Political marching, protest marching, call it what you will, has become the latest trend as a way of exercising. It must be because they march about everything now. Almost all of the marches are about entitlements, what the protesters call their "rights". One such "right" that has generated protest marches in a number of Western European countries is the "right" to have the government pay all or most of a student's college tradition.
The students all do the same thing, no matter the country in which they march. They write signs that insult the politicians who are taking away their "right" to a free college education. Oh and at lest a few of the signs will claim that the person who made the decision to stop giving away tax money for their tuition is a Nazi. Yes, of course. I must be a Nazi too because I don't think that I should have my self taxed to pay for a private privilege (the tuition).
At these "rights" marches you will also see the protesters blocking or delaying traffic, wearing make up and masks, smoking a few non legal joints, maybe swilling a few beers. But in the end the protest rallies rarely cause any change because the politicians just aren't listening. Why should they? There are protest marches every day about some individual entitlement that some group thinks it deserves because it can't fathom earning itself what it needs in life.
In the days when people worked for what they wanted and protested not for entitlements, but for actual rights, a protest march frequently produced pressure that led to dramatic change. Not now. Marches for imagined rights are as much childish temper tantrums as they are serious protests. Haha "I want! Mine! Mine!" Oh how they sound like a four year old deprived of his favorite toy when it is time for bed, not play.
Successful marching campaigns have certain things in common. They need to have a very specific goal and it should be focused on gaining a positive independence, civil rights, rather than repealing a negative like the marches do now. only they fail to see that the age of entitlements may be ending and that individuals may have to work and earn what they seek rather than being give so called "rights" by a political system that uses those "rights" to bribe and conspire for votes, as in "I will give you free medical care and you vote for me".
Maybe if the marchers had a real protest to, uh, protest, they might be taken more seriously. I suggest they first learn the difference between a right and a want. Equal opportunity, for example, under the law is a right. Free college tuition at taxpayers' expense is not. It is a want. And in this time of economic difficulty, marching and protesting merely for what you want will lead to a dead end street.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Teenagers
Holidays make me reflect. It can be a personal reflection or a general one, depending on what holiday is here and what memories I have of it. But some holidays even require reflection. Thanksgiving is one of those. We are supposed to give thanks for whatever we deem needs be thanked., but I never do that. Instead, I reflect on the nature of the ordinary, as in how much society has changed and whether it is for the better or worse.
I always conclude that some things are better and some are worse. Is that not the way it always has been? Since I have been around awhile I was thinking about Jane's generation. What is it like to be a teen today? Are teens different today than when I was one? Do they have the same sense of community and traditional values? There is more that I pondered but I think those are enough unanswerable questions for now. Let me try to relate to you what I think about those questions, and ask your own view.
As to what it's like to be a teen today, we can only imagine it unless we are that age. But the pressures, distractions, temptations and opportunities of the world must all be more impacting to this generation, given the communication and technological advancement of the current era. I would not want to be 16 and face that. How today can a 16 year old understand much about the world around him or her. Most adults don't. For example, my generation worried about "the communist threat', this one worries about the threat of "global warming". Both are more imaginative threats than real ones, but the latter requires the teen to make personal sacrifices that my generation rarely did when faced with its threats.
Are teens different today? On the surface, I think not. But maybe they are over scheduled and asked to grow up too fast. It used to be that the teenage years were not a transition to adulthood. Prior to W.W. II a 12 year old was considered an adult at 13 and given adult responsibilities. Now we tell the 13-18 year olds to be both a child and an adult. No wonder teens have an identity crisis.
The sense of community by that age group is far different than it was 70 or so years ago. Today the teen culture gives teens their own identity and own culture. I think most teens are more aloof toward adults and bond more readily to peers today than in the past because today they have a distinct subculture of their own. A problem with that is that a culture needs to be transmitted though tradition. Teen culture is a "for the minute" one with technology replacing tradition. How can the cultural history and tradition be passed on if there is no recognition of it? In my view, the transportation and communication improvements make it harder for teens to know and appreciate the common culture.
Anyway, thank God I am not a teen today! I am already a mess, as is.
I always conclude that some things are better and some are worse. Is that not the way it always has been? Since I have been around awhile I was thinking about Jane's generation. What is it like to be a teen today? Are teens different today than when I was one? Do they have the same sense of community and traditional values? There is more that I pondered but I think those are enough unanswerable questions for now. Let me try to relate to you what I think about those questions, and ask your own view.
As to what it's like to be a teen today, we can only imagine it unless we are that age. But the pressures, distractions, temptations and opportunities of the world must all be more impacting to this generation, given the communication and technological advancement of the current era. I would not want to be 16 and face that. How today can a 16 year old understand much about the world around him or her. Most adults don't. For example, my generation worried about "the communist threat', this one worries about the threat of "global warming". Both are more imaginative threats than real ones, but the latter requires the teen to make personal sacrifices that my generation rarely did when faced with its threats.
Are teens different today? On the surface, I think not. But maybe they are over scheduled and asked to grow up too fast. It used to be that the teenage years were not a transition to adulthood. Prior to W.W. II a 12 year old was considered an adult at 13 and given adult responsibilities. Now we tell the 13-18 year olds to be both a child and an adult. No wonder teens have an identity crisis.
The sense of community by that age group is far different than it was 70 or so years ago. Today the teen culture gives teens their own identity and own culture. I think most teens are more aloof toward adults and bond more readily to peers today than in the past because today they have a distinct subculture of their own. A problem with that is that a culture needs to be transmitted though tradition. Teen culture is a "for the minute" one with technology replacing tradition. How can the cultural history and tradition be passed on if there is no recognition of it? In my view, the transportation and communication improvements make it harder for teens to know and appreciate the common culture.
Anyway, thank God I am not a teen today! I am already a mess, as is.
Near Miss Terrorism In Portland
A Somali-born Muslim U.S. citizen and resident of Oregon was arrested the day after Thanksgiving at the Portland Christmas tree lighting ceremony in downtown Portland. Thinking he was going to ignite a bomb with the intention of killing as many people as possible (he told police afterward he qouldn't care if his own children, ahd he any, were among the dead), drove a van to the event for the intention of....well...I don't know.
I am not sure Mohamud Mohamud, 19 years old, knows either, because he seems to be a raving lunatic, and probably a copy-cat terrorist wannabe. The FBI says he has no connection to any terrorist groups and acted strictly on his own. He said that had been thinking of committing some form of violent "jihad" (does blowing up a Christmas tree and the spectators there to watch it constitute a jihad?) since the age of 15 Mohamud said was looking for a "huge mass that will be attacked in their own element with their families celebrating the holidays." Further, he told police that "it's in Oregon; and Oregon, like, you know, nobody ever thinks about such a thing there". Oregon is supposed to be one of the safer and crime less of all states.
I think it safe to say this is not a "terrorists act" so much as a crazy 19 year old infected with ideas of an even crazier branch of Islamism that glorifies the slaughter of innocent people. Mohamud is a microcosm of many young Muslims who are alienated from their culture, the new one they have been placed in and who seek company in the ideas of al Quida and that ilk. Mohamud allegedly had no contact with terrorist groups, yet pursued his program as if he were a card carrying member.
On first glance it appears that Mohamud's attempt at mass murder had everything to do with his religious teachings and belief that Islam is the way that all must follow and that if you are anyone else is not a believer the deserved end is death die. Worse, Mohamud believed it was his religious duty to kill for that reason. As more and more poorly educated, vulnerable, psychologically deranged Muslims are invited to this and other western countries, more Mohamud bombers are created. Islamic terrorism is a glorious path for many others like Mohamud. We can expect more than exploding Christmas trees from them in the years ahead.
I am not sure Mohamud Mohamud, 19 years old, knows either, because he seems to be a raving lunatic, and probably a copy-cat terrorist wannabe. The FBI says he has no connection to any terrorist groups and acted strictly on his own. He said that had been thinking of committing some form of violent "jihad" (does blowing up a Christmas tree and the spectators there to watch it constitute a jihad?) since the age of 15 Mohamud said was looking for a "huge mass that will be attacked in their own element with their families celebrating the holidays." Further, he told police that "it's in Oregon; and Oregon, like, you know, nobody ever thinks about such a thing there". Oregon is supposed to be one of the safer and crime less of all states.
I think it safe to say this is not a "terrorists act" so much as a crazy 19 year old infected with ideas of an even crazier branch of Islamism that glorifies the slaughter of innocent people. Mohamud is a microcosm of many young Muslims who are alienated from their culture, the new one they have been placed in and who seek company in the ideas of al Quida and that ilk. Mohamud allegedly had no contact with terrorist groups, yet pursued his program as if he were a card carrying member.
On first glance it appears that Mohamud's attempt at mass murder had everything to do with his religious teachings and belief that Islam is the way that all must follow and that if you are anyone else is not a believer the deserved end is death die. Worse, Mohamud believed it was his religious duty to kill for that reason. As more and more poorly educated, vulnerable, psychologically deranged Muslims are invited to this and other western countries, more Mohamud bombers are created. Islamic terrorism is a glorious path for many others like Mohamud. We can expect more than exploding Christmas trees from them in the years ahead.
Thanksgiving Parades
I went to the Portland Macy Thanksgiving parade the Friday after Thankgiving. It was much like last year's parade, tough shorter. I think some units, mostly live animals like reindeer and horses, were not in it because of rain possibilities being so highs. Oh well, the Llamas made it again. What funny looking animals they are. They make me look like a movie star. They are also gentle beats. I had a short conversation with one of the trainers of the Llamas in the parade and she told me there are 30 or so breeders of them in the states of Oregon and Washington. The Llamas that were in the parade were from several breeders, who donate the use of the Llamas to kids with learning disabilities and terminally ill kids. the Llamas interact very well with those kids, she said.
Unlike New Orleans parades this one was low key and the expectations are not to put on an ostentatious show. Rather it is, short in duration, sedate and simple. I like this parade, which is why I made an effort to see it in a light mist that came over it from time to time. Besides the parade, being in the downtown area reminds me that Portland is a charming city. It has been voted as America's most beautiful city more than one year. The downtown is small, like Manhattan, and user friendly because it is walk able and has a nice range of commercial enterprises.
Some people hate parades, and the Macy's Thanksgiving parade in New York City is perhaps the biggest in the U.S. I remember watching that on TV Thanksgiving morning as a kid. It was a part of Thanksgiving then and I still catch at least a glimpse of it on TV every Thanksgiving Day. That parade was originally started not by the store, but rather by the employees of Macy's. they called it a "christmas Parade". When the Macy's store saw how popular it had become they took it over in the early 1920'2. Before the end of the 20's they introduced the famous Macy's parade helium balloons.
They all burst until re designed. at the end of the 20's. It must have been amazing to see those balloons explode in the sky, but then. Thanksgiving parades are always laid back affairs where exploding parade balloons must have seemed normal enough to almost be part of the show.
Anyway, since the parade is long over, this is probably more than you want to know about parades. I'll finally shut up now.
Unlike New Orleans parades this one was low key and the expectations are not to put on an ostentatious show. Rather it is, short in duration, sedate and simple. I like this parade, which is why I made an effort to see it in a light mist that came over it from time to time. Besides the parade, being in the downtown area reminds me that Portland is a charming city. It has been voted as America's most beautiful city more than one year. The downtown is small, like Manhattan, and user friendly because it is walk able and has a nice range of commercial enterprises.
