Gay Ad Coming To You Soon

There's more proof that mass communication can change beliefs almost instantly. TV shows and commercial advertisements on them now almost routinely feature gay couples as the norm. Huge retail store Kohl's, for example, is putting us in the holiday spirit and in the mood for  gay Christmas with their latest commercial that shows a diverse family preparing a holiday meal together in a bustling kitchen. As they sit down to dinner, a gay couple, one black and the other white, share a toast of their love for the message of the holiday season and for each other.

The Kohl's ad advertisement comes the same week that Mattel featured a boy in a Barbie commercial for the first time ever.  While many on social media loved the idea of a small gay guy being seen as the new norm, others noted that the little boy was perpetuating “stereotypes” of gay men. And then there is a Campbell's Soup advertisement that features tow gay fathers. Click here to see that commercial     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/one-million-moms-campbells_56181dc1e4b0dbb8000e9e79

What is the new reality was bound to be shown as such even on TV commercials.  For most people there's nothing wrong with that for most of us. but some, particularly members of religious groups that claim any gay activity is a "sin" the idea of gay as mainstream suggests that the company advertising is promoting that lifestyle. In fact, American TV shows have long had gay couples as the norm on TV series, some even in amount way larger than the actual gay population the ads showcase. But the new proliferation of them shows how modern communication devices have sped the changes in cultural norms. What used to take generations now can change in a matter of months because the platform for the "new norm" is so pervasive, and some say intimidating. 

Politicians, for example, all seem to embrace the gay lifestyle as normal because to do other wise would be politically incorrect and a vote loser in the next election. How many remember that just a few years ago, for instance, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama routinely affirmed their belief that gay marriage should be illegal.  And now they promote it as a "right" for gay couples.  Things change so fast today that one can't blink or he or she will miss the evolution.

Those who disapprove of the new world cultural view of gay coupling should acknowledge that in the last few years the gay community has gone from being invisible in mainstream advertising to an unprecedented inclusion today, as advertisers around the world have dramatically warmed to including gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people in their general marketing messages.  Good for the gay couples out there. But for me, I care not whether the couple in an ad is gay or straight. My decision to buy or not to buy will be based on how much I like the product.

Turkey Day

Thanksgiving is often called "Turkey Day" in the U.S. And it should be. I read recently that 88% of Americans eat turkey on Thanksgiving Day.  Thanksgiving became a federal holiday in 1863 after a proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln, and the turkey got included in the tradition thereafter, even though the first "Thanksgiving Day" dinner that the American Indians and the European settlers in the early 1600's did not include turkey on the menu. It was probably a good thing, because cooking a turkey to proper doneness and moistness is not an easy thing. People try every cooking method possible with varying success. But when done right turkey is tasty. It's so good that there are three towns in the U.S. that are named after turkey: Turkey, Texas (population 465); Turkey Creek, Louisiana (population 363); and Turkey, North Carolina (population 270).

When astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin sat down to eat their first meal on the moon, their foil food packets contained roasted turkey and all of the trimmings. But when I was a little boy I so disliked turkey and complained about having to eat it on Thanksgiving Day, that my mother gave me my favored alternative- a bologna sandwich. Maybe that's why I am weird today. I am full of bologna. But I do like turkey now, and most of those traditional side dishes as well. The Pumpkin and Pecan pies that go with it never pass my lips. Other than that I will eat the entire Thanksgiving meal.

I do believe Americans like the concept of a day in which they overeat foods they rarely touch the other 364 days of the year.  Turkey Day is an excuse for family, friends and acquaintances to confirm that it's probably better that the group meets only one time a year. There are some odd characters in a typical family. Hearing the crazy aunt's stories about her hemorrhoids or cousin Fred's dirty, insulting jokes is a bit much to take more than once a year. But mixed in with the unpleasantness, Turkey Day does make one feel more tied to the family and traditions.

I also think Turkey Day is a link to the past for us, to our American history, which is the source of Turkey Day, and to our personal familial history. In a high tech future oriented world of  indifference and ignorance of the past it is soothing to gather the same way people have for centuries to eat too much and to talk about ourselves, our lives and whether the turkey will be dry for the feast or luckily cooked to perfection.  At each Turkey Day feast we also quietly warn everyone there to avoid the side dishes that no body wants to eat (though many moms usually make the kids eat them) that appear each year, the Jell-O salad or the mystery vegetable casserole that seems to be moving.

