How bad is flying on a commercial airline today? Today's typical plan is filled with rude, dirty, inappropriately dressed people, with their ill behaved broods of even worse behaved children. They board planes everywhere and cause a stir nearly every time they take a seat, from dragging on oversized carry-ons (and the airline is at fault for allowing that) that prevent many passengers from placing their regulation sized carry-on aloft to abusive behavior toward fight attendants..flying is now more an ordeal than a convenience.
You can also lay plenty of the blame onto the airline industry. They keep making seats and personal space smaller while cramming as many people as they can cram onto the plane. Packed into the plane like sardines, charged for luggage, charged for snacks, charged, charged, charged....it surely doesn't lend to civil behavior by passengers.
I can recall flying years ago when there were people dressed as grown ups, there was a sense of calm and mutual respect between passengers and passengers and passengers and crew. Sadly, those days will never return. It used to be that it was a treat to fly and that flying was expensive and not amass transportation mode. Today people say it's a cattle car on a subway. And people are getting more obnoxious as a result.
Are you as disgusted as I with the loudness, abusiveness towards flight attendants, violation of passenger seat space, pushing while entering and leaving the plane, cell phone abuse on aboard...ahhhhhhhhhhhh It makes me long for the days when flying was for the wealthier citizen. Sometimes bringing product to the masses isn't a great idea. Perhaps airline travel is one such case. If people could only afford to fly infrequently, and had to use alternative methods the rest of the time, perhaps civility might return to air travel.
Ah, but I am dreaming...The rudeness in air travel is merely an extension of the "me, me, first" attitude that permeates our society today. The idea of politeness and manners has been relegated, for the most part, to the trash heap of the past. And, for that both our airline experiences and our society are worse off.
Makes me just want to "fly away" from it all....
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Featured Stories
I am trying to understand the mentality of the news services and the news readers and news watchers who consume their content. Just what is news worthy today and what should be featured news? If you logged on to a newspaper on line or bought one at a news stand recently you got the following stories as features (and some of them long term featured stories).
First, here was the 4 day near news orgy about basketball player Lebron James deciding what city for which he would play basketball. This included one city team owner, that of Lebron's current Cleveland team, ranting about how Lebron was disloyal and immoral for not staying in the city he currently represents. Lebron made a job site change to improve his economic status. Yet we got a long term soap opera about nothing that really matters.
Then we have the "Gibson tapes", a voyeuristic exercise in displaying actor Mel Gibson in a private melt down in which he utters vulgar and racist remarks about his ex gf (with whom he is currently in engaged in a child custody dispute). This one has been in the news, a stolen video of the rant plastered all over the media. But why should we be interested in Gibson's personal domestic problems or his insensitive remarks? In what way does knowing this benefit anyone?
A third non story being pounded to death is the Russian spy saga in which ten amateur and innocuous Russian "spies" were arrested in the U.S. (and eventually traded for several American spies being held in Russia). All media accounts admitted the spies were harmless and gathered no information other than what anyone could not have found with a personal computer. Being no threat to U.S. security apparently elevates oneself to prime time coverage if you "spy" because media outlets know that bogus patriotism angled stories sell among the ignorant masses. It sort of says the mediums think we are awfully dumb.
A fourth prominent story is the Celine Dion pregnancy report. After being badgered by media to tell about her latest pregnancy, uh, she held a press conference to announce she was pregnant with twin boys. What's next, perhaps a bathroom report on Lady Gaga? Should adults with normal IQ's really spend their time reading that kind of story? No wonder so many are so misinformed about issues that really matter to their lives. Well, at least they know about the celebrity baby news.
It's almost as if reality TV producers were managing the news service industry today, choosing what is sensational or amusing and burying news of real importance at the bottom of the page. Surely, given the profit motive, news sellers will report what the public wants, even when the public wants stupidity and triviality. But they seem to have no shame about what news has become (and some even pretend their non news is important news). And I wonder why the public doesn't demand better from the news sources.
Maybe this is just the age of inconsequence in which importance takes to much time or effort to interpret. What do you think?
