Halloween these days brings out more zombie
wannabe's, for this is the
age of fascination with zombies. Now zombies are all the rage. There
are more zombie themed movies and books than religious ones. Perhaps
the zombies have area chanting "God is dead'. Anyway, I think you'll
see more zombie costumes at Halloween than the traditional ghost or
pumpkin outfits. Sigh....those zombies are even killing off the sexy
French Maid costumes that I like.
Interest in this kind of zombie appeal may partly reflect a need to
escape real fears by imagining a worse one. Since the world lives in
uncertain times, facing economic, environmental, political and
spiritual problems that seem insurmountable replacing the real worries
with zombies is an alternative. The zombie narrative shows us concrete
fears that we can face vicariously through the survivors trying to
fight off the zombies. There's an appeal in that. It's not fun to fight
real enemies because we have no control over what they may do.
I think people want to be a zombie for the day because they are more
fascinated with the end of the world now than in the past. We do live
in a spiritual and emotion doom, detached from reality by our
electronic devices that created a shallow and distorted orientation of
what is real. Our collective visions of the future have changed
drastically, so we escape the world by becoming zombie and other
apocalyptic characters. Those Halloween costumed zombies may no longer
necessarily imagine the type of positive future that was more prevalent
in centuries past.
Zombies are the most vivid manifestation of a painful end of the
world. There is now a cultural fixation on fictionalizing our own
death, very specifically the mass scale destruction that zombies
represent. We use the zombie fiction not only to emotionally cope with
the possibility of the evil and doom we feel awaiting us, but even more
to personally escape reality. Yes, I know zombie affection is also just
adult play. But as Freud would say, we are what we are obsessed with.
The old institutions and ways now failing us were once stable and
reassuring but are now mostly gone. So zombies and other escapism's
(need I cite cell phones as one).
The increase in zombie appeal Zombies are important as a reflection of
ourselves. Even a simple Halloween costume reflects us, sends a message
about what we think about.
But even, in contrast to the zombie script, if as a society we have
lost a lot of our belief in a good future and instead have more of an
idea of a disaster to come, we still think that we are survivors. We
still want to survive in some form.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Bad Taste In Halloween Costumes
It's strange at Halloween time. People feel a little less
inhibited by
the concept of the holiday, which is good. But some take it a little
too far. Take the Halloween costume, for example. There are some odd
selections being made for Halloween costumes. Maybe the worst this year
is the Ebola genre. There is the hot and sexy Ebola nurse outfit, the
Ebola family costumes, the runaway Ebola patient costume, the anti
Ebola clothing suit, and there is even an Ebola T shirt for Halloween.
It's a black shirt with the lettering "Ask Me About Ebola!" across the
chest.
Bad taste knows no ends in this age, but what is even more interesting is that most of us are not offended by those kinds of costumes. I remember the Boston Marathon Bomb Victim costume last year. It was well received and worn by many. The National Retail Board estimates that this Halloween Americans will spend $2.8 billion on Halloween outfits, with $1.4 billion of that amount on adult costumes to outfit approximately 75 million grown-ups. That equates to two thirds of American adults buying costumes for themselves. So the bad taste is coming from the adults who are supposed to teach their little brats the opposite.
Bu the, it is a mostly harmless affliction, and Halloween is for fun and sometimes for a little bad taste that comes with imagination and fun. And isn't shock what Halloween is about? Since society is far more lax now than in former generations as to what is appropriate and what is not maybe offensive is the new Halloween norm. Whether it's a costume about political commentary, a sexual costume, or some other offensive social commentary, a Halloween costume is meant to arouse fear, laughter, or some other emotion.. Costumes are sometimes offensive. That might be the whole point of those that tread the offensive label.
Happy Halloween....and watch out for that Ebola monster.
Bad taste knows no ends in this age, but what is even more interesting is that most of us are not offended by those kinds of costumes. I remember the Boston Marathon Bomb Victim costume last year. It was well received and worn by many. The National Retail Board estimates that this Halloween Americans will spend $2.8 billion on Halloween outfits, with $1.4 billion of that amount on adult costumes to outfit approximately 75 million grown-ups. That equates to two thirds of American adults buying costumes for themselves. So the bad taste is coming from the adults who are supposed to teach their little brats the opposite.
Bu the, it is a mostly harmless affliction, and Halloween is for fun and sometimes for a little bad taste that comes with imagination and fun. And isn't shock what Halloween is about? Since society is far more lax now than in former generations as to what is appropriate and what is not maybe offensive is the new Halloween norm. Whether it's a costume about political commentary, a sexual costume, or some other offensive social commentary, a Halloween costume is meant to arouse fear, laughter, or some other emotion.. Costumes are sometimes offensive. That might be the whole point of those that tread the offensive label.
Happy Halloween....and watch out for that Ebola monster.
The Right Apple To Eat
It's apple picking season here in Oregon. The states of
Washington and
Oregon produce more apples and more varieties of apples than any other
in the U.S. So I go wild this time of the year buying and using endless
varieties of apples. Most places have the standard eight or so
varieties for sale. But we have old ("heritage") kinds that are the
passion of the Hood River apple growers, about 40 minutes from my
home. Not only do they grow the kinds of apples found 100's of years
ago, they also experiment with new varieties.
It seems that the modern apples is one which has been bred to have along shelf life and to be durable in grocery stores. They taste ok, but the "heritage" or heirloom" and newer kinds of apples do have a wide range of flavors, as to tart, sweet, and somewhere in the middle. When I go to a farmer's market I seem to always find a new kind of apple. I buy one, taste it and promptly forget the name the next time I want to eat one. But that's nice. In this age of homogenized foods it is pleasant to have so many varieties that one forgets which of them he or she wants. That may not be exciting, but it does make me more interested in apples, and that's a good thing.
When eating or cooking with apples the type used or eaten really does matter. We have one here that was locally invented called the Graven stein. The first time I tasted it I hated it, given it is very tart. I like my eating apples to be sweet. However, I have tasted the Graven stien in cooked apple desserts and find it very appealing when mixed with the right amount of sugar and spices.
When cooking you have to use the most appropriate apple to make the recipe work. One that is too sweet or tart, has too much juice inside or is too mealy can make the apple dish taste much less appealing or can ruin the consistency of the dish. For example, my favorite apple dessert to make an eat is an apple crostata. Gala or Pink Lady apples make it work very well, but if I use a more watery or tart apple it hardly resembles the dish I want.
Uh, I have motivated myself for apples, so I shall leave you now and head to my favorite apple seller and buy the apples I need to make fresh applesauce. It's easy to do, and makes the dish taste far better than the jared apples sauces we like from our grocery stores. this one is amore adult version. If you're interested in trying to make applesauce yourself, the recipe is use is below.
Uncover the pan and mash the apples lightly with a wooden spoon or a silicone spatula. Cook uncovered for 5 minutes to evaporate some of the excess moisture. The applesauce should be thick. Remove from the heat and serve warm or chilled.
It seems that the modern apples is one which has been bred to have along shelf life and to be durable in grocery stores. They taste ok, but the "heritage" or heirloom" and newer kinds of apples do have a wide range of flavors, as to tart, sweet, and somewhere in the middle. When I go to a farmer's market I seem to always find a new kind of apple. I buy one, taste it and promptly forget the name the next time I want to eat one. But that's nice. In this age of homogenized foods it is pleasant to have so many varieties that one forgets which of them he or she wants. That may not be exciting, but it does make me more interested in apples, and that's a good thing.
When eating or cooking with apples the type used or eaten really does matter. We have one here that was locally invented called the Graven stein. The first time I tasted it I hated it, given it is very tart. I like my eating apples to be sweet. However, I have tasted the Graven stien in cooked apple desserts and find it very appealing when mixed with the right amount of sugar and spices.
When cooking you have to use the most appropriate apple to make the recipe work. One that is too sweet or tart, has too much juice inside or is too mealy can make the apple dish taste much less appealing or can ruin the consistency of the dish. For example, my favorite apple dessert to make an eat is an apple crostata. Gala or Pink Lady apples make it work very well, but if I use a more watery or tart apple it hardly resembles the dish I want.
Uh, I have motivated myself for apples, so I shall leave you now and head to my favorite apple seller and buy the apples I need to make fresh applesauce. It's easy to do, and makes the dish taste far better than the jared apples sauces we like from our grocery stores. this one is amore adult version. If you're interested in trying to make applesauce yourself, the recipe is use is below.
Chunky Applesauce
Ingredients
- 4 Fuji or Braeburn apples
- 1/4 cup sugar
- 2 teaspoons fresh lemon juice
- Pinch of kosher salt
Instructions
Peel, quarter, core and coarsely dice the apples. You should have about 4 cups. Transfer to a saucepan, add the sugar, lemon juice, salt, and 1/4 cup water, and stir well. Place over medium high heat, bring to a boil, reduce the heat to low, cover and simmer until the apples are tender, about 30 minutes. If the apples begin to dry out before they are ready, add a little more water.Uncover the pan and mash the apples lightly with a wooden spoon or a silicone spatula. Cook uncovered for 5 minutes to evaporate some of the excess moisture. The applesauce should be thick. Remove from the heat and serve warm or chilled.
Friday, October 24, 2014
No Free Speech Allowed On College Campuses
The attitude of the college campus today is quite different
from past
eras. And I don't like it. Maybe it's because when I was a college
student the college campus had become ( but only for a few decades
longer) a truly democratic and tolerant place. The college ideal of
free speech really existed then. Prior to the mid sixties or so most
college campuses were a bit too conservative and intolerant of
difference. The sixties changed that making them open to every idea and
tolerant of others. But today, the college campus in the U.S. is often
the most intolerant and liberal gone mad place in society. It is a pity
because liberalism is so out of control on campuses today that students
and campus employees who object and speak out against it are not only
marginalized, but harassed.
Sigh...I fear their is far too little freedom of thought on many college campuses today. Instead, the schools are an almost mindlessly politically correct state of ultra liberal views. The Obama administration is riding to the rescue of this insanity as it promotes phony after phony (but vote getting) ideas on campus. The young being liberally inclined are sponges to those ideas. College students have learned the Obama mantra that when they make victim hood a coveted status it confers privileges for them. The liberal political faction has taken the college campus away from the ultra conservatives who controlled it (also badly) for so long as Obama and the ultra liberals have decided it is academia's turn to be broken into a liberal herd of sheep who bleat non sequiters like the imaged "The War on Women", or "Corporate abuse of the poor".
On most college campuses today campus speech codes punish "unpopular speech". That would mean any speech that approves of traditional values or opposes the latest trendy liberal doctrine. "Diversity" is enforced, which means that anyone who is not a white, liberal, male is said to be a victim of hate and discrimination and therefore must be given copious amounts of extra "help" to overcome the imagined discrimination. The liberal college campus and its almost entirely liberal faculty impose their politically correct world on the students, like it or not. This is not good.
