I have a yu tube link for you, and you will find it very funny. Well, if you are a cell phone addict who bumps into a wall while texting, maybe not. But either way it's hysterical. Here is the link, take a look now.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20028751-71.html?tag=mncol;posts
Yes, she was so preoccupied with her texting at a Pennsylvania mall that she fell into a fountain of water. The only injury was to her pride, as she walked out of the water and, yes, resumed her texting. A mall security guard took the video and, as you can see, recognizing the woman (at first it was reported she was a teenager, but when her identity was revealed BY HERSELF ON NATIONAL TV she is a 40 year old who should know better) from the video is impossible.
But the desire to capitalize on one's own stupidity through litigation is a modern American trait. Yep, she is suing the mall for her embarrassment at her tumble into the fountain. The woman claims that her identity was revealed by the mall tape of her act of stupidity, yet could anyone identify her from the video of her plunge? Certainly not. It was only after appearing in national TV with her lawyer did the world see her full stupidity and realize it was she. It was her choice to disclose her identity, and I'll take a wild guess and say because she wants top profit financially from her incident.
Let's see..first I am so stupid I fall in a fountain because I am preoccupied with my cell phone toys. Then I sue a non winnable case so everyone will know who I am. ... We can only hope her phone was as damaged as her pride. I think she needs a phone to save her from that water seeking cell phone. Haha can anyone doubt that this must be the end of civilization.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Healthier Food Choices At The Grocery Store
News has come to me that largest grocery store chain in the U.S., Wal mart, announced that it will reformulate thousands of products to make them "healthier" and push its suppliers to do the same. This means that the healthy eating craze has now gone mainstream. As Wal mart goes, so goes the rest of common culture. This announcement means that other grocery stores will have to follow suit in order to compete for a customer base, since it appears enough customers have been indoctrinated into the "healthier food" consciousness now to justify appealing to them in the stores.
But what is a "healthy item"? That is a dilemma for both the food maker and the consumer to decipher. At present, there are many different labels on food products that claim that just about everything from donuts to tofu is a healthy choice. Few understandable criteria exist that identify some foods as healthy or not, largely because manufacturers have so confused us with silly health claims, we just don't know.
Wal mart's general plan is to reduce sodium and added sugars in some items (that is a nice plan if the taste aspect isn't eliminated in the process), build stores in poor areas that don't already have grocery stores (the poor here are the most obese and least healthy of all groups, given their lack of education about what is a "healthy lifestyle"), reduce prices on produce to urge consumers to buy more of that and to develop a logo for healthier items.
Since Wal mart is the monster of retail companies and can intimidate its suppliers to do what it wants, it will be interesting to see if the consumer agrees with Wal mart that he or she need buy the "healthier food". If the items Wal mart pushes are not tasty I doubt this campaign will succeed. Consumers are first loyal to taste, not the nutritional benefits food gives.
But is a carrot that sits on a grocery shelf for a week better nutritionally than a vitamin and mineral fortified surgery cereal? Is fresh fish, most of which are full of mercury and other chemicals absorbed from the ocean, better than a piece of fatty bologna? Is a multi grain, yet chemically treated, "health snack bar" better than a serving of strawberry flavored yogurt? The list of questions about what is desirable and not, and what effects eating both the so called healthy and so called unhealthy foods have are largely a blur today.
Until the grocery store shopper has a clear vision of what is best to eat, taste will continue to be the determinant for most shoppers. Like most fads in our non thinking, trendy and vacuous culture, this movement to a change in diet may be short lived. It could be that Wal mart will sell its "healthier" foods a few months, then discover those items won't sell well. The profit motive may force Wal mart to go right back to the snack cake and soft drink diets that the majority of shoppers seem to prefer.
But what is a "healthy item"? That is a dilemma for both the food maker and the consumer to decipher. At present, there are many different labels on food products that claim that just about everything from donuts to tofu is a healthy choice. Few understandable criteria exist that identify some foods as healthy or not, largely because manufacturers have so confused us with silly health claims, we just don't know.
