What a shock the other day to hear of comic/actor Robim Williams
death. I just read that researchers have a way of
determining suicide risk.
Hmmm So do I. Just read the stupidity I write here and you're far more
likely to commit suicide. But the test the scientists have developed is
based on genetics. They give the person a blood test and, I guess, get
the straight jacket ready if it says "suicidal". Researchers running
postmortem gnome scans of brain samples found that the brains of those
who'd committed suicide had less of a gene called SKA2, as well as
higher levels of methylation, a chemical process that affects the
gene's function. I'll take their word for it, since I have no idea
what SKA2 or methylation is.
My question is ,"why do that"? Do people want to be told they might
kill themselves? Might being told that actually make a person more
inclined to follow the suggestion and fire away toward self slaughter?
The "I'm going to kill myself anyway", syndrome might bring about a
very reckless and uncaring life for those who are told they have the
genetic predisposition for suicide.
And what preventive measures would a positive suicide test bring
about? Uh, do you tie Uncle Harry to his chair if his test score is
bad? It seems to me that life for those who know a person has higher
suicidal tendencies would be a life living on egg shells. The husband
who knows his wife is suicidal, for example, would be afraid to engage
in normal conversation for fear that saying the wrong thing could bring
about his wife's death.
It sounds way too negative to me. I think the intent is probably to use
this on people in high stress professions, like soldiers. And in those
cases it would probably be for observational purposes to alert in case
any suicidal signs surface. Still, this idea to use medical technology
just because we know how is a bit iffy. Testing for diseases that we
can prevent or stop is a good thing. Testing for possible psychological
illnesses, including suicide, is a much less certain thing. When we
learn from those suicide tests, I think we probably don't know how or
shouldn't use the information we gain very often. This is one case
where, for humans, too much knowledge may not be a good thing.
Friday, August 15, 2014
Meaningless Bike Races
Every summer the biggest race in cycling, the Tour De
France, is run. (This year's winner was an Italian rider who claims to
be drug free.....I have my doubts about that affirmation.).
Trouble is, in recent years no one is watching or cares about it.
That's because bicycle racing is the first sport to be so impacted by
competitor drug usage that it has been virtually killed. I think Lance
Armstrong's decline and fall from grace was the single biggest reason
for it all. He was arguably the greatest bike racer ever and had
overcome a serious cancer to compete again. But after drug tests
revealed he was both a major cheat and liar, the bicycle racing fans
said "enough" and stopped watching.
Anyway, drug usage in bike racing has a long history, starting in the 1920s. At first, the athletes were using stimulants, so few cared. But the practice of blood doping that we have come to know seemed an extreme extension of that. When a Danish cyclist named Knud Enemark died in the 1960s Olympics and his autopsy revealed traces of amphetamines, there was a public outcry to increase athlete testing. Testing for anabolic steroids came along in the 1970s and resulted in a higher amount of athletes testing positive for such substances. It became the secret mantra of the riders that to not cheat meant to be non competitive. Blood doping became the easiest way for the competitors to cheat the drug testers. The result is that much of the public thinks that every bike rider is a drug machine on top of his or her bike.
That's why nobody in the United States and almost every other country on earth, for that matter, cares about the Tour de France. They all know the performers are not riding on sheer talent alone, and that without the aide of performance enhancing drugs most would not even bother to sit on a bike. Since 1960 about half the winners of the Tour de France were caught doping or using drugs to enhance their performance. Of the 21 top three finishers in the 2012 Tour de France, only one has not been tied to doping, according to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.
I guess the rampant use of illegal drugs by of humans in their every day life is a stimulus for drug abuse in sports, particularly in cycling. No one seems to care anymore. Instead, the react with no interest in the sport altogether. It's very hard to root for anyone who could be cheating his way to the finish line. So, the bike racing continues to slowly die, and one wonders which sport will be the next to self distruct because drug abuse. Gee, as much as I hate soccer, I hope that will be the one.
Anyway, drug usage in bike racing has a long history, starting in the 1920s. At first, the athletes were using stimulants, so few cared. But the practice of blood doping that we have come to know seemed an extreme extension of that. When a Danish cyclist named Knud Enemark died in the 1960s Olympics and his autopsy revealed traces of amphetamines, there was a public outcry to increase athlete testing. Testing for anabolic steroids came along in the 1970s and resulted in a higher amount of athletes testing positive for such substances. It became the secret mantra of the riders that to not cheat meant to be non competitive. Blood doping became the easiest way for the competitors to cheat the drug testers. The result is that much of the public thinks that every bike rider is a drug machine on top of his or her bike.
That's why nobody in the United States and almost every other country on earth, for that matter, cares about the Tour de France. They all know the performers are not riding on sheer talent alone, and that without the aide of performance enhancing drugs most would not even bother to sit on a bike. Since 1960 about half the winners of the Tour de France were caught doping or using drugs to enhance their performance. Of the 21 top three finishers in the 2012 Tour de France, only one has not been tied to doping, according to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.
I guess the rampant use of illegal drugs by of humans in their every day life is a stimulus for drug abuse in sports, particularly in cycling. No one seems to care anymore. Instead, the react with no interest in the sport altogether. It's very hard to root for anyone who could be cheating his way to the finish line. So, the bike racing continues to slowly die, and one wonders which sport will be the next to self distruct because drug abuse. Gee, as much as I hate soccer, I hope that will be the one.
World At War, Almost
I've noticed something about conflicts in the world.
It's that most of
the wars or conflicts currently on-going are internal ones. That is,
nations don't or don't want to fight each other anymore. The price of
armed conflict with another country would be too high for all involved.
Nations now seem to prefer fighting internally. I wonder if the old
nation vs. nation war is passé. Surely, given modern war technology,
the damage from a war between two or more nations today would likely be
catastrophic, perhaps too catastrophic to consider. Even the tyrant
Vladimir Putin agrees. He is conducting his efforts to take over the
Ukraine, not with a full military invasion of Ukraine, but rather as an
indirect invasion through stirring dissent their and then siding with
whichever side of the civil war is the strongest.
The old fashioned war between nations is today seen as not only too dangerous a game, but as antisocial as a belch in the face of a clergyman. Better to fight by promoting dissent within the opponent's nation, then siding with the stronger side to gain control. Among the nations today fighting civil wars or something close to violent conflict from within, include practically every Arab nation in existence. Most of those conflicts are attempts by one faction of Islam to gain control of the government in order to promote an agenda based on a religious stricture. By and large, they are not undertaken to overthrow tyrants or change the political structure of the country. Instead, they are conflicts pitting the modern world against the reactionary world that is currently in power.
That same kind of thing is going on in sub-Saharan Africa too where the old world has not yet accepted all of the new. But even the industrial western nations are today in conflict with themselves. Massive immigration from the third world into Europe and the United States has created a war of words that is being fought on the plain of immigration. Those who feel their nation's economic and cultural viability are threatened by the influx of those immigrants with different ideas stand on one side, while those who want "diversity" and feel a country's culture must change to survive stand on the other side.
Thus, in the west, anti and pro immigrant groups slug it out on the political playing fields. And this brings about great tension and conflict, a kid of war of words that might escalate into an ugly French style racist, xenophobic, politics directed against immigrants. Well, at least it keeps the leaders of those nations, as in the case George Bush's Iraqi and Afghanistan invasions, busy only dabbling in other countries because "we must fight them over there to prevent having to fight them here". As revolting as that is, at least it beats wars with armies slaughtering each other and civilians who stand in the way. I wonder if the new war is not mostly an internal one.
The old fashioned war between nations is today seen as not only too dangerous a game, but as antisocial as a belch in the face of a clergyman. Better to fight by promoting dissent within the opponent's nation, then siding with the stronger side to gain control. Among the nations today fighting civil wars or something close to violent conflict from within, include practically every Arab nation in existence. Most of those conflicts are attempts by one faction of Islam to gain control of the government in order to promote an agenda based on a religious stricture. By and large, they are not undertaken to overthrow tyrants or change the political structure of the country. Instead, they are conflicts pitting the modern world against the reactionary world that is currently in power.
That same kind of thing is going on in sub-Saharan Africa too where the old world has not yet accepted all of the new. But even the industrial western nations are today in conflict with themselves. Massive immigration from the third world into Europe and the United States has created a war of words that is being fought on the plain of immigration. Those who feel their nation's economic and cultural viability are threatened by the influx of those immigrants with different ideas stand on one side, while those who want "diversity" and feel a country's culture must change to survive stand on the other side.
Thus, in the west, anti and pro immigrant groups slug it out on the political playing fields. And this brings about great tension and conflict, a kid of war of words that might escalate into an ugly French style racist, xenophobic, politics directed against immigrants. Well, at least it keeps the leaders of those nations, as in the case George Bush's Iraqi and Afghanistan invasions, busy only dabbling in other countries because "we must fight them over there to prevent having to fight them here". As revolting as that is, at least it beats wars with armies slaughtering each other and civilians who stand in the way. I wonder if the new war is not mostly an internal one.
How Much Gay Talk Is Enough?
The gay and lesbian "revolution" is on going in
the west and in some
other parts of the world. This seems to be the age of equality in
which society says homosexual and heterosexual relationships are the
same. I suppose there will be a great deal of controversy about that,
given the factors of religion, tradition etc. So I'll stay out of that
controversy. But there was an interesting survey from the U.S.
government the other day about the percent of population that sees
itself as homosexual. A total of 2.3% of U.S. adults said they were
gay, lesbian or
bisexual. Wow! That's lower than I thought.
If one looks at popular culture it would appear that many times more would be in that group. Gayness is everywhere in films, TV, literature, even in advertisements. The 2.3% number is lower than the 3% to 4% found in some other recent surveys, including a Gallop poll a couple of years ago. Since surveys are imprecise and people often do not want to disclose the intimate details of their sex lives, and because some men who have sex with other men will not relate to the term "gay" or homosexual, and do not regard sex with other men as sexual activity (They think of the term as only for sexual relations with women), who knows what percent of humans are gay. Estimates from the past have ranged from about 2 percent to 10 percent.
So does the gay issue get more attention than it should? Are gays discriminated against enough to merit all the attention in order to change their status in society, or is the media and throw-away culture obsessed with gay rights? I can't figure it out. I also wonder if anyone knows what the actual percent of homosexuals are out there. As being gay has become trendy in the liberal world, more acceptance of homosexuality has come to the fore. That's a good thing, since tolerance is a quality that is in rare form among many humans. Still, I wonder if the bombardment about gay marriage and gay rights might not be overkill, that it might have a negative affect on that segment of the population achieving what it and all humans should have- the right to chose whatever sexuality they wish to pursue.
If one looks at popular culture it would appear that many times more would be in that group. Gayness is everywhere in films, TV, literature, even in advertisements. The 2.3% number is lower than the 3% to 4% found in some other recent surveys, including a Gallop poll a couple of years ago. Since surveys are imprecise and people often do not want to disclose the intimate details of their sex lives, and because some men who have sex with other men will not relate to the term "gay" or homosexual, and do not regard sex with other men as sexual activity (They think of the term as only for sexual relations with women), who knows what percent of humans are gay. Estimates from the past have ranged from about 2 percent to 10 percent.