This intolerance on the college campus is organized around the principle of "racial and gender equality", which we should all be for, but whose idea is distorted to mean a special privilege class and a very repressive attempt to tell college students what and how to think. Stalin would be proud! The radical ideology on most campuses says there is no mainstream, no commonality about us. Instead, it has invented and enforces a multiculturalism that always looks for differences, and uses those to divide and conquer the college student. So we have victory for mindlessness, unthinking, unchallenging student. The commandment every freshman is assaulted with even before setting foot in his or her new school is, "Thou shalt not disturb the politically correct college bubble".
I think that when you create such an atmosphere and use repression to tell the student what he or she is to think, and establish codes to enforce the political correctness, you have a highly degraded college experience for everyone.
Need some examples? Try these (there are many more).
-At Duke University there is a campaign to remove the phrase, “Man Up” (and others) from the vocabularies of Duke students because that phrase supposedly de legitimizes homosexuals and oppresses people.
- International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde was forced to withdraw from giving the commencement address at Smith College following protests from students and faculty who hate the IMF. (There have been over 60 cancellations or withdrawals of commencement speakers in the past 5 years because the speakers were said to be "offense' to liberal college students)
- University of California-Santa Barbara women’s studies professor Mireille Miller-Young attacked a 16-year-old holding an anti-abortion sign in the campus "free speech zone" (on today's college campuses, if you speak against the prevailing liberal view on campus you must do it in those zones. Free speech elsewhere is not allowed)
- Brandeis University decided not to give Ayaan Hirsi Ali an honorary degree because she has written books critical of Islam's treatment of women. (On most college campus it is good to vilify Christian religions but a mortal sin to ever say anything bad about Islam)
- The U.S. Justice Department recently sent a memo to all colleges that receive federal funding detailing the new policy for prevention and punishment of sexual harassment on college campuses. (“Offensive” speech is now determined solely by the complainant, meaning that reason, community standards, and adjudication to make a ruling on sexual harassment can't be the standard. The complainant now has all power. If she claims that an elderly man greeting her with the statement, “I like those shoes,” degraded and objectified her, she wins.)
- A University of Nebraska graduate student who faced suspension for keeping a photograph of his wife in a bikini on his desk. No, I am not kidding!
- A janitor at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis nearly lost his job after coworkers complained about him reading a book that made reference to the Ku Klux Klan on the cover. The University charged that the janitor was “trying to disrupt the campus environment.” (The book in question – “Notre Dame Versus The Klan” is anti racist. It celebrates the efforts of Notre Dame to keep the KKK out of South Bend.)
The lesson of all this is that today it's left wing paternalism that has taken over the U.S. and it's college campuses, even on what should be a free speech center, the college campus. Colleges today are teaching college students to practice intolerance under the justification of preaching “tolerance” in the liberal bubble of the college campus. The dull conformity and repressive regulations that characterize college campuses today suffocate students and take away the joy and enthusiasm of students and faculty who have independent minds, active imaginations, and appreciation for the pleasure of free conversation. Freedom of speech and thought has been one of the great gifts of college life.
Years ago, we all got to expect that censorship would come from the right wing, but to expect it from the left wing, the Obama world, from the politically correct people on the campuses is just sad. We should speak out against it.....uh, if that's allowed
Sigh...I fear their is far too little freedom of thought on many college campuses today. Instead, the schools are an almost mindlessly politically correct state of ultra liberal views. The Obama administration is riding to the rescue of this insanity as it promotes phony after phony (but vote getting) ideas on campus. The young being liberally inclined are sponges to those ideas. College students have learned the Obama mantra that when they make victim hood a coveted status it confers privileges for them. The liberal political faction has taken the college campus away from the ultra conservatives who controlled it (also badly) for so long as Obama and the ultra liberals have decided it is academia's turn to be broken into a liberal herd of sheep who bleat non sequiters like the imaged "The War on Women", or "Corporate abuse of the poor".
On most college campuses today campus speech codes punish "unpopular speech". That would mean any speech that approves of traditional values or opposes the latest trendy liberal doctrine. "Diversity" is enforced, which means that anyone who is not a white, liberal, male is said to be a victim of hate and discrimination and therefore must be given copious amounts of extra "help" to overcome the imagined discrimination. The liberal college campus and its almost entirely liberal faculty impose their politically correct world on the students, like it or not. This is not good.
This intolerance on the college campus is organized around the principle of "racial and gender equality", which we should all be for, but whose idea is distorted to mean a special privilege class and a very repressive attempt to tell college students what and how to think. Stalin would be proud! The radical ideology on most campuses says there is no mainstream, no commonality about us. Instead, it has invented and enforces a multiculturalism that always looks for differences, and uses those to divide and conquer the college student. So we have victory for mindlessness, unthinking, unchallenging student. The commandment every freshman is assaulted with even before setting foot in his or her new school is, "Thou shalt not disturb the politically correct college bubble".
I think that when you create such an atmosphere and use repression to tell the student what he or she is to think, and establish codes to enforce the political correctness, you have a highly degraded college experience for everyone.
Need some examples? Try these (there are many more).
-At Duke University there is a campaign to remove the phrase, “Man Up” (and others) from the vocabularies of Duke students because that phrase supposedly de legitimizes homosexuals and oppresses people.
- International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde was forced to withdraw from giving the commencement address at Smith College following protests from students and faculty who hate the IMF. (There have been over 60 cancellations or withdrawals of commencement speakers in the past 5 years because the speakers were said to be "offense' to liberal college students)
- University of California-Santa Barbara women’s studies professor Mireille Miller-Young attacked a 16-year-old holding an anti-abortion sign in the campus "free speech zone" (on today's college campuses, if you speak against the prevailing liberal view on campus you must do it in those zones. Free speech elsewhere is not allowed)
- Brandeis University decided not to give Ayaan Hirsi Ali an honorary degree because she has written books critical of Islam's treatment of women. (On most college campus it is good to vilify Christian religions but a mortal sin to ever say anything bad about Islam)
- The U.S. Justice Department recently sent a memo to all colleges that receive federal funding detailing the new policy for prevention and punishment of sexual harassment on college campuses. (“Offensive” speech is now determined solely by the complainant, meaning that reason, community standards, and adjudication to make a ruling on sexual harassment can't be the standard. The complainant now has all power. If she claims that an elderly man greeting her with the statement, “I like those shoes,” degraded and objectified her, she wins.)
- A University of Nebraska graduate student who faced suspension for keeping a photograph of his wife in a bikini on his desk. No, I am not kidding!
- A janitor at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis nearly lost his job after coworkers complained about him reading a book that made reference to the Ku Klux Klan on the cover. The University charged that the janitor was “trying to disrupt the campus environment.” (The book in question – “Notre Dame Versus The Klan” is anti racist. It celebrates the efforts of Notre Dame to keep the KKK out of South Bend.)
The lesson of all this is that today it's left wing paternalism that has taken over the U.S. and it's college campuses, even on what should be a free speech center, the college campus. Colleges today are teaching college students to practice intolerance under the justification of preaching “tolerance” in the liberal bubble of the college campus. The dull conformity and repressive regulations that characterize college campuses today suffocate students and take away the joy and enthusiasm of students and faculty who have independent minds, active imaginations, and appreciation for the pleasure of free conversation. Freedom of speech and thought has been one of the great gifts of college life.
Years ago, we all got to expect that censorship would come from the right wing, but to expect it from the left wing, the Obama world, from the politically correct people on the campuses is just sad. We should speak out against it.....uh, if that's allowed
Campaign Telephone Calls
This time of the year all across the
country there are many elections
to be conducted for most offices, excluding the presidency (That one is
in November of 2016). As in most democracies, money drives the
elections. The candidates with the most money contributed to their
campaigns have a big advantage over those who have not the financial
backing to conduct a highly visual campaign. I think that the amount
money spent to get elected is obscene. If buying elections was the
goal of democracy, then we might say that our campaigning is perfect.
But in a democracy, the best candidate is supposed to be noticed and
elected. I think that rarely happens here and in other democracies.
How automated and high tech are these campaigns today? Well, I frequently get robo computer calls that expect me to listen to a computer which tells me why I should vote for a particular candidate or issue on the ballot. I doubt many people are convinced by that kind of computer generated telephone campaign, but then the real purpose of them is to just say the candidate's name to imprint it on the voters mind. In that respect it is annoyingly effective. What is outrageous is that many of the computer calls arrive at dinner time, when the politicians know most of us are at home after work and available to take their calls. We have a "do not call" list in the United States that one can put him or herself on to block any commercial calls from getting through to a person who does not want to listed to commercial calls. But guess who the politicians exempted from the block when they created the law that blocks annoying calls.? Yep, political calls are one of the few categories that are exempt from "do not call" blocking. No politician ever passes a law that inconveniences him or her self.
I dislike the live person campaign calls to my home too. In those instances a candidate pays other people to call and to pretend to understand the issue for which they want the voter to side with them. Most of the callers are teenagers paid a minimum wage to make the calls. Teenagers understand little about politics. I even get calls made from my former state of Louisiana asking me to vote in those elections, even though I have lived in Oregon for four years and can't vote in Louisiana elections. Maybe the same people who update those kinds of call lists also are the ones who also update our Microsoft Windows operating systems. They are, uh, a little behind the ball. No matter how many times I tell them that , "I don't live in Louisiana and can't vote in your election. Take me off your call list.", I still get plenty of those calls.
On those occasions when I answer the phone and am asked to participate in "a poll" about the election (the polls are just questions asked to maneuver a voter to agree with the caller's position in order to persuade the voter to vote the way the caller's candidate wants) I try to get the caller "off script" with my answers. It's a bit of revenge for intruding on my privacy at home with political campaign calls. I never let them think I agree with their candidate or issue.
I think next time I get a call I'll just tell them that if they give me a $100 I' ll vote whatever way they want me to. That should chase them away. Oh, maybe it won't. After all, it's politics.
How automated and high tech are these campaigns today? Well, I frequently get robo computer calls that expect me to listen to a computer which tells me why I should vote for a particular candidate or issue on the ballot. I doubt many people are convinced by that kind of computer generated telephone campaign, but then the real purpose of them is to just say the candidate's name to imprint it on the voters mind. In that respect it is annoyingly effective. What is outrageous is that many of the computer calls arrive at dinner time, when the politicians know most of us are at home after work and available to take their calls. We have a "do not call" list in the United States that one can put him or herself on to block any commercial calls from getting through to a person who does not want to listed to commercial calls. But guess who the politicians exempted from the block when they created the law that blocks annoying calls.? Yep, political calls are one of the few categories that are exempt from "do not call" blocking. No politician ever passes a law that inconveniences him or her self.
I dislike the live person campaign calls to my home too. In those instances a candidate pays other people to call and to pretend to understand the issue for which they want the voter to side with them. Most of the callers are teenagers paid a minimum wage to make the calls. Teenagers understand little about politics. I even get calls made from my former state of Louisiana asking me to vote in those elections, even though I have lived in Oregon for four years and can't vote in Louisiana elections. Maybe the same people who update those kinds of call lists also are the ones who also update our Microsoft Windows operating systems. They are, uh, a little behind the ball. No matter how many times I tell them that , "I don't live in Louisiana and can't vote in your election. Take me off your call list.", I still get plenty of those calls.
