I have a yu tube link for you, and you will find it very funny. Well, if you are a cell phone addict who bumps into a wall while texting, maybe not. But either way it's hysterical. Here is the link, take a look now.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20028751-71.html?tag=mncol;posts
Yes, she was so preoccupied with her texting at a Pennsylvania mall that she fell into a fountain of water. The only injury was to her pride, as she walked out of the water and, yes, resumed her texting. A mall security guard took the video and, as you can see, recognizing the woman (at first it was reported she was a teenager, but when her identity was revealed BY HERSELF ON NATIONAL TV she is a 40 year old who should know better) from the video is impossible.
But the desire to capitalize on one's own stupidity through litigation is a modern American trait. Yep, she is suing the mall for her embarrassment at her tumble into the fountain. The woman claims that her identity was revealed by the mall tape of her act of stupidity, yet could anyone identify her from the video of her plunge? Certainly not. It was only after appearing in national TV with her lawyer did the world see her full stupidity and realize it was she. It was her choice to disclose her identity, and I'll take a wild guess and say because she wants top profit financially from her incident.
Let's see..first I am so stupid I fall in a fountain because I am preoccupied with my cell phone toys. Then I sue a non winnable case so everyone will know who I am. ... We can only hope her phone was as damaged as her pride. I think she needs a phone to save her from that water seeking cell phone. Haha can anyone doubt that this must be the end of civilization.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Healthier Food Choices At The Grocery Store
News has come to me that largest grocery store chain in the U.S., Wal mart, announced that it will reformulate thousands of products to make them "healthier" and push its suppliers to do the same. This means that the healthy eating craze has now gone mainstream. As Wal mart goes, so goes the rest of common culture. This announcement means that other grocery stores will have to follow suit in order to compete for a customer base, since it appears enough customers have been indoctrinated into the "healthier food" consciousness now to justify appealing to them in the stores.
But what is a "healthy item"? That is a dilemma for both the food maker and the consumer to decipher. At present, there are many different labels on food products that claim that just about everything from donuts to tofu is a healthy choice. Few understandable criteria exist that identify some foods as healthy or not, largely because manufacturers have so confused us with silly health claims, we just don't know.
Wal mart's general plan is to reduce sodium and added sugars in some items (that is a nice plan if the taste aspect isn't eliminated in the process), build stores in poor areas that don't already have grocery stores (the poor here are the most obese and least healthy of all groups, given their lack of education about what is a "healthy lifestyle"), reduce prices on produce to urge consumers to buy more of that and to develop a logo for healthier items.
Since Wal mart is the monster of retail companies and can intimidate its suppliers to do what it wants, it will be interesting to see if the consumer agrees with Wal mart that he or she need buy the "healthier food". If the items Wal mart pushes are not tasty I doubt this campaign will succeed. Consumers are first loyal to taste, not the nutritional benefits food gives.
But is a carrot that sits on a grocery shelf for a week better nutritionally than a vitamin and mineral fortified surgery cereal? Is fresh fish, most of which are full of mercury and other chemicals absorbed from the ocean, better than a piece of fatty bologna? Is a multi grain, yet chemically treated, "health snack bar" better than a serving of strawberry flavored yogurt? The list of questions about what is desirable and not, and what effects eating both the so called healthy and so called unhealthy foods have are largely a blur today.
Until the grocery store shopper has a clear vision of what is best to eat, taste will continue to be the determinant for most shoppers. Like most fads in our non thinking, trendy and vacuous culture, this movement to a change in diet may be short lived. It could be that Wal mart will sell its "healthier" foods a few months, then discover those items won't sell well. The profit motive may force Wal mart to go right back to the snack cake and soft drink diets that the majority of shoppers seem to prefer.
But what is a "healthy item"? That is a dilemma for both the food maker and the consumer to decipher. At present, there are many different labels on food products that claim that just about everything from donuts to tofu is a healthy choice. Few understandable criteria exist that identify some foods as healthy or not, largely because manufacturers have so confused us with silly health claims, we just don't know.
Wal mart's general plan is to reduce sodium and added sugars in some items (that is a nice plan if the taste aspect isn't eliminated in the process), build stores in poor areas that don't already have grocery stores (the poor here are the most obese and least healthy of all groups, given their lack of education about what is a "healthy lifestyle"), reduce prices on produce to urge consumers to buy more of that and to develop a logo for healthier items.
Since Wal mart is the monster of retail companies and can intimidate its suppliers to do what it wants, it will be interesting to see if the consumer agrees with Wal mart that he or she need buy the "healthier food". If the items Wal mart pushes are not tasty I doubt this campaign will succeed. Consumers are first loyal to taste, not the nutritional benefits food gives.
But is a carrot that sits on a grocery shelf for a week better nutritionally than a vitamin and mineral fortified surgery cereal? Is fresh fish, most of which are full of mercury and other chemicals absorbed from the ocean, better than a piece of fatty bologna? Is a multi grain, yet chemically treated, "health snack bar" better than a serving of strawberry flavored yogurt? The list of questions about what is desirable and not, and what effects eating both the so called healthy and so called unhealthy foods have are largely a blur today.
