ugly Christmas sweaters to be amusing and to lighten the
day. They are fun to wear and see.
My daughter specifically went to a thrift store a couple of years ago here in Portland to find an ugly Christmas sweater. When she could not fit it and some other items she wanted to take back to New Orleans I was asked to bring her " ugly Christmas sweater", as she put it, with me when I visited at Thanksgiving. Ugly Christmas sweaters are now trendy, with the younger set wearing them in jest at ugly Christmas sweater parties and the older crew (mostly women) wearing them because they like the look.
Hmmmm It seems that the ugly Christmas sweater represents the generation gap. Old Aunt Mildred might be sincere with her holiday cheer as she dons the ugly Christmas colorful concoctions of yarn. But when her niece or nephew, who typically are dapper fashion plates, wear a sweater covered with bows, beads, glitter and ice skating bears....well, you know they are making fun of the UCS.
This might be the year for you to find one of those uglies. Be brave, this year show your Christmas spirit....err...or you lack of taste, depending on your view of the ugly Christmas sweater.
My daughter specifically went to a thrift store a couple of years ago here in Portland to find an ugly Christmas sweater. When she could not fit it and some other items she wanted to take back to New Orleans I was asked to bring her " ugly Christmas sweater", as she put it, with me when I visited at Thanksgiving. Ugly Christmas sweaters are now trendy, with the younger set wearing them in jest at ugly Christmas sweater parties and the older crew (mostly women) wearing them because they like the look.
Hmmmm It seems that the ugly Christmas sweater represents the generation gap. Old Aunt Mildred might be sincere with her holiday cheer as she dons the ugly Christmas colorful concoctions of yarn. But when her niece or nephew, who typically are dapper fashion plates, wear a sweater covered with bows, beads, glitter and ice skating bears....well, you know they are making fun of the UCS.
This might be the year for you to find one of those uglies. Be brave, this year show your Christmas spirit....err...or you lack of taste, depending on your view of the ugly Christmas sweater.
Conservative And Liberal Stereotypes
There is a big war going on between conservatives and
liberals in the
United States. They usually fight with each other, but now they are
practically nuking each other with hatred and polarization. It's to the
point now where we have two nations, one conservative and one liberal.
Those who do not identify with either side are just voyeurs who watch
the stupidity of both sides. We don't even like to agree with either
side on any single issue because they might think we agree with all
their positions.
President Obama is the king of the liberals. He says and does anything that will win votes from his subjects, even when doing so may bankrupt the country or make it vulnerable to collapse. And he seems more than willing to sacrifice the good of the nation for his ideology. His subjects think he is infallible, while the conservatives think he's always wrong and never dare agree with anything Obama proposes. If Obama suggested that conservatives honor their moms on Mother's Day, the conservatives would accuse him of subversion.
I have no idea who is the king of the conservatives in the U.S., but then, they don't know either. That group includes the normal conservative and the crazies who think anyone who disagrees with them is a communist or mother raper, I guess. The so called 'Tea Party' faction of conservatives is the most extreme part of the conservatives. Conversing with a Tea Party person can be challenging because they live in a big bubble that often does not include the real world. Liberals hate them and think that Tea Party people hate the liberals even more than the liberals hate them.
It's sad that the two political persuasions today have drifted so far from the core beliefs that most people once held and that each side refuses to compromise with the other to make the country better. Traditional liberals and conservatives used to be much easier to recognize, and one could civilly disagree with them about issues. In former times one could choose which group to join (but I have never belonged to either the conservative Republican Party, nor the Liberal Democratic Party) because each had consistent behavior.
Here is the way one used to identify a conservative or liberal American. It's all changed now, due to the current paranoia of hate of both the conservatives and liberals.
- Conservatives wanted less government and liberals more
- Conservatives hate welfare payments and think people should be responsible for their own lives. Liberals believe some citizens can't take care of themselves and that taxpayers should be their mom and dad and do so.
- Liberals love illegal immigrants because their sympathizers vote for them. Conservatives believe that all illegal immigrants are here to commit crimes or live off the taxpayers.
- Conservatives are certain that change is bad. Liberals are certain change is good.
- Liberals are overly optimistic while conservatives are overly pessimistic.
- Liberals like to think about things for a long time before acting. Conservatives never think much because they want to keep things as they are.
- Conservatives are determined. They never get thrown out of college but liberals often due....sometimes because they are too busy smoking joints.
- Conservatives are likely to farm., Liberals are likely to be professors in universities.
- Conservatives own guns for protection. Liberals leave their front doors unlocked and never worry about needing protection.
- Liberals think the government should protect their freedoms. Conservatives believe that the government is taking away their freedoms.
- Conservatives don't like environmental regulations because they think the nation has unlimited resources. Liberals don't want a single tree cut or oil well drilled because they are sure the climate will turn hot if any are.
- There are more rich conservatives than rich liberals because big business is the sphere of conservatives.
- Liberals are dreamers but don't realize it. Conservatives are practical to the point of stubbornness.
- Your favorite actor or actress is probably liberal, your plumber probably conservative.
- Liberals and conservatives both think they are morally superior.
After reading these liberal and conservative characteristics I suspect you are just as confused and disgusted by both liberals and conservatives.
President Obama is the king of the liberals. He says and does anything that will win votes from his subjects, even when doing so may bankrupt the country or make it vulnerable to collapse. And he seems more than willing to sacrifice the good of the nation for his ideology. His subjects think he is infallible, while the conservatives think he's always wrong and never dare agree with anything Obama proposes. If Obama suggested that conservatives honor their moms on Mother's Day, the conservatives would accuse him of subversion.
I have no idea who is the king of the conservatives in the U.S., but then, they don't know either. That group includes the normal conservative and the crazies who think anyone who disagrees with them is a communist or mother raper, I guess. The so called 'Tea Party' faction of conservatives is the most extreme part of the conservatives. Conversing with a Tea Party person can be challenging because they live in a big bubble that often does not include the real world. Liberals hate them and think that Tea Party people hate the liberals even more than the liberals hate them.
It's sad that the two political persuasions today have drifted so far from the core beliefs that most people once held and that each side refuses to compromise with the other to make the country better. Traditional liberals and conservatives used to be much easier to recognize, and one could civilly disagree with them about issues. In former times one could choose which group to join (but I have never belonged to either the conservative Republican Party, nor the Liberal Democratic Party) because each had consistent behavior.
Here is the way one used to identify a conservative or liberal American. It's all changed now, due to the current paranoia of hate of both the conservatives and liberals.
- Conservatives wanted less government and liberals more
- Conservatives hate welfare payments and think people should be responsible for their own lives. Liberals believe some citizens can't take care of themselves and that taxpayers should be their mom and dad and do so.
- Liberals love illegal immigrants because their sympathizers vote for them. Conservatives believe that all illegal immigrants are here to commit crimes or live off the taxpayers.
- Conservatives are certain that change is bad. Liberals are certain change is good.
- Liberals are overly optimistic while conservatives are overly pessimistic.
- Liberals like to think about things for a long time before acting. Conservatives never think much because they want to keep things as they are.
- Conservatives are determined. They never get thrown out of college but liberals often due....sometimes because they are too busy smoking joints.
- Conservatives are likely to farm., Liberals are likely to be professors in universities.
- Conservatives own guns for protection. Liberals leave their front doors unlocked and never worry about needing protection.
- Liberals think the government should protect their freedoms. Conservatives believe that the government is taking away their freedoms.
- Conservatives don't like environmental regulations because they think the nation has unlimited resources. Liberals don't want a single tree cut or oil well drilled because they are sure the climate will turn hot if any are.
- There are more rich conservatives than rich liberals because big business is the sphere of conservatives.
- Liberals are dreamers but don't realize it. Conservatives are practical to the point of stubbornness.
- Your favorite actor or actress is probably liberal, your plumber probably conservative.
- Liberals and conservatives both think they are morally superior.
After reading these liberal and conservative characteristics I suspect you are just as confused and disgusted by both liberals and conservatives.
World Toilet Day
I've heard of some strange day celebrations in my
days, but this one is as strane as it gets. There's Bubble
Wrap Appreciation Day, What if Dogs and Cats had Opposable Thumbs Day,
Respect for Chickens Day, National Kick Butt Day, Don't Step on a Bee
Day..... you get the idea. But I just found out that November the 18th
is 'World Toilet Day'. We are supposed to sit and...er...appreciate the
fact that we can sit and dump when 1/3 of the world still poops in the
open. The goal of the Toilet Day founders is get the 1 billion humans
who still poo off a loo, to use one.
Apparently, sanitation problems abound from defecating (a high class word for an act of elimination, I think) off the toilet. The World Toilet Organization that sponsors the day says sanitation is their goal, given that open field pooing causes contamination of water sources which causes illness and death all across the world. But are not toilets a modern invention? People have been eliminating their body wastes wherever they happened to have the urges, for centuries. In fact, go to any busy bar any night and you might see some drunks eliminate in un toilet like areas of the bar.
I checked the web site of the World Toilet Organization to learn more about what I should do on Toilet Day next year. As far as I know, I use a loo every morning for my daily dump. And I swear that I wipe and flush! Anyway, the mission statement of the World Toilet people seems nice enough-" A clean and safe toilet ensures health, dignity and well being-yet 40% of the world's population does not have access to toilets. World Toilet Organization is a global non-profit committed to improving toilet and sanitation conditions worldwide. We believe in empowering individuals through education, training and building local marketplaces opportunities to advocate for clean and safe sanitation facilities in their communities."
Those guys are serious about poo! They even have a World Toilet College (I wonder how one prepares for the entrance test to get into that college) to train people about toilet and sanitation practices. The college wants to "elevate the image of sanitation workers". Good luck on that. When one wades through other people's poo it's hard to envy that occupation. The good news is you can get certification as a poo-ologist or something, if you graduate from the World Toilet College.
Oh, I know you won't want to miss the World Toilet Summit next year. It's being held in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It could be held in a worse location though. This year they pooed in Solo, Indonesia. And one year the summit was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. If you have ever been to Philadelphia you know there isn't much more to do there than take a good dump.
Cheers for World Toilet Day, and may all your defecation be on a golden toilet.
Apparently, sanitation problems abound from defecating (a high class word for an act of elimination, I think) off the toilet. The World Toilet Organization that sponsors the day says sanitation is their goal, given that open field pooing causes contamination of water sources which causes illness and death all across the world. But are not toilets a modern invention? People have been eliminating their body wastes wherever they happened to have the urges, for centuries. In fact, go to any busy bar any night and you might see some drunks eliminate in un toilet like areas of the bar.
I checked the web site of the World Toilet Organization to learn more about what I should do on Toilet Day next year. As far as I know, I use a loo every morning for my daily dump. And I swear that I wipe and flush! Anyway, the mission statement of the World Toilet people seems nice enough-" A clean and safe toilet ensures health, dignity and well being-yet 40% of the world's population does not have access to toilets. World Toilet Organization is a global non-profit committed to improving toilet and sanitation conditions worldwide. We believe in empowering individuals through education, training and building local marketplaces opportunities to advocate for clean and safe sanitation facilities in their communities."
Those guys are serious about poo! They even have a World Toilet College (I wonder how one prepares for the entrance test to get into that college) to train people about toilet and sanitation practices. The college wants to "elevate the image of sanitation workers". Good luck on that. When one wades through other people's poo it's hard to envy that occupation. The good news is you can get certification as a poo-ologist or something, if you graduate from the World Toilet College.
Oh, I know you won't want to miss the World Toilet Summit next year. It's being held in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It could be held in a worse location though. This year they pooed in Solo, Indonesia. And one year the summit was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. If you have ever been to Philadelphia you know there isn't much more to do there than take a good dump.
Cheers for World Toilet Day, and may all your defecation be on a golden toilet.
Deadbeat Dads
There's a great idea that is being practiced in my former
state of
Louisiana that attacks one of the world's greatest problems- parental
abuse of children. Louisiana's social services department has put out
a "Most Wanted" list of 18 parents who owe at least $20,000 each in
child support. Combined, the men owe nearly $866,000 to their children.
None of the 18 deadbeats has paid child support in six months or more.
The poster showing them,
released Wednesday by the Department of Children and Family Services,
includes their photos, last known addresses and amounts owed, along
with a
hotline to call with tips for tracking the men down. A little public
shame goes a long way toward making many negligent parents behave
responsibly.
There is a web site for viewing the despicable 18 and sadly, it says that here are more than 166,000 cases of unpaid child support in Louisiana. That's a lot of deadbeats in a state with a population of about 4 million. There are also a few deadbeat moms around too, since the court (only rarely) asks mom to pay dad child support when he has custody of the kids. In the U.S. the mom is routinely awarded custody of the child in a divorce, absent any proof that mom is an abusive or seriously negligent parent. So the dad who doesn't have physical custody of the little ones usually gets the bill to pay mom money that she is supposed to use (but many divorced men claim mom uses the money to buy clothes for herself, visit a beauty parlor etc.) on the kids.
One may ask what do the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services employees do at work all day? Should they search for the deadbeats, catch them and jail them until they pay. But the deadbeats would not be able to pay while behind bars? And some of them probably have good arguments as to why the monthly child support payments should have been lowered or modified. They may have had no money to pay an attorney to get the court case reviewed and modified. So, because of an irresponsible nature, some unwisely decided to duck and run from their responsibilities to their kids..
Hmmmm One frightful question to add to the mess. How many other children have they parented? They type that regards children so callously probably has fathered a number of illegitimate children that the taxpayers of Louisiana and the U.S. pay for. It's sad that some humans can harm their own children and not be held accountable for their behavior.