First, here was the 4 day near news orgy about basketball player Lebron James deciding what city for which he would play basketball. This included one city team owner, that of Lebron's current Cleveland team, ranting about how Lebron was disloyal and immoral for not staying in the city he currently represents. Lebron made a job site change to improve his economic status. Yet we got a long term soap opera about nothing that really matters.
Then we have the "Gibson tapes", a voyeuristic exercise in displaying actor Mel Gibson in a private melt down in which he utters vulgar and racist remarks about his ex gf (with whom he is currently in engaged in a child custody dispute). This one has been in the news, a stolen video of the rant plastered all over the media. But why should we be interested in Gibson's personal domestic problems or his insensitive remarks? In what way does knowing this benefit anyone?
A third non story being pounded to death is the Russian spy saga in which ten amateur and innocuous Russian "spies" were arrested in the U.S. (and eventually traded for several American spies being held in Russia). All media accounts admitted the spies were harmless and gathered no information other than what anyone could not have found with a personal computer. Being no threat to U.S. security apparently elevates oneself to prime time coverage if you "spy" because media outlets know that bogus patriotism angled stories sell among the ignorant masses. It sort of says the mediums think we are awfully dumb.
A fourth prominent story is the Celine Dion pregnancy report. After being badgered by media to tell about her latest pregnancy, uh, she held a press conference to announce she was pregnant with twin boys. What's next, perhaps a bathroom report on Lady Gaga? Should adults with normal IQ's really spend their time reading that kind of story? No wonder so many are so misinformed about issues that really matter to their lives. Well, at least they know about the celebrity baby news.
It's almost as if reality TV producers were managing the news service industry today, choosing what is sensational or amusing and burying news of real importance at the bottom of the page. Surely, given the profit motive, news sellers will report what the public wants, even when the public wants stupidity and triviality. But they seem to have no shame about what news has become (and some even pretend their non news is important news). And I wonder why the public doesn't demand better from the news sources.
Maybe this is just the age of inconsequence in which importance takes to much time or effort to interpret. What do you think?
No More Mullets
Did you see the news out of Iran about hair bans? Yes, those crazy Iranians are banning certain hairstyles on the grounds that they are not traditional enough. Here is the statement of the ban from one of those many "ministry" department officials that totalitarian states love so much. "In designing these hair styles, we have not tried to go backward. On the contrary, we have tried to make our designs a mixture of our traditions and Iranian culture, as well as the latest fashions and by doing so confront the cultural assault by the West (on our country)."
I am still trying to figure out that statement. Funny things is the "assault" of western fashion that the dictators there want to end is on 50 and 60 style hairdos that men have adopted recently. It could be that they are now fighting against a western cultural that was disappeared in the west 50 years ago. Among the banned styles are the mullet, the pompadour and the ponytail. All three are popular with younger Iranian men, and the government thinks it is just to heretical to allow. So large poster displays of what hair styles are permitted have been seen throughout the Iranian cities. I guess it's better that the Iranians worry about hair than about building nuclear weapons. Uh..maybe not. Those mullet hair styles are killers too.
Doesn't the Iranian dictatorship realize how ridiculous the bans are to the western world they so much love to hate (but try to copy from)? But then religious dictatorships are often blind to all but their own agendas. Maybe we in the west should all sport mullet hairstyles and send in photos of them to all Iranian media sources. Mullet warfare sure beats nuclear war. The cultures outside of Iran sure seem to get underneath the Iranian dictator's skin. A full fledged cultural assault on Iran might bring them to their knees. We could besiege them with copies of reality TV shows, news reports on Lindsay Lohan meltdowns, those obscene and child-like rap music lyrics, and even some of the Obama " hope and change" speeches that have sent many of us into cardiac arrest.
Hmmmm On further reflection, as much as I hate totalitarian states, any that ban the mullet and pompadour might not be so bad after all. I should move to Iran (after first cutting my mullet).
