Let Them Eat Cake

How long will you keep cooked food before you decide it may not be safe to eat? And what if you freeze that food?  I bet you didn't answer, "about 60 years." Why 60 years? That's because there is a married couple in Florida that is still enjoying a tasting tradition from their wedding day. Every anniversary they take a bite from the top layer of their wedding cake that they wrap in Saran wrap and store in a coffee can in their freezer. Yep! They eat their 60 year old wedding cake each year anniversary of their wedding and they live to tell of it.

Ann and Ken Fredericks said that they pour brandy over the dark fruitcake to moisten it and break off a piece. I wonder if they take a few sips of that brandy before eating the cake. In fact, I wonder if they take allot of sips, not just on tasting day but all the time.  Well, they do admit to drinking champagne with their yearly cake tasting. I know fruitcake is supposed to last a long time, but 60 years is odd. Anne says the cake tastes just like it did the day she and Ken were married, but their children are disgusted by the fact they still eat that cake. Yet, Anne she says it's actually quite tasty with the brandy and has never made them sick.

I wonder long frozen food is safe to eat? Most of the recommendations about frozen food, cake or not, claim that after a year or two the freezing process makes the food, not unsafe, but dry ("freezer burn") and unpalatable. Yet, Anne and Ken say that when they pour brandy on top of their cake each year to keep it moist it does stay as fresh as the day in 1955 it was baked. But then most drunks also say they pour a great deal of brandy inside themselves to preserve their body.

The story of the origin of the cake is that when Anne and Ken were married in 1955 Ann's grandmother made the cake. Most marriages never approach 60 years in length. They tend to spoil before the Fredericks' wedding cake spoils. Hmmmm The grandma is dead, and the cake still lives. What does that say about life? I guess it says for some that life really is just a piece of cake.

Ashley.com

I just learned something about  on line cheating on a spouse or what the politically correct call "a significant other". It seems allot of people are cheating and it's pretty easy to do.  There is a web site called AshleyMadison.com. a general dating site that targets people who want to cheat those they say they love. The site itself states on the its home page (I looked at it for "research" purposes only!) that, "Ashley Madison is the world's leading married dating service for discreet encounters.

Trouble for the cheaters is, it isn't as discreet as it claims. Computer hackers breached the site in order to expose the users and are beginning to share user data online.  Ashley says to its users that prospective users, "Life is short. Have an affair." Well, they also might say' Have a divorce and lose half your assets and your kids. Not only that the hackers have the users credit card info. AshleyMadison.com's owners claim 40 million users for the site. Wow! Is anyone not cheating?  No problem in knowing who the cheaters are because the hackers have posted included names, addresses and phone numbers submitted by users. The data also included descriptions of what members were seeking: "I'm looking for someone who isn't happy at home or just bored and looking for some excitement," one member wrote. "I love it when I'm called and told I have 15 minutes to get to someplace where I'll be greeted at the door with a surprise — maybe lingerie, nakedness."

No, no! That wasn't from me. It was a sample of the cheater wants. Ashley  Madison (I wonder if Ashley is a real person or just another company invention like Sarah Lee. And if Ashley is real, does she cheat too?) Ashley says its investigation into this is still ongoing and that it is "actively monitoring and investigating this situation to determine the validity of any information posted online." The company said it would "continue to devote significant resources to this effort." Uh, I think they mean, We got caught with our pants down here, but then....what do you expect?"

The hackers, who call themselves the Impact Team, demanded that Ashley take down the site as well as the companion site EstablishedMen.com (go ahead and have a thrill...click to see this one too), which "promises to connect beautiful young women with rich sugar daddies." So what is the lesson in all this? I am not sure there is only one.

Let's see. Lesson one is to cheat the old fashioned a way, you'll have less chance of being caught. Lesson two might be that morally superior types who expose others for their wrong doing are more ethically deficient that the ordinary cheater they hope to ruin. And finally, lesson three is that a whole lot of people are having more fun out there than  are you and I.

Boy Or Girl? How Can We Tell?

This might be the  beginning of the age of the end of gender identification. It seems that everywhere today the media tells us that one can pick whatever gender he/she (it?) decides is the best for the moment.  It's a bit confusing to me and  somewhat disconcerting, given I like the current distinct separation of genders. Somehow I can't look and not be confused when I see Bruce "Caitlin" Jennifer in a dress. But then we humans have to live our lives as we see best. So I wish that Jennifer guy/girl the best of luck in his new life with whatever sex he wants to be identified.