There is a web site for viewing the despicable 18 and sadly, it says that here are more than 166,000 cases of unpaid child support in Louisiana. That's a lot of deadbeats in a state with a population of about 4 million. There are also a few deadbeat moms around too, since the court (only rarely) asks mom to pay dad child support when he has custody of the kids. In the U.S. the mom is routinely awarded custody of the child in a divorce, absent any proof that mom is an abusive or seriously negligent parent. So the dad who doesn't have physical custody of the little ones usually gets the bill to pay mom money that she is supposed to use (but many divorced men claim mom uses the money to buy clothes for herself, visit a beauty parlor etc.) on the kids.
One may ask what do the Louisiana Department of Children and Family Services employees do at work all day? Should they search for the deadbeats, catch them and jail them until they pay. But the deadbeats would not be able to pay while behind bars? And some of them probably have good arguments as to why the monthly child support payments should have been lowered or modified. They may have had no money to pay an attorney to get the court case reviewed and modified. So, because of an irresponsible nature, some unwisely decided to duck and run from their responsibilities to their kids..
Hmmmm One frightful question to add to the mess. How many other children have they parented? They type that regards children so callously probably has fathered a number of illegitimate children that the taxpayers of Louisiana and the U.S. pay for. It's sad that some humans can harm their own children and not be held accountable for their behavior.
Veterans Day
We just had another one of those 'Veteran's Day' holidays.
It's a day in which those who were or are in the military are singled
out as special. Hmmm. But why? Why does this country and most others
only honor with a special day those people who were in the military
service, and not all the other professions that are so important to
making a nation what it is? Rather than entering the army, navy, air
force or marines of their own volition, some of the veteran honorees
were drafted against their will into service. Among that group are
those who hated being in the military and would never have joined if
they had a choice. Others like me (I was in the navy strictly to avoid
being drafted into the army during the Vietnam war) joined because the
military draft was going to get them anyway.
Fact is, many of those who "risk their lives" as a soldier often want to do so. In fact, every nation has far more people involved in war activities than in peaceful ones. Countries have war colleges and institutes that plan for war. I think every war contingency plan that could possibly have ever been constructed has already been so by most of the nations in the world. The excess of weapons and armaments match the huge excess of armed forces most countries have. I am not sure I want to honor any part of that. Maybe we should just have a peace day and give thanks whenever the military doesn't fight.
Soldiers may or not be "heroes" when they risk their lives in combat. But every day each citizen who contributes to a nation through work, parenting, charity and a hundred other services, give more to their nation than all those soldiers fighting those battles. Yet we never honor or glorify them. They are themost important "soldiers" in a community. They make a country what it is. If they want to honor the soldiers that are in the military, perhaps the people of a nation should give them a pay raise every year they don't fight anywhere in the world. A little incentive to make peace, not war, would change the image of the military from an aggressive force to that of a protective force. Isn't that what a miulitary force is supposed to be?
Come to think of it, maybe we should cancel Veteran's Day and just have a Non Veterans Day to honor all those people who have had nothing to do with killing or war. I would salute that.
Fact is, many of those who "risk their lives" as a soldier often want to do so. In fact, every nation has far more people involved in war activities than in peaceful ones. Countries have war colleges and institutes that plan for war. I think every war contingency plan that could possibly have ever been constructed has already been so by most of the nations in the world. The excess of weapons and armaments match the huge excess of armed forces most countries have. I am not sure I want to honor any part of that. Maybe we should just have a peace day and give thanks whenever the military doesn't fight.
Soldiers may or not be "heroes" when they risk their lives in combat. But every day each citizen who contributes to a nation through work, parenting, charity and a hundred other services, give more to their nation than all those soldiers fighting those battles. Yet we never honor or glorify them. They are themost important "soldiers" in a community. They make a country what it is. If they want to honor the soldiers that are in the military, perhaps the people of a nation should give them a pay raise every year they don't fight anywhere in the world. A little incentive to make peace, not war, would change the image of the military from an aggressive force to that of a protective force. Isn't that what a miulitary force is supposed to be?
Come to think of it, maybe we should cancel Veteran's Day and just have a Non Veterans Day to honor all those people who have had nothing to do with killing or war. I would salute that.
Drunken Thanksgiving Turkeys
In New Orleans and South Louisiana some people cook their
Thanksgiving
turkey with the beer on the turkey instead of in a glass. It makes a
nice gravy. But when it comes to pairing beer with turkey a turkey
farmer guy from New Hampshire named Joe Morette takes it a step
further. It seems that since Joe's turkeys will drink just about
anything he has been giving his birds beer since 1993, when he and his
workers popped open a few cans after work on a hot July day. That day
one turkey knocked one over and started drinking, and they've been
sipping the suds ever since.
I am not sure if that qualifies as animal cruelty". Don't ask the turkeys. They like getting drunk and don't have Alcohol Anonymous membership. Too, Joe insists the beer makes birds fatter, more flavorful and juicier. "Oh, yeah, it's noticeable," he said. "It's not a strong, gamey flavor, it's a nice turkey flavor." According to Joe's customers the turkeys are far superior to the supermarket varieties. "They claim that even the gravy is much darker, and much tastier he. The bird overall has a slightly different taste that is very appealing.....especially if you drink a few glasses of beer before eating it.
The animal rights group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) said turkeys shouldn't be fed beer and that "farmers across the country use questionable practices to keep costs down or to alter the taste of animals' flesh because their priority is profit, not the animals' welfare." No word if the PETA members who claim that drink beer themselves. But a turkey expert with the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension said it is unlikely the birds are suffering. "I don't know exactly how much beer each turkey is consuming, but it would have to be a lot in order for it to kind of have the same effect as too much beer on people," said Carl Majewski, field specialist in food and agriculture. "I imagine it's not enough to really make 'em tipsy or anything like that. It's just enjoying a beer with their meal. Why not?"
Also, Humane Heartland, which oversees the treatment of farm animals, said that standards from the American Humane Association don't prohibit serving beer to animals.
Veterinarians say that giving beer to turkeys is not a standard protocol, the hops in the beer could be beneficial for the intestinal tract. And..............Japanese farmers have been said to feed cattle beer to stimulate their appetites. Those Japanese will eat anything. A wine maker and farmer in the south of France have experimented with feeding cows the remainders of pressed grapes to produce meat they've dubbed "Vinbovin." It seems that farmers today have way too much time on their hands these days.
Turkeys are said to be among the dumbest of species, a little like the human customers in a bar on ladies night. I suspect they will drink anything and not complain. Now that Joe is endorsing getting turkeys drunk, the Thanksgiving question for this year might be, "How do we hide the beer from the turkeys this Thanksgiving.
I am not sure if that qualifies as animal cruelty". Don't ask the turkeys. They like getting drunk and don't have Alcohol Anonymous membership. Too, Joe insists the beer makes birds fatter, more flavorful and juicier. "Oh, yeah, it's noticeable," he said. "It's not a strong, gamey flavor, it's a nice turkey flavor." According to Joe's customers the turkeys are far superior to the supermarket varieties. "They claim that even the gravy is much darker, and much tastier he. The bird overall has a slightly different taste that is very appealing.....especially if you drink a few glasses of beer before eating it.
The animal rights group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) said turkeys shouldn't be fed beer and that "farmers across the country use questionable practices to keep costs down or to alter the taste of animals' flesh because their priority is profit, not the animals' welfare." No word if the PETA members who claim that drink beer themselves. But a turkey expert with the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension said it is unlikely the birds are suffering. "I don't know exactly how much beer each turkey is consuming, but it would have to be a lot in order for it to kind of have the same effect as too much beer on people," said Carl Majewski, field specialist in food and agriculture. "I imagine it's not enough to really make 'em tipsy or anything like that. It's just enjoying a beer with their meal. Why not?"
Also, Humane Heartland, which oversees the treatment of farm animals, said that standards from the American Humane Association don't prohibit serving beer to animals.
Veterinarians say that giving beer to turkeys is not a standard protocol, the hops in the beer could be beneficial for the intestinal tract. And..............Japanese farmers have been said to feed cattle beer to stimulate their appetites. Those Japanese will eat anything. A wine maker and farmer in the south of France have experimented with feeding cows the remainders of pressed grapes to produce meat they've dubbed "Vinbovin." It seems that farmers today have way too much time on their hands these days.
Turkeys are said to be among the dumbest of species, a little like the human customers in a bar on ladies night. I suspect they will drink anything and not complain. Now that Joe is endorsing getting turkeys drunk, the Thanksgiving question for this year might be, "How do we hide the beer from the turkeys this Thanksgiving.
The Real Kennedy And Real Obama
On November 22nd the assassination of President John Kennedy
will be
remembered. Actually, it already has been remembered in TV re
enactments, series, films, books, opinion pieces etc. displayed all
during November. The problem is
most of those are more maudlin than real. Kennedy was widely unpopular
as president on the day he was shot to death November 22, 1963 in
Dallas, Texas. But the popular media seems to have a different view of
Kennedy, and many accept that one instead of the reality.
President Kennedy was always a press favorite, much as the bumbling, incompetent President Obama is today. He and his pretty young wife and their adorable young children made the Kennedy family, in the eyes of the media of the day, made them the enchanted family. Just as Obama's mistakes seem to be ignored by today's media, the media of Kennedy's day did the same. The difference though is in the perception the voters have of each. There is and was great voter dissatisfaction with both of the presidents that is contrast to the adoration the media has for each.
Polls of the day in 1963 showed Kennedy was headed for defeat in his upcoming campaign for re election. His popularity was hardly what those current day Kennedy pieces tell us it was. The lesson is how history can be re written to fit the desires of the society to "feel better" about itself. instead of the young, incompetent, philandering, reckless, manipulating president Kennedy was, we get a view of Camelot. It sounds familiar to me. President Obama might already be the second camelot of the past 50 years as he flounders and steers the United Sates toward the icebergs that lay ahead.
The Kennedy legacy is one that is both not factual and romanticized. I suppose it is understandable that a President who was murdered in office is given a few passes, but it might be better to represent a person as he was , rather than as we want him to be, I wonder what will be said of Obama in 50 years. It's not possible to say, but I am betting it will be more like the Kennedy remembrance than a real one. Society sometimes selects oddly its heroes.
President Kennedy was always a press favorite, much as the bumbling, incompetent President Obama is today. He and his pretty young wife and their adorable young children made the Kennedy family, in the eyes of the media of the day, made them the enchanted family. Just as Obama's mistakes seem to be ignored by today's media, the media of Kennedy's day did the same. The difference though is in the perception the voters have of each. There is and was great voter dissatisfaction with both of the presidents that is contrast to the adoration the media has for each.
Polls of the day in 1963 showed Kennedy was headed for defeat in his upcoming campaign for re election. His popularity was hardly what those current day Kennedy pieces tell us it was. The lesson is how history can be re written to fit the desires of the society to "feel better" about itself. instead of the young, incompetent, philandering, reckless, manipulating president Kennedy was, we get a view of Camelot. It sounds familiar to me. President Obama might already be the second camelot of the past 50 years as he flounders and steers the United Sates toward the icebergs that lay ahead.
The Kennedy legacy is one that is both not factual and romanticized. I suppose it is understandable that a President who was murdered in office is given a few passes, but it might be better to represent a person as he was , rather than as we want him to be, I wonder what will be said of Obama in 50 years. It's not possible to say, but I am betting it will be more like the Kennedy remembrance than a real one. Society sometimes selects oddly its heroes.
Miss Universe 2013
I watched a little of the annual Miss Universe Pageant.
It's because I accidentally stumbled on the broadcast while trying to
find something, anything for that matter, to merit watching the idiot
box. That's a hard thing to find. I wound up watching the Miss
Universe show because I am a male chauvinist pig who likes to see
pretty ladies strut on stage like dogs. Sad to say, that makes me a
typical male, I think.
Gabriela Isler of Venezuela, beat out 85 other international beauties in the contest that was held this year in Moscow. Gabby is pretty, but I wonder.....Venezuela is in a contest with South Korea as the nation were the women do plastic surgery more often than in any other country. I wonder if Gabby is real or not. No matter, she is lovely and if her plastic surgeon remade her she will probably send a thank you note for an operating job well done. Miss Spain, Equador, Brazil and Philippines made up the rest of the top five. This must mean that the prettiest women this year come from Spanish speaking countries. I wonder if all the Russians were upset that their candidate didn't come close to even making it to the top ten.
I noticed the judges who selected the winner were not exactly experts on beauty. They included a singer, a figure skater. a chef, a TV host and just one who seemed qualified, a super model named Anne V. In addition to strutting in a swimsuit and showing boobs and legs, the contestants displayed a "talent" in a performance and answered a serious question if they made it to the final round. Asking a beauty contestant what she thinks is the world's greatest challenge is like asking a 5 year old to be your financial planner. I heard two of those answers and had enough, leaving the contest at that point before I barfed onto the screen. The answers given were, uh, not memorable though somewhat comical I must attest. It confirms the idea that beauty contests should be exclusively about beauty and not include imagined talent or philosophical observations on the state of the world.
On the odd side, Jin Ye, Miss China, was dubbed the 'Angelina Jolie' of China. Ugh! No wonder she never made it to the top twenty. The commentators also said that Miss Dominican Republic “helped deliver a baby when she was 17″ and Miss Switzerland “once pulled a drowning girl out of a pool. Gee, Maybe they got lost on their way and thought they were in the Superwoman contest. It proves that when entering a beauty contest it doesn't pay to be a super hero. Those two were trounced a by the contestants with better t and a's. After all, that's what wins beauty contests.