Until the grocery store shopper has a clear vision of what is best to eat, taste will continue to be the determinant for most shoppers. Like most fads in our non thinking, trendy and vacuous culture, this movement to a change in diet may be short lived. It could be that Wal mart will sell its "healthier" foods a few months, then discover those items won't sell well. The profit motive may force Wal mart to go right back to the snack cake and soft drink diets that the majority of shoppers seem to prefer.
Iffy Prediction
Is China about to become the new world economic power, or is it going to wind up like Japan and Western Europe did. You remember Japan in the 19802;? Everyone was convinced that Japan's economy was so strong and the Japanese worker so productive that by the year 200 Japan would be equal to the United States economically. But looking at Japan today one could only say it is a mess and that prediction was far from correct.
And remember all the hype about the social welfare states of Western Europe. The European Union and the Europe were going to make Europe significant again. But looking at debt ridden, creaking, confused, irrelevant Europe today that prediction of Western Europe's rise to prominence seems more like a bad joke. Now Western Europe is renouncing the welfare state faster than a speeding bullet. Alas! It may take generations to undo the damage done there.
And now China flexes its muscles economically, socially and even militarily as it believes what the western world and Japan tell it. "You will soon be the number one economy and dominant power in the world". But hold on! There are just as many dents in that armor as in the Japanese and Western European predictions of the 80's and 90's.To question that idea first look at some facts about the remarkable rise from abject poverty in China to, well, abject poverty for many and wealth for a few.
1) China is rising only because it partially adopted the western free market economic system and plugged into the international markets the west built and sustain. But has Chine now reached a point where its totalitarian system is beginning to hamper use of those markets?
2) Surprise, surprise! the idea that China owns most of the U.S debt is a false one. In fact, ailing Japan owns 12% of the U.S. debt and China owns 11%. That hardly puts China in the position of dictating policy to the United States.
3) The per capita income level in China is about equal to Albania, not Australia or Argentina or most other nations. The huge wealth in China is in the hands of a very small group while hundreds of millions of Chinese live as badly as any place on earth.
4) China has not taken over western manufacturing. In fact, the closing of antiquated western factories and shipment of low skill production overseas would have happened even if there were no China. It's not a system that makes countries economically viable anymore.
5) The Chinese dictatorship is starting to get in the way of innovation and free marketing now. Given the stubborn refusal to open China to more freedom, their economy will slow gradually as a result. Without social and political freedom, there can neither be complete economic freedom nor any possibility of "being number one". I am bettering on the dictators there keeping their power, not surrendering it for more economic growth.
So, are you betting on China as the number one economic power in the world. I have grave doubts.
And remember all the hype about the social welfare states of Western Europe. The European Union and the Europe were going to make Europe significant again. But looking at debt ridden, creaking, confused, irrelevant Europe today that prediction of Western Europe's rise to prominence seems more like a bad joke. Now Western Europe is renouncing the welfare state faster than a speeding bullet. Alas! It may take generations to undo the damage done there.
And now China flexes its muscles economically, socially and even militarily as it believes what the western world and Japan tell it. "You will soon be the number one economy and dominant power in the world". But hold on! There are just as many dents in that armor as in the Japanese and Western European predictions of the 80's and 90's.To question that idea first look at some facts about the remarkable rise from abject poverty in China to, well, abject poverty for many and wealth for a few.
1) China is rising only because it partially adopted the western free market economic system and plugged into the international markets the west built and sustain. But has Chine now reached a point where its totalitarian system is beginning to hamper use of those markets?
2) Surprise, surprise! the idea that China owns most of the U.S debt is a false one. In fact, ailing Japan owns 12% of the U.S. debt and China owns 11%. That hardly puts China in the position of dictating policy to the United States.
3) The per capita income level in China is about equal to Albania, not Australia or Argentina or most other nations. The huge wealth in China is in the hands of a very small group while hundreds of millions of Chinese live as badly as any place on earth.
4) China has not taken over western manufacturing. In fact, the closing of antiquated western factories and shipment of low skill production overseas would have happened even if there were no China. It's not a system that makes countries economically viable anymore.
5) The Chinese dictatorship is starting to get in the way of innovation and free marketing now. Given the stubborn refusal to open China to more freedom, their economy will slow gradually as a result. Without social and political freedom, there can neither be complete economic freedom nor any possibility of "being number one". I am bettering on the dictators there keeping their power, not surrendering it for more economic growth.
So, are you betting on China as the number one economic power in the world. I have grave doubts.
Wikipedia is 10
Wikipedia is now past the 10 year old mark. Who would have believed 10 years ago that a free online encyclopedia would virtually kill most encyclopedia sales. It used to be we all had a big set of encyclopedias, usually more than 20 volumes in number. The book encyclopedias were accurate, a great source of information and even teachers in school let pupils cite remarks and information from them. They have long been an authoritative references, in contrast to the reader generated Wikipedia site.
I remember, about 10 years ago, seeing a beautiful set of Compton's encyclopedias for sale at a Big Lot's discount store at a price at least 10 times less than traditional encyclopedia cost. (I have my trusty 50's set from Compton's and I still use it from time to time) It was a sign that on line versions of Comptoms and the other prestigious encyclopedias had already won the war and would replace the book form. When I am in thrift stores I often see full sets of once valuable encyclopedias for sale. They rarely sell to anyone except book collectors. Too, few companies now publish a book form of encyclopedias, with their sales being on line or CD versions.