I guess Turkey Day is worth the trouble. William Shatner, Captain Kirk of Star Trek, says that one of his favorite meals is a simple turkey Burger. I wonder if the Kilingons also eat turkey.  Oh well, I had my Turkey Day dinner last week so maybe I should see if I can find some bologna to Eat Thanksgiving Day.

How Dare You Celebrate Christmas!

The annual politically correct anti Christmas wars have already started. And the first battlefields are at Target, Star bucks and Dunkin Donuts. It's all about our age of political correctness ruling reason. In this case it's the idea that some people are "offended" by the mention of the word Christmas or any reference to that holiday. In today's world non Christians see demonstrations of Christmas as offensive to them, since they do not believe in any pat of the Christmas narrative. Never mind for example, that Christians almost never complain about public expressions of non Christian holidays like Ramadan or Jewish holidays like Chanukah. "Diversity in the U.S. now means the minority is preferred to the core culture.

The first public business to be assaulted this year by Christmas haters for its stance on Christmas expression was Star bucks, who really seems more merry about its overpriced high profit merchandise, not about Christmas. It involved the annual Christmas decorated paper cup in which Star bucks puts its coffee. That's because in response to complaints by anti Christmas people this year Star bucks has no Christmas design or Christmas greetings on it's cups. Instead, it's selling it's coffee in plain red cups. Star bucks said the unadorned cup allows customers "to put their unique drawings and message on it", but most people say it's one more way that companies are stripping the Christmas message from the holiday season because they fear the few crazies who are "offended' will use social media to damage any Christmas thumbed business product, or its general sales for that matter, that they try to sell. Sigh, at the holiday season there always seems to be more people who can't wait to find something "offensive", who emerge from the shadows, and become Grinch-like and attempt to ruin the spirit of the holidays because Christmas "offends" them.

Target is also being called horrid names, because among its many annual Christmas sweater collection there is one in Christmas colors that jokingly says 'Obsessive Christmas Disorder' on the front. The politically correct rarely smile or laugh because they are constantly saddened by being offended. On social media some have criticized the shirt for trivializing the mental disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. 

That seems odd to me. The reference to OCD is much like the common figurative references everyone makes, even the politically correct crowd, to someone being "nuts". When a person calls someone nuts as in, "You're going to marry her! You must be nuts, Fred", I do not think that name caller is referring to the general idea of mental illness. It is merely a colloquial reference. While Target  says it "regrets" that some customers are offended by the sweater (nice politically correct apology, Target), there are no plans to remove the item for sale, according  a Target spokesman. I say, "Bravo, Merry Christmas and Up Yours" to the oversensitive politically correct Christmas hating bores out there.

But my favorite politically correct Christmas incident this year involves a response to the stupidity of the other two incidents. Dunkin’ Donuts just start a war against Star buck's being too politically correct about mentioning what is now that dirty word "Christmas". It has put out it's own seasonal coffee cup design in response to the idiotic controversy over Star bucks' plain red coffee cup. The Dunkin’ Donuts cup has a green and red holiday design and says "Joy" in red letters. While the cup doesn't explicitly say "Merry Christmas," (writing that that is considered a mortal sin for a business in the U.S. today) it's a least a beginning for businesses to take back the right to celebrate Christmas as they wish. On social media sites many questioned whether the "Christmas" design was a jab at Star bucks' plain red cup. It was. And to that I say, "Hallelujah and Merry Christmas".

Muslim Attack On Decency

It's November and I now have the excuse to locate my favorite Christmas music radio station, bookmark it and play it on my computer while I ponder concerns both small and mighty. Speaking of mighty, the attack on Paris by the demented "religious" Muslim terrorists is more than sad. A beautiful city in a nation that more often than not takes a slap rather than gives one, should affront any decent person. It does. Problem is, many Muslims extremists never will be decent people. Normality for them is perversion, so they brought to France a French version of 911. And the west twitters and sighs but does nothing to stop the madness.