So does the gay issue get more attention than it should? Are gays discriminated against enough to merit all the attention in order to change their status in society, or is the media and throw-away culture obsessed with gay rights? I can't figure it out. I also wonder if anyone knows what the actual percent of homosexuals are out there. As being gay has become trendy in the liberal world, more acceptance of homosexuality has come to the fore. That's a good thing, since tolerance is a quality that is in rare form among many humans. Still, I wonder if the bombardment about gay marriage and gay rights might not be overkill, that it might have a negative affect on that segment of the population achieving what it and all humans should have- the right to chose whatever sexuality they wish to pursue.
Weird Ice Cream Flavors
When you think about where the weirdest selections of food
may be, do
you say "Japan"? Well, many of us think the Japanese will eat anything.
They keep trying to prove it. Why they could even make ice cream weird.
In fact, they do. I just read about some of the weird ice cream flavors
world-wide and right at the top of the list of strange flavors are some
that are found in Japan. I'll tell you about a few and hope you won't
think about them when you eat the more normal flavors, we alleged
normal people like, for example, the world's most popular ice cream
flavor- Vanilla.
'Cream City', an ice cream store inside an indoor amusement park in Tokyo, has what may be the strangest ice cream flavor of all. It's Raw Horse Flesh ice cream. And I thought the French were weird for eating horse meat for dinner. I suppose you have to eat the Raw Horse Flesh cone to describe, much less appreciate, it. I doubt there is a comparable flavor. I won't sample it, nor will I eat some of the other flavors at Cream City. Cow Tongue, Salt, Yakisoba, Octopus and Squid are also flavors available there. Scratch Japan off my list of nations to visit. If you want a more a mainstream ice cream in Japan you can also find Mamushi Snake ice cream in plenty of shops in Tokyo. Mamushi is one of the most venomous snakes in Japan and it's actually one of the ingredients in that flavor of ice cream. Foreigners who try it report it tastes like garlic, a bit of almond and that snake thing.
If Japan is weird in its food tastes, France is weird in most ways it must be weird in its ice cream flavors. Avocado ice cream is a big hit in 'Fernandos', in Nice. I wonder why the Mexicans didn't invent that flavor. They seem to put avocados in everything they cook. I hate the taste of Avocados, so you can have my Avocado cone. Those French are a bit more predictable than the Japanese though. You could probably guess that the French would be the ones to invent Foie Gras ice cream. Ice cream seller Philippe Faur combines fatty foie gras and ice cream. That duck liver ice cream was invented by Faur, who says the dessert took four months to "perfect". I wonder if the taste tasters survived the initial batches when they tasted them.
Ok, I'll quit picking on the Japanese and French ice cream eaters. There is plenty of odd flavored ice cream everywhere. How about Whiskey Prune ice cream? Go to Australia for a scoop of whiskey prune. This "secret Irish recipe" mixes mascarpone ice cream with whiskey soaked prunes, then swirls in a whiskey ripple to really get that boozy flavor. In the U.S. a guy named Crazy Charlie Francis sells Jelly fish ice cream at his 'Lick Me I'm Delicious' store. And Roasted Garlic ice cream has also become a more seen flavor in U.S. gourmet ice cream stores. In Ireland at Murphy's ice cream shop they sell a Gin ice cream. This certainly verifies the rumors that the Irish drink too much alcohol. In England the the fish and chips ice cream from Teare Woods Luxury Ice Cream Parlor is a hit. It's a scoop of minty mushy peas flavor and a scoop of fish flavor, topped with bits of battered cod and served with a french fry. I feel nauseated.
But wait! my own personal least favorite ice cream flavor has to be one of the most popular ones in Asia. It's Durian ice cream and I once tasted it. Yuk! My stomach and nose are wavering just typing the words. Someone bring me a vanilla cone............quickly........
'Cream City', an ice cream store inside an indoor amusement park in Tokyo, has what may be the strangest ice cream flavor of all. It's Raw Horse Flesh ice cream. And I thought the French were weird for eating horse meat for dinner. I suppose you have to eat the Raw Horse Flesh cone to describe, much less appreciate, it. I doubt there is a comparable flavor. I won't sample it, nor will I eat some of the other flavors at Cream City. Cow Tongue, Salt, Yakisoba, Octopus and Squid are also flavors available there. Scratch Japan off my list of nations to visit. If you want a more a mainstream ice cream in Japan you can also find Mamushi Snake ice cream in plenty of shops in Tokyo. Mamushi is one of the most venomous snakes in Japan and it's actually one of the ingredients in that flavor of ice cream. Foreigners who try it report it tastes like garlic, a bit of almond and that snake thing.
If Japan is weird in its food tastes, France is weird in most ways it must be weird in its ice cream flavors. Avocado ice cream is a big hit in 'Fernandos', in Nice. I wonder why the Mexicans didn't invent that flavor. They seem to put avocados in everything they cook. I hate the taste of Avocados, so you can have my Avocado cone. Those French are a bit more predictable than the Japanese though. You could probably guess that the French would be the ones to invent Foie Gras ice cream. Ice cream seller Philippe Faur combines fatty foie gras and ice cream. That duck liver ice cream was invented by Faur, who says the dessert took four months to "perfect". I wonder if the taste tasters survived the initial batches when they tasted them.
Ok, I'll quit picking on the Japanese and French ice cream eaters. There is plenty of odd flavored ice cream everywhere. How about Whiskey Prune ice cream? Go to Australia for a scoop of whiskey prune. This "secret Irish recipe" mixes mascarpone ice cream with whiskey soaked prunes, then swirls in a whiskey ripple to really get that boozy flavor. In the U.S. a guy named Crazy Charlie Francis sells Jelly fish ice cream at his 'Lick Me I'm Delicious' store. And Roasted Garlic ice cream has also become a more seen flavor in U.S. gourmet ice cream stores. In Ireland at Murphy's ice cream shop they sell a Gin ice cream. This certainly verifies the rumors that the Irish drink too much alcohol. In England the the fish and chips ice cream from Teare Woods Luxury Ice Cream Parlor is a hit. It's a scoop of minty mushy peas flavor and a scoop of fish flavor, topped with bits of battered cod and served with a french fry. I feel nauseated.
But wait! my own personal least favorite ice cream flavor has to be one of the most popular ones in Asia. It's Durian ice cream and I once tasted it. Yuk! My stomach and nose are wavering just typing the words. Someone bring me a vanilla cone............quickly........
Gottcha Journalism
The other day when a Malaysian commercial airline
filled with civilian
passengers was shot down in The Ukraine by either the warring
Ukrainians or invading Russians, a prominent headline on the front page
of my newspaper was, 'Jason Briggs Under Fire For Tweeting Malaysian
Plane Joke'. I don't know who Jason Briggs is, I gather he must be a
celebrity in the pop culture, but Jason did nothing but simply twitter,
" Anyone wanna buy my Malaysian Airlines frequent flier miles? In all
seriousness, though- HOW DO YOU MISTAKENLY SHOOT DOWN A COMMERCIAL
PLANE?! Ugh.'
That's it. Yet he was castigated and forced to issue the typical politically correct, and always insincere "apology" for being "insensitive". It's another symptom that we live in the Gottcha world of journalism, and that free speech, even in the form of a joke (not directed at the victims of the airline but at the cruelty of the warring parties for taking their war to civilians) is a mortal sin today. What offends me is the murderous acts of warring armies, not an entertainer doing what he is paid to do, that being to point to the absurdity of that war and all others.
This is the age of Gottcha journalism, where printing important news that citizens need to know is second to creating the latest celebrity scandal, particularly when there is actually nothing scandalous about the subject. So Jason is front page news for his tweet. Hmmmm Aren't we all better off for it and more informed about world events. Sigh. That newspaper was also filed with other gottcha celeb stories that day. Within the paper we also were told that: 'Charlie Sheen a Friendly Drunk at Taco Bell', 'Sexy Scandal star has another baby on the way', Kristen Wig joining the full frontal club', Sandra Bullock stalker case details are hair raising', 'Happy Birthday, Duchess Camilla. Not a Rottweillker after all', 'Candace Camerson Bure gets criticized for cleanse'.
That's all one day! No! I did not read the text of those "important" news stories. I already know they are designed to slander or embarrass someone. The world does seem to feel better about itself when it thrashes someone else it has elevated to celebrity status. But why can't newspapers print real news anymore? And this newspaper is not a scandal sheet. It's the mainstream 'U.S.A. Today' newspaper, the most widely read on in the United States. I do suspect the decline in intelligence of news sources reflects the decline in intelligence and culture of humanity. What do you think? Have a nice day! How is ever
That's it. Yet he was castigated and forced to issue the typical politically correct, and always insincere "apology" for being "insensitive". It's another symptom that we live in the Gottcha world of journalism, and that free speech, even in the form of a joke (not directed at the victims of the airline but at the cruelty of the warring parties for taking their war to civilians) is a mortal sin today. What offends me is the murderous acts of warring armies, not an entertainer doing what he is paid to do, that being to point to the absurdity of that war and all others.
This is the age of Gottcha journalism, where printing important news that citizens need to know is second to creating the latest celebrity scandal, particularly when there is actually nothing scandalous about the subject. So Jason is front page news for his tweet. Hmmmm Aren't we all better off for it and more informed about world events. Sigh. That newspaper was also filed with other gottcha celeb stories that day. Within the paper we also were told that: 'Charlie Sheen a Friendly Drunk at Taco Bell', 'Sexy Scandal star has another baby on the way', Kristen Wig joining the full frontal club', Sandra Bullock stalker case details are hair raising', 'Happy Birthday, Duchess Camilla. Not a Rottweillker after all', 'Candace Camerson Bure gets criticized for cleanse'.
That's all one day! No! I did not read the text of those "important" news stories. I already know they are designed to slander or embarrass someone. The world does seem to feel better about itself when it thrashes someone else it has elevated to celebrity status. But why can't newspapers print real news anymore? And this newspaper is not a scandal sheet. It's the mainstream 'U.S.A. Today' newspaper, the most widely read on in the United States. I do suspect the decline in intelligence of news sources reflects the decline in intelligence and culture of humanity. What do you think? Have a nice day! How is ever
Monday, August 11, 2014
Decline Of The Mall
A quick cheer for all the males out there. "The death
of the mall. The
death of the mall. Hooray!" That's right. In this country, and there
are signs of the same in many others, the shopping mall is losing so
much appeal for consumers that they are closing in large numbers every
day. Shopping malls
didn't just happen and they are not the result of wise planners
deciding that suburban people, having no social life and stimulation,
needed a place to go. The mall was originally
conceived of as a community center where people would converge for
shopping, cultural activity, and social interaction. It has achieved
that.
But even teens are bored with them now. And as more and more people do their shopping on line the mall is going to do a disappearing act everywhere. In fact, pictures posted on the web of dead malls are everywhere. The Dead Malls Enthusiasts Face book group has 14,000 members and Google said recently that searches for "dead malls" produced 5.7 million results last year. a. 2007 was the first year in more than four decades when no large malls opened in the U.S. Only one has opened since then, in 2012. But there is one bad aspect to the death of malls. I think the mall addicts of old are now hanging out with their cell phones instead. The sense of community that teens and young adults once found by socializing at malls has also been replaced ny hanging out with one's social media. It's substituting an old addiction for a new one, I guess.