On those occasions when I answer the phone and am asked to participate in "a poll" about the election (the polls are just questions asked to maneuver a voter to agree with the caller's position in order to persuade the voter to vote the way the caller's candidate wants) I try to get the caller "off script" with my answers. It's a bit of revenge for intruding on my privacy at home with political campaign calls. I never let them think I agree with their candidate or issue.
I think next time I get a call I'll just tell them that if they give me a $100 I' ll vote whatever way they want me to. That should chase them away. Oh, maybe it won't. After all, it's politics.
Ebola Hysteria
I am fed up with the irrational and distorted Ebola
stories. If one
watches media often today he or she would think that civilization is
imperiled by the outbreak in a part of Africa for a weak strain of the
Ebola virus. But wait! Don't let news reports infect your brain with
nonsense. According to the Disease Control and Prevention's National
Center for Health, statistics indicate that the actual risk a person
faces of contracting Ebola, which, like the virus itself, is so tiny,
it's downright microscopic. Here are far more common ways a resident of
the U.S. could die this year.
• Heart disease — A U.S. resident circa 2005 faced a 1-in-5 chance of dying of this in his or her lifetime,
• Cancer — 1-in-7 lifetime odds of dying from this.
• Stroke — 1-in-23
• Accidental injury — 1-in-36
• Motor vehicle accident — 1-in-100
• Assault by firearm — 1-in-325
• Natural forces (heat, cold, storms, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, lightning strikes, etc., combined) — 1-in-3,357
• Drowning — 1-in-8,942
• Air travel accident — 1-in-20,000
• Asteroid impact — 1-in-147,717
• Tsunami -1-in-500,000
What about the risk from Ebola? Well, the lifetime odds of dying from the disease is so small it is hard to compute, but it is far less likely than a person winning a multi million dollar power ball lottery. Since Ebola's first outbreak in the 1970s through the one raging today, according to the World Health Organization, the total number of deaths attributed to Ebola has been 5000. That's it!
So, if the odds are far more likely to die in a car accident than of Ebola, H1N1, tsunamis or a natural disaster, why does Ebola seem to worry so many people so much? Familiarity with an agent of death can be one factor affecting our perception of risk. With cars, we take so many trips over our lifetimes that our brains learn not to be afraid of what might happen in the event of an accident. But the mass hysteria the media causes by introducing Ebola to us creates an irrational fear in us. Ebola for many people is new and not something they have personal experience with, so it's perceived as riskier.
Too, the lack of control over something like Ebola makes us fear it more.....like the small child terrified of "the monsters hiding underneath my bed". We don't have any sense of control over Ebola and the media reports it as being out of control. Logically, people should think more about the reality of Ebola and realize that Ebola is not highly contagious, it's being managed carefully, and there're been epidemics in the past. They've all been controlled, and the same thing's even more likely to happen now, given modern medical advances.
What the media should say (and not so much because the story just isn't that newsworthy) about Ebola is what is true. Ebola is hard to catch and transmit compared to other infections because it requires direct contact with bodily fluids . In the six months of the 201) outbreak, there have been 3,431 deaths. That's a very low number for a serious infectious disease . The influenza pandemic spread by coughing of 1919, for example, infected 500 million people across the world, killed 50 to 100 million (5 percent of the world's population in a year) .
Maybe instead we should worry about what needs worry, and that certainly isn't about catching the Ebola virus.
• Heart disease — A U.S. resident circa 2005 faced a 1-in-5 chance of dying of this in his or her lifetime,
• Cancer — 1-in-7 lifetime odds of dying from this.
• Stroke — 1-in-23
• Accidental injury — 1-in-36
• Motor vehicle accident — 1-in-100
• Assault by firearm — 1-in-325
• Natural forces (heat, cold, storms, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, lightning strikes, etc., combined) — 1-in-3,357
• Drowning — 1-in-8,942
• Air travel accident — 1-in-20,000
• Asteroid impact — 1-in-147,717
• Tsunami -1-in-500,000
What about the risk from Ebola? Well, the lifetime odds of dying from the disease is so small it is hard to compute, but it is far less likely than a person winning a multi million dollar power ball lottery. Since Ebola's first outbreak in the 1970s through the one raging today, according to the World Health Organization, the total number of deaths attributed to Ebola has been 5000. That's it!
So, if the odds are far more likely to die in a car accident than of Ebola, H1N1, tsunamis or a natural disaster, why does Ebola seem to worry so many people so much? Familiarity with an agent of death can be one factor affecting our perception of risk. With cars, we take so many trips over our lifetimes that our brains learn not to be afraid of what might happen in the event of an accident. But the mass hysteria the media causes by introducing Ebola to us creates an irrational fear in us. Ebola for many people is new and not something they have personal experience with, so it's perceived as riskier.
Too, the lack of control over something like Ebola makes us fear it more.....like the small child terrified of "the monsters hiding underneath my bed". We don't have any sense of control over Ebola and the media reports it as being out of control. Logically, people should think more about the reality of Ebola and realize that Ebola is not highly contagious, it's being managed carefully, and there're been epidemics in the past. They've all been controlled, and the same thing's even more likely to happen now, given modern medical advances.
What the media should say (and not so much because the story just isn't that newsworthy) about Ebola is what is true. Ebola is hard to catch and transmit compared to other infections because it requires direct contact with bodily fluids . In the six months of the 201) outbreak, there have been 3,431 deaths. That's a very low number for a serious infectious disease . The influenza pandemic spread by coughing of 1919, for example, infected 500 million people across the world, killed 50 to 100 million (5 percent of the world's population in a year) .
Maybe instead we should worry about what needs worry, and that certainly isn't about catching the Ebola virus.
Those Idiotic Donation "Challenges"
I often rant that cell phone addicts are s addicted because
they want
to escape reality and replace it with endless "cell connection" time.
But there are other ways people today are escaping from the "cruel
world" in which we live. It seems that it's a little easier to run away
from a complex world and create a fantasy to replace it. Maybe humans
are creating their own comic book characters within themselves.
One of the escape modalities I notice that is gaining favor here in the U.S. (and starting to in other countries, given the power of internet communication) is the charity challenge. The charity challenge is the activity by which a true need is addressed through rather strange "challenges" that donators to the cause/charity volunteer to undertake. Thus, to find a cure for cancer via donations for funding research (it always seems to be breast cancer, which has a very low mortality rate compared to a host of others of which the givers seem to be unaware) a person is asked to march for a cure, or take an "ice bucket challenge", or some other masochistic endeavor.
It's great to raise awareness for charity because it probably does increase donations. But why must people punish themselves publicly before donating? I find it odd. The most idiotic of those challenges is the ice bucket challenge to find a cure for ALS disease. Ever since its inception in mid 2013, it caught the world by storm. The challenge became a mindless trend do to mindless social media. The rules were simple. Within 24 hours of being challenged, participants are to video record themselves being doused with ice water. The reward is a few seconds of "look at me" and recognition for a particular cause.
Under the rules of the ice bucket challenge participants are supposed to announce their acceptance of the challenge followed by pouring ice into a bucket of water. Then the participant can call out a challenge to other people. It spread exponentially. Many prominent western celebrities took this challenge (it help the career when a celebrity is trendy and politically correct). The likes of Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jennifer Lopez, Justin Timberlake, Steven Spielberg, Robert Downey Jr.,Selena Gomez, Tom Cruise, George W. Bush posted their videos online and supported this good cause. Sigh, how stupid. Just donate money to a cause and skip the theatrics. at least the human sheep aren't being led by a Kardashian girl.
One huge negative to this kinds of masochistic donation is that trendy can lead to another affliction that might need a cure- blindness to truth. One such truth is that bad charities use challenges as a way of subtly tricking the naive to donate their money to a less than worth organization that may pocket more of the donations that it should give to researchers.
As easily led as people are by today's addiction to social media triviality we might see even more extreme "challenges" in the coming weeks. How about this one. At the next party you attend, surreptitiously pee on someone's leg to raise awareness for urinary tract infections. Or, how about shooting yourself in the head to promote gun safety?
One of the escape modalities I notice that is gaining favor here in the U.S. (and starting to in other countries, given the power of internet communication) is the charity challenge. The charity challenge is the activity by which a true need is addressed through rather strange "challenges" that donators to the cause/charity volunteer to undertake. Thus, to find a cure for cancer via donations for funding research (it always seems to be breast cancer, which has a very low mortality rate compared to a host of others of which the givers seem to be unaware) a person is asked to march for a cure, or take an "ice bucket challenge", or some other masochistic endeavor.
It's great to raise awareness for charity because it probably does increase donations. But why must people punish themselves publicly before donating? I find it odd. The most idiotic of those challenges is the ice bucket challenge to find a cure for ALS disease. Ever since its inception in mid 2013, it caught the world by storm. The challenge became a mindless trend do to mindless social media. The rules were simple. Within 24 hours of being challenged, participants are to video record themselves being doused with ice water. The reward is a few seconds of "look at me" and recognition for a particular cause.
Under the rules of the ice bucket challenge participants are supposed to announce their acceptance of the challenge followed by pouring ice into a bucket of water. Then the participant can call out a challenge to other people. It spread exponentially. Many prominent western celebrities took this challenge (it help the career when a celebrity is trendy and politically correct). The likes of Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jennifer Lopez, Justin Timberlake, Steven Spielberg, Robert Downey Jr.,Selena Gomez, Tom Cruise, George W. Bush posted their videos online and supported this good cause. Sigh, how stupid. Just donate money to a cause and skip the theatrics. at least the human sheep aren't being led by a Kardashian girl.
One huge negative to this kinds of masochistic donation is that trendy can lead to another affliction that might need a cure- blindness to truth. One such truth is that bad charities use challenges as a way of subtly tricking the naive to donate their money to a less than worth organization that may pocket more of the donations that it should give to researchers.
As easily led as people are by today's addiction to social media triviality we might see even more extreme "challenges" in the coming weeks. How about this one. At the next party you attend, surreptitiously pee on someone's leg to raise awareness for urinary tract infections. Or, how about shooting yourself in the head to promote gun safety?
Hong Kong Protests
Those protest for more democracy in Hong Kong are
interesting. But no
one can be surprised that the ex British colony, which long has had way
more freedom than China itself, would eventually call for more freedom
than the Chinese dictators want to allow. Online, Chinese censors have
removed information and images about the protests and newscasts in
mainland China pretend there are no protests there. It's another
reminder to those who think China is past the brutal dictatorship
phase, that it clearly is not.
The number of posts deleted from the Chinese Web provider Sina Weibo has hit a record high for 2014. Chinese citizens who show public support for Hong Kong's pro democracy movement face swift reprisals. Police have arrested at least a number of people in several mainland cities over the past few days for posting pictures online or showing their support in other ways (This according to the human rights group Amnesty International). Many more have been called in for questioning about their protesting. The rounding up of activists in mainland China only underlines why so many people in Hong Kong fear the growing control Beijing has in their city's affairs. The dictators in China allow plenty of freedom, but none that involves a threat to their power to control both China and Hong Kong.