Winner Gabby of Venezuela in answering her question about what her greatest fear was said, “I believe we should overcome all of our fears and this in turn will make us all much stronger, and thusly, we can become stronger persons.” Huh? With answers like that my greatest fear is my already weak brain may have been further damaged by watching that mess. The things a man will do to eye sexy babes in bathing suits......
Gabriela Isler of Venezuela, beat out 85 other international beauties in the contest that was held this year in Moscow. Gabby is pretty, but I wonder.....Venezuela is in a contest with South Korea as the nation were the women do plastic surgery more often than in any other country. I wonder if Gabby is real or not. No matter, she is lovely and if her plastic surgeon remade her she will probably send a thank you note for an operating job well done. Miss Spain, Equador, Brazil and Philippines made up the rest of the top five. This must mean that the prettiest women this year come from Spanish speaking countries. I wonder if all the Russians were upset that their candidate didn't come close to even making it to the top ten.
I noticed the judges who selected the winner were not exactly experts on beauty. They included a singer, a figure skater. a chef, a TV host and just one who seemed qualified, a super model named Anne V. In addition to strutting in a swimsuit and showing boobs and legs, the contestants displayed a "talent" in a performance and answered a serious question if they made it to the final round. Asking a beauty contestant what she thinks is the world's greatest challenge is like asking a 5 year old to be your financial planner. I heard two of those answers and had enough, leaving the contest at that point before I barfed onto the screen. The answers given were, uh, not memorable though somewhat comical I must attest. It confirms the idea that beauty contests should be exclusively about beauty and not include imagined talent or philosophical observations on the state of the world.
On the odd side, Jin Ye, Miss China, was dubbed the 'Angelina Jolie' of China. Ugh! No wonder she never made it to the top twenty. The commentators also said that Miss Dominican Republic “helped deliver a baby when she was 17″ and Miss Switzerland “once pulled a drowning girl out of a pool. Gee, Maybe they got lost on their way and thought they were in the Superwoman contest. It proves that when entering a beauty contest it doesn't pay to be a super hero. Those two were trounced a by the contestants with better t and a's. After all, that's what wins beauty contests.
Winner Gabby of Venezuela in answering her question about what her greatest fear was said, “I believe we should overcome all of our fears and this in turn will make us all much stronger, and thusly, we can become stronger persons.” Huh? With answers like that my greatest fear is my already weak brain may have been further damaged by watching that mess. The things a man will do to eye sexy babes in bathing suits......
What Is Offensive?
The latest "you hurt my feelings and have no right to
do that! moment
came after a Halloween costume was pictured on the front page of the
British newspaper, The Sun. The headline labeled it "Towering
Stupidity." In the image, two 19-year-old women who were winners of a
nightclub costume contest on Halloween night are shown wearing tube
like costumes labeled "North Tower" and "South Tower." The costumes,
which include hats with American flags, depict planes crashing into the
Twin Towers in New York on Sept. 11, 2001.
The women, both students at the University of Chester, later apologized, saying the costume "was not intended as a joke," but rather meant to "depict a serious, modern day horror." That's good enough for me. I wonder why people today get so upset about "their feelings being hurt" by every day, innocent life experiences like the costume. It used to be that more than ten years from a tragic event, people would be open minded enough to accept satire of it. Not any more. Surely, that costume might remind some of a bad event itself and may be offensive to the more sensitive of people who were directly effected by the 911 terrorists act. But should we castigate the two women and ban such costumes? Is it "not right" to use satire and cynicism anymore because a few humans won't like the parody?
I say "cheers" (imagine a British accident for full effect) to those two Brit ladies. They have imagination and have de sanctified an event that has become way too sacred to many Americans. The over sensitivity today, as in when we have those almost daily insincere but politically correct "apologies" by celebrities for public statements or behaviors that some dislike and find "offensive", might be the result of the blur between the real world and the virtual one many people have sought refuge in today. I wonder if humans are beginning to fuse reality and the virtual now, given they are addicted to vacuous devices like cell phones. Before the explosion in communication media we were not "offended so much or so often by satire. People might feel better about themselves and their lives if they did not seek offenses that others commit against them.
Do we now even know what is real and what is not? Have we started to define the two the same way? Being offended by a Halloween costume? Ugh! Because humans have flaws life is a mixture of the offensive and non offensive. It's not nice to hurt anyone's feelings, but we do have the right to do so. If not, we confine ourselves to living in a politically correct bubble, and that's something I find very "offensive". Maybe a better approach to not liking a Halloween costume is to simply ignore it, not roar about hurt feelings and offense. Focusing on what is truly important in the real world might reduce a great deal of the alleged offenses with which others present us.
The women, both students at the University of Chester, later apologized, saying the costume "was not intended as a joke," but rather meant to "depict a serious, modern day horror." That's good enough for me. I wonder why people today get so upset about "their feelings being hurt" by every day, innocent life experiences like the costume. It used to be that more than ten years from a tragic event, people would be open minded enough to accept satire of it. Not any more. Surely, that costume might remind some of a bad event itself and may be offensive to the more sensitive of people who were directly effected by the 911 terrorists act. But should we castigate the two women and ban such costumes? Is it "not right" to use satire and cynicism anymore because a few humans won't like the parody?
I say "cheers" (imagine a British accident for full effect) to those two Brit ladies. They have imagination and have de sanctified an event that has become way too sacred to many Americans. The over sensitivity today, as in when we have those almost daily insincere but politically correct "apologies" by celebrities for public statements or behaviors that some dislike and find "offensive", might be the result of the blur between the real world and the virtual one many people have sought refuge in today. I wonder if humans are beginning to fuse reality and the virtual now, given they are addicted to vacuous devices like cell phones. Before the explosion in communication media we were not "offended so much or so often by satire. People might feel better about themselves and their lives if they did not seek offenses that others commit against them.
Do we now even know what is real and what is not? Have we started to define the two the same way? Being offended by a Halloween costume? Ugh! Because humans have flaws life is a mixture of the offensive and non offensive. It's not nice to hurt anyone's feelings, but we do have the right to do so. If not, we confine ourselves to living in a politically correct bubble, and that's something I find very "offensive". Maybe a better approach to not liking a Halloween costume is to simply ignore it, not roar about hurt feelings and offense. Focusing on what is truly important in the real world might reduce a great deal of the alleged offenses with which others present us.
Strange Questions They Ask
I'm glad that I am not the age when it's time to apply for
admittance to college. I'm too stupid now for college and the
application process is, well, strange. I remember when I was a high
school student, the university would ask the applicant to furnish his or
her test scores, grades and to write an essay. usually it was something
boring like my life achievements and goals. But now they are getting a
little less concrete with their essay demands. The geeks hate it, but
the sloppy student who always did things the odd, but successful way,
finally feel better able to fit it.
Now a college might ask an applicant a question like, "Tell us your favorite joke and try to explain the joke without ruining it". I assume all those dirty jokes we hear and remember wouldn't be appropriate, but they shouldn't ask questions like that unless they are prepared for any joke. Good thing I am not applying. But anyway, a growing number of colleges have turned to more open ended and less obvious questions to see if the applicant is one who memorized huge amounts of information and reproduced successfully it on tests, or is the college wannabe a more creative type. Creative is in today, and the computer brained nerd is out. It's probably for the better too. Colleges worry that those high grade point average high school students are more likely to just be high achievers than to be independent thinkers. I think colleges want students who are willing to take more risks and not those who make all A's in classes but never think deeply about what they are studying. Those kinds of students make the college a better place.
Not only that, businesses interviewers are also starting to take the same tract when interviewing new hires. Right...I am not employable so I need not worry about it. Employers want to see if the applicant can think on the spur of the moment, and can respond to something they don't expect. In today's competitive world it's more important to use what we know than to recite the facts. A computer can handle the remembrance of information better than can a human.
I like this new trend. If the college applicant or job seeker are put off by the oddball questions for whatever reason, that's a good indicator that the school or job may not be the right fit. Now, tell me that favorite joke of yours.
Now a college might ask an applicant a question like, "Tell us your favorite joke and try to explain the joke without ruining it". I assume all those dirty jokes we hear and remember wouldn't be appropriate, but they shouldn't ask questions like that unless they are prepared for any joke. Good thing I am not applying. But anyway, a growing number of colleges have turned to more open ended and less obvious questions to see if the applicant is one who memorized huge amounts of information and reproduced successfully it on tests, or is the college wannabe a more creative type. Creative is in today, and the computer brained nerd is out. It's probably for the better too. Colleges worry that those high grade point average high school students are more likely to just be high achievers than to be independent thinkers. I think colleges want students who are willing to take more risks and not those who make all A's in classes but never think deeply about what they are studying. Those kinds of students make the college a better place.
Not only that, businesses interviewers are also starting to take the same tract when interviewing new hires. Right...I am not employable so I need not worry about it. Employers want to see if the applicant can think on the spur of the moment, and can respond to something they don't expect. In today's competitive world it's more important to use what we know than to recite the facts. A computer can handle the remembrance of information better than can a human.
I like this new trend. If the college applicant or job seeker are put off by the oddball questions for whatever reason, that's a good indicator that the school or job may not be the right fit. Now, tell me that favorite joke of yours.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Costume Choices Explained
Now that Halloween is over it's time to
psychoanalyze those costume wearers out there. Yes, this is a the age
when the subliminal is supposed to be the motivation for our feelings.
So, according to psychologists say that your choice of Halloween
costume can say a lot about your personality. One of them, Psychologist
Wendy James, has come up with a guide showing which costumes different
personality types are likely to choose and there are reasons why
different people choose the costumes they do for Halloween. James says
that our costume choice isn't always easy to decipher. Surprisingly,
she says that those in a gross or scary costume, like a zombie, are
people who don't like the limelight, while those who dress up as a
celebrity really like attention, as do women in very revealing or sexy
costumes.
She says those who choose to dress up as a political figure enjoy being a little bit controversial. Hmmmm My favorite costumes are political parodies. But I always thought I did it to make fun of those idiots that we elect to ruin our lives, not because I want to be controversial. Maybe I should schedule an appointment with a shrink to find out if I want to be controversial. Yes, I know....I'll ask the psychiatrist to examine my many other problems too.
Here's Dr. James view of the why of costume choices (with my stupid an analysis added)
*Celebrity-The Dr. says that outgoing individuals tend to dress up like celebrities because it almost guarantees they'll get lots of attention. But why would anyone want to be a Kardashian girl or Miley Cyrus? That kind of attention is the negative type.
•Gross / Scary- Horror is popular in pop culture and if a person goes for the gross and scary costume she says, chances are they will be low key individual who doesn't seek the limelight. I find it hard to believe that a person dressed as Frankenstein doesn't want attention. That character isn't exactly a guy who would blend into a crowd.
•Disney / Cartoon Character- She says that this is a safe choice that is G-rated for all audiences. It's a people pleaser and often worn by someone who doesn't prefer to rock the boat. Maybe....but I find that, shrill voiced, stinky rodent Mickey Mouse to be nothing but a rat.
•Super Hero-Kind hearted individuals tend to flock to these costumes as they wish to help others and be seen as making a difference, she says. Or maybe those costumers are living in the clouds. Pretending that Star Trek characters are real is not exactly helpful.
•Funny / Original-When you see a costume that make you look twice or three times, chances are the wearer of that costume is an A-type personality and highly creative individual who probably spent the past 9 months creating their costume. Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Maybe they bought the already made costume on line or a second hand one at a thrift store
Political Costume-These people enjoy being a little bit controversial. Considering how unpopular congress is today, anyone who would dress up like them probably enjoys being scorned and reviled. People who dress up like members of congress this year should probably seek professional counseling. Well, this is my typical costume and all that seems to be right. Maybe this doctor isn't wrong after all. What's the number of a good psychiatrist I could see?
•The Pimp- The doctor says that this one is likely worn by an insecure man who's acting out his fantasy of dominating women. It's really not an original costume and is often a choice for the uncreative types. In my view,, that might mean the pimp costume is the most normal of all for males.
•No Costume-In traditional psychobable talk Dr. James says that this no chocie is a choice of people completely out of touch with their "inner child" or those who feel they are too mature to be dressing up in costumes. Or, as I see it, it could be they just don't like Halloween.
I'm confused. Next Halloween I just might be the "Naked man".
She says those who choose to dress up as a political figure enjoy being a little bit controversial. Hmmmm My favorite costumes are political parodies. But I always thought I did it to make fun of those idiots that we elect to ruin our lives, not because I want to be controversial. Maybe I should schedule an appointment with a shrink to find out if I want to be controversial. Yes, I know....I'll ask the psychiatrist to examine my many other problems too.
Here's Dr. James view of the why of costume choices (with my stupid an analysis added)
*Celebrity-The Dr. says that outgoing individuals tend to dress up like celebrities because it almost guarantees they'll get lots of attention. But why would anyone want to be a Kardashian girl or Miley Cyrus? That kind of attention is the negative type.
•Gross / Scary- Horror is popular in pop culture and if a person goes for the gross and scary costume she says, chances are they will be low key individual who doesn't seek the limelight. I find it hard to believe that a person dressed as Frankenstein doesn't want attention. That character isn't exactly a guy who would blend into a crowd.