Some people hate parades, and the Macy's Thanksgiving parade in New York City is perhaps the biggest in the U.S. I remember watching that on TV Thanksgiving morning as a kid. It was a part of Thanksgiving then and I still catch at least a glimpse of it on TV every Thanksgiving Day. That parade was originally started not by the store, but rather by the employees of Macy's. they called it a "christmas Parade". When the Macy's store saw how popular it had become they took it over in the early 1920'2. Before the end of the 20's they introduced the famous Macy's parade helium balloons.
They all burst until re designed. at the end of the 20's. It must have been amazing to see those balloons explode in the sky, but then. Thanksgiving parades are always laid back affairs where exploding parade balloons must have seemed normal enough to almost be part of the show.
Anyway, since the parade is long over, this is probably more than you want to know about parades. I'll finally shut up now.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Thanksgiving Or Black Thrusday
Thanksgiving isn't just for turkey anymore. It's become the new "Black Friday", the day all the shop-aholics rush out to stores before the break of dawn to get "bargains" that they can most likely get later in the Christmas shopping season anyway if they simply wait until merchants lower prices in response to competition and consumer spending.In the past few years some merchants have been opening and posting the same Black Friday sales prices on Thanksgiving.
It's seemed to have boosted sl sales enough for those brave sellers that the herd of retailers (which herd is more mindless, the compulsive sale shopper or the retail seller who will sell motherhood, apple pie, Thanksgiving day, football games and even the turkey... if the shoppers are willing to leave the dinner table for the mall). This wide expansion of Thanksgiving day "sales" this year is an experiment by many more retailers to see how we will behave and to see how far from Christmas they can sell their goods. It seems the distance from the opening day for Christmas shopping is getting wider.
Sellers think they can make more sales this way and the buyers are convinced they are saving more money. They both can't be right. But anyone who has ever observed the frenzy of a big sale day in a store knows that rationality isn't much of a consideration in when to buy or sell. Because the economy is so bad, the retailers think they have to induce the consumers any way possible. but is dragging them from their Thanksgiving meal and social gathering the best way to do it? Hmmm Well, if Aunt Mabel brings her inedible green bean casserole to the feast it might....
Besides opening the malls and stores on thanksgiving day, this year retailers are also making these pre Black Friday sale changes.
* Offering the same Thanksgiving day sales that are in stores as on line specials too
* Pricing (in store only) some items so low that it's "too good to pass up" in order to entice the shopper to buy other, more price inflated, goodies
* Handing out gifts at the stores
* On Thanksgiving day, matching any price of a competitor
Even if this does work and mobs show up on Thursday, what happens on Black Friday? I think the fools who rushed in on Thanksgiving day and did their shopping at that time will not return the next day to spend even more. In the end, total sales will be about equal...and Aunt Mabel will have to take her awful green bean casserole home and eat it herself.
It's seemed to have boosted sl sales enough for those brave sellers that the herd of retailers (which herd is more mindless, the compulsive sale shopper or the retail seller who will sell motherhood, apple pie, Thanksgiving day, football games and even the turkey... if the shoppers are willing to leave the dinner table for the mall). This wide expansion of Thanksgiving day "sales" this year is an experiment by many more retailers to see how we will behave and to see how far from Christmas they can sell their goods. It seems the distance from the opening day for Christmas shopping is getting wider.
Sellers think they can make more sales this way and the buyers are convinced they are saving more money. They both can't be right. But anyone who has ever observed the frenzy of a big sale day in a store knows that rationality isn't much of a consideration in when to buy or sell. Because the economy is so bad, the retailers think they have to induce the consumers any way possible. but is dragging them from their Thanksgiving meal and social gathering the best way to do it? Hmmm Well, if Aunt Mabel brings her inedible green bean casserole to the feast it might....
Besides opening the malls and stores on thanksgiving day, this year retailers are also making these pre Black Friday sale changes.
* Offering the same Thanksgiving day sales that are in stores as on line specials too
* Pricing (in store only) some items so low that it's "too good to pass up" in order to entice the shopper to buy other, more price inflated, goodies
* Handing out gifts at the stores
* On Thanksgiving day, matching any price of a competitor
Even if this does work and mobs show up on Thursday, what happens on Black Friday? I think the fools who rushed in on Thanksgiving day and did their shopping at that time will not return the next day to spend even more. In the end, total sales will be about equal...and Aunt Mabel will have to take her awful green bean casserole home and eat it herself.
Gobble Gobble
It's Thanksgiving time... There is an ugly turkey staring at you below. I think all turkeys are ugly, but that one is not even as good looking. And turkeys have an advantage over me. They change colors when they get excited. I wish I could do that. It would come in handy when I want a quick disguise or a instant Halloween costume.
Thanksgiving season may make me ruminate about turkeys today, but talking turkey is long overdo because not only do we eat the meat called turkey, but the word has infiltrated not only our stomachs but also our language. For instance, do you have a "turkey neck"? If you do you have a flesh wattle like our pictured turkey. I refuse to tell you to tighten your wattle, so you can relax. The old ballroom dance the “turkey trot” was named for the short, jerky steps that turkeys take. I guess no one under 75 years old still does the turkey trot.
I know you must have been called "a turkey" before. Because turkeys look lethargic, stupid, and having little appeal we call people with those characteristics "turkeys". Again I am not calling you a turkey, so don't act like one and think I am. Strange though, just as calling a person a turkey is an insult a play or movie that is terrible is called "a turkey". But you would want to get a "turkey" in bowling because it means you threw three straight strikes, a great thing. Anyone who is honest "talks turkey". That means they are all business and will not be deceptive.
I know you want me to go "cold turkey". That is, to shut up about the word. But I wonder how drug addicts got the phrase "he's going cold turkey" applied to their condition when they withdraw from addictive drugs. Perhaps it is because of the involuntary spasms an addict has that look like the jerking motions a turkey bird does when it moves step by step.
I guess have beaten the word turkey to death today. No doubt, as a result, you probably think I am "full of bull". Can there be a turkey that's "full of bull"? Let me look in the mirror to check....
Thanksgiving season may make me ruminate about turkeys today, but talking turkey is long overdo because not only do we eat the meat called turkey, but the word has infiltrated not only our stomachs but also our language. For instance, do you have a "turkey neck"? If you do you have a flesh wattle like our pictured turkey. I refuse to tell you to tighten your wattle, so you can relax. The old ballroom dance the “turkey trot” was named for the short, jerky steps that turkeys take. I guess no one under 75 years old still does the turkey trot.
I know you must have been called "a turkey" before. Because turkeys look lethargic, stupid, and having little appeal we call people with those characteristics "turkeys". Again I am not calling you a turkey, so don't act like one and think I am. Strange though, just as calling a person a turkey is an insult a play or movie that is terrible is called "a turkey". But you would want to get a "turkey" in bowling because it means you threw three straight strikes, a great thing. Anyone who is honest "talks turkey". That means they are all business and will not be deceptive.
I know you want me to go "cold turkey". That is, to shut up about the word. But I wonder how drug addicts got the phrase "he's going cold turkey" applied to their condition when they withdraw from addictive drugs. Perhaps it is because of the involuntary spasms an addict has that look like the jerking motions a turkey bird does when it moves step by step.
I guess have beaten the word turkey to death today. No doubt, as a result, you probably think I am "full of bull". Can there be a turkey that's "full of bull"? Let me look in the mirror to check....
Perplexing Headlines
Some observations on the news today. First the triviality question. Why must news givers (newspapers and TV news are the worst offenders of promoting triviality as "news") dumb down to the lowest level of the readers/watchers. Need examples? Here are some of the featured headlines from the national newspaper, U.S. A. Today.
'Prince William, Kate Middleton set Spring Wedding''Exhausted Obama voter from town hall loses job''Black Friday: What tops this year's gift lists?"'MTV glamorizes teen moms in reality shows''Dancing With The Stars finals recap; Is Bristol in position to win?"'Miley Cyrus at 18: She's not a girl, not a woman'
Those are the headlines! Is our world really so trivial that the triviality is of more interest than the important? Sadly, for many it is. Escapism is fine, but first one must know and interact with reality before escaping. Society today seems to be ignoring the important and absorbing itself in the unimportant. Media does reflect the common mindset, so printing and broadcasting such garbage as above is the response to the demand for emptiness.
Among the ten headlines in that paper was nothing about the two wars the U.S. is still fighting, no news about the economic problems in the world, nothing about the mini missile attack by North Korea on South Korea, not a word about the stalemate in the U.S. Congress that is melting down this alleged democracy.... It's all too curious to understand.
A second triviality question concerns the hysterical "Global Warming " theory as reported in a more important story that is buried in that newspaper today. It's about the 12-day United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings being held in Mexico. The delegates there, who claim to be concerned about the earth's alleged environmental degradation are following up the bizarre Copenhagen "climate change" meeting and will address three issues; deforestation, cleaner energy, and the rich nations giving money to the poor to pay for global warming projects. What is missing from this meeting, from the earlier Kyoto and Copenhagen environmental meets is the one thing that truly impacts the environment negatively but the poltiical leaders fear addressing- overpopulation.
Oh but I must have forgotten, the world thinks it politically incorrect to tell the underdeveloped world to stop having so many babies, that their overpopulation is the main source of the strain on recourses that causes the pollution of the planet's environment. Better to pretend that humans are changing the climate by using aerosol sprays or driving their automobiles too much.
Hmmm Maybe the climate change meeting story should also belong on the front page headline list. It fits well into the fanciful list above. I suggest it be placed between the headline concerning Sarah Palin's daughter's dancing and Miley Cyrus' identity search. It's about as significant.
'Prince William, Kate Middleton set Spring Wedding''Exhausted Obama voter from town hall loses job''Black Friday: What tops this year's gift lists?"'MTV glamorizes teen moms in reality shows''Dancing With The Stars finals recap; Is Bristol in position to win?"'Miley Cyrus at 18: She's not a girl, not a woman'
Those are the headlines! Is our world really so trivial that the triviality is of more interest than the important? Sadly, for many it is. Escapism is fine, but first one must know and interact with reality before escaping. Society today seems to be ignoring the important and absorbing itself in the unimportant. Media does reflect the common mindset, so printing and broadcasting such garbage as above is the response to the demand for emptiness.
Among the ten headlines in that paper was nothing about the two wars the U.S. is still fighting, no news about the economic problems in the world, nothing about the mini missile attack by North Korea on South Korea, not a word about the stalemate in the U.S. Congress that is melting down this alleged democracy.... It's all too curious to understand.
A second triviality question concerns the hysterical "Global Warming " theory as reported in a more important story that is buried in that newspaper today. It's about the 12-day United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meetings being held in Mexico. The delegates there, who claim to be concerned about the earth's alleged environmental degradation are following up the bizarre Copenhagen "climate change" meeting and will address three issues; deforestation, cleaner energy, and the rich nations giving money to the poor to pay for global warming projects. What is missing from this meeting, from the earlier Kyoto and Copenhagen environmental meets is the one thing that truly impacts the environment negatively but the poltiical leaders fear addressing- overpopulation.
Oh but I must have forgotten, the world thinks it politically incorrect to tell the underdeveloped world to stop having so many babies, that their overpopulation is the main source of the strain on recourses that causes the pollution of the planet's environment. Better to pretend that humans are changing the climate by using aerosol sprays or driving their automobiles too much.
