Trick Or Treating

Oct. 31st is trick or treat night for kids here in the U.S. It's a custom I adored as a child. In fact, my dad seemed more excited and enjoyed it than I., He always insisted on taking me trick or treating when I was small, as a protection. But in reality, he had more fun doing it than any kid in the neighborhood. I think it's because Halloween and trick or treat let's us escape daily drudgery and instead pretend without reproach. Judging by how many adults love to give out the candy to trick or treaters, or to take their own small ones trick or treating,  I am not sure which age group benefits most by it.

Trick or treat here in the U.S really became popular in the 1930's, largely because Halloween mischief at the time turned too often into vandalism. In the 30's physical assaults and sporadic acts of violence were upsetting. One theory holds that it was the excessive pranks on Halloween that led to the widespread adoption of an organized, community based trick or treating tradition in the 1930s. It slowed down after the start of World War II when children had to refrain from trick or treating because of sugar rationing. How terrible. Take away my sugar and I might become normal!

In the 50's trick or treating became popular, becoming standard practice for millions of children in America's cities and newly built suburbs where trick or treat was easy and safe for kids.. No longer suffering from a war that brought sugar rationing, candy companies launching national advertising campaigns specifically aimed at Halloween. They encouraged and still encourage trick or treat. Today, Americans spend an estimated $6 billion annually on Halloween, making it the nation's second largest commercial holiday.

Strangely, the kids in different states want different candy. The most popular in most states this year, according to a marketing survey of 40,000 people across the United States is one I do not like, candy corn. My own Oregon, Wyoming, Tennessee, Texas and South Carolina all picked candy corn as their favorite Halloween trick or treat candy. If all they gave me was candy corn then I would stay home on Halloween night. But it does seem the trick or treat crowd is thinner than in the past. Churches, schools, community centers and other open to the public institutions have their own parties and trick or treat events. Malls set aside trick or treating at their stores. And there is that trick or trunk thing, where adults decorate trucks and hand out candy. Too, there is a safety issue in letting kids take candy from strangers. All of this may be suppressing the turnout of trick or treaters.

How ironic today that in America, the adult public demand for more "free stuff' from government is in inverse proportion to the lower kids desire for free candy at Halloween. Maybe it's proof that the adults are the most greedy monsters today.

Top 10 Signs You Are Too Old To Be Trick or Treating
10. You get winded form knocking on the door.
9.  You have to have another kid chew the candy for you.
8.  You ask only for high fiber candy
7.  When someone drops a candy bar in your bag,  you lose your balance and fall over
6.  People say,  "Great Keith Richard's mask!"  and you're not wearing a mask.
5.  When the door opens you yell,  "Trick or..."  and can't remember the rest.
4.  By the end of the night,  you have a bag full of restraining orders
3.  You have to carefully choose a costume that won't dislodge your hairpiece
2.  You're the only Power ranger in the neighborhood with a walker
1.  You avoid going to houses where your ex-wives live.

Liberal Diversity

One of the left wing's favorite words is "diversity". Like many words they use to slander their opponents or promote their agenda, diversity as used by the PVC crowd means something different that what a dictionary defines it to be. The dictionary says diversity means "to increase the variety of". But the PC er's say diversity means' Make everyone a winner, particularly those least deserving of winning. It seems to liberals that “diversity” only applies to racial and sexual minorities. They constantly denigrate the majority, particularly white males who are defined as oppressors and "privileged".

In this country it used to be a problem if one was not a member of the majority race or religion. Now, it seems to be moving toward the majority being the scorned and the minority favored. if that's so it's because the majority isn't organized and doesn't protect itself.  It seems embarrassed to do so because the screams from minorities of "unfair" makes them want to hide. The majority is defamed, scorned, accused of "racism", overtaxed, made fun of in the media and in movies, blamed for every ill in the nation, and on and on.

The problem for the majority is that if they complain or dare to change things, they are targets of the minorities and their liberal majority partners and  are accused of the left wing crowd's favorite, all purpose, most misused word- racist! If you are a minority member today in the United States and fail in some way, the standard excuse, and it works, is to claim to be a victim of racism. This is despite the fact that the federal and state government have numerous programs specifically for minorities of all sorts, paid for largely by the majority who are the primary tax payers in the country. Any program specifically designed to help a member of the majority exists only in one's imagination.

