I just read in an online newspaper about the death of some
fellow
named Philip Seymore Hoffman. He was an actor who died from a drug
overdose of heroine. He's another of those Hollywood people who play
with drugs and die as a result. But then it's not a surprise. Hollywood
people live in their own insular world and forget some of the very
important things of the world outside of Hollywood, and that sometimes
causes them great distress or even death. What is revealing to me
about this death is that it is yet another "important" celebrity in the
news of which I had no awareness. The biography of Hoffman I just read
says that he won an Academy Award. It's news to me, and confirms that I
am largely out of touch with current entertainment, or for that matter,
much of the "modern world" in which I live.
Show me a list of Granny Award winners, for example, and I would
probably not have heard of the vast majority of the names? Nope! I know
few of the pop culture stars, given that I rarely watch any movies that
have been recently made. I don't listen to current music, see current
film, or read books by trendy authors. In short, I am out of touch with
the pop culture that is so pervasive.....and I am glad that I am. I
think if I were not I would be driven mad, sitting in a corner
listening to Justin Beiber while reading the latest Twilight Novel.
Ugh! I hope someone will shoot me if that ever happens.
As we age we tend to lose interest in what is the common pop culture.
It must be that we have to, because as one experiences more of life he
or she redefines his or her perspective. Common perspectives today are
driven, not by tradition and the over 30 group, but by the young. Uh,
it is driven by the very young. It seems to me that current music and
film is suited more to the 12 year old mentality than to what is
traditional. It used to be that culture consisted of tradition with all
else seen as a subculture. The culture was slow to change and more
universal. Mores, folkways and attitudes were fairly consistent from
one generation to the next. The youth culture was a separate one. Today
the youth culture is the mainstream culture and what is traditional has
become a subculture.
But my being out of touch feels good. We older types become smug and
say the old culture is "better than the current one", though culture is
subjective and should not be qualified that way. I think it must be our
defense mechanism against the assaults of Bruno Mars and that ilk. And
I suppose my parents and their parents, and so on, also felt the
current culture to be more coarse and less uplifting than their own. It
is probably a good thing, as is my not knowing who Philip Hoffman was.
Though I am sorry about his death I frankly don't give a damn about the
culture he represented.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Technological Hold-Outs
I found research about internet usage in the U.S.
that I think is quite interesting.
About 15 percent of Americans older than 18 don't use the Internet,
according to a study released in September by the Pew Internet and
American Life Project. An additional 9 percent use it only outside the
home. They are the hold-outs to the new technology they either don't
want, don't understand or feel would lessen their quality of life. I do
sympathize with them, as I also ignore much of the technology (Yes! I
sincerely hate cell phones) that is the standard today.
The numbers of non usage are unsurprising. They make up a shrinking, but not insignificant, segment of the population. And the gap between them and the tech crazed society is growing wider every day. God bless them for not trading their souls for technology and for their finding more to life than addiction to electronic gadgets. As one who is hooked on computers, but none of the other recent technologies I know how they feel. I have one foot in both world's and find the tech world to be one of greater anxiety than the non tech world.
But the are disadvantages to not being hooked on that stuff. For example, Americans who don't have access to the Internet are increasingly cut off from job opportunities, educational resources, health care information, social networks, even government services. yet the pace of their lives is far less stressed and many feel the trade-off for not having a cell phone or computer is worth the inconvenience. I am with them, as I have found technology to be a convenience, but not a necessity or lifestyle.
Over 90 percent of U.S. households are either wired for high speed broad band or can get high speed wireless access, but just 69 percent of homes use broad band Internet service. And who are the non users? It's the oldies. Forty nine percent of non Internet users in the U.S. are older than 65. The Pew survey asked these people why they don't go online. Perhaps surprisingly, cost wasn't the most common answer.
The most prevalent reason, given by 34 percent of off line respondents, was that the Internet is not relevant to them. I agree! Nothing is more irrelevant to me than one of those _ _ _ _ cell phones. I will not trade my heart and soul for one of them.
Just 32 percent of the non users said that problems with using the technology is why they don't want it. They said that getting online was difficult or frustrating, or that they were worried about issues such as privacy or hackers. I suppose if introduced by a relative or friend or given the technology by some one some of those might adapt to it. But there is always a small percentage of people who prefer the simpler world and seem a lot happier because they do.
The numbers of non usage are unsurprising. They make up a shrinking, but not insignificant, segment of the population. And the gap between them and the tech crazed society is growing wider every day. God bless them for not trading their souls for technology and for their finding more to life than addiction to electronic gadgets. As one who is hooked on computers, but none of the other recent technologies I know how they feel. I have one foot in both world's and find the tech world to be one of greater anxiety than the non tech world.
But the are disadvantages to not being hooked on that stuff. For example, Americans who don't have access to the Internet are increasingly cut off from job opportunities, educational resources, health care information, social networks, even government services. yet the pace of their lives is far less stressed and many feel the trade-off for not having a cell phone or computer is worth the inconvenience. I am with them, as I have found technology to be a convenience, but not a necessity or lifestyle.
Over 90 percent of U.S. households are either wired for high speed broad band or can get high speed wireless access, but just 69 percent of homes use broad band Internet service. And who are the non users? It's the oldies. Forty nine percent of non Internet users in the U.S. are older than 65. The Pew survey asked these people why they don't go online. Perhaps surprisingly, cost wasn't the most common answer.
The most prevalent reason, given by 34 percent of off line respondents, was that the Internet is not relevant to them. I agree! Nothing is more irrelevant to me than one of those _ _ _ _ cell phones. I will not trade my heart and soul for one of them.
Just 32 percent of the non users said that problems with using the technology is why they don't want it. They said that getting online was difficult or frustrating, or that they were worried about issues such as privacy or hackers. I suppose if introduced by a relative or friend or given the technology by some one some of those might adapt to it. But there is always a small percentage of people who prefer the simpler world and seem a lot happier because they do.
Professional Cuddlers
There is a business for everything these days, some of them
strange.
Here in Portland we have a "Cuddler" business. That's as in cuddling
with your sweetie. Samantha Hess, is Portland’s 29-year-old cuddling
professional, and I think this is all well and good for
people who want the female version of cuddling. Samantha charges $60 an
hour to cozy up to men and women of all stripes and ages. I guess some
people are lonely and need a cuddle or maybe they have a cuddle
fetish. Then cuddling is nice for calming one down.
I understand, it is easy for some to poke fun and mock cuddling. Though I would never use such a service myself, in the age of people working more and more remote to office settings, spending large amounts of time in front of their addictive media ( cell phones, gaming, social media, TV, etc.) and not being able to take time for personal relationships for one reason or another, it is not hard to understand that people are needing that human contact and some are willing to pay for it. Uh, Samantha's service is a no sex one. This is not one of those escort business.
The need for intimacy is as, if not more, important for some people than sexual arousal. Intimacy, feeling loved and the need for human connection don't have to be tied in with sex. We get intimacy from our family and friends as well as our partners. People who need a lot of extra intimacy must be the ones to pay for a cuddler. According to Samantha she's had dozens of clients so far. They are mostly male, mostly 30 and over and often divorced or in-between relationships. She also attracts clients who suffer from depression. She meets all of her new clients at a neutral location to make sure they understand her services involve only platonic sessions.
Hmmmm This all seems a little odd to me but it got me to thinking, and I suspect there are not many men cuddler business. Who wants to coddle with a smelly hairy pig?
Women are sweet and tender, they exude compassion and warmth and smell nice. But men! I envision the first male cuddler and he would probably come over to your house, drink all your beer, lie down beside you and fall asleep watching football, snoring loudly while emanating other various bodily noises. Later he'll even get up, go to the bathroom, and leave the toilet seat up when done....or pee all over the floor since we men always miss the target when peeing. And, for just a little bit extra, a male cuddler will go to the kitchen, open the refrigerator and stand there with the door open, hollering, “Honey, where’s the pizza???”
Hey! Being a cuddler might not be such a bad way to make a living.
I understand, it is easy for some to poke fun and mock cuddling. Though I would never use such a service myself, in the age of people working more and more remote to office settings, spending large amounts of time in front of their addictive media ( cell phones, gaming, social media, TV, etc.) and not being able to take time for personal relationships for one reason or another, it is not hard to understand that people are needing that human contact and some are willing to pay for it. Uh, Samantha's service is a no sex one. This is not one of those escort business.
The need for intimacy is as, if not more, important for some people than sexual arousal. Intimacy, feeling loved and the need for human connection don't have to be tied in with sex. We get intimacy from our family and friends as well as our partners. People who need a lot of extra intimacy must be the ones to pay for a cuddler. According to Samantha she's had dozens of clients so far. They are mostly male, mostly 30 and over and often divorced or in-between relationships. She also attracts clients who suffer from depression. She meets all of her new clients at a neutral location to make sure they understand her services involve only platonic sessions.
Hmmmm This all seems a little odd to me but it got me to thinking, and I suspect there are not many men cuddler business. Who wants to coddle with a smelly hairy pig?
Women are sweet and tender, they exude compassion and warmth and smell nice. But men! I envision the first male cuddler and he would probably come over to your house, drink all your beer, lie down beside you and fall asleep watching football, snoring loudly while emanating other various bodily noises. Later he'll even get up, go to the bathroom, and leave the toilet seat up when done....or pee all over the floor since we men always miss the target when peeing. And, for just a little bit extra, a male cuddler will go to the kitchen, open the refrigerator and stand there with the door open, hollering, “Honey, where’s the pizza???”
Hey! Being a cuddler might not be such a bad way to make a living.
A Few Of My Least Favorite Things
Do you remember Julie Andrews singing
'These are a few of my Favorite
Things' in the classic film, 'The Sound of Music'.
'Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
These are a few of my favorite things....'
I like these things too, and many of the others Julie wailed about in that song. But how come no one ever sang a song about their least favorite things? Haha Ok, A negative musical might not work, but I got me to thinking about the ordinary things that we come across daily that we least like in life. I do believe they mark our personalities in many ways. That is, you might learn more about a person by asking he or she what things they least like than if you asked them their favorites.
Of all the things I dislike, I dislike my dislike of things, but I like that I dislike that. Uh, did you get that.? Anyway, it's probably healthy to dislike some things for they make what one likes seem so much better. I do have a list of dislikes and fortunately there are no humans on it. It seems I am far more tolerant toward and like humans better than things. I have always cherished people I liked and just ignored the ones that do not appeal.
Having written that as an explanation that there are no people on my list of dislikes, here's some of my heaviest dislikes. I dislike dancing, cruises, sushi, indifference or cruelty to children, recreational drugs and alcohol, phony politics, salmon (and I live in salmon rich Portland), high technology, cell phones and other electronic communication devices, opera, soccer and hockey, arrogance and pretentiousness, abstract art, wearing a suit and tie, jogging, 'healthy' food, feminism, quotas, crocs, trendy things, TV series made after 1970, hip-hop and rap music, nationalism, circus clowns, and long lists like this...so I will stop with those as a sampler.
No need to comment on what my lists says about me (unless you're in a nasty mood). Instead what are some of your least favorite things encountered in daily life?
'Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens
Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens
Brown paper packages tied up with strings
These are a few of my favorite things....'
I like these things too, and many of the others Julie wailed about in that song. But how come no one ever sang a song about their least favorite things? Haha Ok, A negative musical might not work, but I got me to thinking about the ordinary things that we come across daily that we least like in life. I do believe they mark our personalities in many ways. That is, you might learn more about a person by asking he or she what things they least like than if you asked them their favorites.
Of all the things I dislike, I dislike my dislike of things, but I like that I dislike that. Uh, did you get that.? Anyway, it's probably healthy to dislike some things for they make what one likes seem so much better. I do have a list of dislikes and fortunately there are no humans on it. It seems I am far more tolerant toward and like humans better than things. I have always cherished people I liked and just ignored the ones that do not appeal.
Having written that as an explanation that there are no people on my list of dislikes, here's some of my heaviest dislikes. I dislike dancing, cruises, sushi, indifference or cruelty to children, recreational drugs and alcohol, phony politics, salmon (and I live in salmon rich Portland), high technology, cell phones and other electronic communication devices, opera, soccer and hockey, arrogance and pretentiousness, abstract art, wearing a suit and tie, jogging, 'healthy' food, feminism, quotas, crocs, trendy things, TV series made after 1970, hip-hop and rap music, nationalism, circus clowns, and long lists like this...so I will stop with those as a sampler.
No need to comment on what my lists says about me (unless you're in a nasty mood). Instead what are some of your least favorite things encountered in daily life?
How Lies Become Accepted Truths
I continue to be in despair about the lack of
awareness of Americans
about matters of importance, those things that really matter in their
lives. It seems to me that we are way too informed about stupidity,
celebrity news, the latest trendy technological play device etc. And we
know too little about reality....uh.....not idiotic reality as
portrayed on TV and radio shows, but real life. We know too little
about what is happening in the real world and this is distorting our
understandings and perceptions.
One case to show this is the massive propaganda program by "Feeding America.org" (the fourth largest charity in the U.S.) that claims that "one in five children in America is struggling with hunger" How ridiculous! Air head celebrities wail that tome while sad music drones in the background. They claim there is mass hunger and in one of the ubiquitous ads, even bring on a sweet child who claims " They say I'm a pretty good kid"....but of course, he tells him he's hungry. It's a pathetic appeal to the emotions based on false claims. To an audience so disconnected to what is happening in the real world it sounds good.
Not publicized by the childhood hunger lobby are the USDA’s (United States Department of Agriculture, which is charged with actually defining who is hungry) most direct measures of childhood hunger. They reveal that between one and two percent of families “cut the size of children's meals” or report that “children were hungry” or “skipped meals.” And only one tenth of one percent of families reported that “children did not eat for a whole day.” These findings do not suggest, to say the least, the claimed 1 in 5 epidemic of childhood hunger that the dishonest ads tell us. The USDA's most direct measures yield a childhood hunger rate between one and two in a hundred, not one in five. That's 1.5 % of all kids are really hungry.
Surely a wealthy nation like the United States should have nearly no hungry children. And the USDA figures show that we are close to this ideal. With food stamps, free school lunches and numerous private charity food programs to serve the poor, few people, including kids , are going to bed hungry. That the so called “food insecure” families (the ones the ads claim are hungry) spend almost enough to buy the government's suggested minimum balanced diet tells us that the problem is poor food choice, not hunger. Mom and dad are not doing their job. That would be, spending too much money on junk food. This may also explain why the most obese population in America is that which is lowest in income. Haha Maybe that ad should instead claim that, "One in five kids in America is struggling with obesity".
Also, thirty percent of all American school children, receive free school lunches. And almost every child in “food insecure” families participates. Just on that basis alone, it's ridiculous to claim they are not getting enough food. It is only the deceptive definition that allows entertainers, activists and the mass media to foster the myth that "one in five Americans is struggling with hunger." Lazy Americans who are too busy watching their reality TV or chatting on their cell phones blindly accept the crazy lies about children "struggling with hunger".
In the survey that the ads use when falsely claiming that 1 in 5 kids is struggling with hunger, households were counted by them as being hungry if they reported, for instance, that in the past year they had been "worried whether their food would run out before they got money to buy more." This is a good description of a worry concerning food, not of a lack of food. Other criteria the phony ads use is the incapacity to afford "balanced meals," or the need to rely on a "few kinds of low cost food sometimes during the past year". Once again, this is a feeling of insecurity or worry about food, not a lack of food.
The dependence on cheap food is certainly very undesirable but it ain't being hungry! It is a shame if even a tiny percentage of children must skip meals for economic reasons, but the public should at least know the true figures and not be lied to (so politicians can further expand the food entitlement programs that voters love). I fear this one issue is just a microcosm of the ignorant electorate syndrome that is getting worse and worse as communication technology gets better and better. How ironic that the public seems less informed and more easily manipulated by lies as the ability to access truth becomes more readily available.
Sigh, I wish I could throw a sandwich or two at the Feeding America people and all those who believe their lies about kids struggling with hunger.
One case to show this is the massive propaganda program by "Feeding America.org" (the fourth largest charity in the U.S.) that claims that "one in five children in America is struggling with hunger" How ridiculous! Air head celebrities wail that tome while sad music drones in the background. They claim there is mass hunger and in one of the ubiquitous ads, even bring on a sweet child who claims " They say I'm a pretty good kid"....but of course, he tells him he's hungry. It's a pathetic appeal to the emotions based on false claims. To an audience so disconnected to what is happening in the real world it sounds good.
Not publicized by the childhood hunger lobby are the USDA’s (United States Department of Agriculture, which is charged with actually defining who is hungry) most direct measures of childhood hunger. They reveal that between one and two percent of families “cut the size of children's meals” or report that “children were hungry” or “skipped meals.” And only one tenth of one percent of families reported that “children did not eat for a whole day.” These findings do not suggest, to say the least, the claimed 1 in 5 epidemic of childhood hunger that the dishonest ads tell us. The USDA's most direct measures yield a childhood hunger rate between one and two in a hundred, not one in five. That's 1.5 % of all kids are really hungry.
Surely a wealthy nation like the United States should have nearly no hungry children. And the USDA figures show that we are close to this ideal. With food stamps, free school lunches and numerous private charity food programs to serve the poor, few people, including kids , are going to bed hungry. That the so called “food insecure” families (the ones the ads claim are hungry) spend almost enough to buy the government's suggested minimum balanced diet tells us that the problem is poor food choice, not hunger. Mom and dad are not doing their job. That would be, spending too much money on junk food. This may also explain why the most obese population in America is that which is lowest in income. Haha Maybe that ad should instead claim that, "One in five kids in America is struggling with obesity".
Also, thirty percent of all American school children, receive free school lunches. And almost every child in “food insecure” families participates. Just on that basis alone, it's ridiculous to claim they are not getting enough food. It is only the deceptive definition that allows entertainers, activists and the mass media to foster the myth that "one in five Americans is struggling with hunger." Lazy Americans who are too busy watching their reality TV or chatting on their cell phones blindly accept the crazy lies about children "struggling with hunger".
In the survey that the ads use when falsely claiming that 1 in 5 kids is struggling with hunger, households were counted by them as being hungry if they reported, for instance, that in the past year they had been "worried whether their food would run out before they got money to buy more." This is a good description of a worry concerning food, not of a lack of food. Other criteria the phony ads use is the incapacity to afford "balanced meals," or the need to rely on a "few kinds of low cost food sometimes during the past year". Once again, this is a feeling of insecurity or worry about food, not a lack of food.
The dependence on cheap food is certainly very undesirable but it ain't being hungry! It is a shame if even a tiny percentage of children must skip meals for economic reasons, but the public should at least know the true figures and not be lied to (so politicians can further expand the food entitlement programs that voters love). I fear this one issue is just a microcosm of the ignorant electorate syndrome that is getting worse and worse as communication technology gets better and better. How ironic that the public seems less informed and more easily manipulated by lies as the ability to access truth becomes more readily available.
Sigh, I wish I could throw a sandwich or two at the Feeding America people and all those who believe their lies about kids struggling with hunger.
Shocking Or Realistic Mannequin?