Hmmm Maybe the climate change meeting story should also belong on the front page headline list. It fits well into the fanciful list above. I suggest it be placed between the headline concerning Sarah Palin's daughter's dancing and Miley Cyrus' identity search. It's about as significant.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Snow Watch
It was an interesting day today, for I was on "snow watch". Snow in the Willamette Valley, where Portland is located, is rare. It snows about as often here as it does in New Orleans. In contrast, about 50 Kl. in several directions are mountains where it snows regularly from November through April. So the natives of Portland do get excited when they are told by meteorologists that it "may snow'. This news came a few days ago and after the snow date was pushed back to today (and pushed back again and again) I got my hopes up for snow and followed the developments hourly.
But Alas! The snow fell all around Portland but none here in the city or suburbs. It seems the cold air mass that was supposed to meet with the rain system already here (it's been raining for two days) decided to move lazily and never did meet over Portland to produce snowfall. Nothings more frustrating that to hear predictions for snow, to see video on TV of it falling just 50 Kl. away and to watch and wait for what never will come.
My only recourse to soothe the insult of the no snow day is to reminice about a snowy day that has melted in all but my memory. The biggest snow I remember there though was when I was about 8 or 9 years old. It snowed 2 to 3 inches on New Year's Eve, a surprise snowstorm. My mom awakened me and said "Get up quickly"! It's snowing." I laughed and denied it, but as I looked out the window to see the heavy snowfall, I raced to put on my clothes and ran outside to the delight of what I thought was the North Pole.
My friends and I, and it seemed, everyone else in the world, played football and other games in it, had snowball fights, built giant snowmen, and slided and glided in the snow until darkness put a halt to it. I can recall changing out of wet clothes at least thre times that day. Oh how I wish I had pictures of that day to accompany the ones imprinted in my mind. Perhaps there are some in a box of family photos I rescued from my parent's house after their deaths. Regardless, that snowfall is considered the heaviest in New Orleans in more than the past 100 years.
I shall always remember it as one of the best days of my life. Today will be a day quickly forgotten.
But Alas! The snow fell all around Portland but none here in the city or suburbs. It seems the cold air mass that was supposed to meet with the rain system already here (it's been raining for two days) decided to move lazily and never did meet over Portland to produce snowfall. Nothings more frustrating that to hear predictions for snow, to see video on TV of it falling just 50 Kl. away and to watch and wait for what never will come.
My only recourse to soothe the insult of the no snow day is to reminice about a snowy day that has melted in all but my memory. The biggest snow I remember there though was when I was about 8 or 9 years old. It snowed 2 to 3 inches on New Year's Eve, a surprise snowstorm. My mom awakened me and said "Get up quickly"! It's snowing." I laughed and denied it, but as I looked out the window to see the heavy snowfall, I raced to put on my clothes and ran outside to the delight of what I thought was the North Pole.
My friends and I, and it seemed, everyone else in the world, played football and other games in it, had snowball fights, built giant snowmen, and slided and glided in the snow until darkness put a halt to it. I can recall changing out of wet clothes at least thre times that day. Oh how I wish I had pictures of that day to accompany the ones imprinted in my mind. Perhaps there are some in a box of family photos I rescued from my parent's house after their deaths. Regardless, that snowfall is considered the heaviest in New Orleans in more than the past 100 years.
I shall always remember it as one of the best days of my life. Today will be a day quickly forgotten.
Making Christmas More Inclusive
Another sign that the end of the world must be near, While in a grocery store shopping and passing through the Christmas items aisles and I could not help but see the Christmas decoration kitchen towels,. But Alas! Political correctness has now even come to Santa land. One of them was imprinted with a big snowman who said, in large letters, "Help End Global Warming". Well, at least the nuts can't say Santa's sleigh is a gas guzzle, though the reindeer poo from Rudolph and company has probably been tagged as an environmental hazard. I wish the fanatics out there would leave Christmas alone and save the planet in the non holiday world.
Christmas today is not only over commercialized but that commercialization also has started to change. The traditions we have taken for granted and have been passed down from generation to generation are being replaced with a 'politically correct' version or, even worse, stopped altogether. When they start putting global warming on our Christmas kitchen towels it makes one wonder what is next. Haha Of course I have some suggestions for how to make Christmas even more politically correct. How about?
* Replacing Santa's "Ho Ho Ho" with a simple logo saying "Keep Street Walker's Out Of Christmas"
* Banning all the fat Santa's and replacing them with bare chested body builders
* Celery and lettuce under the tree instead of those cookies Santa usually gets
* Require condoms be issued with every mistletoe kiss
* Instead of that bumper sticker- "Keep Christ in Christmas", a new one... "Put Allah in Christmas"
* Rudolph out, hang glider sleighs in
* An environmentally approved, live potted, Hanukkah bush instead of Christmas treesThat's just a few ideas for changes to our politically incorrect Christmas holiday..
Perhaps you can add your own. It might make us all a little more inclusive..but a whole lot less interested in Christmas.
Christmas today is not only over commercialized but that commercialization also has started to change. The traditions we have taken for granted and have been passed down from generation to generation are being replaced with a 'politically correct' version or, even worse, stopped altogether. When they start putting global warming on our Christmas kitchen towels it makes one wonder what is next. Haha Of course I have some suggestions for how to make Christmas even more politically correct. How about?
* Replacing Santa's "Ho Ho Ho" with a simple logo saying "Keep Street Walker's Out Of Christmas"
* Banning all the fat Santa's and replacing them with bare chested body builders
* Celery and lettuce under the tree instead of those cookies Santa usually gets
* Require condoms be issued with every mistletoe kiss
* Instead of that bumper sticker- "Keep Christ in Christmas", a new one... "Put Allah in Christmas"
* Rudolph out, hang glider sleighs in
* An environmentally approved, live potted, Hanukkah bush instead of Christmas treesThat's just a few ideas for changes to our politically incorrect Christmas holiday..
Perhaps you can add your own. It might make us all a little more inclusive..but a whole lot less interested in Christmas.
Poorest Kids Speak
The United Nations' Universal Children's Day was on November 20 and I think it's interesting to note the difference between being a child in a developed nation and one that is underdeveloped. Most kids live in poverty and fear, not in the affluence or near affluence of western nations like the U.S. So the perspective of children differs greatly and even the length of "childhood" does as well. When a child is faced with constant struggle he or she grows up quickly, effectively losing the childhood that is necessary for a better balanced adult to have. It's a kind of abuse that poverty inflicts but is sometimes forgotten.
So the multinational survey of children in developing nations, "Small Voices, Big Dreams, that was just released results to the public is interesting. The survey polled close to 3,000 children ages 10 to 12 in 30 countries throughout Africa, Asia and the Americas, from Afghanistan to Zambia. Most were dreadfully poor places. When asked what they need most in their daily lives, here's what a few said. "Food. We'll die of hunger if we do not eat," child, Philippines."I need an environment without garbage," child, Mongolia."School, without it there is no good future," child Zambia.
That's quite a different view from kids in industrial nations who would more likely answer, "The latest Ipod", "Tickets to hear Justin Beiber" or "More McDonald's fries". Only children can give a completely honest and unvarnished sense of what it is like to be young and living in poverty, as do those poor kids. The difference in their lives is striking just from seeing the remarks of each group.
The survey found an overwhelming sentiment among the world's poorest children toward improving their lives through.....you guessed it... education. Too bad the industrialized wealthier kids don't realize it too. More than half of those surveyed (57%) said that, were they the president of their country, they would educate all children, improve the quality of schools and/or construct more of them. When asked what they need most in their lives, one in three (34%) said more or better education.
Because wanting education those poor kids said they needed food. A great many of them are just plain hungry. When asked what they need most, one in three (33%) said food. To the question, "what would you spend a dollar on?" almost half (45%) said food and/or water. As president, one in five (19%) said they would help people get food.
To the question of what they fear most, three in 10 (30%) said that were most afraid of animals, with snakes (15%) topping the list. Almost one-fifth (20%) said they feared death and/or disease, and 15 percent said they were fearful of falling victim to war or violence. Kids in wealthy nations probably mostly fear their laptops will freeze or they might miss watching "dancing with the stars " or some other sort of idiocy that appears on their personal TV sets.
That's just some of the survey, but if I were a teacher today in a more affluent school in this country, I think a worthwhile lesson would be to read through it with the kids and ask what they might want to do for those kids with some of their pizza money.
So the multinational survey of children in developing nations, "Small Voices, Big Dreams, that was just released results to the public is interesting. The survey polled close to 3,000 children ages 10 to 12 in 30 countries throughout Africa, Asia and the Americas, from Afghanistan to Zambia. Most were dreadfully poor places. When asked what they need most in their daily lives, here's what a few said. "Food. We'll die of hunger if we do not eat," child, Philippines."I need an environment without garbage," child, Mongolia."School, without it there is no good future," child Zambia.
That's quite a different view from kids in industrial nations who would more likely answer, "The latest Ipod", "Tickets to hear Justin Beiber" or "More McDonald's fries". Only children can give a completely honest and unvarnished sense of what it is like to be young and living in poverty, as do those poor kids. The difference in their lives is striking just from seeing the remarks of each group.
The survey found an overwhelming sentiment among the world's poorest children toward improving their lives through.....you guessed it... education. Too bad the industrialized wealthier kids don't realize it too. More than half of those surveyed (57%) said that, were they the president of their country, they would educate all children, improve the quality of schools and/or construct more of them. When asked what they need most in their lives, one in three (34%) said more or better education.
Because wanting education those poor kids said they needed food. A great many of them are just plain hungry. When asked what they need most, one in three (33%) said food. To the question, "what would you spend a dollar on?" almost half (45%) said food and/or water. As president, one in five (19%) said they would help people get food.
To the question of what they fear most, three in 10 (30%) said that were most afraid of animals, with snakes (15%) topping the list. Almost one-fifth (20%) said they feared death and/or disease, and 15 percent said they were fearful of falling victim to war or violence. Kids in wealthy nations probably mostly fear their laptops will freeze or they might miss watching "dancing with the stars " or some other sort of idiocy that appears on their personal TV sets.
That's just some of the survey, but if I were a teacher today in a more affluent school in this country, I think a worthwhile lesson would be to read through it with the kids and ask what they might want to do for those kids with some of their pizza money.
Useless Security Checks
Have you already read enough about the airport pat downs that the U.S. has instituted here? Haha I have more to say abotu it. It's a stupid thing to do because it achieves nothing, but the reaction to it may be even worse and is a sign that Americans still do not understand that the entire "keep me safe from terrorists" charade is the politicians' way of garnering votes from fearful constituents, not a real attempt to make them safer when riding on airplanes.
Travelers, unions, passengers groups and civil libertarians are filing lawsuits and urging boycotts of new airport screening procedures that include machines that see through passengers' clothing, and more aggressive pat-downs by security personnel, which some travelers say amount to fondling or strip searches.
Instead of protesting pointless screen procedures at airports, they cry about invasion of privacy, fondling and strip search procedures. I think they miss the point and are being scammed into paying for an entire procedure that is designed to create an illusion of safety rather than protect them from harm. From putting sky marshalls on planes in 1970 (after Palestinian hijackings) to the strip searches of grandmas today, maybe it finally adds up to the fact that the traveling public has grown weary of an ever escalating series of security measures that are all empty measures in stopping a terrorist attack on board.