Why the protests in Hong Kong when that city has way more freedom and autonomy than any place in China. Hong Kong people are fed up with worsening conditions under the Chinese government's 'one country, two systems' model. They also have great access to travel abroad and information that displays a different image of the Chinese government and Chinese society than that which they are asked to believe when watching mainland Chinese news reports.
All displays of freedom in Hong Kong are carefully kept out of sight and out of mind elsewhere in China......as much as possible. I wonder how the dictators in China can stem the tide of democracy, not only in Hong Kong, but in China itself . The implementation of capitalism years ago has already broken part of the dike. The internet is also a forced for more democracy because it shows the world as it is, not as a dictator wants the people to believe it is.
It should be interesting how the mainland Chinese dictators stop the protest. And the will, for the survival of their power depends on it. The old model of brutality, as in the Tiananmen Square massacre is too unpleasant now that cameras would capture in full detail all the violence the government might use. And the protesters have learned from the past that the best way to confront the dictators is to do it peacefully, to not give them an excuse to slaughter them with the military and police.
It's nice to see China evolving more and more to democracy. The world would be a better place if China would quit the dictatorship and instead enter into the modern world.
The number of posts deleted from the Chinese Web provider Sina Weibo has hit a record high for 2014. Chinese citizens who show public support for Hong Kong's pro democracy movement face swift reprisals. Police have arrested at least a number of people in several mainland cities over the past few days for posting pictures online or showing their support in other ways (This according to the human rights group Amnesty International). Many more have been called in for questioning about their protesting. The rounding up of activists in mainland China only underlines why so many people in Hong Kong fear the growing control Beijing has in their city's affairs. The dictators in China allow plenty of freedom, but none that involves a threat to their power to control both China and Hong Kong.
Why the protests in Hong Kong when that city has way more freedom and autonomy than any place in China. Hong Kong people are fed up with worsening conditions under the Chinese government's 'one country, two systems' model. They also have great access to travel abroad and information that displays a different image of the Chinese government and Chinese society than that which they are asked to believe when watching mainland Chinese news reports.
All displays of freedom in Hong Kong are carefully kept out of sight and out of mind elsewhere in China......as much as possible. I wonder how the dictators in China can stem the tide of democracy, not only in Hong Kong, but in China itself . The implementation of capitalism years ago has already broken part of the dike. The internet is also a forced for more democracy because it shows the world as it is, not as a dictator wants the people to believe it is.
It should be interesting how the mainland Chinese dictators stop the protest. And the will, for the survival of their power depends on it. The old model of brutality, as in the Tiananmen Square massacre is too unpleasant now that cameras would capture in full detail all the violence the government might use. And the protesters have learned from the past that the best way to confront the dictators is to do it peacefully, to not give them an excuse to slaughter them with the military and police.
It's nice to see China evolving more and more to democracy. The world would be a better place if China would quit the dictatorship and instead enter into the modern world.
The Value Of Down Time
The current generation of kids might be called The
Cell Phone
Generation. They never stop chatting and texting on theirs, to the
exclusion of allot of real time face to face communication. In light
of that, researchers are wondering if those kids spend so much time
corresponding via
text rather than talking face to face that they were losing the
ability to read these important cues. If you ever observe a group of
kids today you'll notice they are far more engaged with their phones
than with each other.
So one researcher wondered what would happen if 50 sixth graders were sent to a nature camp with no access to computers, tablets and mobile phones? The study, published in the journal 'Computers Human Behavior' suggests that after just five days their ability to understand nonverbal social cues improves. Non verbal social cues are the emotional information we pick up from people around us that is not communicated through words. It includes facial expressions, eye contact, tone of voice and body posture.
So the little brats don't necessarily lose their ability to communicate normally when they bury their heads in their technology.
The researchers found that a public school that sends its sixth grade class to a wilderness camp near Big Bear for five days. At the camp, the students have no access to electronics. When the class of about 50 children arrived at the camp, they were asked to take two tests to measure their ability to read nonverbal social cues. In the first, the kids were asked to assess the emotions portrayed in 48 photos of people making faces. In the second test, they watched a video with the sound turned off, and then made a judgment about the emotional state of the actor.
At the end of the five day camp, the students were asked to take the tests again. The researchers report that over the five days the kids went from making an average of 14.02 errors on the face recognition test at the beginning of their camp stay to 9.41 errors by the end. For the video component, they went from getting an average of 26% of the emotional states correct to getting 31% correct.
Just five days away from the phones brings back normal perception. To test it further the researchers gave the same test to a control group of 54 sixth graders from the same school who had not yet attended the camp. That group had an average of 12.24 mistakes the first time they took the face recognition test and 9.81 mistakes when they took it again five days later. For the video test, the students' scores stayed flat, getting an average of 28% of the emotions correct both times they were tested. Though the children who were at the camp showed a larger improvement over the five days than those who did not go to camp, the end results were not that different.
The point is that however you can get Junior to stay away from his cell phone the better junior interprets reality. Problem is, mom and dad are also so addicted to their mobile devices that they see non stop cell use as a new norm. Might it be time for schools to go back to the once (brief) time when all cell phones were banned from a campus during the school day? Have a nice day! Just finished
So one researcher wondered what would happen if 50 sixth graders were sent to a nature camp with no access to computers, tablets and mobile phones? The study, published in the journal 'Computers Human Behavior' suggests that after just five days their ability to understand nonverbal social cues improves. Non verbal social cues are the emotional information we pick up from people around us that is not communicated through words. It includes facial expressions, eye contact, tone of voice and body posture.
So the little brats don't necessarily lose their ability to communicate normally when they bury their heads in their technology.
The researchers found that a public school that sends its sixth grade class to a wilderness camp near Big Bear for five days. At the camp, the students have no access to electronics. When the class of about 50 children arrived at the camp, they were asked to take two tests to measure their ability to read nonverbal social cues. In the first, the kids were asked to assess the emotions portrayed in 48 photos of people making faces. In the second test, they watched a video with the sound turned off, and then made a judgment about the emotional state of the actor.
At the end of the five day camp, the students were asked to take the tests again. The researchers report that over the five days the kids went from making an average of 14.02 errors on the face recognition test at the beginning of their camp stay to 9.41 errors by the end. For the video component, they went from getting an average of 26% of the emotional states correct to getting 31% correct.
Just five days away from the phones brings back normal perception. To test it further the researchers gave the same test to a control group of 54 sixth graders from the same school who had not yet attended the camp. That group had an average of 12.24 mistakes the first time they took the face recognition test and 9.81 mistakes when they took it again five days later. For the video test, the students' scores stayed flat, getting an average of 28% of the emotions correct both times they were tested. Though the children who were at the camp showed a larger improvement over the five days than those who did not go to camp, the end results were not that different.
The point is that however you can get Junior to stay away from his cell phone the better junior interprets reality. Problem is, mom and dad are also so addicted to their mobile devices that they see non stop cell use as a new norm. Might it be time for schools to go back to the once (brief) time when all cell phones were banned from a campus during the school day? Have a nice day! Just finished
Drink Your Coffee
Here's a quick question for you. Out side of water, what is
the world's
most popular drink? I bet you said "tea". I would have. But it's my
favorite morning libation, coffee. But coffee is one of the more
maligned drinks too. I am sure you have been told nonsense like,
"Coffee has so much caffeine it will keep you awake at night". In
truth, coffee is, on average, just 1% caffeine. But myths about
caffeine in coffee persist. Maybe that's why people think drunks can be
sobered by forcing coffee down their throats. They can't.
Now there is good news about drinking coffee. According to a Cornell University study that was just released, coffee helps prevent deteriorating eyesight. It seems that the study confirmed that coffee is a strong antioxidant that prevents retinal degeneration And previous studies have shown that coffee cuts the risk of such chronic diseases as Parkinson's, prostate cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and age related cognitive declines. And ignore the idiot you are sitting with who tells you after your 4th teaspoon of sugar is added, "You'll get diabetes from all that sugar". People who drink six or more cups of coffee each day are 35% less likely to develop diabetes. And, Studies have shown that regular coffee drinkers frequently score significantly higher on cognitive ability tests, spatial awareness exams, IQ tests, and short term memory studies.
But the ultimate love of coffee was expressed in the early 1700's when Johan Sabastian Bach (that classical guy) composed the "Coffee Cantata", in which a young woman, Lieschen, pleads with her disapproving father to accept her devotion to drinking coffee. I leave you with a stanza from it.
Now there is good news about drinking coffee. According to a Cornell University study that was just released, coffee helps prevent deteriorating eyesight. It seems that the study confirmed that coffee is a strong antioxidant that prevents retinal degeneration And previous studies have shown that coffee cuts the risk of such chronic diseases as Parkinson's, prostate cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and age related cognitive declines. And ignore the idiot you are sitting with who tells you after your 4th teaspoon of sugar is added, "You'll get diabetes from all that sugar". People who drink six or more cups of coffee each day are 35% less likely to develop diabetes. And, Studies have shown that regular coffee drinkers frequently score significantly higher on cognitive ability tests, spatial awareness exams, IQ tests, and short term memory studies.
But the ultimate love of coffee was expressed in the early 1700's when Johan Sabastian Bach (that classical guy) composed the "Coffee Cantata", in which a young woman, Lieschen, pleads with her disapproving father to accept her devotion to drinking coffee. I leave you with a stanza from it.
- Better than a thousand kisses,
- Milder than muscat wine.
- Coffee, coffee, I've got to have it,
- And if someone wants to perk me up
- Oh, just give me a cup of coffee!
Living Much Longer
Talk about ambitious! There is a California doctor, Dr.
Joon Yun,
president of Palo Alto Investors who thinks the day when we stop the
aging process may be on the precipice. Called the Palo Alto Longevity
Prize, it offers a $1 million cash award to encourage al those
researchers out there to restore the adult body's youthful state,
perhaps helping to reduce diseases associated with aging and mortality,
and improve longevity. Good luck to that. Or maybe Dr. Yun just likes
the publicity that is coming forth with this contest.
The prize will be divided into two $500,000 awards, given to the first teams to unlock the secrets of the ability of the body's systems to stabilize in response to stressors. Stressors are supposed to make us age quickly. Aren't you glad you read the garbage I send you here. Haha Now that's stress. Any way, when the body ages, its ability to recover from diseases, injuries and lifestyle stresses such as a late night or loss of sleep becomes more difficult. But when we are young blood pressure and elevated blood sugar levels can return easily to normal levels. This ability erodes with age, and the body no longer is able to regulate these changes as effectively, resulting in diseases such as diabetes or hypertension. Supposedly, to control the stressors would add more than 100 more years to our lives.
