An Evening With No Cells

I was with a group of people the other day at a  potluck, sitting together eating and conversing about matters big and small.  Strangely, this occasion marked a strange atmosphere. Only one person produced a cell phone (to check for whatever it is cell addicts constantly feel a need to check) during the meal. Imagine! It was a virtual no cell event, and not by intent. I am not crazy enough to think it is a trend, but to have so many people gather and spend time together without those idiot boxes flashing lights, singing annoying call warnings,  to not see mindless finger pokes into phones, loud idiotic cell talk, was a joy.  I know this cell free event was freak of the year, but I hope everyone there also noticed how much better real time human contact is when it is conducted face to face.

Face-to-face conversation is what sustains us. It gives us a sense of connection. But electronic connections are great when we have no face to face opportunity or desire, and I think when used judiciously they can make our lives more fulfilled.  However, face to face is best. Eye contact, seeing a face, hearing a voice are the things that make us most connected to fellow humans. Sadly, the cell phone has killed too many of those superior connections.

Research suggests there's reason to worry. One recent study here at the Oregon Health and Science University asked more than 11,000 adults ages 50 and older how often they had face-to-face visits, phone conversations or email or other written contact with family and friends. After two years of follow-up, researchers found that people with the most in person contact were the least likely to be depressed. It roved what most of us know, that phone calls and digital communication with friends or family members, do not have the same power as face-to-face social interactions in helping to stave off depression.

"Having face-to-face time with your family and friends acted as a kind of preventative medicine for avoiding depression," said the study's lead author, Alan Teo, an assistant professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland. Time with friends seemed to matter the most for people under age 70, he says; time with family members mattered most for older participants.  There is something powerful about a face-to-face visit. When you are face to face with someone, you see second to second how that person is responding to you.

Many studies also suggest that just the visible presence of a cell phone can leave people feeling less connected to in-person conversational partners (the couple having dinner together in a restaurant syndrome, each texting in their phones and ignoring each other). That's even before anyone checks or starts typing on a phone. Just the presence of a phone changes how we relate when face to face. In a sense, those who want to be "connected" are in touch with a less real wider world, while detached from the real in front of them.

We owe it to others to communicate face to face when together, not post pictures, text jokes with far off friends, checking information and the endless other talk cell addicts mindlessly conduct every few minutes of their lives. Some of our humanity is lost when we substitute the virtual to the concrete. E mail and texts are extremely useful and best when it is the only avenue to connect with others, but there's no substitute for face to face when it comes to some conversations. Why is that so hard for so many of us to realize?

Twenty Most Polluted Cities

Beijing had another smog Red Alert day. The smog was so bad recently, that schools were closed and the streets mostly empty. It seems ironic, but the least developed areas of the world are the ones with the most industrial pollution. Their factories are old, they often have no anti pollution devices installed and  dirty coal is often the main source of fuel. Meanwhile, the wealthier industrialized west that produces enormous an mounts of goods, has little air pollution at all.

Amazingly, look at a list  from the World Health Organization of some of the planet's most polluted cities finds that the Chinese capital  of Beijing isn't even in the top 20 for smog. While unimaginably; polluted  by American standards, Beijing's average air pollution level is 53, on a scale from 26 to 208. (The numbers numbers the amount of the smog causing microscopic particles in the air, higher being worst.) Many of the world's most polluted cities are in India, with Delhi leading the pack with a level of 153. This smog report, which was prepared in 2014 by the World Health Organization, looked at outdoor air pollution in nearly 1,600 cities in 91 countries.

By way of comparison, Los Angeles was at 20 and New York City at 14. The problem in Beijing is that while its overall average may not be catastrophic, when the smog gets bad it can be really dreadful, as evidenced by the current air quality reading of 200. That's why the kids were shut out of school recently. So how is the world doing with its smog problem these days? The west is far better off than 50 years ago, with most spots free of any smog problem. But the East is now ravaged by smog, the opposite of 50 years ago when so few Asian or African countries had too few factories and autos to produce a smog problem. That translates to the great majority of cities worldwide exceeding WHO's air quality guidelines.

These worst tend to be clustered in high income areas of the countries. Air quality is poorest in the eastern Mediterranean and Southeast Asian regions, followed by Latin America and Africa.  Only 12% of the people living in cities reporting on air quality live in cities that meet  with WHO guideline levels, the report said. Here is the list of the top 20 cities with the most polluted air.

Rank, city, country, pollution level
1 Delhi, India 153
2 Patna, India 149
3 Gwalior, India 144
4 Raipur, India 134
5 Karachi, Pakistan 117
6 Peshawar, Pakistan 111
7 Rawalpindi, Pakistan 107
8 Khormabad, Iran 102
9 Ahmedabad, India 100
10 Lucknow, India 96
11 Firozabad, India 96
12 Doha, Qatar 93
13 Kanpur, India 93
14 Amritsar, India 92
15 Ludhiana, India 91
16 Idgir, Turkey 90
17 Narayonganj, Bangladesh 89
18 Allahbad, India 88
19 Agra, India 88
20 Khanna, India 88

I don't know about you, but I won't travel to India or Pakistan any time soon.

Election Choice Nightmare

What a political mess we in the United States have in choosing the next president.  In the "know nothing" age in which we live it is no surprise that even something so fundamental as a presidential election has evolved into contest of losers...big losers.  As one who has never been a member of either the Democratic or Republican party, having seen both as dishonest and incompetent partisans, I would like to see a candidate for the election who has shred of credibility. I fear it will not happen.

On the Democratic part side we have two candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I gag when typing their names. Sanders, an elderly U.S. Senator whose record in the Senate over many decades is of sponsoring not a single piece of significant legislation, is an a vowed socialist who hates the capitalist system, the one he wants to head.  He seems to make a big deal of real unemployment (including underemployment and people who have given up looking for jobs) being much higher than the rosy official unemployment numbers and loves to attack "the rich" as being in control and making everyone else poor. When asked to explain how he would pay for his many socialist welfare give-aways, free college for everyone, free medical care etc., Sanders says he will "raise taxes on the rich".

But the rich already pay most of the taxes collected, and to tax them anymore would make them take their businesses and money to other countries. Sanders seems a better fit to be president of "la la land" than of a free market country. His main supporters are the young, you know, the ones  who pump their fingers into their mobile devices and are devoid of even the most remote knowledge of what a president can or is supposed to do.