I am not surprised at the action of those terrorists who attacked Paris. Ask Russia, who lost a plane filled with innocent travelers to those nuts. When Europe allowed the mass immigration of Muslims and Africans who really wanted to be there only because of the huge welfare state benefits offered, and not for the pronounced reasons of "freedom" and opportunity, it attempted suicide with its political correctness.  For more than twenty years Western Europe has opened its doors to many who don't want to assimilate and who regard their new nation as a replica of the old one from which they fled. They seek only to replicate their culture, traditions and laws in their new European nation, not to assimilate and become European.  It is a recipe for disaster when nations allow immigrants to "help them". An immigrant should be accepted only if he or she potentially will give back more to the new nation than he or she takes from it.

The worst kinds of immigrants are the poor and unskilled and the immigrant who transfers only for economic gain and not to become a member of the new nation.  It's not politically correct to write thus, but many of those Muslims who immigrate to Europe are lousy immigrants who take from their new home and give little, or who give discord and in some cases senseless intolerance or terrorism. And now that the word is out that anyone can simply walk into Europe and claim it as home, more than a million unvetted Muslims are storming the gates. Maybe we should hum a dirge for Europe.

The western liberalism model has been a failure for a long time, yet it is embraced even more today by the voting population and by liberals as a whole because of its generosity. Those who don't work, don't contribute to the nation or claim the largest welfare payments most love Europe (and the U.S.) and the welfare benefits it offers. Politicians are interested only in staying in power, so they welcome more and more immigrants who are unfit for movement and will never adapt to the culture of the new nation. It's a betrayal of both reason and the inhabitants of the European nations who deserve better.

The floodgates to Europe from the Mid East are open now. Massive immigration form Africa is evolving as well. I doubt the gates can be closed, and even if so, Europe already possesses many more future terrorists. More bombs, more killings more unspeakable violence, the kind which we today can't even fathom, will continue to occur not just in France, but in Western Europe at large. Forget it! I think I'll pretend as the liberals do that all people are loving and deserve whatever they wish to have. I'm going to turn up the volume of that Nat King Cole classic 'O Tannenbaum and keep my head in the clouds like the fools who created this mess still do. Better to pretend it will be better than watch too closely the carnage.

Not another "Climate Change Conference"

Get ready to duck and take cover. It's time for another of my "I hate the global warming hyperbole" rant. Oh wait, I almost forgot that those advocates of humans controlling temperature have changed the name of their theory to climate change, as they often change the language to make their position seem more logical.  The World Bank has just released a statement that climate change could push more than 100 million people into extreme poverty by 2030 by disrupting agriculture and fueling the spread of malaria and other diseases.



This was released  a few weeks ahead of another of those feel good  U.N. climate summits. The WB report highlighted how, in their opinion, the impact of global warming is borne unevenly, with the world's poor woefully unprepared to deal with climate shocks such as rising seas or severe droughts. "They have fewer resources and receive less support from family, community, the financial system, and even social safety nets to prevent, cope and adapt," the World Bank said. Those who say that rich countries aren't doing enough to help the poor said the report added demands for billions of dollars in so-called climate finance to developing countries.

Ah! There it is. It's another of those reasons for the wealthy nations to give away their money to the poorer ones. They seem to like doing that, because it's both politically correct and because bribing the third world with cash in the name of saving the planet keeps the poor masses quieter and less threatening to the west. Problem is that in many ways the climate alarmists are losing the debate on man caused global warming and climate change. The dire scenarios predicted by their computer modeling have failed to materialize. All of the glaring differences between their computer-modelled temperature predictions and empirically measured global temperature are becoming plain for everyone to see.

Nobel laureate in physics Richard Feynman once described science as "the belief in the ignorance of experts."  I like that because it does at least make some people think twice before blindly accepting what the "experts' push as sacred truth. The very first scientific society, The Royal Society, adopted the motto: "Take nobody's word for it." Questioning is the stock-in-trade of scientists. It is the way we discover new things and the way we keep science honest. But global warming fanatics do not like questioning of their theory. Without the ability to question conclusions, science degenerates into politics and pseudo religion. And that's a big part of the climate change hysteria today.