But even those are losing appeal to the sometimes inaccurate, but always quick reference Wikipedia. I suppose you use Wikipeda only sparingly, as I do. Wikipedia works best as an introduction to a subject. Since the articles usually cite references, one can investigate further whether the claims are actually true by clicking on links there or using information there to attempt to verify what one sees on the site.
I my view Wikipedia is a microcosm of the internet- it is cheap (free), is accessed quickly, has enough inaccurate information to confuse, is simplified in text and overall complexity, is open to all and is ever changing. It's no wonder so many (unfortunately) rely on it as an authoritative source of information. If any single source of information that is viewed by many as
"authoritative" best typified the anti intellectual age in which we live it is Wikipedia.
As for me, I will stick to my old encylopedias and traditional references as much as I can.
I remember, about 10 years ago, seeing a beautiful set of Compton's encyclopedias for sale at a Big Lot's discount store at a price at least 10 times less than traditional encyclopedia cost. (I have my trusty 50's set from Compton's and I still use it from time to time) It was a sign that on line versions of Comptoms and the other prestigious encyclopedias had already won the war and would replace the book form. When I am in thrift stores I often see full sets of once valuable encyclopedias for sale. They rarely sell to anyone except book collectors. Too, few companies now publish a book form of encyclopedias, with their sales being on line or CD versions.
But even those are losing appeal to the sometimes inaccurate, but always quick reference Wikipedia. I suppose you use Wikipeda only sparingly, as I do. Wikipedia works best as an introduction to a subject. Since the articles usually cite references, one can investigate further whether the claims are actually true by clicking on links there or using information there to attempt to verify what one sees on the site.
I my view Wikipedia is a microcosm of the internet- it is cheap (free), is accessed quickly, has enough inaccurate information to confuse, is simplified in text and overall complexity, is open to all and is ever changing. It's no wonder so many (unfortunately) rely on it as an authoritative source of information. If any single source of information that is viewed by many as
"authoritative" best typified the anti intellectual age in which we live it is Wikipedia.
As for me, I will stick to my old encylopedias and traditional references as much as I can.
Alzheimer's In Office
In his new book about his dad, Ronald Reagan's youngest son claims his father had Alzheimer's disease while he was still in office. Interesting for several reasons. First doctors say Reagan did not begin developing Alzheimer's until several years after he left office. I have always doubted that though, which brings me to the second reason I find Ron Reagan' Jr's revelation to be an interesting one.
It is because I told my parents the very same thing about Reagan when he was about two years into his second term in office. My parents voted for and liked Reagan. I did not. So we often discussed his pros and cons of his administration, and when I used to explain to them why I thought Reagan had the beginnings of Alzheimer I was told that my comments were just sour grapes toward Reagan, not real insight.. Haha Once my dad smiled and said, in his own unique way, "Pay no attention to Jim, he's a nut".
Hmmm... He may have a point there, but that topic, my sanity, is not the issue today.What made me think Ronald Reagan was beginning to fall into Alzheimer's disease probably had allot to so with the fact that in my visits to my late Aunt at the nursing home where she lived her final years, I often had conversations with many of the residents there (they were lonely and wanted someone to talk to....some even called me their "son").
I noticed that many of the same characteristics of some of those who had Alzheimer's in the nursing home, Reagan also exhibited, though his was to a far to a lesser degree. Most striking was the sudden and momentary blank look that came upon Reagan's face from time to time when confronted with a question that required memory retrieval. He was far too often confused by simple observations or questions, and too delayed in his responses. That was striking, and I saw other signs that Reagan's mental abilities were in decline. It was not simply "old age" at work.
Reagan's son says his father would have resigned as president if he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's while in office, and that the president had no inkling that he was showing any sign of the disease (unlike his son, almost none of the Reagan insiders publicly say that Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer's while he was President). But what if today a president of leader like Reagan has signs of it and is diagnosed with even very early beginnings of Alzheimer's. What if the Pope were? Would they or should they resign from office? At what point is their effectiveness as leader impaired enough to make one question his or her fitness as the leader?
Modern medicine, now better able to make diagnosis' about a person's mental impairment, may soon bring this very question to us. It's an interesting dilemma.
It is because I told my parents the very same thing about Reagan when he was about two years into his second term in office. My parents voted for and liked Reagan. I did not. So we often discussed his pros and cons of his administration, and when I used to explain to them why I thought Reagan had the beginnings of Alzheimer I was told that my comments were just sour grapes toward Reagan, not real insight.. Haha Once my dad smiled and said, in his own unique way, "Pay no attention to Jim, he's a nut".
Hmmm... He may have a point there, but that topic, my sanity, is not the issue today.What made me think Ronald Reagan was beginning to fall into Alzheimer's disease probably had allot to so with the fact that in my visits to my late Aunt at the nursing home where she lived her final years, I often had conversations with many of the residents there (they were lonely and wanted someone to talk to....some even called me their "son").
I noticed that many of the same characteristics of some of those who had Alzheimer's in the nursing home, Reagan also exhibited, though his was to a far to a lesser degree. Most striking was the sudden and momentary blank look that came upon Reagan's face from time to time when confronted with a question that required memory retrieval. He was far too often confused by simple observations or questions, and too delayed in his responses. That was striking, and I saw other signs that Reagan's mental abilities were in decline. It was not simply "old age" at work.