And Hillary is even more distasteful than Bernie.  Hillary not only doesn't know what ethics is, she probably would put her hands over her ears of you told her. She's the one involved in multiple financial scandals in Arkansas, all covered by the democratic administration there and the federal justice department headed by a democratic head. The Clinton's learned well when escaping their Arkansas White water scandal. They set up the Clinton Foundation, a slush fund that seeks....extorts money from the same "rich people" Clinton says are ruining America to allegedly address of issue world problems, including economic development, climate change, health and wellness, and participation of girls and women. But the percent spent on the Clinton's personal dalliances, private jets, family shopping sprees and more, is troubling. Again, President Obama, the leader of the democrats will never order the justice department to investigate the Foundation.

I don't have the time nor space to list all of the Hillary Clinton incompetence and dishonesty during her long public life. But here are a few highlights: Hillary’s top secret E mails, the ones she illegally sent from a home server in violation of federal law that she swore to obey while accepting her position as secretary of state, keep mysteriously disappearing, and now the State Department has used that big snowstorm last week as an excuse for not producing court ordered E mails, though its known about the order for months; Hillary's record in the Senate equals not a single piece of legislation, a record of modeling pant suits but accomplishing nothing; as Obama's Secretary of States. Under her stewardship as Secretary of State the United States’ position in the world went rapidly in decline.

The Middle East is on fire. Putin is running rampant in eastern Europe and Syria. Saudi Arabia is attempting to buy an atomic bomb to balance the one that Iran is expected to get because of the recent U.S./Iran nuclear deal; and Europe is flooded with migrants who won't likely to fit in. The latter is of course a result of the Middle East problems and of the overthrow of Libya’s dictator, Col. Moammar Gadhafi, in a war-of-choice launched without congressional approval at the suggestion of Hillary Clinton; Then there's the "War on Women" that Hillary claims is real, after saying it is not many times before it was a vote getter to change her tune.

Yes, Hillary, who called her husband's many sexual partners "bimbos" when they talked of Bill's propensity to remove his pants at the sight of any female willing to engage him, now claims "any woman who says she was sexually harassed should be listened to"; Hillary also claims she will destroy those nasty Wall street types and big bans, the same ones Hillary begs for money to sponsor her presidential run.

There is plenty more on Hillary, who may be the worst and most dishonest presidential front runner in U.S. history, but the Republicans have their own embarrassing duo leading their nomination charge in that party. First we have Donald Trump, a man so filled with ego and disdain for humanity that he makes the crazy uncle we keep in the addict seem rational. Trump has no policy stance except that which shocks the most people, and I suspect he is running because he wants to make the U.S. Presidential election a new kind of reality show. He has been liberal, conservative and moderate..all at the same time. I dare you to define his agenda. The Donald Trump pledge is "elect me and I'll tell you the details later". It sounds too much like Obama's nebulous "hope and change" pledge in 2008.  Trump says we "will make the greatest deals" when asked for specificity on any of his often bizarre promises. I suspect he already is making a great deal- pulling the wool over the eyes of the voters.

The other Republican front runner who is most likely to be nominated as his party candidate is Ted Cruz. Cruz is not liked because of his abrasive style and extreme positions. but Ted says he is honored to be hated. That sure seems like someone we need in office. Cruz promises to be a confrontational president, to oppose every measure the democratic party wants, especially of those measures make sense. I suspect Ted Cruz is running against Obama, not Hillary. This is because he can't stop talking about how much he hates everything Obama has done. Extremism is Ted's calling card, which explains why the evangelical Christians are his most ardent backers.

Politics in this country can be fun, but do they have to be so bizarre to be that way?

Gross Food Report

The United States has the highest food safety inspection standards in the world. In other words, our food is cleaner and safer to eat than any. But then, all food is..well..dirty to some extent. Hurry up and eat your lunch before reading what I will write here. If you don't, even if hungry for waiting, you might not have an appetite after reading what follows. This info was stolen from a magazine article which stole the information from FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) documents.

-Frozen broccoli is allowed an “average of 60 or more aphids and/or thrips and/or mites per 100 grams.” So if you have 59 aphids, you're fine. 60 is where they draw the line. I wonder if the aphids make broccoli taste so weird to so many.

-Brussels sprouts brussels sprouts have only a 30 per 100 gram threshold than broccoli. Maybe the food police will classify Brussels sprouts as health food. 

-Canned and dried mushrooms are considered fit for your consumption if they contain up to 20 maggots of any size per 100 grams. Uh, those fast food chicken nuggets are beginning to look healthier all the time.

- Maybe fruit is cleaner? An average mold count of 20% or more is considered unsafe when it comes to canned pineapple. So if you open up a can and see that less than one fifth of it is moldy and disgusting, you should still eat it. I should order clean  french fries with my Mc D nuggets!

-Ginger is allowed to contain no more than an average of 3 milligrams of "mammalian excreta" per pound. That's poo!  Instead of saying "To be or not to be", Shakespeare should have asked a different question- How much poop in ginger is too much poop?
 
-5% of potato chips are allowed to contain rot. Not upsetting since we already see that black spot on some of the chips. I eat the rot and all. maybe that's why my brain is rotted?

-The FDA's inspectors threshold for insect filth in flour is an “average of 75 or more insect fragments per 50 grams.” For rodent filth, it's an “average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 50 grams.” Those gluten free nuts may make a point after all.

-Fig paste is unsafe if it “contains 13 or more insect heads per 100 grams of fig paste in each of 2 or more sub samples. Enjoy your next Fig Newton cookie.
 
-The FDA allows an “average of 5 or more whole or equivalent insects (not counting mites, aphids, thrips, or scale insects) per 100 grams of apple butter.” Since they are not counting mites, ahids, thrips or scale insects the sky is the limit for filth in apple butter.

Ok, we already know that bugs and filth are natural and present in all foods. This was just for effect. But I wonder how much more those trendy "organic' and "all natural" foods are. They must have far more filth and insect residue than the food that is treated with chemicals and insecticides. And I wonder what the food police who want me to stop eating both my aphid broccoli and Mc D chicken nuggets (Ok, that's part chicken and parts unknown) have to say about their even dirtier "health foods".

The Liberal University Bubble Grows

Liberalism is killing American Universities these days. The liberal bubble has always found sanctuary on college campuses because by and large the audience, 18 to 20 something, is receptive to the liberal message. That's fine. But what is different today is that the university has become the exclusive bastion of the liberal perspective. Any student who disagrees with the liberal narrative best duck and take cover or do what most do now. Instead, they often must pretend to be on board the liberal train of political correctness, idealism over reality and intolerance.  Faculty are fired if they do not follow PC orthodoxy. Courses are designed not to teach and encourage free thought and to impart knowledge, but rather to fill a liberal gender ethnic studies quota. 