Wal mart's general plan is to reduce sodium and added sugars in some items (that is a nice plan if the taste aspect isn't eliminated in the process), build stores in poor areas that don't already have grocery stores (the poor here are the most obese and least healthy of all groups, given their lack of education about what is a "healthy lifestyle"), reduce prices on produce to urge consumers to buy more of that and to develop a logo for healthier items.
Since Wal mart is the monster of retail companies and can intimidate its suppliers to do what it wants, it will be interesting to see if the consumer agrees with Wal mart that he or she need buy the "healthier food". If the items Wal mart pushes are not tasty I doubt this campaign will succeed. Consumers are first loyal to taste, not the nutritional benefits food gives.
But is a carrot that sits on a grocery shelf for a week better nutritionally than a vitamin and mineral fortified surgery cereal? Is fresh fish, most of which are full of mercury and other chemicals absorbed from the ocean, better than a piece of fatty bologna? Is a multi grain, yet chemically treated, "health snack bar" better than a serving of strawberry flavored yogurt? The list of questions about what is desirable and not, and what effects eating both the so called healthy and so called unhealthy foods have are largely a blur today.
Until the grocery store shopper has a clear vision of what is best to eat, taste will continue to be the determinant for most shoppers. Like most fads in our non thinking, trendy and vacuous culture, this movement to a change in diet may be short lived. It could be that Wal mart will sell its "healthier" foods a few months, then discover those items won't sell well. The profit motive may force Wal mart to go right back to the snack cake and soft drink diets that the majority of shoppers seem to prefer.
Iffy Prediction
Is China about to become the new world economic power, or is it going to wind up like Japan and Western Europe did. You remember Japan in the 19802;? Everyone was convinced that Japan's economy was so strong and the Japanese worker so productive that by the year 200 Japan would be equal to the United States economically. But looking at Japan today one could only say it is a mess and that prediction was far from correct.
And remember all the hype about the social welfare states of Western Europe. The European Union and the Europe were going to make Europe significant again. But looking at debt ridden, creaking, confused, irrelevant Europe today that prediction of Western Europe's rise to prominence seems more like a bad joke. Now Western Europe is renouncing the welfare state faster than a speeding bullet. Alas! It may take generations to undo the damage done there.
And now China flexes its muscles economically, socially and even militarily as it believes what the western world and Japan tell it. "You will soon be the number one economy and dominant power in the world". But hold on! There are just as many dents in that armor as in the Japanese and Western European predictions of the 80's and 90's.To question that idea first look at some facts about the remarkable rise from abject poverty in China to, well, abject poverty for many and wealth for a few.
1) China is rising only because it partially adopted the western free market economic system and plugged into the international markets the west built and sustain. But has Chine now reached a point where its totalitarian system is beginning to hamper use of those markets?
2) Surprise, surprise! the idea that China owns most of the U.S debt is a false one. In fact, ailing Japan owns 12% of the U.S. debt and China owns 11%. That hardly puts China in the position of dictating policy to the United States.
3) The per capita income level in China is about equal to Albania, not Australia or Argentina or most other nations. The huge wealth in China is in the hands of a very small group while hundreds of millions of Chinese live as badly as any place on earth.
4) China has not taken over western manufacturing. In fact, the closing of antiquated western factories and shipment of low skill production overseas would have happened even if there were no China. It's not a system that makes countries economically viable anymore.
5) The Chinese dictatorship is starting to get in the way of innovation and free marketing now. Given the stubborn refusal to open China to more freedom, their economy will slow gradually as a result. Without social and political freedom, there can neither be complete economic freedom nor any possibility of "being number one". I am bettering on the dictators there keeping their power, not surrendering it for more economic growth.
So, are you betting on China as the number one economic power in the world. I have grave doubts.