I am still trying to figure out that statement. Funny things is the "assault" of western fashion that the dictators there want to end is on 50 and 60 style hairdos that men have adopted recently. It could be that they are now fighting against a western cultural that was disappeared in the west 50 years ago. Among the banned styles are the mullet, the pompadour and the ponytail. All three are popular with younger Iranian men, and the government thinks it is just to heretical to allow. So large poster displays of what hair styles are permitted have been seen throughout the Iranian cities. I guess it's better that the Iranians worry about hair than about building nuclear weapons. Uh..maybe not. Those mullet hair styles are killers too.
Doesn't the Iranian dictatorship realize how ridiculous the bans are to the western world they so much love to hate (but try to copy from)? But then religious dictatorships are often blind to all but their own agendas. Maybe we in the west should all sport mullet hairstyles and send in photos of them to all Iranian media sources. Mullet warfare sure beats nuclear war. The cultures outside of Iran sure seem to get underneath the Iranian dictator's skin. A full fledged cultural assault on Iran might bring them to their knees. We could besiege them with copies of reality TV shows, news reports on Lindsay Lohan meltdowns, those obscene and child-like rap music lyrics, and even some of the Obama " hope and change" speeches that have sent many of us into cardiac arrest.
Hmmmm On further reflection, as much as I hate totalitarian states, any that ban the mullet and pompadour might not be so bad after all. I should move to Iran (after first cutting my mullet).
Hail To The Queen
I just read the latest figures on the cost of having a queen to each British citizen. It's surprisingly low at less than one dollar a year per citizen to pay for the expenses, housing salary etc. of the queen. I like the English tradition of having a queen (or king one day). Where can I donate a dollar as an American to help trade Obama for a queen? Does anyone know what it costs to have a President, Vice President, former Presidents, etc. out of our "public purse?" My guess is that's it's allot more than a dollar a year per person.
Getting rid of the president and the bureaucracy, replacing them with a king or queen and letting the scoundrels in Congress make policy won't change a thing about what the U.S. does at home and abroad. Too, when things go wrong we will all know it will be Congresses fault and scream profanities at Congress because of it. They will be put on the spot to do better, and our king or queen can cut ribbons and of the other public relations work the president normally does.
When this country started, after breaking away from England and King George II at the end of the 18th century, Alexander Hamilton floated the idea of having a king instead of a president. It was almost accepted before being narrowly voted down. Haha Instead of a king we got George Bush and Barrack Obama. I am not sure what those two are.
I am not sure which we should choose first, a king or queen. Queens seem to work well in Britain. So I suggest we pick a queen and boot Obama as soon as possible (before he spends what little money the U.S has left). Hmmmm But who is the best choice? It can't be a politician because we don't need another of those. Maybe someone who is a celebrity would work best. After all, the queen will be a symbol and will perform at events not actually make or execute policy.
As a male I think Meghan Fox might work well. She does have big boobs and that will make all the men interested. But "Queen Meghan" just doesn't sound royal enough. Maybe Lindsay Lohan would be entertaining enough for Queendom? Nah, she would drink too much at the receptions. What about Oprah Winfrey! She seems to be very popular, is fabulously wealthy and would not need to be paid, and she is a politically correct choice because she is a minority member. "Queen Oprah" is a great title too.
It can't hurt to try this approach, given the ineptness of Obama these days. What do you think?
Getting rid of the president and the bureaucracy, replacing them with a king or queen and letting the scoundrels in Congress make policy won't change a thing about what the U.S. does at home and abroad. Too, when things go wrong we will all know it will be Congresses fault and scream profanities at Congress because of it. They will be put on the spot to do better, and our king or queen can cut ribbons and of the other public relations work the president normally does.
When this country started, after breaking away from England and King George II at the end of the 18th century, Alexander Hamilton floated the idea of having a king instead of a president. It was almost accepted before being narrowly voted down. Haha Instead of a king we got George Bush and Barrack Obama. I am not sure what those two are.
I am not sure which we should choose first, a king or queen. Queens seem to work well in Britain. So I suggest we pick a queen and boot Obama as soon as possible (before he spends what little money the U.S has left). Hmmmm But who is the best choice? It can't be a politician because we don't need another of those. Maybe someone who is a celebrity would work best. After all, the queen will be a symbol and will perform at events not actually make or execute policy.