The task of the scholar is to present a case for his or her position based on evidence and logic. Colleges used to be places for that. Liberal and conservative and all other viewpoints were heard and discussed freely and the speaker was demonized personally if disagreed with.. After all, the task of the scholar is to do so in a way that invites everybody into the discussion rather than demonize those who disagree. No more, at least at many of the universities in the United States.

The disturbing trend on the left, especially in universities, the place where free speech should be most present, these days is to squelch competing ideas under the guise of “offense” or the smear of “bigotry". "You can't say that, it offends me", is the frequent cry at universities. "You criticized me and I am minority. You are a bigot,"  is the reverse racism refrain heard in universities today. Someone once said that the answer to controversial or bad speech is more speech. Not at universities. Their solution is to allow only what is politically correct. The nightmare of students being graded lowly because they do not write or speak liberal orthodoxy is a common problem today. We see more and more examples of speakers being ostracized for opinions that their opponents have misrepresented or demonized. Campus speakers often need need apply if not liberal. Otherwise, the college administration says, we might hurt the feelings of out students.

Are our universities more interested in brainwashing the minds of students or in letting their ears hear all views and perspectives? In a society that values freedom, especially freedom to express ideas, the only ones who should truly be pariahs are those who seek to squelch thought and voices that contradict their own. What students should do today is ask why their administration wants to protect them from earnest non liberal opinions that some of the faculty do not share. They should ask their school if protecting them from non liberal ideas and allowing them to decide on their own what is best is why they're getting a college education. If  not to think and speak freely, I suggest that those students are wasting their time attending.

Hiring Changes That Mystify

How bad is the world economy?  In Europe , where unemployment is over 20% in Greece and Spain and double digit most other countries, some of the joblessness has to be blamed on the fact that the social welfare states embraced in Europe and many other industrial nations elsewhere kills ambition in population. The mantra is often "Why work when the state will give me what I need"?  The skill change with the technological boom has also left some behind. And the politics of entitlement and "free stuff" wins elections and dominates many western nations.

But back to the original question. How bad is it? One indication is what an airline, Air Europa Express, in Spain is now doing with it's hiring practices. A new low cost Spanish airline has been criticized after charging job candidates $65 for the opportunity to interview for its 250 available pilot and cabin crew positions. Yep! Resumes are no longer all that is needed to interview. Bring cash too. With unemployment at 21% in Spain, I suppose companies there have a big pool of eager applicants. But charging an interview fee seems troubling to me.

Representatives from a pilots union in Spain and from Unión Sindical Obrera (USO), a trade union don't like it.  They criticized Air Europa for its unsavory and possibly illegal hiring procedures. It charges that it is an illegal and “immoral” behavior, saying that any candidates should be evaluated based on their experience and qualifications, not if they are willing to pay money when interviewing. Hmmm What's next? Will companies charge a fee to use their rest room if the applicant has to "go" while waiting to interview? Perhaps companies will charge a communication fee when sending information?

No wonder so many in Europe think not working is a good strategy.

Overstaying A Visa

Sometimes I think the United States will sink due to the weight of the millions of people who enter the country legally and illegally. In 2013, approximately 41.3 million immigrants lived in the United States, an all time high for a nation historically built on immigration. The United States remains a popular destination attracting about 20 percent of the world's international migrants. approximately 80 million people, or one quarter of the overall U.S. population, is either of the first or second generation.

Just how many illegal immigrants are here is unknown. For many years the same 12 million figure is most often cited. Some say the actual total is closer to 40 million illegal immigrants.  Problem is, there is no way to know the actual total for am country like this that winks and nods approval for anyone who is illegally here. But we do know the number of legal immigrants and the number of visas issued to foreigners. In 2013, the U.S. issued 9,164,349 nonimmigrant visas. And nearly half a million foreigners who legally entered the U.S. on some kind of temporary visa remained here after their visas expired last year (according to government statistics). This is a problem.

It's obvious those who wish to come here illegally know they will not be deported aside from committing a felony and being convicted of it. We pretend to have immigration laws and the illegals agree and come and go as they wish. No nation in modern times has ever had such open borders as the U.S. This means that not only good newcomers arrive, also plenty of undesirables- criminals, illiterate and unskilled, those desiring to live off welfare programs in the U.S., people carrying contagious diseases or those desiring to create terror in the U.S. and on and on. Western Europe is now seeing it's first major invasion of illegals and it is already creating havoc in the those countries.

When foreigners apply for a visa to enter the country, they are interviewed, photographed and have their fingerprints taken before they even reach the U.S. All that work is done at foreign consulates, and gives U.S. officials a full portrait of people entering the country. But the difficulty in tracking what happens to those foreigners comes when they leave. U.S Customs and Border Protection doesn't have the ability of getting biometric information such as fingerprints or iris scans from every foreigner leaving the U.S. That makes it difficult to figure out who's left and who has remained. Part of the problem is the way U.S. airports are laid out. Unlike many foreign airports that have separate areas for domestic and international flights, all departing flights from U.S. airports use the same terminals. That makes it difficult for Customs officers to pick out foreign travelers and collect their information.

What this means is that the United States has not only a problem with people sneaking into the country across an unsecured border (mainly Mexico) but also with people who have legal permission to enter temporarily but use that to overstay their visa and camp her permanently. Essentially, The United States is a nation with no immigration control. I wonder if it can survive as a leading nation if that policy continues

Suicide Risks

Suicide is and has always been a major problem in every society.  In the United States there were more than 1 million suicide attempts last year. The American Foundation for the Prevention of Suicide says that one American commits suicide every 13 minutes, 90% of which had some diagnosed psychological problem before taking his or her life. But what magnifies suicide in this country is the presence of so many guns in households, the vast majority there for the reason the gun holder perceives as "protection". It's odd, given that this country has low homicide rates and the idea that the vast majority of people here are not safe without a gun has never been proved to be true.

I do not like guns, never had one and never will. No one in my family has ever owned a gun. We recognized the non necessity of having one, the chance that a gun could be stolen and used by a criminal, the idea that a gun might be accidentally discharged and injure or kill someone, and that most suicides here are committed by the use of a hand gun one kept at home. Statistics show that more than half of all suicides occur with handguns as the weapon of death. So why don't those who want to ban handguns ever mention this? Last year more than 40,000 Americans committed suicide, the 10th leading cause of death in this country.

Ok, enough of the statistics and back to my question as to why more public figures like politicians do not point to the fact that if a person owns a handgun he or she is more than 10 times likely to take his or her own life than non gun owners. All scientific studies suggest that the health risk of a gun in the home is greater than the benefit. There are no credible studies that indicate otherwise. If an individual has a gun, everybody in the home is more likely than  non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun related accident, suicide or homicide. It's clear and simple.

