There is an interesting labor unrest in China that
involves a foreign
(an American) company and Chinese workers. The U.S. president of a
company that operates a factory in China is being held hostage by a
group of the Chinese employees there in a labor dispute at his medical
supply plant in the Beijing suburbs. It's because the workers fear he
came to Beijing to fire them and that he won't give them the same
severance pay that workers who were fired earlier received. In fact, he
flew to the factory in China to finalize the layoff of the 30 people
from the plant's plastic division, not to fire the hostage takers. The
plastic's division has moved to Mumbai, India because it is cheaper and
easier to operate there than it is in China. Rising costs, including a
minimum wage, have made China more expensive for U.S. and other
companies as a a labor site
in recent years. The cost of out outsourcing manufacturing to China
will
soon
be equal to the cost of manufacturing in the U.S, so look for more of
those factories to exit China.
Sometimes Chinese workers hold their boss captive when wages are not
paid on time. Once paid, and they let the boss go home. In this case
the American president, Charles Starnes says they won't let him out of
his office and that they have held them five straight days, says he
feels like "a trapped animal", has no access to his medicine, and
that he can't walk anywhere in the factory. He is surrounded by workers
if he does. When he tries to walk to the gate to leave, they physically
prevent him from getting to the gate. He is a prisoner in his own
factory because about 100 workers erroneously think that they were also
being laid off. They want the same layoff compensation packages that
the plastic division workers got, despite the fact that the rest of the
plant is not being closed.
Of course...the Chinese government will not intervene to assist the
trapped company president. He will find the Chinese authorities not as
accommodating in helping him leave as they were when they enticed him
to operate a factory there. This incident and a few others like it
shows that it is becoming too expensive to make products in China. It
is why foreign manufactures are finding other even poorer countries
with lower labor costs......India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam
etc..... with fewer employee rights and wages that make it cheaper to
operate there. No wonder the Chinese economy is slowing so fast. The
loss of those low skilled labor factory jobs set up by foreigners is
not being replaced fast enough with the the higher skilled domestic
jobs the Chinese government is trying to create as a replacement.
Just this week, more than 1,000 furious migrant workers besieged a
factory in Shanghai and held 18 Japanese and Chinese managers against
their will for more than a day, after the workers were required to
abide by unequal regulations. The labor force is restless in China. As
they become more affluent, they become more demanding of the foreign
companies there. The government fears that workers will also demand
more of the Chinese government . This anger along with the higher costs
of doing business in China may be the nail in the coffin of the once
non stop growth in the Chinese economy. I wonder what the Chinese
government can or will do about this.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Whistle Blowers
I am a bit worried about the increasing secretiveness and
dirty
tactics
by the Obama administration. President Obama came into office
promising openness but has acted more like North Korean dictator, Lil
Kim, than someone Americans can trust. His administration has spied,
lied, denied and covered up as best as
possible every scandal after scandal the administration has been
created.
Surely, this is the most paranoid and dishonest presidential
administration since the days of President Richard Nixon. I wonder if
our democracy will slap down Obama and force a more democratic behavior
in the next presidential administration. Our courts and the awful media
here,
which worships and aids Obama every day in the name of political
correctness, will have to fight back to stop this duplicitous behavior.
I have little faith in the mediums who allegedly report the news (but in fact act more as an entertainment bureau than an impartial news reporting machine). The courts may be acting more responsibly though. In a case of alleged "spying" the military court has just given a just decision that the Obama administration won't like. Bradley Manning, the Army private who sent hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. government documents to WikiLeaks, was found not guilty the other day of the most serious charge against him, aiding the enemy. But Manning was found guilty of five counts of theft, five counts of espionage, a computer fraud charge and other military infractions and could spent a long time in jail because of it. The ruling though is good news for we Americans who want the government to stop spying on us for "security reasons" the government cites.
So called "whistle blowers" are essential to any democratic government, as they keep the powerful from abusing their power. But people today who expose misconduct or waste in government agencies often risk their careers to do so. Now the tide seems to be leaning toward more freedom to report that abuse. Debate has flared over just what constitutes a whistle blower and whistle blowers are no longer tagged as "traitors". This debate has mostly been prompted by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden's disclosures about digital surveillance programs the Obama administration uses against practically every American citizen to allegedly "keep them safe". Some say he acted courageously to reveal government violations of privacy rights. Others say he broke the law and risked national security by leaking classified information. The courts will eventually decide that and hopeful set limits on ow much a democratic country may spy on its citizens.
I think any law or court decisions that upholds whistle blowers who reveal wrong is the right thing to keep government responsible. But the Obama administration has been far from responsible in many matters, not just this one. If an American citizen knows that any laws are being violated and money's being misspent by he government, that citizen has a patriotic duty to report it. Hmmmm Someone should explain that to President Obama.
I have little faith in the mediums who allegedly report the news (but in fact act more as an entertainment bureau than an impartial news reporting machine). The courts may be acting more responsibly though. In a case of alleged "spying" the military court has just given a just decision that the Obama administration won't like. Bradley Manning, the Army private who sent hundreds of thousands of secret U.S. government documents to WikiLeaks, was found not guilty the other day of the most serious charge against him, aiding the enemy. But Manning was found guilty of five counts of theft, five counts of espionage, a computer fraud charge and other military infractions and could spent a long time in jail because of it. The ruling though is good news for we Americans who want the government to stop spying on us for "security reasons" the government cites.