And remember all the hype about the social welfare states of Western Europe. The European Union and the Europe were going to make Europe significant again. But looking at debt ridden, creaking, confused, irrelevant Europe today that prediction of Western Europe's rise to prominence seems more like a bad joke. Now Western Europe is renouncing the welfare state faster than a speeding bullet. Alas! It may take generations to undo the damage done there.
And now China flexes its muscles economically, socially and even militarily as it believes what the western world and Japan tell it. "You will soon be the number one economy and dominant power in the world". But hold on! There are just as many dents in that armor as in the Japanese and Western European predictions of the 80's and 90's.To question that idea first look at some facts about the remarkable rise from abject poverty in China to, well, abject poverty for many and wealth for a few.
1) China is rising only because it partially adopted the western free market economic system and plugged into the international markets the west built and sustain. But has Chine now reached a point where its totalitarian system is beginning to hamper use of those markets?
2) Surprise, surprise! the idea that China owns most of the U.S debt is a false one. In fact, ailing Japan owns 12% of the U.S. debt and China owns 11%. That hardly puts China in the position of dictating policy to the United States.
3) The per capita income level in China is about equal to Albania, not Australia or Argentina or most other nations. The huge wealth in China is in the hands of a very small group while hundreds of millions of Chinese live as badly as any place on earth.
4) China has not taken over western manufacturing. In fact, the closing of antiquated western factories and shipment of low skill production overseas would have happened even if there were no China. It's not a system that makes countries economically viable anymore.
5) The Chinese dictatorship is starting to get in the way of innovation and free marketing now. Given the stubborn refusal to open China to more freedom, their economy will slow gradually as a result. Without social and political freedom, there can neither be complete economic freedom nor any possibility of "being number one". I am bettering on the dictators there keeping their power, not surrendering it for more economic growth.
So, are you betting on China as the number one economic power in the world. I have grave doubts.
Wikipedia is 10
Wikipedia is now past the 10 year old mark. Who would have believed 10 years ago that a free online encyclopedia would virtually kill most encyclopedia sales. It used to be we all had a big set of encyclopedias, usually more than 20 volumes in number. The book encyclopedias were accurate, a great source of information and even teachers in school let pupils cite remarks and information from them. They have long been an authoritative references, in contrast to the reader generated Wikipedia site.
I remember, about 10 years ago, seeing a beautiful set of Compton's encyclopedias for sale at a Big Lot's discount store at a price at least 10 times less than traditional encyclopedia cost. (I have my trusty 50's set from Compton's and I still use it from time to time) It was a sign that on line versions of Comptoms and the other prestigious encyclopedias had already won the war and would replace the book form. When I am in thrift stores I often see full sets of once valuable encyclopedias for sale. They rarely sell to anyone except book collectors. Too, few companies now publish a book form of encyclopedias, with their sales being on line or CD versions.
But even those are losing appeal to the sometimes inaccurate, but always quick reference Wikipedia. I suppose you use Wikipeda only sparingly, as I do. Wikipedia works best as an introduction to a subject. Since the articles usually cite references, one can investigate further whether the claims are actually true by clicking on links there or using information there to attempt to verify what one sees on the site.
I my view Wikipedia is a microcosm of the internet- it is cheap (free), is accessed quickly, has enough inaccurate information to confuse, is simplified in text and overall complexity, is open to all and is ever changing. It's no wonder so many (unfortunately) rely on it as an authoritative source of information. If any single source of information that is viewed by many as
"authoritative" best typified the anti intellectual age in which we live it is Wikipedia.
As for me, I will stick to my old encylopedias and traditional references as much as I can.
I remember, about 10 years ago, seeing a beautiful set of Compton's encyclopedias for sale at a Big Lot's discount store at a price at least 10 times less than traditional encyclopedia cost. (I have my trusty 50's set from Compton's and I still use it from time to time) It was a sign that on line versions of Comptoms and the other prestigious encyclopedias had already won the war and would replace the book form. When I am in thrift stores I often see full sets of once valuable encyclopedias for sale. They rarely sell to anyone except book collectors. Too, few companies now publish a book form of encyclopedias, with their sales being on line or CD versions.