The United States used to be diverse in the non liberal sense. It had problems and discriminated against minorities often. But that has largely disappeared. People then celebrated who they were and didn't hold grudges against who they are not.  Sadly, the diversity that used to be the strength of the United States has become its greatest weakness. Sigh....I wish I were a minority.

Top Ten Halloween Costumes For 2016

Google has passed on some Halloween information this week, mainly a list of the most popular Halloween costumes for 2016. Ok, it's not Halloween so how do they know? Either Google knows all, as some believe or they composed the list from from the top 500 costume searches in the U.S by Google users. The list is interesting, but Google should have asked me what I think about this. If I were costuming I would search for a prison outfit, a wig and a female pant suit to costume as 'Hillary Clinton Goes To Prison'. I find the thought exhilarating. If only the world was fair and Hillary would be sent to the slammer.

Back to reality. Here is the top ten from Goggle: 10) dinosaur 9) clown 8) Star Wars 7) Batman 6) witch 5) Wonder Woman 4) pirate 3) Super Girl 2) joker and the number one costume for this Halloween will be 'Harley Quinn'. Huh? What is that. Let me look on line to see...... Google says that "Harley Quinn is a fictional super villain appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics. The character first appeared in Batman." It also says that Harley likes murdering people. Hmmm This does reflect negatively on our costuming mental health. But at least they didn't run with my Hillary in prison idea. Hillary might be worse than Harley.

Outside of maniacal maniac Harley, that list looks pretty traditional. It is also loaded with fantasy hero types. But then, many of us live in a fantasy world of the internet and cell phone. I suppose it reflects  our desire to leave this messy and uncomfortable world, trading it for one of those cell apps, I suppose. The University of Miracosta in California, and  Rider University of New Jersey,  surveyed college students to study how a persons Halloween costume choice may say something about their personality or current life situations. The results are more common sense than surprising.

It said that Halloween costumes tend to follow a common theme, and the wearers personalities were the sometimes opposite  and sometimes similar to the different categories of costumes, but most students picked costumes for their peers that reflected an opposite persona compared to that students personality. It said that sexy Halloween costumes tend to reflect either a  repressed sexuality or a health expression of someone that is not very repressed. Individuals that choose celebrities for their costume may be trying to show their knowledge of trends, pop culture, and current events.

Those that choose celebrities may also be trying to express personality traits associated with that person such as intelligence or sexuality. People that choose to be scary characters such as zombies or vampires are said to be showing their fascination with horror, gore, and death. Individuals that choose costumes of innocence such as a princess of fairy are often trying to retrieve their lost innocence and go back to a much simpler stage of life. People that choose costumes of animals are said to be displaying a personality trait that they have or admire.

Finally, the study concluded that if someone picks a costume of a cartoon character it is often because they want to leave the seriousness of life for the evening and be silly  and light. Those that pick an evil villain are said to be expressing their dark side without feeling guilty. A villain costume may also represent a person trying to alienate themselves from others indicating that they feel anxiety about being intimate or feeling vulnerable. Picking a powerful character like a super hero or even a villain can represent a persons feelings of helplessness and insecurity.

So, what costume would you pick if you were to dress for Halloween?

Encouraging Store Theft

I was in a dollar tree store the other day and saw commotion at the front of the store. It was a young woman pushing a baby stroller with a backpack. She cursed an employee who asked to see underneath her stroller and in a backpack she carried. Yep! The security camera of the store caught her stuffing almost an entire shelf of school supplies into the backpack and underneath the blanket of the stroller. It's not shocking that some people steal but the reaction of the thief and the store employees is significant in that it reflects the entitlement/no fault era of ethics that is ever-present in much of the world today. I find it sad and indicative of the decline in morals today.