Malls that are failing tend to be in areas where the entire local economy is in the dumps, so that is also another element of their decline. If you take a trip to deadmalls.com to see which states in the U.S have lost the most malls you'll find that New York leads with 42 closed malls, almost all of them upstate where the economy is especially bad.. Pennsylvania is next on the dead-malls list, with 28; Illinois and Ohio are tied at 27. About 15% of U.S. malls will fail or be converted into non-retail space within the next 10 years, according to Green Street Advisors, a real estate firm. Why go there and experience bad sights, bad smells, long walks to find stores, and those teenagers we all love to label as delinquents? The trend now is to buy on line instead.
I rarely go to malls and still most prefer to shopping at single detached stores, not malls. in fact. I buy more on line than at a mall. Oh well, the mall was quick to come and fast to go. And on balance, when they do all disappear I doubt many will cry any tears at their death.
But even teens are bored with them now. And as more and more people do their shopping on line the mall is going to do a disappearing act everywhere. In fact, pictures posted on the web of dead malls are everywhere. The Dead Malls Enthusiasts Face book group has 14,000 members and Google said recently that searches for "dead malls" produced 5.7 million results last year. a. 2007 was the first year in more than four decades when no large malls opened in the U.S. Only one has opened since then, in 2012. But there is one bad aspect to the death of malls. I think the mall addicts of old are now hanging out with their cell phones instead. The sense of community that teens and young adults once found by socializing at malls has also been replaced ny hanging out with one's social media. It's substituting an old addiction for a new one, I guess.
Malls that are failing tend to be in areas where the entire local economy is in the dumps, so that is also another element of their decline. If you take a trip to deadmalls.com to see which states in the U.S have lost the most malls you'll find that New York leads with 42 closed malls, almost all of them upstate where the economy is especially bad.. Pennsylvania is next on the dead-malls list, with 28; Illinois and Ohio are tied at 27. About 15% of U.S. malls will fail or be converted into non-retail space within the next 10 years, according to Green Street Advisors, a real estate firm. Why go there and experience bad sights, bad smells, long walks to find stores, and those teenagers we all love to label as delinquents? The trend now is to buy on line instead.
I rarely go to malls and still most prefer to shopping at single detached stores, not malls. in fact. I buy more on line than at a mall. Oh well, the mall was quick to come and fast to go. And on balance, when they do all disappear I doubt many will cry any tears at their death.
Why Environmental Extremism Is Failing
If I may quote the environmental extremists who utter
it whenever any
of their positions is challenged, "The evidence is in and the issue no
longer open to debate". That is, environmentalism is a failing
movement. And the reason for it's sickness is that the environmental
crazies shot themselves in the foot and several other places while
propagandizing untruths or misrepresentations they posit. Crying wolf
too often leads to a deaf audience.
Surely protecting the environment is a worthy goal, and humans benefit when that is done. Yet what we have today in the world is a kind of charletanism that represents the worthy goal of keeping a clean environment and replacing it with doom and gloom scenarios of "it's global warming and we're all going to die!" Good grief!. We can't take the environmental cause seriously anymore because it has been so perverted by agendas and deception that we mistrust much of what the environmental "save the planet" (I hate that phrase, how arrogant to think humans can either destroy or save it. We are neither divine nor, all powerful) adherents promote. Every time I hear about my "carbon footprint" I just want to vomit. I am human, not God. I can not personally destroy the vastness of what God has created.
In my view, here is where the environmental crazies lost most of us.
- Mistake number one goes back about 15 years when a phony snake oil salesman named Al Gore was selected to present the "global warming" theory (since changed to "climate change" due to the fact that too many people laugh when "global warming" is even uttered. But then, phonies always change the language when trying to force bad ideas on others). Gore so badly distorted and lied about his "facts" (well, we should forgive him since he has books to sell!) that the movement became identified with the mouthpiece of it. The result, no credibility.
- Mistake number too is the widespread use of fudged statistics and data by the global warming crowd. Saying that "all the scientists agree with them is a lie. Also, using non climate scientists to support their stats is dishonest. Uh, moving temperature reading instruments into the sun to raise the readings is not a nice thing either. And the fact that so many climate scientists that promote global warming have been bought and controlled by the governments that like the global warming agenda (pushing the global warming agenda is good for the politician who wants to be re elected and for rewarding financial backers with those expensive tax payer contracts politicians like to award to their buddies) means the public suspects their "research".
- Mistake number three is the over emphasis on CO2 s a driver of earth warming. There is NO scientific proof that man made Co2 has anything more than a tiny influence on climate. That notion is an unverified theory, not a fact. Yet, global warming nuts continue to focus on that dubious claim. People world wide are now beginning to doubt the whole man made CO2 global warming scenario. Instead of focusing on a real environmental crises....say the only real one that could imperil humans, overpopulation....the global warming movement still pushes the CO2 ruse.
-Mistake number four is the idea that developed nations can "save the planet" while underdeveloped nations continue to pollute and abuse resources (China is the worst polluter in the world, by far. It is not concerned about global warming). If the leaders of the world think so little of the green "save the planet" movement that they ignore it, why should the world's citizens also take it seriously?
So I think the environmental movement has now dropped the ball on what was at first a noble idea- trying to promote a cleaner environment for we humans. It has now morphed into a lying, mean spirited, arrogant, holy war against anyone who dares to operate an automobile or use heating oil for his or her home. It's a shame that environmentalism did not focus on the real environmental problems that have and always will exist (and global warming is not one of them) and do so without threatening us with histrionic scenarios of world destruction.
While environmental activists ramp up the rhetoric to a war, ordinary individuals get on with their lives because they have a headache from constantly hearing the rhetoric. Let's face it, the environmental movement has, in a way, declared war on everyone. That's a war it can not win.
Surely protecting the environment is a worthy goal, and humans benefit when that is done. Yet what we have today in the world is a kind of charletanism that represents the worthy goal of keeping a clean environment and replacing it with doom and gloom scenarios of "it's global warming and we're all going to die!" Good grief!. We can't take the environmental cause seriously anymore because it has been so perverted by agendas and deception that we mistrust much of what the environmental "save the planet" (I hate that phrase, how arrogant to think humans can either destroy or save it. We are neither divine nor, all powerful) adherents promote. Every time I hear about my "carbon footprint" I just want to vomit. I am human, not God. I can not personally destroy the vastness of what God has created.
In my view, here is where the environmental crazies lost most of us.
- Mistake number one goes back about 15 years when a phony snake oil salesman named Al Gore was selected to present the "global warming" theory (since changed to "climate change" due to the fact that too many people laugh when "global warming" is even uttered. But then, phonies always change the language when trying to force bad ideas on others). Gore so badly distorted and lied about his "facts" (well, we should forgive him since he has books to sell!) that the movement became identified with the mouthpiece of it. The result, no credibility.
- Mistake number too is the widespread use of fudged statistics and data by the global warming crowd. Saying that "all the scientists agree with them is a lie. Also, using non climate scientists to support their stats is dishonest. Uh, moving temperature reading instruments into the sun to raise the readings is not a nice thing either. And the fact that so many climate scientists that promote global warming have been bought and controlled by the governments that like the global warming agenda (pushing the global warming agenda is good for the politician who wants to be re elected and for rewarding financial backers with those expensive tax payer contracts politicians like to award to their buddies) means the public suspects their "research".
- Mistake number three is the over emphasis on CO2 s a driver of earth warming. There is NO scientific proof that man made Co2 has anything more than a tiny influence on climate. That notion is an unverified theory, not a fact. Yet, global warming nuts continue to focus on that dubious claim. People world wide are now beginning to doubt the whole man made CO2 global warming scenario. Instead of focusing on a real environmental crises....say the only real one that could imperil humans, overpopulation....the global warming movement still pushes the CO2 ruse.
-Mistake number four is the idea that developed nations can "save the planet" while underdeveloped nations continue to pollute and abuse resources (China is the worst polluter in the world, by far. It is not concerned about global warming). If the leaders of the world think so little of the green "save the planet" movement that they ignore it, why should the world's citizens also take it seriously?
So I think the environmental movement has now dropped the ball on what was at first a noble idea- trying to promote a cleaner environment for we humans. It has now morphed into a lying, mean spirited, arrogant, holy war against anyone who dares to operate an automobile or use heating oil for his or her home. It's a shame that environmentalism did not focus on the real environmental problems that have and always will exist (and global warming is not one of them) and do so without threatening us with histrionic scenarios of world destruction.
While environmental activists ramp up the rhetoric to a war, ordinary individuals get on with their lives because they have a headache from constantly hearing the rhetoric. Let's face it, the environmental movement has, in a way, declared war on everyone. That's a war it can not win.
Driving High
The "legalize marijuana because it's a harmless substance"
advocates
should sober themselves and read a new study on pot and driving.
Columbia University researchers performing a toxicology examination of
nearly 24,000 driving fatalities concluded that marijuana contributed
to 12% of traffic deaths in 2010, tripled from a decade earlier. And
that's probably a low number in 2014, given five U .S. states have
legalized pot since 2010. Sanctioning pot by making it legal, which
seems the inevitable course in the U.S. will make more people drive
while high.
Drivers under the age of 25 are said to have more reckless driving habits. A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study conducted so far have found drugged driving to be particularly prevalent among younger motorists. One in eight high school seniors responding to a 2010 survey admitted to driving after smoking marijuana. Nearly a quarter of drivers killed in drug related car crashes were younger than 25. Likewise, nearly half of fatally injured drivers who tested positive for marijuana were younger than 25. Telling the under 25 year old driver that pot is harmless and that it can be used legally is not a smart move by any U.S. state. And it makes the non pot user a little less safe when operating his or her vehicle.
Since the state of Colorado legalized pot, for instance, the number of driving fatalities and accidents has increased dramatically. I find it odd that the government here, so adamant and strict about enforcing laws against alcohol related driving, would want to add another intoxicant to the list of legal substances in society. Sure, this study is old and may be flawed. For instance, were the pot drivers who caused the fatal accidents high on pot or just had lower than intoxicating levels in their system.
But in the end, I fell a little less safer on the road these days knowing that in many states the governments have given approval to smoking marijuana. Those same people drive automobiles and will feel less concerned about driving when high.
Drivers under the age of 25 are said to have more reckless driving habits. A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study conducted so far have found drugged driving to be particularly prevalent among younger motorists. One in eight high school seniors responding to a 2010 survey admitted to driving after smoking marijuana. Nearly a quarter of drivers killed in drug related car crashes were younger than 25. Likewise, nearly half of fatally injured drivers who tested positive for marijuana were younger than 25. Telling the under 25 year old driver that pot is harmless and that it can be used legally is not a smart move by any U.S. state. And it makes the non pot user a little less safe when operating his or her vehicle.
Since the state of Colorado legalized pot, for instance, the number of driving fatalities and accidents has increased dramatically. I find it odd that the government here, so adamant and strict about enforcing laws against alcohol related driving, would want to add another intoxicant to the list of legal substances in society. Sure, this study is old and may be flawed. For instance, were the pot drivers who caused the fatal accidents high on pot or just had lower than intoxicating levels in their system.
But in the end, I fell a little less safer on the road these days knowing that in many states the governments have given approval to smoking marijuana. Those same people drive automobiles and will feel less concerned about driving when high.
Top Goggle Searches
You can tell a lot about people from what they Google. And,
now
we can
see the top Google searches state by state to, uh, conjecture on the
state of the nation, so to speak. Every U.S. states top Google
searches for the year have been released and they tell quite a story
about what Americans are curious about. The results ranged from mildly
amusing to completely disturbing. No, I am not telling you my most
frequent searches! Besides, you probably already have me pegged in the
"disturbed" column.