Yet the constitutional right to firearms in the United States, and the pandering by government officials to gun rights special interest rights block common sense and reason from the debate. And self slaughter continues. What a waste.

King Cake

A friend of mine in New Orleans sent me a king cake today. Without getting into a detailed explanation of what it is, simply put,   king cake is a part of Mardi Gras. King cake season begins eight days after Christmas and ends the day after Mardi Gras (45 days before Easter). New Orleans has the world's second largest Mardi Gras celebration, one that is today far larger than the Mardi Gras found any in Mardi Gras mad France, Germany and Italy. New Orleans thanks those European countries for the idea, but it has taken Mardi Gras way beyond anything in Europe today. In recent years it has taken the king cake farther as well.

As for the king cake itself, in Northern France the confection is usually a flaky puff pastry filled with almond cream. Delicious! Some bakers in New Orleans still make that style there too. But the New Orleans king cake served today is more typical of what is found in Southern France. It's a sweet yeast bread shaped to form a crown (for a king). People who like sugar like that one. Those who don't like sugar stay as far away from it as possible. The New Orleans version has its own touches. The official colors of Mardi Gras, created in 1872 by the New Orleans parade Krewe of Rex, are purple for justice, green for faith, and gold for power. Those colors are usually added onto the cake as decoration.

What's interesting about those New Orleans king cakes is how the popularity of them has grown during my lifetime. When I was a child king cakes were seen from time to time at king cake parties (the person who gets the piece with the ceramic baby is supposed to host another king cake party...assuming the finder doesn't choke to death on the baby while eating his or her piece). But now they are an addiction. During the Mardi Gras season in New Orleans you'll see more king cakes than cell phones, and more varieties and styles than imaginable.  They are both plain and filled with sweet or savory fillings.

It's interesting how food can expand a culture. Most of the United States does not have any tie to or celebration of Mardi Gras, which is more a Catholic celebration in Europe and South America. But king cakes, their cousins or some variation are springing up all over the United States. Even here in Portland,  which has no Mardi Gras celebration at all, during Mardi Gras season some bakeries and grocery stores sell king cakes. Maybe the simple King Cake will spread the whole concept of Mardi Gras to more places distant from where carnival is a passion.

That would be a good thing.

Lessons From Earlier Times

I scanned the last few photos and documents from the family boxes of those items that I took from my attic last week. In doing so,  I did my duty for my daughter Jane by providing her with a little more of the family history. Aside from that, what I found fascinating about the old stuff was that it made my imagination work hard to make sense of it all. I found myself imagining I was with those in the pictures, at the time they were photographed. 

 Too, much can be learned about the past from those items. I have pictures from when the camera was first invented, the mid 19th century (most faces of those family members are unidentified, a mystery that will never be solved), yearbooks from my parents middle and highs schools, two college newspapers from Louisiana State University that my mother attended, letters written by my father to my mother during W.W. II from North Africa where he was stationed as a cryptographer, many family member photos, my mothers personal memory book cataloging many years during her pre college studies, the daily newspaper from Oct. 8th, 1946 (the day of my older brother's birth), and various other odd items (even a corsage my mom wore at her high school graduation).

Eventually these things will be lost, destroyed or deteriorate into oblivion. Scanning a few that I am certain of and labeling them may extend their life. But like humans, even things are mortal. I like much about early and mid twentieth century life. Choices were few. That meant there was a unity in what people did. They mostly all did the same things and treasured each one. Social events were a production then. Invitations were written for practically every social event, decorations put up, formal wear common, all was fancy and elaborate.  This seems to have made them memorable to those who lived them, as opposed to our current throw-away culture. I saw many references to a past dance or other social event, even years after it  occurred. Today we attend and forget, always looking for the next event and frequently not appreciating the current one.

Letters were common, cell phones unknown. I like that! How lucky those people were to not have some of the intrusive communication technology of today. They wrote to each other and with care and respect. The singular thing that I notice is the lack of anger, malice, jealousy and ridicule in the communications. People then really did wish each other well. Competition between people was not as intense or personal. Does this mean that our modern technology encourages us be so mean? In those earlier day communications that I saw, compliments were cherished and ridicule absent.

Having written about the "good ole days" I acknowledge that in those times illness was often fatal, comfort hard to find and struggle economically more common. I suppose that in the early twentieth century people had less physical comfort, but more social unity and a shared belonging.  I wonder how many of us would rather be alive then, free from cell phones and the other cultural icons we have today. It's something to ponder.

The Hollywood Bubble Of Sean Penn

One thing that is consistent with most of Hollywood is that it is a land of fantasy, both in front of cameras in in the private lives of the performers who pretend. The latest example is that of actor Sean Penn who said the other day he has "nothin' to hide" about his  secret visit to the world's biggest trafficker in the illegal drugs that kill so many, Mexican drug lord Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman. Despite the drug lord being an escapee from prison, despite his ties to the killing of tens of thousands who used his drugs, and the millions whose lives have been impacted negatively by those narcotics. Penn seems to think it's ok to make cuddles with the drug lord and that he will look hip in doing so.

Penn was asked about images published by local news media that indicate Mexican authorities were closely monitoring him and  Mexican actress Kate del Castillo, who helped schedule the interview. That's when Penn uttered the "I've got nothin' to hide" comment. Maybe he should hide his face in shame for trying to turn a merchant of death into a sympathetic figure.  The good thing though is that Penn is so self absorbed and ignorant that he actually thought police would not secretly track his interview. Mexican officials have said that the drug merchant's contacts with Penn and del Castillo helped them track down the fugitive and they raided his hideout a few days after they met. Guzman evaded authorities then, but was finally captured on January 8th in the Mexican state of Sinaloa.

Let's see, an actor unwittingly sets a trap for the world's biggest drug dealer to get caught. Penn is a Hollywood idiot and known supporter of oppressive tyrants. His embracing  of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro already speaks volumes of his political ideology. The ultimate irony is that his "interview" led to the capture of El Chapo. Penn better watch his back since Mexico threw him under the capture bus.  El Chapo may not be pleased and could be showing up at his Penn's door one day just to make a point.

Penn should have stayed in his liberal bubble and worked more on his poor acting skills and wife beating techniques. I hope that he doesn't need a shot of cocaine to realize that.

David Bowie And Culture

It's odd how quickly one can feel old and disconnected from the modern culture. David Bowie's death reminded me of that. Though he was 69 years old at death, even at that age I still viewed him as the young, rebellious and unique performer of the day. But in fact, Bowie had long ago transitioned into a more conventional performer. It must be true that celebrities age more slowly than we age, because we tend to fix on a moment in their career, usually when they were younger and first showed their faces, and to define them thereafter as that moment in time. For me, Bowie will always be more 25 than 69.