First it's passengers' shoes, then liquids, then laptops, then whole body scans and now thorough pat-downs..what's next...nude body cavity searches? Under U.S. law the U.S. government cannot strip search or pat down people unless the government agents have a reasonable suspicion the person they're searching or strip searching is involved in some kind of criminal activity. Why would airports be any different? I think some of the on-going law suits might be won and such idiotic "security" measures be thrown out.
What bothers me more than any specific search method is the fact that Americans are so clue less to how the politician's manipulate them with scares about terrorists and security that are just not true. It would be nice to fly again without the endless searches and checks, and I think no less safely without them. Airport security should screen only those profiled (yes, profiling is sometimes good) as a likely threat and let the rest of the passengers fly as they used to prior to 1970.
It is shocking that so many people here vote for and support the politician who allegedly is "keeping us safe from terrorists"? The fear and gullibility level of Americans is shamefully low. Better that they fear being lied to, and scared needlessly in order to achieve the most sacred of ideal of the politician- getting re elected at any cost.
Travelers, unions, passengers groups and civil libertarians are filing lawsuits and urging boycotts of new airport screening procedures that include machines that see through passengers' clothing, and more aggressive pat-downs by security personnel, which some travelers say amount to fondling or strip searches.
Instead of protesting pointless screen procedures at airports, they cry about invasion of privacy, fondling and strip search procedures. I think they miss the point and are being scammed into paying for an entire procedure that is designed to create an illusion of safety rather than protect them from harm. From putting sky marshalls on planes in 1970 (after Palestinian hijackings) to the strip searches of grandmas today, maybe it finally adds up to the fact that the traveling public has grown weary of an ever escalating series of security measures that are all empty measures in stopping a terrorist attack on board.
First it's passengers' shoes, then liquids, then laptops, then whole body scans and now thorough pat-downs..what's next...nude body cavity searches? Under U.S. law the U.S. government cannot strip search or pat down people unless the government agents have a reasonable suspicion the person they're searching or strip searching is involved in some kind of criminal activity. Why would airports be any different? I think some of the on-going law suits might be won and such idiotic "security" measures be thrown out.
What bothers me more than any specific search method is the fact that Americans are so clue less to how the politician's manipulate them with scares about terrorists and security that are just not true. It would be nice to fly again without the endless searches and checks, and I think no less safely without them. Airport security should screen only those profiled (yes, profiling is sometimes good) as a likely threat and let the rest of the passengers fly as they used to prior to 1970.
It is shocking that so many people here vote for and support the politician who allegedly is "keeping us safe from terrorists"? The fear and gullibility level of Americans is shamefully low. Better that they fear being lied to, and scared needlessly in order to achieve the most sacred of ideal of the politician- getting re elected at any cost.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
"Special People"
Here's an amusing and often on target web site to check. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=politically%20correctIt's the nightmare site of the politically correct crowd, The Urban Dictionary. Read a few passages and tell me you don't agree with the notion that people have gone overboard in trying to not offend others or in trying to elevate the less successful or perhaps the discriminated individual with speech that elevates, embraces or just plain condescends to the individual or group who is seen as in need of protection.
As a former teacher the politically correct group that most got all the love and all the protection was what was called "special education". I want to write a little about that because you can see from the size of that site that there are too many politically correct terms and groups to discuss them all. Those special ed kids are kids who are now labeled as "developmentally challenged" and will probably be re labeled when society sees the folly of couching reality in artificial labels.
You see the school system decides to make those kids into victims, and to do so they need to be labeled with a cute term that says they are "different' but never telling exactly how. It is most confusing, for within the special ed classification hierarchy are those with the highest IQ's, they call them "gifted", and also those who are so dumb they can't write their own name. At first the smart ones were not labeled as special ed, but the politically correct crowd decided that because they were not of normal intelligence, lumping them into the "special ed" group would add a group of parents who are probably smart, savvy and willing to advocate for more money for special ed programs. Clever move!
California, for example, spent $9.3 billion on special education in 2006-07, or about 17 percent of the total kindergarten-through-12th-grade general fund expenditures. That's 17% for the "special ed" programs. The federal government (which is highly politically correct these days) mandates that states spend huge amounts for the "special kids". Politicians know there are votes in supporting special education funding. But states have to eliminate ordinary programs for ordinary kids to meet those funding guidelines. It's crazy.
I can remember the "crazy checks" too. Crazy checks are money payments the federal government gives to parents of every child who is "mentally challenged". That's why some parents tell their kids to act crazy in school, so a politically correct evaluator will tell the government that little Johnny is "special ed'. Mom and dad happily get a reward of monthly checks because of it and encourage all the rest of their kids to behave badly in school in order to get more checks. (Oh.... If based on my rants here, you think I need a crazy check, please write to the U.S government to let them know.)
Most special education programs assume the child is dumb and can not learn. This is far from the truth, but by placing such limited expectations on the special ed child, and by dumbing down the curriculum to prove it is so. They are a poorly educated group, but if they were never labeled and pandered to those kids would be far better off.
Seventy years ago, before there was such a classification in schools as "special ed" or "developmentally challenged (or delayed)", the kids that we would today label that way either "got smart" (they were late bloomers but did fine eventually because they were not held back by labels and politically correct programs of today), were sent to vocational training where they learned a skill and supported themselves well, or were truly slow and were taken care of by family. It worked quite well that way.
But today most special ed kids sink badly under the weight of low expectations and never escape the labels they are given. I think the special education programs in the U.S. have the ironic effect of showing that changing labels and condemning people to live down to them only makes matters worse. For that I suggest a new label for the educators and politicians who have done this- stupid!
As a former teacher the politically correct group that most got all the love and all the protection was what was called "special education". I want to write a little about that because you can see from the size of that site that there are too many politically correct terms and groups to discuss them all. Those special ed kids are kids who are now labeled as "developmentally challenged" and will probably be re labeled when society sees the folly of couching reality in artificial labels.
You see the school system decides to make those kids into victims, and to do so they need to be labeled with a cute term that says they are "different' but never telling exactly how. It is most confusing, for within the special ed classification hierarchy are those with the highest IQ's, they call them "gifted", and also those who are so dumb they can't write their own name. At first the smart ones were not labeled as special ed, but the politically correct crowd decided that because they were not of normal intelligence, lumping them into the "special ed" group would add a group of parents who are probably smart, savvy and willing to advocate for more money for special ed programs. Clever move!
California, for example, spent $9.3 billion on special education in 2006-07, or about 17 percent of the total kindergarten-through-12th-grade general fund expenditures. That's 17% for the "special ed" programs. The federal government (which is highly politically correct these days) mandates that states spend huge amounts for the "special kids". Politicians know there are votes in supporting special education funding. But states have to eliminate ordinary programs for ordinary kids to meet those funding guidelines. It's crazy.
I can remember the "crazy checks" too. Crazy checks are money payments the federal government gives to parents of every child who is "mentally challenged". That's why some parents tell their kids to act crazy in school, so a politically correct evaluator will tell the government that little Johnny is "special ed'. Mom and dad happily get a reward of monthly checks because of it and encourage all the rest of their kids to behave badly in school in order to get more checks. (Oh.... If based on my rants here, you think I need a crazy check, please write to the U.S government to let them know.)
Most special education programs assume the child is dumb and can not learn. This is far from the truth, but by placing such limited expectations on the special ed child, and by dumbing down the curriculum to prove it is so. They are a poorly educated group, but if they were never labeled and pandered to those kids would be far better off.
Seventy years ago, before there was such a classification in schools as "special ed" or "developmentally challenged (or delayed)", the kids that we would today label that way either "got smart" (they were late bloomers but did fine eventually because they were not held back by labels and politically correct programs of today), were sent to vocational training where they learned a skill and supported themselves well, or were truly slow and were taken care of by family. It worked quite well that way.
But today most special ed kids sink badly under the weight of low expectations and never escape the labels they are given. I think the special education programs in the U.S. have the ironic effect of showing that changing labels and condemning people to live down to them only makes matters worse. For that I suggest a new label for the educators and politicians who have done this- stupid!
Don't Use That Bag!
After several years of an intensive and annoying campaign to have shoppers switch from "paper or plastic" bags, the environmental nuts are having second thoughts about their endorsement (actually, championing of them) of those reusable grocery bags. Haha it seems "saving the planet" is hard work.
There are now concerns concerns that lead found in the reusable bags could pose environmental or health concerns to consumers. Some U.S. senators are calling for a federal investigation into reusable bags following a series of stories in a Florida newspaper found lead in bags purchased at several big chain supermarkets and at target stores. (Reusable grocery bags make up 10% to 15% of the market in the U.S., and could become as much of 25% if the propaganda campaign to use them is successful).
The big concern is that users might be contaminated by the lead or that the lead in the bags could leak into landfills that could contaminate food products. This latest hysteria follows reports that leaking into the reusable bags from packages of store bought meat and other loosely sealed products has contaminated the bags with various toxic residue that could be spread with reuse.
To me, all this seems a bit over arching. Trace amounts of lead can be found in a huge number of products consumers come into contact with every day. It is a good idea to ban lead in the bags, but is there really a need for the hysteria about every environmental imperfection? Buy definition, nature contains many hazardous chemicals. Arsenic is rampant everywhere, for instance. The trace amounts are really no threat to humans The very thought that someone would worry incessantly about a common, naturally occurring element sums up the Al Gore Sky is falling Green mindset.
I wonder who will profit from this idea that we should throw away the reusable bags and replace them with something else? It surely reflects the low esteem that polticians, the media and the crazy environementalists hold for the Americans people. Can it be that they are right to assume Americans are so enslaved to their silly technology that they have forgotten to think for themselves, forgotten to see the differnce between a minor concern and a real one?
Environmental safety is a good thing, but why do the environmentalists think nature can be bent to the human agenda they set for it? Life is a risky blessing, and there are times when humans should use their efforts on the important environmental issues rather than hysterical trendy ones.
Sigh...Now I am supposed to worry about the same cloth bags people have been using daily for centuries. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
There are now concerns concerns that lead found in the reusable bags could pose environmental or health concerns to consumers. Some U.S. senators are calling for a federal investigation into reusable bags following a series of stories in a Florida newspaper found lead in bags purchased at several big chain supermarkets and at target stores. (Reusable grocery bags make up 10% to 15% of the market in the U.S., and could become as much of 25% if the propaganda campaign to use them is successful).
The big concern is that users might be contaminated by the lead or that the lead in the bags could leak into landfills that could contaminate food products. This latest hysteria follows reports that leaking into the reusable bags from packages of store bought meat and other loosely sealed products has contaminated the bags with various toxic residue that could be spread with reuse.
To me, all this seems a bit over arching. Trace amounts of lead can be found in a huge number of products consumers come into contact with every day. It is a good idea to ban lead in the bags, but is there really a need for the hysteria about every environmental imperfection? Buy definition, nature contains many hazardous chemicals. Arsenic is rampant everywhere, for instance. The trace amounts are really no threat to humans The very thought that someone would worry incessantly about a common, naturally occurring element sums up the Al Gore Sky is falling Green mindset.
I wonder who will profit from this idea that we should throw away the reusable bags and replace them with something else? It surely reflects the low esteem that polticians, the media and the crazy environementalists hold for the Americans people. Can it be that they are right to assume Americans are so enslaved to their silly technology that they have forgotten to think for themselves, forgotten to see the differnce between a minor concern and a real one?
Environmental safety is a good thing, but why do the environmentalists think nature can be bent to the human agenda they set for it? Life is a risky blessing, and there are times when humans should use their efforts on the important environmental issues rather than hysterical trendy ones.