But even those are losing appeal to the sometimes inaccurate, but always quick reference Wikipedia. I suppose you use Wikipeda only sparingly, as I do. Wikipedia works best as an introduction to a subject. Since the articles usually cite references, one can investigate further whether the claims are actually true by clicking on links there or using information there to attempt to verify what one sees on the site.
I my view Wikipedia is a microcosm of the internet- it is cheap (free), is accessed quickly, has enough inaccurate information to confuse, is simplified in text and overall complexity, is open to all and is ever changing. It's no wonder so many (unfortunately) rely on it as an authoritative source of information. If any single source of information that is viewed by many as
"authoritative" best typified the anti intellectual age in which we live it is Wikipedia.
As for me, I will stick to my old encylopedias and traditional references as much as I can.
Alzheimer's In Office
In his new book about his dad, Ronald Reagan's youngest son claims his father had Alzheimer's disease while he was still in office. Interesting for several reasons. First doctors say Reagan did not begin developing Alzheimer's until several years after he left office. I have always doubted that though, which brings me to the second reason I find Ron Reagan' Jr's revelation to be an interesting one.
It is because I told my parents the very same thing about Reagan when he was about two years into his second term in office. My parents voted for and liked Reagan. I did not. So we often discussed his pros and cons of his administration, and when I used to explain to them why I thought Reagan had the beginnings of Alzheimer I was told that my comments were just sour grapes toward Reagan, not real insight.. Haha Once my dad smiled and said, in his own unique way, "Pay no attention to Jim, he's a nut".
Hmmm... He may have a point there, but that topic, my sanity, is not the issue today.What made me think Ronald Reagan was beginning to fall into Alzheimer's disease probably had allot to so with the fact that in my visits to my late Aunt at the nursing home where she lived her final years, I often had conversations with many of the residents there (they were lonely and wanted someone to talk to....some even called me their "son").
I noticed that many of the same characteristics of some of those who had Alzheimer's in the nursing home, Reagan also exhibited, though his was to a far to a lesser degree. Most striking was the sudden and momentary blank look that came upon Reagan's face from time to time when confronted with a question that required memory retrieval. He was far too often confused by simple observations or questions, and too delayed in his responses. That was striking, and I saw other signs that Reagan's mental abilities were in decline. It was not simply "old age" at work.
Reagan's son says his father would have resigned as president if he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's while in office, and that the president had no inkling that he was showing any sign of the disease (unlike his son, almost none of the Reagan insiders publicly say that Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer's while he was President). But what if today a president of leader like Reagan has signs of it and is diagnosed with even very early beginnings of Alzheimer's. What if the Pope were? Would they or should they resign from office? At what point is their effectiveness as leader impaired enough to make one question his or her fitness as the leader?
Modern medicine, now better able to make diagnosis' about a person's mental impairment, may soon bring this very question to us. It's an interesting dilemma.
It is because I told my parents the very same thing about Reagan when he was about two years into his second term in office. My parents voted for and liked Reagan. I did not. So we often discussed his pros and cons of his administration, and when I used to explain to them why I thought Reagan had the beginnings of Alzheimer I was told that my comments were just sour grapes toward Reagan, not real insight.. Haha Once my dad smiled and said, in his own unique way, "Pay no attention to Jim, he's a nut".
Hmmm... He may have a point there, but that topic, my sanity, is not the issue today.What made me think Ronald Reagan was beginning to fall into Alzheimer's disease probably had allot to so with the fact that in my visits to my late Aunt at the nursing home where she lived her final years, I often had conversations with many of the residents there (they were lonely and wanted someone to talk to....some even called me their "son").
I noticed that many of the same characteristics of some of those who had Alzheimer's in the nursing home, Reagan also exhibited, though his was to a far to a lesser degree. Most striking was the sudden and momentary blank look that came upon Reagan's face from time to time when confronted with a question that required memory retrieval. He was far too often confused by simple observations or questions, and too delayed in his responses. That was striking, and I saw other signs that Reagan's mental abilities were in decline. It was not simply "old age" at work.
