What would you choose to eat if you had only one more meal to eat (just a hypothesis, I am not sending the executioner to put you in the electric chair)? If you said, "Why would he ask that?", you probably don't like food enough to be interested. if so, I feel sorry for you. Good food is one pleasure that all humans can enjoy with high intensity. I think it is good to search out those special meals whenever possible. Thus, what would your last meal be. (If you chose too many vegetables in it. I will say a Novena for your lost soul).
It's sad to think that some day we probably will be having a last meal at a very old age, and that most probably we won't enjoy it as much as we would now! If old and decrepit, the taste acuity, even my ability to breathe and swallow could be compromised enough to make the most heavenly tastes seem bland. That being the case, I think we should always strive to enjoy a last meal every day while we still can enjoy it lest I miss out on the chance to savor the tastes.
I am betting you probably choose some food item for your last meal, that was a memory of your childhood, and in the very least you choose something that is locally available. People who chose a generic last meal.."I just want a steak or noodles", might not have the appreciation for food as those who have a more specific choice.Too, when was the last time you allowed yourself to have your favorite meal? The food people today, and the diet wackcos have convinced many of us that eating should be a spartan, tasteless experience that is done only to serve "good nutritional purposes". But I think that if we make nutritious, balanced choices most of the time, the body's cravings for the rich and favored foods we crave must be satiated. To not feed our passions is to die slowly each day.
My last meal choice would be a New Orleans style Shrimp Po Boy. Sweet deep fried Louisiana shrimp with only light mayonnaise on the famed Leidenheimer's German/French bread. It's simple and heavenly. My side item is a steaming bowl of Seafood Gumbo made with a dark roux and filed with seafood and served with plenty of rice. For dessert, an apple Hubig pie ( it's a local version of pocket pies with an ethereal crust from a recipe a German immigrant brought to New Orleans more than 125 years ago and cooked on the same machinery and with the same ingredients as done 125 years ago ). To finish off my last meal I would grab a New Orleans style snowball, spearmint in flavor with creamy vanilla ice cream in the middle.
It's simple fare, and part of the food of my upbringing, and I hope I'll have many more last meals like it in the years ahead.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Too Many Mean Comments On Line
I have concluded that commentary on the Internet is a whole lot more mean spirited than off line. Anyone today with Internet access and a bad attitude can take to the Web to attack friends acquaintances or total strangers. I think the supposed anonymity of the Internet gives the fools and mean spirited types more reason to be cruel.
It's so bad that web sites for memorials to the deceased report constant vicious comments submitted at the a site about a departed loved one. Fortunately, most of those comments are censored before they make it on line. Legacy.com, a national memorial site, estimates that almost 5% of its almost 1 million "guest book" posts each month have to be blocked, either for reasons of old fashioned meanness. I haven't found any statistic that charts mean spirited comments on mainstream site pages, but one would think it would be a far bigger figure than the 5% that exists at a memorial site. Suffice to say, that such commentary reflects a more mean spirited population today.
Many web sites now require the person commenting to register, ending some of the anonymity that emboldens some to be mean or vulgar toward another person on line. Most of the news sites do that now, but still people are often unkind or crude when posting a remark that disagrees with another posted remark, the person who made it, or about the subject matter of the commentary.
In a free society we don't have the right to not be offended. But in a free society that is educated much of that should be eliminated naturally. The educated person knows the distinction between a nasty disagreement and a simple disagreement, and further, he or she less frequently mistakes the two when posting comments. But in our age of immediacy and shallow thought it seems we have fewer of that type posting on line.
That I can be ugly to another person because I have the anonymity of stating my comment is not a rationalization that I should do it. Why is that so hard for so many people to understand today? Good character does not make room for mean or vulgar spirtidness. Good ideas do not come from the vulgar, and proving your idea right or wrong isn't a contest in which the nastiness must be the most right.