Reagan's son says his father would have resigned as president if he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer's while in office, and that the president had no inkling that he was showing any sign of the disease (unlike his son, almost none of the Reagan insiders publicly say that Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer's while he was President). But what if today a president of leader like Reagan has signs of it and is diagnosed with even very early beginnings of Alzheimer's. What if the Pope were? Would they or should they resign from office? At what point is their effectiveness as leader impaired enough to make one question his or her fitness as the leader?
Modern medicine, now better able to make diagnosis' about a person's mental impairment, may soon bring this very question to us. It's an interesting dilemma.
Sending Women Into Combat
Grab your rifle and combat gear. Guess what the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, established by Congress two years ago and charged with giving President Obama recommendations for changes in the military, says the U.S ought to do? Dismantle the last major area of discrimination in the armed forces by sending women into combat as front-line fighters, equal to men. "It is time "to create a level playing field for all qualified service members," advises the commission. In the U.S. military women are currently barred from certain combat assignments with most women now "in combat" behind the lines in combat support jobs, not on the firing line itself.
But what will Obama do in response? Who wants to be responsible when a daughter's body bag is brought home from a conflict? Yet, having equality means that there must be totally equality, even when it is uncomfortable to social customs and expectation. Opponents of putting women in combat question whether they have the necessary strength and stamina to fight in combat situations. They also have said the inclusion of women in infantry and other combat units might harm unit cohesion, a similar argument to that made regarding gays but that has now been eliminated. And they say that Americans won't accept the reality of large numbers of women coming home in body bags.
Proponents say it is discriminatory to send men to die while women, who have equality in all other aspects of society, are safely protected from the risks of combat. Too, with the gay soldier ban no longer in effect, how could anyone accept this discrimination against men? Too, by not sending women to fight on the battlefield, the military has made it harder for them to be promoted within the service because of that.
Current law in the U.S. requires only that males at age 18 register with the selective service department in case of a war that would require a call up of soldiers. Hmmmm being subject to death on the battlefield surely isn't what women's Lib leaders had in mind when the equal under the law push was so fervent. But in the end, being equal does seem to imply that women should take the same risk as men, even if it is upsetting to stereotypical images we as a society old of the two sexes.
But what will Obama do in response? Who wants to be responsible when a daughter's body bag is brought home from a conflict? Yet, having equality means that there must be totally equality, even when it is uncomfortable to social customs and expectation. Opponents of putting women in combat question whether they have the necessary strength and stamina to fight in combat situations. They also have said the inclusion of women in infantry and other combat units might harm unit cohesion, a similar argument to that made regarding gays but that has now been eliminated. And they say that Americans won't accept the reality of large numbers of women coming home in body bags.
Proponents say it is discriminatory to send men to die while women, who have equality in all other aspects of society, are safely protected from the risks of combat. Too, with the gay soldier ban no longer in effect, how could anyone accept this discrimination against men? Too, by not sending women to fight on the battlefield, the military has made it harder for them to be promoted within the service because of that.
Current law in the U.S. requires only that males at age 18 register with the selective service department in case of a war that would require a call up of soldiers. Hmmmm being subject to death on the battlefield surely isn't what women's Lib leaders had in mind when the equal under the law push was so fervent. But in the end, being equal does seem to imply that women should take the same risk as men, even if it is upsetting to stereotypical images we as a society old of the two sexes.
Auction Your Airline Seat
There are more signs of an economic crisis among the airlines these days. Delta Air is the latest U.S. airline to announce a desperate scheme to increase revenues. This one involves the common practice of airline passenger overbooking. Already for many years, the airlines have been reducing the number of flights while overbooking on the planes that do fly in order to counter the practice in which consumers change flights or cancel reservations. It's infuriating to be bumped but then, fliers are just as inconsiderate to the airlines by switching reservations at the last hours before flights.
But now Delta will start an online auction for seats with travelers bidding for seats that are currently occupied. If a flight is overbooked, travelers checking in at an airport kiosk or online will see a screen asking them if they'd like to submit a bid for the value of a travel voucher they would take to be bumped. Customers enter a dollar amount, and Delta accepts lower bids first. it seems to me more on the order of chaos than anything else. Supposedly, the other airlines will do the same if the Delta system cuts Delta expenses....and the flier be damned...again.
So no more of those announcements at the boarding gate in which the airline asks for volunteers to be bumped in exchange for a smaller cash amount and a rescheduled flight. By allowing would-be volunteers to submit their names via the bidding process, the airline hopes that will free up time for gate agents since they won't have to seek out volunteers and the agents won't have to work on additional compensation, such as hotel vouchers. If the auction doesn't work then the airline will follow the current bumping rules and regulations in place.
The new plan is simply a hope on the airline's part that it can reduce the expense of bumping passengers. But it will also be another aspect to flying that annoys the passengers and makes loyalty to a particular airline less likely. If Delta was concerned about taking care of passengers they would offer options other than these kinds of gimmick. For instance, t free premier status or free club membership for a period of time. These are things that don't cost the airline as much of anything yet could be seen as positive and a perk by some fliers. The sad scenario of bumping will continue in one form or another because consumers have manipulated the system to anticipate so many flight changes and cancellations.
Already charges for preferred seating, to book round-trip ticket by phone, for priority boarding, ticket change fees, fees to change flight to the same destination on the a same day, and baggage fees, curbside bag check, meal and beverage fees, headset/pillow/blanket fees, pet carrying fees, and unaccompanied minor fees are standard and are already alienating passengers.