If big retailer Target has its way we might be seeing more UFO (Unidentified Flying Gender) humans.  As of now, parents or kids visiting Target will no longer have to consider their gender while shopping. The retailer announced Friday it will start removing gender based labeling in several departments, including toys, bedding and entertainment, around the store. So forget the "little girl department" or shopping for a boy's underwear in the boy's section of the store. Target will lump all those clothes into a unisex department. And it claims the decision to ban sex differentiation in kids clothes comes after receiving a great deal of "feedback and suggestions from customers". HMO Are people really demanding that Jane dress like John? I have not heard anyone demand that.

Here is the statement target released to the press about this change in policy. “As guests have pointed out, in some departments like toys, home or entertainment, suggesting products by gender is unnecessary. We heard you, and we agree. Right now, our teams are working across the store to identify areas where we can phase out gender based signal to help strike a better balance.” Oh my! Are both the boys and girls going to wear mini bras? Which one will get pregnant when becoming a big boy or big girl?

Target plans to remove pink, blue, yellow and green paper on the back of the walls to eliminate references or suggestions based on gender because gender based signs in certain areas is no longer necessary. “We never want guests or their families to feel frustrated or limited by the way things are presented,” the statement said. Huh? Are we shoppers frustrated because there are two separate departments for the little ones? I think it a logical way to make it easier to find the clothing we want to buy. I doubt shoppers will be less frustrated when all the boy and girl clothes are in the same section and all look alike.

Ok, I am exaggerating (for effect and a small bit of humor) this move by Target. It will still sell outfits for boys and outfits for girls that match traditional rules....for now, at least. But the customer will have to sift though a lot more items to find the right one for their little girl or boy. How is that more convenient for the shopper?

If I were a conspiracy theorist I would claim that first Target moves all the girl and boy items to the same section, and next it stops making sex specific items, instead, just selling unisex clothes that make little Johnny or little Frances look alike and makes them wonder if there is any difference between being male or female. Hmmm Those poor little ones won't even know what rest room to use (until they change that as well).

China's Economic Change

China has again devalued its currency, the yuan. Not only does this effect China, but the rest of the world, given China's economy is the second largest economy world-wide. But aside from that the real news about the devalued yuan is that it reflects the possible end of the "Chinese economic miracle". It also is a good move by the Chinese government because the old days of arbitrarily keeping their currency at a predetermined value is over. From now on the Chinese economy can be a more real free market one.

Basically, making the yuan cheaper is an attempt by the Chinese government to make their exports cheaper. Nations have not been buying as many of them in recent years an this is hurting that never ending growth in China's economic prosperity. The dictators know that if they can not keep making China a place of more and more wealth and consumerism, the Chinese people make begin to take exception with the dictatorship.

Just think of Asia and the rest of the world for that mater, with a China that is no longer quiet because of economic gifts to its people. It might mean a more hostile China, one in which the government uses a "them against us" mentality in order to keep the people from become dissatisfied with the dictators. In the past China has used nationalism as a pretext for blind support for the government. So with competition for foreign buyers among so many rising Asian economies, the government devalues the yaun in an attempt to get more foreign buyers of its products.

The problem is, what if that doesn't work? Will the failure of the Chinese economy to continue its growth make the Chinese people challenge the right of the dictators to continue to rule them? It would be nice if that happened.

More Politically Correct Nonsense

Here's another "I don't understand the logic of this political correctness" moment. This time it's European, not American political correctness.  It seems that the Frankfurt, Germany airport has decided women are "equal" yet need special treatment. Does that make sense? If you are a pc person it does, for political correctness says that to show we are all equal we have to give special privileges to some.

Anyway,  there are 14,000 parking spaces at Frankfurt Airport, but if you'd like one that is “bigger, nicer and closer to the terminals,” look for spots reserved for women only. Yep! Women get special spots that we male pigs are not allowed to have.  That's the pc version of equality of the sexes. The specially designed parking sections are scattered throughout the airport's parking garages, can be reserved in advance and should also be very easy to find: just look for the pink ribbon of paint on the floor marking off the wider-than-average parking spots and the pink parking garage walls that have flower graphics and signs announcing" Ladies Parking'.

Pink parking places for women is the designation. Oh, my. That smacks of stereotyping. In Germany, it is a legal requirement to provide these designated parking spaces for women so that the ladies will be closer to the terminal entrances. The parking areas are painted pink an airport spokesperson aid, “for quick and easy recognition by women drivers who are sometimes traveling with children (I guess the pc crowd thinks men never travel with small kids) as well as other drivers who should not park here; they cannot say they didn't notice the bright pink area designated for women drivers.” That sounds sexist to this male pig!