Sigh...Now I am supposed to worry about the same cloth bags people have been using daily for centuries. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Unhappy Meals
Did you see the latest outrage in control by the politically correct crowd here in the U.S., in San Francisco, this time? Now that the U.S. government has virtually castrated Americans with entitlements which they bottom feed and sell their souls and freedoms to get, the freebies that have turned us into a bad copy of failed socialist Europe, there is now even an attempt to control the simplest of child pleasures....the McDonald's Happy Meal.
I bought many Happy Meals (consisting of a small hamburger or chicken nuggets, french fries, a drink and the Happy Meal toy) for Jane and her friends when she was small. It's understood that Happy Meals are not models of nutrition, but should the government try to ban them on the basis of their being less nutritious than ideal? Kids need fun and fun food as much as they need a regimented diet of so called "healthy foods".
To try to legislate menus of p;rivate businesses is outrageous. But in this society where governemnt is mommy and daddy and we are all hooked on entitlement give-aways, it's not surprising that there has been little protest against such stupidity.In an effort to encourage kids to be "healthier", legislation was approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors that would prevent toys from being included with Happy Meals, unless the meals met their approved set of nutritional guidelines. In other words, those bureaucrats are forcing a private business (Mc Donald's) to design a product to fit their own concept of proper child care. What happened to free enterprise?
But collectors of Happy Meal toys in San Francisco can breathe at least a momentary sigh of relief. They may be able to get the toys at McDonald's restaurants located in San Francisco ... for now. The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsome, has bravely bucked the bueareaucrats and vetoed their bill, saying "Parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money." San Francisco is concerned about the health of their children, but should lawmakers decide to make the decision about what should kids, and ultimatelty adults, be allowed to eat? Mayor Newsome's decision can be overturned, so we shall see if political ccrrectness will eventually trump reason.
Demogueging Mc Donald's and other fast food places as the cause for the above average rate childhood obeisety in the U.S. is bad enough, but personal decisons about kids should always be made by parents, unless there is specific abuse or harm from the parental choices. To any reasonable person, ordering a hamburger, french fries and a drink for a child does not qualify as abusive. In fact depriving children of such fun, bonding experiences may be more abusive to the psyche than is than feeding them a meal with a bit too much fat is abusive to the body.
Those who support this kind of crazy legislation should think about the ramifications of too much government intervention into private matters. Parents who dislike the Happy Meal experience should prepare the food they want their child to eat or, if not able to resist the pressure to take their little on to Mc Donald's choose something else on the menu for them.
It's such a tiny issue, yet it screams of what is a huge problem in U.S. today. That is, why do so many here want the government to make even the simplest decisions for them?
I bought many Happy Meals (consisting of a small hamburger or chicken nuggets, french fries, a drink and the Happy Meal toy) for Jane and her friends when she was small. It's understood that Happy Meals are not models of nutrition, but should the government try to ban them on the basis of their being less nutritious than ideal? Kids need fun and fun food as much as they need a regimented diet of so called "healthy foods".
To try to legislate menus of p;rivate businesses is outrageous. But in this society where governemnt is mommy and daddy and we are all hooked on entitlement give-aways, it's not surprising that there has been little protest against such stupidity.In an effort to encourage kids to be "healthier", legislation was approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors that would prevent toys from being included with Happy Meals, unless the meals met their approved set of nutritional guidelines. In other words, those bureaucrats are forcing a private business (Mc Donald's) to design a product to fit their own concept of proper child care. What happened to free enterprise?
But collectors of Happy Meal toys in San Francisco can breathe at least a momentary sigh of relief. They may be able to get the toys at McDonald's restaurants located in San Francisco ... for now. The mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsome, has bravely bucked the bueareaucrats and vetoed their bill, saying "Parents, not politicians, should decide what their children eat, especially when it comes to spending their own money." San Francisco is concerned about the health of their children, but should lawmakers decide to make the decision about what should kids, and ultimatelty adults, be allowed to eat? Mayor Newsome's decision can be overturned, so we shall see if political ccrrectness will eventually trump reason.
Demogueging Mc Donald's and other fast food places as the cause for the above average rate childhood obeisety in the U.S. is bad enough, but personal decisons about kids should always be made by parents, unless there is specific abuse or harm from the parental choices. To any reasonable person, ordering a hamburger, french fries and a drink for a child does not qualify as abusive. In fact depriving children of such fun, bonding experiences may be more abusive to the psyche than is than feeding them a meal with a bit too much fat is abusive to the body.
Those who support this kind of crazy legislation should think about the ramifications of too much government intervention into private matters. Parents who dislike the Happy Meal experience should prepare the food they want their child to eat or, if not able to resist the pressure to take their little on to Mc Donald's choose something else on the menu for them.
It's such a tiny issue, yet it screams of what is a huge problem in U.S. today. That is, why do so many here want the government to make even the simplest decisions for them?
Too Many Food Combos
They are tampering too much with our food! Uhm, the "they" I refer to are manufactures of that grocery store food we buy. Most of the packaged food offered is now offered in weird combinations in an almost game like euphoria. I wanted to buy cream cheese the other day and it was hard to find plain cream cheese. Instead there was a selection that ranged from 'Strawberries and cream", to "Cream cheese and chives". I saw a whole shelf full of combinations of cream cheese with fruits and veggies.
Time was (and it was a better time because the food quality was pure and basic) we had one choice, cream cheese. If the eater was weird and wanted food combos he or she could add it him or herself. Not any more.
Look at flavored water and fruit flavored drinks today. They are so pervasive it's hard to find plain water. Does a person today need flavorings to drink water? Why, for instance, do they so often add tea or mango flavors (it always seems to be labeled "flavored with" to indicate it is not even a natural combination) to drinks. Can anyone get plain coffee anymore? Go to a Starbucks and tell the cashier person "I want a cup of coffee" and you will be quizzed on dozens of possible flavored combos. They don't even have a price listing for plain coffee.
Even fresh fruits and vegetables have been bred to combine flavors. "Brocoliflower', for instance, is a combo of broccoli and cauliflower. Who wants that? If you like both, cook both and eat them separately. You'll get a natural taste of each. With brocoliflower you get mush and indistinguishable taste. I bet the person who invented that vegetable cross bred the two as a joke, and one of those trendy advertising types decided to market it anyway.
I like my flavors separate. I love jelly, but hate peanut butter. If you try to sell me a peanut butter and jelly sandwich you are wasting your time. Are we so bored with our food that we have to mix it until it becomes indistinguishable? It's a sin to make potato chips with sour cream "flavor", barbecue "flavor", onion "flavor" and the rest. The Americans have so pilled onto pizza different combinations that Italy should declare war on the U.S for ruining pizza for everyone.
It's hard to shop at a grocery store these days and find a single, solitary food product without hybrids next to it. Even restaurant chefs go overboard with the idea of food combos. They think the more different food combinations they put in a dish the better the taste. It doesn't work that way most of the time.
I think humans would be better off without a "banana strawberry green tea" option in their grocery stores.
Time was (and it was a better time because the food quality was pure and basic) we had one choice, cream cheese. If the eater was weird and wanted food combos he or she could add it him or herself. Not any more.
Look at flavored water and fruit flavored drinks today. They are so pervasive it's hard to find plain water. Does a person today need flavorings to drink water? Why, for instance, do they so often add tea or mango flavors (it always seems to be labeled "flavored with" to indicate it is not even a natural combination) to drinks. Can anyone get plain coffee anymore? Go to a Starbucks and tell the cashier person "I want a cup of coffee" and you will be quizzed on dozens of possible flavored combos. They don't even have a price listing for plain coffee.
Even fresh fruits and vegetables have been bred to combine flavors. "Brocoliflower', for instance, is a combo of broccoli and cauliflower. Who wants that? If you like both, cook both and eat them separately. You'll get a natural taste of each. With brocoliflower you get mush and indistinguishable taste. I bet the person who invented that vegetable cross bred the two as a joke, and one of those trendy advertising types decided to market it anyway.
I like my flavors separate. I love jelly, but hate peanut butter. If you try to sell me a peanut butter and jelly sandwich you are wasting your time. Are we so bored with our food that we have to mix it until it becomes indistinguishable? It's a sin to make potato chips with sour cream "flavor", barbecue "flavor", onion "flavor" and the rest. The Americans have so pilled onto pizza different combinations that Italy should declare war on the U.S for ruining pizza for everyone.
It's hard to shop at a grocery store these days and find a single, solitary food product without hybrids next to it. Even restaurant chefs go overboard with the idea of food combos. They think the more different food combinations they put in a dish the better the taste. It doesn't work that way most of the time.
I think humans would be better off without a "banana strawberry green tea" option in their grocery stores.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Another Veterans day has passed. It's the day where military veterans are recognized for the risk they take in protecting the country. Every nation has such a day, though it may not be called Veterans day. I think this is a good thing. But it's all happy talk. Never is there any question of the value of wars or the consequences of them. One of the onerous consequences of sending young men (mostly men, though some women do face combat conditions) into combat is PTSD.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a scourge to the individual soldier and to the society in which he lives upon return from the battle site. PTSD an emotional illness that develops when a person is exposed to a highly dangerous, very terrifying, possibly life threatening event. In the film 'Saving Private Ryan', the character Tom Hanks played had a trembling hand that appeared from time to time during the film. Involuntary trembling is a classic sigh of PTSD.
The military likes to hide PTSD but there is documentation of it in every war America has ever fought. it seems to be a stable affliction, in every arm, every nation , every war, in a every age. Until recently it was called being "shell shocked" to "combat fatigue" in W.W. I. In the American Civil War (1860-1865) it was called "soldiers heart". In W.W.II it was called "battle fatigue". In every war in every time some people regarded it as cowardice. It is not.
I looked for some stats on PTSD during the current Iraqi War and found that:
-While less than 10 percent of the general population will develop post traumatic stress syndrome, one in six soldiers returning from Iraq suffer from it.
-Enlisted men are twice as likely than military officers to report PTSD.
-American women serving in Iraq tend to suffer from more severe and debilitating forms of PTSD.
The symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can arise suddenly, gradually, or come and go over time. People with PTSD manifest many symptoms that include: anxiety, trembles in fingers, muscle twitches, eye twitches, anger dreams, weird dreams, panic attacks, dizziness or feeling of off balance, flashbacks, disorientation, sleeplessness, and many more I once heard a statistic that 30% of all convicts who served in the military in a war suffer from PTSD. Many soldiers with it have little help because the military does not want to acknowledge the depth of the problem because it could affect moral and combat readiness of soldiers, and society is uncaring about it. Often soldiers afflicted with it commit suicide as the only way to cope.
I had a friend, a mine sweeper in war, who told me he used to wake up in the night almost routinely in terror with flashbacks of some of the death and maiming he saw. Society is greatly impacted by the disorder as well as are the individual suffers.For me, Veterans Day is not a time to wave flags, but rather to be reminded that war is something that should be avoided at all costs.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is a scourge to the individual soldier and to the society in which he lives upon return from the battle site. PTSD an emotional illness that develops when a person is exposed to a highly dangerous, very terrifying, possibly life threatening event. In the film 'Saving Private Ryan', the character Tom Hanks played had a trembling hand that appeared from time to time during the film. Involuntary trembling is a classic sigh of PTSD.