When nabbed with the stolen goods she was trying to wheel out of the store she reacted as the offended, not the offender. Cursing the employee who inspected her stroller and backpack she remarked "It's not right to look into people's stuff". How different from earlier eras when that thief like her would have been apprehended for police. But this store, like almost all others in the United States does not call police unless the amount stolen is over $200 in value. The law says that under 200 dollars is a misdemeanor, which would make prosecution difficult, expensive for the store and unlikely to bring a sentence that would be more than probation. Thus, this store and others tell employees to let the thief go.

Later, in talking with an employee involved in this incident, she said, "They will fire me if I try to force her to stay or to chase after her once she leaves the store. We loves a great deal of money to shoplifting because the corporation does not want the bad publicity that might result when an incident at the store is reported."  Thus, they rarely even notify the police. Take the theft as a business loss and raise prices to make up that loss. In fact, according to the store, this woman has shop-lifted frequently at the store in the past. Because the store does nothing about it, she continues.

All of this reflects the situational morality today. Too many people do whatever they want and feel offended if the injurious behavior they display is challenged. "If it's good for me, it is right", they think. And society reinforces that mentality by not insisting on stricter standards of behaviors. There are fewer and fewer norms today with which humans feel they must conform. This opens the door for more criminal behavior like that of the store thief. And the world becomes a less comfortable and just place.  Have you noticed this too?

Airline Seat Spillage

Maybe the airlines have finally done it with their every decreasing seat spacing, extra fees and generally uncomfortable rides. A case in point is making lawyers everywhere smile. it seems that an Emirates airline passenger is suing the airline after he says he had to sit next to an obese passenger for nearly nine hours on a July flight from Cape Town to Dubai. Since I am approaching a fat status myself I will restrain my snide remarks about this. But I have been in a similar situation, and mostly since the airlines started cramming extra seats on their planes by shrinking the size of seat space.

According to Italian newspapers Giorgio Destro, a lawyer from the northern Italian city of Padua, claims the “spill over” from the man seated next to him ruined his trip. Giorgio says he asked crew to find him another seat, but that they were unable to do so because the flight was full. Sure Giorgio is a lawyer and they sue for anything. Still, this is a problem I have observed more and more as people get fatter and seats have gone on a diet. I am actually almost motivated to root for Giorgio to win this case. Sigh....I feel embarrassed to root for a lawyer.

The bad news for Emirates is that Giorgio who says he’s a member of the Emirate frequent flier club. If this is how Emirates treats its club members, I suspect the normal passengers should run for cover. To his credit, Giorgio is making a reasonable request in his suit. He is suing for about about $847 in compensation for his fare and $2,232 in damages. I am uncertain if anyone else has sued in Italy for fat seat mate trauma. But the airlines will be watching this one. if lucky and Giorgio wins the airlines might reconsider their "Let's torture the passengers" policies.

“For nine hours, I had to stand in the aisle, sit on seats reserved for the cabin crew when they were free, and in the final phase of flight resign myself to suffer the spill over of the passenger at my side,” said Giorgio. And he took a picture of the fat guy spilling on top of him to prove his case. Emirates has said it cannot respond directly to the comments since the litigation is pending.

Love That Chicken

If you ask people anywhere in the world what their favorite fast food or street food item is they are likely to declare it to be fried chicken. I agree and am here to acknowledge that July is the month that honors the greasy, but delicious fried chicken. How many ways can we fry chicken? I think it is limitless and everyone as a favorite that he or she swears by. It's one of those food that can not have a "best". There are too many good versions. Why, I even like two fast food versions here, KFC original and my former home's (New Orleans company Popeye's Chicken.  If I eat fast food two times a month, one will be fried chicken at either place.

We also all have our favorite recipes for fried chicken. One I like for frying the best piece of chicken , the wing, is below. I think the U.S can thank the Scottish for being crazy about fried chicken. Scottish immigrants brought their tradition of deep frying chicken in fat to the southern United States.  After its introduction to the American South, fried chicken soon became a staple and that colonel Sander's guy came up with a recipe that the whole world seems to like a lot. Shanghai , China is the place that has the most KFC outlets, world wide. 