Most of the stars of my youth, even  some that are from my not so young years, have passed on. Since I abhor so much of the current common culture I am left to live with memories of those I have liked or live through film or other records from the celebrities own youth.  I was never a big fan of Bowie, yet he served as a fixed point in my life

because he was a central figure of my youth. No wonder I still believe the Beatles were the greatest band in modern times, and that their music is as appealing to me today as it was when I first heard it. When the last Beatle dies I might as well die too, for there will be little left with which I can identify.

I am not advocating that we should live in the past and always reject what the new culture offers. New can be great culturally, even superior. But I do contend that as we age most of us do attach ourselves to the past. It's a defense mechanism and a way of avoiding having to step into a world which we don't care for much at all. Few humans can not do that. We all embrace new technologies and inventions that benefit us in some physical way. Yet, cultural changes we often stubbornly resist. Maybe we have to do that or we will completely lose our identity.

May you rest in peace, David Bowie.

Humans Need Not Apply

I get more and more frustrated by all the machines I see and have to interact with. I wonder. Are machines going to become more important than humans, even replace them soon? Stephen Hawking, the current darling of the media in the science world, has said  that robots, powered by artificial intelligence could overtake humans in the next 100 years. Well, if he's right there is good news in that I won't be around to see it. Already I see how humanity has bee degraded  by the advent of the computer chip. We humans live more comfortably than ever, but we have traded much of what makes us human in order to accommodate all the conveniences that machines offer us.

Hawking points out how fast machines evolve, and that artificial intelligence has some big advantages over human intelligence.  His view is that humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn't compete, and would be superseded by machines. Hmmmm Already, I see how cell phones have imprisoned and emasculated a large number of humans, who seem helpless without their "cells".

Others feel that machines won't take over because they could not have any desire to do so. And those who think that robots won't take over worry about a different scenario. They are more concerned about humans directing intelligent machines to do malevolent things. It's the evil that men do thing. We already see how machines are tools of evil. If you don't believe me, just turn off your computer virus program and see how long it takes before the evil hacker will use your machine to gain profit from you. Whatever happens one thing is certain. Over nearly the entirety of earth's history, threats to humans have come from nature. But now the worst dangers to us come from us. Maybe those annoying cell phone addicts who drive us crazy are the canaries in the mind that tell us of worse to come.

Surely, machines have made life easier for us. But have they begun to spoil us so much that their importance will grow so large that one day in the future the machines won't need us any longer?

Deathly Selfies

How about this statistic? More people in 2015 have died while taking a selfie than have died in shark attacks. That's right. The score is 12 selfie deaths to 8 shark attack deaths.  Selfie deaths are more about stupidity than about innocently being attacked by a shark. One example is the guy who was killed as he took a selfie of himself with a loaded gun. Yep! He shot himself while snapping the photo. Talk about realism in selfies.

I have always believed that the more stupid the person the more likely to be a selfie addict. To make my point more clear we need only look at three other selfie incidents this year. They include a man who was gored to death taking a picture during a bull run in a Spanish town, and two men who accidentally blew themselves up in the Russian Ural mountains when posing with a live grenade. Also this year in Russia  a 21-year-old woman in Moscow who shot herself in the head while pointing a 9mm pistol at her temple. Uh, I will resist in asking you if you think the world is worse off having lost those morons to their selfie inanity.

If there is a selfie idiocy center of the universe it might be Russia. Apparently Russians believe the old Oscar Wilde adage, "To love one self is the beginning of a life long romance," because an extraordinary number of Russians are killing or hurting themselves by practicing reckless selfie-ism (that might not be a word, but it fits). Earlier this year, Russian authorities issued a selfie safety campaign  after hundreds of selfie injuries were reported.

The Russian interior ministry's initiative included a leaflet, video and a beware of selfies web site. “Unfortunately we have noted recently that the number of accidents caused by lovers of self photography is constantly increasing,” a government aide said at the time. “Since the beginning of the year we are talking about some hundred cases of injuries for sure.”

More and more people are putting themselves into dangerous situations in a bid to get the most sensational or outrageous pictures to share on social media. I guess for some there is nothing better than a selfie of your head exploding as you snap a picture of yourself with a loaded gun. In particular, selfie addicts are taking their pictures with animals, and are taking them at great heights. It kind of makes me wonder if selfie stupidity is just another way nature thins out the large herd of idiots that make life a challenge for all of us.

Starbuck's Delivers

Want to know how lazy humans have become, given the proliferation of the computer chip that has made every lazy person's excuse possible?  Now we can have our Star bucks coffee delivered to our homes. After users of a Postmates program that is partnering with Star bucks plug in a delivery address, Postmates takes it from there. A courier heads to the nearest Star bucks, picks up the order, and delivers it to the home. Is that really necessary or beneficial.

I get why those kinds of c companies are doing this.  They see the technological addiction in the populace and are now turning to technology to increase sales, speed up service and connect with young, tech addicted consumers. So now we order coffee on line and await delivery. And the coffee we get could just as easily brew at home. It seems to me a person buying Star bucks that way may be acting on an addiction rather than a need. How many people do you see each day robotically poking their cell phones to do a task that might be better done with personal contact?

Instead of those greasy pizza delivery boys bringing you that imitation cheese on cardboard, you will get a well manicured, green apron garbed Star bucks delivery boy or girl. If they get to a door with the wrong over-priced beverage, the delivering person can fire up a new replacement order immediately with....you got it......one of those awful cell phones. Star bucks hasn't mentioned tipping the deliverer, but given that Star bucks virtually extorts tips at it's land based stores with tip jars and sneers of derision, expect to pay a sizable tip for being too lazy to brew your own coffee or venture to a coffee store and buy it there.  Star bucks says it will already add $2 to the price of each delivery order.

I think I'll just have tea I brew at home.

Chasing The Uncatchable

There's another one of those huge lottery contests going on here. The prize for tonight's drawing is now past 500 million dollars. But I won't invest even a  single dollar for a ticket, not one cent given the odds of winning are said to be one in 287 million. Lotteries are fool's gold for fools. That's why governments all over the world run the lottery ticket scam.  Those contests appeal to greed and greed is a big motivation for many people.

After the greediest of all entities, the states that have formed as one lottery seller, get their grubby hands on the winner's share they will  take almost 20o0 million dollars of the winnings. The jackpot of those lotteries a is always based on the volume of sales all based on sales, so governments love gambling addicts who throw away their lunch money on dreams of winning.  Of course, almost all will fail to win. The only fix is that the states will always grab their unholy amount of the winner's dough.