Twenty years ago most or none were used by any airline. Rumor has it the next one to become standard may be the one to cause a revolt. The airlines are seriously considering charging a carry-on bag fee (by weight) and a body weight fee.
Now that's enough to make anyone jump out of a plane.
But now Delta will start an online auction for seats with travelers bidding for seats that are currently occupied. If a flight is overbooked, travelers checking in at an airport kiosk or online will see a screen asking them if they'd like to submit a bid for the value of a travel voucher they would take to be bumped. Customers enter a dollar amount, and Delta accepts lower bids first. it seems to me more on the order of chaos than anything else. Supposedly, the other airlines will do the same if the Delta system cuts Delta expenses....and the flier be damned...again.
So no more of those announcements at the boarding gate in which the airline asks for volunteers to be bumped in exchange for a smaller cash amount and a rescheduled flight. By allowing would-be volunteers to submit their names via the bidding process, the airline hopes that will free up time for gate agents since they won't have to seek out volunteers and the agents won't have to work on additional compensation, such as hotel vouchers. If the auction doesn't work then the airline will follow the current bumping rules and regulations in place.
The new plan is simply a hope on the airline's part that it can reduce the expense of bumping passengers. But it will also be another aspect to flying that annoys the passengers and makes loyalty to a particular airline less likely. If Delta was concerned about taking care of passengers they would offer options other than these kinds of gimmick. For instance, t free premier status or free club membership for a period of time. These are things that don't cost the airline as much of anything yet could be seen as positive and a perk by some fliers. The sad scenario of bumping will continue in one form or another because consumers have manipulated the system to anticipate so many flight changes and cancellations.
Already charges for preferred seating, to book round-trip ticket by phone, for priority boarding, ticket change fees, fees to change flight to the same destination on the a same day, and baggage fees, curbside bag check, meal and beverage fees, headset/pillow/blanket fees, pet carrying fees, and unaccompanied minor fees are standard and are already alienating passengers.
Twenty years ago most or none were used by any airline. Rumor has it the next one to become standard may be the one to cause a revolt. The airlines are seriously considering charging a carry-on bag fee (by weight) and a body weight fee.
Now that's enough to make anyone jump out of a plane.
Congresswoman Shooting
The shooting of the American Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by an apparent deranged lone gunman is firing off more than bullets in the media. We are hearing theories that it's proof that our open democratic society leads to violence, theories that the bitter partisan politics in the United States has encouraged some to commit acts of violence against those with whom they disagree (The left wing blames Sarah Palin and other right wing celebrities for their rhetoric that allegedly motivates violent acts.
The right wing blames liberalism for creating an entitlement age in which people have no self control), and we are hearing theories that society is somehow more violent today than in the past. There was even a claim by a Russian media person at apress conference with the White House Press Secretary that the shooting proves Russia has real freedoms and America only anarchy. Go figure. That outrageous claim comes from a representative of the Russian dictatorship, one with few individual freedoms and a long history of political violence, including the present day regime.
I think all those claims are wrong. Rather, the shooting was an emotional and perverted act by one crazy who acted out as so many have in the past here in America and in every other nation on earth. Political assassinations are not unique to this time. One need only read history of the U.S. or another nation for that matters to find many such crazed shootings.
One might even argue that the fact that the shooter is seriously mentally ill (his background is illustrative of that) rather than a political opportunist (as in Muslim fanaticism or a dictator overthrowing a nation's legal government) confirms that the political climate here, the society's mores and folkways, the media and all the rest of the demons some point to are not what critics say are the fault.
Whipping up hysteria after a tragic incident like the shooting is what mediums do to sell their information. But this is not the first of a series of political assassinations by people seeking a new type of government. It's just one crazy shooter acting out his paranoia. They should decribe the incident and leave the analysis to their readers.
The right wing blames liberalism for creating an entitlement age in which people have no self control), and we are hearing theories that society is somehow more violent today than in the past. There was even a claim by a Russian media person at apress conference with the White House Press Secretary that the shooting proves Russia has real freedoms and America only anarchy. Go figure. That outrageous claim comes from a representative of the Russian dictatorship, one with few individual freedoms and a long history of political violence, including the present day regime.
I think all those claims are wrong. Rather, the shooting was an emotional and perverted act by one crazy who acted out as so many have in the past here in America and in every other nation on earth. Political assassinations are not unique to this time. One need only read history of the U.S. or another nation for that matters to find many such crazed shootings.
One might even argue that the fact that the shooter is seriously mentally ill (his background is illustrative of that) rather than a political opportunist (as in Muslim fanaticism or a dictator overthrowing a nation's legal government) confirms that the political climate here, the society's mores and folkways, the media and all the rest of the demons some point to are not what critics say are the fault.
Whipping up hysteria after a tragic incident like the shooting is what mediums do to sell their information. But this is not the first of a series of political assassinations by people seeking a new type of government. It's just one crazy shooter acting out his paranoia. They should decribe the incident and leave the analysis to their readers.
Think India
Recently the accountant who handles my investments told me that I should sell some of the American stocks I hold and buy foreign ones. He mentioned those hot Chinese company stocks people have been gravitating toward, but also Brazilian and Indian stocks. It made me curious as to just how advanced Indian business has become. I knew that India is one of the hot places in which western businesses have relocated, but I was surprised when researching the Indian economy that India, not China, is now the most attractive foreign relocation places for The U.S. and Canadian businesses.