•Disney / Cartoon Character- She says that this is a safe choice that is G-rated for all audiences. It's a people pleaser and often worn by someone who doesn't prefer to rock the boat. Maybe....but I find that, shrill voiced, stinky rodent Mickey Mouse to be nothing but a rat.
•Super Hero-Kind hearted individuals tend to flock to these costumes as they wish to help others and be seen as making a difference, she says. Or maybe those costumers are living in the clouds. Pretending that Star Trek characters are real is not exactly helpful.
•Funny / Original-When you see a costume that make you look twice or three times, chances are the wearer of that costume is an A-type personality and highly creative individual who probably spent the past 9 months creating their costume. Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Maybe they bought the already made costume on line or a second hand one at a thrift store
Political Costume-These people enjoy being a little bit controversial. Considering how unpopular congress is today, anyone who would dress up like them probably enjoys being scorned and reviled. People who dress up like members of congress this year should probably seek professional counseling. Well, this is my typical costume and all that seems to be right. Maybe this doctor isn't wrong after all. What's the number of a good psychiatrist I could see?
•The Pimp- The doctor says that this one is likely worn by an insecure man who's acting out his fantasy of dominating women. It's really not an original costume and is often a choice for the uncreative types. In my view,, that might mean the pimp costume is the most normal of all for males.
•No Costume-In traditional psychobable talk Dr. James says that this no chocie is a choice of people completely out of touch with their "inner child" or those who feel they are too mature to be dressing up in costumes. Or, as I see it, it could be they just don't like Halloween.
I'm confused. Next Halloween I just might be the "Naked man".
The Halloween Grinch
Happy Halloween (Today is Halloween Day). A Fargo, N.D.,
woman who appeared for a radio interview disguised to avoid cameras
says she will give trick-or-treaters that she
deems "moderately obese" a letter instead of candy this Halloween. Yep!
Instead of the candy and other fun food treats kids get from almost
everyone else, this woman is costuming as the food police this year.
Allegedly, her intention is to help stop obesity in kids the "I just
want to send a message to the parents of kids that are really
overweight. ... I think it's just really irresponsible of parents to
send them out looking for free candy just
'cause all the other kids are doing it," the woman said in a morning
radio interview . I wonder how she is able to tell about a child's
weight and health simply by glancing at their costumed presence.
The letter says that, "You child is, in my opinion, moderately obese and should not be consuming sugar and treats to the extent of some children this Halloween season." It continues: "My hope is that you will step up as a parent and ration candy this Halloween and not allow your child to continue these unhealthy eating habits." Wow! A stranger judging weight of some one s else 's kids, then determining some are too fat, and finally insulting the kids and their parents with a warning letter on Halloween Night. She sure knows how to spread good cheer on Halloween. Well, she may give those fat ones a letter, but I am pretty sure some of those heavies will give something back to her also- an egg or two splattered against her front door in protest for the insult she hurled at them.
I think that the letter is far more emotionally damaging than too many candy bars. It's just the kind of thing that kids who are overweight don't need to read from a stranger on Halloween night. Even if a kid is overweight, he or she might be healthy. They might be too heavy, not because of a bad diet, but because of bad genetics. It's not nice for self righteous adults to label kids that way. It's ineffective anyway because it's not likely to help the kid.
There are a few who think the woman is doing a public service with her letter. Eating disorders are a problem, and obesity in the last decade has taken over smoking as the leading health problem Americans face today. Those think that giving candy to an obese child is like giving a cigarette to a person with emphysema, like giving a drink to an alcoholic. It is giving heroin to a drug addict, they declare. Haha I don't thnk so. A Milky Way candy bar isn't heroin.
Others think the woman is crazy, and should simply not answer her door on Halloween, or that she should hand out non food treats instead. I think, if she is really worried abotu what the nation's kids eat, it would be better to forget the letter and instead give the little ghosts and gobblins healthy snacks. For any kid who does get the letter it will more than likely be read by the kid first and then destroyed the the humiliated kid, never reaching mom and dad. Too, the embarrassment of receiving a "you're too fat for candy" letter on Halloween night in front of the child's peers has to be devastating to the fatty. If the children of that neighborhood do not respond to this with an egging of the Halloween Food Police Lady I weep for the future of our country (and I might volunteer to egg her house myself next Halloween).
The letter says that, "You child is, in my opinion, moderately obese and should not be consuming sugar and treats to the extent of some children this Halloween season." It continues: "My hope is that you will step up as a parent and ration candy this Halloween and not allow your child to continue these unhealthy eating habits." Wow! A stranger judging weight of some one s else 's kids, then determining some are too fat, and finally insulting the kids and their parents with a warning letter on Halloween Night. She sure knows how to spread good cheer on Halloween. Well, she may give those fat ones a letter, but I am pretty sure some of those heavies will give something back to her also- an egg or two splattered against her front door in protest for the insult she hurled at them.
I think that the letter is far more emotionally damaging than too many candy bars. It's just the kind of thing that kids who are overweight don't need to read from a stranger on Halloween night. Even if a kid is overweight, he or she might be healthy. They might be too heavy, not because of a bad diet, but because of bad genetics. It's not nice for self righteous adults to label kids that way. It's ineffective anyway because it's not likely to help the kid.
There are a few who think the woman is doing a public service with her letter. Eating disorders are a problem, and obesity in the last decade has taken over smoking as the leading health problem Americans face today. Those think that giving candy to an obese child is like giving a cigarette to a person with emphysema, like giving a drink to an alcoholic. It is giving heroin to a drug addict, they declare. Haha I don't thnk so. A Milky Way candy bar isn't heroin.
Others think the woman is crazy, and should simply not answer her door on Halloween, or that she should hand out non food treats instead. I think, if she is really worried abotu what the nation's kids eat, it would be better to forget the letter and instead give the little ghosts and gobblins healthy snacks. For any kid who does get the letter it will more than likely be read by the kid first and then destroyed the the humiliated kid, never reaching mom and dad. Too, the embarrassment of receiving a "you're too fat for candy" letter on Halloween night in front of the child's peers has to be devastating to the fatty. If the children of that neighborhood do not respond to this with an egging of the Halloween Food Police Lady I weep for the future of our country (and I might volunteer to egg her house myself next Halloween).
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Jack-O'-Lantern Carving
It's that time of the year. October and Halloween is when so many kids
of all ages carve faces or whatever they envision as interesting onto
those orange round pumpkins that are shaped like...well...my whole
body. But why do they do it, you may ask? Where did the pumpkin craving
thing come from? After a quick check of my facts about this (after
checking I found out I was only partly right, not bad for I am often
totally wrong abut everything), here's the scoop. The tradition of
pumpkin carving began, not with carving pumpkins, but instead by
carving turnips, beets, and potatoes. Hundreds of years ago, the Irish
were the first to create what kids at Halloween call "jack o'
lanterns".
The name jack o' lantern is actually Jack of the Lantern, referring to a mythical character named Stingy Jack who played tricks on everyone in Ireland. Supposedly, he even pranked the devil. After Jack died, his resume being so joke filled, he was not allowed to enter heaven. But alas! Jack had good news. He was also refused from entering hell - the devil would have nothing to do with him after his antics during his lifetime. Jack was forced to roam the world as a ghostly figure, holding a lantern made out of a carved out turnip containing a burning coal. And that is how the tradition of the jack o' lantern was born.....I think.
Halloween and the jack o' lantern was brought to America during the 1800s during a big wave of Irish immigration to the U.S. That's why Halloween is so big in the U.S. and is considered primarily an American Day. I never have carved anything on a pumpkin but the simplest jack o' lantern face, because I have no known craving skill and because once a pumpkin is carved it deteriorates rapidly. I am not a pumpkin murderer! People who are in the know say that when you carve a pumpkin a few days before before Halloween Day you must spray the inside and outside of the pumpkin with water at least once each day or it will be history in a few days. The candles or other lghts they put inside of the carved pumpkin also kill it more rapidly. There is nothing worse than the image of a crumbling pumpkin. Ok, the image of a crumbling Lindsay Lohan or Miley Cyrus is pretty bad too.
When I was a child and when my daughter was small we used to paint a face or image on the pumpkin instead of carving it. A few years ago someone marketed a pumpkin face kit that can be pressed onto the pumpkin to give it a face. But those look as tacky as an over aged Hollywood star who had too many face-lifts. I prefer to let the viewer use his or her imagination, so I just put the pumpkin outside as it naturally appears.
Those who are talented in pumpkin carving produce amazing images. But like those ice carver sculptures we hear about or see each winter, the pumpkin carvers works are doomed to a short life span. Then there are those stencil kits that the untalented like me most often use to carve their pumpkins....sort of cheating. And it's almost like an assembly line product because they all look too familiar. The best pumpkin carvings are unique, or funny, or highly complex works. A masterfully free hand carved pumpkin is like Brad Pitt, while a stenciled generated carved pumpkin resembles Danny Divito. It's easy to see which looks better. I guess that makes pumpkin faces similar to the human ones who carve them.
I hope you have been inspired by my remarks to get a pumpkin and carve away this Halloween. If not here are some child level on line pumpkin carving links for you to try.
http://www.flashgamesplayer.com/Free/Pumpkin-Carving/Play.html
http://www.primarygames.com/holidays/halloween/games/pumpkins/
http://spookathon.com/halloween/pumpkin-carver.php
http://www.freeonlinegames.com/game/pumpkin-carve
The name jack o' lantern is actually Jack of the Lantern, referring to a mythical character named Stingy Jack who played tricks on everyone in Ireland. Supposedly, he even pranked the devil. After Jack died, his resume being so joke filled, he was not allowed to enter heaven. But alas! Jack had good news. He was also refused from entering hell - the devil would have nothing to do with him after his antics during his lifetime. Jack was forced to roam the world as a ghostly figure, holding a lantern made out of a carved out turnip containing a burning coal. And that is how the tradition of the jack o' lantern was born.....I think.
Halloween and the jack o' lantern was brought to America during the 1800s during a big wave of Irish immigration to the U.S. That's why Halloween is so big in the U.S. and is considered primarily an American Day. I never have carved anything on a pumpkin but the simplest jack o' lantern face, because I have no known craving skill and because once a pumpkin is carved it deteriorates rapidly. I am not a pumpkin murderer! People who are in the know say that when you carve a pumpkin a few days before before Halloween Day you must spray the inside and outside of the pumpkin with water at least once each day or it will be history in a few days. The candles or other lghts they put inside of the carved pumpkin also kill it more rapidly. There is nothing worse than the image of a crumbling pumpkin. Ok, the image of a crumbling Lindsay Lohan or Miley Cyrus is pretty bad too.
When I was a child and when my daughter was small we used to paint a face or image on the pumpkin instead of carving it. A few years ago someone marketed a pumpkin face kit that can be pressed onto the pumpkin to give it a face. But those look as tacky as an over aged Hollywood star who had too many face-lifts. I prefer to let the viewer use his or her imagination, so I just put the pumpkin outside as it naturally appears.
Those who are talented in pumpkin carving produce amazing images. But like those ice carver sculptures we hear about or see each winter, the pumpkin carvers works are doomed to a short life span. Then there are those stencil kits that the untalented like me most often use to carve their pumpkins....sort of cheating. And it's almost like an assembly line product because they all look too familiar. The best pumpkin carvings are unique, or funny, or highly complex works. A masterfully free hand carved pumpkin is like Brad Pitt, while a stenciled generated carved pumpkin resembles Danny Divito. It's easy to see which looks better. I guess that makes pumpkin faces similar to the human ones who carve them.
I hope you have been inspired by my remarks to get a pumpkin and carve away this Halloween. If not here are some child level on line pumpkin carving links for you to try.
http://www.flashgamesplayer.com/Free/Pumpkin-Carving/Play.html
http://www.primarygames.com/holidays/halloween/games/pumpkins/
http://spookathon.com/halloween/pumpkin-carver.php
http://www.freeonlinegames.com/game/pumpkin-carve
Halloween Costumes
The National Retail Federation says
spending on
the ghoulish holiday is going to be down considerably this year, but
some costume shops locally are reporting people have been planning
their outfits since last month and sales are brisk. The NRF also says that the traditional witches, devils
and vampires are big sellers again this year.. But they also
say it looks like you're going to see a
whole lot of "twerking" on the streets this year. Probably one of the
biggest costumes, at least for some people, is going to be the Miley
Cyrus and Robin Thicke outfits from the MTV video music awards, the one
where that "I want to be a woman not a kid star" Miley got nasty with
her tongue
With the economy down on Halloween spending decisions mean that fewer people are planning to get involved in dressing for Halloween. Whereas last year some 71.5% of people across the nation said they would costume, it's expected to be 65.8% this year. Even pets will be dressed this year as Fido will not be as scary. So instead of spending al their money on looking like Dracula I have a few other less expensive and more unique costumes for Halloween. How about these?
* An Obama Supporter- you'll be in an original costume since there aren't many Obama supporters left
* Viagra Man- make sure you wear loose fitting pants
* A Kardashian Girl- requires deadened brain, loose morals and an obnoxious personality
* A Muslim Terrorist- Oh wait....we already see too many of those before and after Halloween
* Global Warming Man- you just stand next to the first person you see, act pretentious and scream "It's Global Warming and we're all going to die"
* The Tour De France Bike Racer- Wear one of those weird bike outfit and inject plenty of steroids
* The Priest Molester- I am not sure how they dress so just ask any of your local priests how they do it
* The Reality TV Contestant- There is one caveat to wearing this costume. In order to wear it you must not have a shred of talent
* Yourself- well, no offense, but you can do way better than that.
Happy Halloween!