The military likes to hide PTSD but there is documentation of it in every war America has ever fought. it seems to be a stable affliction, in every arm, every nation , every war, in a every age. Until recently it was called being "shell shocked" to "combat fatigue" in W.W. I. In the American Civil War (1860-1865) it was called "soldiers heart". In W.W.II it was called "battle fatigue". In every war in every time some people regarded it as cowardice. It is not.
I looked for some stats on PTSD during the current Iraqi War and found that:
-While less than 10 percent of the general population will develop post traumatic stress syndrome, one in six soldiers returning from Iraq suffer from it.
-Enlisted men are twice as likely than military officers to report PTSD.
-American women serving in Iraq tend to suffer from more severe and debilitating forms of PTSD.
The symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can arise suddenly, gradually, or come and go over time. People with PTSD manifest many symptoms that include: anxiety, trembles in fingers, muscle twitches, eye twitches, anger dreams, weird dreams, panic attacks, dizziness or feeling of off balance, flashbacks, disorientation, sleeplessness, and many more I once heard a statistic that 30% of all convicts who served in the military in a war suffer from PTSD. Many soldiers with it have little help because the military does not want to acknowledge the depth of the problem because it could affect moral and combat readiness of soldiers, and society is uncaring about it. Often soldiers afflicted with it commit suicide as the only way to cope.
I had a friend, a mine sweeper in war, who told me he used to wake up in the night almost routinely in terror with flashbacks of some of the death and maiming he saw. Society is greatly impacted by the disorder as well as are the individual suffers.For me, Veterans Day is not a time to wave flags, but rather to be reminded that war is something that should be avoided at all costs.
How Clean Is Enough?
There's something smelly in the air these days. And it might just be you! That's because the latest trendy habit is attacking the culture of clean in nations where "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" has been the mantra since before World War II. More and more people are deliberately forgoing daily bathing and other personal hygiene rituals, such as the treasured hair shampoo and deodorant use.
The practitioners of irregular hygiene say they risk being renamed "Stinky" because daily bathing does not allow for retention of the skin's natural oils or the "good" bacteria that rests on it, and because not bathing daily is good for water conservation. Daily bathing/showering can dry out the skin and can cause eczema. And in climates where it is cool, is there really a necessity in bathing every day? Would anyone but the person him or herself even notice if you did not shower or bath each day?
Having said that, I swear I bathe every night and have never been told "you stink" (at least not literally). According to Mintel, a market research firm, ninety three percent of adult people in the U.S. shampoo almost daily. I do that as well.....err..at least I am normal that way. But it seems I have an odoriferous "French tendency" regarding the last of the cleanliness categories- deodorant. I have never used it and never will. The smell of deodorant is sickening to me, and unless a person has a body odor problem I see no necessity for using it. It was created by marketers, not from necessity but because consumers are gullible enough to buy anything if they are bombarded with enough commercials for the product..
Also, according to Mintel, Adults younger than 24 use deodorant and antiperspirant more than nine times a week. Even for older age groups, usage never falls below an average of once a day. Haha Go ahead...call me "stinky". See if I care. But I bet the average person far more often smells your sickeningly perfumy deodorant odor than would smell my natural essence.
It's probably a modern Western idea that people need to bathe everyday. There are as many non bathing as bathing people in the world today and their decision of whether to bathe or not is influenced by things like cultural tradition, availability, influence/pressure of folkways from the society, climate, occupation and more.Oh, and if you think this E mail smells, just put it in the trash where it belongs.
The practitioners of irregular hygiene say they risk being renamed "Stinky" because daily bathing does not allow for retention of the skin's natural oils or the "good" bacteria that rests on it, and because not bathing daily is good for water conservation. Daily bathing/showering can dry out the skin and can cause eczema. And in climates where it is cool, is there really a necessity in bathing every day? Would anyone but the person him or herself even notice if you did not shower or bath each day?
Having said that, I swear I bathe every night and have never been told "you stink" (at least not literally). According to Mintel, a market research firm, ninety three percent of adult people in the U.S. shampoo almost daily. I do that as well.....err..at least I am normal that way. But it seems I have an odoriferous "French tendency" regarding the last of the cleanliness categories- deodorant. I have never used it and never will. The smell of deodorant is sickening to me, and unless a person has a body odor problem I see no necessity for using it. It was created by marketers, not from necessity but because consumers are gullible enough to buy anything if they are bombarded with enough commercials for the product..
Also, according to Mintel, Adults younger than 24 use deodorant and antiperspirant more than nine times a week. Even for older age groups, usage never falls below an average of once a day. Haha Go ahead...call me "stinky". See if I care. But I bet the average person far more often smells your sickeningly perfumy deodorant odor than would smell my natural essence.
It's probably a modern Western idea that people need to bathe everyday. There are as many non bathing as bathing people in the world today and their decision of whether to bathe or not is influenced by things like cultural tradition, availability, influence/pressure of folkways from the society, climate, occupation and more.Oh, and if you think this E mail smells, just put it in the trash where it belongs.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Not So Fun Bars
When buying Halloween candy this year I noticed that there were many bags of "fun size" bars for sale, but no longer the full sized bags. Fun size has nothing to do with your enjoyment in eating the candy . It's a euphemism for smaller candy bars or candy units than was previously sold by the candy maker. It's a clever way of making the consumer pay more for fewer total grams of candy. When you look at the total candy content in those bags of fun size candy, it's always less than what the consumer received when purchasing a bag of that brand's regular sized candy. Candy makers figure it is an easier way of charging more for the same amount of candy inside those wrappers.
They are also clever about how they short change the buyer. Those fun sized bags (and in most cases now you have only one choice- buy fun sized....say...Milky Way candy bars or don't buy Milky Ways at all, since that is the only sized sold now) are no fun for me. There is always a justification for changing to fun sized as opposed to regular sized units that the consumer loved and never asked to be eliminated from his or her candy option. For example, the bag of bars says, "Only 60 calories per bar". That's supposed to make you think you'll not gain weight eating fun sized bars. If you eat only one it's true, but who can eat only one of those midget bars?
To add to the insult, they market the fun sized bags as being a more economical purchase. I guess math skills as so low now that they can get away with it. Most consumers are incapable of comparing prices by comparing sizes of the unit. All they know today is the latest cell phone application or the names of reality TV contestants. While they are sleeping the candy makers are robbing them..and more importantly....robbing me! I am taking a break here to calm down...I'll eat a fun sized bar and then finish this rant..... back! Lucky you. I am intoxicated with a fun sized sugar high now.
Instead of raising the price of candy, and many other products sold are doing the same, candy makers are making their candy in smaller units but selling at the same price as the previously larger sized candy sold. It's sad. There are certain things in life we should be able to depend on. Forget mom and national pride as examples! This is serious. That candy is not being down sized is of prime importance in this confusing world in which we live. Candy bars should bring us contentment, not dissonance.
It started years ago when they started putting less coffee in the same cans and selling it for the same price, I was suspicious then. But now I am paranoid about how much is in my candy bag. The candy makers are violating my trust by charging more, giving less and pretending it is the same. If I weren't a pig who needed candy I would hold my breath and abstain from all candy until they banned fun sized from the store candy aisles.
Sigh.. I think I'll open that fun sized bag of Twix bars now. The protest is over while I have some fun sized chews.
They are also clever about how they short change the buyer. Those fun sized bags (and in most cases now you have only one choice- buy fun sized....say...Milky Way candy bars or don't buy Milky Ways at all, since that is the only sized sold now) are no fun for me. There is always a justification for changing to fun sized as opposed to regular sized units that the consumer loved and never asked to be eliminated from his or her candy option. For example, the bag of bars says, "Only 60 calories per bar". That's supposed to make you think you'll not gain weight eating fun sized bars. If you eat only one it's true, but who can eat only one of those midget bars?
To add to the insult, they market the fun sized bags as being a more economical purchase. I guess math skills as so low now that they can get away with it. Most consumers are incapable of comparing prices by comparing sizes of the unit. All they know today is the latest cell phone application or the names of reality TV contestants. While they are sleeping the candy makers are robbing them..and more importantly....robbing me! I am taking a break here to calm down...I'll eat a fun sized bar and then finish this rant..... back! Lucky you. I am intoxicated with a fun sized sugar high now.
Instead of raising the price of candy, and many other products sold are doing the same, candy makers are making their candy in smaller units but selling at the same price as the previously larger sized candy sold. It's sad. There are certain things in life we should be able to depend on. Forget mom and national pride as examples! This is serious. That candy is not being down sized is of prime importance in this confusing world in which we live. Candy bars should bring us contentment, not dissonance.
It started years ago when they started putting less coffee in the same cans and selling it for the same price, I was suspicious then. But now I am paranoid about how much is in my candy bag. The candy makers are violating my trust by charging more, giving less and pretending it is the same. If I weren't a pig who needed candy I would hold my breath and abstain from all candy until they banned fun sized from the store candy aisles.
Sigh.. I think I'll open that fun sized bag of Twix bars now. The protest is over while I have some fun sized chews.
Discouraged Or Irresponsible?
Here is a case of statistics "lying". An ominous statistic released today by the U.S. Labor Department says "Discouraged Workers" hit a record 1.2 million. Discouraged workers are those the labor Department defines as people who want a job but aren't counted in the labor force because they've stopped looking for work. The last l part of the definition is what distorts unemployment statistics today.
Though unemployment stands at about 9 and 1/2 %, many of those have no intention of taking another job, due to the U.S. government's absurd program of paying anyone out of work with 99 consecutive weeks of unemployment checks. 99 weeks! That's more than 8 years in which a person can collect unemployment payments, free medical care and other entitlement goodies. Therein is the rub as to what a "discouraged worker" is. Though many are discouraged, those with house payments and other obligations, the group of more irresponsible unemployed are often not discouraged but rather enabled workers.
The government enables them with freebies that discourages them from having any motivation to look for another job. If, suppose a worker making $15.00 an hour loses his or her job, it is not uncommon to hear that unemployed say , "I can find a job at $12 or $13 an hour, but why should I work for less when the government pays me enough not to work at all. And politicians keep pandering and adding on benefits to the unemployed in return for their votes, a tacit kind of extortion that working people pay for with higher taxes. I think some of those discouraged workers are really closer to being called irresponsible ones.
It was not so long ago that unemployment checks were limited to a mere 12 weeks per year......no more, and an amazingly high number of the unemployed got off before the 12 week period ended. but in those days, the government was not seen as mommy and daddy. People had far more self respect and self reliance was a value to be respected. They tried hard to support themselves rather than living off the taxpaying segment of the country. Today, for many it is easier and more profitable to sit home and collect from the myriad of entitlements.
Reduce the unemployment period back to 12 weeks and watch how many "discouraged workers" find encouragement to work jobs they consider beneath them. Take away the food stamps, ADC payments, subsidized housing, free heating/cooling bill programs, free school lunches and breakfasts for kids under then Nutrition Assistance Program, free health insurance through the Medicaid program, TANF ( Temporary Assistance For Needy Families), TAP (Trade Adjustment Programs) for those who lost a job because of overseas competition, and on and on. There are endless numbers of freebies today that did not exist in days when an unemployed worker accepted a lower paying job and received help from family and community organizations.
Gee...with the government making it so attractive to not work anymore, I almost feel depressed about having to pay for my own retirement. I wonder if I can declare myself unemployed too????