So called "whistle blowers" are essential to any democratic government, as they keep the powerful from abusing their power. But people today who expose misconduct or waste in government agencies often risk their careers to do so. Now the tide seems to be leaning toward more freedom to report that abuse. Debate has flared over just what constitutes a whistle blower and whistle blowers are no longer tagged as "traitors". This debate has mostly been prompted by National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden's disclosures about digital surveillance programs the Obama administration uses against practically every American citizen to allegedly "keep them safe". Some say he acted courageously to reveal government violations of privacy rights. Others say he broke the law and risked national security by leaking classified information. The courts will eventually decide that and hopeful set limits on ow much a democratic country may spy on its citizens.
I think any law or court decisions that upholds whistle blowers who reveal wrong is the right thing to keep government responsible. But the Obama administration has been far from responsible in many matters, not just this one. If an American citizen knows that any laws are being violated and money's being misspent by he government, that citizen has a patriotic duty to report it. Hmmmm Someone should explain that to President Obama.
Dictators Using Social Mediums
One thing about the Syrian civil war against President Assad
is new. It's his use of social media sites to promote his view to his
people. This is the first all out attempt by a dictator to manipulate
the population by using web sites that are social meeting places. Assad
is turning to the trendy, popular photo sharing service called
'Instagram' in the latest attempt at improving his image as his country
fights over whether to overthrow Assad from rule. His propaganda team is
posting pictures of himself and his glamorous wife surrounded by
idolizing crowds.
It reminds me of the Hitler propaganda crew that, mostly successfully, did the same kind of thing in the 30's. Hitler was portrayed as something far different from what he was and was successful at manipulating public opinion in Germany. In Asasad's case, he has a medium that Hitler would have killed for (Ok, Hitler killed for practically anything). With Ingstram and other social media sites the modern dictator has a powerful and immediate way to manipulate public opinion. For example, recent postings photos show a smiling Assad among supporters, or grimly visiting wounded Syrians in the hospital who were mangled by what is suggest is the evil opposition forces. He is seen working in his office in Damascus, an Apple computer and iPad on his desk. His wife, Asma, who has stayed largely out of sight throughout the civil war is features heavily in the photos, casually dressed and surrounded by adoring Syrian children and their mothers.
Yes, it is blatant and simple minded, but so is many of the populace who live in Syria. Civil wars like the one in Syria are common and, regardless of who wins, usually change nothing. But the effect of a dictator using on line propaganda against the opposition is something to note. Will this work or not, and, if so, will other dictatorships increase their own use of on line propaganda? Assad's use of the social media is in stark contrast to the methods of other dictators at the center of Arab Spring revolts. While the ousted Egyptian and Libyan leaders relied on antiquated methods such as state-run media to transmit stilted propaganda, Assad learned from their mistakes and has increasingly relied on social media to project an image of confidence to the world. It has helped him greatly.
Assad not only promotes the illusion that life is good and normal in Syria under his rule on social media suites, he has tied the same message into state run TV and print media inside the country, a nice assimilation of the propaganda. It may not fool everyone in Syria, but it is bound to convince a significant portion of Syria that Assad may be better than what the alternative rebels offer. And that may make the next dictatorship a little more safe from rebels who want to overthrow it.
It reminds me of the Hitler propaganda crew that, mostly successfully, did the same kind of thing in the 30's. Hitler was portrayed as something far different from what he was and was successful at manipulating public opinion in Germany. In Asasad's case, he has a medium that Hitler would have killed for (Ok, Hitler killed for practically anything). With Ingstram and other social media sites the modern dictator has a powerful and immediate way to manipulate public opinion. For example, recent postings photos show a smiling Assad among supporters, or grimly visiting wounded Syrians in the hospital who were mangled by what is suggest is the evil opposition forces. He is seen working in his office in Damascus, an Apple computer and iPad on his desk. His wife, Asma, who has stayed largely out of sight throughout the civil war is features heavily in the photos, casually dressed and surrounded by adoring Syrian children and their mothers.
Yes, it is blatant and simple minded, but so is many of the populace who live in Syria. Civil wars like the one in Syria are common and, regardless of who wins, usually change nothing. But the effect of a dictator using on line propaganda against the opposition is something to note. Will this work or not, and, if so, will other dictatorships increase their own use of on line propaganda? Assad's use of the social media is in stark contrast to the methods of other dictators at the center of Arab Spring revolts. While the ousted Egyptian and Libyan leaders relied on antiquated methods such as state-run media to transmit stilted propaganda, Assad learned from their mistakes and has increasingly relied on social media to project an image of confidence to the world. It has helped him greatly.
Assad not only promotes the illusion that life is good and normal in Syria under his rule on social media suites, he has tied the same message into state run TV and print media inside the country, a nice assimilation of the propaganda. It may not fool everyone in Syria, but it is bound to convince a significant portion of Syria that Assad may be better than what the alternative rebels offer. And that may make the next dictatorship a little more safe from rebels who want to overthrow it.
Executing Them
I saw a video on the news recently that was alarming. Some
Syrian
"rebels" showing news camera men some gory scenes to show the folks
back home. They were executing prisoners they captured in their attempt
to "bring democracy" to Syria. That in itself is odd, but the way they
executed them made it worse. After each prisoner (they called them
"infidels and traitors") was shot or sliced to death with machetes one
of the so called "executioners proceeded to cut out and eat the heart
of the executed person. How savage is that? I guess the thugs who were
executing want to make their enemies fear the enemy combatant that the
same would happen to themselves or a loved one if they fight against
the heart eaters. Still, it is about as base a behavior as one might
ever see. It made me reflect on the whole concept of killing prisoners
or criminals.