I recently a book, Think India, which makes that case. It is impressive one. The fact that India has the advantages of English language skills, management and IT education (India has several generations of it's elite trained in western business practices), a democratic government (The Chinese government can order a factory to increase its production but it can not order it to innovate) that does not inhibit western business, has a free media, no internal disputes (in particular, no ethnic disputes) and the innovation found in Indian business makes it more likely that India will replace China as the darling for western businesses.
India is far ahead of China today in total production, but the gap is closing and India is already, as I mentioned above, the number one relocation choice for western businesses today. It will be interesting to see if the authoritative regime of China winds up as the cause of halting the Chinese economic miracle as more and more Chinese citizens ask for more freedom. This happened in Russia in the early 90's after the collapse of the Soviet regime. And today, Russia is far behind both India and China in business productivity. Too, Russia seems in disarray politically which makes business run from it. I wonder if China could have the same fate as Russia.
I see also that the U.S. and Japan are backers of India, because they feel that India could be a stabilizing force in Asia as opposed to the Chinese threat to it. The support India has from western business and western governments is making it the more attractive alternative to China. It is said that already, because of the huge population in India, that the brightest 25% of India already outnumber the entire population of the United States. It seems we may soon have to get used to reading "Made in India" on the goodies we love to buy and consume.
I recently a book, Think India, which makes that case. It is impressive one. The fact that India has the advantages of English language skills, management and IT education (India has several generations of it's elite trained in western business practices), a democratic government (The Chinese government can order a factory to increase its production but it can not order it to innovate) that does not inhibit western business, has a free media, no internal disputes (in particular, no ethnic disputes) and the innovation found in Indian business makes it more likely that India will replace China as the darling for western businesses.
India is far ahead of China today in total production, but the gap is closing and India is already, as I mentioned above, the number one relocation choice for western businesses today. It will be interesting to see if the authoritative regime of China winds up as the cause of halting the Chinese economic miracle as more and more Chinese citizens ask for more freedom. This happened in Russia in the early 90's after the collapse of the Soviet regime. And today, Russia is far behind both India and China in business productivity. Too, Russia seems in disarray politically which makes business run from it. I wonder if China could have the same fate as Russia.
I see also that the U.S. and Japan are backers of India, because they feel that India could be a stabilizing force in Asia as opposed to the Chinese threat to it. The support India has from western business and western governments is making it the more attractive alternative to China. It is said that already, because of the huge population in India, that the brightest 25% of India already outnumber the entire population of the United States. It seems we may soon have to get used to reading "Made in India" on the goodies we love to buy and consume.
Labeling Claims
I went grocery shopping today, so get my observations, free of charge...no coupons needed. Not that it was an eventful trip, but I had plenty of time to shop. This led me to look and analyze the state of product displays. What I found is that the items are not offered as much on the basis of the tried and true consumer desire, that of price. Instead, most food items are now advertised on the basis of "healthy" value.
It seems every product alludes to how "healthy and natural" it is. This is curious because Americans keep getting fatter and sicker every year. I think those "healthy" foods are not holding up their end of the bargain. Take cereals for instance. No matter they be dry cereals (the kind with all that sugar inside) or grains like oatmeal and grits (polenta). Every one claims to be the healthiest, yet never gives a specific explanation beyond citing one attribute like " high fiber" or "all natural ingredients".
On a more intense glance at the labels on those cereals one comes to a conclusion. It is that that they are all about the same, and the only product differentiation is the many claims each make for itself apart form the others. The federal Food and Drug Administration is supposed to enforce truth in the package advertising, but time and again manufacturers lie or mislead without consequences. This is why I ignore all 'healthy" claims and buy whatever tastes best. Clogged arteries are not a bad thing if you enjoy clogging them along the way.
However, if an educated consumer looks behind the headline labeling and reads the required label giving ingredient and nutritional content, he or she a can understand better the claims made on the packaging. But here are some of the more ridiculous claims made that have been very successful in selling the products with these clams.
* "Supports brain development and the immune system"- One has to wonder if the "vitamin water" with that label is a drug or a leisure soda. Too, what does "support" mean. How much constitutes support? Drinking water surely supports the body but does it really develop the brain?
* "No trans fats" - Trans fats are to food what CO2 is to "global warming" wackos. They are both said to be lethal. But any product labeled as having no trans fats will probably have saturated fats that are just as hard on the body as the trans fats.
* All natural- it is said to mean there are no artificial ingredients whatsoever in the product. this is impossible because shelf life will not allow it. Too, "natural" isn't necessarily healthy. Nature has thousands of natural products that can kill one rapidly if ingested.
* "Light"- in reality, light means the product has water added to think it out and also has artificial sugars to make it taste better without upping the caloric count. At any rate, light products are often very unhealthy ones to eat.
* "Fresher"- I hate this term because it is completely subjective. The Subway Sandwich fast food chain has been suing that claim falsely for years and consumers have been sucked in by it in enormous numbers. In fact Subway is uses no fresher ingredients than any of the other fast food chains. Distribution and shelf life make all of the chain fast food sandwich shops the same as to freshness of ingredients used.