One prize would be granted to the team to demonstrate it can restore the stressor activity in an aging adult mammal to the levels of a young adult and the second prize would go the first team to extend the life span of a living creature by 50 percent of acceptable published norms. Are you ready for 100 more years of me? I thought so. Let's hope they don't have a prize winner. After all, living twice as long, and in good health, is great physically. But our minds may not be suited for that long a life span. We become bored with life in our final years. Who's to say that boredom won't continue after the discovery. If so, suicide will dramatically increase as we lose any interest in continuing our lives. After you eat apple pie a few times it becomes mundane, so may our daily lives as we wallow in boredom with it. Well, at least we wouldn't have those high health care costs anymore.
Let's see, how many people in human history sought, and believed they could find the cure to aging? No matter. Better to ask how many succeeded. I think we can be sure Dr. Yun can be added to that list too.
The prize will be divided into two $500,000 awards, given to the first teams to unlock the secrets of the ability of the body's systems to stabilize in response to stressors. Stressors are supposed to make us age quickly. Aren't you glad you read the garbage I send you here. Haha Now that's stress. Any way, when the body ages, its ability to recover from diseases, injuries and lifestyle stresses such as a late night or loss of sleep becomes more difficult. But when we are young blood pressure and elevated blood sugar levels can return easily to normal levels. This ability erodes with age, and the body no longer is able to regulate these changes as effectively, resulting in diseases such as diabetes or hypertension. Supposedly, to control the stressors would add more than 100 more years to our lives.
One prize would be granted to the team to demonstrate it can restore the stressor activity in an aging adult mammal to the levels of a young adult and the second prize would go the first team to extend the life span of a living creature by 50 percent of acceptable published norms. Are you ready for 100 more years of me? I thought so. Let's hope they don't have a prize winner. After all, living twice as long, and in good health, is great physically. But our minds may not be suited for that long a life span. We become bored with life in our final years. Who's to say that boredom won't continue after the discovery. If so, suicide will dramatically increase as we lose any interest in continuing our lives. After you eat apple pie a few times it becomes mundane, so may our daily lives as we wallow in boredom with it. Well, at least we wouldn't have those high health care costs anymore.
Let's see, how many people in human history sought, and believed they could find the cure to aging? No matter. Better to ask how many succeeded. I think we can be sure Dr. Yun can be added to that list too.
To Recline On Board Or To Not Recline
You know what the biggest complaint of seated airline
passengers is?
It's the reclining seat, or should the guy or girl in front of you be
allowed to recline his or her seat into your 17 inches of space. It's
causing arguments between passengers, some physical confrontations, a
whole lot of physical discomfort, and has even resulted in complaining
passengers being arrested or planes being forced to land prematurely to
defuse a potentially violent mess on board.
In addition to that seat belt and safety speech we all endure each flight, flight attendants should consider issuing the recline warning to passengers before take-off. It might be something simple like, "Caution: reclining your seat into the already too crowded space of the passenger behind you may cause an unpleasant reaction that is hazardous to your health and airline safety". Just to let the recline passenger know...
I think the reclining seat was once a marvelous pleasure for passengers, but hen the airliners became so crowded and space for the passengers around their seats so small, it might be impolite and even dangerous to recline anymore. But then, the airlines still allow the seats to go back. I always seem to get the type of passenger in front of me who leans back and assaults my knees in the process. But as much as I dislike it and think it inconsiderate, never question his or her right to do so. Other passengers aboard are not as docile as I about this. I have seen some nasty moments between the reclining passenger and the infringed one.
The airlines are to blame for the current seat size but if you ask the airlines abut the reclining seat furor, they avoid the question, stating it is an issue better solved onboard with a little rational understanding. Ha! Rational? Who can be rationale when flying today? It is impossible to be rational when abused so much. That's why one company made allot of money selling a "knee defender" that clips to your seat and prevents the guy in front from reclining into your space.
I guess we passengers should just accept the abuse and move to another seat, if one is available, when the reclining seat becomes a problem. Or we could just stay home and forget the whole thing.
In addition to that seat belt and safety speech we all endure each flight, flight attendants should consider issuing the recline warning to passengers before take-off. It might be something simple like, "Caution: reclining your seat into the already too crowded space of the passenger behind you may cause an unpleasant reaction that is hazardous to your health and airline safety". Just to let the recline passenger know...
I think the reclining seat was once a marvelous pleasure for passengers, but hen the airliners became so crowded and space for the passengers around their seats so small, it might be impolite and even dangerous to recline anymore. But then, the airlines still allow the seats to go back. I always seem to get the type of passenger in front of me who leans back and assaults my knees in the process. But as much as I dislike it and think it inconsiderate, never question his or her right to do so. Other passengers aboard are not as docile as I about this. I have seen some nasty moments between the reclining passenger and the infringed one.
The airlines are to blame for the current seat size but if you ask the airlines abut the reclining seat furor, they avoid the question, stating it is an issue better solved onboard with a little rational understanding. Ha! Rational? Who can be rationale when flying today? It is impossible to be rational when abused so much. That's why one company made allot of money selling a "knee defender" that clips to your seat and prevents the guy in front from reclining into your space.
I guess we passengers should just accept the abuse and move to another seat, if one is available, when the reclining seat becomes a problem. Or we could just stay home and forget the whole thing.
Respect For The Aged Day
Some news for OLD PEOPLE like you! The Japanese are known for
quite a few traditions,
some good and some
bad. But one that seems a good idea is 'Respect for Old Aged Day'.
Oops! I see it just passed and missed it. It's not nice when an old
timer like me missed that one. I should blame it on my failing memory.
We oldies love to use that excuse. Oh, wait..... I forget to zip my
fly again and wanted to take care of that.
Anyway, that holiday is a new one, but it's catching on so much that other nations are thinking about celebrating it too. It was established as a national holiday in 1966 to express respect for the elders in the community, and to recognize and thank them for their contributions to society and last but not least, celebrate their long lives. On Respect for the Aged Day, the media in Japan fawns over the old crowd, does feature stories on the oldest person in Japan, and encourages the average citizen to do something nice for grandma and grandpa. You know, like stop putting grandpa in that chair that slopes so you can collect the change from his pocket when he is hoisted out of the chair.
Besides robbing grandpa the holiday encourages family members to visit the graves of deceased elders to show respect, cleaning the site and adding flowers. Respect for the Aged Day is also when we are supposed to talk to the family about the things elders have done to make life on earth more pleasant. Uh, you can leave out those stories of grandma passing out from too much wine at the family picnic. However, paying a car detailer to clean granny's vomit stains in your car did a great service to the car detail workers employed there.
We are also supposed to do something nice for our elders on that day. I might have trouble finding any one elder to me, but if I do, taking them flowers, making them breakfast or dinner, or taking them out for a day at the movies or to shop are recommended tributes. When you take granny to the mall, be careful that she doesn't collide with a teenage skate boarder or try to flash them for old time sake.
I suspect that this holiday will only work well in Japan. The Japanese culture always revered the aged and there are a lot of oldies in Japan. The number of people over the age of 100 is expected to reach 32,000 next month. One in five Japanese are aged 65 or older and Japanese women can expect to live to see their 85th birthday. In most of the world, the young don't pamper grandpa and grandma. Instead they say a few prayers that those old coots will die so they can get their inheritance. Hmmm I better stop now and check my will. Happy Respect for the Aged day.
Anyway, that holiday is a new one, but it's catching on so much that other nations are thinking about celebrating it too. It was established as a national holiday in 1966 to express respect for the elders in the community, and to recognize and thank them for their contributions to society and last but not least, celebrate their long lives. On Respect for the Aged Day, the media in Japan fawns over the old crowd, does feature stories on the oldest person in Japan, and encourages the average citizen to do something nice for grandma and grandpa. You know, like stop putting grandpa in that chair that slopes so you can collect the change from his pocket when he is hoisted out of the chair.
Besides robbing grandpa the holiday encourages family members to visit the graves of deceased elders to show respect, cleaning the site and adding flowers. Respect for the Aged Day is also when we are supposed to talk to the family about the things elders have done to make life on earth more pleasant. Uh, you can leave out those stories of grandma passing out from too much wine at the family picnic. However, paying a car detailer to clean granny's vomit stains in your car did a great service to the car detail workers employed there.
We are also supposed to do something nice for our elders on that day. I might have trouble finding any one elder to me, but if I do, taking them flowers, making them breakfast or dinner, or taking them out for a day at the movies or to shop are recommended tributes. When you take granny to the mall, be careful that she doesn't collide with a teenage skate boarder or try to flash them for old time sake.
I suspect that this holiday will only work well in Japan. The Japanese culture always revered the aged and there are a lot of oldies in Japan. The number of people over the age of 100 is expected to reach 32,000 next month. One in five Japanese are aged 65 or older and Japanese women can expect to live to see their 85th birthday. In most of the world, the young don't pamper grandpa and grandma. Instead they say a few prayers that those old coots will die so they can get their inheritance. Hmmm I better stop now and check my will. Happy Respect for the Aged day.
Hotel Changes
The world's hotels have been watching the airline industry
as it adds
fees and reduces services in order to both annoy passengers and to take
as much of their money as possible. It's all part of that sinister plan
(a little paranoia can be enjoyable) to make our traveling as
uncomfortable as we can endure. The good news is that some of the
changes the hotels have instituted are probably both sensible, only a
minor inconvenience and long overdue. Here are a few of the changes you
may have seen at those 3 to 5 star hotels you use on your travel routes.
1) Free newspapers are increasingly not being delivered to the hotel rooms of guests. The hotels are now either eliminating them or only providing a free newspaper for those guests who want to pick up one in the hotel lobby. As much as I love and read printed newspapers each day, it makes sense in this on line reading world, one in which fewer and fewer people even glance at a newspaper. This no newspaper policy saves the hotels a little money while annoying only a few customers.
2) The hotel room safe is now a rare sight in rooms. I never used those things, but many do and miss this. Now they have to bring their valuables to the hotel lobby desk to be stored in the hotel safe. I suspect that many of those who bring valuables on their trip will skip the jaunt to the hotel lobby and leave their goodies in their rooms, where some cunning maid or other hotel employee or thief will grab the goodies for themselves.
3) Premium pay channels on the hotel TV are now increasingly not offered at hotels. This means that favorite porno channel will have to be viewed on your computer instead. No problem here. Guests have increasingly used their DVD's or computers to watch whatever video, porno or not, they have time to see while vacationing. TV, like newspapers, is a dying entity. The hotels are probably wise to eliminate the expense of this service.
4) Those rolling carts in the hotel walkways outside your room with toilet paper, soap etc. are disappearing. It seems the cost of "lost" (stolen) goodies from those carts is fairly high, and that having the hotel maids tote them in plastic bags on their cleaning rounds reduces the temptation for you to grab a handful of shampoo, toothpaste and other cosmetics that you already have stuffed in your bathroom at home. The hotels say this is a big savings. You want toothpaste? Bring your own or the hotel will gladly sell you what it used to offer as a complimentary service.