In the U.S. we still execute some prisoners who committed crimes that resulted in the death of the victim. It seems savage to me that a nation would teach the lesson that murder is wrong, by committing murder itself. But people do like vengeance. Some people say society needs to teach the lesson that killing is wrong and needs "closure" against those kinds of criminals, meaning that they prefer to see the criminal die. We have had a long tradition of that in the U.S. In the days of the old west, in the 19th century, people used to make a holiday out of executions. They would gather in the town square to watch hangings. Vendors sold snacks and the kids thought of public hangings like kids today respond to attending a football game. It was seen as good clean fun. Laughter far outweighed tears at a town hanging session.
That kind of event probably won't ever happen here again. We are said to be "more civilized" today. Hmmmm I am not so sure that humans are yet civilized. So instead of public executions, the states now execute the criminals in privacy inside prisons by hanging, shooting or injecting lethal drugs in the veins of the prisoner. We don't see it, but know it is happening, and that means most of us don't think about it or care if criminals are being killed by the government. Does this mean we have reached a little higher level of civility than when we saw executions are pure entertainment? I am not sure. Though people don't think about capital punishment as much as they did in the days of the old west, their silence in opposition to capital punishment is a kind of silent approval of it. Well, at least we don't crucify criminals anymore or burn heathens at the stake like the Catholic Church did for so many centuries.
But then, some Islamic countries today still stone to death or behead their criminals, and with mostly consent from the believers who are not being stoned or beheaded. Their religion says it's good to stone and behead some humans. That probably means that humans have a long way to go before they conclude that killing even the worst members of the human family is a bad and cruel idea. But then...if you agree.... I wouldn't promote that idea that too loudly. Some of the capital punishment advocates might see you as suitable for the next hanging fantasy.
In the U.S. we still execute some prisoners who committed crimes that resulted in the death of the victim. It seems savage to me that a nation would teach the lesson that murder is wrong, by committing murder itself. But people do like vengeance. Some people say society needs to teach the lesson that killing is wrong and needs "closure" against those kinds of criminals, meaning that they prefer to see the criminal die. We have had a long tradition of that in the U.S. In the days of the old west, in the 19th century, people used to make a holiday out of executions. They would gather in the town square to watch hangings. Vendors sold snacks and the kids thought of public hangings like kids today respond to attending a football game. It was seen as good clean fun. Laughter far outweighed tears at a town hanging session.
That kind of event probably won't ever happen here again. We are said to be "more civilized" today. Hmmmm I am not so sure that humans are yet civilized. So instead of public executions, the states now execute the criminals in privacy inside prisons by hanging, shooting or injecting lethal drugs in the veins of the prisoner. We don't see it, but know it is happening, and that means most of us don't think about it or care if criminals are being killed by the government. Does this mean we have reached a little higher level of civility than when we saw executions are pure entertainment? I am not sure. Though people don't think about capital punishment as much as they did in the days of the old west, their silence in opposition to capital punishment is a kind of silent approval of it. Well, at least we don't crucify criminals anymore or burn heathens at the stake like the Catholic Church did for so many centuries.
But then, some Islamic countries today still stone to death or behead their criminals, and with mostly consent from the believers who are not being stoned or beheaded. Their religion says it's good to stone and behead some humans. That probably means that humans have a long way to go before they conclude that killing even the worst members of the human family is a bad and cruel idea. But then...if you agree.... I wouldn't promote that idea that too loudly. Some of the capital punishment advocates might see you as suitable for the next hanging fantasy.
That Royal Baby Thing
Thank goodness the "Royal Baby" has finally been
delivered. No, I don't
care about royalty or their babies. I am just sick and tired of reading
and hearing news about them. I wonder why the culture here in the U.S.
(and maybe in many other nations?) is so obsessed with the birth of
Prince William and Duchess Kate Middleton's first baby. The British
monarchy is an anachronism today that plays no role in the lives of
those who live in Britain, much less in the United States. Yet media
driven daily reports of the pregnancy and birth have guided so many
into investing so much of their time and energy into it. What a waste
of time. Maybe this is just an extension of the "Reality TV" mentality
in which the frivolous is elevated to the important in order to fill
the dull lives of the viewers with a diversion or too.
I tried to ignore the whole birth thing, but it is impossible for one who reads news to do so. The birth, like so many other non news events, has been elevated to a higher status than the incidental event it really is. It reflects how so much of the news today is entertainment blurbs rather than information important to the reader or viewer. So to read and watch legitimate news today means to sift through the trivial mess that fills newscasts today. Yes, the birth of the royal baby is a trivial event. But I guess the many who worry about royal births are like the people who dress in Star Wars costumes and attend Star Wars conventions. They elevate the inconsequential to the important in order to make their boring lives more bearable.
Actually there are a lot more things that I don't know about the royal besides their babies, and I have no desire to know about them. I do know, however, that generally these are people without any particular skills, virtues or accomplishments. They live a life of privilege, luxury and glamor by birth and marriage, or more accurately by the mass' base urge of voyeurism. I love babies... but only have interest in those that I know personally. Count me out on being interested in this royal birth or in any other baby which impacts my life not at all.
I find this hype about royal babies all quite extraordinary. The media do try to make this appear as if it actually means much to humanity, but even the symbolism of it is irrelevant. The royal baby is actually composed of the same organic matter as any other human. Sigh....maybe the women of the royal family should have their royal tubes tied. Now that would be a fun story to follow!