Though unemployment stands at about 9 and 1/2 %, many of those have no intention of taking another job, due to the U.S. government's absurd program of paying anyone out of work with 99 consecutive weeks of unemployment checks. 99 weeks! That's more than 8 years in which a person can collect unemployment payments, free medical care and other entitlement goodies. Therein is the rub as to what a "discouraged worker" is. Though many are discouraged, those with house payments and other obligations, the group of more irresponsible unemployed are often not discouraged but rather enabled workers.
The government enables them with freebies that discourages them from having any motivation to look for another job. If, suppose a worker making $15.00 an hour loses his or her job, it is not uncommon to hear that unemployed say , "I can find a job at $12 or $13 an hour, but why should I work for less when the government pays me enough not to work at all. And politicians keep pandering and adding on benefits to the unemployed in return for their votes, a tacit kind of extortion that working people pay for with higher taxes. I think some of those discouraged workers are really closer to being called irresponsible ones.
It was not so long ago that unemployment checks were limited to a mere 12 weeks per year......no more, and an amazingly high number of the unemployed got off before the 12 week period ended. but in those days, the government was not seen as mommy and daddy. People had far more self respect and self reliance was a value to be respected. They tried hard to support themselves rather than living off the taxpaying segment of the country. Today, for many it is easier and more profitable to sit home and collect from the myriad of entitlements.
Reduce the unemployment period back to 12 weeks and watch how many "discouraged workers" find encouragement to work jobs they consider beneath them. Take away the food stamps, ADC payments, subsidized housing, free heating/cooling bill programs, free school lunches and breakfasts for kids under then Nutrition Assistance Program, free health insurance through the Medicaid program, TANF ( Temporary Assistance For Needy Families), TAP (Trade Adjustment Programs) for those who lost a job because of overseas competition, and on and on. There are endless numbers of freebies today that did not exist in days when an unemployed worker accepted a lower paying job and received help from family and community organizations.
Gee...with the government making it so attractive to not work anymore, I almost feel depressed about having to pay for my own retirement. I wonder if I can declare myself unemployed too????
Face book Fools
Face book is the phenomenon of the past few years. It seems everyone belongs or looks at it at one time or another. It's so popular that the once predecessor of Face book and king of social network sites, myspace, is on life support and has changed from social networking to whatever it is they do and no one notices. The problem is in the popularity of face book we have some people who shouldn't be allowed to be on it, not just the pedophiles and registered sex offenders who have been banned from the site. And , uh, not us (because we are perfect for any site). I swear I don't mean you, me and the other "normal" people out there.
I admit to being registered there, but I do not post many things or participate much. I used to get some movie casting calls from a casting company from Face book, for instance. I had to use it for that and I was introduced to it long ago by an E friend. Most of the time we get sucked into web sites that way. It's not bad, but there are some even weirder people than us on Face book and the rest of those sites.
I'm talking about the people who will say whatever pops into their otherwise empty heads. And those who update their status without thinking and without purpose. People who engage in filthy arguments in pubic on line, who bully others, who discredit with false information by tampering with profiles, who use it to commit fraud they seem to have greater visibility on line at Face book than at ay other time.
So face book and other social network sites gives us a bigger platform for exhibitionism of all a sort, and as a venue for which the crazy can announce their craziness by putting it on display to anyone who wishes to look. Need some examples? Here are a few that were recently posted on Face book.
Deb wrote: "Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night."
Richard wrote: "Crystal hit a nail with her foot now aperently (sic) she has tetris in her foot."
Ashley wrote: "OMG ... OMG... OMG... My baby got my name tatted. Ahhhh ... I'm so excited! Happy 2 Month Anniversary baby! I LOVESS YOUU SOOOO MUCHH!"
Megan wrote: "Thanks for the buttercrotch ice cream.
"Anonymous wrote: "Forgot I was a natural blonde ... Apparently I dyed my hair to my natural color because I am clever."
Andy: "I am the best sniper you have ever seen."Iain responds: "Clearly you're not a good sniper if he's seen you."
Loren wrote: "Everytime someone likes/comments this status Michael has to drink."At least 53 people liked the status. There were at least 34 comments. We bet Michael is still drunk. Or dead.
Emily wrote: "When Erika visited me at Loyola, she put a Starbucks giftcard at the Jesus shrine on campus. Now it's gone. Whoever stole that giftcard is definitely going to hell."
Jack wrote to Eric: "So the girl I've been sleeping with for 3 weeks now just figured out I don't know her name, she went thru my phone and found our text convo where her name was brunette #4."
Haha I rest my case!
I admit to being registered there, but I do not post many things or participate much. I used to get some movie casting calls from a casting company from Face book, for instance. I had to use it for that and I was introduced to it long ago by an E friend. Most of the time we get sucked into web sites that way. It's not bad, but there are some even weirder people than us on Face book and the rest of those sites.
I'm talking about the people who will say whatever pops into their otherwise empty heads. And those who update their status without thinking and without purpose. People who engage in filthy arguments in pubic on line, who bully others, who discredit with false information by tampering with profiles, who use it to commit fraud they seem to have greater visibility on line at Face book than at ay other time.
So face book and other social network sites gives us a bigger platform for exhibitionism of all a sort, and as a venue for which the crazy can announce their craziness by putting it on display to anyone who wishes to look. Need some examples? Here are a few that were recently posted on Face book.
Deb wrote: "Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night."
Richard wrote: "Crystal hit a nail with her foot now aperently (sic) she has tetris in her foot."
Ashley wrote: "OMG ... OMG... OMG... My baby got my name tatted. Ahhhh ... I'm so excited! Happy 2 Month Anniversary baby! I LOVESS YOUU SOOOO MUCHH!"
Megan wrote: "Thanks for the buttercrotch ice cream.
"Anonymous wrote: "Forgot I was a natural blonde ... Apparently I dyed my hair to my natural color because I am clever."
Andy: "I am the best sniper you have ever seen."Iain responds: "Clearly you're not a good sniper if he's seen you."
Loren wrote: "Everytime someone likes/comments this status Michael has to drink."At least 53 people liked the status. There were at least 34 comments. We bet Michael is still drunk. Or dead.
Emily wrote: "When Erika visited me at Loyola, she put a Starbucks giftcard at the Jesus shrine on campus. Now it's gone. Whoever stole that giftcard is definitely going to hell."
Jack wrote to Eric: "So the girl I've been sleeping with for 3 weeks now just figured out I don't know her name, she went thru my phone and found our text convo where her name was brunette #4."
Haha I rest my case!
Longevity
I was in a grocery store the other day, in a check out line, and saw something unusual. Ahead of me in the check-out line was an elderly woman with a few items. She pulled money form her purse and carefully checked to see that the cashier gave her the correct change. I was amused that she was so intent on tracking her change and after she slowly pushed her grocery cart away and out to her car I jokingly told the cashier, "Well, she made sure you didn't steal from her. What a nice thing to see her so alert and functioning. She must be almost 90 years old." He quickly retorted , "No, she's 104 years old".
I was stunned, a 104 year old who, according to the cashier, makes frequent trips alone in her car to shop for herself. It was cause for reflection, apart from genetics, as to why some people age so slowly and some so fast. Since moving to Oregon that question comes up more frequently, as I read in the newspaper obituary column each day of a multitude of 90 year old plus, often a plus 10 appears too, people listed. There seems to be a some fountain of youth here, as people live much longer and live with more parts functioning longer than elsewhere.
Perhaps it is the great climate, which is neither extreme in heat and humidity or cold. Then there is the hiking and walking mentality in (often up hill in mountainous Oregon, that surely must help the heart and lungs and keep it younger. yet the diet here is not very healthy. Portland appears to be fast food heaven, in copious quantities too. Yet, perhaps the very old avoid that diet and live a healthy lifestyle that promotes what I saw in the form of that elderly, yet "young" shopper the other day.
And what part does stress and attitude play in longevity of life? I think this area, like New Orleans is quite laid back. The ambitious person often fleas Oregon, for ambition is not seen as dear in Oregon. Ergo, there is less stress among the population. The lack of stress is supposedly a key factor in longevity. It makes sense. So I decided to check records to see if Oregonians really do live longer than most other state residents. What I found was that Oregon has the 7th best longevity ratio among the 50 U.S. states.
Here is the list of top 10 U.S. states where people live the longest:
1. Hawaii with an age expectancy of 91.98 years
2. Colorado with an age expectancy of 91.76 years
3. New Mexico with an age expectancy of 91.60 years
4. California with an age expectancy of 91.55 years
5. Arizona with an age expectancy of 91.39 years
6. Vermont with an age expectancy of 91.38 years
7. Oregon with an age expectancy of 91.36 years
8. Washington with an age expectancy of 91.30 years
9. Idaho with an age expectancy of 91.15 years
10. Minnesota with an age expectancy of 91.15 years
See a trend among those places? Well, all except California (with the northern part of California being the exception and far more like the rest of the states) is more lightly populated and unpolluted. And all except California lack large minority populations, whose members have a high mortality rate from crime activities, drug abuse and poor health habits. Other than that I am not sure why ages are higher in those states. Personal history, lifestyle, nutrition, medical and family history are usually the factors controlling this statistic.
And what about longevity in my former state of Louisiana? It rakes 3rd from the bottom in longevity. But I must say, they sure have a whole lot more fun in New Orleans than those other places. .
I was stunned, a 104 year old who, according to the cashier, makes frequent trips alone in her car to shop for herself. It was cause for reflection, apart from genetics, as to why some people age so slowly and some so fast. Since moving to Oregon that question comes up more frequently, as I read in the newspaper obituary column each day of a multitude of 90 year old plus, often a plus 10 appears too, people listed. There seems to be a some fountain of youth here, as people live much longer and live with more parts functioning longer than elsewhere.
Perhaps it is the great climate, which is neither extreme in heat and humidity or cold. Then there is the hiking and walking mentality in (often up hill in mountainous Oregon, that surely must help the heart and lungs and keep it younger. yet the diet here is not very healthy. Portland appears to be fast food heaven, in copious quantities too. Yet, perhaps the very old avoid that diet and live a healthy lifestyle that promotes what I saw in the form of that elderly, yet "young" shopper the other day.
And what part does stress and attitude play in longevity of life? I think this area, like New Orleans is quite laid back. The ambitious person often fleas Oregon, for ambition is not seen as dear in Oregon. Ergo, there is less stress among the population. The lack of stress is supposedly a key factor in longevity. It makes sense. So I decided to check records to see if Oregonians really do live longer than most other state residents. What I found was that Oregon has the 7th best longevity ratio among the 50 U.S. states.
Here is the list of top 10 U.S. states where people live the longest:
1. Hawaii with an age expectancy of 91.98 years
2. Colorado with an age expectancy of 91.76 years
3. New Mexico with an age expectancy of 91.60 years
4. California with an age expectancy of 91.55 years
5. Arizona with an age expectancy of 91.39 years
6. Vermont with an age expectancy of 91.38 years
7. Oregon with an age expectancy of 91.36 years
8. Washington with an age expectancy of 91.30 years
9. Idaho with an age expectancy of 91.15 years
10. Minnesota with an age expectancy of 91.15 years
See a trend among those places? Well, all except California (with the northern part of California being the exception and far more like the rest of the states) is more lightly populated and unpolluted. And all except California lack large minority populations, whose members have a high mortality rate from crime activities, drug abuse and poor health habits. Other than that I am not sure why ages are higher in those states. Personal history, lifestyle, nutrition, medical and family history are usually the factors controlling this statistic.