As a male I think Meghan Fox might work well. She does have big boobs and that will make all the men interested. But "Queen Meghan" just doesn't sound royal enough. Maybe Lindsay Lohan would be entertaining enough for Queendom? Nah, she would drink too much at the receptions. What about Oprah Winfrey! She seems to be very popular, is fabulously wealthy and would not need to be paid, and she is a politically correct choice because she is a minority member. "Queen Oprah" is a great title too.
It can't hurt to try this approach, given the ineptness of Obama these days. What do you think?
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Freeze Those Eggs
I think the women of the world have caught on to the fact that we men are less than a prize. I say this for many reasons but one indirect one involves having babies with us. The trend is for women to not make babies with the bad boys, the irresponsible ones, the momma's boys drug and alcohol induced men, men who love boast and golf more than children, cheating men...and on and on. Hmmmm That includes most of us. Evidence of this trend comes from a study in Belgium.
A study of women at a Belgian clinic found half of women age 30 and above wanted to freeze their eggs to take the pressure off finding a partner. A third were also having eggs frozen as an "insurance policy" against infertility. In another similar "I don't need those male pig "studies just out, Many younger female students also say they are considering freezing eggs for later use (if a "real" man finally shows up) the procedure to focus on a career before motherhood. That would be a "career" as in job career, not the usually career women take in being baby sitter to their little boy husbands.
The study of those students showed eight in 10 doing a medical degree would freeze their eggs to delay starting a family. Among sports and education students half said they would consider it. Why so now? It is because egg freezing is still a relatively new technology which enables a woman to save eggs for future use. The chance of success is better with younger, healthier eggs, yet most women currently choosing the procedure are in their late 30s and opting for egg freezing as a "last resort". I think they probably have been so disillusioned by males they have met and loved that they freeze in fear of not finding a suitable mate/father of their children. Right now, costs for freezing are moderate and expected to go down.
The Belgian study that I mentioned above was described at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology conference, Dr Julie Nekkebroeck, who carried out the study, said the ladies also that more than 1/4 of them wanted to give their relationship a chance to blossom before bringing up the subject of having a baby. They had not fulfilled their desire to have a child because they thought that they had not found the right man. Also, some indicated career reasons and financial stability as the most common reason for considering egg collection.
My questions is, "What is the suitable mate for a woman who wants to have a baby"? (Feel free to list the characteristics needed) And I wonder what male attitudes are about being a dad.
Believe it or not, we men eliminate many woman's potential wives because of many of the same reasons the ladies think we are so awful. Even though we have no eggs to freeze, someone should study male attitudes about choosing mates. It might be eye opening for females who never consider the idea that we are as concerned about finding a good mom for our children as they are about our fitness as dads.
A study of women at a Belgian clinic found half of women age 30 and above wanted to freeze their eggs to take the pressure off finding a partner. A third were also having eggs frozen as an "insurance policy" against infertility. In another similar "I don't need those male pig "studies just out, Many younger female students also say they are considering freezing eggs for later use (if a "real" man finally shows up) the procedure to focus on a career before motherhood. That would be a "career" as in job career, not the usually career women take in being baby sitter to their little boy husbands.
The study of those students showed eight in 10 doing a medical degree would freeze their eggs to delay starting a family. Among sports and education students half said they would consider it. Why so now? It is because egg freezing is still a relatively new technology which enables a woman to save eggs for future use. The chance of success is better with younger, healthier eggs, yet most women currently choosing the procedure are in their late 30s and opting for egg freezing as a "last resort". I think they probably have been so disillusioned by males they have met and loved that they freeze in fear of not finding a suitable mate/father of their children. Right now, costs for freezing are moderate and expected to go down.
The Belgian study that I mentioned above was described at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology conference, Dr Julie Nekkebroeck, who carried out the study, said the ladies also that more than 1/4 of them wanted to give their relationship a chance to blossom before bringing up the subject of having a baby. They had not fulfilled their desire to have a child because they thought that they had not found the right man. Also, some indicated career reasons and financial stability as the most common reason for considering egg collection.