I tried to ignore the whole birth thing, but it is impossible for one who reads news to do so. The birth, like so many other non news events, has been elevated to a higher status than the incidental event it really is. It reflects how so much of the news today is entertainment blurbs rather than information important to the reader or viewer. So to read and watch legitimate news today means to sift through the trivial mess that fills newscasts today. Yes, the birth of the royal baby is a trivial event. But I guess the many who worry about royal births are like the people who dress in Star Wars costumes and attend Star Wars conventions. They elevate the inconsequential to the important in order to make their boring lives more bearable.
Actually there are a lot more things that I don't know about the royal besides their babies, and I have no desire to know about them. I do know, however, that generally these are people without any particular skills, virtues or accomplishments. They live a life of privilege, luxury and glamor by birth and marriage, or more accurately by the mass' base urge of voyeurism. I love babies... but only have interest in those that I know personally. Count me out on being interested in this royal birth or in any other baby which impacts my life not at all.
I find this hype about royal babies all quite extraordinary. The media do try to make this appear as if it actually means much to humanity, but even the symbolism of it is irrelevant. The royal baby is actually composed of the same organic matter as any other human. Sigh....maybe the women of the royal family should have their royal tubes tied. Now that would be a fun story to follow!
Postcards Are Disappearing
While looking through an old book in one of my
bookcases the other day
I found a treasure of sort. It's a postcard from the 1930's sent while
on vacation in Bavaria, Germany by a relative to my grandparents. The
graphics were quite nice and the time frame, prior to W.W. II and at
the beginning of Hitler's stint as leader of the new Nazi Germany,
makes it interesting to me. The text this aunt wrote in the small space
on the back of the postcard was the usual sort note about how lovely
the place was, and how "you" should see Bavaria etc. I wonder if, when
she mailed that postcard, she had any idea how awful Germany would
quickly become under Hitler.
It made me realize the days of the postcard are numbered, another victim of our faster and less personalized electronic communications. I wish I would have saved more of the old postcards I once had. I remember one my dad sent when me when he and my mother drove across country to visit relatives in California. It was about a remote spot in Texas that he and my mother passed through, and what he wrote (It's a personal family joke so no need to recount what you wouldn't understand) suited the postcard format so well- short, to the point and funny.
The first postcards were sent in the mid 1800's in Europe and North America. Allegedly, Austria became the first nation to permit the mailing of them. They were an instant hit in an age when people took so much time to write detailed letters to so many they knew and loved. Outside of speaking directly to a person, the letter was the main way to communicate in an age that offered few other alternatives. Postcards became the lazy way to do what a letter had always done. I guess the postcard was to the letter then what an e mail is to a letter today. Just as it is easier to send an email today than a letter, as it was easier in 1900 to send a postcard than a letter.
I know that postcards are now an outdated format. Surveys show that only about 5% of people who travel still send them. Most of those are people who accidentally find amusing or eccentric cards while on travel, and who send them simply because they are cute or unique. Given the time and cost that it takes to send and receive them, postcards are dated quickly. Most of us today prefer or send an instantaneous real time communication and photo. Sigh... sterile technology is winning again. I hate that! But I bet we who have received both postcards and today's instant electronic communications remember the cards more often and find them more meaningful than those tweets, e mails, phone pictures etc.. After all, it takes more time, costs much more and requires far greater effort to use postcards
Given the fact that all snail mail is a dying format, one need not be a genius to know that the obscure postcard snail mail will be an early casualty and precede the letter in the snail mail graveyard. But still, there is time for nostalgia. Next time you travel send someone a postcard. They will find it a refreshing break from the electronic communications that are so ordinary and mundane.
It made me realize the days of the postcard are numbered, another victim of our faster and less personalized electronic communications. I wish I would have saved more of the old postcards I once had. I remember one my dad sent when me when he and my mother drove across country to visit relatives in California. It was about a remote spot in Texas that he and my mother passed through, and what he wrote (It's a personal family joke so no need to recount what you wouldn't understand) suited the postcard format so well- short, to the point and funny.
The first postcards were sent in the mid 1800's in Europe and North America. Allegedly, Austria became the first nation to permit the mailing of them. They were an instant hit in an age when people took so much time to write detailed letters to so many they knew and loved. Outside of speaking directly to a person, the letter was the main way to communicate in an age that offered few other alternatives. Postcards became the lazy way to do what a letter had always done. I guess the postcard was to the letter then what an e mail is to a letter today. Just as it is easier to send an email today than a letter, as it was easier in 1900 to send a postcard than a letter.
I know that postcards are now an outdated format. Surveys show that only about 5% of people who travel still send them. Most of those are people who accidentally find amusing or eccentric cards while on travel, and who send them simply because they are cute or unique. Given the time and cost that it takes to send and receive them, postcards are dated quickly. Most of us today prefer or send an instantaneous real time communication and photo. Sigh... sterile technology is winning again. I hate that! But I bet we who have received both postcards and today's instant electronic communications remember the cards more often and find them more meaningful than those tweets, e mails, phone pictures etc.. After all, it takes more time, costs much more and requires far greater effort to use postcards
Given the fact that all snail mail is a dying format, one need not be a genius to know that the obscure postcard snail mail will be an early casualty and precede the letter in the snail mail graveyard. But still, there is time for nostalgia. Next time you travel send someone a postcard. They will find it a refreshing break from the electronic communications that are so ordinary and mundane.