Those are few of the phony claims that will hit you hard when you enter a market to buy food. But looking on the blank faces of the shoppers in that store today I doubt any of them even want to know whether the claims are true or false. It's because the biggest lie of all would be to claim "educated consumers here".
It seems every product alludes to how "healthy and natural" it is. This is curious because Americans keep getting fatter and sicker every year. I think those "healthy" foods are not holding up their end of the bargain. Take cereals for instance. No matter they be dry cereals (the kind with all that sugar inside) or grains like oatmeal and grits (polenta). Every one claims to be the healthiest, yet never gives a specific explanation beyond citing one attribute like " high fiber" or "all natural ingredients".
On a more intense glance at the labels on those cereals one comes to a conclusion. It is that that they are all about the same, and the only product differentiation is the many claims each make for itself apart form the others. The federal Food and Drug Administration is supposed to enforce truth in the package advertising, but time and again manufacturers lie or mislead without consequences. This is why I ignore all 'healthy" claims and buy whatever tastes best. Clogged arteries are not a bad thing if you enjoy clogging them along the way.
However, if an educated consumer looks behind the headline labeling and reads the required label giving ingredient and nutritional content, he or she a can understand better the claims made on the packaging. But here are some of the more ridiculous claims made that have been very successful in selling the products with these clams.
* "Supports brain development and the immune system"- One has to wonder if the "vitamin water" with that label is a drug or a leisure soda. Too, what does "support" mean. How much constitutes support? Drinking water surely supports the body but does it really develop the brain?
* "No trans fats" - Trans fats are to food what CO2 is to "global warming" wackos. They are both said to be lethal. But any product labeled as having no trans fats will probably have saturated fats that are just as hard on the body as the trans fats.
* All natural- it is said to mean there are no artificial ingredients whatsoever in the product. this is impossible because shelf life will not allow it. Too, "natural" isn't necessarily healthy. Nature has thousands of natural products that can kill one rapidly if ingested.
* "Light"- in reality, light means the product has water added to think it out and also has artificial sugars to make it taste better without upping the caloric count. At any rate, light products are often very unhealthy ones to eat.
* "Fresher"- I hate this term because it is completely subjective. The Subway Sandwich fast food chain has been suing that claim falsely for years and consumers have been sucked in by it in enormous numbers. In fact Subway is uses no fresher ingredients than any of the other fast food chains. Distribution and shelf life make all of the chain fast food sandwich shops the same as to freshness of ingredients used.
Those are few of the phony claims that will hit you hard when you enter a market to buy food. But looking on the blank faces of the shoppers in that store today I doubt any of them even want to know whether the claims are true or false. It's because the biggest lie of all would be to claim "educated consumers here".
Word OF The Year
It's time for the word of the year report. And for 2010 the "Word of the Year", as selected each year by the American Dialect Society, is "app". Don't you just hate that word? Is it not used way too much? "nom, nom, nom, nom", the grunt by The Cookie Monster as he lovingly eats his latest cookie treat finished second to app this year. Selecting these two rather inane words as winners does indicate the depths to which U.S. culture has sunk.
Members of ADS who voted app number one claim that 2010 was the year the word became omnipresent, so they hate to pick it first. At least the winner isn't "like" or "you know". Nom" supporters simply liked it's cheeriness. "Tweet" and "Google" were last year's "Word of the Year" and "Word of the Decade." I think this year's choice is far less annoying. The words or phrases chosen as the winner do not have to be brand-new, but they have to be newly prominent or notable in the past year.
In addition to picking the word of the year, the ADS had category winners too. For example in the "most useful' category included "junk" and "fat-finger". The "most outrageous " word category included "gate rape" (term for those pat downs at security airport gates) and "terror baby" (a baby born to a terrorists family on U.S. soil in order to establish U.S. citizenship). There were ten categories, but I will spare you a review of each.
What's good about these kind of fun lists (I am sure the society of linguists who make these selections mean it only as a fun concept) is that it reminds us the power of English, how English more than any other language, is accepting of new vocabulary, even nonsensical words and phrases. It is proof that English is a living language and is an adaptable one. That might be why we can all understand the Paris Hilton's of the world when they utter "That's Hot!" or whatever else they grunt when they speak.A language is only as good as its lowest level of use and vocabulary. I think English has produced some delightful low level uttering to contrast to its more serious use.
Uh....for details of that nadir just read any of my writing here...
Members of ADS who voted app number one claim that 2010 was the year the word became omnipresent, so they hate to pick it first. At least the winner isn't "like" or "you know". Nom" supporters simply liked it's cheeriness. "Tweet" and "Google" were last year's "Word of the Year" and "Word of the Decade." I think this year's choice is far less annoying. The words or phrases chosen as the winner do not have to be brand-new, but they have to be newly prominent or notable in the past year.
In addition to picking the word of the year, the ADS had category winners too. For example in the "most useful' category included "junk" and "fat-finger". The "most outrageous " word category included "gate rape" (term for those pat downs at security airport gates) and "terror baby" (a baby born to a terrorists family on U.S. soil in order to establish U.S. citizenship). There were ten categories, but I will spare you a review of each.