My questions is, "What is the suitable mate for a woman who wants to have a baby"? (Feel free to list the characteristics needed) And I wonder what male attitudes are about being a dad.
Believe it or not, we men eliminate many woman's potential wives because of many of the same reasons the ladies think we are so awful. Even though we have no eggs to freeze, someone should study male attitudes about choosing mates. It might be eye opening for females who never consider the idea that we are as concerned about finding a good mom for our children as they are about our fitness as dads.
Too Many Hot Dogs
It's was another July 4th, one of my least favorite American holidays, but fun for one reason....the hot dog eating contest televised by ESPN on July 4th. Talk about excess! In last year's Nathan's Famous (that's the name of the restaurant) July Fourth Hot Dog Eating Contest Joey Chestnut won by eating 68 hot dogs and buns in 10 minutes, 3 1/2 more than Takeru Kobayashi of Japan, his arch-rival.
I find the contest, in which competitors stuff water soaked buns and hot dogs into their faces that are swallowed rather than chewed, a train wreck that is fascinating to see. It is quintessentially American in the excessiveness of it. The "too much is a good thing" attitude is not uncommon here, so I find it unsurprising that Americans, me included, are fascinated watching competitors make themselves sick eating too much food...Ugh, isn't that what we fat Americans do everyday, albeit in a less voluminous display? We are watching ourselves in an exaggerated form.
That ESPN considers this a "sport" (as it claims poker and other dubious enterprises are as well) is interesting. The current champ, Joey Chestnut, appears to be only slightly heavy and claims to run 3 miles three times a week, says he fasts regularly, and when not competing or training for the many kinds of eating contests he and others enter, says he eats a moderate diet.
Those competitive eating "athletes" have a go at every imaginable food food offering (whatever sponsors pay them to gorge on), from fried asparagus to oysters to...well you name it. Someone has contested a binge eating of just about every conceivable food. Among Joey Chestnut's eating "accomplishments" are these: 103 hamburgers in 7 minutes, 242 chicken wings in 30 minutes, 78 matzo balls, drank one gallon of milk in 41 seconds, 231 Gyozas at one sitting, 47 slices of pizza in a pizza eating contest. 4 1/2 kilos of macaroni and cheese in just 7 minutes, and ate a 2 kilo, 17 inch burrito in 3 minutes and 10 seconds.
I saw Joey Chestnut interviewed on CNN one time and he claims his health is excellent, that he is regularly monitored by a physician and that his moderate eating outside of the training (he trains by fasting and by stretching his stomach with milk, water, and protein supplements) keep him healthy. But he is a young man, and his insides have been abused so much. I wonder if his internal parts will be normal when he ages and grays.
To my knowledge no studies have said that binge eating destroys the stomach, but I wonder if the constant stretching of the stomach will take away its elasticity and if the esophagus is damaged from so much food being shoved down it.Anyway, if you have a hot dog today, take my advice. One or two is plenty enough to eat.
I find the contest, in which competitors stuff water soaked buns and hot dogs into their faces that are swallowed rather than chewed, a train wreck that is fascinating to see. It is quintessentially American in the excessiveness of it. The "too much is a good thing" attitude is not uncommon here, so I find it unsurprising that Americans, me included, are fascinated watching competitors make themselves sick eating too much food...Ugh, isn't that what we fat Americans do everyday, albeit in a less voluminous display? We are watching ourselves in an exaggerated form.
That ESPN considers this a "sport" (as it claims poker and other dubious enterprises are as well) is interesting. The current champ, Joey Chestnut, appears to be only slightly heavy and claims to run 3 miles three times a week, says he fasts regularly, and when not competing or training for the many kinds of eating contests he and others enter, says he eats a moderate diet.