It's so bad that web sites for memorials to the deceased report constant vicious comments submitted at the a site about a departed loved one. Fortunately, most of those comments are censored before they make it on line. Legacy.com, a national memorial site, estimates that almost 5% of its almost 1 million "guest book" posts each month have to be blocked, either for reasons of old fashioned meanness. I haven't found any statistic that charts mean spirited comments on mainstream site pages, but one would think it would be a far bigger figure than the 5% that exists at a memorial site. Suffice to say, that such commentary reflects a more mean spirited population today.
Many web sites now require the person commenting to register, ending some of the anonymity that emboldens some to be mean or vulgar toward another person on line. Most of the news sites do that now, but still people are often unkind or crude when posting a remark that disagrees with another posted remark, the person who made it, or about the subject matter of the commentary.
In a free society we don't have the right to not be offended. But in a free society that is educated much of that should be eliminated naturally. The educated person knows the distinction between a nasty disagreement and a simple disagreement, and further, he or she less frequently mistakes the two when posting comments. But in our age of immediacy and shallow thought it seems we have fewer of that type posting on line.
That I can be ugly to another person because I have the anonymity of stating my comment is not a rationalization that I should do it. Why is that so hard for so many people to understand today? Good character does not make room for mean or vulgar spirtidness. Good ideas do not come from the vulgar, and proving your idea right or wrong isn't a contest in which the nastiness must be the most right.
New Villain In The Arab World
Quite a bit of that "Changes Are Coming' sounds like my rants. Maybe some one has been secretly reading the rants I send to you. The times are a changing in the Muslim states. All the recent protests and government changes in Muslim countries have indicated that fundamentalist Islamic rule is no longer the glow it used to be for Muslims. And the latest example are some quotes made by Libya's Moammar Gadhafi vows as he futilely tried to fight on against protesters in Libya. Take a look at these quotes from Gadhafi and see the common thread...
"Libyan youth will not follow "agents of foreign intelligence and Muslim fundamentalists."
"If you won't follow Gadhafi, who would you follow -- someone with a beard? Impossible."
"We reject to be ruled by followers of bin Laden."
"I will not let Libya be like Fallujah," (a reference to the Iraqi city that was taken over by al-Qaeda)
One glance and the reader sees that it is not the usual whipping boy "western imperialists" "The United States dogs", "The CIA" or "agents of the west" who get blamed for toppling the thug Gadhafi. No, the blame falls on the fundamentalist Muslims and the warning is to beware that replacing the awful Gadhafi might bring on an even more awful Muslim theocracy in his place. Even in Muslim countries the demon now is fundamentalist Islamic rule.
Is this not the best news to come out of the revolutions in the Mid east and Africa? When the mind set changes in the very places where fundamentalism seethes with hate, the hate and accompanying delusionsal thought and practice will be even more quickly extinguished. Bombs don't kill terrorism as fast as ideas do. Though Gadhafi has been on the outs with many of the fundamentalist groups for some time, that an Arab leader would so clearly disparage them is cause for rejoice everywhere in the world.
Hmmm Maybe we should "praise Allah" for the recent revolutionary events in that region of the world.
"Libyan youth will not follow "agents of foreign intelligence and Muslim fundamentalists."
"If you won't follow Gadhafi, who would you follow -- someone with a beard? Impossible."
"We reject to be ruled by followers of bin Laden."
"I will not let Libya be like Fallujah," (a reference to the Iraqi city that was taken over by al-Qaeda)
One glance and the reader sees that it is not the usual whipping boy "western imperialists" "The United States dogs", "The CIA" or "agents of the west" who get blamed for toppling the thug Gadhafi. No, the blame falls on the fundamentalist Muslims and the warning is to beware that replacing the awful Gadhafi might bring on an even more awful Muslim theocracy in his place. Even in Muslim countries the demon now is fundamentalist Islamic rule.
Is this not the best news to come out of the revolutions in the Mid east and Africa? When the mind set changes in the very places where fundamentalism seethes with hate, the hate and accompanying delusionsal thought and practice will be even more quickly extinguished. Bombs don't kill terrorism as fast as ideas do. Though Gadhafi has been on the outs with many of the fundamentalist groups for some time, that an Arab leader would so clearly disparage them is cause for rejoice everywhere in the world.
Hmmm Maybe we should "praise Allah" for the recent revolutionary events in that region of the world.