When I was a boy people used to fry their chicken in lard...pork fat. Nothing may be better than that. But the food police decided that lard was unhealthy, so people who fry that way here now are rare and at risk. Purest like me say you never remove the skin from chicken before cooking it, especially when frying. Again, the food police has promoted the notion that the chicken is "healthier" if fried skinless. It's not, but it is less flavorful.

Fried chicken is so popular I think if Marie Antionette were alive today she would not say to the mob of protesters outside the royal castle, "Let them eat cake". Nope, it would more likely be a different strategy to quiet the mob. "If you shut up and go home the king and I will give you a box of KFC to take with you.

What Are We?

I think I am having an identity crisis. Why, you might ask?  It's probably because the world can't settle for reality, that it needs to create its own reality when reality itself does not fit an individual's agenda. Here's an example that I just experienced while filling out a form on line here for a left wing, in the bubble Portland, Oregon. It asks to identify the person's sex.

Which best describes your gender identity? Check all that apply.

Male

Female

Non-binary or gender non-conforming

Trans

Other

Wow! And I thought there were only two sexes. I know that DNA Chromosome thing says the same thing. But apparently, the city of Portland has discovered two other sexes and also says that one can be born with some "other" unnamed sex. That one must be classified "Top Secret" by the liberal  crowd that runs Portland. But what is that choice that says, Non-binary sex? Let me look and make sure before I prove my stupidity by defining itself.
Here's a definition and example from the Urban Dictionary....

"A person who identifies as neither male or female. These people usually go by the they/then pronoun, but will choose neo pronouns
Person 1: Who is Jay?
Person 2: Oh, that's Jay. They're non binary, so they don't go by he/him pronouns. They go by they/them pronouns.
Person 1: Ok, well they are cute.
Person 2:  Yes, I have eyes. I can see that.

What? I can't even understand the example. But I suspect it means that if you ask one who is confused whether her she is one of the two, the non binary answer means, "I am a frustrated Nazi feminist and don't recognize basic realities like genders. So I will give you a non answer by saying I am "non binary". I guess if you don't like what sex you are, create a fantasy sex as a replacement. I am thinking that non- binary differs from transgender in, that though both are imaginative "sexes, the latter is an androgynous identity.

Hmmm I wonder why we don't have androgyny bathrooms too? In the end I was so confused about the what sex I am question that I left it blank, under the assumption that the questioner would realize I have disavowed membership in the human race. It's easier to understand human identity that way.

Those Internet Customer Reviews

Finally, someone is taking action against those phony on line reviews of products and businesses that we all read and pay too much attention to.  Amazon.com has filed a lawsuit accusing  more than 1,000 people of offering to post bogus glowing write ups for as little as $5 apiece. No wonder that dry tasteless burger that I ate at that trendy restaurant was reviewed so glowingly. Well, I never put too much faith in those kinds of reviews anyway.

The Amazon case has been filed in Washington state court because the false reports, both too positive and too negative, not only are obvious plants, but causes both business and consumers to play on a less than level playing field.  It is in response to what appears to be an ever increasing practice of some businesses to pay for fake reviews that masquerade as testimonials from ordinary people. Fake reviews are nothing new to online retailing, and Amazon is far from the only big company affected.  Just about every one in the U.S. has long known that Yelp's restaurant reviews and TripAdvisor's hotel ratings were so easy to post that many were not real.

But now a large retailer, Amazon, appears to be taken on the distortions of products consumers think have been reviewed impartially. It' the first attempt by a big company to stop the practice. Its lawsuit alleges that individuals would write five star reviews about products they never even tried, and plotted with product makers to get around Amazon safeguards that are meant to stop false reviewing and give users of the Amazon web site confidence in the reviews given there. In essence, Amazon is saying that if the government won't stop the false reviewing, we will.

The incentives to plant fraudulent reviews are attractive. About 45 percent of consumers consider product reviews when weighing an online purchase, according to Forrester Research. Two thirds of shoppers trust consumer opinions online, according to research by Nielsen. So for a struggling or small businesses, it can be more economical to pay for positive reviews than to pay to legitimately advertise the business. For example, a half star increase in a restaurant's online rating can increase the likelihood of securing, say, a 7 p.m. booking by 15 to 20 percent, that according to Gartner Research. So a restaurateur might be tempted to pay $250 for 50 positive reviews online in the hopes of raising that rating.