I suppose knowing what people in each of the 50 states is searching will come in handy for anyone trying to decide which state they want to buy a home in, especially for those curious how their potential neighbors spend their time online. I am already suspicious of my Portland neighbors but the results of top Oregon searches (provided for by 'Estatly' after sorting through 'Google Trends'). The top three here were 'Allah", "sex" and "spork". I suspect the Muslims who Googles "Allah" weren't the same folks who Googles "Sex". We all know that many Muslims deny the existence of sex web pages. That "Spork" thing is the name of a restaurant in Bend, Oregon. I have no idea why so many people Googles that. Maybe the Muslims go there for a meal and sex.
Here are a few random top Google selections for some of the 50 states. This will probably warn you about them so you won't travel to any of them. Sad to say, every state has something strange that is a top three Google.
* Alaska- In Alaska they are fascinated about bestiality, because that was the third most Googled subject this year. Adult Friend Finder is the top choice, proving that if you want consistency, move to Alaska.
* California- Alcoholics Anonymous, Bros Before Hos, and Dandruff Cure are the tops. The world already is aware that California is the land of craziness, but this suggests that the male population may have a problem finding women to settle down with. 'Bros Before Hos is a belief that men should put their male buddies ahead of any woman they take an interest in. That sort of fits with the idea that men who can't get a date have alcohol and dandruff problems (the other top choices in California)
* Georgia- Athlete's Foot, Butt Implants, Cooking Crack were the top three. I think that some of the dope heads in George meant to Google "Butt Crack" instead of Cooking Crack. After ingesting crack one tends to far more often notice things like butt cracks.
* Maine- Cat Pics, How to roll a joint, and Growing Marijuana are tops. Cat owners in Maine must get stoned a lot.
* New Jersey- Bon Jovi, Britney Spears, and Cure for Baldness. You figure out that one. All I know is that I am staying far away from New Jersey.
* Pennsylvania- Back Shaving, Beer, and Competitive Eating. Quickly! Call 9-1-1. Pennsylvanians need help fast.
* Texas- Are dinosaurs real? and Are zombies real? were the two top Googles from Texans this year, proving also that Texas must be the state with the most stupid people.
* Washington- Circumcision , Dungeons & Dragons, Gluten I suspect all the gluten they eat in Washington is responsible for the late night group Dungeon and Dragon circumcision chat.
May all your Goggle searches be as odd as these.
I suppose knowing what people in each of the 50 states is searching will come in handy for anyone trying to decide which state they want to buy a home in, especially for those curious how their potential neighbors spend their time online. I am already suspicious of my Portland neighbors but the results of top Oregon searches (provided for by 'Estatly' after sorting through 'Google Trends'). The top three here were 'Allah", "sex" and "spork". I suspect the Muslims who Googles "Allah" weren't the same folks who Googles "Sex". We all know that many Muslims deny the existence of sex web pages. That "Spork" thing is the name of a restaurant in Bend, Oregon. I have no idea why so many people Googles that. Maybe the Muslims go there for a meal and sex.
Here are a few random top Google selections for some of the 50 states. This will probably warn you about them so you won't travel to any of them. Sad to say, every state has something strange that is a top three Google.
* Alaska- In Alaska they are fascinated about bestiality, because that was the third most Googled subject this year. Adult Friend Finder is the top choice, proving that if you want consistency, move to Alaska.
* California- Alcoholics Anonymous, Bros Before Hos, and Dandruff Cure are the tops. The world already is aware that California is the land of craziness, but this suggests that the male population may have a problem finding women to settle down with. 'Bros Before Hos is a belief that men should put their male buddies ahead of any woman they take an interest in. That sort of fits with the idea that men who can't get a date have alcohol and dandruff problems (the other top choices in California)
* Georgia- Athlete's Foot, Butt Implants, Cooking Crack were the top three. I think that some of the dope heads in George meant to Google "Butt Crack" instead of Cooking Crack. After ingesting crack one tends to far more often notice things like butt cracks.
* Maine- Cat Pics, How to roll a joint, and Growing Marijuana are tops. Cat owners in Maine must get stoned a lot.
* New Jersey- Bon Jovi, Britney Spears, and Cure for Baldness. You figure out that one. All I know is that I am staying far away from New Jersey.
* Pennsylvania- Back Shaving, Beer, and Competitive Eating. Quickly! Call 9-1-1. Pennsylvanians need help fast.
* Texas- Are dinosaurs real? and Are zombies real? were the two top Googles from Texans this year, proving also that Texas must be the state with the most stupid people.
* Washington- Circumcision , Dungeons & Dragons, Gluten I suspect all the gluten they eat in Washington is responsible for the late night group Dungeon and Dragon circumcision chat.
May all your Goggle searches be as odd as these.
More Millionaires In The World
The world seems to be getting both more jealous and resentful
toward
millionaires as the numbers of them increase each year. Face it. Being
a millionaire is not such a big deal anymore. It's too common now.
Perhaps today's millionaire is yesterday's upper middle class. The
billionaire class is now the class to which the non billionaires
aspire. And this phenomenon of the very year growing in number while
the very poor also grows in inverse is accounted for by the changing
economy, the technological explosion, by governments shifting to less
regulated capitalism (especially in former communist nations, newly
morphed into capitalist dictatorships). I think it a normal evolution
and not a bad thing, for having more millionaires does not imply that
their creation was at the expense of the non millionaire classes.
Wealth usually comes from production, not from the hands of the poor.
According to a report by the Boston Consulting Group's Global Wealth report the world added 2.6 million millionaire households last year, showing that the rich are getting richer and far more numerous. It defines millionaire household wealth as "invisible assets"—cash, deposits and securities. That doesn't include assets like real estate, business ownership, collectibles and luxury goods. The total number of millionaire households in the world rose 19% last year, to 16.3 million households. And no, China doesn't have the most millionaires. The United States added the most millionaire households and has the highest total, with a gain of 1.1 million households last year. That brings the total to 7.135 million, which is almost 45% of the world total. China's millionaire population grew to 2.4 million last year from 1.5 million in 2012. But Japan's millionaire population fell by 300,000 to 1.2 million last year, an indication of the decline an d fall of the Japanese economy the past few years.
Qatar, which is awash in oil, had the highest density of millionaire. I may move to Qatar because 175 out of every 1,000 households in Qatar are millionaires. Switzerland ranked second in millionaire density at 127 per 1,000 households, followed by Singapore with 100 for every 1,000 households. But both of those countries are so dull I would prefer to live and be poor elsewhere. The U.S. also had the most of something called the most centi-millionaires (those worth $100 million or more), with 4,754 households. But Hong Kong had the highest density of centi-millionaires, with 16.8 per 1,000 households.
We always hear how the world's population is becoming poorer, but the report says that global financial wealth in the world rose 14.6% last year, to $152 trillion—nearly double the rate of growth in 2012. Problem is, much of that growth is in the hands of the small class of wealthy, not with the common man and women. Yet, capitalism, which has spread to countries once a in combat with it, tends to distribute wealth unequally. The nature of capitalism is a survival of the fittest concept, leaving quite a few "losers" mired in poverty, Stocks were the biggest driver of global wealth last year, the report said, with the total wealth held increasing by 28%. As we know, the lower economic classes rarely can afford to or want to buy stocks.
With the rise in the millionaire class some politicians, as President Obama does, will try to exploit the increase by demonizing "the wealthy" in order to win votes in elections. In the U.S. President Obama won election twice and has divided the population between haves and have nots, largely by demonizing the wealthy, blaming them for the nation's problems, and promising to take away some of their wealth and redistribute it among "the poor". But most voters are sophisticated enough to see the phoniness of that philosophy, and will ultimately reject the rob from the rich to give to the poor theory. Thus, the prospect for even more millionaires in the future is good. If you become, you better beware, one we may be after your money soon..
According to a report by the Boston Consulting Group's Global Wealth report the world added 2.6 million millionaire households last year, showing that the rich are getting richer and far more numerous. It defines millionaire household wealth as "invisible assets"—cash, deposits and securities. That doesn't include assets like real estate, business ownership, collectibles and luxury goods. The total number of millionaire households in the world rose 19% last year, to 16.3 million households. And no, China doesn't have the most millionaires. The United States added the most millionaire households and has the highest total, with a gain of 1.1 million households last year. That brings the total to 7.135 million, which is almost 45% of the world total. China's millionaire population grew to 2.4 million last year from 1.5 million in 2012. But Japan's millionaire population fell by 300,000 to 1.2 million last year, an indication of the decline an d fall of the Japanese economy the past few years.
Qatar, which is awash in oil, had the highest density of millionaire. I may move to Qatar because 175 out of every 1,000 households in Qatar are millionaires. Switzerland ranked second in millionaire density at 127 per 1,000 households, followed by Singapore with 100 for every 1,000 households. But both of those countries are so dull I would prefer to live and be poor elsewhere. The U.S. also had the most of something called the most centi-millionaires (those worth $100 million or more), with 4,754 households. But Hong Kong had the highest density of centi-millionaires, with 16.8 per 1,000 households.
We always hear how the world's population is becoming poorer, but the report says that global financial wealth in the world rose 14.6% last year, to $152 trillion—nearly double the rate of growth in 2012. Problem is, much of that growth is in the hands of the small class of wealthy, not with the common man and women. Yet, capitalism, which has spread to countries once a in combat with it, tends to distribute wealth unequally. The nature of capitalism is a survival of the fittest concept, leaving quite a few "losers" mired in poverty, Stocks were the biggest driver of global wealth last year, the report said, with the total wealth held increasing by 28%. As we know, the lower economic classes rarely can afford to or want to buy stocks.
With the rise in the millionaire class some politicians, as President Obama does, will try to exploit the increase by demonizing "the wealthy" in order to win votes in elections. In the U.S. President Obama won election twice and has divided the population between haves and have nots, largely by demonizing the wealthy, blaming them for the nation's problems, and promising to take away some of their wealth and redistribute it among "the poor". But most voters are sophisticated enough to see the phoniness of that philosophy, and will ultimately reject the rob from the rich to give to the poor theory. Thus, the prospect for even more millionaires in the future is good. If you become, you better beware, one we may be after your money soon..
Another Case Of Our Lost Privacy And Reputation
It's Face book gone wild time again. A woman who was being
treated for
a sexually transmitted disease at the University of Cincinnati Medical
Center is suing the hospital, accusing an
employee of posting her medical records to Face book. According to the
lawsuit the woman's medical record showing her name and
her diagnosis of syphilis was posted to the Face book group "Team No
Hoes" (which is supposed to be a "closed group") in September 2013.
This is just another reminder of the danger of idiots with communication devices playing n Face book. It may not be a bad as the fools who post comments about crimes they commit so the police who monitor Face book can arrest them, but it shows even the non interesting like medical records, can be shown to anyone. After all ,who wants the world to know he or she has hemorrhoids or some sexual transmitted disease? It might put a dim light on one's social world and career path to post such things.
In this case a woman named Shawntelle Turley is suing Ryan Rawls, named as an employee of UC Medical Center, an unnamed employee at UC Medical and Raphael Bradley, her ex-boyfriend, along with the nurse at UC, after they posted Shawntelle's records online at the request of Bradley, who wanted Shawntelle's reputation ruined by the release. Of course the University is blameless for someone not representing it posting private records. Still, University of Cincinnati's Medical Center, since it has the most money and can pay the most "damages" is included in the lawsuit According to the suit, "as a result of the inaction (of the hospital) ... the plaintiff's medical records are still in the possession of the other (unknown) employee and the plaintiff is receiving phone calls harassing her and her child".