Man's Mind Versus Machine Mind
That contest between the two top Jeopardy (a game of the recall of facts) contestants of all time and a computer called 'Watson' that was built specifically to see who is the real champ of information recall, brings up quite a few questions. The main being the long time, "Are computers smarter than people"? Watson won easily, but it was, after all, just quick recall of facts. It should be no surprise that a computer (created and programmed by man, more specifically, by an IBM team of 25 scientists in three years time) would recall faster than a human brain. Fortunately for mankind, intelligence is more that than regurgitation of factual information.
While computers can calculate and construct, they cannot decide to create. So far, only humans can. And that is the distinction between man and machine. Humans think, emote, and create. machines only think (and only the way they have been programmed to do so). Humans have the kind of intelligence that writes poetry and music, falls in love, sacrifices for loved ones, behaves enigmatically and on and on. Humans are interesting, machines are reliable but predictable and un exciting (Haha unless one is a cell phone addict and has crossed the boundary and is unable to distinguish humanity from his or her phone).
So given all of that humans are surely "smarter" than their created machines. The intelligence humans possess is a different kind than can (at least for now) be programmed into machines. It is self contained in each human and not one dependent on outside connections as computers are. This is why the variation in intelligence levels among humans is far greater than what is found in computers. Machine intelligence varies from computer to computer very little.
What Watson really proves to us is that humans are still the more important intelligence on earth. All the computers in the world can't create the love a parent has for a child, for instance. And if one ever did it would have ceased to be a machine anymore
While computers can calculate and construct, they cannot decide to create. So far, only humans can. And that is the distinction between man and machine. Humans think, emote, and create. machines only think (and only the way they have been programmed to do so). Humans have the kind of intelligence that writes poetry and music, falls in love, sacrifices for loved ones, behaves enigmatically and on and on. Humans are interesting, machines are reliable but predictable and un exciting (Haha unless one is a cell phone addict and has crossed the boundary and is unable to distinguish humanity from his or her phone).
So given all of that humans are surely "smarter" than their created machines. The intelligence humans possess is a different kind than can (at least for now) be programmed into machines. It is self contained in each human and not one dependent on outside connections as computers are. This is why the variation in intelligence levels among humans is far greater than what is found in computers. Machine intelligence varies from computer to computer very little.
What Watson really proves to us is that humans are still the more important intelligence on earth. All the computers in the world can't create the love a parent has for a child, for instance. And if one ever did it would have ceased to be a machine anymore
Man's Mind Versus Machine Mind
That contest between the two top Jeopardy (a game of the recall of facts) contestants of all time and a computer called 'Watson' that was built specifically to see who is the real champ of information recall, brings up quite a few questions. The main being the long time, "Are computers smarter than people"? Watson won easily, but it was, after all, just quick recall of facts. It should be no surprise that a computer (created and programmed by man, more specifically, by an IBM team of 25 scientists in three years time) would recall faster than a human brain. Fortunately for mankind, intelligence is more that than regurgitation of factual information.
While computers can calculate and construct, they cannot decide to create. So far, only humans can. And that is the distinction between man and machine. Humans think, emote, and create. machines only think (and only the way they have been programmed to do so). Humans have the kind of intelligence that writes poetry and music, falls in love, sacrifices for loved ones, behaves enigmatically and on and on. Humans are interesting, machines are reliable but predictable and un exciting (Haha unless one is a cell phone addict and has crossed the boundary and is unable to distinguish humanity from his or her phone).
So given all of that humans are surely "smarter" than their created machines. The intelligence humans possess is a different kind than can (at least for now) be programmed into machines. It is self contained in each human and not one dependent on outside connections as computers are. This is why the variation in intelligence levels among humans is far greater than what is found in computers. Machine intelligence varies from computer to computer very little.
What Watson really proves to us is that humans are still the more important intelligence on earth. All the computers in the world can't create the love a parent has for a child, for instance. And if one ever did it would have ceased to be a machine anymore.