A person has better odds of playing in the NBA, 1 in 6.9 million; being a movie star, 1 in 1.5 million; or becoming the president of the United States, 1 in 10 million, than winning one of those big powerballs. Yet, all who buy have the thought in the back of their gambling addicted brain that they will be the one who wins. How can such false hope bloom? It's probably not only greed, but desperation that drives humans to invest in the almost un winnable.

The largest U.S. lottery prize ever was for a Mega Millions game like this lottery was a $656 million jackpot split among three winning tickets in March 2012. Back then, the odds of picking the correct numbers were more than 1 in 175 million. Wow! Such good odds. But of odds, the curious thing about odds in relation to winners of lottery prizes greater than 1 million dollars is that most winners will spend all of their winnings and be "desperate" enough again' in as little as a year from the day they win the big prize. It seems that those lucky enough to win lotteries are rarely smart enough to use their winnings wisely. There is justice in that fact.

May all your hopes and dreams be based on more than winning a lottery.

2016 Banished Words

Its official  now. The 2016 "List of Words Banished from the Queen's English for Mis-Use, Over-Use or General Uselessness", or words that are annoying enough to banish, is out. That's right. Lake Superior State University in Michigan has released its annual list of words and phrases that it says should be banished this year. I think most of us will cheer many of the selections. Few things are as annoying to people theses days as the way communication technology creates a virus effect on the language.  When something is misused, it is now misused many more times than before the pe communication tech revolution.

I suspect reality TV stars and other functional illiterates didn't make many suggestions to Lake Superior for 2016. But the list itself is from nominations people all over made to the school's site for banished words. If you wish you can make a suggestion now for the 2017 edition.  "So", "problematic", "walk it back", "conversation", "secret sauce", "vape" and "break the internet", are there ones on this year's list I most applaud. If I ever use any of those here, shoot me and put me out of my intellectual misery.

Lake Superior doesn't just ban the obviously overused, badly used or annoying. It gives a reason for each. SO, here they are. (Don't shoot me for the "so", it was intentional to show why it should be banned.) . The word "so" as often used today serves no purpose in a sentence. Currently, it is being overused as the first word in the answer to any question or before one makes any statement.  For instance, "How did you learn to play the piano?" Answer: "So, my dad was in a classical music club and I..."

As for problematic, it's a fancy way (too fancy) for saying "problem".  I guess "it's a problem" is too direct to say today. To impress others we use "problematic" for anything that the speaker finds inconvenient or undesirable, such as an opposing political belief or bad traffic.  We don't say "it's a problem" because it's really not a problem. to exaggerate, substituting "problematic" is a way of making things that are not a problem seem to be one. I suppose it is a subtle way for us to exaggerate.  Actual problems like a death in the family are equated with imaginary "problematic" ones like whether seats at a concert we wish to attend is sold out before we have bought our ticket.

"Walk it back,’ means to retract the statement, or explain it in detail to the extent that the statement no longer has any validity or meaning once it has been walked back. It's a way a politicians, for example, can take back a miss statement or lie without appearing to be a liar or imbecile. "I take it back" is too much an admission of fault for some. Instead, they "walk it back" and  appear to make lying less of a transgression with that substitution.

SO, (Oops! I did it again.) that takes us to the banned word "conversation", It seems everyone wants to have a "conversation" about something. We used to merely ask to talk about it, but liberals in particular now use "have a conversation" about an issue they believe in as a code phrase that you must sit and listen to their belief and accept whatever it is they hold to be true. Having a "conversation" with a liberal, for example, about global warming, is admitting that they are right that humans who heat their homes with fossil fuels will destroy the planet in the next 30 days. When someone tells you that he or she needs to "have a conversation" with you  about something try to run away as fast as you can. You can annoy them before running by saying, "SO, I have to go now" as you bolt to escape them.

Blame Mc Donald's corporation for "secret sauce" having to be banned. Formerly, "secret sauce" was used in a sentence to describe that gooey mess that is served with Mc Donald's artificial chicken nuggets. But mow it is said to explain the "secret" of something.  Businesses now release public statements about their newest products as being the "secret sauce" for their success and the consumers satisfaction.  As punishment, those who release publicity statements about the latest company "secret sauce" product should be forced to eat a double order of Mc Donald's chicken nuggets with that gooey secret sauce on top.

"Vape" has been used recently as a new noun, referring to those nicotine cigarettes that are supposed to be a substitute to the weapons of death so many have been smoking for so long. First humans were killed by cancer from cigarettes. Now they die from overuse of the trendy word "vape". Here's clarity on "vape". If you smoke non nicotine cigarettes you admit a vapor instead of smoke. There is no need to call it "vaping". It's just as vulgar and harmful as those cigarettes you used to inhale. Just call it smoking, since you also puff and die from that kind of smoking.

The final entry on the 2016 list I most applaud is "break the internet".  It refers to any post or video that has so much Internet traffic that it appears to some idiots that it will "break the internet". I imagine a Kardashian saying, "I'm gonna break the internet with my latest breast photo." "Break the internet" is now being used for every headline and video on the internet. But as far as I can tell, the internet was broken long ago. No need to break it again.

SO..... just shoot me now and put me put of my misery.

Just Shut Up, Pope Francis

He's at it again. That Pope Francis guy, the socialist leader of the Catholic Church who preaches, not so much about religion and faith, but rather economics and government. First we had his nonsensical, in the bubble Christmas speech, and now we have another version for New Year's day. In this one Pope Francis called for an end to the "arrogance of the powerful" that relegates the weak to the outskirts of society, and to the "false neutrality" toward conflicts, hunger and persecution that triggers a sometimes deadly exodus of refugees."

Huh! Is he delusional? Never before in the history of the world have the wealthy done more for the poor than at this time. That includes governmental help domestically and internationally, as well as individual acts of charity. I know Francis' world view was formed in the slums of South America, his home. But shouldn't he stop defining the whole world, and humanity by those conditions? The world is not that way, and if Francis would take his head out of the ideological clouds of the Vatican he might see how much progress the have humanity has made in caring for their fellow, but have not humans.

In his speech, Francis emphasized the need to "let ourselves be reborn, to overcome the indifference which blocks solidarity, and to leave behind the false neutrality which prevents sharing." He recommended cooperation as the way to build an "ever more just and fraternal world, a world in which every person and every creature can dwell in peace." I recommend he spend time reading accounts of the past, to see how much less humans did those things he wants done now. He might learn that the world is a much kinder and gentler place than ever before.