No Barking, Please
I received a spam ad I just can't resist writing about
today. It's
'BARKOFF'. I think the old Hitler Nazi gang would have loved this
product. The product stops dogs from barking. Yes, I know. You would
rather see a product that shut me up. But even the nazi's would have
trouble with that one. Let me quote the spam ad that describes Barkoff
because it's too bizarre for me to do it myself.
"We all love our dogs. But there are times you just wish you could just turn off their barking. Well now you can with BARKOFF, the ingenious ultrasonic training aid that finally gives you control over your dog's barking. When you'd prefer that your dog didn't bark, simply switch on the bark off, and when your dog does bark it sets off an ultrasonic signal that is inaudible to human ears but instantly captures your dogs attention and interrupts the barking pattern to quiet him."
Training a dog to bark is like training a child not to speak. Dogs communicate with barking. If they don't bark they become tentative, even neurotic. Why would anyone who loves a dog enough to have one want to silence the dog? The ad says the "training" is painless, but I doubt it. If an ultrasonic blast sounds every time the dog barks it's obviously disconcerting to the dog.
I went to the web site and saw testimony from a couple of alleged BARKOFF owners who claim their dog is so much more affectionate after the dog eugenic BARKOFF training has turned their Fido into a robot. Affectionate or shocked into stupor? It also claims dogs "nuisance bark" and that you can silence any noisy neighborhood dog by zapping the dog with BARKOFF. I see lawsuits coming when neighbors try that.
People have the right to speak. Dogs should have the right to bark. It's that simple. Owners who want to "silence " their pets should do so with love and attention, not piercing sound waves. I find it disconcerting both to see such products sold and to think that many people will probably buy such things. It's another example of the entitlement age in which we live.
Now we are entitled to not hear dogs bark. What's next, muzzles for birds that sing in the morning? Not only is this product enough to make me bark, I would like to bite the BARKOFF CEO where it hurts most!
"We all love our dogs. But there are times you just wish you could just turn off their barking. Well now you can with BARKOFF, the ingenious ultrasonic training aid that finally gives you control over your dog's barking. When you'd prefer that your dog didn't bark, simply switch on the bark off, and when your dog does bark it sets off an ultrasonic signal that is inaudible to human ears but instantly captures your dogs attention and interrupts the barking pattern to quiet him."
Training a dog to bark is like training a child not to speak. Dogs communicate with barking. If they don't bark they become tentative, even neurotic. Why would anyone who loves a dog enough to have one want to silence the dog? The ad says the "training" is painless, but I doubt it. If an ultrasonic blast sounds every time the dog barks it's obviously disconcerting to the dog.
I went to the web site and saw testimony from a couple of alleged BARKOFF owners who claim their dog is so much more affectionate after the dog eugenic BARKOFF training has turned their Fido into a robot. Affectionate or shocked into stupor? It also claims dogs "nuisance bark" and that you can silence any noisy neighborhood dog by zapping the dog with BARKOFF. I see lawsuits coming when neighbors try that.
People have the right to speak. Dogs should have the right to bark. It's that simple. Owners who want to "silence " their pets should do so with love and attention, not piercing sound waves. I find it disconcerting both to see such products sold and to think that many people will probably buy such things. It's another example of the entitlement age in which we live.
Now we are entitled to not hear dogs bark. What's next, muzzles for birds that sing in the morning? Not only is this product enough to make me bark, I would like to bite the BARKOFF CEO where it hurts most!
Too Many Doctor's Visits
At least in the United States, doctors are
becoming more
and important
to us all. That's not good! I think the creation of those crazy
medical insurance programs has made the "I have to go to the doctor"
syndrome today and out of control one. I remember in the days my youth
before there was any medical insurance that medicine was simpler and at
least as efficient. In those days you paid $10 in cash whenever you saw
your physician (usually some old guy who examined you in 10 minutes
while blowing smoke into your face from his cigarette). It was cheap,
fast and rarely were you prescribed drugs or tests if you seemed to be
ill. The doctor most often said, "Let's watch it", instead of treating
the symptom. More times than today, that regimen worked better than the
expensive doctor filled days of today.
In the pre medical insurance days I once had an emergency surgery to remove a chicken bone from my throat (it's a long uninteresting story....but I still love KFC despite it). The total bill for the emergency room, surgeons, the operation room to remove it and the two day hospital stay, was about $700. Today, $700 gets you a one month supply of some unneeded medication the doctor prescribes when you visit a physician's office.
The system today encourages use, and more use and quickly overuse. The giant medical complex that exists in the U.S. is like a fat guy at the head of the buffet line. It needs more and more food, in the form of assigning more and more medical tests and procedures in order to stay happy. The patient is like the guy who is eating free in the line. Why worry about the costs if his or her insurance pays for it? Too bad the patient doesn't look at his or her insurance premium before deciding whether to not to visits his doctor for that sore throat or sneeze. The cost of the premium is enough to make you sick.
There must or should be an economic law that holds that as the patient believes he or she does not have to pay for the medical help he wants, that patient seeks more and more of it. What's amazing about the doctor visits is that the physician, who is afraid of being sued if he or she misses something wrong with the patient, always orders an expensive test or drug...just in case. So the patient is forced to use drugs not needed and is impacted negatively from it.
It's true that often the medicine is worse on the body than is the disease. If your right knee is sore and you have to see a doctor, out-smart your doc by saying it's the left one that is causing the pain. It's because doctors always tell their patients that, "the knee you're complaining about is fine. You need treatment on the other one". I sincerely hope you don't feel sick after reading this.