Shawntelle wants $25,000 in damages for invasion of privacy, emotional distress, malice and negligence, and she will most certainly be paid to shut up about it, given medical centers don't particularly like the negative publicity from such events. And what does this tell the rest of us? It says again that those ---- cell phones and social welfare sites are a minefield that can destroy anyone, anytime. Shanwtelle did nothing to bring about the abuse she received, so are you and I next. How do we escape this loss of privacy and public abuse? I think only death is the answer. It is a sad element of the modern communication devices so many are so enthralled with.
This is just another reminder of the danger of idiots with communication devices playing n Face book. It may not be a bad as the fools who post comments about crimes they commit so the police who monitor Face book can arrest them, but it shows even the non interesting like medical records, can be shown to anyone. After all ,who wants the world to know he or she has hemorrhoids or some sexual transmitted disease? It might put a dim light on one's social world and career path to post such things.
In this case a woman named Shawntelle Turley is suing Ryan Rawls, named as an employee of UC Medical Center, an unnamed employee at UC Medical and Raphael Bradley, her ex-boyfriend, along with the nurse at UC, after they posted Shawntelle's records online at the request of Bradley, who wanted Shawntelle's reputation ruined by the release. Of course the University is blameless for someone not representing it posting private records. Still, University of Cincinnati's Medical Center, since it has the most money and can pay the most "damages" is included in the lawsuit According to the suit, "as a result of the inaction (of the hospital) ... the plaintiff's medical records are still in the possession of the other (unknown) employee and the plaintiff is receiving phone calls harassing her and her child".
Shawntelle wants $25,000 in damages for invasion of privacy, emotional distress, malice and negligence, and she will most certainly be paid to shut up about it, given medical centers don't particularly like the negative publicity from such events. And what does this tell the rest of us? It says again that those ---- cell phones and social welfare sites are a minefield that can destroy anyone, anytime. Shanwtelle did nothing to bring about the abuse she received, so are you and I next. How do we escape this loss of privacy and public abuse? I think only death is the answer. It is a sad element of the modern communication devices so many are so enthralled with.
Posing The Dead
Get ready for the latest in trendy. You may die
laughing" when you hear
about it. Yes, die is the operative word. It's a the latest in death
notices and funerals out of New Orleans. In Victorian times this kind
of dead body posing was not so unusual, but today are we not a more
sophisticated lot? When deceased New Orleans socialite Mickey
Easterling' obituary notice showed a picture of her dead body propped
in a chair with a drink and a smoke in hands as much like one of those
figures one finds in a wax museum, some people in New Orleans and
elsewhere noticed. It is a bit self indulgent, if not bizarre. How
creepy would it be to go to her funeral and find her lifeless figure
posing as an alive one?
Reactions about reactions to a funeral home's practice of posing cadavers has been mixed. But them, the Egyptians went to even greater lengths to not acknowledge the end of life than that. Just look in any Egyptian tomb and you'll see even more bizarre funeral staging. As for this one, those who attended those stage funerals say it's either a wonderful remembrance of a loved one to pose their dead body in a lifelike pose on a stage, or that it is disrespectful to the deceased and his or her family. I think I'll pass on that trend. But this has me thinking about how various people should be posed after their death. For the average human in today's world, a cell phone should be included (at least one, but one in each hand would be a great statement of the love the deceased had for his or her "cell"). From there an individual bent could add to the pose.
New Orleanians are among the more creative people on the planet. Many years ago at the request of her will, my own aunt had a fifth of bourbon and a cartoon of cigarettes placed in her coffin. She said she wanted to make sure she had the essentials in the next life.
Here's some ideas for others who may want a more life-like funeral reception.
- Angelina Jolie might hold a foreign baby up for a photographer (also posing) because the free publicity is good for her image. Problem is, Jolie looks like she died of malnutrition years ago. I say we should also fatten her up for her funeral pose picture.
- Muslim terrorists might pose with their heads cut off. This would be almost natural look for the Islamic fundamentalist who wants to show his devotion to the cause.
- President Obama, who has some difficulty speaking truthfully, should pose with moving lips because we Americans know that whenever his lips move he lies.
- Global warmers should be packed in ice. They may not enjoy the irony, but I would love it.
- The Kardashian girls should be posed with a stupid, blank look on their faces....oh, wait....they look that way all the time in their alive state.
- I admit, I should be posed ranting about something. Why should death stop my rants?
- Vladimir Putin should pose with his shirt off. Oh, I forgot. This is too easy since he doesn't own any shirts.
- Rap music singers should be posed silently, out of respect for those who like music.
- Bill Gates should be posed with a broken computer. We will all feel better about a natural look for Bill.
- The French should all be posed pretentiously...naturally.
Reactions about reactions to a funeral home's practice of posing cadavers has been mixed. But them, the Egyptians went to even greater lengths to not acknowledge the end of life than that. Just look in any Egyptian tomb and you'll see even more bizarre funeral staging. As for this one, those who attended those stage funerals say it's either a wonderful remembrance of a loved one to pose their dead body in a lifelike pose on a stage, or that it is disrespectful to the deceased and his or her family. I think I'll pass on that trend. But this has me thinking about how various people should be posed after their death. For the average human in today's world, a cell phone should be included (at least one, but one in each hand would be a great statement of the love the deceased had for his or her "cell"). From there an individual bent could add to the pose.
New Orleanians are among the more creative people on the planet. Many years ago at the request of her will, my own aunt had a fifth of bourbon and a cartoon of cigarettes placed in her coffin. She said she wanted to make sure she had the essentials in the next life.
Here's some ideas for others who may want a more life-like funeral reception.
- Angelina Jolie might hold a foreign baby up for a photographer (also posing) because the free publicity is good for her image. Problem is, Jolie looks like she died of malnutrition years ago. I say we should also fatten her up for her funeral pose picture.
- Muslim terrorists might pose with their heads cut off. This would be almost natural look for the Islamic fundamentalist who wants to show his devotion to the cause.
- President Obama, who has some difficulty speaking truthfully, should pose with moving lips because we Americans know that whenever his lips move he lies.
- Global warmers should be packed in ice. They may not enjoy the irony, but I would love it.
- The Kardashian girls should be posed with a stupid, blank look on their faces....oh, wait....they look that way all the time in their alive state.
- I admit, I should be posed ranting about something. Why should death stop my rants?
- Vladimir Putin should pose with his shirt off. Oh, I forgot. This is too easy since he doesn't own any shirts.
- Rap music singers should be posed silently, out of respect for those who like music.
- Bill Gates should be posed with a broken computer. We will all feel better about a natural look for Bill.
- The French should all be posed pretentiously...naturally.
Stopping Bad Behavior On Airplanes
The airline industry has been feeling more
and more pains lately. That
would be from the "pain in the ass" passengers who threaten the safety,
comfort and welfare of those passengers that are civil and polite. The
numbers of reported in-flight incidents has surged in recent years, and
now the airlines want to stop it before it gets out of hand. I think
most people have personal stories of an ugly tempered, drugged or drunk
passenger who made life uncomfortable for the flight stewards and other
passengers and went on his or her merry way, unchallenged. Some
passengers think that buying a ticket gives them a personal paradise on
the plane, the freedom to act as if they were in their own living
rooms. I do hope the airlines put strict codes of behavior for the
riders that include leaving the idiots at the gate.
Having written that, I think the airline industry itself has brought on much of the bad on board behavior. Unreasonably low ticket prices in recent years made flying a "democratic" event in which just about anyone (even the crazies, the uneducated and uncouth) can afford to fly. They do, and often many of them are uneducated in flight procedure. Thus they now more often behave badly. The days of dressing in a suit and tie and making a sacrifice financially when buying a ticket for flying are over, and this has made airline flights hardly the proper event they used to be. Now, every slob can board and behave the same crass way he or she does on the streets back home.
Another reason the airlines have brought some of this unruly behavior on themselves is the ways in which they operate. Long waits at gates aggravate stressed passengers who have to search hours to find a flight that is available in this world of fewer and more crowded airplanes. While waiting for their take-off some head to the airport bar to drink too much alcohol before boarding. And those awful baggage checks and boarding procedures that seem to take forever aggravate even the most polite people. Putting passenger bodies in too small seats that are crammed so close that there is little aisle space in which to move about, not serving food on the flights, too many delays before and after boarding and a horde of other airline procedures make for more bad behavior on board.
In defense of the airline industry, society is more coarse now. People are ruder and feel entitled to do whatever they wish, even when on board an aircraft. The "me, me, me" world seeps on board airlines too, and that is not compatible with flying safety. Thus, the decline in manners in society as a whole is reflected in the increase in bad passenger behavior. So the International Air Transport Association (IATA) is calling for "a balanced package of measures" to battle the problem of passenger unrest on board.
Since 2010, there have been 20,000 unruly passenger incidents reported by airlines, according to IATA. But 8,000 thousand of those incidents (40% of all those reported since 2010) came just last year. The IATA's definition for unruly behavior includes not obeying crew members, verbal confrontations, passenger refusal to take a seat or follow safety measures and sexual harassment. But there are other things you and I see on board that I would say were bad behavior related, not reported in the IATA stats. Among the things IATA says it wants are:
•Airline crews should be trained to help prevent or manage disruptive behavior from fliers, whether they're at check-in, the gate or onboard an aircraft.
•More help from airport employees, especially those in bars and restaurants, to keep fliers from ordering excessive amounts of alcohol prior to a flight. Government agreements to better determine which law enforcement agencies have jurisdiction in removing unruly behaving passengers.
I like the idea of the airlines attempts to regain control of the flights, which are now often out of control. Banning passengers from flying on an airline after bad behavior is a tool that needs to be used more often, and publicized so that passengers will know that there is a new sheriff in the airline world. They must know that flying is a privilege, not a right. That would be a pleasant bit of news for all of us who act respectfully on board.
Having written that, I think the airline industry itself has brought on much of the bad on board behavior. Unreasonably low ticket prices in recent years made flying a "democratic" event in which just about anyone (even the crazies, the uneducated and uncouth) can afford to fly. They do, and often many of them are uneducated in flight procedure. Thus they now more often behave badly. The days of dressing in a suit and tie and making a sacrifice financially when buying a ticket for flying are over, and this has made airline flights hardly the proper event they used to be. Now, every slob can board and behave the same crass way he or she does on the streets back home.
Another reason the airlines have brought some of this unruly behavior on themselves is the ways in which they operate. Long waits at gates aggravate stressed passengers who have to search hours to find a flight that is available in this world of fewer and more crowded airplanes. While waiting for their take-off some head to the airport bar to drink too much alcohol before boarding. And those awful baggage checks and boarding procedures that seem to take forever aggravate even the most polite people. Putting passenger bodies in too small seats that are crammed so close that there is little aisle space in which to move about, not serving food on the flights, too many delays before and after boarding and a horde of other airline procedures make for more bad behavior on board.
In defense of the airline industry, society is more coarse now. People are ruder and feel entitled to do whatever they wish, even when on board an aircraft. The "me, me, me" world seeps on board airlines too, and that is not compatible with flying safety. Thus, the decline in manners in society as a whole is reflected in the increase in bad passenger behavior. So the International Air Transport Association (IATA) is calling for "a balanced package of measures" to battle the problem of passenger unrest on board.