Francis reflected on the "countless forms of injustice and violence which daily wound our human family". Sometimes", he claimed, "we ask ourselves how it is possible that human injustice persists unabated, and that the arrogance of the powerful continues to demean the weak, relegating them to the most squalid outskirts of our world." He continued: "We ask how long human evil will continue to sow violence and hatred in our world, reaping innocent victims." Sounds to me more like the behavior of his church and other religions than about individual humans.

Francis cited no country, continent or conflict. People who have little real truth to their message often lack specificity. But his words seemed aimed at the so-called refugees and migrants, more than 1 million of whom flooded into Europe from Africa, the Middle East and Asia in 2015.  He spoke of "witnessing hordes of men, women and children fleeing war, hunger and persecution, ready to risk their lives simply to encounter respect for their fundamental rights." Uh, but he did not mention the religious fanaticism of Islam that created the whole mess.

Too, perhaps he also didn't notice the charity of nations all over the world in taking in that mass invasion of illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants have been swarming on wealthier lands for years, almost all of them being allowed to enter. Yet, this pope doesn't see it.  He might want to study immigration and humanitarian patterns in recent times, in the decades immediately prior to before W.W. II, for example. He would learn that his narrative is nothing more politically correct spin.

I know the church must spout idealism and cover it with a veneer of truth. It's their role. But this pope is over the top with untruth, and he is doing more to make Catholics flee the church than to race toward Francis' version of humanity. It would be nice if Francis shut up about the political/economic world and instead concentrate on rehabbing the fallen spiritual presence of the Catholic Church he heads. The chaos there is truly a mess!

Etiquette Makes A Comeback

Hold on to your hat! In a lot of places in the U.S. enough people are fed up with the age of rudeness in which we live, that etiquette classes for kids are popping up across the country. Good manners, respect and politeness to others,  is a form of social glue that works to keep us living together in a  civilized society. In recent years we have forgotten that.  How many children today don't learn the basics of even a "please" or "thank you", or how to behave in a public space.  Social empathy comes from manners. No wonder all those cell phone addicts are going wild with rudeness.

Too, etiquette matters for one's self worth, self esteem. After all, etiquette is just a code of behavior that tells us what is appropriate and what is not. It seems to me we need a lot more of that instead of  the Kardashianism (defined as, "Look at me! I am behaving foolishly and getting attention for it. I'm great?") that society glorifies. Etiquette changes over time as it adapts to society. But today our etiquette has seemed to decline rather than evolves. No etiquette at all  sometimes is the new norm.

Then again, maybe manners today are just different form the past. Maybe we are not cruder than in the past. Today manners are less about faux pas than being mindful of how you treat people around you. So the rules aren't as cut-and-dried as they once were. 

Society is unpredictable so manners are less predictable. Yet, I find that distressing.  Having consistent public expectations makes it easier to understand human behavior. It also makes it easier for us to communicate and makes society more stable. Having definitive expectations makes it easier to act. We don't have to guess whether what we do is socially acceptable or not. Hmmmm I wonder if my writing about this is mannerly or not.

Climate Change Games

That so called "climate change" meeting of over the 150 countries who declared that humans are the force that controls climate and that they will direct human activity to make it cooler in the coming years, chugs along pretending to be noble and wise, but instead is looking foolish and deceptive. The goal of that strange climate change meeting, according to the world's biggest believer in global warming, U.S. President Barack Obama, is “an agreement each nation has the confidence that other nations are meeting their commitments.” What I think it actually is though is heated political rhetoric.

Is he kidding or just the fool he often appears to be? There is no reason to believe that agreement will conclude any differently from the last three, with nations reneging on commitments to drive down greenhouse gas emissions and to provide billions of dollars in foreign aid to finance reductions in the developing world. In a sense these climate change feel-good conventions have practiced income redistribution, not climate change. The wealthy nations are extorted trillions of dollars by the poorest in return for promises to not do all those so called evil carbon emission things that global warming nuts believe are killing earth. "Give us your money and we will play the climate change game," the poor countries promise. The wealthy gives them money, they promise to alter behavior, but never do.

The lack of binding commitments for developing nations like China and India is also a big part of what killed consideration of other previous agreements like the The Kyoto Protocol that were designed  to stop the suspect theory of "climate change". Also, the climate change types are pushing "alternative energy alternatives" that more often are not energy efficient or are so costly that they would bankrupt many countries and lead to economic collapse worldwide. Advocates of these ideas appear to be children playing a pretend game to save the world.

For a failed president like Obama, climate change is a great issue to pursue. It's subjective, unproved, and hard to argue against in a politically correct world in which dissenters are called names and even demonized. It's hard to find fault in a president's handling of climate change initiatives, for instance, because there is no definitive answer about the subject. So instead of focusing on things that are real, clear and immediate problems like the Muslim terrorism or economic disaster everywhere, the president touts himself as a brilliant climate change advocate.  In an age in which voters are ignorant, even detached from information or interested in about real problems, the strategy works well for Obama and some other failed world leaders of industrial nations.

It's interesting to see the lack of specifics that came out of the silly Paris climate change conference. The deal is what deceptive governments call a “hybrid agreement.” Under this approach, only measures dealing with emissions reporting would be binding on parties. The rest would constitute “political commitments”. In other words, empty promises that are not legally enforceable. In short, the agreement will contain little in the way of substance for those who do believe humans are climate Gods capable of changing climate. It's mostly liberal fell good, not serious policy and a distraction from real world problems. But the public loves it because they are told they will "save the planet" if they go a long with what the politicians declared at the conference.

That is not, however, how the agreement will be presented to people in those "participating" 150 nations. Obama thinks the agreement will be his “climate legacy” and has sent a number of his minions on a propaganda blitz to indoctrinate the folks that Obama is their savior. How foolish does he think the American people are? Sad to say, he may be right on that point.

Scanning Family Memories

We had the rare snowfall today here in Portland, Oregon. This morning about an inch of snow fell, and since the temperature has been below freezing for the past days driving is not an option to me. The roads are too icy and I live on a mountain that requires a great deal of steep turns. I am a no-snow southern "gentleman" who has vowed to never drive an automobile in snowy or icy conditions. Thus, I spent today inside reading, watching TV a bit and putting out Mardi Gras decorations in my house. Afterward, I decided to enter my attic and find some of those old family pictures that I have been meaning to scan and upload into my computer.

My time on this earth is dwindling, My daughter is the last surviving member besides me, but is interested in our family history. Scanning them now  into my computer seems like a good idea for a snowy day. I have two  large containers of old pictures that were obtained from various deceased members of the family. It's all that remains. Like most other families, our family seemed to not have kept many of the photos taken and to have labeled few of them. Because there is few identification on the photos and many of those pictured are strangers to me, some non family members others who died before I was born, it makes selecting photos for the scan an easier project. I do not scan what I do not know.