While computers can calculate and construct, they cannot decide to create. So far, only humans can. And that is the distinction between man and machine. Humans think, emote, and create. machines only think (and only the way they have been programmed to do so). Humans have the kind of intelligence that writes poetry and music, falls in love, sacrifices for loved ones, behaves enigmatically and on and on. Humans are interesting, machines are reliable but predictable and un exciting (Haha unless one is a cell phone addict and has crossed the boundary and is unable to distinguish humanity from his or her phone).
So given all of that humans are surely "smarter" than their created machines. The intelligence humans possess is a different kind than can (at least for now) be programmed into machines. It is self contained in each human and not one dependent on outside connections as computers are. This is why the variation in intelligence levels among humans is far greater than what is found in computers. Machine intelligence varies from computer to computer very little.
What Watson really proves to us is that humans are still the more important intelligence on earth. All the computers in the world can't create the love a parent has for a child, for instance. And if one ever did it would have ceased to be a machine anymore.
Falling One By One
Another President's Day has come and gone. President's Day is one of those holidays that people notice only if there some major event related to a democratic government with a freely elected president. We have had a fair share of good presidents the past few years. Bill Clinton was surely an effective and positive president. And we have had the worst types too, as in George Bush Jr. But forget our presidents for a moment because president's day has made we in the U.S. more aware of what we don't have, the thugish dictatorship that is found in so many nations world wide.
This President's Day it was amazing and wonderful to see the protests and demands against the dictators of so many Arab nations in Northern Africa and the Mid east. Has the fall of Mubarak in Egypt become the catalyst for the until now passive citizens of Islamic nations to finally declare to their dictators that using a religion, Islam, as a pretext to control an entire population isn't going to play anymore. The Dominos seem to be falling, and with each one that does collapse the world has more freedom and is a safer place than before. With the replacement of a dictatorship and the implementation of a more representative government Islamic terrorism also loses some of its constituency.
I doubt that the fundamentalist extremism of the Islamic terrorist will make much sense or have much appeal to people who also see a real future and freedom to act in their own countries. al Quida and the like must be in distress at what is happening in the Arab world. For too long the Islamic dictators have protected and abetted the renegade terrorist groups. Removing those dictators can't be a good thing for Fundamentalism.
The Internet and other communication modes that bring information quickly and are much more free from censorship may have condemned the ignorance of extremism to take its place in the intensive care ward. It's almost inevitable that a people who see a more free, more affluent, more opportunity oriented and better lifestyle in democratic nations displayed every day would finally say "enough" to their antideluvian dictaorships. It's a goof imitation of the fall of the old Eastern European is dictatorships in 1989. See how they fall , one by one. How glorious for all of humanity.
I'm not announcing the death of dictators in the Muslim world, but surely what will eventually replace the long reigning thugs will be a more democratic and representative that will give Arabs who live in those countries a reason to reject extremism. Perhaps one day countries like Egypt will have their own President's Day celebrations to remember their own past democratic leaders.
This President's Day it was amazing and wonderful to see the protests and demands against the dictators of so many Arab nations in Northern Africa and the Mid east. Has the fall of Mubarak in Egypt become the catalyst for the until now passive citizens of Islamic nations to finally declare to their dictators that using a religion, Islam, as a pretext to control an entire population isn't going to play anymore. The Dominos seem to be falling, and with each one that does collapse the world has more freedom and is a safer place than before. With the replacement of a dictatorship and the implementation of a more representative government Islamic terrorism also loses some of its constituency.
I doubt that the fundamentalist extremism of the Islamic terrorist will make much sense or have much appeal to people who also see a real future and freedom to act in their own countries. al Quida and the like must be in distress at what is happening in the Arab world. For too long the Islamic dictators have protected and abetted the renegade terrorist groups. Removing those dictators can't be a good thing for Fundamentalism.
The Internet and other communication modes that bring information quickly and are much more free from censorship may have condemned the ignorance of extremism to take its place in the intensive care ward. It's almost inevitable that a people who see a more free, more affluent, more opportunity oriented and better lifestyle in democratic nations displayed every day would finally say "enough" to their antideluvian dictaorships. It's a goof imitation of the fall of the old Eastern European is dictatorships in 1989. See how they fall , one by one. How glorious for all of humanity.