In the pre medical insurance days I once had an emergency surgery to remove a chicken bone from my throat (it's a long uninteresting story....but I still love KFC despite it). The total bill for the emergency room, surgeons, the operation room to remove it and the two day hospital stay, was about $700. Today, $700 gets you a one month supply of some unneeded medication the doctor prescribes when you visit a physician's office.
The system today encourages use, and more use and quickly overuse. The giant medical complex that exists in the U.S. is like a fat guy at the head of the buffet line. It needs more and more food, in the form of assigning more and more medical tests and procedures in order to stay happy. The patient is like the guy who is eating free in the line. Why worry about the costs if his or her insurance pays for it? Too bad the patient doesn't look at his or her insurance premium before deciding whether to not to visits his doctor for that sore throat or sneeze. The cost of the premium is enough to make you sick.
There must or should be an economic law that holds that as the patient believes he or she does not have to pay for the medical help he wants, that patient seeks more and more of it. What's amazing about the doctor visits is that the physician, who is afraid of being sued if he or she misses something wrong with the patient, always orders an expensive test or drug...just in case. So the patient is forced to use drugs not needed and is impacted negatively from it.
It's true that often the medicine is worse on the body than is the disease. If your right knee is sore and you have to see a doctor, out-smart your doc by saying it's the left one that is causing the pain. It's because doctors always tell their patients that, "the knee you're complaining about is fine. You need treatment on the other one". I sincerely hope you don't feel sick after reading this.
Squatty Potty
Just when I think the popular culture has reached its lowest
level I am
jolted back to the reality that our obsession with "nothing" today has
no bounds. What I just saw in an advertisement almost knocks the poo
out of me....uh...figuratively so. It's a new product called the
'squatty potty' that, according to the ads on the squattypotty.com web
site, must be used if one is to poo properly. Yep! We are all pooing
wrong and it is a mess.
Basically, the squatty potty is a very cleverly designed stool. It allows you to raise your knees high enough that your body is in a squatting position, even though you're still sitting on the toilet (you can actually properly squat and hover if you prefer). They want to sell us a plastic stool to put it in front of their toilet, and to convince us to believe that if we rests our feet on the stool we will be in the only pooing position that is "correct". They say those cave men squatted, so it must be the right way. Everyone who has seen a reality TV show contestant knows how wise a caveman is.
Use a squatty potty, they claim, and the colon will be lined up properly for that dump you love to take every morning. The price of this dumpster aid....hold on to your butt cheeks...or something....the price starts at $35 per squatty potty. Deluxe models cost nearly $80....this for a plastic foot stool one can buy in any Wal mart for less than $10. Before you say that I am full of it, I promise not to be graphic in describing the squatty potty benefits. Here are the claims for why you should have your own (maybe you can have yours monogrammed) squatty potty. The squatty potty benefits include: alleviation or elimination of constipation, prevention or elimination of hemorrhoids, prevention of colon cancer and other colon diseases, provides complete bowel movements, eliminates the need to strain when pooing, helps colitis patients, and a squatty potty helps prevent appendicitis. Hmmmm, no cure for cancer?
Wow! This product might be the magic bullet we search for all our lives! Or perhaps the squatty people are just testing us to see how gullible we are. Next time that Fido squats before defecating on that new rug you love so much, don't get mad, just smile and say, "Good boy...You showed me the proper squat. I need a squatty potty." Are you now so excited you want to take a dump right here? Wait! Hold it in until you throw away your money and buy a squatty potty. Here's their web site for full details http://www.squattypotty.com/Default.asp?Click=4820
Modern life sure is complicated. Now we are told we don't even know how to take a crap correctly, and that we need to put our feet up on a piece of plastic for which we pay $35, in order to poop properly. I think I'll skip buying a squatty potty, get rid of all the toilets in my house and just squat in my backyard from here on out. After all, I wouldn't want you to claim I was also literally full of ----.
The benefits of squatting include: Alleviation or elimination of constipation problems Prevention and elimination of hemorrhoids Potential prevention of colon cancer and other colon diseases Strengthening of the pelvic floor More effective and complete bowel movements Eliminates the need to push or strain Helps with colitis ... Ugh! I think it's way to complicated for simply taking a dump.
Basically, the squatty potty is a very cleverly designed stool. It allows you to raise your knees high enough that your body is in a squatting position, even though you're still sitting on the toilet (you can actually properly squat and hover if you prefer). They want to sell us a plastic stool to put it in front of their toilet, and to convince us to believe that if we rests our feet on the stool we will be in the only pooing position that is "correct". They say those cave men squatted, so it must be the right way. Everyone who has seen a reality TV show contestant knows how wise a caveman is.
Use a squatty potty, they claim, and the colon will be lined up properly for that dump you love to take every morning. The price of this dumpster aid....hold on to your butt cheeks...or something....the price starts at $35 per squatty potty. Deluxe models cost nearly $80....this for a plastic foot stool one can buy in any Wal mart for less than $10. Before you say that I am full of it, I promise not to be graphic in describing the squatty potty benefits. Here are the claims for why you should have your own (maybe you can have yours monogrammed) squatty potty. The squatty potty benefits include: alleviation or elimination of constipation, prevention or elimination of hemorrhoids, prevention of colon cancer and other colon diseases, provides complete bowel movements, eliminates the need to strain when pooing, helps colitis patients, and a squatty potty helps prevent appendicitis. Hmmmm, no cure for cancer?