The old standby of clothing and apparel retailers, the
mannequin, is in
the news. American Apparel clothing has a new more "realistic" style of
mannequin in a New York store window that is getting second looks from
perplexed shoppers. Why? Because those mannequins display nipples and
public hair. It's part of a more realistic look that many think is both
un necessary for a public shopping experience. American Apparel says
it's doing it to show the "rawness and realness of sexuality". Further,
they say, "it is intended to start a conversation about society's
concept of feminine beauty". (or maybe the aim is to get free publicity
for their products that is generated by the display)
But then this is the age of shock. Shock them any way you can, as we see in the inane Miley Cyrus, Kardashain mode of behavior. I wonder if nipples and public hair on a plastic clothing doll indicates a cultural decline of sort......sort of like reality Tv and cell phone addiction deadens the brains of the addicts who can't get enough of them. Only sales of American Apparel items advertised by the N and PH window display will tell. Here's hoping the display depresses sales and that Americans reject the mindless shock and awe window display campaign on American Apparel.
Hmmmm I'd like to see them be as explicit with their male models. You know, show the man's love muscle and public hair. I bet they won't want to show the "rawness and realness of sexuality" on the male.
But then this is the age of shock. Shock them any way you can, as we see in the inane Miley Cyrus, Kardashain mode of behavior. I wonder if nipples and public hair on a plastic clothing doll indicates a cultural decline of sort......sort of like reality Tv and cell phone addiction deadens the brains of the addicts who can't get enough of them. Only sales of American Apparel items advertised by the N and PH window display will tell. Here's hoping the display depresses sales and that Americans reject the mindless shock and awe window display campaign on American Apparel.
Hmmmm I'd like to see them be as explicit with their male models. You know, show the man's love muscle and public hair. I bet they won't want to show the "rawness and realness of sexuality" on the male.
Fitting Protest
Not all French may be as dumb and dull of personality
as I thought.
There's at least one who is pretty clever and has a creative way to
make a point to those politicians we all hate but vote for so much.
This guy, a critic of President Francois Hollande and France's ruling
elite, expressed his displeasure by dumping tons of horse manure in
front of the national parliament building in Paris in a Graphic protest
against French politics.
"Out with Hollande and the entire political class. Long live the Sixth Republic," read a message on the side of the man's poop truck. French President Hollande has been hit by magazine allegations of a love affair with an actress and an erratic and failed tenure as President. As a result he has the lowest popularity ratings of any leader in modern day France. You might say his regime "stinks"...in more ways than one.
I like this kind of messaging for our politicians and think we could also show our displeasure toward our own bumbling politician in similar ways. After all, the slugs who make up the constituency to elect dishonest incompetents like President Obama will never desert the politician who panders to them with more and more "free stuff". When you can't out vote the slugs wo elect the Obamas of the world why not show displeasure in an unconventional way. I wonder if that French protester will lend me his truck! I think that bull manure would have be more appropriate for Obama, so he can keep the horse manure.
Well, Obama is not the only worthless politician here. I think our congress should have a load dumped on them too. No doubt the offended members of Congress with have me charged with assault with a "smelly" weapon, or something. Maybe it's a "weapon of mass defecation" (manure is a chemical, I suppose)? And Obama the guy who spies on everyone probably is reading this right now anyway, and he will warn his fellow crooks in Congress about what is coming.
Sigh....it may be hopeless. They will probably ban manure and we will suffer "holding it in". Whatever happens, I sure hope the people in this country realize that the real manure is inside the White House. On balance, I better not do it. It would just be a waste of good manure!
"Out with Hollande and the entire political class. Long live the Sixth Republic," read a message on the side of the man's poop truck. French President Hollande has been hit by magazine allegations of a love affair with an actress and an erratic and failed tenure as President. As a result he has the lowest popularity ratings of any leader in modern day France. You might say his regime "stinks"...in more ways than one.
I like this kind of messaging for our politicians and think we could also show our displeasure toward our own bumbling politician in similar ways. After all, the slugs who make up the constituency to elect dishonest incompetents like President Obama will never desert the politician who panders to them with more and more "free stuff". When you can't out vote the slugs wo elect the Obamas of the world why not show displeasure in an unconventional way. I wonder if that French protester will lend me his truck! I think that bull manure would have be more appropriate for Obama, so he can keep the horse manure.
Well, Obama is not the only worthless politician here. I think our congress should have a load dumped on them too. No doubt the offended members of Congress with have me charged with assault with a "smelly" weapon, or something. Maybe it's a "weapon of mass defecation" (manure is a chemical, I suppose)? And Obama the guy who spies on everyone probably is reading this right now anyway, and he will warn his fellow crooks in Congress about what is coming.
Sigh....it may be hopeless. They will probably ban manure and we will suffer "holding it in". Whatever happens, I sure hope the people in this country realize that the real manure is inside the White House. On balance, I better not do it. It would just be a waste of good manure!
Using A Cell Phone While In Flight
My greatest
nightmare is close to becoming a reality. Yep! It involves those
annoying cell phones I constantly rant about. The Federal Aviation
Administration, which regulates the airline industry, says it may
eliminate the ban on
in-flight cell phone usage Those chattering, addicted, morons will be
allowed to "cell" to their hearts content. Just think, you'll be stuck
in a confined space with people yammering on the phones the entire
flight. I wonder if there is a bus that travels across the oceans?
It's sad because there aren't many places left where we can escape the cell phone crowd. Amid the many discomforts of flying, it has always been a kind of the forced quiet on an airplane ride that has made the long flights bearable. The loss of that quiet is a seriously unhappy prospect. Many people like me savor the library like quiet to make a plane flight something less than torture. That sacred ground is about to disappear.
An airplane is one of the few places you can get away from all the cell phone nonsense. It's meant to be a quiet place, and most airlines try to maintain that. No more. I envision arguments, fights, violence between the more obnoxious, rude and loud cell chatters and some of the thin skinned passengers who can't take a 4 hour in flight entertainment of the loud guy or gals cell conversation. I think it not possible to provide a "cell area" in the plane, given the confined spaces of an airplane. But if the airlines can charge cell addicts more to sit in a "cell class" portion of the plane they will surely do it.
Want to read on your flight or nap a bit? Forget that when your seat mate is loudly discussing his or her constipation problems or cursing at the naughty son left on the ground. And the awful and inconsiderate cell phone etiquette we endure on the ground will be just as bad aloft. Will they talk softly to respect other passengers? No way! Cell users tend to speak louder on cell phones than they do when speaking directly to a person. Will they avoid intimate subjects or keep their conversations brief? I'll take bets on that one. Several airlines have said they won't allow it, but if they can make profit by allowing it that prohibition will quickly change.
Our devices, and our habits with our devices, are getting in the way of our need for quiet. We need quiet. and there is far less quiet than ever before. Fact is, quiet keeps us sane in a loud world. Whomever came up with the idea to unleash cell conversations on airplanes should be arrested and confined to an airplane for life....with a passenger load full of cell phone addicts
It's sad because there aren't many places left where we can escape the cell phone crowd. Amid the many discomforts of flying, it has always been a kind of the forced quiet on an airplane ride that has made the long flights bearable. The loss of that quiet is a seriously unhappy prospect. Many people like me savor the library like quiet to make a plane flight something less than torture. That sacred ground is about to disappear.
An airplane is one of the few places you can get away from all the cell phone nonsense. It's meant to be a quiet place, and most airlines try to maintain that. No more. I envision arguments, fights, violence between the more obnoxious, rude and loud cell chatters and some of the thin skinned passengers who can't take a 4 hour in flight entertainment of the loud guy or gals cell conversation. I think it not possible to provide a "cell area" in the plane, given the confined spaces of an airplane. But if the airlines can charge cell addicts more to sit in a "cell class" portion of the plane they will surely do it.
Want to read on your flight or nap a bit? Forget that when your seat mate is loudly discussing his or her constipation problems or cursing at the naughty son left on the ground. And the awful and inconsiderate cell phone etiquette we endure on the ground will be just as bad aloft. Will they talk softly to respect other passengers? No way! Cell users tend to speak louder on cell phones than they do when speaking directly to a person. Will they avoid intimate subjects or keep their conversations brief? I'll take bets on that one. Several airlines have said they won't allow it, but if they can make profit by allowing it that prohibition will quickly change.
Our devices, and our habits with our devices, are getting in the way of our need for quiet. We need quiet. and there is far less quiet than ever before. Fact is, quiet keeps us sane in a loud world. Whomever came up with the idea to unleash cell conversations on airplanes should be arrested and confined to an airplane for life....with a passenger load full of cell phone addicts
Sochi Olympic Games
What's going on with the upcoming Sochi
Olympic
Games (Feb. 7-13)? I
know I am in the minority when I declare an affection for the Winter
Olympic Games (except for that awful figure skating competition in
which a large group of diva skaters perform silly ice dancing routines,
so subjective that judging them as a competition is a joke). But this
winter many more may be watching...not for the games, but the Russian
sideshow.
Haha Forget the games competitors. The Olympic committee that selected Sochi as the site should get the most medals, because these games are going to be filled with drama, both absurd and sad. There's the fact that Sochi is a city with a semi tropical climate that has to make snow for it's mountain venues, the announcement from the Russian government that "any competitor or spectator showing homosexual tendencies toward another will be subjected to arrest in accordance with "Russian law", the dismal human rights record of Russia under Vladimir Putin and strong possibility that the terrorist events perpetrated all around Sochi the past few months will happen at the games themselves (forget competition for the "spirit of brotherhood" the terrorists might possibly use Sochi to make a point) already is a event program making the Games a much watch this year.