I'm not announcing the death of dictators in the Muslim world, but surely what will eventually replace the long reigning thugs will be a more democratic and representative that will give Arabs who live in those countries a reason to reject extremism. Perhaps one day countries like Egypt will have their own President's Day celebrations to remember their own past democratic leaders.
Painting Auction
I was on line the other day to purchase one more painting to place on the wall here at home (Since I moved to the new house I decided to give some of my paintings a rest and put up a few new ones). This site is a Goodwill thrift site that auctions the best of items people donate to it.
You would be shocked at how valuable some things are that are donated to charity. Often people don't understand the value or they are just tired of something of value and decide to donate it. I have found some nice paintings on the site.
Well, I book marked two paintings that I liked there and did research on them to see if the artist is famous and whether his paintings are valuable. In the case of one, the art work looked very much like that that of the famous artist, Winslow Homer. It was signed in print as H O M E R. Most of Homer's paintings sell for more than one million dollars! He is considered one of America's greatest artists. So I was skeptical that this Homer was the famous one.
After looking on line at the painting and comparing it to known Winslow Homer paintings, I saw that the art work being auctioned looked exactly the same and the subject matter was as familiar as real Winslow Homer paintings. But the signatures on most of the Winslow Homer paintings were in script. They did not match this printed one...until..I found one signature on a painting of his that was in print that "somewhat" resembled the Homer signature on the painting auctioned at the site.
Was it the Homer of fame or not? I am not an art appraiser so I have no idea. I waited to place a bid the last 30 minutes of the auction (It was to it end two days later). When I returned to the auction site at that time to bid I notice the bid was still the same as the one I originally saw, a small price of $33. So, I guessed the painting as not an original Winslow Homer after all.
But as the last 30 minutes of the sale for this painting wound down, two bidders started bidding on it wildly. First $150 then $750, then the other bidder posted a price of $1500 and on the bidding war went. I loved seeing it. By the time the auction for the painting needed, in the last 3 seconds one of the two bidders won the painting with a bid of $24,225! No doubt those two wildly bidding persons were art dealers or experts who judged the painting to be an original Winslow Homer oil on canvas.
Dealers always use that site to find valuable paintings at bargain prices. It was fun to watch and be reminded that there are jewels that might be found without much cost at one of those auctions.
You would be shocked at how valuable some things are that are donated to charity. Often people don't understand the value or they are just tired of something of value and decide to donate it. I have found some nice paintings on the site.
Well, I book marked two paintings that I liked there and did research on them to see if the artist is famous and whether his paintings are valuable. In the case of one, the art work looked very much like that that of the famous artist, Winslow Homer. It was signed in print as H O M E R. Most of Homer's paintings sell for more than one million dollars! He is considered one of America's greatest artists. So I was skeptical that this Homer was the famous one.
After looking on line at the painting and comparing it to known Winslow Homer paintings, I saw that the art work being auctioned looked exactly the same and the subject matter was as familiar as real Winslow Homer paintings. But the signatures on most of the Winslow Homer paintings were in script. They did not match this printed one...until..I found one signature on a painting of his that was in print that "somewhat" resembled the Homer signature on the painting auctioned at the site.
Was it the Homer of fame or not? I am not an art appraiser so I have no idea. I waited to place a bid the last 30 minutes of the auction (It was to it end two days later). When I returned to the auction site at that time to bid I notice the bid was still the same as the one I originally saw, a small price of $33. So, I guessed the painting as not an original Winslow Homer after all.
But as the last 30 minutes of the sale for this painting wound down, two bidders started bidding on it wildly. First $150 then $750, then the other bidder posted a price of $1500 and on the bidding war went. I loved seeing it. By the time the auction for the painting needed, in the last 3 seconds one of the two bidders won the painting with a bid of $24,225! No doubt those two wildly bidding persons were art dealers or experts who judged the painting to be an original Winslow Homer oil on canvas.
Dealers always use that site to find valuable paintings at bargain prices. It was fun to watch and be reminded that there are jewels that might be found without much cost at one of those auctions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)