The big online sites like Amazon, Yelp and TripAdvisor have worked hard to thwart the planting of fake reviews, but in the internet world it's hard to stop phony ads. I can't even stop those Nigerians from sending me those mails telling me I have inherited 50 million dollars from my cousin the always recently deceased Nigerian king. No wonder the big companies have failed to stop phony review postings at their sites.

They employ computer algorithms and teams of investigators who scour reviews and delete suspicious entries. Often, only people who have paid for a product or service and been verified can post reviews. Yelp says that when suspicious reviews are found, the company puts a "consumer alert" badge on a company's Yelp site for 90 days warning consumers that reviews might be deceptive. If the problem persists, Yelp removes all reviews of the company. TripAdvisor says it has a team of 300 people using fraud detection techniques to weed out fake reviews. So they have been trying, but failing to stop the false review practices.

Despite that, experts in the field claim at least 10 to 15 percent of all product reviews are fake. Suing the businesses has been hard. That's why Amazon is going after the little people (you and me) who write the reviews. Amazon has already sued several web sites that offered to produce positive reviews for businesses. Amazon says the offenders are liable for breach of contract for violating Amazon's terms of service. Gee, I hope one day I don't get sued for writing so much stupidity here.

Canging Movie Experience

Because of all that new technology the movie going experience is changing today. I say that with a caveat because I don't know a whole lot about films made today. You see, I rarely ever go to see films anymore. The reason, it's not the technology, it's the vapid story lines that have made films dull for me. I still believe a good film is defined by the content of the script, not the special effect and other visual trickery.  There may not be a law that says this but I believe that as the special effect and visual technology improve in film, the quality of the story and writing falls inversely.

Anyway, I read more and more that watching film means seeing it with virtual reality, augmented reality and other immersive technologies. That's a mouthful! I assume we already get the  basic idea about what is virtual reality. Anyone with a cell phone knows that one can even experience it with a telephone.  But hat is this augmented reality stuff? Augmented reality blurs the line between what's real and what's computer generated by enhancing what we see, hear, feel and smell. They essential tick our small brains into believing what we see is real.

When using immersive technology a person can feel he or she is not in the real environment, but rather feels as he or she is present in an immersive environment (virtual environment). The movie maker using things like theater temperature, seat movement, manipulation of the viewer's sense of touch and other stimulation that make the movie goer forget he or she is eating stale, over priced popcorn and sitting in a dreary theater.

This sounds dreadful to a Luditte like me. I prefer a film maker not attempt to manipulate my mind. Better to tell me the story conventionally and allow my small brain to interpret the raw data myself. I wonder if the technology  is doing more work than is the brain. Do humans need to have their thoughts controlled when engaging in such a simple task as watching a film? Does being wowed by technology satisfy the higher levels of our brains? Do we not get the greatest intellectual stimulation from the simplest act of thinking for ourselves and "figuring something out ourselves"?

You tech fans can have all that video enhancement. I'll take an old black and white movie that makes me think for myself.

Sloppy Neighbors

Neighborhood demographics in the United States are pretty uniform. Most have well manicured, watered lawns, nice shrubs...that sort of thing. When you drive down a street in most middle class neighborhoods you see uniformity. People tend to their property to make it look good because their house is usually their biggest investment. It just makes sense to not be a slob.  But among those lovely lawns and gardens there is. The jerk in the neighborhood whose house is an island surrounded by overgrown lawns with weeds everywhere, objects (trash) strewn about and dying gardens that are gasping for water and attention.

No matter how nice the street looks there is bound to be at least one ugly/non attended home. Most often those slobs who allow their lawns to fall into neglect also have junk of one sort or another sitting in front of their property. Those boats and camper trailers that are too often parked in front of the house are examples. And why do people put up Christmas lights but leave them up all year round? It's odd that any human be too lazy to take them down after Christmas is over.  Sometimes those boats and campers also appear to be locked into place. They never move from their spots because the home owner thinks his or her house is also a boathouse or trailer park.. I guess they seem to never move those things because if a person is too indifferent or lazy to take care of their lawn they are also probably are too lazy to use their boat or camper.