5) Mini bar filled with overprices snacks and drinks are gone. Hallelujah to that! Nothing was ever more annoying to me at my hotel check-out than being asked what things I consumed from the hotel mini bar or refrig. After all, that junk was both unappealing and marked-up in price so high I never, ever used any of it. To find that the guest has been charged five dollars for a small bottle of water he or she did not take is beyond frustrating. The hotels have wised up and reduced the hassle for everyone by now providing empty refrigerators that guests can stock with their own goodies.
6) The free breakfast with a room purchase is going away at some hotels. This can be a good or bad thing, as some people never used their "free breakfast" anyway. The cost was still charged in their room fee despite their shunning the food.
7 ) The hotel concierge, once a free and oft used service for guest, is now asking for a fee for each service offered. I am not sure if this means guests will not tip their concierges less or not at all. But I think using them will now be based on whether they are absolutely needed, not because they are just there. The internet will take the place of the concierge in most instances.
So some changes are for the better and some a liability to the guests. The idea that hotels are now worried about their bottom line as much as the airlines isn't surprising. The difference is that the hotel business is a competitive one, while the airline industry is not. It is a virtual monopoly that abuses passengers as a result. Look for hotel stays to be less pleasant and a bit more expensive. It's just what the guest doesn't need after surviving that terrorist experience about the airplane that got them to their destination site
1) Free newspapers are increasingly not being delivered to the hotel rooms of guests. The hotels are now either eliminating them or only providing a free newspaper for those guests who want to pick up one in the hotel lobby. As much as I love and read printed newspapers each day, it makes sense in this on line reading world, one in which fewer and fewer people even glance at a newspaper. This no newspaper policy saves the hotels a little money while annoying only a few customers.
2) The hotel room safe is now a rare sight in rooms. I never used those things, but many do and miss this. Now they have to bring their valuables to the hotel lobby desk to be stored in the hotel safe. I suspect that many of those who bring valuables on their trip will skip the jaunt to the hotel lobby and leave their goodies in their rooms, where some cunning maid or other hotel employee or thief will grab the goodies for themselves.
3) Premium pay channels on the hotel TV are now increasingly not offered at hotels. This means that favorite porno channel will have to be viewed on your computer instead. No problem here. Guests have increasingly used their DVD's or computers to watch whatever video, porno or not, they have time to see while vacationing. TV, like newspapers, is a dying entity. The hotels are probably wise to eliminate the expense of this service.
4) Those rolling carts in the hotel walkways outside your room with toilet paper, soap etc. are disappearing. It seems the cost of "lost" (stolen) goodies from those carts is fairly high, and that having the hotel maids tote them in plastic bags on their cleaning rounds reduces the temptation for you to grab a handful of shampoo, toothpaste and other cosmetics that you already have stuffed in your bathroom at home. The hotels say this is a big savings. You want toothpaste? Bring your own or the hotel will gladly sell you what it used to offer as a complimentary service.
5) Mini bar filled with overprices snacks and drinks are gone. Hallelujah to that! Nothing was ever more annoying to me at my hotel check-out than being asked what things I consumed from the hotel mini bar or refrig. After all, that junk was both unappealing and marked-up in price so high I never, ever used any of it. To find that the guest has been charged five dollars for a small bottle of water he or she did not take is beyond frustrating. The hotels have wised up and reduced the hassle for everyone by now providing empty refrigerators that guests can stock with their own goodies.
6) The free breakfast with a room purchase is going away at some hotels. This can be a good or bad thing, as some people never used their "free breakfast" anyway. The cost was still charged in their room fee despite their shunning the food.
7 ) The hotel concierge, once a free and oft used service for guest, is now asking for a fee for each service offered. I am not sure if this means guests will not tip their concierges less or not at all. But I think using them will now be based on whether they are absolutely needed, not because they are just there. The internet will take the place of the concierge in most instances.
So some changes are for the better and some a liability to the guests. The idea that hotels are now worried about their bottom line as much as the airlines isn't surprising. The difference is that the hotel business is a competitive one, while the airline industry is not. It is a virtual monopoly that abuses passengers as a result. Look for hotel stays to be less pleasant and a bit more expensive. It's just what the guest doesn't need after surviving that terrorist experience about the airplane that got them to their destination site
Parents Have Their Child Areested For Sexting
More on cell phone insanity...... What happens when parents
give children too much cell phone
freedom?
A lot, some good but mostly bad. It can be downright ridiculous as to
the perspective both the parent and child takes about the necessity or
luxury of the great toy of the 21st century....the cell phone. For
example, in Virginia the other day the parents of a 13 year old
daughter jumped off a higher cliff than their child when they turned in
their 13 year old daughter to the local sheriff after finding nude
photos of her and other teens on her cell phone and tablet.
Yep! Instead of taking the phone and tablet away, they called the police. It makes me wonder whether the 13 year old or the parents are in control there. Surely, having one's child arrested because she did what plenty of 13 year olds will do when given a cell phone is extreme. I'd venture to say that whatever trust the parents and child had toward each other is now long gone.
The unidentified parents said they alerted the local sheriff's office even though she could be prosecuted. They said they did not want a stranger to possibly see the images and track her down. "We did this now to protect her for now and in the future, because this could get worse," the mother said. Hmmm It's an interesting concept in parenting. Let the criminal authorities parent instead of the parent. I find that odd. Yet, in this age in which many elevate a phone to the level of an inherent right, perhaps more parents might think that having the police arrest their daughter is the more sensible alternative to just taking away her phone.
The mother learned of the so-called sexting when her other child heard voices in their daughter's bedroom about 4 a.m. "What scares me is, this is much bigger than we realize. How many others are doing this and you don't realize it?" she said. Um, what scares me is that we have parents as dense as those tow. But then, in the United States one must apply for and receive a license to own a pet. But to have a baby requires nothing more than sperm and an egg.
The sheriff's office of the county where the girl was arrested is still investigating, but the child's lawyer said the daughter could be sent to a juvenile counseling program that would involve her parents. Hmmmm I suggest the parents get most of the counseling. A basic course in making appropriate parental decisions would help. Depending on their ages, the older teens who received the pictures, however, could be sent to jail....uh, I hope without their phones.
Yep! Instead of taking the phone and tablet away, they called the police. It makes me wonder whether the 13 year old or the parents are in control there. Surely, having one's child arrested because she did what plenty of 13 year olds will do when given a cell phone is extreme. I'd venture to say that whatever trust the parents and child had toward each other is now long gone.
The unidentified parents said they alerted the local sheriff's office even though she could be prosecuted. They said they did not want a stranger to possibly see the images and track her down. "We did this now to protect her for now and in the future, because this could get worse," the mother said. Hmmm It's an interesting concept in parenting. Let the criminal authorities parent instead of the parent. I find that odd. Yet, in this age in which many elevate a phone to the level of an inherent right, perhaps more parents might think that having the police arrest their daughter is the more sensible alternative to just taking away her phone.
The mother learned of the so-called sexting when her other child heard voices in their daughter's bedroom about 4 a.m. "What scares me is, this is much bigger than we realize. How many others are doing this and you don't realize it?" she said. Um, what scares me is that we have parents as dense as those tow. But then, in the United States one must apply for and receive a license to own a pet. But to have a baby requires nothing more than sperm and an egg.
The sheriff's office of the county where the girl was arrested is still investigating, but the child's lawyer said the daughter could be sent to a juvenile counseling program that would involve her parents. Hmmmm I suggest the parents get most of the counseling. A basic course in making appropriate parental decisions would help. Depending on their ages, the older teens who received the pictures, however, could be sent to jail....uh, I hope without their phones.
Tesxting Incident
Did you see the story of the Colorado woman who was impaled
through the ass after she crashed her car while.....you guessed it,
texting on her dopey cell phone. Here is a link to the story
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/01/woman-texting-impaled-buttocks/14918723/
Driving an automobile today is like walking through a mine field. In the state where that crazy woman lives, it is legal to smoke pot whenever the desire comes. So if you drive in Colorado you might be killed by a texting driver, one high on pot or the standard drunk driver. Haha At least we have a choice about which method will destroy us. The point being, that people today have become so self absorbed, the "me, me, my rights first generation" that life on earth is a lot more dangerous than it has to be.
Just look at the cell phone addicts to see that we live in a selfish and often unthinking world today. Too many humans act on their wants before thinking about the welfare of the rest of humanity. And they are convinced they are entitled to do that. The once sense of community has been replaced with billions of private electronic worlds in which the individual feels he or she has the right to disregard the presence of others. Every year, at least 200,000 people experience accidents caused by texting while behind the wheel (and each year in the United States 1.6 million accidents are caused by driving while handling a cell phone). This is according to a report released by the U.S. National Safety Council. That number will surely increase because the individual driver today does not care that driving while texting increases an accident probability by 25.
Surely, people have always driven their cars when intoxicated with alcohol. But now we have added drugs and electronic toys to the list of things that potentially cause un necessary deaths. One would think the bulk of the driving population would understand this, but they are oblivious to the fact. My sympathy goes to the woman who was impaled in the ass after causing an accident while rexting. She does seem to know that common sense and safety are important while driving. But I am not sure if many more of the cell addicts do. A pole through their ass just might be a wake-up call they also need.
Driving an automobile today is like walking through a mine field. In the state where that crazy woman lives, it is legal to smoke pot whenever the desire comes. So if you drive in Colorado you might be killed by a texting driver, one high on pot or the standard drunk driver. Haha At least we have a choice about which method will destroy us. The point being, that people today have become so self absorbed, the "me, me, my rights first generation" that life on earth is a lot more dangerous than it has to be.
Just look at the cell phone addicts to see that we live in a selfish and often unthinking world today. Too many humans act on their wants before thinking about the welfare of the rest of humanity. And they are convinced they are entitled to do that. The once sense of community has been replaced with billions of private electronic worlds in which the individual feels he or she has the right to disregard the presence of others. Every year, at least 200,000 people experience accidents caused by texting while behind the wheel (and each year in the United States 1.6 million accidents are caused by driving while handling a cell phone). This is according to a report released by the U.S. National Safety Council. That number will surely increase because the individual driver today does not care that driving while texting increases an accident probability by 25.
Surely, people have always driven their cars when intoxicated with alcohol. But now we have added drugs and electronic toys to the list of things that potentially cause un necessary deaths. One would think the bulk of the driving population would understand this, but they are oblivious to the fact. My sympathy goes to the woman who was impaled in the ass after causing an accident while rexting. She does seem to know that common sense and safety are important while driving. But I am not sure if many more of the cell addicts do. A pole through their ass just might be a wake-up call they also need.
Give Me Water
I think the next big environmental crisis to gain
traction world wide is going to be the lack of available clean water.
As the world population continues to grow way too big for humans to
support, water shortages are becoming common even in the wealthier
developed nations with smaller population. I even hear about it in the
U.S. now. There are "water shortage" (actually, just temporary weather
related ones but real ones nonetheless) stories in the U.S. media
frequently . And in the overpopulated third world clean water to drink
and bathe in is almost a rarity now.