And what about longevity in my former state of Louisiana? It rakes 3rd from the bottom in longevity. But I must say, they sure have a whole lot more fun in New Orleans than those other places. .
Perceptual Disconnect
Do you think people are realistic today? Are their perceptions true to the reality? I am not sure it is so as much as in former times, specifically, before the technology took over human attention spans. Too, I do not think many people ever ask those questions. They believe they live in the world at large and see it fully, but it might be that most of us have restricted our world view to fit the technology that has addicted humanity.
One example of this perceptual deficit is reality TV and the rest of the ilk that has bombard and enthrall so many of us. The great irony of Reality TV is that it has so obscured what reality actually is that we can not distinguish between reality and the mind numbing TV presentations of fakery and illusion that assault us in our mediums and represent themselves falsely. In a sense, today the dilettante has become the expert and the expert an anomaly, because our obsession with technology doesn't permit us to see clearly the difference between the two.
Kids and many adults today have created a world of their own making centered around electronic technology, a much smaller and much less enriching world than that of the pre electronic medium technology age. Being "connected" today means not knowing and participating in the world at large, but rather confining oneself to a few people and places and things who are also attached to the addicted mediums. I find that disturbing, for if we can not understand and do not care about the wide world it can be more easily manipulated by those who can and who want to shape it for only their own benefit. One must first be connected to the entire environment (the whole world) before connecting to a smaller one (the "circle" of friends and stimuli).
Perhaps the reason so many baffling judgments rule the world today is that we just don't know any better when making serious choices. It's why every American kid knows who Lady Gaga is, her act and her life, and so few know the names of any of the names of people in the community who really do impact their lives importantly. If we cast aside all TV's, cell phones, I pods, Blackberries and the rest of the adult toys that have enslaved our attention, might we not see clearly again?
The technology itself is not bad, but the etiquette for use was never written and adults instead are acting like children in a room full of cookies. They are gorging it and destroying their ability to find a more intelligent meaning to life. One can not exist on cell phones alone.
One example of this perceptual deficit is reality TV and the rest of the ilk that has bombard and enthrall so many of us. The great irony of Reality TV is that it has so obscured what reality actually is that we can not distinguish between reality and the mind numbing TV presentations of fakery and illusion that assault us in our mediums and represent themselves falsely. In a sense, today the dilettante has become the expert and the expert an anomaly, because our obsession with technology doesn't permit us to see clearly the difference between the two.
Kids and many adults today have created a world of their own making centered around electronic technology, a much smaller and much less enriching world than that of the pre electronic medium technology age. Being "connected" today means not knowing and participating in the world at large, but rather confining oneself to a few people and places and things who are also attached to the addicted mediums. I find that disturbing, for if we can not understand and do not care about the wide world it can be more easily manipulated by those who can and who want to shape it for only their own benefit. One must first be connected to the entire environment (the whole world) before connecting to a smaller one (the "circle" of friends and stimuli).
Perhaps the reason so many baffling judgments rule the world today is that we just don't know any better when making serious choices. It's why every American kid knows who Lady Gaga is, her act and her life, and so few know the names of any of the names of people in the community who really do impact their lives importantly. If we cast aside all TV's, cell phones, I pods, Blackberries and the rest of the adult toys that have enslaved our attention, might we not see clearly again?
The technology itself is not bad, but the etiquette for use was never written and adults instead are acting like children in a room full of cookies. They are gorging it and destroying their ability to find a more intelligent meaning to life. One can not exist on cell phones alone.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Record For Costumes
They had 17,000 New Orleans saints football fans fully dressed in all sorts of Halloween costumes on Halloween night for the Saints versus Steelers NFL game. The 17,000 costumed out of the 70,000 in attendance for the game supposedly set the Guinness Book of World Records record for the most costumed people at a single Halloween event. I wonder how they counted to reach that total? But it's typical of the idiosyncrasy of New Orleans and one thing I miss about leaving the city.
Though I wasn't there to see the costumed residents (and their beer) I have been reading quite a bit about it. The costumes were weird, but not Mardi Gras weird, which brings out creative ideas one would think impossible. There were those Halloween dressed whose talents in dead-person makeup and papier mache brought the spirit of Halloween to life, the usual store bought costumes (though New Orleanians usually prefer to make odd costumes), the skin showing "little clothed costumes" and more.The Saints won the game, so many of the costumes spilled out into the late night.
French Quarter air to frolic in celebration and to search for still more beer. Reports are the Quarter looked like a mini Mardi Gras. Oh, how I will miss this year's two week long Mardi Gras activities and Mardi Gras day. It's my first time ever not being at Mardi Gras. Portland is great, but no place is like New Orleans during Mardi Gras. Seeing some of the costumes the football fans wore that night reminds me of all of it.
Halloween, and to a far greater extent, Mardi Gras, allows people to express a part of their personality that isn't always socially acceptable. For better or worse, if one chooses to dress up like Raw Meat Lady Gaga....well.... it's all good, One can always turn his or her head if the costume is offensive or doesn't resonate. Telling a New Orleans to get in costume is like inviting a mouse to have cheese.
I wonder if the rest of the world understands the exhibitionism of New Orleans. But I doubt the residents there care.
Though I wasn't there to see the costumed residents (and their beer) I have been reading quite a bit about it. The costumes were weird, but not Mardi Gras weird, which brings out creative ideas one would think impossible. There were those Halloween dressed whose talents in dead-person makeup and papier mache brought the spirit of Halloween to life, the usual store bought costumes (though New Orleanians usually prefer to make odd costumes), the skin showing "little clothed costumes" and more.The Saints won the game, so many of the costumes spilled out into the late night.
French Quarter air to frolic in celebration and to search for still more beer. Reports are the Quarter looked like a mini Mardi Gras. Oh, how I will miss this year's two week long Mardi Gras activities and Mardi Gras day. It's my first time ever not being at Mardi Gras. Portland is great, but no place is like New Orleans during Mardi Gras. Seeing some of the costumes the football fans wore that night reminds me of all of it.
Halloween, and to a far greater extent, Mardi Gras, allows people to express a part of their personality that isn't always socially acceptable. For better or worse, if one chooses to dress up like Raw Meat Lady Gaga....well.... it's all good, One can always turn his or her head if the costume is offensive or doesn't resonate. Telling a New Orleans to get in costume is like inviting a mouse to have cheese.
I wonder if the rest of the world understands the exhibitionism of New Orleans. But I doubt the residents there care.
Non Issue Political Campaigns
I think we have gone from scary monsters of Halloween to scary politicians. It was election day two days after Halloween in many places in the U.S. where the politicians are the real monsters of the day. I have never seen as much vicious campaigning for the various congressional, governor and other state offices as in this campaign. Far too much time has been spent on phony controversies, on saying horrible things (mostly lies) about the opponent, and in general negative campaigning.Watching the campaign commercials on TV here and reading them in the newspaper has been a less than inspiring time.
Controversies such as whether one candidate is a witch, a Marxist or whether the opponent worshipped a deity named Aqua Buddha when he was in college have been the norm. It seems in the age of mindless technological obsession the candidates feel slandering through multi media is the best way to get the voters approval. The have dumbed down to the mind of the technological addict voter.
There has been an avoidance of substance in moden day campaigns, issues like the economic meltdown that should be addressed specifically but are altogether avoided or spoken of unrealistically. Instead we hear debate as to whether Muslims should be allowed to build a mosque and cultural center a couple of blocks from Ground Zero in an area that is already home to bars and strip joints, or which candidate wants to make old people starve by curbing some of their lavish and costly social security or medicare benefits.A huge imbalance between taxes and spending is driving the national debt to dangerous levels. Yet neither party has a credible plan to be honest with voters and tell them they must sacrifice to cure the sick country in which they live. "Pander, pander, pander" to the voters is the operative mantra for the typical politician today.
The public now seems to dislike and distrust all politicians. Political party has become irrelevant as voters just want their interests to be taken seriously and acted on more often than those of the special interest groups and political correctness groups that now dominate as the squeaky wheel getting the grease. Obama has lied and behaved as badly as Bush did, this coming after a "campaign of hope and change" turned into an administration of "more of the same" unrealistic policy and smoke and mirrors. Gallup Polls shows just one-fifth are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States. Yet they are frustrated about what can be done about it.
I wonder whether the public would get better politics if it put down it's cell phones, turned off reality TV shows, stopped begging for tax payer entitlements and started demanding realistic and better politicians who were serious about delaing with real problems. The myriad of real problems have been virtually ignored in the political campaigns (and ignored in congress and the presidency as well). U.S. forces are in their ninth year of war overseas, spending enormous amounts of money in a pair of wars Obama promised to end but has only expanded, reliance on foreign oil continues to increase, the old age entitlements of social security and medicare are bankrupting the country yet are viewed by politicians as political minefields that should be left untouched, a huge imbalance between taxes and spending is driving the national debt to dangerous levels and on and on...the real problems are ignored.
Instead, in this past election most of the candidates offered demons, attack ads, sound bites and fake quick fix answers in place of serious solutions. Perhaps it is a reflection of the lack of seriousness in culture today. After all, in politics the voters usually get what they deserve.
Controversies such as whether one candidate is a witch, a Marxist or whether the opponent worshipped a deity named Aqua Buddha when he was in college have been the norm. It seems in the age of mindless technological obsession the candidates feel slandering through multi media is the best way to get the voters approval. The have dumbed down to the mind of the technological addict voter.
There has been an avoidance of substance in moden day campaigns, issues like the economic meltdown that should be addressed specifically but are altogether avoided or spoken of unrealistically. Instead we hear debate as to whether Muslims should be allowed to build a mosque and cultural center a couple of blocks from Ground Zero in an area that is already home to bars and strip joints, or which candidate wants to make old people starve by curbing some of their lavish and costly social security or medicare benefits.A huge imbalance between taxes and spending is driving the national debt to dangerous levels. Yet neither party has a credible plan to be honest with voters and tell them they must sacrifice to cure the sick country in which they live. "Pander, pander, pander" to the voters is the operative mantra for the typical politician today.
The public now seems to dislike and distrust all politicians. Political party has become irrelevant as voters just want their interests to be taken seriously and acted on more often than those of the special interest groups and political correctness groups that now dominate as the squeaky wheel getting the grease. Obama has lied and behaved as badly as Bush did, this coming after a "campaign of hope and change" turned into an administration of "more of the same" unrealistic policy and smoke and mirrors. Gallup Polls shows just one-fifth are satisfied with the way things are going in the United States. Yet they are frustrated about what can be done about it.
I wonder whether the public would get better politics if it put down it's cell phones, turned off reality TV shows, stopped begging for tax payer entitlements and started demanding realistic and better politicians who were serious about delaing with real problems. The myriad of real problems have been virtually ignored in the political campaigns (and ignored in congress and the presidency as well). U.S. forces are in their ninth year of war overseas, spending enormous amounts of money in a pair of wars Obama promised to end but has only expanded, reliance on foreign oil continues to increase, the old age entitlements of social security and medicare are bankrupting the country yet are viewed by politicians as political minefields that should be left untouched, a huge imbalance between taxes and spending is driving the national debt to dangerous levels and on and on...the real problems are ignored.
Instead, in this past election most of the candidates offered demons, attack ads, sound bites and fake quick fix answers in place of serious solutions. Perhaps it is a reflection of the lack of seriousness in culture today. After all, in politics the voters usually get what they deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)