I am lucky because at present I have no lawn jerks near my own house. I think the higher affluence of my street makes that the reason. People who have the money to spend on taking proper care of their property usually don't neglect it. There is a kind of  "I don't want to be the jerk on the street who lives like a slob" mentality because it should be embarrassing to be that. I wish that mentality would be transferred to the other slobs in other neighborhoods. But then, a homeowner has the right to be a jerk if he or she wishes. Strangely, when the street jerk lists his or house for sale the property suddenly is cleaned and lawn attended.  This is affirmation that when money is at stake all homes look nice and all street jerks become respectable.

You can usually judge the quality of the person by how responsible he or she is in caring for their property. That's because, caring is not mandatory, but when one does take care of it says, "I respect others in the neighborhood, so I will make an effort to show it by not living as if I don't care" Well, Ben Franklin once wrote that "Good fences make good neighbors."  I wonder if someone in Ben's neighborhood had a boat and camper parked in front of his house.

New And Improved, I think

My shopping excursions lately have me convinced that this must be the brave new world I hear about. It's because I see more and more items labeled as "new" or "new and improved". But are those packages of consumer goods really new or new and improved? How can something be both new and improved? It does not follow. If the manufacturer makes the toothpaste, for example, an improved version it's not new. Nor is it new and improved. It would be simply "improved".

Usually, the maker of the new and improved product has an exclamation  mark after "NEW" (always in large case type). They seem more excited about it than we consumers who have to pay more for whatever is marked as "new" or new and improved". Maybe the higher prices are the only new and improved  (but only for the seller's benefit) thing about it.

But then, manufacturers have a different interpretation of what is new, than do we.  I wonder if that new shampoo is so good, was the old version so bad? I feel like a sucker for having bought the product before the new released version. Maybe I should ask for a refund for all the old stuff I bought. Hmmmm I suspect there is nothing really new about the new releases except a need for that price increase and for the need to pretend that the company is working hard to improve the junk they sell us.

One trick manufacturers get way with is writing "New And Improved" on their products when they want to reduce the size of the product in order to save manufacturing costs. They figure, and they are right, that when we see the new and improved banner that we will pay more for the item, even if we take the time to notice we are getting less of the product content.

New and improved” is the easiest and lamest of marketing claims. Marketers use it to create new spin on an old brand or to pretend the old brand is different, but it's often not much more than label deep. I say that if a product really is new or improved we will see it when we consumer it. Just show us, don't tell us.

The Anti Meritocracy Leftist Agenda

In the United States Obama era one of the uber liberal progressive targets these days is meritocracy, the idea that one's position in life should be based on merit not through entitlements or quotas. Meritocracy, the belief in this country for more than two centuries, says that your position in life should exclusively based on ability and talent.

The left wing today hates that, which is why we see the left push affirmative action quotas, income inequality programs, the white males as evil oppressors mentality, and the narrative that all the problems in the nation are the result of the "rich" class. Well, it is working for the left. They continue to elect candidates to office who continue who penalize the haves to help the have nots. The mantle of anti meritocracy is being passed to the evil Hillary Clinton, whose lack of ethical compass suits her well in enforcing the Obama legacy.  Their idea in a nut shell is that one who is not successful can be made successful by destroying those who through merit are successful.

Anyway, why I bring this up is because I happen to have stumbled on something about the champion of meritocracy, Albert Einstein. With its faults, meritocracy has been an incredibly successful path for many to achieve what they might not in the entitlement system of Obamism. We should remember that Einstein was the guy who fought the Nazi plan to dismantle meritocracy in German society, and also the fellow who championed in his new country, the United States.

The Nazis used the "meritocracy is evil because it helps Jews" mantra to convince ordinary but struggling Germans that their failures economically were because "the Jews controlled all the wealth in Germany".  Einstein helped thousands of Jewish Scientists to escape Nazi Germany, first by appealing to Winston Churchill to accept them as English citizens, then with similar appeals to Turkey, Canada the United States and other democratic states. In fact, Churchill once said that the flow of Jewish scientists into allied nations was the central reason Nazi Germany was defeated in W.W. II.