It's  also  patronizing for women to be singled out that way. And making the spots for women wider than those for men only makes it worse, because that promotes the stereotype that women are worse drivers and need more room when parking.  Gee, it's enough to make me want to put on a dress the next time I have to drive and park at the airport.

Hiroshima Anniversary

On the 70th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima Japan remembered the only two occasions when a nuclear bomb was used in war. Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui asked world leaders to step up efforts toward making a nuclear-weapons-free world. Good luck with that! There is a maddened race among many want-to be nations ( like North Korea and Iran) to develop their own nuclear weapons. This has caused other wealthier ones, like Saudi Arabia, to seek to ":buy" the technology from renegade nations like Pakistan. The result, a much ore nuclear armed world than ever envisioned after the horrific bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

At the remembrance in Hiroshima, tens of thousands of people stood for a minute of silence at 8:15 a.m. at a ceremony in Hiroshima's peace park near the epicenter of the 1945 attack, marking the moment of the blast. Then dozens of doves were released as a symbol of peace. The U.S. bomb, "Little Boy," the first nuclear weapon used in war, killed 140,000 people. A second bomb, "Fat Man," dropped over Nagasaki three days later, killed another 70,000. After the second bomb was dropped Japan surrendered, ending the war. 

The U.S. dropped the bombs it has claimed, in order to avoid what would have been a bloody ground assault on the Japanese mainland, following the fierce battle for Japan's southernmost Okinawan islands, which took 12,520 American lives and an estimated 200,000 Japanese, about half civilians. In the view of the allies during the war, better to kill a larger number of Japanese civilians than to see even more soldiers killed in a long bloody man to man combat that most felt would had lasted from many months. The Japanese government at that point near the end of the war said it would never surrender.

So the dilemma remains , "Was it right to involve civilians by launching a civilian attack as a strategy to end that war." I agree with the mayor of Hiroshima who called nuclear weapons "the absolute evil and ultimate inhumanity" that must be abolished, and criticized nuclear powers for keeping them as threats to achieve their national interests. There are an estimated 15,000 nuclear weapons out there today.

With the average age of survivors now exceeding 80 for the first time this year, passing on their stories is considered an urgent task. It is almost a parallel situation the the German holocaust of the same war. As survivors of those two actions die, remembrance among the world population is faded or forgotten. I find it ironic that the U.S and the other largest nuclear powers  insist that other countries not have nuclear weapons, while maintaining their own stockpiles of the same thing. Why should a nation like Iran be denied nuclear weapons on "ethical grounds" if a nation like, France or Russia, is not asked to destroy its own stockpile? It seems to me to be a disingenuous assertion by the current nuclear have nations.

Anyway, from a practical standpoint there are two things of which I am sure. First, there is no going back on the creation of more nuclear weapons. The genie is out of the lamp. Secondly, where there are powerful weapons of death there is always someone determined to use them. And the will be used again. It's just a matter of wondering by whom.

And Now Begins Windows 10

Windows 10, Microsoft's newest operating system is about to become the standard.....for some, but not me.  For ,months now Windows has been pushing me to download Window's 10 as a free upgrade to what I currently have (Windows 7). But I want no part of anything Microsoft gives away "free". Just enduring their constant annoying upgrades is enough for me. Every time Windows installs one of their upgrades my system is adversely affected. In my case, the settings for the sound card are changed, making it inoperable. So those "critical upgrades cause me to constantly have to download corrective software that will fix Microsoft's intrusions. I am certain my computer isn't the only one damaged by Microsoft's critical updates.

I will not upgrade to Windows 10. It's user friendly only to cell phone users, since it is designed to act much the same way Too, the  last versions of their operating systems Windows 8 and Windows 8.1  was a schizophrenic operating system that didn't know whether its master was a mouse-keyboard-driven personal computer or a touch first tablet. It was confusing. Lots of people hated it. I never dared try it, and am glad of it.

It is why I won't download Windows 10. All those tiles in Windows 8 that replaced the old Start desktop in the previous versions of Window's OS looked very confusing and made it harder to navigate through the operating system. Windows 8 verified what most people think about Microsoft and other computer engineers. That is, they design things for geeks, not Luddites. What's cute and easy for a geek is impossible for a Luddite to understand. But Microsoft and the rest of the computer engineers seem incapable of understanding that.

I don't even want to look at what is in Windows 10. Using a PC is probably the least user friendly technology ever invented by humans. What I want is ease and simplicity of use. I want to press a button to turn it on, and be able to use the operating system by use of common sense, not Microsoft geekness (is that a word?). I also want it to work without glitzes and crashes, and without constant destructive upgrades. Every other technology offers that. Microsoft does not. I guess I am a dreamer and Microsoft is my nightmare.