Since 2010, there have been 20,000 unruly passenger incidents reported by airlines, according to IATA. But 8,000 thousand of those incidents (40% of all those reported since 2010) came just last year. The IATA's definition for unruly behavior includes not obeying crew members, verbal confrontations, passenger refusal to take a seat or follow safety measures and sexual harassment. But there are other things you and I see on board that I would say were bad behavior related, not reported in the IATA stats. Among the things IATA says it wants are:
•Airline crews should be trained to help prevent or manage disruptive behavior from fliers, whether they're at check-in, the gate or onboard an aircraft.
•More help from airport employees, especially those in bars and restaurants, to keep fliers from ordering excessive amounts of alcohol prior to a flight. Government agreements to better determine which law enforcement agencies have jurisdiction in removing unruly behaving passengers.
I like the idea of the airlines attempts to regain control of the flights, which are now often out of control. Banning passengers from flying on an airline after bad behavior is a tool that needs to be used more often, and publicized so that passengers will know that there is a new sheriff in the airline world. They must know that flying is a privilege, not a right. That would be a pleasant bit of news for all of us who act respectfully on board.
Ball Testing
Those Russians are going as crazy as their dictator leader,
Vladimir
Putin. It's not just Putin's invasion of Ukraine and extortion of other
weaker nations around them .Even the Russian courts there are becoming
weird. In Russia's criminal justice system, it seems now that size
matters. Uh, that would be the size of a person's genitals when he or
she is accused of a crime.
It seems that one of those Ukrainians that Russia looks down on and wants to subjugate, a 13 year old named Tomas, is the latest example of a dictatorship gone wild. This incident even makes it seem that North Korea's Lil Kim is the sane dictator in the nations crazy dictator contest. Tomas moved to Russia last week from Ukraine to Moscow to live with his aunt, and but is accused of stealing a cell phone His Ukrainian papers say he is 13, which means the would be tried in the much more lenient juvenile court system, but a skeptical court ordered a physical exam that included a look at his private parts. They examined his penis and balls to tell his age! Wow!
I can see the ramifications when a person is arrested. A ball and penis guy, probably with a leering smile, would be sent in the room to handle the p and a and pronounce an age. And I thought those women who read crystal balls could tell things that others couldn't. Anyway, absent any medical reason to examine sexual organs as a measure of age the Russian doctors concluded that Tomas had 16 or 17 year old balls. Uh, no explanation of how this was determined but the distinction matters because the courts can now try Tomas as an adult. And in the tradition of legal abuses in Russia a judge promptly threw Tomas in jail.
The boy's relatives are protesting, saying that he got into the country with Ukraine documents that prove he's not lying, and the case is reportedly under review by the regional prison service. They claim the Russians just want to ridicule a Ukrainian for propaganda purposes, since no Russian in good standing can trust a Ukrainian with over aged balls...or something. Tomas insists he's innocent of the theft, too, which, if true, would mean that he's in jail for a really, really bad reason..... over aged balls.
Sane people claim that this is just a case of Russia trying to flex its muscles and make an example of the boy amid its conflict with Ukraine. Or is Russia's legal system really this backward? I think it is the latter. Either way, things don't look great for Tomas or anyone else arrested in Russia. The ball tests indicates that things are getting more and more weird in the land of Vladimir Putin
It seems that one of those Ukrainians that Russia looks down on and wants to subjugate, a 13 year old named Tomas, is the latest example of a dictatorship gone wild. This incident even makes it seem that North Korea's Lil Kim is the sane dictator in the nations crazy dictator contest. Tomas moved to Russia last week from Ukraine to Moscow to live with his aunt, and but is accused of stealing a cell phone His Ukrainian papers say he is 13, which means the would be tried in the much more lenient juvenile court system, but a skeptical court ordered a physical exam that included a look at his private parts. They examined his penis and balls to tell his age! Wow!
I can see the ramifications when a person is arrested. A ball and penis guy, probably with a leering smile, would be sent in the room to handle the p and a and pronounce an age. And I thought those women who read crystal balls could tell things that others couldn't. Anyway, absent any medical reason to examine sexual organs as a measure of age the Russian doctors concluded that Tomas had 16 or 17 year old balls. Uh, no explanation of how this was determined but the distinction matters because the courts can now try Tomas as an adult. And in the tradition of legal abuses in Russia a judge promptly threw Tomas in jail.
The boy's relatives are protesting, saying that he got into the country with Ukraine documents that prove he's not lying, and the case is reportedly under review by the regional prison service. They claim the Russians just want to ridicule a Ukrainian for propaganda purposes, since no Russian in good standing can trust a Ukrainian with over aged balls...or something. Tomas insists he's innocent of the theft, too, which, if true, would mean that he's in jail for a really, really bad reason..... over aged balls.
Sane people claim that this is just a case of Russia trying to flex its muscles and make an example of the boy amid its conflict with Ukraine. Or is Russia's legal system really this backward? I think it is the latter. Either way, things don't look great for Tomas or anyone else arrested in Russia. The ball tests indicates that things are getting more and more weird in the land of Vladimir Putin
The Coming Internet Of Things
Do you love your cell phone and other electronic
gadgets? Well,
according to a new report released by the Pew Research Center Internet
Project and Elon University's Imagining the Internet Center by 2025 our
bodies (but not mine, I assure you), homes and workplaces will be
sensor filled and what little shred of privacy still remains will be
traded away for those "connections". Hmmm I wonder how reliable all
that mess will be as well. They still can't make a computer that
operates as easily as the old TV sets or radios of the distant past.
The 1,600 tech experts who worked on the Pew Study say the next digital revolution is the often invisible spread of the "Internet of Things". Those things will make keeping nearly every aspect of your life private a near impossibility. But alas! I say to all addicted cell phoners out there, the good aspect to this tech boom is that you will see improvements in health, transportation, shopping, industrial production and the environment. So are you willing to trade your right to privacy for that? I wouldn't.
Just think, for instance. You tell your health insurer that you have given up smoking, but take a puff and that is recorded and relayed to the insurer, who immediately raises your premium because you smoke. Or you go to the grocery store to buy coffee, and reach for your favorite brand...only to be notified on your idiotic phone that it's not an approved one.
Ultimately, this over connected future filled with Internet connected things looks like is a place where every question will have a ready answer. I wonder where thinking for oneself fits into that equation. Observe any electronic addict particularly a cell phone user who texts while driving his automobile at high speed on a busy highway and you can see they already have forfeited some of their thinking and reasoning processes.
I am glad that I am minimally connected and will continue to be. The conveniences of much of the high tech connections today just don't seem to be worth a surrender of my privacy or of the pleasure that I have in thinking for myself . I'd rather be occasionally wrong or slower in awareness of something than be an "Internet of Zombie" thing.
The 1,600 tech experts who worked on the Pew Study say the next digital revolution is the often invisible spread of the "Internet of Things". Those things will make keeping nearly every aspect of your life private a near impossibility. But alas! I say to all addicted cell phoners out there, the good aspect to this tech boom is that you will see improvements in health, transportation, shopping, industrial production and the environment. So are you willing to trade your right to privacy for that? I wouldn't.
Just think, for instance. You tell your health insurer that you have given up smoking, but take a puff and that is recorded and relayed to the insurer, who immediately raises your premium because you smoke. Or you go to the grocery store to buy coffee, and reach for your favorite brand...only to be notified on your idiotic phone that it's not an approved one.
Ultimately, this over connected future filled with Internet connected things looks like is a place where every question will have a ready answer. I wonder where thinking for oneself fits into that equation. Observe any electronic addict particularly a cell phone user who texts while driving his automobile at high speed on a busy highway and you can see they already have forfeited some of their thinking and reasoning processes.
I am glad that I am minimally connected and will continue to be. The conveniences of much of the high tech connections today just don't seem to be worth a surrender of my privacy or of the pleasure that I have in thinking for myself . I'd rather be occasionally wrong or slower in awareness of something than be an "Internet of Zombie" thing.
No Soccer For Me
Something called 'The World Cup' is getting a lot of
publicity these
days. It's ok by me because when I ignore it all I feel better about
myself and the world. Doing something constructive is ennobling. I'm
one of those people that sees no value in watching soccer. Yes, I know
it is the world's most played and watched sport. So what! There are
many popular things as unappealing. How about eating Brussels Sprouts,
painting a fence, undergoing a colostomy.....popular isn't necessarily
good. You may enjoy watching soccer, if so probably because it is what
you were exposed to in your youth, but I think it is boring.
Let me count the ways as to why soccer is useless. The shocking acts of violence (not by the players, but by those ignorant, toothless, drunken fans), the hundreds of abusive chants and nationalism gone wild at the stadium, the players running around in short pants endlessly chasing a ball that they have no idea what to do with, using the the word 'nil' to mean scoreless, those red cards sure seem a sissified ways of playing a game, they can't even play it in snow, do those drunk fans really even know or care who wins, soccer fans who think that soccer is the only sport, that
The AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA OOOOOOOOOOOOAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAOOOOOOOOOOOOO chant from the crowd, the fact that the players don't know they have hands and thus never use them, if a player ever scores a goal he runs away from his teammates screaming in exhibition of greatness holding his hands up to the sky for God to Hi-5, the players all seem to be brought to the game by mom's mini van, and it's BORING.
No wonder that guy Pelé retired and now sells erectile dysfunction pills. The game made him impotent. Most Americans don't like soccer and won't ever. Only the immigrants here seem to watch that mess. Take away the multi millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico and soccer would go away here. Hmmmm That may be reason enough to deport them all.
Yes, it's true that American moms like soccer. But they prefer it only as the sport their kids play only because soccer is essentially non contact nature. Little Johnny is likely to not get hurt badly playing soccer. If soccer ever became big here it would merely reflect the decline of the United States, because we know that soccer is for sissies. Soccer is so bland that if soccer was an American soft drink, I think it would be Diet Pepsi.
Let me count the ways as to why soccer is useless. The shocking acts of violence (not by the players, but by those ignorant, toothless, drunken fans), the hundreds of abusive chants and nationalism gone wild at the stadium, the players running around in short pants endlessly chasing a ball that they have no idea what to do with, using the the word 'nil' to mean scoreless, those red cards sure seem a sissified ways of playing a game, they can't even play it in snow, do those drunk fans really even know or care who wins, soccer fans who think that soccer is the only sport, that
The AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA OOOOOOOOOOOOAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAOOOOOOOOOOOOO chant from the crowd, the fact that the players don't know they have hands and thus never use them, if a player ever scores a goal he runs away from his teammates screaming in exhibition of greatness holding his hands up to the sky for God to Hi-5, the players all seem to be brought to the game by mom's mini van, and it's BORING.
No wonder that guy Pelé retired and now sells erectile dysfunction pills. The game made him impotent. Most Americans don't like soccer and won't ever. Only the immigrants here seem to watch that mess. Take away the multi millions of illegal immigrants from Mexico and soccer would go away here. Hmmmm That may be reason enough to deport them all.
Yes, it's true that American moms like soccer. But they prefer it only as the sport their kids play only because soccer is essentially non contact nature. Little Johnny is likely to not get hurt badly playing soccer. If soccer ever became big here it would merely reflect the decline of the United States, because we know that soccer is for sissies. Soccer is so bland that if soccer was an American soft drink, I think it would be Diet Pepsi.