UNICEF says that more than 3.4 million people die each year from water, sanitation, and hygiene related causes. Nearly all deaths, 99 percent, occur in the developing world. I suspect that in time tend will grow in more developed countries too. It's already so bad that a lack of access to clean water and sanitation kills children at a rate equivalent of a jumbo jet crashing every four hours. Yet, we don't hear much about it. That's probably true to some extent because all our water problems are the result of overpopulation stressing water sources, and in this age it isn't politically correct to mention that humans should stop having more babies than can be cared for by the parents.
Here are a few stats from the United Nations about the growing water problem.
- Of the 60 million people added to the world's towns and cities every year, most move to informal settlements (i.e. slums) with no sanitation facilities.
- 780 million people lack access to an improved water source; approximately one in nine people.
- The water and sanitation] crisis claims more lives through disease than any war claims through guns.
- The majority of water consumed world wide is never treated, which may explain why the majority of illnesses world wide is caused by fecal matter in it.
- More people have a mobile phone than a toilet.
I had to toss in the cell phone stat not only because I hate those things, but because it shows the priority our tech addicted world places on them. I wonder if any of those cell phone addicts believe a cell phone app will provide clean water. Good luck to them with that dream. Anyway, I thought I would mention the crisis of a lack of clean water before you gulped down another bottle of it. Cheers!
UNICEF says that more than 3.4 million people die each year from water, sanitation, and hygiene related causes. Nearly all deaths, 99 percent, occur in the developing world. I suspect that in time tend will grow in more developed countries too. It's already so bad that a lack of access to clean water and sanitation kills children at a rate equivalent of a jumbo jet crashing every four hours. Yet, we don't hear much about it. That's probably true to some extent because all our water problems are the result of overpopulation stressing water sources, and in this age it isn't politically correct to mention that humans should stop having more babies than can be cared for by the parents.
Here are a few stats from the United Nations about the growing water problem.
- Of the 60 million people added to the world's towns and cities every year, most move to informal settlements (i.e. slums) with no sanitation facilities.
- 780 million people lack access to an improved water source; approximately one in nine people.
- The water and sanitation] crisis claims more lives through disease than any war claims through guns.
- The majority of water consumed world wide is never treated, which may explain why the majority of illnesses world wide is caused by fecal matter in it.
- More people have a mobile phone than a toilet.
I had to toss in the cell phone stat not only because I hate those things, but because it shows the priority our tech addicted world places on them. I wonder if any of those cell phone addicts believe a cell phone app will provide clean water. Good luck to them with that dream. Anyway, I thought I would mention the crisis of a lack of clean water before you gulped down another bottle of it. Cheers!
Selfies
This might be called the age of the selfie (What's a selfie?
Oh, you
know. It's when you take a picture of yourself and post it on
Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, or whatever social network is popular).
Face it, it’s the age in which we live. With all this technology run
amok, we are each given the opportunity to offer others a glimpse into
our lives, no matter how boring or exciting they are. And they are
mostly boring lives. We used to be able to just take the photos. But
now, with Face book, Twitter, Instagram, Myspace etc. it makes it that
much easier to share these photos instantly. That sometimes hard for
the technology addicted among us to pass up. It’s harmless. But, it’s
a reminder of just stupid we can be when displaying our ‘selfies’.
I suppose a person in search of an ego boost thinks that a selfie is a way to get positive attention, a second in the limelight of a mostly dark world. But most selfies are just trivial annoyances that define the person as being one without substance. That's why the infamous Kim Kardashian is publishing a book of her selfies. Yep!! Nothing but her selfies. Is that selfie or selfish? Before I throw up and think about that too much, here's a few selfie categories I find extremely annoying. You might have also seen and regretted wasting your time looking at them too, because in this age of mush we don't have an option to avoid what is fired at us.
* I'm at the gym, selfie
* I'm on my way to work selfie
* Here's my dig selfie
* My baby selfie. Isn't he cuter than any other baby?
* I just woke or am sleepy selfie
* Here's what I ate at the restaurant selfie.
* I am drunk or high on drugs selfie
* My naked selfie
See a pattern? They are all pictures about nothing anyone should be interesting in seeing. But the selfie photography is fascinated by the photos and themselves. Selfies may be the biggest time waster of all. I hope the person who is going to find the cure for cancer isn't a selfie nut too. We might miss the cure if he or she is. Why is it that I think people who post selfies so much probably have much shallower relationships with the people they meet in the flesh, off the internet? Maybe they take their selfies and their every day routine too seriously.
There's already enough untalented, fame-hungry wannabes around without us creating legions more merely because they're able to point a smart phone in the right direction. The selfie craze is way too much about nothing. It's strange that all this selfie business is changing how we interact (or in the case of selfies, don't interact) with each other, how we veiw each other and how we conduct our day to day social interactions. Makes me long for the days before we had cameras.
I suppose a person in search of an ego boost thinks that a selfie is a way to get positive attention, a second in the limelight of a mostly dark world. But most selfies are just trivial annoyances that define the person as being one without substance. That's why the infamous Kim Kardashian is publishing a book of her selfies. Yep!! Nothing but her selfies. Is that selfie or selfish? Before I throw up and think about that too much, here's a few selfie categories I find extremely annoying. You might have also seen and regretted wasting your time looking at them too, because in this age of mush we don't have an option to avoid what is fired at us.
* I'm at the gym, selfie
* I'm on my way to work selfie
* Here's my dig selfie
* My baby selfie. Isn't he cuter than any other baby?
* I just woke or am sleepy selfie
* Here's what I ate at the restaurant selfie.
* I am drunk or high on drugs selfie
* My naked selfie
See a pattern? They are all pictures about nothing anyone should be interesting in seeing. But the selfie photography is fascinated by the photos and themselves. Selfies may be the biggest time waster of all. I hope the person who is going to find the cure for cancer isn't a selfie nut too. We might miss the cure if he or she is. Why is it that I think people who post selfies so much probably have much shallower relationships with the people they meet in the flesh, off the internet? Maybe they take their selfies and their every day routine too seriously.
professors asked 508 Facebook users with an average age
of 24 to rank how close they feel to their friends, coworkers and
relatives who also use Face book. They then compared those answers to
how many selfies those people posted. Overwhelmingly, the more someone
posted selfies, the lower they ranked on the intimacy scales of the
participants. - See more at:
http://dailylounge.com/the-daily/entry/science-confirms-that-selfies-are-the-worst#sthash.nSgZ5IjT.dpuf
In the last 12 months more photographs have been taken than in all the
other days of photography history. No doubt a high percentage of those
photos were selfies. In a sense, the selfie is the new autograph. Want
a eclebrity autography today? You simply hold your phone and snap a
picture of you and the celeb. After all, in our age of technology gone
wild no event is assumed to have happened unless there is a video image
of it. There's already enough untalented, fame-hungry wannabes around without us creating legions more merely because they're able to point a smart phone in the right direction. The selfie craze is way too much about nothing. It's strange that all this selfie business is changing how we interact (or in the case of selfies, don't interact) with each other, how we veiw each other and how we conduct our day to day social interactions. Makes me long for the days before we had cameras.
The War On Women And Other Phony Issues
The phony Obama led campaign that there is a "war on women"
in
the U.S.
is wearing thin for a lot more people than just I. More and more, it
seems there is talk by the leftists side of the political aisle about
women as "victims". Victims of what? The current law and practice does
not allow discrimination based on sex, and there have been very few
examples in the past 25 years where anyone has proved where a woman has
been discriminated against because she is a female. For anyone to claim
otherwise is like the little boy crying
wolf every time he wants company. I do think it is a clever political
tactic to state a false narrative and then pound away at the most clue
less voter until the narrative becomes the unchallenged truth.
The war on women advocates say that anyone who is against taxpayer funding, or the forced provision, of abortion, contraception and sterilization procedures just hates women , and so women can't get a fair shake. Lawmakers and “reproductive rights” activists such as the nutty Sandra Fluke use wildly sweeping statements such as “they're trying to deny women the health care they need” or “they're trying to force women back into the dark ages” as a way of scaring women into the voting booth to vote the war on women party line agenda. The problem is it works.
The average voter today is uninformed about most real issues as they engage more and more with their on line fantasy world and less with the real one. They readily accept the latest trendy narrative, as in the war against women. And that's the point of why the war on women is not just ridiculous but a reflection of the other, seemingly endless political campaigns today that are centered around issues that just aren't what they are portrayed to be.
Another phony political issue is the Obama mantra that there is "income inequality" because the system just hates poorer people and doesn't give then an opportunity to be like the rich that Obama and company say they hate. A news flash for anyone who believes that the capitalist system is "rigged" because there are winners and losers in it, is that capitalism is supposed to be like that. Unlike socialism, which limits success, capitalism is an open playing field, a survival of the fittest. By nature there are winners and losers in capitalism. Government only has the responsibility to make sure each competitor on the capitalist playing field has an equal opportunity to succeed. Nothing else. It does not guarantee everyone is equally financially. It does that almost always, and when not, government can gently correct the deficiency to make that playing field neutral. But in this age of social welfare/entitlement the income inequality propagandists tell the voters that if they are not as successful as the guy or gal next to them, it must be some inherent unfairness that explains it.
Another of the phony issues of today is the right wing Republican campaign against gay and lesbian marriage. That social preference issue has been elevated to a national one to the extent that one would think all of civilization will fall if same sex couples live together as married couples. How important is that issue to the nation? Not very. Besides, each state decides marriage laws, with the court system adjudicating what the states legislate. So why waste time pushing such issues?
The answer to that and all the other phony campaigns seems to be that because ignorant voters can be distracted with phony issues, and when so they won't see the real ones that the politicians try to hide while getting elected.
The war on women advocates say that anyone who is against taxpayer funding, or the forced provision, of abortion, contraception and sterilization procedures just hates women , and so women can't get a fair shake. Lawmakers and “reproductive rights” activists such as the nutty Sandra Fluke use wildly sweeping statements such as “they're trying to deny women the health care they need” or “they're trying to force women back into the dark ages” as a way of scaring women into the voting booth to vote the war on women party line agenda. The problem is it works.
The average voter today is uninformed about most real issues as they engage more and more with their on line fantasy world and less with the real one. They readily accept the latest trendy narrative, as in the war against women. And that's the point of why the war on women is not just ridiculous but a reflection of the other, seemingly endless political campaigns today that are centered around issues that just aren't what they are portrayed to be.
Another phony political issue is the Obama mantra that there is "income inequality" because the system just hates poorer people and doesn't give then an opportunity to be like the rich that Obama and company say they hate. A news flash for anyone who believes that the capitalist system is "rigged" because there are winners and losers in it, is that capitalism is supposed to be like that. Unlike socialism, which limits success, capitalism is an open playing field, a survival of the fittest. By nature there are winners and losers in capitalism. Government only has the responsibility to make sure each competitor on the capitalist playing field has an equal opportunity to succeed. Nothing else. It does not guarantee everyone is equally financially. It does that almost always, and when not, government can gently correct the deficiency to make that playing field neutral. But in this age of social welfare/entitlement the income inequality propagandists tell the voters that if they are not as successful as the guy or gal next to them, it must be some inherent unfairness that explains it.