Wow! This product might be the magic bullet we search for all our lives! Or perhaps the squatty people are just testing us to see how gullible we are. Next time that Fido squats before defecating on that new rug you love so much, don't get mad, just smile and say, "Good boy...You showed me the proper squat. I need a squatty potty." Are you now so excited you want to take a dump right here? Wait! Hold it in until you throw away your money and buy a squatty potty. Here's their web site for full details http://www.squattypotty.com/Default.asp?Click=4820
Modern life sure is complicated. Now we are told we don't even know how to take a crap correctly, and that we need to put our feet up on a piece of plastic for which we pay $35, in order to poop properly. I think I'll skip buying a squatty potty, get rid of all the toilets in my house and just squat in my backyard from here on out. After all, I wouldn't want you to claim I was also literally full of ----.
The benefits of squatting include: Alleviation or elimination of constipation problems Prevention and elimination of hemorrhoids Potential prevention of colon cancer and other colon diseases Strengthening of the pelvic floor More effective and complete bowel movements Eliminates the need to push or strain Helps with colitis ... Ugh! I think it's way to complicated for simply taking a dump.
Happy Birthday T's
There is a 100 year birthday this year. No, I'm not
that old. It's the
100th birthday of the T-shirt. In 1913, the T-shirt as we know it first
appeared as standard issue gear within the U.S. Navy. Finally, the
military did something constructive. Anyway, this means the T-shirt
itself is just a little older than some of the T-shirts I wear. I am
sure that I would be lost without my T-shirts, given I have always
loved them and that I made the T-shirt my official garment of wear
after I retired. I have a closet full of them and most days they are
the main fashion option I use.
A recent survey of 1,000 representative Americans who are at least 18 years old, that revealed 95 percent of Americans wear T-shirts and that 89 percent wear T-shirts at least once a week. Nearly nine in every 10 Americans (87 percent) own at least one T-shirt they refuse to “trash” because of a sentimental attachment (proof in the old male adage that "a good T-shirt is better than a good woman"). Those surveyed said that they have 13 T-shirts they hold onto for that reason. Most commonly, these shirts are from a group of which they were a member, or shirts commemorating a major event (But I hate having to look at al those "I was at Woodstock T's). Finally! There is proof of something good about Americans.
Only fashion snobs hate T-shirts. I always say I never trust anyone who is too well dressed or who hates T shirts. Fortunately, few fit into that category. If you also weird and like T shirts there is a survey you can take at a commercial T-shirt seller site that even has a T -shirt forum Face book link attached. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=11371591865
T-shirts come in all types of material (cheap cotton being the favorite). designs, colors, with or without messages etc. If someone thought about it, it's on a T -shirt somewhere. I feel T -shirts are a microcosm of what people think and feel everywhere. In fact they are so universal, the same T-shirt might be seen in such diverse spots as both Paris or Timbuktu. Of course, the T-shirt makes more than a fashion statement. It's become perhaps the most popular way to make other statements as well, whether it's to show where you would have gone to school if you had the money (Harvard), where the Hard Rock Cafe was you visited on vacation or that the person you're with is not particularly intelligent ("I'm with stupid").
They surely are a personality related item. Look at what a T-shirt wearer has on and you probably have an indication of his or her personality. Uh, take my own case for example. I have one that has a large clue less looking smiley face and the words "I Smile Because I have No Idea What's Going On" written on it. People tend to smile back and recognize how clue less that I really am. Wearing that concept on a T shirt beat having to show them with my odd behavior. I have many other weird message T shirts in my collection but you already know I am a mental case, I won't share what they say to prove it!
So Happy Birthday T-shirt! You are one of humanity's greatest inventions.
A recent survey of 1,000 representative Americans who are at least 18 years old, that revealed 95 percent of Americans wear T-shirts and that 89 percent wear T-shirts at least once a week. Nearly nine in every 10 Americans (87 percent) own at least one T-shirt they refuse to “trash” because of a sentimental attachment (proof in the old male adage that "a good T-shirt is better than a good woman"). Those surveyed said that they have 13 T-shirts they hold onto for that reason. Most commonly, these shirts are from a group of which they were a member, or shirts commemorating a major event (But I hate having to look at al those "I was at Woodstock T's). Finally! There is proof of something good about Americans.
Only fashion snobs hate T-shirts. I always say I never trust anyone who is too well dressed or who hates T shirts. Fortunately, few fit into that category. If you also weird and like T shirts there is a survey you can take at a commercial T-shirt seller site that even has a T -shirt forum Face book link attached. http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=11371591865
T-shirts come in all types of material (cheap cotton being the favorite). designs, colors, with or without messages etc. If someone thought about it, it's on a T -shirt somewhere. I feel T -shirts are a microcosm of what people think and feel everywhere. In fact they are so universal, the same T-shirt might be seen in such diverse spots as both Paris or Timbuktu. Of course, the T-shirt makes more than a fashion statement. It's become perhaps the most popular way to make other statements as well, whether it's to show where you would have gone to school if you had the money (Harvard), where the Hard Rock Cafe was you visited on vacation or that the person you're with is not particularly intelligent ("I'm with stupid").
They surely are a personality related item. Look at what a T-shirt wearer has on and you probably have an indication of his or her personality. Uh, take my own case for example. I have one that has a large clue less looking smiley face and the words "I Smile Because I have No Idea What's Going On" written on it. People tend to smile back and recognize how clue less that I really am. Wearing that concept on a T shirt beat having to show them with my odd behavior. I have many other weird message T shirts in my collection but you already know I am a mental case, I won't share what they say to prove it!