With the economy down on Halloween spending decisions mean that fewer people are planning to get involved in dressing for Halloween. Whereas last year some 71.5% of people across the nation said they would costume, it's expected to be 65.8% this year. Even pets will be dressed this year as Fido will not be as scary. So instead of spending al their money on looking like Dracula I have a few other less expensive and more unique costumes for Halloween. How about these?
* An Obama Supporter- you'll be in an original costume since there aren't many Obama supporters left
* Viagra Man- make sure you wear loose fitting pants
* A Kardashian Girl- requires deadened brain, loose morals and an obnoxious personality
* A Muslim Terrorist- Oh wait....we already see too many of those before and after Halloween
* Global Warming Man- you just stand next to the first person you see, act pretentious and scream "It's Global Warming and we're all going to die"
* The Tour De France Bike Racer- Wear one of those weird bike outfit and inject plenty of steroids
* The Priest Molester- I am not sure how they dress so just ask any of your local priests how they do it
* The Reality TV Contestant- There is one caveat to wearing this costume. In order to wear it you must not have a shred of talent
* Yourself- well, no offense, but you can do way better than that.
Happy Halloween!
Look Up Once In A While
Want to know how disconnected people are in this pseudo
"connected
world"? A 30 year old immigrant, Nikhom Thephakaysone, sat on a light
rail train in San Francisco and proceeded to pull out his .45 caliber
pistol, pointing it across the aisle, putting it back, pulling it out
several times again, and at one point wiping his nose with the hand
holding the gun Problem is.... and nobody noticed because they were
all too busy staring down at their smart phones and tablet computers
"connecting". No joke. it's all on film from the subway where it
happened. It was the all too common subway train crowded with commuters
while a crazy man waived a gun around that nobody saw. Those riders
were so engrossed texting, tweeting and playing Farm Animals (or
whatever is popular now).
After the disturbed Thephakaysone shot and killed Justin Valdez in the head as the two exited the train. That got the rider's attention, but I wonder if they could tell whether the shooting was real or virtual. The addicted cell nuts today often can't. Social media, the cell phone and other technology have changed us for the worse. The modern electronic forms of communications communication were supposed to allow us to be better connected to one another. Instead, they estrange the individual from the collective group. It's sad because so many cell addicts don't realize it.
Just the other day a survey of college students asked if they ever texted while driving and whether texting is dangerous. Eighty percent said they texted, and that texting was dangerous FOR OTHER PEOPLE, but not for themselves since they were better at it. The first sign of addiction is denial of it. That 80% is addicted. If you're at an airport, on public transit, in a restaurant, etc. you will see most of the eyes of those around you are downward fixed to all the screens that contain their real world. The lively public spaces were once lively with conversation between friends and strangers. Now it is filled by the silence of people who are not there, people who occupy the same place at the same time but exist in their own worlds far apart.
The "connected" people today people go home to their families where they watch separate TV programs or compute in separate rooms while the kids retreat to rooms of their own to text and tweet the night away. All the new options for electronic entertainment seduces us, and we more frequently choose, is to be alone, uh.... together. speaks at least as loudly and directly to the alienation and disconnect that have been the ironic, unintended consequence of devices and platforms designed to bring us together. Justin Valdez is dead because it is now possible to wave a gun in a crowded train without anyone noticing. Technology has trained us looking down in search of a connection when the best connections are upward, right in front of our faces..
After the disturbed Thephakaysone shot and killed Justin Valdez in the head as the two exited the train. That got the rider's attention, but I wonder if they could tell whether the shooting was real or virtual. The addicted cell nuts today often can't. Social media, the cell phone and other technology have changed us for the worse. The modern electronic forms of communications communication were supposed to allow us to be better connected to one another. Instead, they estrange the individual from the collective group. It's sad because so many cell addicts don't realize it.
Just the other day a survey of college students asked if they ever texted while driving and whether texting is dangerous. Eighty percent said they texted, and that texting was dangerous FOR OTHER PEOPLE, but not for themselves since they were better at it. The first sign of addiction is denial of it. That 80% is addicted. If you're at an airport, on public transit, in a restaurant, etc. you will see most of the eyes of those around you are downward fixed to all the screens that contain their real world. The lively public spaces were once lively with conversation between friends and strangers. Now it is filled by the silence of people who are not there, people who occupy the same place at the same time but exist in their own worlds far apart.
The "connected" people today people go home to their families where they watch separate TV programs or compute in separate rooms while the kids retreat to rooms of their own to text and tweet the night away. All the new options for electronic entertainment seduces us, and we more frequently choose, is to be alone, uh.... together. speaks at least as loudly and directly to the alienation and disconnect that have been the ironic, unintended consequence of devices and platforms designed to bring us together. Justin Valdez is dead because it is now possible to wave a gun in a crowded train without anyone noticing. Technology has trained us looking down in search of a connection when the best connections are upward, right in front of our faces..
So Unpopular
Like most governments the U.S. government is
universally distrusted
and disliked. I think even the best democratic governments (I don't
claim that ours is best) is perceived warily by the majority of voters
who elected it. Isn't that ironic? They hate what they choose and over
and over and over. It's no surprise these days that the U.S. Congress
isn't very popular, even..believe it or not....much less popular than
our current incompetent president.
A new poll says voters have a higher opinion of witches, hemorrhoids and jury duty than their lawmakers in Washington. Hmmm Hemorrhoids? I wonder how those voters know how one with hemorrhoids feels. Maybe they have hemorrhoids and that's why they keep voting for those awful congress men and women. Anyway, Public Policy Polling, asked a series of questions trying to gauge support for Congress compared with government run institutions such as the Internal Revenue Service, health problems such as toenail fungus, cockroaches and dog poop. Dog poop? Hemorrhoids? That Public Policy groups sure has strange thoughts.
Voters said they have a higher opinion of hemorrhoids than Congress, by 53% to 31%. Ouch! More than seven in 10 voters say they view jury duty more favorably than Congress, which received only 18% support in comparison. Even toenail fungus rates 3 percentage points higher Congress. Overall, voters in poll gave Congress an 8% approval rating. Nearly nine in 10 voters, or 86%, say they disapprove of Congress. They didn't ask me but I'd have to vote disapprove too.
However, all is not lost for our legislative branch of government. The poll says voters prefer Congress over Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan, and that crazy Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. Come to think of it, any of those three would probably do a better job that those who now sit in Congress
A new poll says voters have a higher opinion of witches, hemorrhoids and jury duty than their lawmakers in Washington. Hmmm Hemorrhoids? I wonder how those voters know how one with hemorrhoids feels. Maybe they have hemorrhoids and that's why they keep voting for those awful congress men and women. Anyway, Public Policy Polling, asked a series of questions trying to gauge support for Congress compared with government run institutions such as the Internal Revenue Service, health problems such as toenail fungus, cockroaches and dog poop. Dog poop? Hemorrhoids? That Public Policy groups sure has strange thoughts.
Voters said they have a higher opinion of hemorrhoids than Congress, by 53% to 31%. Ouch! More than seven in 10 voters say they view jury duty more favorably than Congress, which received only 18% support in comparison. Even toenail fungus rates 3 percentage points higher Congress. Overall, voters in poll gave Congress an 8% approval rating. Nearly nine in 10 voters, or 86%, say they disapprove of Congress. They didn't ask me but I'd have to vote disapprove too.
However, all is not lost for our legislative branch of government. The poll says voters prefer Congress over Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan, and that crazy Russian dictator Vladimir Putin. Come to think of it, any of those three would probably do a better job that those who now sit in Congress
No Rumors Allowed In China
I always wondered how or whether it is possible for the
Chinese
government to censor internet usage in China. It looks futile to me.
First the Chinese government killed off Internet servers/browsers and
installed the infamous dictator friendly Sina connection to better be
able to spy on what the locals say about their dictators and
dictatorship. That hasn't worked well, as the number of users in China
is just so huge that monitoring every one of them is impossible. One
might even call Mao a democratic sympathizer and get away with it.
So now the Chines government is attacking the "free speech on the internet" more directly. China's Supreme People's Court and Procuratorate just announced that spreading rumors on the Internet could get you three years in prison in China, with the penalties rising if the rumor is re-posed more than 500 times or viewed by more than 5,000 people. This is the first time existing laws against "defamation and instigating instability" have been extended to the Internet in order to stop the folks from saying not so nice thing about how things work in China.
Here is what the court said in it's announcement. "In recent years, the Internet has been used to maliciously fabricate facts and damage the reputation of others … and to concoct rumors that mislead the people, causing serious disruptions of social order and even mass incidents." Uh, in other words, "stop telling the truth about what we do y to you." Regardless, this is the first time the government has clarified what is illegal on the Internet. Before, there were rules governing pornography, but they had not addressed the issue of free speech on the Internet.
I guess the dictators are worried about "social harm" (a threat to their power over a brain washed population that has been bought off by economic benefits). But such censorship can't work in a modern world in which a nation (China) has fully embraced capitalism and all the freedoms that are attached to it. The new law will likely only have an effect on how these people choose to speak out, considering that any negative view of the government could be deemed a "rumor". In truth, the net and its users are more adaptable to a dictatorships rules and slow movements.
Good luck to the Chinese government, but the old world (dictators enforcing conformity on their population) loses to the new (technology that moves faster than the dictator) every time.
So now the Chines government is attacking the "free speech on the internet" more directly. China's Supreme People's Court and Procuratorate just announced that spreading rumors on the Internet could get you three years in prison in China, with the penalties rising if the rumor is re-posed more than 500 times or viewed by more than 5,000 people. This is the first time existing laws against "defamation and instigating instability" have been extended to the Internet in order to stop the folks from saying not so nice thing about how things work in China.
Here is what the court said in it's announcement. "In recent years, the Internet has been used to maliciously fabricate facts and damage the reputation of others … and to concoct rumors that mislead the people, causing serious disruptions of social order and even mass incidents." Uh, in other words, "stop telling the truth about what we do y to you." Regardless, this is the first time the government has clarified what is illegal on the Internet. Before, there were rules governing pornography, but they had not addressed the issue of free speech on the Internet.
I guess the dictators are worried about "social harm" (a threat to their power over a brain washed population that has been bought off by economic benefits). But such censorship can't work in a modern world in which a nation (China) has fully embraced capitalism and all the freedoms that are attached to it. The new law will likely only have an effect on how these people choose to speak out, considering that any negative view of the government could be deemed a "rumor". In truth, the net and its users are more adaptable to a dictatorships rules and slow movements.
Good luck to the Chinese government, but the old world (dictators enforcing conformity on their population) loses to the new (technology that moves faster than the dictator) every time.
Pumpkin Talk
In the spirit of Halloween and the fall season I
went to a pumpkin farm
today. It's one of those big family farms, so numerous here in the U.S.
where the orange pumpkin we all love at Halloween originated, that grow
pumpkins for the fall harvest and open themselves to the public of
various activities related to pumpkins. Look below and you'll see me
there (Leipold Farm) with some of the many types of pumpkins. There has
been an explosion of the marketing and sale of the types of pumpkins,
besides that big orange one, over the years.
Most of them are not eaten without preparation, though the small "pie pumpkin" variety is free of most of the bitterness associated with pumpkins. Some people prefer to eat the yellow flowers from a pumpkin vine to the pumpkin meat itself. I have never eaten that, so I can't say. In early America during the 17th and 18th centuries pumpkins were used, not as the ingredient of pumpkin pie, but instead, as one of the ingredients of the pie crust. Hmmm They also used them to remove freckles. I had plenty of freckles as a kid and think that they just faded as I got older. I doubt that my interactions with pumpkins made them go away.
I always use pumpkins for fall decoration, placing them by my fireplaces and at the entrance of the front door. Thus, I have learned which picked pumpkins for sale are the best ones to use. One year I bought a pumpkin in October that I placed outside that lasted until late May. So before buying am pumpkin know your "stuff". Buy one that does not have any cuts, soft spots or bruising as these things can cause rot to set in quickly on a pumpkin. The pumpkin shell should feel hard and not have any give when you put pressure on it. Also make sure the stem is still attached and not falling off the pumpkin.
I hate it when the check-out person at a market grabs the pumpkin by the stem, so I handle the pumpkin myself at check-out time. Grabbing a pumpkin by the stem damages the pumpkin. It's like holding a baby by the foot. You will should find a cool and dry place and do not handle the pumpkin often. Storing them that way will toughen the pumpkins rinds and make them less prone to rot. It's why putting them outside in the shade of the door entrance is like putting your just bought lamb chops in the refrigerator. They just keep longer that way.
This is probably too much useless information about a subject which you have little interest. As Linus once said to Charlie Brown in the comic strip 'Peanuts".... “There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin.”
Most of them are not eaten without preparation, though the small "pie pumpkin" variety is free of most of the bitterness associated with pumpkins. Some people prefer to eat the yellow flowers from a pumpkin vine to the pumpkin meat itself. I have never eaten that, so I can't say. In early America during the 17th and 18th centuries pumpkins were used, not as the ingredient of pumpkin pie, but instead, as one of the ingredients of the pie crust. Hmmm They also used them to remove freckles. I had plenty of freckles as a kid and think that they just faded as I got older. I doubt that my interactions with pumpkins made them go away.
I always use pumpkins for fall decoration, placing them by my fireplaces and at the entrance of the front door. Thus, I have learned which picked pumpkins for sale are the best ones to use. One year I bought a pumpkin in October that I placed outside that lasted until late May. So before buying am pumpkin know your "stuff". Buy one that does not have any cuts, soft spots or bruising as these things can cause rot to set in quickly on a pumpkin. The pumpkin shell should feel hard and not have any give when you put pressure on it. Also make sure the stem is still attached and not falling off the pumpkin.