To take those climate change theories as the basis for giving away money to underdeveloped nations, who pollute more per capita than the developed ones, is idiotic. The climate change advocates  feel so much guilt about their mean spirited behavior toward the "planet" in the name of saving the world that they are becoming a cartoon of what was once a serious issue to be discussed and investigated.  A problem with climate science is that the data that should backup the alarming conclusions of the establishment, and that data is not there. In fact climate change data shows little link between man-made CO2 and global temperature.

Climate change believers who have been predicting far more warming than has been observed are on the defensive, because their failures are well documented.  So they hold more conferences to promote more theories and alleged facts, to scare more people, to make themselves and their believers feel better.  They have even asked President Obama to invoke the 'Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)' act to prosecute as mobsters their fellow scientists who dare to disagree with them. I'm not kidding. If you are a scientist and you speak against the climate change spiel you might be prosecuted as a mobster. So much for science being about open minded discovery.

But do-gooders do have limits. What will make the save the planet politicians pause at that climate summit is the enormity of what they demand. They want to make enormous payments to developing nations and undertake an enormous curtailment of industrial activity in the developed world, further shifting it to those developing nations. The poor nations must be jumping for joy to see that the industrial world wants to give away both its money and industry to their nations.

None of this legitimately addresses any concerns about carbon dioxide, however misguided. It only shifts carbon emissions from one location to another, giving corrupt politicians and bureaucrats in the developed world a chance to claim success and cheers from their save the planet voting constituencies before people realize that they have been duped again by the pervasive propaganda, while the poor nation's politicians and dictators who receive their gifts will have more money to steal from their poor populations.

Fewer Tests, Please

Two new food studies have upset my stomach. It's because the food police have distorted (as they usually do) the results to conclude that eating either is dangerous, even fatal.  The first conducted by the World Health Organization has deemed that processed meats such as bacon, sausages and hot dogs can cause cancer. It also says that all red meats including beef, pork, veal and lamb are "probably carcinogenic" to people. A group of 22 scientists reviewed the evidence linking red meat and processed meat consumption to cancer, and concluded that eating processed meats regularly increases the risk of colorectal cancer. But only slightly.  And the study also says red meat provides benefits as well as tiny risk.

Problem is with these studies that the pervasive media looks for alarm and publishes, not the results but an interpretation of them that is way left of center. In the case of the meat report, media reports leave out the fact that one would have to eat a great deal of that stuff to have even a slightly higher cancer risk. For example, bottled water and the aloe vera we use so much in cosmetics and for dry skin are also listed as potentially cancerous. The fact is, most substances, even natural ones, have an elevated risk of cancer. That natural spring water humans think is best often has elevated levels of arsenic. Yet, one would have to drink a river to be affected by it.

I wish the media would stop claiming that the sky is falling every time a "study" suggests a slight risk increase. Life must be lived with risk or not enjoyed. To remove all cancer risk, for example, one would have to live in an enclosed space, away from people and would have to subsist on a limited diet of raw foods. Who wants that kind of life? Unless we scuba dive we won't know what is in the ocean deep below. If not driving our cars we won't get to destination as that greatly benefit us. You get the idea. A risk free life is an empty one.

The second study distorted by the food police is a University of Michigan study on cheese. The conclusion is that Cheese was among the most addictive foods. Pizza and cheese were at the top of the list, along with other processed and fatty foods. It turns out that cheese, like all milk products, contains something called casein, a protein that releases opiates. So some food crazies are claiming that cheese is similar to crack cocaine. I wonder what they are smoking. One vegetarian doctor who is president of a anti meat dairy organization calls cheese "Dairy crack. The problem is some people actually pay attention to such nonsense.

My strategy to crazy media reports about foods we love is simple. I shall head to a pizza parlor and order a double cheese sausage pizza. If I live to tell you it didn't kill me I'll let you know when I finish eating that "dangerous" food. how is your fall? We have an exceptional weather e

Thou Shalt Not Eat That

Two new food studies have upset my stomach. It's because the food police have distorted (as they usually do) the results to conclude that eating either is dangerous, even fatal.  The first conducted by the World Health Organization has deemed that processed meats such as bacon, sausages and hot dogs can cause cancer. It also says that all red meats including beef, pork, veal and lamb are "probably carcinogenic" to people. A group of 22 scientists reviewed the evidence linking red meat and processed meat consumption to cancer, and concluded that eating processed meats regularly increases the risk of colorectal cancer. But only slightly.  And the study also says red meat provides benefits as well as tiny risk.

