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.