Another of the phony issues of today is the right wing Republican campaign against gay and lesbian marriage. That social preference issue has been elevated to a national one to the extent that one would think all of civilization will fall if same sex couples live together as married couples. How important is that issue to the nation? Not very. Besides, each state decides marriage laws, with the court system adjudicating what the states legislate. So why waste time pushing such issues?
The answer to that and all the other phony campaigns seems to be that because ignorant voters can be distracted with phony issues, and when so they won't see the real ones that the politicians try to hide while getting elected.
Modern Warfare
There are quite a few wars on-going now. That's not
surprising, because
war is and has always been man's favorite sport. Like other sports,
there is always a war game event somewhere in the world, usually
several going on at the same time. And we don't have to buy tickets to
watch, since CNN or some other broadcaster will show it for free. But
modern war is different today than in the past. It used to be that wars
were bloody battles to the end engaged in order to take another
nation's land away. But now, wars seem more like propaganda campaigns
for attention. Territory rarely ever is gained or lost for the
combatants who are engaged in modern warfare.
There still is blood and deaths with these new age wars, because nations love their military gadgets and ....well...like kids, they have to fire them once in a while to see how they work. But what is different with modern warfare is that the major part of it is the media campaign each side invests in to justify their reason for fighting. Both sides uses the media to posit their position, with the more skilled propaganda ministers wining the ar of wars.
Just look at the many recent Israeli- Arab conflicts as an example. They happen all the time now, and there is never much destruction or death. Instead, a media blitz is launched by each side and the "war' is more a war of words and persuasion, not bullets. The generals appear on news broadcasts and at the United Nations to fight for their sides. It ends when most of the world chooses a "right" side and decides to help that country with various economic or military grants. The other side realizes it has "lost" and just stops fighting for awhile so it will convince the world to stop helping the side it has decided to support.
Later, when the whole situation has calmed down the two sides will probably fight another war over some new imagined issue, and one or the other side will win the new media campaign, producing the same cessation of fighting. This process can last forever (as in the Arab/Israeli conflict), but I think is a far better kind of war than the old massacres we have seen throughout history.
I think the reason war has changed and is less bloody is because modern weapons are too horrible and destructive to use in earnest and because communication technology is so fast now that it's easier to fight with words than with bullets. We win wars now by winning world opinion and using that opinion to cripple the economy of one of the sides, not by winning on a physical battlefield. Thus, the new wars are more economic oriented ones more so than wars of bullets. Every nation's leader fears economic loss far more than invasion by another's army. This is because it is easier to destroy an enemy economically than to fight with a military force. And in the end, what a country most prizes is economic prosperity at home, not possession of another nation's territory (and the problems that come about with that).
This is why some smaller, weaker nations like to star wars with a bigger and stronger opponent. They do so hoping to quickly lose and receive massive economic "rebuilding" grants after the surrender. So in the end, the little nation gains by starting and losing a war with another nation. The United Sates, in particular, has been an unlimited resource for losing nations, as the U.S. seems to think dumping hundreds of billions in aid to the losing nation will somehow make it strong enough to not start any more ears. Sad to say, the wealthy nations don't seem to realize that they are being swindled out of their assets, that the swindle never stops and that they are the biggest losers of the war (they didn't even fight).
Sigh....I hope we the world can one day just fight on-line, with some of those idiotic war game simulation games. At that point, I will know civilization is advancing.
There still is blood and deaths with these new age wars, because nations love their military gadgets and ....well...like kids, they have to fire them once in a while to see how they work. But what is different with modern warfare is that the major part of it is the media campaign each side invests in to justify their reason for fighting. Both sides uses the media to posit their position, with the more skilled propaganda ministers wining the ar of wars.
Just look at the many recent Israeli- Arab conflicts as an example. They happen all the time now, and there is never much destruction or death. Instead, a media blitz is launched by each side and the "war' is more a war of words and persuasion, not bullets. The generals appear on news broadcasts and at the United Nations to fight for their sides. It ends when most of the world chooses a "right" side and decides to help that country with various economic or military grants. The other side realizes it has "lost" and just stops fighting for awhile so it will convince the world to stop helping the side it has decided to support.
Later, when the whole situation has calmed down the two sides will probably fight another war over some new imagined issue, and one or the other side will win the new media campaign, producing the same cessation of fighting. This process can last forever (as in the Arab/Israeli conflict), but I think is a far better kind of war than the old massacres we have seen throughout history.
I think the reason war has changed and is less bloody is because modern weapons are too horrible and destructive to use in earnest and because communication technology is so fast now that it's easier to fight with words than with bullets. We win wars now by winning world opinion and using that opinion to cripple the economy of one of the sides, not by winning on a physical battlefield. Thus, the new wars are more economic oriented ones more so than wars of bullets. Every nation's leader fears economic loss far more than invasion by another's army. This is because it is easier to destroy an enemy economically than to fight with a military force. And in the end, what a country most prizes is economic prosperity at home, not possession of another nation's territory (and the problems that come about with that).
This is why some smaller, weaker nations like to star wars with a bigger and stronger opponent. They do so hoping to quickly lose and receive massive economic "rebuilding" grants after the surrender. So in the end, the little nation gains by starting and losing a war with another nation. The United Sates, in particular, has been an unlimited resource for losing nations, as the U.S. seems to think dumping hundreds of billions in aid to the losing nation will somehow make it strong enough to not start any more ears. Sad to say, the wealthy nations don't seem to realize that they are being swindled out of their assets, that the swindle never stops and that they are the biggest losers of the war (they didn't even fight).
Sigh....I hope we the world can one day just fight on-line, with some of those idiotic war game simulation games. At that point, I will know civilization is advancing.
Dog Food For Dinner
I
have some biting news to pass on to you that may make you howl a
little. It's one of those "I am a business owner who needs to boost my
sales, so I'll do something crazy to be noticed" stories. At least, I
think that's what this is all about. But to the contrary, it could
also be that the lady in question is just a little odd, the lone wolf
in the pack..or something. The strange woman in question is from
nearby from Washington, a state that has as many odd characters as my
own Oregon. She has gotten quite a bit of attention lately because of
her unusual diet experiment.
What has she just done? She ate nothing but dog food for one month to prove...well, I am not sure what. She claims it was to prove that pet food is perfectly fine for human consumption. Or, wait... maybe she wanted to show that our own human food is made with unnatural ingredients? Hold on, is it just a marketing stunt for her pet food store? One thing for sure, if you meet here, you better stand far enough away from her when you strike up a conversation. No doubt her dog breath is killing.
Her name is Dorothy Hunter, from Richland, Washington, and she owns a pet store called Paws Natural Pet Emporium, which is allegedly a "natural pet food seller". Sounds tome that she is simply better at marketing than is your average dirty dog store owner. "We sell holistic, natural foods with good ingredients. I believe in our products and how good they are. I actually believe our pets are eating better than us," Dorothy said.
This she said after, being so pressed for time at work, Dorothy started eating the pet food in her store. Hmmmmm I think she might have tried a pizza or some other fast food delivery before scarfing down Fido's dinner, but she claims the dog food is quite tasty, thank you! Ok, I am a cynic and think she is more interested in improving her business than in raising my awareness of the nutritional values of human and dog foods. But Dorothy insists that many of the doggie foods she sells are more "natural" and sustain ably processed that what we buy in our supermarket. She even claims she is now eating some canned cat food that she loves. Oh my, better guard your bananas next up for Dorothy might be the monkey diet.
When Woman's Health magazine heard about Dorothy's canine appetite and consulted a registered dietitian to get the scientific lowdown on the health ramifications of her daily diet (Yep! Three doggie meals a day is what she consumed). The expert's answer shouldn't really surprise. “Yes, the ingredients listed in some pet foods may be wholesome and akin to real foods humans eat on a daily basis,” Jaclyn London, a clinical dietitian at Mount Sinai Hospital, reported to Women's Health. “But someone eating pet foods also runs a significant risk of contracting food borne illness from eating foods not intended for the human gut.” So someone should tell Dorothy that it might be smarter to eat foods created for a human's immune system and recommended daily allowance of vitamins and minerals.
Despite the oddness of this woman's new diet choice, I think her message does convey one valid point. Humans should read more of the food labels on both their own food and their pets. But the question to ask is whether Dorothy healthier now on this new doggie diet? Dorothy says that her feet don't swell as much as they used to and she has lost 2.5lbs. It's also safe to say that she is coughing up significantly less hair balls, and her coat is nice and shiny. But she reportedly has fleas, howls at full moon and bites more often.
What has she just done? She ate nothing but dog food for one month to prove...well, I am not sure what. She claims it was to prove that pet food is perfectly fine for human consumption. Or, wait... maybe she wanted to show that our own human food is made with unnatural ingredients? Hold on, is it just a marketing stunt for her pet food store? One thing for sure, if you meet here, you better stand far enough away from her when you strike up a conversation. No doubt her dog breath is killing.
Her name is Dorothy Hunter, from Richland, Washington, and she owns a pet store called Paws Natural Pet Emporium, which is allegedly a "natural pet food seller". Sounds tome that she is simply better at marketing than is your average dirty dog store owner. "We sell holistic, natural foods with good ingredients. I believe in our products and how good they are. I actually believe our pets are eating better than us," Dorothy said.
This she said after, being so pressed for time at work, Dorothy started eating the pet food in her store. Hmmmmm I think she might have tried a pizza or some other fast food delivery before scarfing down Fido's dinner, but she claims the dog food is quite tasty, thank you! Ok, I am a cynic and think she is more interested in improving her business than in raising my awareness of the nutritional values of human and dog foods. But Dorothy insists that many of the doggie foods she sells are more "natural" and sustain ably processed that what we buy in our supermarket. She even claims she is now eating some canned cat food that she loves. Oh my, better guard your bananas next up for Dorothy might be the monkey diet.
When Woman's Health magazine heard about Dorothy's canine appetite and consulted a registered dietitian to get the scientific lowdown on the health ramifications of her daily diet (Yep! Three doggie meals a day is what she consumed). The expert's answer shouldn't really surprise. “Yes, the ingredients listed in some pet foods may be wholesome and akin to real foods humans eat on a daily basis,” Jaclyn London, a clinical dietitian at Mount Sinai Hospital, reported to Women's Health. “But someone eating pet foods also runs a significant risk of contracting food borne illness from eating foods not intended for the human gut.” So someone should tell Dorothy that it might be smarter to eat foods created for a human's immune system and recommended daily allowance of vitamins and minerals.
Despite the oddness of this woman's new diet choice, I think her message does convey one valid point. Humans should read more of the food labels on both their own food and their pets. But the question to ask is whether Dorothy healthier now on this new doggie diet? Dorothy says that her feet don't swell as much as they used to and she has lost 2.5lbs. It's also safe to say that she is coughing up significantly less hair balls, and her coat is nice and shiny. But she reportedly has fleas, howls at full moon and bites more often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)