I hate it when the check-out person at a market grabs the pumpkin by the stem, so I handle the pumpkin myself at check-out time. Grabbing a pumpkin by the stem damages the pumpkin. It's like holding a baby by the foot. You will should find a cool and dry place and do not handle the pumpkin often. Storing them that way will toughen the pumpkins rinds and make them less prone to rot. It's why putting them outside in the shade of the door entrance is like putting your just bought lamb chops in the refrigerator. They just keep longer that way.
This is probably too much useless information about a subject which you have little interest. As Linus once said to Charlie Brown in the comic strip 'Peanuts".... “There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin.”
Sunday, October 13, 2013
Ig Nobel Award
The 23rd year for the Ig Nobel award (a play on the word
ignoble,
meaning of low origin), sponsored by the science humor magazine Annals
of Improbable Research and given out to honor weird and humorous
scientific discoveries from all over the world have been officially
handed out. Ig Nobels are meant to amuse and to think about the
sometimes crazy scientific research that is routinely done each day.
The winners this year fit that profile well.
There are 10 Ig Nobels handed out each year in categories just like those other Nobel prizes ranging from categories in medicine, physics to a peace prize. I suspect the winners are not as happy about receiving an Ig Nobel as those who get a real Nobel prize. But almost no "winner" of an Ig Nobel has ever refused that award, proving that science also has a thick skin and a sense of humor.
The winners, with names excluded to protect the reputation of the scientists who won, and their "achievement" include:
*Medicine- for assessing the effects of listening to opera , on heart transplant patients who are mice.
* Safety Engineering- for inventing a system that traps airline hijackers.......... it drops a hijacker through trap doors, seals them into a package, then drops the hijacker through the airplane's specially installed bomb bay doors, which then parachutes the hijacker to police waiting on ground for the hijacker's arrival.
* Physics- for discovering that some people would be physically capable of running across the surface of a pond, if the pond and people were on the moon.
* Chemistry- for discovering that the biochemical process by which onions make people cry is even more complicated that scientists realized.
* Archaeology- for parboiling a dead shrew and then swallowing the shrew without chewing, and then carefully examining the excreted shrew after the bowel elimination to see which bones dissolved inside the human digestive system and which bones would not.
* Peace- Dual winners from Belaus. one for making it illegal to applaud in public and the other for arresting a one armed man for applauding.
* Probability- for cow studies showing that the longer a cow has been lying down, the more likely that cow will soon stand up, and for showing that once a cow strands up it can not be predicted how soon that cow will lie down again.
* Public Health- for the medical technique called "Surgical management of an Epidemic of Penile Amputations in Siam, techniques which they recommend except in cases where the amputated penis has been partially eaten by a duck.
The winners received cash prizes of $10 trillion each, but it's in Zimbabwe dollars. So they'll each get about four U.S. dollars. I think they may be overpaying them, but it's all for science, I guess.
There are 10 Ig Nobels handed out each year in categories just like those other Nobel prizes ranging from categories in medicine, physics to a peace prize. I suspect the winners are not as happy about receiving an Ig Nobel as those who get a real Nobel prize. But almost no "winner" of an Ig Nobel has ever refused that award, proving that science also has a thick skin and a sense of humor.
The winners, with names excluded to protect the reputation of the scientists who won, and their "achievement" include:
*Medicine- for assessing the effects of listening to opera , on heart transplant patients who are mice.
for confirming, by experiment, that people who think they
are drunk also think they are attractive. - See more at:
http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig2013
Psychology- for confirming by experiment, that people who think they
are drunk also think they are attractive
for assessing the effect of listening to opera, on heart
transplant patients who are mice. - See more at:
http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig2013
for assessing the effect of listening to opera, on heart
transplant patients who are mice - See more at:
http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig2013
for assessing the effect of listening to opera, on heart
transplant patients who are mice - See more at:
http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig2013
for assessing the effect of listening to opera, on heart
transplant patients who are mice. - See more at:
http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig2013
for assessing the effect of listening to opera, on heart
transplant patients who are mice. - See more at:
http://www.improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig2013
* Biology and Astronomy- for discovering that when dung beetles get
lost, they can navigate their way home by looking at the Milky Way.* Safety Engineering- for inventing a system that traps airline hijackers.......... it drops a hijacker through trap doors, seals them into a package, then drops the hijacker through the airplane's specially installed bomb bay doors, which then parachutes the hijacker to police waiting on ground for the hijacker's arrival.
* Physics- for discovering that some people would be physically capable of running across the surface of a pond, if the pond and people were on the moon.
* Chemistry- for discovering that the biochemical process by which onions make people cry is even more complicated that scientists realized.
* Archaeology- for parboiling a dead shrew and then swallowing the shrew without chewing, and then carefully examining the excreted shrew after the bowel elimination to see which bones dissolved inside the human digestive system and which bones would not.
* Peace- Dual winners from Belaus. one for making it illegal to applaud in public and the other for arresting a one armed man for applauding.
* Probability- for cow studies showing that the longer a cow has been lying down, the more likely that cow will soon stand up, and for showing that once a cow strands up it can not be predicted how soon that cow will lie down again.
* Public Health- for the medical technique called "Surgical management of an Epidemic of Penile Amputations in Siam, techniques which they recommend except in cases where the amputated penis has been partially eaten by a duck.
The winners received cash prizes of $10 trillion each, but it's in Zimbabwe dollars. So they'll each get about four U.S. dollars. I think they may be overpaying them, but it's all for science, I guess.
Please Change Into Something Appropriate
I think the culture here may have hit bottom. While grocery
shopping today I just saw another tattooed lady, an un bathed "person"
dressed in dirty pajama pants and a message T shirt that was inscribed
with vulgarity, and a fat guy in shorts too short T shirt and thong
shoes. I think this decline in standard of dress may reflect the
cultural decline in the U.S., manifested in the lack of manners and
awareness by so many of common decency. The sloppy dress may be the
symptom of to all as America goes down the tubes in T Shirts and jeans.
I do like T shirts and wear them often, but they ae clean and worn with appropriate pants and shoes. And I also dress well when the occasion calls for it. Most people used to do that. Just look at photos of everyday dress before 1960 and you will see that it was standard for the male to wear a suit and female to wear a dress even while at home. People used to want to dress well because it made them feel special. Further, when Americans stopped dressing well for "special occasions" the number of special occasions they attended fell dramatically.
Now we wear casual clothes almost every day, and as a result, we rarely look special. I think it might be better to rise above the ordinary everyday casual wear or we condemn ourselves to become ordinary or perhaps, less than ordinary. I suspect that when we deteriorate by appearance we also deteriorate as people. Just as buildings that are dirty, have broken glass in windows, are are surrounded by trash quickly worsen in condition if not cleaned, so do humans decline into sloppiness from poor dressing habits.
Hmmmm Maybe you should see what I man. A popular web site, people of wal mart, that shows the decline of culture in ordinary people better illustrates this. Posts taken by Wal mart shoppers are added every day and are beginning to look more and more familiar to what I see on the streets Click on the link below and see for yourself and post your own comments about what you see....and make sure you are well dressed before peeking.
http://walmart-people.com/Home
I do like T shirts and wear them often, but they ae clean and worn with appropriate pants and shoes. And I also dress well when the occasion calls for it. Most people used to do that. Just look at photos of everyday dress before 1960 and you will see that it was standard for the male to wear a suit and female to wear a dress even while at home. People used to want to dress well because it made them feel special. Further, when Americans stopped dressing well for "special occasions" the number of special occasions they attended fell dramatically.
Now we wear casual clothes almost every day, and as a result, we rarely look special. I think it might be better to rise above the ordinary everyday casual wear or we condemn ourselves to become ordinary or perhaps, less than ordinary. I suspect that when we deteriorate by appearance we also deteriorate as people. Just as buildings that are dirty, have broken glass in windows, are are surrounded by trash quickly worsen in condition if not cleaned, so do humans decline into sloppiness from poor dressing habits.
Hmmmm Maybe you should see what I man. A popular web site, people of wal mart, that shows the decline of culture in ordinary people better illustrates this. Posts taken by Wal mart shoppers are added every day and are beginning to look more and more familiar to what I see on the streets Click on the link below and see for yourself and post your own comments about what you see....and make sure you are well dressed before peeking.
http://walmart-people.com/Home
IPCC Global Warming Report
The climate apocalyptic got another booster shot as
The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its latest six year
doom and gloom report about "global warming". The United Nations pays
for this report so clusters of
bureaucrats, activists and scientists who want to make sure they are on
the right side of the governments who give them grant money to study
global warming and anything else they fancy have signed up to be
associated with the report.
This group of climate geeks say that computer models are nearly infallible in predicting man's 22nd century demise due to rising oceans. This report says that if emissions from human activities remain high, the IPCC report predicts that the world is on track to warm by more than 2C, and possibly by more than 4C, by 2100. Wow! Such expertise. I wonder when those geniuses will be able to tell us if it will rain two weeks from when we ask. No, they are the fortune tellers who read far into the future, not the immediate.
The report adds it is now ''extremely likely'', with a 95 per cent certainty, that humans rather than natural variations, are the dominant cause global of warming. But if humans are so powerful and can control nature why can't someone shut up Justin Beiber?
But the computers IPCC uses have failed to predict what is now a 15 year lull in global warming itself. This does not necessarily mean global warming is a hoax, the IPCC intolerant true believers maintain. But as an explanation/excuse for the decline in global temperatures the report, says “with high confidence” that a slow down in warming in the past decade was because the ocean has absorbed 90 per cent of the extra heat generated by human activity between 1971 and 2010. Hmmmm, not sure if "a high confidence" is part of the scientific method.
As a theory, global warming was never crippled by fabrications, by pronounced professional incivility or by unscientific hostility to contrary opinions. Rather, the problem with the global warm proponents is its outlandish pessimism and overwrought certainty about the "high probability" guesses made. They do avoid addressing many questions about their pronouncements. For example.... Would global warming be nothing but calamitous? Do sunspots or other solar activity play a role? How do you conduct experiments on the deep ocean or on clouds or the role of water vapor over a body like the Pacific? Why is it moral for the living to make enormous sacrifices today because of a hypothesis about what may happen decades down the road? The global warmers refusal to even consider such questions in good faith and to paint anyone who raises them as dangerous heretics has always made it seem as much a political theory as a scientific one.
For one thing, the IPCC is filled with rigid environmental activists who see doom for the environment in every human behavior. IPCC research and position papers seem to be generated with an eye toward more fundraising and political influence as much as they are in disinterested scientific research. Any climate scientist who dares to disagree (and there are many prominent ones who do) is treated as a quack who wants to see the world turn to fire. The world should view the IPCC with skepticism. Look at the way the delegates have spoken recently about the lull in rising temperatures and you will see there was actually much debate over whether the IPCC should even admit this decline in temperatures because any mention of contrary evidence to global warming was considered traitorous and unacceptable politically.
Of course we won't know just how accurate IPCC reports are until the evidence is in at the end of this century. That doesn't sound like a very solid foundation on which to base decisions that will have real consequences for the living. That's the real problem with global warming alarmists: their solutions. Many of the restrictions on developed economies would do little to solve the problem, given that nations like India and China aren't about To do the same to their own flourishing development.
In the end, global warming isn't really about science. It's about guessing. whether the warmer temperatures the earth has seen in the past 50 years or so are a trend or a normal climate fluctuation. And, what can humans do about climate? I suggest not much, including controlling it. Seems to me that until there is real scientific evidence that the earth is warming because of man made activity, the best thing to do about the global warming theory is to just live with it.
This group of climate geeks say that computer models are nearly infallible in predicting man's 22nd century demise due to rising oceans. This report says that if emissions from human activities remain high, the IPCC report predicts that the world is on track to warm by more than 2C, and possibly by more than 4C, by 2100. Wow! Such expertise. I wonder when those geniuses will be able to tell us if it will rain two weeks from when we ask. No, they are the fortune tellers who read far into the future, not the immediate.
The report adds it is now ''extremely likely'', with a 95 per cent certainty, that humans rather than natural variations, are the dominant cause global of warming. But if humans are so powerful and can control nature why can't someone shut up Justin Beiber?
But the computers IPCC uses have failed to predict what is now a 15 year lull in global warming itself. This does not necessarily mean global warming is a hoax, the IPCC intolerant true believers maintain. But as an explanation/excuse for the decline in global temperatures the report, says “with high confidence” that a slow down in warming in the past decade was because the ocean has absorbed 90 per cent of the extra heat generated by human activity between 1971 and 2010. Hmmmm, not sure if "a high confidence" is part of the scientific method.
As a theory, global warming was never crippled by fabrications, by pronounced professional incivility or by unscientific hostility to contrary opinions. Rather, the problem with the global warm proponents is its outlandish pessimism and overwrought certainty about the "high probability" guesses made. They do avoid addressing many questions about their pronouncements. For example.... Would global warming be nothing but calamitous? Do sunspots or other solar activity play a role? How do you conduct experiments on the deep ocean or on clouds or the role of water vapor over a body like the Pacific? Why is it moral for the living to make enormous sacrifices today because of a hypothesis about what may happen decades down the road? The global warmers refusal to even consider such questions in good faith and to paint anyone who raises them as dangerous heretics has always made it seem as much a political theory as a scientific one.