Not since the summer Olympic Games were held in Berlin during the Adolph Hitler days has there been a more inhospitable place for the Games. For the home folks in Sochi, there have been water and landslide problems. There have also been charges of wide-spread waste, overruns and corruption, with some accusing President Vladimir Putin of pocketing billions in payoffs. But despite all the problems, Putin insists that everything in Sochi is fine. That's "Putin", the former head of the notorious/murderous Soviet KGB. Sure we can trust in Putin.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh Forget that speed skating race or bobsled run. It will be more fun to watch Putin dance around the icy slopes of controversy sure to come.
Haha Forget the games competitors. The Olympic committee that selected Sochi as the site should get the most medals, because these games are going to be filled with drama, both absurd and sad. There's the fact that Sochi is a city with a semi tropical climate that has to make snow for it's mountain venues, the announcement from the Russian government that "any competitor or spectator showing homosexual tendencies toward another will be subjected to arrest in accordance with "Russian law", the dismal human rights record of Russia under Vladimir Putin and strong possibility that the terrorist events perpetrated all around Sochi the past few months will happen at the games themselves (forget competition for the "spirit of brotherhood" the terrorists might possibly use Sochi to make a point) already is a event program making the Games a much watch this year.
Not since the summer Olympic Games were held in Berlin during the Adolph Hitler days has there been a more inhospitable place for the Games. For the home folks in Sochi, there have been water and landslide problems. There have also been charges of wide-spread waste, overruns and corruption, with some accusing President Vladimir Putin of pocketing billions in payoffs. But despite all the problems, Putin insists that everything in Sochi is fine. That's "Putin", the former head of the notorious/murderous Soviet KGB. Sure we can trust in Putin.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh Forget that speed skating race or bobsled run. It will be more fun to watch Putin dance around the icy slopes of controversy sure to come.
Not My Fault That I Stomp Them To Death
A 26-year-old Portland pimp has filed a $100 million
lawsuit against
Nike, claiming the shoe manufacturer is partially responsible for a
brutal beating that helped net him a 100 year prison sentence.
Sirgiorgiro Clardy claims Nike should have placed a label in his Jordan
shoes warning consumers that they could be used as a dangerous weapon.
He was wearing a pair when he repeatedly stomped the face of a john who
was trying to leave a Portland hotel without paying Clardy's prostitute
in June 2012.
Haha Forget gun control, soon people here will have to register their shoes, and people with mental problems will not be allowed to own or possess any shoes. Isn't America wonderful? Haha But is it just one of many examples of the frivolous lawsuits convicts file every day, largely because the courts allow the suits to go to trial instead of throwing them out of court as they should. Inmates pen hundreds of frivolous lawsuits every year because they have nothing but time on their hands to scratch out their nonsense on the back of note paper and lick a stamp. Hmmmm Let me first say that there is no truth to the rumor that if Clardy wins his case, that Cain will sue God over not adequately warning him that tree limbs can be used as clubs.
In his complaint handwritten from the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution in Pendleton, Oregon, Clardy claims that Nike, Chairman Phil Knight and other executives failed to warn consumers that their shoes could be used as a weapon to cause serious injury or death. "Under product liability there is a certain standard of care that is required to be up-held by potentially dangerous product ..." wrote Clardy, who is representing himself. "Do to the fact that these defendants named in this Tort claim failed to warn of risk or to provide an adequate warning or instruction it has caused personal injury in the likes of mental suffering."
Clardy wrote that he's tried to starve himself and kill himself
multiple times, I guess because Nike is so careless about giving shoe
info to buyers. Anyway, he is asking the judge to order Nike to affix warning labels to all their
"potentially dangerous Nike and Jordan merchandise."
Uh, the pimp may be a little crazy in more ways than one.
During his two-week trial and his two day sentencing hearing, Clardy was known for his unusual courtroom antics. He shouted expletives at the judge, prosecutors and jurors. A psychologist declared him an anti-social psychopath who was 100 percent likely to commit violent crimes again.
So the question is, "Why does our court system would waste time listening to Clardy and other's who mock it with crazy lawsuits?" I am not sure. But the court has accepted the case and will probably hear it. Kind of a waste of money and time, I think. Of course, the costs of pimp Clardy's suit will be paid for any expenses by the taxpayers since he claims to have no funds to pay himself. Maybe Nike should sue him instead. And couldn't he instead have just thrown those shoes at a certain president we now have, like that Iraqi guy did to Bush a few years ago.? It's the one noble thing a scum pimp like Clardy could do for we Obama sufferers.
Haha Forget gun control, soon people here will have to register their shoes, and people with mental problems will not be allowed to own or possess any shoes. Isn't America wonderful? Haha But is it just one of many examples of the frivolous lawsuits convicts file every day, largely because the courts allow the suits to go to trial instead of throwing them out of court as they should. Inmates pen hundreds of frivolous lawsuits every year because they have nothing but time on their hands to scratch out their nonsense on the back of note paper and lick a stamp. Hmmmm Let me first say that there is no truth to the rumor that if Clardy wins his case, that Cain will sue God over not adequately warning him that tree limbs can be used as clubs.
Here's the background of the case that convicted the pimp. Jurors
early in 2013 found him guilty of second degree assault for using his
Nike Jordans, which he claims are a dangerous weapon, to beat the
john's face to a pulp. The man required stitches and plastic surgery on
his nose. (The John the pimp beat with his shoe was later charged with
soliciting a prostitute and fined and sent to jail for 5 days). The
jury also found pimp Clardy guilty of robbing the john and beating the
18-year-old woman he forced to work as his prostitute. She was injured
so badly that she bled from her ears.
In his complaint handwritten from the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution in Pendleton, Oregon, Clardy claims that Nike, Chairman Phil Knight and other executives failed to warn consumers that their shoes could be used as a weapon to cause serious injury or death. "Under product liability there is a certain standard of care that is required to be up-held by potentially dangerous product ..." wrote Clardy, who is representing himself. "Do to the fact that these defendants named in this Tort claim failed to warn of risk or to provide an adequate warning or instruction it has caused personal injury in the likes of mental suffering."
During his two-week trial and his two day sentencing hearing, Clardy was known for his unusual courtroom antics. He shouted expletives at the judge, prosecutors and jurors. A psychologist declared him an anti-social psychopath who was 100 percent likely to commit violent crimes again.
So the question is, "Why does our court system would waste time listening to Clardy and other's who mock it with crazy lawsuits?" I am not sure. But the court has accepted the case and will probably hear it. Kind of a waste of money and time, I think. Of course, the costs of pimp Clardy's suit will be paid for any expenses by the taxpayers since he claims to have no funds to pay himself. Maybe Nike should sue him instead. And couldn't he instead have just thrown those shoes at a certain president we now have, like that Iraqi guy did to Bush a few years ago.? It's the one noble thing a scum pimp like Clardy could do for we Obama sufferers.
Cookie Or Spam
Oh my....they are saying that one of the
world's great cookies, Oreos,
is as addictive as cocaine. Well, one of "them", those researchers that
keep telling us what we should and should not do, a Connecticut College
Neuroscience major Jamie Honohan came up with the idea for a study,
which dug into the effects of high fat and high sugar foods on the
brain. The conclusions gleaned after watching the rats scurry toward
those double stuff Oreos was that the brain goes wilder for Oreos than
for drugs, and that the two are equally addictive (at least when it
comes to rats).
There's more attacks on the Oreo too! Another student went measured the expression of the protein c-Fos in the brain's "pleasure center," and found that "significantly" more neurons were activated in response to Oreos than in response to drugs. In plain language the rodents like Oreos as much as humans. I doubt cocaine addicts could be treated with an Oreo diet as a replacement for cocaine, but the love of Oreos and so much other junk food might explain why we are so fat these days. I guess we shouldn't worry too much until we see users shoving Oreos up their noses.
So, Oreos are as addictive as cocaine, at least for lab rats, and just like us. They also like that creamy chemical filling center best. I wonder if the rats would like Tofu as much? Why not put tofu on one side, Oreos on another and cocaine the last. Let's see what those rats like. Perhaps peanut butter vs. Oreos! If Oreos are truly addicting, rats will continue to seek them out. I suspect the rats are as finicky as the human 4 legged rats we are. Some will like Oreos best and some the other choice.
We already know that high fat, high sugar foods are addictive. But I think that some addictions, like the one to fast food treats, might be harmless ones, surely more than is addiction to cocaine. Humans need to some addictions. It's part of the human persona. Harmless ones, like eating too many Oreos, distract us from the harmful ones....like cell phone addiction (I had to make that comment). Long live the Oreo!
There's more attacks on the Oreo too! Another student went measured the expression of the protein c-Fos in the brain's "pleasure center," and found that "significantly" more neurons were activated in response to Oreos than in response to drugs. In plain language the rodents like Oreos as much as humans. I doubt cocaine addicts could be treated with an Oreo diet as a replacement for cocaine, but the love of Oreos and so much other junk food might explain why we are so fat these days. I guess we shouldn't worry too much until we see users shoving Oreos up their noses.
So, Oreos are as addictive as cocaine, at least for lab rats, and just like us. They also like that creamy chemical filling center best. I wonder if the rats would like Tofu as much? Why not put tofu on one side, Oreos on another and cocaine the last. Let's see what those rats like. Perhaps peanut butter vs. Oreos! If Oreos are truly addicting, rats will continue to seek them out. I suspect the rats are as finicky as the human 4 legged rats we are. Some will like Oreos best and some the other choice.
We already know that high fat, high sugar foods are addictive. But I think that some addictions, like the one to fast food treats, might be harmless ones, surely more than is addiction to cocaine. Humans need to some addictions. It's part of the human persona. Harmless ones, like eating too many Oreos, distract us from the harmful ones....like cell phone addiction (I had to make that comment). Long live the Oreo!