Graduation Ceremonies
Do you remember your graduation ceremony? Either high
school or college
will do, since they are all so similar. I was thinking the other day
about how graduation ceremonies are different from when the day when I
graduated so long ago. In general, I think the whole concept of the
graduation ceremony is much better today. The grads have choices, even
the choice in many schools of whether they want to participate "on
stage" or just have the school mail their diploma to them. In my day
they threatened to hold your diploma if you didn't attend you
graduation. My school used that erasable ink on my diploma after seeing
my grades and debating whether they school wanted to be embarrassed by
giving a moron like me a diploma. So I shut up and attended without
complaint.
I went to my daughter's graduation ceremony a couple of years ago and actually enjoyed the show. I did write "show" because it wasn't the stodgy sit down, boring speech ceremony that we all squirmed through when attending. There was a lot of music of all styles, not the stale graduation march music they have been playing for decades. Her graduation had several student performances which displayed student grad talent. One of which was a Vietnamese rap group. Yep! I wrote 'Vietnamese rap'. I don't know about you but I never associated Vietnamese culture with rap music. It was four Vietnamese grads who performed a very amusing rap song. I wonder what they will do at that school's graduation next time. Maybe some of the black grads will do a ballet performance.....anything is possible these days.
Today's high school and college graduations ceremonies are more informal than in the past. Those Valedictorian speeches we all hate are shorter and more relevant than in past decades. They still wear those funny caps and gowns in a tribute to tradition, but the grads dress underneath the gowns is very informal. Some wear pajamas or T shirts with obscene slogans, personal messages or wear protest garb etc. And some grads let those underneath statements outfits show a bit by loosening their gowns. No one seems to object too much because everyone is glad the grads finally are finished with school. But in my day, the school searched each student's clothes to make sure he or she wore "appropriate clothing".
The parents and others in the audience are also much more informal (rude sometimes) today. Some make noise and play with their cell phones, just like they do in every other situation of their lives. Rudeness today is consistent. Quite a few parents and guests also show up late. It used to be the school would lock the doors to the ceremony when the graduation ceremony began and make the late comers wait until the diplomas were to be given out before letting them enter and sit. But parents are too aware of "their rights" now for the school to try to duplicate that sensible strategy. Many parents get out of their seats when their child parades to the stage for his or her diploma, so they can take a picture and block the view as well as annoy every other parent trying to see the ceremony. It's an affirmation of the "me, me, me world" in which the individual doesn't give a damn about anyone else when in pursuit of his or her own desires. But then, this is the age of rudeness/the cell age. We should expect that.
I think most people have more fun at graduation day/night ceremonies today. The informal nature of them now reflects the informal society in which we live. It's probably a good thing that it is that way now. Graduation ceremonies are sure a lot more fun than they were in the past.
I went to my daughter's graduation ceremony a couple of years ago and actually enjoyed the show. I did write "show" because it wasn't the stodgy sit down, boring speech ceremony that we all squirmed through when attending. There was a lot of music of all styles, not the stale graduation march music they have been playing for decades. Her graduation had several student performances which displayed student grad talent. One of which was a Vietnamese rap group. Yep! I wrote 'Vietnamese rap'. I don't know about you but I never associated Vietnamese culture with rap music. It was four Vietnamese grads who performed a very amusing rap song. I wonder what they will do at that school's graduation next time. Maybe some of the black grads will do a ballet performance.....anything is possible these days.
Today's high school and college graduations ceremonies are more informal than in the past. Those Valedictorian speeches we all hate are shorter and more relevant than in past decades. They still wear those funny caps and gowns in a tribute to tradition, but the grads dress underneath the gowns is very informal. Some wear pajamas or T shirts with obscene slogans, personal messages or wear protest garb etc. And some grads let those underneath statements outfits show a bit by loosening their gowns. No one seems to object too much because everyone is glad the grads finally are finished with school. But in my day, the school searched each student's clothes to make sure he or she wore "appropriate clothing".
The parents and others in the audience are also much more informal (rude sometimes) today. Some make noise and play with their cell phones, just like they do in every other situation of their lives. Rudeness today is consistent. Quite a few parents and guests also show up late. It used to be the school would lock the doors to the ceremony when the graduation ceremony began and make the late comers wait until the diplomas were to be given out before letting them enter and sit. But parents are too aware of "their rights" now for the school to try to duplicate that sensible strategy. Many parents get out of their seats when their child parades to the stage for his or her diploma, so they can take a picture and block the view as well as annoy every other parent trying to see the ceremony. It's an affirmation of the "me, me, me world" in which the individual doesn't give a damn about anyone else when in pursuit of his or her own desires. But then, this is the age of rudeness/the cell age. We should expect that.
I think most people have more fun at graduation day/night ceremonies today. The informal nature of them now reflects the informal society in which we live. It's probably a good thing that it is that way now. Graduation ceremonies are sure a lot more fun than they were in the past.
New Kind Of Illegal Entrance Into The United States
The United States is one of the few nations
world-wide to not have a
serious immigration program. That's why millions of people walk into
the U.S. or overstay their visas to enter every year. We have become
the dumping ground for some of the poorest and worst educated people
who move from one country to another. The result is upwards of 50
million unskilled people who illegally enter the U.S stay here
permanently, and often live off government welfare programs rather than
working and paying taxes in the communities where they settle.
The United States Constitution gives the federal government the sole authority to create immigration laws and to enforce them. For about 50 years it has done little to control the illegal immigration, as politicians see that pandering to the large Hispanic voting constituency here is more beneficial to their re election than about caring about the safety and welfare of the American public. And now that President Obama has allowed children illegally brought here to stay in the U.S and to gain legal status (The Dream Act), and because Congress is promising to soon pass legislation that would legalize the status of the 15 million or so illegal immigrants already here, a new illegal invasion has been created.
This time it is a massive border crossing into the United States by children. According to Customs and Border Protection, in the past eight months, agents have apprehended about 47,000 unaccompanied minors who crossed the border into the U.S. illegally from Mexico. It estimates that apprehensions of minors this year may reach 90,000. Almost three fourths of the children apprehended are from Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador. Gang violence in El Salvador and in urban areas of Guatemala has escalated dramatically in recent months since a weak truce among rival gangs has broken down.
So in addition to coming here because of a belief that President Obama will let them stay and will legalize their status, a lot of the invasion is fear for the kids lives. Parents send their kids across as a form of safety net, with plans to follow themselves later. The U.S. government's approach to the kid crossings is to process each minor within 72 hours, either to be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation proceedings or to the Health and Human Services Department to be reunited with family members or placed in foster homes pending deportation proceedings. Most are given asylum and allowed to stay with relatives or parents already in the U.S. The Obama administration is giving the kids bus tickets to wherever they intended to go, and telling them that they can have "asylum". It is a disgrace t the people who legally live in this country.
The countries from which the kids come have no interest in stopping their flight, for they see it as a deportation of potential problems. And since the U.S. government has virtually no interest in stopping illegal immigration, more and more children will pour in to this country. It is sad for everyone. Until illegal immigration stops being profitable, it will continue here in massive, unsustainable numbers.
The problem is, the chance that we enforce immigration laws here has become unlikely. This kind of insane inflow of illegals has many beneficiaries aside from the illegal immigrants themselves - lawmakers slobbering for the votes of those who support this travesty, businesses who can cut costs by hiring cheap unskilled labor the illegals can do, pro illegal organizations who promote the invasion, greedy Americans who hire illegals rather than legal residents because it is cheaper to do so, churches who are hoping to fill the pews, welfare and assistance programs for illegals that invite their crossing, the lack of will by the federal government to stop illegal crossings, etc.
I think the U.S. that was once a strong and respected nation is long gone. How we deal with illegal immigration only reflects the decline and fall of this country. Any nation that opens its borders to anyone who wants to enter will get a lot of people who are harmful to it.
The United States Constitution gives the federal government the sole authority to create immigration laws and to enforce them. For about 50 years it has done little to control the illegal immigration, as politicians see that pandering to the large Hispanic voting constituency here is more beneficial to their re election than about caring about the safety and welfare of the American public. And now that President Obama has allowed children illegally brought here to stay in the U.S and to gain legal status (The Dream Act), and because Congress is promising to soon pass legislation that would legalize the status of the 15 million or so illegal immigrants already here, a new illegal invasion has been created.
This time it is a massive border crossing into the United States by children. According to Customs and Border Protection, in the past eight months, agents have apprehended about 47,000 unaccompanied minors who crossed the border into the U.S. illegally from Mexico. It estimates that apprehensions of minors this year may reach 90,000. Almost three fourths of the children apprehended are from Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador. Gang violence in El Salvador and in urban areas of Guatemala has escalated dramatically in recent months since a weak truce among rival gangs has broken down.
So in addition to coming here because of a belief that President Obama will let them stay and will legalize their status, a lot of the invasion is fear for the kids lives. Parents send their kids across as a form of safety net, with plans to follow themselves later. The U.S. government's approach to the kid crossings is to process each minor within 72 hours, either to be turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation proceedings or to the Health and Human Services Department to be reunited with family members or placed in foster homes pending deportation proceedings. Most are given asylum and allowed to stay with relatives or parents already in the U.S. The Obama administration is giving the kids bus tickets to wherever they intended to go, and telling them that they can have "asylum". It is a disgrace t the people who legally live in this country.
The countries from which the kids come have no interest in stopping their flight, for they see it as a deportation of potential problems. And since the U.S. government has virtually no interest in stopping illegal immigration, more and more children will pour in to this country. It is sad for everyone. Until illegal immigration stops being profitable, it will continue here in massive, unsustainable numbers.
The problem is, the chance that we enforce immigration laws here has become unlikely. This kind of insane inflow of illegals has many beneficiaries aside from the illegal immigrants themselves - lawmakers slobbering for the votes of those who support this travesty, businesses who can cut costs by hiring cheap unskilled labor the illegals can do, pro illegal organizations who promote the invasion, greedy Americans who hire illegals rather than legal residents because it is cheaper to do so, churches who are hoping to fill the pews, welfare and assistance programs for illegals that invite their crossing, the lack of will by the federal government to stop illegal crossings, etc.
I think the U.S. that was once a strong and respected nation is long gone. How we deal with illegal immigration only reflects the decline and fall of this country. Any nation that opens its borders to anyone who wants to enter will get a lot of people who are harmful to it.
The End Of Civility
I knew long ago that the age of civility is dead.
It's been a gradual
death, with society become manner less as its technology takes over the
role of the brain for most of us. It's a shame that people no lng
exhibit manners as a desired form of behavior. They not only act like
jerks, they seem clue less that they are doing it. Maybe the isolation
that technology puts us in has made us forget that there are other
human beings on the planet, and that we should behave with their
presence noticed.
What is acceptable behavior now was often abhorrent 50 years ago. Our society is so permissive it doesn't mind when someone picks his nose in public or passes gas loudly in church. "Oh well", we say, "the guys with the nose and gas problem are just doing their thing". So we give them a pass and protest not. Each rude, offensive, impolite behavior we allow to go unchallenged makes it that much easy for the next one to be unchallenged, with that incivility even to be seen by some as "normal" behavior. Sometimes I'll give a disapproving look (anything more risks being shot theses days!) but lately those looks don't seem to be recognized by the offender.