For one thing, the IPCC is filled with rigid environmental activists who see doom for the environment in every human behavior. IPCC research and position papers seem to be generated with an eye toward more fundraising and political influence as much as they are in disinterested scientific research. Any climate scientist who dares to disagree (and there are many prominent ones who do) is treated as a quack who wants to see the world turn to fire. The world should view the IPCC with skepticism. Look at the way the delegates have spoken recently about the lull in rising temperatures and you will see there was actually much debate over whether the IPCC should even admit this decline in temperatures because any mention of contrary evidence to global warming was considered traitorous and unacceptable politically.
Of course we won't know just how accurate IPCC reports are until the evidence is in at the end of this century. That doesn't sound like a very solid foundation on which to base decisions that will have real consequences for the living. That's the real problem with global warming alarmists: their solutions. Many of the restrictions on developed economies would do little to solve the problem, given that nations like India and China aren't about To do the same to their own flourishing development.
In the end, global warming isn't really about science. It's about guessing. whether the warmer temperatures the earth has seen in the past 50 years or so are a trend or a normal climate fluctuation. And, what can humans do about climate? I suggest not much, including controlling it. Seems to me that until there is real scientific evidence that the earth is warming because of man made activity, the best thing to do about the global warming theory is to just live with it.
Gottcha Journalism
This just in from the front page of USA today dot com, a
major
newspaper both on and off line. I swear I read this on their front
page. It's "news" that Maine Governor Paul LePage denied that he said
President Obama "hates white people." Haha What a foolish story for the
front page of a newspaper. "No, I never said that. And you guys are
all about gossip," the governor said after reading the reports. We have
a newspaper reporting a rumor of a racist comment, allegedly said
during a fundraiser event for the governor, according to two other
politicians who claim that they had heard the remark..... strange. And
USA not only spreads hateful rumors, it doesn't identify the source
because those who allege them "requested anonymity" for fear of
political retribution.
Huh? Why would that major newspaper and most others print such gottcha remarks? The story quickly spread to many other newspapers and TV stations as well and by effect, has been elevated from cheap gossip to truth status. Oh, wait! That seems to be the norm in modern day journalism. In order to win the ratings game and sell more, news sources now behave like anonymous bloggers spewing forth unsubstantiated garbage instead of factual reports. That story is just one of hundred similar gottcha stories by the news media, both print and air, that I have seen this year. They are stories that attack a person (in this case both governor LePage and President Obama are smeared by the story) without verification, seem to have no point beyond shock value, and distract the public from reading or viewing real news by wasting time and energy on stupidity.
USA Today and the rest should be ashamed of printing gossip as news, and even more so by elevating the gossip to front page status. Uh...... don't even think that USA Today will retract and apologize if the story is false. That never happens in this age of journalism that values the speed of the report over the veracity of it. News outlets more often throw bombs today and then leave the scene. Responsibility and accountability from them is rare.
Humans everywhere seem less informed about important events in their community and world than ever before. It's partly because news outlets have become supermarket gossip rags as much as serious news outlets. The reliable news source is a dying species. And the worst aspect to the waste of time and attempts to slander or embarrass is that many journalists make the "gottcha story" their prime methodology. The "let's see who I can embarrass today" method has grown and grown, pushing real news out of the spotlight and making it easier to fool the public about serious matters by distracting it from the important.
Sad to say, the media keeps these idiotic kinds of stories in the forefront because gossip and sensationalism sells news. But what does that say about the fact that we readers and viewers don't demand more from them? Maybe that is the biggest story of all.
Huh? Why would that major newspaper and most others print such gottcha remarks? The story quickly spread to many other newspapers and TV stations as well and by effect, has been elevated from cheap gossip to truth status. Oh, wait! That seems to be the norm in modern day journalism. In order to win the ratings game and sell more, news sources now behave like anonymous bloggers spewing forth unsubstantiated garbage instead of factual reports. That story is just one of hundred similar gottcha stories by the news media, both print and air, that I have seen this year. They are stories that attack a person (in this case both governor LePage and President Obama are smeared by the story) without verification, seem to have no point beyond shock value, and distract the public from reading or viewing real news by wasting time and energy on stupidity.
USA Today and the rest should be ashamed of printing gossip as news, and even more so by elevating the gossip to front page status. Uh...... don't even think that USA Today will retract and apologize if the story is false. That never happens in this age of journalism that values the speed of the report over the veracity of it. News outlets more often throw bombs today and then leave the scene. Responsibility and accountability from them is rare.
Humans everywhere seem less informed about important events in their community and world than ever before. It's partly because news outlets have become supermarket gossip rags as much as serious news outlets. The reliable news source is a dying species. And the worst aspect to the waste of time and attempts to slander or embarrass is that many journalists make the "gottcha story" their prime methodology. The "let's see who I can embarrass today" method has grown and grown, pushing real news out of the spotlight and making it easier to fool the public about serious matters by distracting it from the important.
Sad to say, the media keeps these idiotic kinds of stories in the forefront because gossip and sensationalism sells news. But what does that say about the fact that we readers and viewers don't demand more from them? Maybe that is the biggest story of all.
Beauty Must Be In The Eyes Of The Beholders
One trend in most places on earth is fewer female beauty
pageant
contests, those favorites of we men where giggling of various body
parts equals excellence. But where beauty pageants are still held there
seems to be a degradation of the contests. Want an example? The famed
Miss America pageant, always the number one beauty contest in this
country had a contestant this year, Theresa Vail from Kansas, who just
walked across the stage and showed her tattoos. Tattoos! Yep, tats are
now in beauty contests
"Why did I choose to bare my tattoos?", said Theresa. "My whole platform is empowering women to overcome stereotypes and break barriers. What a hypocrite I would be if I covered my ink. How can I tell other women to be fearless and true to themselves if I can't do the same? I am who I am, tattoos and all." Hmmm I wonder if she would cover other marks on her skin if they showed.....varicose veins or scars, for example.
Tattooed Theresa is University student at Kansas U who plans on being a dentist. She did not win the contest or even finish among the top ten. Theresa is also in the army (where she got her tats). I am not in agreement with her that she is "empowering women" by showing her tattoos, but I am certain her body writing and pictures won't win her any beauty contests. Perhaps she is desperate for attention of any sort. Wearing a bikini with script tattooed across her body should do that.
I am not a fan of mutilating the human body with ink. And whole ink think has become a bit of a hackneyed expression of one's identity. Nothing is original anymore, which is why there is a waiting period till what was old and outed becomes new again. Tattoos are popular today but the novelty is rapidly wearing off, meaning many tattooed people may eventually want to wear off their tats. I wish her well, but think she would probably be better suited for a Tattoo beauty contest than a standard one.
There is a definite division in our society. The younger generation loves tattoos or 'body art.' It's almost a style thing, but to some a message statement. The problem is that styles change as do preferences. Look at photos of how people dressed in the 1960s. I ask myself how could we have ever worn that pair of pants or shirt. And those glasses! But those things are easily replaced. It costs a lot of money, time, and perhaps discomfort to remove tattoos. But I guess the young have to learn lessons on their own just as everyone in the past had to.
"Why did I choose to bare my tattoos?", said Theresa. "My whole platform is empowering women to overcome stereotypes and break barriers. What a hypocrite I would be if I covered my ink. How can I tell other women to be fearless and true to themselves if I can't do the same? I am who I am, tattoos and all." Hmmm I wonder if she would cover other marks on her skin if they showed.....varicose veins or scars, for example.
Tattooed Theresa is University student at Kansas U who plans on being a dentist. She did not win the contest or even finish among the top ten. Theresa is also in the army (where she got her tats). I am not in agreement with her that she is "empowering women" by showing her tattoos, but I am certain her body writing and pictures won't win her any beauty contests. Perhaps she is desperate for attention of any sort. Wearing a bikini with script tattooed across her body should do that.
I am not a fan of mutilating the human body with ink. And whole ink think has become a bit of a hackneyed expression of one's identity. Nothing is original anymore, which is why there is a waiting period till what was old and outed becomes new again. Tattoos are popular today but the novelty is rapidly wearing off, meaning many tattooed people may eventually want to wear off their tats. I wish her well, but think she would probably be better suited for a Tattoo beauty contest than a standard one.
There is a definite division in our society. The younger generation loves tattoos or 'body art.' It's almost a style thing, but to some a message statement. The problem is that styles change as do preferences. Look at photos of how people dressed in the 1960s. I ask myself how could we have ever worn that pair of pants or shirt. And those glasses! But those things are easily replaced. It costs a lot of money, time, and perhaps discomfort to remove tattoos. But I guess the young have to learn lessons on their own just as everyone in the past had to.
Naming Rights
There is quite a furor going on about an incident
here regarding a
parent's right to name his or her child any name he or she wishes.
Common sense seems to be lacking in both the couple's choice of a name
and in a judge who ordered the couple to rename the boy a name she
chose for child. The question is largely whether a judge has the right
to force a parent to change the name of a child because he or she feels
it is "unsuitable" (even if it is). It's an easy answer in a
democratic nation. NO!
Here's what happened. Tennessee Child Support judge Lu Ann Ballew, had her own ideas about the right name for an 8 month old little boy. She decided that Messiah, what the mom and dad named him, was an inappropriate first name and ordered that Messiah's name be changed to "Martin Deshawn McCullough" (the new first name and middle name are the last names of the two parents), thus incorporating the last names of both parents instead of using "Messiah". Yep! The judge said the couple must change the name of the baby and the birth certificate to show that Messiah is now Martin. “The word Messiah is a title and it's a title that has only been earned by one person,” said the judge at the hearing.
The question is not only how stupid it was to name their child Messiah, but also why would a judge try to take away the right of the parent to name the child whatever they wished? The judge said that the United States is overwhelmingly a Christian county, and that she was merely looking out for the little boy’s welfare. “It could put him at odds with a lot of people,” she said, “and at this point, he has had no choice in what his name is.” But this violates the parent's the first amendment right to freedom of religion.
No doubt a higher court will over-rule that decision to change the name and Martin will become the Messiah again.......... to be teased until he goes mad from the Messiah jokes he is destined to hear all during his lifetime. Actually, Messiah isn't as bizarre as some other common religious names used here. "Jesus" is often used by Hispanics when naming their children and "Madonna" is also a common one from that singer of the same name who acts anything like a Madonna or Messiah. Judges have no authority to name babies, so this judge must have an agenda of her own in trying to do so. And there already hundreds of Messiah's, if not thousands, running around America (most probably wishing mom and dad used more common sense when naming him).
Naming a child Messiah is not the best idea., though probably better than choosing "Dirtbag", "Vagina", "Maryjuana" or an endless list of others that will make the child have an identity crisis from day one. Choosing "Messiah" just shows that stupid people can have babies and when they do, they act stupidly when parenting. Hmmm Maybe the judge should change her own name to Messiah, since she seems to think she is the all-knowing one.....
Here's what happened. Tennessee Child Support judge Lu Ann Ballew, had her own ideas about the right name for an 8 month old little boy. She decided that Messiah, what the mom and dad named him, was an inappropriate first name and ordered that Messiah's name be changed to "Martin Deshawn McCullough" (the new first name and middle name are the last names of the two parents), thus incorporating the last names of both parents instead of using "Messiah". Yep! The judge said the couple must change the name of the baby and the birth certificate to show that Messiah is now Martin. “The word Messiah is a title and it's a title that has only been earned by one person,” said the judge at the hearing.
The question is not only how stupid it was to name their child Messiah, but also why would a judge try to take away the right of the parent to name the child whatever they wished? The judge said that the United States is overwhelmingly a Christian county, and that she was merely looking out for the little boy’s welfare. “It could put him at odds with a lot of people,” she said, “and at this point, he has had no choice in what his name is.” But this violates the parent's the first amendment right to freedom of religion.
No doubt a higher court will over-rule that decision to change the name and Martin will become the Messiah again.......... to be teased until he goes mad from the Messiah jokes he is destined to hear all during his lifetime. Actually, Messiah isn't as bizarre as some other common religious names used here. "Jesus" is often used by Hispanics when naming their children and "Madonna" is also a common one from that singer of the same name who acts anything like a Madonna or Messiah. Judges have no authority to name babies, so this judge must have an agenda of her own in trying to do so. And there already hundreds of Messiah's, if not thousands, running around America (most probably wishing mom and dad used more common sense when naming him).
Naming a child Messiah is not the best idea., though probably better than choosing "Dirtbag", "Vagina", "Maryjuana" or an endless list of others that will make the child have an identity crisis from day one. Choosing "Messiah" just shows that stupid people can have babies and when they do, they act stupidly when parenting. Hmmm Maybe the judge should change her own name to Messiah, since she seems to think she is the all-knowing one.....
Friday, September 20, 2013
High Tech Prisoners
They are giving prisoners
computers
in some states here now. Can you believe it? Ohio became the latest
state last month to allow inmates to purchase and use mini tablet
computers while in jail. It is a controversial move intended to,
"better connect those in jail with their families and friends outside
of it." Actually, I think it will enable the prisoners to be able to
better connect with on line crimes. Hmmmm I wonder which state will be
the first one to have one of its convict order a murder though use of
his prison tablet?
Anyway, at least six other of the fifty states permit criminals to have a personal computer in jail. Those who favor the policy say that it will "deepen prisoners' ties to their communities and keep them in sync with modern technology." They envision it as an "educational tool". Yes, educational too....but a negative one in many cases, I think. I wonder if giving them computer access is also a training guide for more crimes once the prisoner is released from jail. I would prefer that those in jail are not " tied to the community" as they are in prisoner because their ties to the community have been criminal ones. They can tie all they want themselves when they have served their jail term and are released from prison.