The Rare Government Program That Worked
This is the year of the 50th year anniversary of one
government program
that was actually needed and has worked (a rarity in today's world of
un necessary government intervention and intrusion into the lives of
citizens), the campaign to discourage people from killing themselves by
smoking cigarettes. In 1964 the US Surgeon General (the President's
appointed "head doctor" of the country) released a report that said
smoking causes illness and death and that, the government should do
something about stopping the killing. In the years that followed,
warning labels were put on cigarette packs, cigarette commercials were
banned, taxes were raised and new restrictions were placed on where
people could light up.
The sum total of the warning campaign has been to drop smoking rates in the United States from 42% in 1964 to just 18% today, and to make smokers near pariahs. And smoking rates continue to decline. That's a miraculous decrease, given that smoking cigarettes was the norm in the days before that report was released and shocked smokers. After the report was publicized smoking was seen as both dangerous and socially unacceptable. I remember as a kid the horrid smell of smoke everywhere. In homes, restaurants, even in hospitals, and yet we all thought it was normal. Celebrities glamorized smoking in films and commercials glorified the "manly" person who puffed on those instruments of death.
The committee of eminent medical researchers and physicians who investigated and issued the report said that cigarette smoking clearly did cause lung cancer (prior to that cigarette companies hired propaganda sources to promote smoking as a harmless, even healthy habit), and that smoking was responsible for the nation's huge mostly male (since women who smoked were looked upon as less than ideal) cancer death rate. It also said there was no valid evidence that filters were reducing the danger. Cigarette companies had been promoting their filters are purifiers, tough there was no evidence that they were. The committee also said that the government should address the problem with policies that discouraged smoking and made it more expensive to buy cigarettes. It did, and millions of lives have been saved because of it.
I remember the the days before the report and anti smoking campaigns as a boy riding with my dad in his car to buy cigarettes from the endless cigarette machines that ended them everywhere. A pack of cigarettes then cost so little that a smoker could buy 4 packs for about a dollar. In 1996 my dad died from throat cancer caused by his smoking, about 25 years after he stopped smoking. When he was dying I asked him about why his smoking as he said, "It was what most people did even though we always knew it was unhealthy to smoke".
By the 1970s the government enacted laws to protect non-smokers from second hand cigarette smoke, with nonsmoking sections on airplanes, in restaurants and in other places. Those eventually gave way to complete smoking bans. Cigarette machines disappeared, cigarette taxes rose, and restrictions on the sale of cigarettes to minors got tougher. And lawsuits against tobacco companies became common. As smoking rates declined dramatically, in order to maintain profits from sales, the cigarette companies shifted their marketing and sales abroad, particularly in Asia, which has a huge smoking rate today. It's shameful, yet capitalism in its purest form.
I never smoked nor wanted to smoke cigarettes but realize my luckily being a product of the age in which cigarettes were exposed as killers is probably the reason why I never did smoke. For that I must say a rare "Well Done" to the U.S. government. Oh, uh.... but let's not light up to celebrate.
The sum total of the warning campaign has been to drop smoking rates in the United States from 42% in 1964 to just 18% today, and to make smokers near pariahs. And smoking rates continue to decline. That's a miraculous decrease, given that smoking cigarettes was the norm in the days before that report was released and shocked smokers. After the report was publicized smoking was seen as both dangerous and socially unacceptable. I remember as a kid the horrid smell of smoke everywhere. In homes, restaurants, even in hospitals, and yet we all thought it was normal. Celebrities glamorized smoking in films and commercials glorified the "manly" person who puffed on those instruments of death.
The committee of eminent medical researchers and physicians who investigated and issued the report said that cigarette smoking clearly did cause lung cancer (prior to that cigarette companies hired propaganda sources to promote smoking as a harmless, even healthy habit), and that smoking was responsible for the nation's huge mostly male (since women who smoked were looked upon as less than ideal) cancer death rate. It also said there was no valid evidence that filters were reducing the danger. Cigarette companies had been promoting their filters are purifiers, tough there was no evidence that they were. The committee also said that the government should address the problem with policies that discouraged smoking and made it more expensive to buy cigarettes. It did, and millions of lives have been saved because of it.
I remember the the days before the report and anti smoking campaigns as a boy riding with my dad in his car to buy cigarettes from the endless cigarette machines that ended them everywhere. A pack of cigarettes then cost so little that a smoker could buy 4 packs for about a dollar. In 1996 my dad died from throat cancer caused by his smoking, about 25 years after he stopped smoking. When he was dying I asked him about why his smoking as he said, "It was what most people did even though we always knew it was unhealthy to smoke".
By the 1970s the government enacted laws to protect non-smokers from second hand cigarette smoke, with nonsmoking sections on airplanes, in restaurants and in other places. Those eventually gave way to complete smoking bans. Cigarette machines disappeared, cigarette taxes rose, and restrictions on the sale of cigarettes to minors got tougher. And lawsuits against tobacco companies became common. As smoking rates declined dramatically, in order to maintain profits from sales, the cigarette companies shifted their marketing and sales abroad, particularly in Asia, which has a huge smoking rate today. It's shameful, yet capitalism in its purest form.
I never smoked nor wanted to smoke cigarettes but realize my luckily being a product of the age in which cigarettes were exposed as killers is probably the reason why I never did smoke. For that I must say a rare "Well Done" to the U.S. government. Oh, uh.... but let's not light up to celebrate.
Year's Most Annoying Words
Like, ya know, I'm just saying,
obviously...whatever! Are you still
there, or do my bad English usage scare you away? You see those words
and phrases in that opening sentence have been chosen by a poll of 1173
adults in Marist University's annual "Most Annoying Words" of the year
as this years five winners. I can argue because when I hear them spoken
or written each of the five does make me doubt civilization can
survive.
The word "whatever" once again topped the list, the fifth straight year it won. When someone looks at you with an exasperated glance and utters "whatever' to your query it makes one think of murdering the speaker rather than the option of remedial English classes. Thirty eight percent of those polled in the Marist poll said that they hate the word. It's a put-down to some extent and it can signal to the other person that what they are saying is not important.
Chosen as the second most annoying word this year was "you know" at 18 percent. I don't know about you, but there are to language cues for me that indicate the person I am speaking with or listening too is, uh...stupid. Ok, I'll be nice and substitute the words "not literate" or "uneducated" for "stupid". Those two would be obsessive profanity and the mindless repetition of idiotic , trendy vocabulary. "Like" do you understand me? Just kidding. I don't even want to see "like" at Face book. I hold a low opinion of that social media web site for asking me to "like" something.
Many annoying words come from the word of politics, courtesy of the media that reports on politicians. In the same survey, Marist pollsters wanted to know what political word or phrase Americans would like to see disappear in 2014. "Obamacare" was mentioned by 41 per cent of respondents as a word they do not want to hear next year. Actually, for get purging that word. I would be even happier if Obama himself would disappear from sight.
Although not yet as annoying as the Marist words, the Oxford Dictionary recently proclaimed “selfie”(when a person takes a picture of him or her self with their cell phone camera) as its word of the year. Obviously, the mention of the digital-self portrait does make some cringe, but, you know "whatever". It does remind me that we humans seem to dislike words by category as much as by the individual word. In my case, my hate of most things technological makes me most hate those cutsie tech words that are hurled in my face each day.
On if them, "tweeting", might be the most offensive to me. Put I could make a list of offensive words, the ones that society used to call "Geek Talk", but which is now adopted as mainstream language by the many millions of tech addicted zombies out there. Not only do I have to hear idiots chattering incessantly about nothing on their cell phones, but they actually dare to ask me if I like their new "cell". My imaginary reply would be to say, "I'd love to see it up your a--. I didn't complete the last word because of my rant about hating people who use profanity. So use your imagination instead.
Sigh.. I think that.if our language usage is the avenue to our minds and souls we are headed for a dead end street.
The word "whatever" once again topped the list, the fifth straight year it won. When someone looks at you with an exasperated glance and utters "whatever' to your query it makes one think of murdering the speaker rather than the option of remedial English classes. Thirty eight percent of those polled in the Marist poll said that they hate the word. It's a put-down to some extent and it can signal to the other person that what they are saying is not important.
Chosen as the second most annoying word this year was "you know" at 18 percent. I don't know about you, but there are to language cues for me that indicate the person I am speaking with or listening too is, uh...stupid. Ok, I'll be nice and substitute the words "not literate" or "uneducated" for "stupid". Those two would be obsessive profanity and the mindless repetition of idiotic , trendy vocabulary. "Like" do you understand me? Just kidding. I don't even want to see "like" at Face book. I hold a low opinion of that social media web site for asking me to "like" something.
Many annoying words come from the word of politics, courtesy of the media that reports on politicians. In the same survey, Marist pollsters wanted to know what political word or phrase Americans would like to see disappear in 2014. "Obamacare" was mentioned by 41 per cent of respondents as a word they do not want to hear next year. Actually, for get purging that word. I would be even happier if Obama himself would disappear from sight.
Although not yet as annoying as the Marist words, the Oxford Dictionary recently proclaimed “selfie”(when a person takes a picture of him or her self with their cell phone camera) as its word of the year. Obviously, the mention of the digital-self portrait does make some cringe, but, you know "whatever". It does remind me that we humans seem to dislike words by category as much as by the individual word. In my case, my hate of most things technological makes me most hate those cutsie tech words that are hurled in my face each day.
On if them, "tweeting", might be the most offensive to me. Put I could make a list of offensive words, the ones that society used to call "Geek Talk", but which is now adopted as mainstream language by the many millions of tech addicted zombies out there. Not only do I have to hear idiots chattering incessantly about nothing on their cell phones, but they actually dare to ask me if I like their new "cell". My imaginary reply would be to say, "I'd love to see it up your a--. I didn't complete the last word because of my rant about hating people who use profanity. So use your imagination instead.