Yet we have no Einstein's today in this left wing Obama reign of terror. Hitler used terror to force his will, Obama uses political correctness. Hitler blamed the Jews for the failure of the economically distressed, Obama blames the wealthy and successful. Neither promoted education and hard work as a remedy for economic unhappiness.  They both used propaganda and a dumbing down of the masses with triviality as a distraction. Though I do not contend that Obama or the progressive crew today are Nazis or want that kind of  rule, it is no coincidence the goals to destroy and tactics used against meritocracy are the same.

An today we are left with an electoral choice between the Obama heir to anti meritocracy, Hillary Clinton, or the puzzling, clownish anti Obama alternative, Donald Trump. Sigh, where is Einstein when we most need him......

Escapist Strategies

One of those idiotic articles, 'How to talk to a woman who is wearing headphones', when wanting to met a stranger of the opposite sex was published in my local newspaper. Wow! Is it revealing about the electronic culture today. It was fluff and not worthy of detail, but in  the end the author claims it's best to just leave the woman alone, that she "doesn't want to be bothered" If that's not the way so many of us relate to strangers today, the "I prefer my cell phone or other electronic device to live human contact. I have no risk when I live in the virtual world".

I've seen a lot of the headphone, cell phone escapists strategy. It's sad. In the case of a woman wearing headphones and maybe or maybe not listening to music I always wonder why someone would prefer electronic devices to contact with a real person. There are many possibilities in the music headphone scenario. She's probably not listening to anything. She just doesn't want to be bothered. "Take a hint" the headphone defense screams at all around her. But then I also think that she's self absorbed and is heading to the all virtual lifestyle that is becoming both more common and more accepted.

Perhaps it's best that people who hide behind or are absorbed with non human relationships do live in that refuge. It helps us escape being bored by them. Maybe it's nature's way of  weeding out the virtual and non virtual denizens. I think than most normal humans would probably not be too pleased with trying to converse with a person who prefers mindless pop music to the mind of a  real, live human being.

I wonder if humanity has ever before, in any other generation, at any time, tried so hard to not be human? Has modern technology made basic human pursuits passé'? Is the future of humanity to be less and less personal and more and more virtual? How much does the strategy of aversion toward others affect us?  Is it possible that the stresses and pace of modern life actually force us to cope with it all by hiding behind those headphones. What do you think?  Oh....please put down those headphones and pay attention to me.

Tampons For Everyone!

This might sound like a joke, but it's not. Actually, it's a sad commentary at how far the United Sates has fallen to the left wing nuts who police the nation to follow political correctness.  Get ready....here it is....Brown University, a prestigious and highly liberal university has announced that tampons are now "a gender less necessity", and that the university will no provide free tampons in all campus rest rooms....including male rest rooms. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH  Sorry, that was my primal scream in response to this stupidity.

In order to give access to trannies who wander into the men's room, the tampons will be delivered to male bathrooms by the university's student president, Viet Nguyen, as well as 20 volunteers, with Nguyen claiming the initiative is a means of educating students that men menstruate as well as women. Viet announced that,  “There’s been a lot of conversation about why pads and tampons are a necessity, not a luxury, but not a lot of action. We wanted to take it into our own hands.” It seems that Viet wants to open discussion about menstruation, "We hope that it contributes to the much larger conversation about the stigmatization of Menstruation", he said.

A lot of talk about putting tampons in male rest rooms? Open menstruation conversation? Really?  I wonder what Brown university is putting in the drinking water at the school water fountains. Even more weird than Viet's logic is that he and his tampon patrol student volunteers were publicly congratulated by Brown’s Director of News and Editorial Development, Brian Clark, who praised their “tremendous initiative”. I guess what the world needs now is for men to have more tampons in their pee stalls.

Well, this is just another nail in the coffin that there are two genders, and that one's gender is not what one wants to be, but rather it is what his or her chromosomes say it is. Hmmmm I wonder if Viet and the Brown crew will also put urinals in the female rest rooms. Oh... I shouldn't have suggested that. maybe I should go get one of those tampons and stuff it in my mouth to shut me up.