I suspect that one day that my daughter will discard the unknown pictures, or at least, do what other generations of the family have done, hide them in a box and hope they go away, a kind of burial tomb for people long gone and forever unknown. I wonder what those pictured would say if they knew how their earthly images were treated.  Looking at the pictures and many of the non picture items in those containers is quite an emotional impact for me. Is there a better way to learn about the past than from old pictures and documents? I suspect, no. Too, one gains an even greater respect and love for his or her family when sorting through those personal treasures.

My favorite find, or re fined, since I have seen it before, is the old childhood stamp collection of my father. This dates to when he was a boy of 10, 11 or 12 in the mid 1920's. With the stamps are letters from him to and from buyers of stamps. At such an early age my father was literate enough to run a home stamp trading business, masking his identity as a child and creating a new one as that of a 30 year old business man. His writing is extraordinarily mature for a child, probably no one today could detect that his business correspondence with those clients was written by a 12 year old. I doubt the old stamps I have from him are worth much today, but those letters and the images they provide make me wish for more snowy days.

Mom's Strange Teaching

Tis the season for thieves to steal those Fed Ex Christmas packages that are delivered to homes. Well, in Portland, Oregon it sure is. The metro area here is known for having a low major crime rate, but an outrageously high minor crime tradition. Petty theft, vandalism, assault those kinds of crime are often commonly correlated with the high drug and alcohol addiction in the area. The criminals need money to support their habit, so they commit those annoying crimes. A few years ago, I myself had two package deliveries stolen from my front porch, a common crime here.

But the worst example of stealing package deliveries from residents' homes has occurred in Milwaukee, Oregon, located about 18 minutes from Portland. An Oregon mother has been captured after police found she forced her 9-year-old daughter to steal packages from other homes. Police officers in Milwaukee investigated a series of thefts involving packages being taken from homes after they were delivered. In one case on Dec. 2, a witness snapped a photo of the suspected vehicle and gave investigators a description of the suspect. Mom was soon nabbed!

The next day, police tracked down the suspect, identifying her as 49-year-old Mary Palmer-Correa. Police said the woman would drive to homes with her 9-year-old daughter as a passenger and then instruct the girl to steal packages from home porches.  The little girl would run to the car and off sped mom. What a life lesson in crime during the holiday season. Police found several stolen items inside Correa's home after apprehending her there. Some of the recovered items include books, cups, pillows, a light set and a TV wall mount, police said.

The good news is that, Correa, perhaps the world's worst mom, was taken to Oregon's Clackamas County Jail on theft charges. Let's hope the jail doesn't assign her work in the postal delivery room.

Airline Terrorist Hoaxes

With the terrorism "fad' so large and growing these days the latest dilemma for the airlines is what reaction an airline should take towards it. No, I am not talking about screening for "terrorists", something that I think is overdone, done for effect and probably mostly a waste of time and an inconvenience. The issue the airlines are facing is what to do when the plane is aloft and a threat is called in that it will be destroyed or is going to be disabled while in flight?

Recently, a  kitchen timer, paper and cardboard found in a lavatory on an Air France flight. This could have been a bomb, but the crew didn't tell passengers about it. Instead they announced to the passengers that the plane had a technical problem and would be landing in Kenya instead of Paris.

That's not exactly the full truth,  and raises an ethical question about when passengers should be fully informed of problems in the air. But many experts say the crew of Air France Flight 463 did the right thing, avoiding panic and quickly landing the plane. Once on the ground, security officials determined that the device was a hoax, and passengers were told the full story. Besides, what good is it to tell passengers they may explode in a moment's notice because of a terrorist bomb. Nothing could be done to avoid it except to do what the plane did, land at the nearest airport as soon as possible.

Air France said  hat in the case that I mentioned above, the crew had no evidence that the device was an actual bomb, so telling passengers there was a technical problem was true in the sense that they don't know what they have. Still, many are upset and want the airlines to tell them "everything" when a   terrorist plot is discover while aloft. Most airlines don't have specific policies on what to tell passengers, leaving that up to the crew. But experts say airlines should be thinking more about what to do in this time of increasing security threats and hoaxes. For Air France, this was the fourth bomb hoax in recent weeks. Crew members also have to weigh how much passengers can find out from other sources as more planes come equipped with Internet and television access. Also, to many diversions when the threat is a hoax is not good business for the airlines and upsets passengers.

So what would you want the airline to tell you if you were a passenger on board that Air France flight. Telling passengers might would really create unnecessary problems like panic that could threaten the safety of everyone on board.  And what could they do about a threat except land elsewhere quickly? But obviously, on thing we can all probably agree is that when the threatened plane is on the ground passengers should be told the whole truth.

Death By Cell

It was not a Merry Christmas/Happy New Year for a cell phone addict this year. A 33-year-old man named Joshua M. Burwell was so engrossed and  distracted by by his cell phone that he fell 60 feet to his death at San Diego's Sunset Cliffs. Yep! he was walking near a cliff an had one of those "important" texts. Suddenly he walked off the cliff to his death.  It's not an unusual story either. I often dodge pedestrians who walk, heads down, thumbs punching their cell phones, oblivious to my car as they walk aimlessly into the path of my vehicle.

So far I have managed to not hit any of them, but only because of extra cautious driving whenever I am near an intersection. Cell phone addicts really do lose awareness of where they are when playing with their phones. Pedestrian cell phone users are a big problem now for auto drivers. Statistics show that  pedestrian is hit by a car or truck every seven minutes. (More than a quarter of all car crashes in America are are also caused by cell phone use,  according to a study by the Nation Safety Council).

The percentage of pedestrians killed while using cell phones rose from less than 1 percent in 2004 to more than 3.5 percent in 2010, according to a study conducted by researchers at Ohio State University. And an unbelievable 40 percent of U.S. teens have been hit or nearly hit by a passing car, motorcycle, or bike. I am n ot kidding. The cell phone is becoming a weapon of death.

The problem with this wave of tragic deaths and dangers from cell phone fanaticism is that little can be done to stop it. No matter how many warnings are given to cell addicts they seem to pass through their brains without much effect. Some cities here have passed "distracted walking laws" in which a person who walks carelessly because of some distraction, most often from using a cell phone, is given a walking ticket b violation. It has had no effect in making cell users more aware of their surroundings. Perhaps judges of distracted walking cases should order the violator surrender use of his or her cell phone for a period of time to make sure they offender understands that behaving stupidly while walking public streets can actually lead to death.

The greater question for society to ask itself is... Why do so many people live so much of their lives inside an electronic device that offers so little of what is real life?