Sigh.. I think that.if our language usage is the avenue to our minds and souls we are headed for a dead end street.
Resolutions We Need For 2014
The New Year has well begun. I think 2014 might be better
than last year for us all. After all 2013 was sort of a non entity year.
As I have ranted before, I don't make resolutions for myself. But there
are a few people, I think, that should make some resolutions given that
I am unable to find any fault with myself and need not make any
resolutions for myself. Uhm, that was a joke. Actually, I have so many
resolution needs thinking about making a list gives me a headache. But
it's fun to judge some of the less than reputable types out there and
make some for them.
Here are some suggestions that I have for their resolutions.
* Barack Obama- to tell the truth at least two times in a row...ok, it's probably too much to ask
* North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un- Keep executing all of your family members. Koreans will love you for it.
* Miley Cyrus- just go away......forever
* Justin Bieber- Write your autobiography, "How to be a Punk, Brat with No Talent and Still Become Fabulously Wealthy and Deluded"
* Kim Kardashian and Kanye West- Vow to never have another baby. The world will thank you for it.
* Russian President Putin- To keep his shirt on ot wear a bra.
* American Idol Winner (whomever you are)- Set fire to yourself in protest of all those dumb reality TV shows.
* Celebrity Product Endorsement Hucksters- Actually use the products that you swear we all need.
* Rob Ford- The drugged and crazed Toronto Mayor should be the replacement for the late Chris Farley in that Chippendale dancer skit
* Cell Phone Users Everywhere- turn it off and shut up!
Chris Farley, famous for playing the Chippendale dancer - See more at: http://www.chacha.com/question/who-is-the-former-saturday-night-live-fat-guy#sthash.OfJq5pPY.dpuf
Chris Farley, famous for playing the Chippendale dancer - See more at: http://www.chacha.com/question/who-is-the-former-saturday-night-live-fat-guy#sthash.OfJq5pPY.dpuf
Feel free to add some of your own ....as long as they aren't about me. Happy 20124
Here are some suggestions that I have for their resolutions.
* Barack Obama- to tell the truth at least two times in a row...ok, it's probably too much to ask
* North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un- Keep executing all of your family members. Koreans will love you for it.
* Miley Cyrus- just go away......forever
* Justin Bieber- Write your autobiography, "How to be a Punk, Brat with No Talent and Still Become Fabulously Wealthy and Deluded"
* Kim Kardashian and Kanye West- Vow to never have another baby. The world will thank you for it.
* Russian President Putin- To keep his shirt on ot wear a bra.
* American Idol Winner (whomever you are)- Set fire to yourself in protest of all those dumb reality TV shows.
* Celebrity Product Endorsement Hucksters- Actually use the products that you swear we all need.
* Rob Ford- The drugged and crazed Toronto Mayor should be the replacement for the late Chris Farley in that Chippendale dancer skit
* Cell Phone Users Everywhere- turn it off and shut up!
Chris Farley, famous for playing the Chippendale dancer - See more at: http://www.chacha.com/question/who-is-the-former-saturday-night-live-fat-guy#sthash.OfJq5pPY.dpuf
Chris Farley, famous for playing the Chippendale dancer - See more at: http://www.chacha.com/question/who-is-the-former-saturday-night-live-fat-guy#sthash.OfJq5pPY.dpuf
Feel free to add some of your own ....as long as they aren't about me. Happy 20124
There Are Too Many People
The population boom continues. In 2011 the world
population totaled 7
billion people. Did you know that as recently as 1987, the world
population was measured at 5 billion humans. That's a growth of 2
billion humans in 24 years. You probably didn't know that fact but
know much of the opinions of the doomsday crowd about " man-made global
warming" nonsense being the treat to humanity. The media loves it all ,
so we get it. But why no alarm about the harmful effects of
overpopulation. It is the one thing we know, a fact rather than a
hypothesis.
Most of the environmental problems the global warmers complain about are the result of too many humans on the planet putting too much stress on resources. Earth is populating as fast a a fat man can load his plate at a buffet table. In 1818 the world population was a comfortable 1 billion. It rose to 2 billion about 100 years later in 1927. The next million was added in just 33 years, with the population going to 3 billion in 1960. Just 14 years later the population rose to 4 billion in 1974. During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion. Where will it all end? Will we become so crowded we will have to sleep in the kitchen sink?
The annual growth rate is currently declining and is projected to continue to decline in the coming years. But have we passed the point of no return in overcrowding. Even a tiny growth rate is enormous in total bodies because we are already way too large. World population has doubled (100% increase) in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion). Ouch! They masses may some day be fighting to take my hamburger and fries.
What to do about this wave of new humans sinking the planet? Not much, I fear. Asia has the largest segment of people and the fastest growing one with Africa second. Governments there, the poor economy and low education levels there, religious and cultural impediments to birth control etc. all make it unlikely those populations can be controlled. Even the one China child policy has not stopped rampant population growth in China.
Nineteenth century economists used to warn that if humans did not naturally control their populations, wars, famines and disease would eliminate the excess. Fortunately, that has proven to be not true so far, given mankind's many technological innovations. The world ends its best minds concentrating on the world's biggest problem- overpopulation. But that is not happening now. Governments like trendy nonsensical "problems" like global warming and, thus, fund any researcher who wants to study and pontificate about it. The United Nations (the source of my statistics on population here) itself compiles great statistics about overpopulation but never seems to address the obvious problem of unchecked population growth.
Uh..... the unpleasant truth is that many in positions of power feel that asking the poorest nations to stop birthing so many babies is "racist". To broach the subject is just too politically incorrect for them. Oh well, at least they can still rant about that global warming thing.
Most of the environmental problems the global warmers complain about are the result of too many humans on the planet putting too much stress on resources. Earth is populating as fast a a fat man can load his plate at a buffet table. In 1818 the world population was a comfortable 1 billion. It rose to 2 billion about 100 years later in 1927. The next million was added in just 33 years, with the population going to 3 billion in 1960. Just 14 years later the population rose to 4 billion in 1974. During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion. Where will it all end? Will we become so crowded we will have to sleep in the kitchen sink?
The annual growth rate is currently declining and is projected to continue to decline in the coming years. But have we passed the point of no return in overcrowding. Even a tiny growth rate is enormous in total bodies because we are already way too large. World population has doubled (100% increase) in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion). Ouch! They masses may some day be fighting to take my hamburger and fries.
What to do about this wave of new humans sinking the planet? Not much, I fear. Asia has the largest segment of people and the fastest growing one with Africa second. Governments there, the poor economy and low education levels there, religious and cultural impediments to birth control etc. all make it unlikely those populations can be controlled. Even the one China child policy has not stopped rampant population growth in China.
Nineteenth century economists used to warn that if humans did not naturally control their populations, wars, famines and disease would eliminate the excess. Fortunately, that has proven to be not true so far, given mankind's many technological innovations. The world ends its best minds concentrating on the world's biggest problem- overpopulation. But that is not happening now. Governments like trendy nonsensical "problems" like global warming and, thus, fund any researcher who wants to study and pontificate about it. The United Nations (the source of my statistics on population here) itself compiles great statistics about overpopulation but never seems to address the obvious problem of unchecked population growth.
Uh..... the unpleasant truth is that many in positions of power feel that asking the poorest nations to stop birthing so many babies is "racist". To broach the subject is just too politically incorrect for them. Oh well, at least they can still rant about that global warming thing.
Hard Drive Ransom
Talk about timing! I just got this spam mail,
allegedly but decidedly
not from my bank, advising me to open a phony attachment. Here it is.
"Dear Capital One customer,
You have received this email because we suspect that your Capital One Bank account may have
been accessed from an unauthorized computer.
As a precaution, we have limited access to your online account in order to protect against
future unauthorized transactions.
Protecting your account is our primary concern, thats why we require that you confirm your Capital One Bank account details.
If this is not downloaded and completed until November 20, 2013, we will close your account.
Thank you,
Capital One Customer Service."
Obviously it is phony, given no bank will communicate genuine security violations via the medium which allegedly is being compromised (instead they phone the customer), and given how poorly the English is written. This began recently in Britain and is now expanding. It's a kind of hard drive kidnap and ransom plan. The E mails have an attachment which appears to be a voice mail, fax, invoice or details of a suspicious transaction that supposedly is being investigated by the bank.
But instead it is a malicious program that, if opened, will encrypt the user's hard drive and then begin displaying a countdown timer, while demanding the payment of At present about 300 dollars. But given the success of it, the price has jumped in the past few weeks. It tricks people into downloading so called 'CryptoLocker', a new software that encrypts a user's hard drive, effectively putting their photos, documents, and other data under lock and key. You pay the ransom or never get your data back. Once the attachment has been downloaded a 72 hour countdown clock appears on the screen warning that the files will be lost irrevocably unless a ransom is paid, either through Bitcoin, a tough-to-trace cyber currency, or MoneyPak cash cards.
People who have been careless enough to open the message and who've paid the ransom have reported that their files are decrypted within a few hours, but Britain's crime agency warned that it did not endorse the payment of ransoms to criminals and warned that "there is no guarantee that they would honor the payments in any event." The cleverness of a thief is often astounding. Once a computer is infected with this kidnap virus it will almost certainly be impossible to unscramble the encryption, and instead the hard drive will have to be wiped and restored from a backup. And as we all know, few of us back-up files with any regularity That's quite an incentive to pay the ransom.
The distinctive thing about this kind of internet crime is that most of the time the thieves get away with their crimes. It's sometimes impossible to find the source of the spam and the penalties for criminals engaged in this kind of thing are no deterrent. Maybe nations should cooperate more in devising some basic internet laws that would be enforced as a collective group.