Is not one reason that prisoners are confined in jail to protect the community from their harmful activities? Giving convicts computers is like handing an arsonist a box of matches and pointing him toward a wood house. Too, I wonder if the victims of their crimes will be put in jeopardy by convicts in jail who exact revenge on their victims through use of the computers. Unrestricted and unsupervised use of the computers can make it easier for inmates to re-victomize or continue to intimidate the victims they harmed in the first place. More than four in 10 offenders in the U.S. return to state prison within three years of their release, so the odds are great that many prisoners will abuse their computer privileges.
In the states that allow the convicts to have the tablets inmates or their family members can purchase a $49.99 mini tablet that allows them to send E mails and listen to music, The E mails and any included attachments can be monitored by the state's department of corrections or the individual facility, but that is hard to do given the number of computers in use and the shortage of the number staff to do it. One would think that prison officials would realize the danger of convicts having computers by recalling the endless number of crimes already committed by convicts who have sneaked cell phones into their cells and used them to commit crimes. Drug gangs who often sneak cell phones in must be happy that computers are now allowed. Uh...prisoners do like breaking rules and giving them access to technology that make it easier to do so seems to me to be stupid.
Androids for convicts! Do you think it's a good idea? I wonder if it is the responsibility of prisons to make life more comfortable and high tech for the convicts, or is it better to rehabilitate prisoners with tools that do not pose a potential threat to those of us outside of jail? The old hard labor system seemed to work well. Maybe that might be a better tool for rehabilitation. At least after a full day of hard physical work the convicts would be too tired to plan or execute crimes on line from their jail cells
Anyway, at least six other of the fifty states permit criminals to have a personal computer in jail. Those who favor the policy say that it will "deepen prisoners' ties to their communities and keep them in sync with modern technology." They envision it as an "educational tool". Yes, educational too....but a negative one in many cases, I think. I wonder if giving them computer access is also a training guide for more crimes once the prisoner is released from jail. I would prefer that those in jail are not " tied to the community" as they are in prisoner because their ties to the community have been criminal ones. They can tie all they want themselves when they have served their jail term and are released from prison.
Is not one reason that prisoners are confined in jail to protect the community from their harmful activities? Giving convicts computers is like handing an arsonist a box of matches and pointing him toward a wood house. Too, I wonder if the victims of their crimes will be put in jeopardy by convicts in jail who exact revenge on their victims through use of the computers. Unrestricted and unsupervised use of the computers can make it easier for inmates to re-victomize or continue to intimidate the victims they harmed in the first place. More than four in 10 offenders in the U.S. return to state prison within three years of their release, so the odds are great that many prisoners will abuse their computer privileges.
In the states that allow the convicts to have the tablets inmates or their family members can purchase a $49.99 mini tablet that allows them to send E mails and listen to music, The E mails and any included attachments can be monitored by the state's department of corrections or the individual facility, but that is hard to do given the number of computers in use and the shortage of the number staff to do it. One would think that prison officials would realize the danger of convicts having computers by recalling the endless number of crimes already committed by convicts who have sneaked cell phones into their cells and used them to commit crimes. Drug gangs who often sneak cell phones in must be happy that computers are now allowed. Uh...prisoners do like breaking rules and giving them access to technology that make it easier to do so seems to me to be stupid.
Androids for convicts! Do you think it's a good idea? I wonder if it is the responsibility of prisons to make life more comfortable and high tech for the convicts, or is it better to rehabilitate prisoners with tools that do not pose a potential threat to those of us outside of jail? The old hard labor system seemed to work well. Maybe that might be a better tool for rehabilitation. At least after a full day of hard physical work the convicts would be too tired to plan or execute crimes on line from their jail cells
We Need More Commandments
The world has become way more complicated than in the days
of thee and
thy. I don't know about you, but sometimes I am confused about what is
the right and wrong thing to do when acting. It's the era of moral
relativism, one in which whatever we do is ok if we can make an excuse
for behaving badly or unwisely based on our own perspective. I think
the old Ten Commandments are not enough of a moral guide anymore
because we have so many more temptations to resist today.
So I say, lets add on the the, 'Thou shalt not kill' and 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife' (Hmm Most men would have to confess guilty on that from time to time. God should let us covet as long as we don't touch) list of the Ten Commandments. We need modern commandments to make all those other people (you and I excluded, since we are the only true ethical people) behave and stop annoying us. How about these additional commandments, Moses?
* 11th- Thou shalt not watch Reality TV... unless you have a certified IQ score less than 50.
* 12th- Thou shalt not participate in a pro or anti abortion, gay rights or global warming march...unless you march all the way into the sea.....stay there.
* 13th- Thou shalt not annoy others with your cell phones....well, I guess this is the commandment no one will obey. Never mind!
* 14th- Thou shalt nor call rappers "rap artists"..... "Untalented thugs" or "Hate mongers" are titles that will assist you in your journey to heaven.
* 15th- Thou shalt not lecture anyone who is eating a donut about the values of organic/vegan foods.....because an eternal donut diet awaits you in heaven....... if you are wise enough to renounce your healthy diet and make it to donut world (heaven)
* 16th- Thou shalt never be politically correct....or yee shall be sent to politically correct purgatory after death
* 17th- Thou shalt never use "lol", "brb" or other inane computer abbreviations in any written correspondence with another individual who is not classified as brain dead.
* 18th- Thou shalt never pay attention to celebrity opinions on politics, social justice or "saving the planet"..... for those who disobey, heaven has a video that constantly plays those morons whining their views.
* 19th- Thou shalt never utter, "Islam is a peaceful religion" when decapitating or abusing a non Muslim.....Muslims who wish to enter heaven must leave on earth all knives, swords, artillery and weapons of mass destruction.....the Islamics you leave on earth will appreciate your earthly weapon contribution.
* 20th- Thou shalt never read heathen garbage....uh, except what I wrote here.
So I say, lets add on the the, 'Thou shalt not kill' and 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife' (Hmm Most men would have to confess guilty on that from time to time. God should let us covet as long as we don't touch) list of the Ten Commandments. We need modern commandments to make all those other people (you and I excluded, since we are the only true ethical people) behave and stop annoying us. How about these additional commandments, Moses?
* 11th- Thou shalt not watch Reality TV... unless you have a certified IQ score less than 50.
* 12th- Thou shalt not participate in a pro or anti abortion, gay rights or global warming march...unless you march all the way into the sea.....stay there.
* 13th- Thou shalt not annoy others with your cell phones....well, I guess this is the commandment no one will obey. Never mind!
* 14th- Thou shalt nor call rappers "rap artists"..... "Untalented thugs" or "Hate mongers" are titles that will assist you in your journey to heaven.
* 15th- Thou shalt not lecture anyone who is eating a donut about the values of organic/vegan foods.....because an eternal donut diet awaits you in heaven....... if you are wise enough to renounce your healthy diet and make it to donut world (heaven)
* 16th- Thou shalt never be politically correct....or yee shall be sent to politically correct purgatory after death
* 17th- Thou shalt never use "lol", "brb" or other inane computer abbreviations in any written correspondence with another individual who is not classified as brain dead.
* 18th- Thou shalt never pay attention to celebrity opinions on politics, social justice or "saving the planet"..... for those who disobey, heaven has a video that constantly plays those morons whining their views.
* 19th- Thou shalt never utter, "Islam is a peaceful religion" when decapitating or abusing a non Muslim.....Muslims who wish to enter heaven must leave on earth all knives, swords, artillery and weapons of mass destruction.....the Islamics you leave on earth will appreciate your earthly weapon contribution.
* 20th- Thou shalt never read heathen garbage....uh, except what I wrote here.
Airports
One of those dot com airline review web sites just
put out a user
survey of the worst airports. That would be both in the U.S and
internationally. The worst ranked airport in the United States came as
no surprise to me. It is New York City's Laguardia Airport, a domestic
airport so old and antiquated that it creeks more than my knees. The
only reason it is still operating is location. It's close to Manhattan
and for a lot of people like me, that beats a fancy airport any day. It
not only works well but is cheaper to use and a short ride from it
takes you to Manhattan.
Anyway I looked at the lists of worst airports and have been in a few of them. Los Angeles airport, for instance, is on my list too. It's dirty, has too many terminals spread out too far away, has few places of any quality to buy food, and must be the leader in lines and waits of all U.S. airports. I dread that one and will go out of my way to avoid using it for connections. Not only is it antiquated it leave s the user with a bad experience almost every time. My worst international airports concur with what the readers said, just about any of the older European airports. The Europeans have not built many airports in recent years. Now that doing so is so expensive they are stuck with small, antiquated and primitive airports, even in many the biggest and most traveled European cities.
One thing I notice about big city international airports is that Asian big city airports tend to be the best. That's because they are far newer than those in the west. Really though, I am not so impressed with high tech, clean airports as much as with those both located close to where I need to go and not over-crowded with passengers. No matter how new and high tech an airport is, no matter how much entertainment is inside the airport and how comfortable it may be, the main priority for me is to get me in and out of the airport quickly. I like functionality over glitzy.
Some airports do combine function with comfort and beauty. The airport in Singapore is an a example. It's beautiful, easy to use and fast functioning, with plenty of things to do inside the terminal while waiting. Problem is, it's located in one of the most dreary places on earth- Singapore. I only want to use the Singaporean airport for a connection when I am passing through that place. God forbid having to stop and stay in Singapore.
But let's face it. Few want to be in any airport these days. Flying is not fun and we are happiest when seeing an airport from the rear...as we leave it.
Anyway I looked at the lists of worst airports and have been in a few of them. Los Angeles airport, for instance, is on my list too. It's dirty, has too many terminals spread out too far away, has few places of any quality to buy food, and must be the leader in lines and waits of all U.S. airports. I dread that one and will go out of my way to avoid using it for connections. Not only is it antiquated it leave s the user with a bad experience almost every time. My worst international airports concur with what the readers said, just about any of the older European airports. The Europeans have not built many airports in recent years. Now that doing so is so expensive they are stuck with small, antiquated and primitive airports, even in many the biggest and most traveled European cities.
One thing I notice about big city international airports is that Asian big city airports tend to be the best. That's because they are far newer than those in the west. Really though, I am not so impressed with high tech, clean airports as much as with those both located close to where I need to go and not over-crowded with passengers. No matter how new and high tech an airport is, no matter how much entertainment is inside the airport and how comfortable it may be, the main priority for me is to get me in and out of the airport quickly. I like functionality over glitzy.
Some airports do combine function with comfort and beauty. The airport in Singapore is an a example. It's beautiful, easy to use and fast functioning, with plenty of things to do inside the terminal while waiting. Problem is, it's located in one of the most dreary places on earth- Singapore. I only want to use the Singaporean airport for a connection when I am passing through that place. God forbid having to stop and stay in Singapore.
But let's face it. Few want to be in any airport these days. Flying is not fun and we are happiest when seeing an airport from the rear...as we leave it.
The Wonderful Future That Never Was
There is an interesting nostalgia book by Gregory Benford
called, 'The
Wonderful Future That Never Was'. The book collects the various
technological and lifestyle predictions made in the magazine 'Popular
Mechanics' between 1903 and 1969. It's notable to read and
see how many of the predictions actually came true in one form or
another. I don't know if some can predict the future or if they are
just lucky at guessing about it.
Predicting even what we will personally do tomorrow morning is hard for most of us, but predicting far into the future about things we have little knowledge is extremely tough. It's sort of an imagination test, I guess. We have to imagine the future on the limited data we already have and then make a guess.
The book is only about technological predictions. I am not sure if it is harder to predict future technology or to predict how humans will use new technology. Hmmmm How many people 50 years ago would have predicted the invention of cell phones versus how many would have predicted the awful behavior of most cell users? That's a hard question to answer, but I suppose human behavior is the most enigmatic thing in the universe, so I think that in the much more highly mannered era of 50 years ago the rudeness of the cell user would not have been predicted as often as was the prediction of the technology itself.
You can look below at some of the predictions that were made in those years and see what years the predictions were made. I wonder if anyone has compiled a list of social predictions of the future, predictions about changes in human behavior. And is our behavior better now than it was between 1903 and 1969 (the years of the technological predictions of the book)? What are some predictions of the future about our behavior in society that you think might come to pass 50 years from now? The only thing I can predict is that the future will always be unpredictable.
Predicting even what we will personally do tomorrow morning is hard for most of us, but predicting far into the future about things we have little knowledge is extremely tough. It's sort of an imagination test, I guess. We have to imagine the future on the limited data we already have and then make a guess.
The book is only about technological predictions. I am not sure if it is harder to predict future technology or to predict how humans will use new technology. Hmmmm How many people 50 years ago would have predicted the invention of cell phones versus how many would have predicted the awful behavior of most cell users? That's a hard question to answer, but I suppose human behavior is the most enigmatic thing in the universe, so I think that in the much more highly mannered era of 50 years ago the rudeness of the cell user would not have been predicted as often as was the prediction of the technology itself.
You can look below at some of the predictions that were made in those years and see what years the predictions were made. I wonder if anyone has compiled a list of social predictions of the future, predictions about changes in human behavior. And is our behavior better now than it was between 1903 and 1969 (the years of the technological predictions of the book)? What are some predictions of the future about our behavior in society that you think might come to pass 50 years from now? The only thing I can predict is that the future will always be unpredictable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)