Reagan's son says his father would have resigned as president if he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's while in office, and that the president had no inkling that he was showing any sign of the disease (unlike his son, almost none of the Reagan insiders publicly say that Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer's while he was President). But what if today a president of leader like Reagan has signs of it and is diagnosed with even very early beginnings of Alzheimer's. What if the Pope were? Would they or should they resign from office? At what point is their effectiveness as leader impaired enough to make one question his or her fitness as the leader?
Modern medicine, now better able to make diagnosis' about a person's mental impairment, may soon bring this very question to us. It's an interesting dilemma.
Sending Women Into Combat
Grab your rifle and combat gear. Guess what the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress two years ago and charged with giving President Obama recommendations for changes in the military, says the U.S ought to do? Dismantle the last major area of discrimination in the armed forces by sending women into combat as front-line fighters, equal to men. "It is time "to create a level playing field for all qualified service members," advises the commission. In the U.S. military women are currently barred from certain combat assignments with most women now "in combat" behind the lines in combat support jobs, not on the firing line itself.
But what will Obama do in response? Who wants to be responsible when a daughter's body bag is brought home from a conflict? Yet, having equality means that there must be totally equality, even when it is uncomfortable to social customs and expectation. Opponents of putting women in combat question whether they have the necessary strength and stamina to fight in combat situations. They also have said the inclusion of women in infantry and other combat units might harm unit cohesion, a similar argument to that made regarding gays but that has now been eliminated. And they say that Americans won't accept the reality of large numbers of women coming home in body bags.
Proponents say it is discriminatory to send men to die while women, who have equality in all other aspects of society, are safely protected from the risks of combat. Too, with the gay soldier ban no longer in effect, how could anyone accept this discrimination against men? Too, by not sending women to fight on the battlefield, the military has made it harder for them to be promoted within the service because of that.
Current law in the U.S. requires only that males at age 18 register with the selective service department in case of a war that would require a call up of soldiers. Hmmmm being subject to death on the battlefield surely isn't what women's Lib leaders had in mind when the equal under the law push was so fervent. But in the end, being equal does seem to imply that women should take the same risk as men, even if it is upsetting to stereotypical images we as a society old of the two sexes.
But what will Obama do in response? Who wants to be responsible when a daughter's body bag is brought home from a conflict? Yet, having equality means that there must be totally equality, even when it is uncomfortable to social customs and expectation. Opponents of putting women in combat question whether they have the necessary strength and stamina to fight in combat situations. They also have said the inclusion of women in infantry and other combat units might harm unit cohesion, a similar argument to that made regarding gays but that has now been eliminated. And they say that Americans won't accept the reality of large numbers of women coming home in body bags.
Proponents say it is discriminatory to send men to die while women, who have equality in all other aspects of society, are safely protected from the risks of combat. Too, with the gay soldier ban no longer in effect, how could anyone accept this discrimination against men? Too, by not sending women to fight on the battlefield, the military has made it harder for them to be promoted within the service because of that.
Current law in the U.S. requires only that males at age 18 register with the selective service department in case of a war that would require a call up of soldiers. Hmmmm being subject to death on the battlefield surely isn't what women's Lib leaders had in mind when the equal under the law push was so fervent. But in the end, being equal does seem to imply that women should take the same risk as men, even if it is upsetting to stereotypical images we as a society old of the two sexes.
Auction Your Airline Seat
There are more signs of an economic crisis among the airlines these days. Delta Air is the latest U.S. airline to announce a desperate scheme to increase revenues. This one involves the common practice of airline passenger overbooking. Already for many years, the airlines have been reducing the number of flights while overbooking on the planes that do fly in order to counter the practice in which consumers change flights or cancel reservations. It's infuriating to be bumped but then, fliers are just as inconsiderate to the airlines by switching reservations at the last hours before flights.