Problem is with these studies that the pervasive media looks for alarm and publishes, not the results but an interpretation of them that is way left of center. In the case of the meat report, media reports leave out the fact that one would have to eat a great deal of that stuff to have even a slightly higher cancer risk. For example, bottled water and the aloe vera we use so much in cosmetics and for dry skin are also listed as potentially cancerous. The fact is, most substances, even natural ones, have an elevated risk of cancer. That natural spring water humans think is best often has elevated levels of arsenic. Yet, one would have to drink a river to be affected by it.

I wish the media would stop claiming that the sky is falling every time a "study" suggests a slight risk increase. Life must be lived with risk or not enjoyed. To remove all cancer risk, for example, one would have to live in an enclosed space, away from people and would have to subsist on a limited diet of raw foods. Who wants that kind of life? Unless we scuba dive we won't know what is in the ocean deep below. If not driving our cars we won't get to destination as that greatly benefit us. You get the idea. A risk free life is an empty one.

The second study distorted by the food police is a University of Michigan study on cheese. The conclusion is that Cheese was among the most addictive foods. Pizza and cheese were at the top of the list, along with other processed and fatty foods. It turns out that cheese, like all milk products, contains something called casein, a protein that releases opiates. So some food crazies are claiming that cheese is similar to crack cocaine. I wonder what they are smoking. One vegetarian doctor who is president of a anti meat dairy organization calls cheese "Dairy crack. The problem is some people actually pay attention to such nonsense.

My strategy to crazy media reports about foods we love is simple. I shall head to a pizza parlor and order a double cheese sausage pizza. If I live to tell you it didn't kill me I'll let you know when I finish eating that "dangerous" food.

ISIS Outrage

The Islamic State (ISIS) is at it again. The Islamic State executed three detainees in the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra by strapping them to pillars and then blowing them up along with the antiquities that a civilized world is supposed to treasure. I wonder how this reflects on fanatics to a cause, the Mid East Region, on the whole world, and perhaps even on you and me. Barbaric behavior is not new to mankind. History is filled with it. But In this age,  are we not supposed to have limits to our cruelty? To blame the behavior of the ISIS nation on "mass insanity" is, I think, a charge not provable.

So why is that group behaving like the worst Biblical villains did so long ago. The Islamic State has consistently used the Internet and social media to publicize its brutality. I guess that's a terrorist's way of having good clean fun.  Need more concrete examples? Here are a few of the worst moments the past few months of ISIS's new ways of executing those it disagrees with in their attempt to terrorize us all.
-footage showed Islamic State militants executing a teenage Syrian soldier by running him over with a tank. Before being executed, the soldier is shown "confessing" to having used a tank himself to run over bodies of Islamic State soldiers.

- a series of videos showing the beheadings of western aide workers and journalists.
- a video showing a young boy executing prisoners the Islamic State called "spies."
- Earlier this month, the militants reportedly blew up Palmyra's Arch of Triumph.  No humans were attached this time, but the point was made that ISIS believes archaeological sites and statues promote idolatry.
- a few months earlier, beheading the Palmra's antiquities expert.
- ISIS militants raping and forcing children as young as 10 to "marry them".
- a routine policy of  torture and execution of prisoners of war, even after exacting "fines' for their crimes.
- children as young as ten years of age, being forced to fight for ISIS and even to be members of execution squads.

Those are a few of ISIS's proudest moments. Given that the fanatics believe in the cause there is no chance they will suddenly become human again and behave like human beings. So perhaps the atrocities alone should be enough for the world to stomp on, exterminate ISIS. But then, the biggest atrocity of all is that it won't. I wonder if we who sit by not outraged enough to stop it are in some ways as bad as the vermin who carry out the acts we pretend to not see.