So Happy Birthday T-shirt! You are one of humanity's greatest inventions.
TV Stinks
Modern TV programming stinks, so I don't watch TV
very much anymore. It
must be one of those inverse laws that as the technology of our TV
screens improve and look so much better, the programming put on them
degrades into a mindless mush. Other than sports, news and
informational shows TV leaves me uninterested. It's quite a change from
my childhood days when I loved the medium and even watched too much.
But then, TV was programming far better shows for us and had a spark of
intelligence now and then. But today most of what is shown on TV seems
to me to be badly written, insipid, boring, vulgar, and stupid. It's
not only a vast wasteland, but kidnaps time we should use for better
things.
Aside from all that bad programming I notice a few other irritating things about the boob tube. Whenever I watch modern TV I am bugged by things that have crept into the programs. One that irritates me is the TV commercial. They always had them, but never so many per hour of broadcast. No I am not imaging this. I researched this and found that in the early days of TV the average time that a commercial was shown per hour was 13 percent. Today 31% of the hour show you watch is filled with TV commercials. And the commercials have gotten so personal. There are even ads now for Viagra, condoms, adult diapers, hemorrhoids cream and subjects that we know enough about and would rather keep to ourselves.
Another thing that bothers me about TV is the on screen clutter I see. I hate it when I am watching a dramatic moment in a football game and an animated logo pops up at the bottom of the screen telling me not to forget to watch the next big game, next week. Why do TV shows promote upcoming shows while a current one is on the screen? Do they think we will actually pay attention to or even notice those promos? Maybe I should put adhesive tape over the bottom of the screen.
Does the volume inconsistency of TV bother you too? I hate it when I am watching a show and a commercial comes on. You can bet the volume of the commercial advertisement is louder than the show it is advertising. The businesses that pay for their commercials want to make sure we hear them, but I think playing them too loud just makes us tune them out. There is supposed to be a law in the U.S. prohibiting TV stations from raising the volume for commercials ads. But most of the TV stations ignore it, knowing that the power of TV to make advertisers happy usurps a law passed by Congress any day.
Then there is the technological aspect to TV that I hate. That's when a person on a show tells the viewer to "Go to Face book now to chat" about the topic or to "Remember to follow me on Twitter". It's another indication that the show the viewer is watching must not be important or entertaining, and that TV is losing it's importance to the internet connections out there. The good thing about these programs encouraging the viewer to turn off the TV and go on line is that it may help to kill TV altogether. That might raise all of our IQ's.
The filthy dialogue and plots on TV also annoy me. Why does every character on TV talk as if he or she has a sewer in his or her mouth? It's not authentic nor cute to speak that way. Except on a TV show, life isn't about four letter words and deviant plots. If those Martians in outer space ever intercept our earthly TV series and watch a few minutes we won't have to worry about Martian invasions. What species would want to live in the potty world that TV projects?
If you disagree with my view of modern TV I dare you to watch a few of those idiotic reality TV shows back to back. If that doesn't change your mind you probably already have been enslaved by the boob tube. Just turn up the volume and surrender your mind to unreal world of your favorite reality program.
Aside from all that bad programming I notice a few other irritating things about the boob tube. Whenever I watch modern TV I am bugged by things that have crept into the programs. One that irritates me is the TV commercial. They always had them, but never so many per hour of broadcast. No I am not imaging this. I researched this and found that in the early days of TV the average time that a commercial was shown per hour was 13 percent. Today 31% of the hour show you watch is filled with TV commercials. And the commercials have gotten so personal. There are even ads now for Viagra, condoms, adult diapers, hemorrhoids cream and subjects that we know enough about and would rather keep to ourselves.
Another thing that bothers me about TV is the on screen clutter I see. I hate it when I am watching a dramatic moment in a football game and an animated logo pops up at the bottom of the screen telling me not to forget to watch the next big game, next week. Why do TV shows promote upcoming shows while a current one is on the screen? Do they think we will actually pay attention to or even notice those promos? Maybe I should put adhesive tape over the bottom of the screen.
Does the volume inconsistency of TV bother you too? I hate it when I am watching a show and a commercial comes on. You can bet the volume of the commercial advertisement is louder than the show it is advertising. The businesses that pay for their commercials want to make sure we hear them, but I think playing them too loud just makes us tune them out. There is supposed to be a law in the U.S. prohibiting TV stations from raising the volume for commercials ads. But most of the TV stations ignore it, knowing that the power of TV to make advertisers happy usurps a law passed by Congress any day.
Then there is the technological aspect to TV that I hate. That's when a person on a show tells the viewer to "Go to Face book now to chat" about the topic or to "Remember to follow me on Twitter". It's another indication that the show the viewer is watching must not be important or entertaining, and that TV is losing it's importance to the internet connections out there. The good thing about these programs encouraging the viewer to turn off the TV and go on line is that it may help to kill TV altogether. That might raise all of our IQ's.
The filthy dialogue and plots on TV also annoy me. Why does every character on TV talk as if he or she has a sewer in his or her mouth? It's not authentic nor cute to speak that way. Except on a TV show, life isn't about four letter words and deviant plots. If those Martians in outer space ever intercept our earthly TV series and watch a few minutes we won't have to worry about Martian invasions. What species would want to live in the potty world that TV projects?
If you disagree with my view of modern TV I dare you to watch a few of those idiotic reality TV shows back to back. If that doesn't change your mind you probably already have been enslaved by the boob tube. Just turn up the volume and surrender your mind to unreal world of your favorite reality program.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)