But in the end span messages are designed to trick the gullible, those few who still are unaware of such deceit. In a sad sense the scammers deserve a bit of credit for realizing that many people never learn.
"Dear Capital One customer,
You have received this email because we suspect that your Capital One Bank account may have
been accessed from an unauthorized computer.
As a precaution, we have limited access to your online account in order to protect against
future unauthorized transactions.
Protecting your account is our primary concern, thats why we require that you confirm your Capital One Bank account details.
If this is not downloaded and completed until November 20, 2013, we will close your account.
Thank you,
Capital One Customer Service."
Obviously it is phony, given no bank will communicate genuine security violations via the medium which allegedly is being compromised (instead they phone the customer), and given how poorly the English is written. This began recently in Britain and is now expanding. It's a kind of hard drive kidnap and ransom plan. The E mails have an attachment which appears to be a voice mail, fax, invoice or details of a suspicious transaction that supposedly is being investigated by the bank.
But instead it is a malicious program that, if opened, will encrypt the user's hard drive and then begin displaying a countdown timer, while demanding the payment of At present about 300 dollars. But given the success of it, the price has jumped in the past few weeks. It tricks people into downloading so called 'CryptoLocker', a new software that encrypts a user's hard drive, effectively putting their photos, documents, and other data under lock and key. You pay the ransom or never get your data back. Once the attachment has been downloaded a 72 hour countdown clock appears on the screen warning that the files will be lost irrevocably unless a ransom is paid, either through Bitcoin, a tough-to-trace cyber currency, or MoneyPak cash cards.
People who have been careless enough to open the message and who've paid the ransom have reported that their files are decrypted within a few hours, but Britain's crime agency warned that it did not endorse the payment of ransoms to criminals and warned that "there is no guarantee that they would honor the payments in any event." The cleverness of a thief is often astounding. Once a computer is infected with this kidnap virus it will almost certainly be impossible to unscramble the encryption, and instead the hard drive will have to be wiped and restored from a backup. And as we all know, few of us back-up files with any regularity That's quite an incentive to pay the ransom.
The distinctive thing about this kind of internet crime is that most of the time the thieves get away with their crimes. It's sometimes impossible to find the source of the spam and the penalties for criminals engaged in this kind of thing are no deterrent. Maybe nations should cooperate more in devising some basic internet laws that would be enforced as a collective group.
But in the end span messages are designed to trick the gullible, those few who still are unaware of such deceit. In a sad sense the scammers deserve a bit of credit for realizing that many people never learn.
Resolve To Not Make New Year Resolutions
According to a study by the University of
Scranton, 45% of Americans
make New Years Resolutions and 75% of people who make resolutions
maintain them throughout the first week of the year; 71% past two
weeks; 64% past one month and only 46% past six months. Ultimately, a
measly 7% of people succeed with their New Year's resolutions.
Here's the top ten resolutions they make (based on last year).
1. Lose Weight 2. Get Organized 3. Spend Less, Save More 4. Enjoy Life to the Fullest 5. Staying Fit and Healthy 6. Learn Something Exciting 7. Quit Smoking 8 Help Others in Their Dreams 9. Fall in Love 10. Spend More Time with Family.
Why do we continue to make resolutions every year even though so few of us follow through? One reason is the attraction of starting from scratch. You know, as in "It's ok I always fail because I will get another chance to start (and fail again)." No thanks to that! The idea of bettering ourselves is another reason people make resolutions on January 1st. But if we really want to better ourselves why do we only try at New Year's time? Perhaps we just follow tradition when we make those on January 1. We do follow plenty of traditions that we don't understand.
Well, maybe this just means that those who make hollow resolutions after after drinking too much on New Year's Eve have hope and a certain level of belief in their ability to change and be more of who they really want to be. Hmmm Good intentions are often coupled with unrealistic expectations. Uh, I mean, why make resolutions at New Year's time? Since most of them are unrealistic and doomed to failure, my annual New Year resolution is to not make any of them. And I always succeed. I'm 100% successful, with no pain and no gain......though filled with imperfections. I just pretend to not notice I need resolutions and enjoy watching those who do make them suffer in their attempt.
Happy New Year!
Here's the top ten resolutions they make (based on last year).
1. Lose Weight 2. Get Organized 3. Spend Less, Save More 4. Enjoy Life to the Fullest 5. Staying Fit and Healthy 6. Learn Something Exciting 7. Quit Smoking 8 Help Others in Their Dreams 9. Fall in Love 10. Spend More Time with Family.
Why do we continue to make resolutions every year even though so few of us follow through? One reason is the attraction of starting from scratch. You know, as in "It's ok I always fail because I will get another chance to start (and fail again)." No thanks to that! The idea of bettering ourselves is another reason people make resolutions on January 1st. But if we really want to better ourselves why do we only try at New Year's time? Perhaps we just follow tradition when we make those on January 1. We do follow plenty of traditions that we don't understand.
Well, maybe this just means that those who make hollow resolutions after after drinking too much on New Year's Eve have hope and a certain level of belief in their ability to change and be more of who they really want to be. Hmmm Good intentions are often coupled with unrealistic expectations. Uh, I mean, why make resolutions at New Year's time? Since most of them are unrealistic and doomed to failure, my annual New Year resolution is to not make any of them. And I always succeed. I'm 100% successful, with no pain and no gain......though filled with imperfections. I just pretend to not notice I need resolutions and enjoy watching those who do make them suffer in their attempt.
Happy New Year!
Hungry Theif
Here is an odd crime incident that begs
the question, "If
you are going to do something that sends you to jail, why not do
something that brings a little more benefit'? Police in Baton Rouge,
Louisiana have arrested a 29-year-old
man after he allegedly walked into a Subway sandwich shop near the
Louisiana State University
campus with a gun and demanded the employees make him a roast beef
sandwich. Yep! He didn't want money, he wanted a Subway sandwich. Maybe
his lawyers should plead insanity at his trial, given anyone wanting a
Subway sandwich that badly must be nuts.
He actually pulled out a hand gun and demanded a sandwich, but never demanded money. Police officers officers were able to get him to surrender peacefully meaning either those Subway sandwiches have a calming effect or, as I mentioned above, he's a nut. Police were quoted as saying that "the robber might be mentally challenged". No injuries were reported and the hungry thief faces armed robbery charges. And he probably needs some nutrition counseling whether in or out of prison.
What sandwiches would you be willing to risk jail time to get? No way will I go to prison for those English tea sandwiches. But then it might be worth it to spend a day in the slammer for a nice smoked pulled pork or a New Orleans seafood Po Boy sandwich. Personally, I think anyone who eats a tofu sandwich, stolen or purchased should be sentenced to jail time. Err....maybe not.
People who are in a prison of their own already. Maybe if they steal tofu they are just doing me a favor by removing tofu from contaminating me. I might even be willing to furnish bail money to get their release from prison if they promise to keep eating the tofu of which I want no part.
It just goes to show that some kinds of crime do pay!
He actually pulled out a hand gun and demanded a sandwich, but never demanded money. Police officers officers were able to get him to surrender peacefully meaning either those Subway sandwiches have a calming effect or, as I mentioned above, he's a nut. Police were quoted as saying that "the robber might be mentally challenged". No injuries were reported and the hungry thief faces armed robbery charges. And he probably needs some nutrition counseling whether in or out of prison.
What sandwiches would you be willing to risk jail time to get? No way will I go to prison for those English tea sandwiches. But then it might be worth it to spend a day in the slammer for a nice smoked pulled pork or a New Orleans seafood Po Boy sandwich. Personally, I think anyone who eats a tofu sandwich, stolen or purchased should be sentenced to jail time. Err....maybe not.
People who are in a prison of their own already. Maybe if they steal tofu they are just doing me a favor by removing tofu from contaminating me. I might even be willing to furnish bail money to get their release from prison if they promise to keep eating the tofu of which I want no part.
It just goes to show that some kinds of crime do pay!
The Bunker Mentality
I think there must be a correlation between
mass communication
and
fear, something like, "As the number of internet connections and cell
phone hook-ups increases so do the number of irrational fears". There
are more than enough anxieties and irrational fears out there today,
far more than ever, and I think out instantaneous and persistent
communication is why. The bombardment of information we receive also
makes us fear that what happens in the remote will also happen to us.
Just think of all the crazy fears so many have that some "terrorist"
will act out against us. For the worrisome among us it almost seems
that there is no safe place for us anymore. Fact is, never in human
history have humans been more safe (except in their worried minds) from
violence.
But in the U.S. and much of the west the bunker is now a new rage. Underground bunkers are being built everywhere as many survivalists face heightened concerns of a terrorist attack, economic meltdown and for some, even solar flares or meteor showers or a natural disaster of some sort. Gee, don't they know that the probability of being harmed by any of those things is far less than of being injured by a fall in their own shower? I guess not, since the media today and all those crazy social meeting sites keep telling them to watch out for the boogie man. But then, the bunker is a type of false security blanket.
One prominent bunker manufacturer in the U.S builds them in the form of huge tubes about half the size of a basketball court (with sofas a master bedroom and a big TV included) that fit right below the backyard lawn. Don't ask the cost, it's not cheap. At least in the 1950's cold war scares of nuclear holocaust the feared ones would save themselves in a more economic way. Boarding up windows and filling a closet with canned goods for the day when the bombs would hit, ironically, may make more sense than today's bunker strategy of taking out a second mortgage for a huge tube in the backyard.