Those competitive eating "athletes" have a go at every imaginable food food offering (whatever sponsors pay them to gorge on), from fried asparagus to oysters to...well you name it. Someone has contested a binge eating of just about every conceivable food. Among Joey Chestnut's eating "accomplishments" are these: 103 hamburgers in 7 minutes, 242 chicken wings in 30 minutes, 78 matzo balls, drank one gallon of milk in 41 seconds, 231 Gyozas at one sitting, 47 slices of pizza in a pizza eating contest. 4 1/2 kilos of macaroni and cheese in just 7 minutes, and ate a 2 kilo, 17 inch burrito in 3 minutes and 10 seconds.
I saw Joey Chestnut interviewed on CNN one time and he claims his health is excellent, that he is regularly monitored by a physician and that his moderate eating outside of the training (he trains by fasting and by stretching his stomach with milk, water, and protein supplements) keep him healthy. But he is a young man, and his insides have been abused so much. I wonder if his internal parts will be normal when he ages and grays.
To my knowledge no studies have said that binge eating destroys the stomach, but I wonder if the constant stretching of the stomach will take away its elasticity and if the esophagus is damaged from so much food being shoved down it.Anyway, if you have a hot dog today, take my advice. One or two is plenty enough to eat.
Who To Sue
While reading about the huge number of doctors being sued today I had a thought to present to you. That is, why aren't more lawyers being sued? That's right, lawyers. I wonder if more than a handful of lawyers ever get sued. You surely don't hear of it. The American Bar Association, that lobby organization of lawyers that has so much influence on so much of life in the U.S., keeps statistics as to the number of doctors, teachers, business people and more that involve those professions. But they don't even collect data on the number of lawyers that are sued.
It might be hard to sue a lawyer. What other lawyer would litigate a case where a colleague is being sued? Pigs stay in the slop together. This might also explain why malpractice insurance for doctors is so expensive (on average, for heart surgeons premiums are about $250,000 per year) and why lawyers seem not to even have it.Lawyers advocate suing your doctor, but they never utter a word about suing the lawyer who led you down the wrong path. An attorney is liable for any loss a client sustains that is caused by lack of skill ordinarily possessed by the legal profession. Seems to me many lawyers make mistakes.
But they are not being help accountable for those errors. If the attorney represents a client on a matter in an area of law in which the attorney lacks experience, the attorney may be committing malpractice. I see many TV commercials of lawyers claiming to "do it all". Yet, how can a lawyer master all aspects of litigation.
Hmmm But making it hard to sue a lawyer is that fact that each state's rules about suing one have been written into law by,...you guessed it..lawyers. As a result, it is very hard to sue a lawyer. To protect themselves those laws almost always a have a shorter frame time provision for which person can sue a lawyer. Shakespeare said you must "first shoot the lawyers' to have a just society. Well, maybe we should simply sue them more often as a non violent lesson in restraint.
If you don't like my idea for controlling the litigious habits of lawyers, you can just sue me
It might be hard to sue a lawyer. What other lawyer would litigate a case where a colleague is being sued? Pigs stay in the slop together. This might also explain why malpractice insurance for doctors is so expensive (on average, for heart surgeons premiums are about $250,000 per year) and why lawyers seem not to even have it.Lawyers advocate suing your doctor, but they never utter a word about suing the lawyer who led you down the wrong path. An attorney is liable for any loss a client sustains that is caused by lack of skill ordinarily possessed by the legal profession. Seems to me many lawyers make mistakes.
But they are not being help accountable for those errors. If the attorney represents a client on a matter in an area of law in which the attorney lacks experience, the attorney may be committing malpractice. I see many TV commercials of lawyers claiming to "do it all". Yet, how can a lawyer master all aspects of litigation.
Hmmm But making it hard to sue a lawyer is that fact that each state's rules about suing one have been written into law by,...you guessed it..lawyers. As a result, it is very hard to sue a lawyer. To protect themselves those laws almost always a have a shorter frame time provision for which person can sue a lawyer. Shakespeare said you must "first shoot the lawyers' to have a just society. Well, maybe we should simply sue them more often as a non violent lesson in restraint.
If you don't like my idea for controlling the litigious habits of lawyers, you can just sue me
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)