If you think I am imaging the rudeness all about us, here are a few of the uncivil behaviors I observed in public the past few days: People trying to get on an elevator before the passengers get off, a woman wearing pajama pants in public, auto drivers cutting off other drivers to push their way in front, vulgar language spoken so regularly that the offenders use it as standard speech, when walking and bumping to others not acknowledging the bumps, loud chatter on cell phones in public places, music blaring from automobiles, when told of a wrong number phone calling being hung up on by the offender with no apology for the incorrect call, people with 30 items camped in the super market 10 item or less checkout line, public displays of idiotic adults screaming at children and threatening their well being, name calling in public, throwing trash in the street or one someone else's private property, loud talk in public places, and on and on. That's just some of what I witness the past two days.
It does matter whether a society's members behave with respect toward each other, because we need to coexist in a civil manner or our existence is lessened. But truth be told, too many of us today are ignorant of the most basic rules of courtesy. I suppose mom and dad are so uncivil themselves they don't pass down the rules anymore. Too, popular culture is vulgar and it reinforces the idea that the world is your own personal space with which you can do whatever you wish. No wonder few act civilly anymore.
Sigh...it's enough to make me want to pass gas here right now.................
What is acceptable behavior now was often abhorrent 50 years ago. Our society is so permissive it doesn't mind when someone picks his nose in public or passes gas loudly in church. "Oh well", we say, "the guys with the nose and gas problem are just doing their thing". So we give them a pass and protest not. Each rude, offensive, impolite behavior we allow to go unchallenged makes it that much easy for the next one to be unchallenged, with that incivility even to be seen by some as "normal" behavior. Sometimes I'll give a disapproving look (anything more risks being shot theses days!) but lately those looks don't seem to be recognized by the offender.
If you think I am imaging the rudeness all about us, here are a few of the uncivil behaviors I observed in public the past few days: People trying to get on an elevator before the passengers get off, a woman wearing pajama pants in public, auto drivers cutting off other drivers to push their way in front, vulgar language spoken so regularly that the offenders use it as standard speech, when walking and bumping to others not acknowledging the bumps, loud chatter on cell phones in public places, music blaring from automobiles, when told of a wrong number phone calling being hung up on by the offender with no apology for the incorrect call, people with 30 items camped in the super market 10 item or less checkout line, public displays of idiotic adults screaming at children and threatening their well being, name calling in public, throwing trash in the street or one someone else's private property, loud talk in public places, and on and on. That's just some of what I witness the past two days.
It does matter whether a society's members behave with respect toward each other, because we need to coexist in a civil manner or our existence is lessened. But truth be told, too many of us today are ignorant of the most basic rules of courtesy. I suppose mom and dad are so uncivil themselves they don't pass down the rules anymore. Too, popular culture is vulgar and it reinforces the idea that the world is your own personal space with which you can do whatever you wish. No wonder few act civilly anymore.
Sigh...it's enough to make me want to pass gas here right now.................
Tiananmen Square Anniversary
It's
anniversary time. The Tiananmen Square protests and slaughter of
thousands of unarmed protesters by government military and police in
China happened 25 years ago, but you would never known it if you lived
in China. It's still a thoroughly banned topic there. June 5th was the
anniversary and one need to only look at the huge number
of armed police and other security personnel, June and every other
month, on all roads leading to the square in central Beijing to see
that the dictators in China are worried that the economy freedom there
might spill over into the personal freedom realm.
When I first visited China and Tiananmen Square in 2002 I was struck by how many police were on the square, about how few citizens of China dared walk on it and, further, about how even mention of the massacre of the Chinese protesters by the Chinese police was frowned on. When I myself mentioned the incident to a Chinese tour guide he turned red and raced from the subject almost instantly. It's a typical reaction among China's residents, who are apathetic about talking "politics". It seems that the dictatorship has successfully intimidated the masses from even discussion of democratic possibilities and convinced them that freedom of speech is a completely foreign concept.
Starting a couple of months before the June anniversary of the 1989 slaughter, hundreds of those brave enough to criticize the government and relatives of people killed in 1989 were detained and harassed in a security crackdown that activists consider the most extensive since the massacre a quarter of a century ago. It worked because this 25th anniversary came and went with little public show. Dictators have long memories and they know that what keeps them in power is to control information and beat down anyone who dissents. Government censors, and web site editors who know that they must self censor or wind up in custody for "threatening the state security", keep the internet clear of all references to the Tiananmen movement for more democracy in China.
I find that even when I bring up the subject in private E mails with my Chinese E friends I get from them a quick shift of the subject. It verifies that in China the economic progress in China that the dictators have brought through the implementation of a free market is enough to keep the locals from complaining about the lack of personal freedoms lacking there. Apparently, in China, economic prosperity is a higher value than personal freedom.
China blocks many overseas web sites, especially those with the capacity to spread information quickly or that would enable citizens to organize. They include Face book, Twitter and You Tube and newspapers like the Wall St. Journal. Most residents accept the blocking as a fact of life when living in China. But they see the government's lies and control with acceptance, not dissent. But even a dictatorship has some dissenters, and China's are a very small and beleaguered group that is largely ignored by the average Chinese resident. Detentions, disappearances and intimidation have mostly silenced them. They include human rights lawyers, dissidents and mothers of students killed by army bullets and the local, often foreign university educated, intelligentsia.
The Chinese media are forbidden from mentioning the 1989 democracy movement. Too, the Chinese police also often tell foreign journalists from TV stations and news agencies to warn them not to report from the square at the risk they would lose their Chinese work visas. That kind of intimidation of foreigners in China is a violation of the Chinese government's repeated claims to guarantee freedom to foreign journalists to conduct reporting work in China. But then, dictators promise and say much they know isn't true because no one holds them to any standard of accountability.
So as to that anniversary I must say that I am thankful that I am lucky enough to not a citizen of China.
When I first visited China and Tiananmen Square in 2002 I was struck by how many police were on the square, about how few citizens of China dared walk on it and, further, about how even mention of the massacre of the Chinese protesters by the Chinese police was frowned on. When I myself mentioned the incident to a Chinese tour guide he turned red and raced from the subject almost instantly. It's a typical reaction among China's residents, who are apathetic about talking "politics". It seems that the dictatorship has successfully intimidated the masses from even discussion of democratic possibilities and convinced them that freedom of speech is a completely foreign concept.
Starting a couple of months before the June anniversary of the 1989 slaughter, hundreds of those brave enough to criticize the government and relatives of people killed in 1989 were detained and harassed in a security crackdown that activists consider the most extensive since the massacre a quarter of a century ago. It worked because this 25th anniversary came and went with little public show. Dictators have long memories and they know that what keeps them in power is to control information and beat down anyone who dissents. Government censors, and web site editors who know that they must self censor or wind up in custody for "threatening the state security", keep the internet clear of all references to the Tiananmen movement for more democracy in China.
I find that even when I bring up the subject in private E mails with my Chinese E friends I get from them a quick shift of the subject. It verifies that in China the economic progress in China that the dictators have brought through the implementation of a free market is enough to keep the locals from complaining about the lack of personal freedoms lacking there. Apparently, in China, economic prosperity is a higher value than personal freedom.
China blocks many overseas web sites, especially those with the capacity to spread information quickly or that would enable citizens to organize. They include Face book, Twitter and You Tube and newspapers like the Wall St. Journal. Most residents accept the blocking as a fact of life when living in China. But they see the government's lies and control with acceptance, not dissent. But even a dictatorship has some dissenters, and China's are a very small and beleaguered group that is largely ignored by the average Chinese resident. Detentions, disappearances and intimidation have mostly silenced them. They include human rights lawyers, dissidents and mothers of students killed by army bullets and the local, often foreign university educated, intelligentsia.
The Chinese media are forbidden from mentioning the 1989 democracy movement. Too, the Chinese police also often tell foreign journalists from TV stations and news agencies to warn them not to report from the square at the risk they would lose their Chinese work visas. That kind of intimidation of foreigners in China is a violation of the Chinese government's repeated claims to guarantee freedom to foreign journalists to conduct reporting work in China. But then, dictators promise and say much they know isn't true because no one holds them to any standard of accountability.
So as to that anniversary I must say that I am thankful that I am lucky enough to not a citizen of China.
Italy's Creative Accounting
Europe has been in economic decline for many years,
but the past 25
years or so of social welfare policy has been an almost fatal blow.
None of the European countries may not be third world economically,
but some are moving in that direction. As their GDP's fall some of them
use creative accounting to improve their scores. Take Italy, for
example. Italy is changing how it calculates its Gross Domestic
Product, a measurement of the overall economy, to include black market
activity. That would mean everything from prostitution to illegal drug
sales, to the mafia businesses to smuggling and arms trafficking. Wow!
Things must be in a free fall in that economy. By including the black
market economy, for which there are no real ways to measure and
accurately determine value, the Italian government will be able to make
its GDP number look much bigger. The other members of the European
Union will not like this and foreign investors in Italy will learn to
discount Italy's statistics, since they won't be regarded as "real." I
just hope President Obama doesn't get the same idea about fudging
economic stats. He needs a cover for the awful way his administration
has guided the U.S. economy.
So the reason Italy is becoming creative with its accounting is because it wants and the European Union to look better on paper. And , in theory, when Italy shows a better economic profile it will be able to borrow more money more easily and cheaply. A country like Spain , which is said to have almost 20% of it's economy underground, could benefit even more. As for the new Italian economic method, they might as well compute it that way. Most of the Italian economy has been operating that way for generations. Not paying taxes has been the Italian national sport for years
This brings to mind what other measures countries could use to say "we are doing well" economically, when the reality is the opposite. Since the job of a politician and a government seems to be as much to lie as to tell the truth, it could get interesting out there in the economic world. The unfortunate reality is that politicians everywhere do not think in terms of reality but in terms of strategies for being elected.. A large proportion of the voting public does not have the basic economic knowledge to understand the full ramifications of government actions. This coupled with the fact that the true cost of government excess is not seen until later years means that the government can fork out billions to areas where they can get votes despite the bad economic consequences.
Oh well, the world was drugged years ago with the invention of the cell phone and the other electronic gadgets to which it is so addicted. I guess in the end it really matters little whether a government calls a pig a pig or instead calls it Miss Universe.
So the reason Italy is becoming creative with its accounting is because it wants and the European Union to look better on paper. And , in theory, when Italy shows a better economic profile it will be able to borrow more money more easily and cheaply. A country like Spain , which is said to have almost 20% of it's economy underground, could benefit even more. As for the new Italian economic method, they might as well compute it that way. Most of the Italian economy has been operating that way for generations. Not paying taxes has been the Italian national sport for years
This brings to mind what other measures countries could use to say "we are doing well" economically, when the reality is the opposite. Since the job of a politician and a government seems to be as much to lie as to tell the truth, it could get interesting out there in the economic world. The unfortunate reality is that politicians everywhere do not think in terms of reality but in terms of strategies for being elected.. A large proportion of the voting public does not have the basic economic knowledge to understand the full ramifications of government actions. This coupled with the fact that the true cost of government excess is not seen until later years means that the government can fork out billions to areas where they can get votes despite the bad economic consequences.
Oh well, the world was drugged years ago with the invention of the cell phone and the other electronic gadgets to which it is so addicted. I guess in the end it really matters little whether a government calls a pig a pig or instead calls it Miss Universe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)