But now Delta will start an online auction for seats with travelers bidding for seats that are currently occupied. If a flight is overbooked, travelers checking in at an airport kiosk or online will see a screen asking them if they'd like to submit a bid for the value of a travel voucher they would take to be bumped. Customers enter a dollar amount, and Delta accepts lower bids first. it seems to me more on the order of chaos than anything else. Supposedly, the other airlines will do the same if the Delta system cuts Delta expenses....and the flier be damned...again.
So no more of those announcements at the boarding gate in which the airline asks for volunteers to be bumped in exchange for a smaller cash amount and a rescheduled flight. By allowing would-be volunteers to submit their names via the bidding process, the airline hopes that will free up time for gate agents since they won't have to seek out volunteers and the agents won't have to work on additional compensation, such as hotel vouchers. If the auction doesn't work then the airline will follow the current bumping rules and regulations in place.
The new plan is simply a hope on the airline's part that it can reduce the expense of bumping passengers. But it will also be another aspect to flying that annoys the passengers and makes loyalty to a particular airline less likely. If Delta was concerned about taking care of passengers they would offer options other than these kinds of gimmick. For instance, t free premier status or free club membership for a period of time. These are things that don't cost the airline as much of anything yet could be seen as positive and a perk by some fliers. The sad scenario of bumping will continue in one form or another because consumers have manipulated the system to anticipate so many flight changes and cancellations.
Already charges for preferred seating, to book round-trip ticket by phone, for priority boarding, ticket change fees, fees to change flight to the same destination on the a same day, and baggage fees, curbside bag check, meal and beverage fees, headset/pillow/blanket fees, pet carrying fees, and unaccompanied minor fees are standard and are already alienating passengers.
Twenty years ago most or none were used by any airline. Rumor has it the next one to become standard may be the one to cause a revolt. The airlines are seriously considering charging a carry-on bag fee (by weight) and a body weight fee.
Now that's enough to make anyone jump out of a plane.
But now Delta will start an online auction for seats with travelers bidding for seats that are currently occupied. If a flight is overbooked, travelers checking in at an airport kiosk or online will see a screen asking them if they'd like to submit a bid for the value of a travel voucher they would take to be bumped. Customers enter a dollar amount, and Delta accepts lower bids first. it seems to me more on the order of chaos than anything else. Supposedly, the other airlines will do the same if the Delta system cuts Delta expenses....and the flier be damned...again.
So no more of those announcements at the boarding gate in which the airline asks for volunteers to be bumped in exchange for a smaller cash amount and a rescheduled flight. By allowing would-be volunteers to submit their names via the bidding process, the airline hopes that will free up time for gate agents since they won't have to seek out volunteers and the agents won't have to work on additional compensation, such as hotel vouchers. If the auction doesn't work then the airline will follow the current bumping rules and regulations in place.
The new plan is simply a hope on the airline's part that it can reduce the expense of bumping passengers. But it will also be another aspect to flying that annoys the passengers and makes loyalty to a particular airline less likely. If Delta was concerned about taking care of passengers they would offer options other than these kinds of gimmick. For instance, t free premier status or free club membership for a period of time. These are things that don't cost the airline as much of anything yet could be seen as positive and a perk by some fliers. The sad scenario of bumping will continue in one form or another because consumers have manipulated the system to anticipate so many flight changes and cancellations.
Already charges for preferred seating, to book round-trip ticket by phone, for priority boarding, ticket change fees, fees to change flight to the same destination on the a same day, and baggage fees, curbside bag check, meal and beverage fees, headset/pillow/blanket fees, pet carrying fees, and unaccompanied minor fees are standard and are already alienating passengers.
Twenty years ago most or none were used by any airline. Rumor has it the next one to become standard may be the one to cause a revolt. The airlines are seriously considering charging a carry-on bag fee (by weight) and a body weight fee.
Now that's enough to make anyone jump out of a plane.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)