Nonetheless, the fact that so many live with irrational in fear today is the sad story to the bunker craze. For many, the information age has brought an irrational fear component as well. Today, news can live in social media for a long time. It's a different period in communication today, which may make it appear to some people (especially those who rarely think for themselves) that even though the probability of their harm from the outside is far less, they believe threats have increased.
As soon as unpredictability increases, and the individual feels a lack of control, anxiety and irrational fears of harm become more a possibility in their minds. The probability of something bad, as in "terrorism" happening is so very low today. But this is the nature of irrational fear: It gets in our heads that something bad could happen. It's an insidious fear that seeps into our mindset.
On the other hand there is one thing you should fear. It's the constant bombardment of you via my rants here. Haha You may have a legitimate reason to build a bunker to hide from that.
But in the U.S. and much of the west the bunker is now a new rage. Underground bunkers are being built everywhere as many survivalists face heightened concerns of a terrorist attack, economic meltdown and for some, even solar flares or meteor showers or a natural disaster of some sort. Gee, don't they know that the probability of being harmed by any of those things is far less than of being injured by a fall in their own shower? I guess not, since the media today and all those crazy social meeting sites keep telling them to watch out for the boogie man. But then, the bunker is a type of false security blanket.
One prominent bunker manufacturer in the U.S builds them in the form of huge tubes about half the size of a basketball court (with sofas a master bedroom and a big TV included) that fit right below the backyard lawn. Don't ask the cost, it's not cheap. At least in the 1950's cold war scares of nuclear holocaust the feared ones would save themselves in a more economic way. Boarding up windows and filling a closet with canned goods for the day when the bombs would hit, ironically, may make more sense than today's bunker strategy of taking out a second mortgage for a huge tube in the backyard.
Nonetheless, the fact that so many live with irrational in fear today is the sad story to the bunker craze. For many, the information age has brought an irrational fear component as well. Today, news can live in social media for a long time. It's a different period in communication today, which may make it appear to some people (especially those who rarely think for themselves) that even though the probability of their harm from the outside is far less, they believe threats have increased.
As soon as unpredictability increases, and the individual feels a lack of control, anxiety and irrational fears of harm become more a possibility in their minds. The probability of something bad, as in "terrorism" happening is so very low today. But this is the nature of irrational fear: It gets in our heads that something bad could happen. It's an insidious fear that seeps into our mindset.
On the other hand there is one thing you should fear. It's the constant bombardment of you via my rants here. Haha You may have a legitimate reason to build a bunker to hide from that.
Amsterdam's Drunks Clean The Streets
Just about everyone walking in a downtown area dislikes
seeing drunks
hanging around creating a mess....begging for money, sleeping on
benches, littering, even defecating and urinating in public. What to do
about it? The city can't arrest every drunk because police have other
more important things to do during their shifts. But Amsterdam is
trying another approach to the drunk on the street.
In Amsterdam, a handful of alcoholics clean the surrounding streets, sometimes with a beer and a cigarette in hand. It's because the city has a program for alcoholics. In exchange for their cleaning the city streets they used to dirty, the drunks receive 10 euros (around $13), a half-packet of rolling tobacco and, most importantly, five cans of beer... two to start the day, two at lunch and one for after work. Yep! Under the so called Rainbow Foundation Project, drunks in Amsterdam work for beer. The alcoholics are split into two groups of around 10 people, with each group working three days a week.
"This group of chronic alcoholics was causing a nuisance in Amsterdam's Oosterpark: fights, noise, disagreeable comments to women," said Gerrie Holterman, who heads the Rainbow Foundation project, financed by the Dutch state and donations. "The aim is to keep them occupied, to get them doing something so they no longer cause trouble at the park," she said.
The fact is that you can never eradicate addicts. They have always existed and will always exist. At least Amsterdam does something to protect both the addicts and the general populace. Haha I think I know people who like their beer so much that would move there just to join this program. "We need alcohol to function, that's the disadvantage of chronic alcoholism," said one street cleaning drunk when interviewed. But is it the right way to handle an addiction? Is it encouraging the street drunks to drunk more?
"They're no longer in the park, they drink less, they eat better and they have something to keep them busy during the day. Heroin addicts can go to shooting galleries, so why shouldn't we also give people beer?" said Holterman, the Rainbow Foundation leader. Even the drunks love it, saying they are happy to be there, all taking part voluntarily. "It gives our lives some structure," said one alcoholic who asked not to be named. And people living in the neighborhood also seem happy, greeting the cleaners as they work.
Opinions however differ about how much the work affects the group's drinking habits. The fact is the drunks are still drinking, as they were before. Now it's with the city of Amsterdam's approval and help. I doubt any of them will be cured of their alcoholism when the city pays them for street cleaning services with alcohol. They probably drink just as much as they did before when they are not working at their street cleaning job.
Maybe we should all just have a beer and think about how effective the program really is.
In Amsterdam, a handful of alcoholics clean the surrounding streets, sometimes with a beer and a cigarette in hand. It's because the city has a program for alcoholics. In exchange for their cleaning the city streets they used to dirty, the drunks receive 10 euros (around $13), a half-packet of rolling tobacco and, most importantly, five cans of beer... two to start the day, two at lunch and one for after work. Yep! Under the so called Rainbow Foundation Project, drunks in Amsterdam work for beer. The alcoholics are split into two groups of around 10 people, with each group working three days a week.
"This group of chronic alcoholics was causing a nuisance in Amsterdam's Oosterpark: fights, noise, disagreeable comments to women," said Gerrie Holterman, who heads the Rainbow Foundation project, financed by the Dutch state and donations. "The aim is to keep them occupied, to get them doing something so they no longer cause trouble at the park," she said.
The fact is that you can never eradicate addicts. They have always existed and will always exist. At least Amsterdam does something to protect both the addicts and the general populace. Haha I think I know people who like their beer so much that would move there just to join this program. "We need alcohol to function, that's the disadvantage of chronic alcoholism," said one street cleaning drunk when interviewed. But is it the right way to handle an addiction? Is it encouraging the street drunks to drunk more?
"They're no longer in the park, they drink less, they eat better and they have something to keep them busy during the day. Heroin addicts can go to shooting galleries, so why shouldn't we also give people beer?" said Holterman, the Rainbow Foundation leader. Even the drunks love it, saying they are happy to be there, all taking part voluntarily. "It gives our lives some structure," said one alcoholic who asked not to be named. And people living in the neighborhood also seem happy, greeting the cleaners as they work.
Opinions however differ about how much the work affects the group's drinking habits. The fact is the drunks are still drinking, as they were before. Now it's with the city of Amsterdam's approval and help. I doubt any of them will be cured of their alcoholism when the city pays them for street cleaning services with alcohol. They probably drink just as much as they did before when they are not working at their street cleaning job.
Maybe we should all just have a beer and think about how effective the program really is.
Empty Libraries
I was wondering the other day if the public library is going
the way of
the newspaper. Is it in decline or even disappearing? It seems to me
that with the electronic revolution putting books and articles on line
for free, and with all those book reading devices, like that "Nook"
thing, making book downloads so cheap and easy, maybe the physical
library will become extinct.
Buying books can be expensive, but now most people wait for the discounts on their next book read, buy the latest books from second hand/thrift stores, or purchase them on line form a cheap bookseller like Amazon.com. Does anyone pay full price of a book anymore? The competition from the electronic readers and sellers has sent a message to bookstores and libraries that they will have to give the reader a better reason to check out a book or purchase one there.
Have you been to a library lately? I rarely go because I like to own my own copy, always have. But last time I went to my local library I saw all kinds of strange things going on, unrelated to the old library style "pick a book, sit down and read or check it out and "SHUT UP". Now libraries are "media centers" that vend as many movies or music and other visual material as books. They can listen to lectures. And there are rooms for conferences and crafts, places where people can and use computers or WIFI's for research or fun. Libraries also offer classes in various skills like cooking.
The old traditional library was a quiet place that offered the user one thing-books. One could check out a book or read it there, but silence was always the golden rule in the old library setting. In those days you had two choices to obtain a book or magazine, buy it or use a library. Now the library choices are so varied that the library is becoming a multi media center rather than a places for the written word. I guess the modern library has mutated like everything else these days. It no longer is the library that always was the same.
The good thing is that we'll always need printed books that don't mutate the way those digital books do. We'll always need places to display books, auditoriums for book talks, circles for story time with little children. We'll always need those solid and comforting library buildings that somehow bring sense to, comfort and bind every person to every place.
Buying books can be expensive, but now most people wait for the discounts on their next book read, buy the latest books from second hand/thrift stores, or purchase them on line form a cheap bookseller like Amazon.com. Does anyone pay full price of a book anymore? The competition from the electronic readers and sellers has sent a message to bookstores and libraries that they will have to give the reader a better reason to check out a book or purchase one there.
Have you been to a library lately? I rarely go because I like to own my own copy, always have. But last time I went to my local library I saw all kinds of strange things going on, unrelated to the old library style "pick a book, sit down and read or check it out and "SHUT UP". Now libraries are "media centers" that vend as many movies or music and other visual material as books. They can listen to lectures. And there are rooms for conferences and crafts, places where people can and use computers or WIFI's for research or fun. Libraries also offer classes in various skills like cooking.
The old traditional library was a quiet place that offered the user one thing-books. One could check out a book or read it there, but silence was always the golden rule in the old library setting. In those days you had two choices to obtain a book or magazine, buy it or use a library. Now the library choices are so varied that the library is becoming a multi media center rather than a places for the written word. I guess the modern library has mutated like everything else these days. It no longer is the library that always was the same.
The good thing is that we'll always need printed books that don't mutate the way those digital books do. We'll always need places to display books, auditoriums for book talks, circles for story time with little children. We'll always need those solid and comforting library buildings that somehow bring sense to, comfort and bind every person to every place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)