Safe Targets

We are living in the age of over sensitivity. One who criticizes must be aware that some people can be critiqued and others can not.  And you'll be told quickly if you made a negative remark about the wrong target. It even extends to occupations. Say something critical about any aspect of the Muslim religion, for example, and there will be outrage. There might even be a personal Holy War against the guy who makes a joke about a hajab or other Muslim garment.
It's not fair to make some insulated from critique and others not. But our politically correct guardians are never about fairness, logic, reason or accuracy. Here are a few of the examples of who they say we can never criticize: women, Muslims, minority group members, liberal doctrine, rap music, poor people, non heterosexuals, unemployed people, homeless people, disabled people, children...you get the idea.

Before I get myself in trouble for making a remark about one of the favored PC groups I shall switch to writing about those people/occupations we are allowed to criticize. Most are traditional ones, like politicians. Who can be blamed for talking badly about a politician. It's a time honored hobby we all love. We often can't stop them from governing badly pandering to us or stealing from us. Calling them names and pointing out their character flaws is the only thing than makes us feel good about politicians.

I am thinking about some other people or occupations we are allowed, even encouraged by the PC police from criticizing in this age of insensitivity. There are quite a few and most have been included because the politically correct types see them as evil or oppressive. Never mind that there is no truth to that notion. The PC police hates reason, truth and logic. In fact, some on the list we used to admire and would never give notion to critique of them. The culture of a society is changing and what is on top today is often scored and on the bottom tomorrow. How my disclosing these safe targets, the ones we are allowed and often encouraged to criticize?

I think that in the U.S. the police are now number one object of scorn today. They, not the criminals, get blamed for everything criminal in society. If a criminal is apprehended by the police while trying to flee and harmed in the process the police are accused of brutality. They are called pigs and other unpleasant names. The police are blamed for the crimes the criminals commit and scored when they catch and incarcerated as "targeting" the criminal. this is especially true in the United States when the person arrested is either black or Hispanic. According the the PC narrative today no black or Hispanic suspect is ever guilty of committing a crime. Instead, they are "targeted" and oppressed by the "pigs". No self respecting PC liberal would ever miss the chance to demonize a police officer (unless they need one to ward off a criminal attack on themselves).

Doctors are also safe targets. Many people think doctors are incompetent, money grubbing, elitists. This is the opposite view from our previous one that said doctors were  more like saints than sinners. I remember when a discouraging word about a doctor was looked upon as being a sacrilege. But the higher cost of medicine, mostly not the fault of doctors, has made the doctor the scapegoat for outrage. Today's doctor must feel like yesterday's used car salesman, scorned more than admired.

Another big safe target is the wealthy person. "The rich"  have become stereotypes for failure. PC liberals say that when someone is rich it's because he exploits some poor person. Oddly, they never can explain why they imagine that success for one person begets failure of another. You can call rich people any name you want, and lying about them is considered the norm. "The rich don't pay their share of taxes" is a favorite lie of the PC crowd.  If you show tax statistics that prove that it is just the reverse, that they actually pay a disproportional high rate of taxes, you will be called an elitist.  I think the wealthy today have replaced lawyers as the United States most hated group. So say something bad about a rich person today (unless it is a PC favorite like Bill Gates. They are never labeled as rich.)

White people are also good targets. The ones who most commonly criticize white people are other white people, PC liberals. If you are white today they claim that society gives you "white privilege". All success white people have is seen as a result of being given it. And the narrative also says every successful white person means some non white person is being "exploited" by the successful white. You can criticize white people about anything because all problems in he United States are seen by PC ers as the creation of white people.

Some other safe targets today include: insurance companies, bankers, Christians, men, conservatives, the educated,  people of faith, "climate deniers", gluten lovers, and traditional families. Fell free to add to the list because there are many more safe targets. If you are unsure, ask any in the bubble, PC, liberal. He or she can give you many more suitable targets.  So go for it and excoriate one or more of those safe targets. As for me, I think I should shut up now. I am probably already in trouble enough for writing this.