What's good about these kind of fun lists (I am sure the society of linguists who make these selections mean it only as a fun concept) is that it reminds us the power of English, how English more than any other language, is accepting of new vocabulary, even nonsensical words and phrases. It is proof that English is a living language and is an adaptable one. That might be why we can all understand the Paris Hilton's of the world when they utter "That's Hot!" or whatever else they grunt when they speak.A language is only as good as its lowest level of use and vocabulary. I think English has produced some delightful low level uttering to contrast to its more serious use.
Uh....for details of that nadir just read any of my writing here...
Monday, January 10, 2011
Coyote Invasion
Do you ever see any coyotes there? I have seen coyotes on my street in this mountainside subdivision at night twice since I have been here. But it seems that is more common than I thought. The local newspaper had an article about coyote sightings which indicate they are now a frequent sight even in daylight hours.
Originally Coyotes were confined mostly to the Pacific northwest area of the U.S and parts of western Canada. But now they are being commonly spotted everywhere from Los Angeles to Dallas to some places in Florida. They are one of the few populations of animals that are increasing in number rather than decreasing.
Anyway, the article said that in Oregon people have taken to the idea of seeing coyotes run in their neighborhood because they are quite majestic to look at and offer very little threat to human safety. Because Coyotes like pet food (and will sometimes eat dogs and cats and even breed with dogs), some of the locals are putting dog food out which is attracting the coyotes into neighborhoods in daylight hours. Coyote, by nature never like to appear in the open urban in daylight.
Normally, coyotes eat mice, rats. insects rabbits and other small wild animals. This is good for an urban area. Feeding them dog food though makes them less afraid of humans and more likely to establish a habitat with humans. I think the coyotes I have seen on my street live along the side of this mountain. In a nearby subdivision it is said that animal safety patrols caught a woman actually breast feeding a coyote cub.
At another the whole neighborhood had organized a "feed the coyote" activity to attract the coyotes to their streets. It was so successful that coyotes are said to infest the entire neighborhood. I have dealt with alligators and nutria in Louisiana, but the coyote is a different kind of wild animal invader. It is less a harmful and quite beautiful to see as it lopes through a street, as a speed of as much as 40 kl per hour. I did see a raccoon run along the side of my house when I exited out of the front door one day, and any coyote that would like to eat it for lunch is welcome to graze for it.
Hmmmm I suppose you wish it would eat me instead. No chance of that. I am more than mouthful even for a pack of coyotes, and indigestion is not doubt side effect of eating me as a Coyote Happy Meal.
Originally Coyotes were confined mostly to the Pacific northwest area of the U.S and parts of western Canada. But now they are being commonly spotted everywhere from Los Angeles to Dallas to some places in Florida. They are one of the few populations of animals that are increasing in number rather than decreasing.
Anyway, the article said that in Oregon people have taken to the idea of seeing coyotes run in their neighborhood because they are quite majestic to look at and offer very little threat to human safety. Because Coyotes like pet food (and will sometimes eat dogs and cats and even breed with dogs), some of the locals are putting dog food out which is attracting the coyotes into neighborhoods in daylight hours. Coyote, by nature never like to appear in the open urban in daylight.
Normally, coyotes eat mice, rats. insects rabbits and other small wild animals. This is good for an urban area. Feeding them dog food though makes them less afraid of humans and more likely to establish a habitat with humans. I think the coyotes I have seen on my street live along the side of this mountain. In a nearby subdivision it is said that animal safety patrols caught a woman actually breast feeding a coyote cub.
At another the whole neighborhood had organized a "feed the coyote" activity to attract the coyotes to their streets. It was so successful that coyotes are said to infest the entire neighborhood. I have dealt with alligators and nutria in Louisiana, but the coyote is a different kind of wild animal invader. It is less a harmful and quite beautiful to see as it lopes through a street, as a speed of as much as 40 kl per hour. I did see a raccoon run along the side of my house when I exited out of the front door one day, and any coyote that would like to eat it for lunch is welcome to graze for it.
Hmmmm I suppose you wish it would eat me instead. No chance of that. I am more than mouthful even for a pack of coyotes, and indigestion is not doubt side effect of eating me as a Coyote Happy Meal.
How To Get Out Of jail....Without All Of Your Organs
Did you see the story about the kidney transplant/prison release? The governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, agreed to release two sisters who were serving life sentences in prison for leading two men into an ambush in Mississippi in 1993, on the condition that one of them Gladys, 36, donates a kidney to her sister Jamie (who will continue expensive dialysis the state of Mississippi has to pay for without the new kidney) within one year. Having spent 16 years in jail and facing a life in prison sentence, they took the offer. This kind of governmental action is most odd. The sisters have now been released, but there is currently no date set for the kidney transplant.
Organ donor trading is illegal everywhere and this offer borders on that. At the very least it is organ extortion. Even though sister Gladys came up with the idea for the deal, that a sitting governor of a U.S. state would approve of it is shocking. Governor Barber was a big wig in the Bush administration and is considered a leading a candidate for the Republican nominee to opposes Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. I can't imagine how trading organs for parole will help in that quest. But then what voters respond to today is hard to figure.
Obviously, there is great pressure on a prisoner to "donate" an organ if he or she is given release from prison in return. It is hardly a decision based on free will and sets a bad precedent for others in jail and as away for government to coerce citizens to do things it wants them to do. I remember a few years ago one politician proposed sterilizing welfare payment recipients in return for a guarantee to continue the many cash payment and other entitlements one gets here when she chooses not to work and instead live off taxpayer funding. The idea was it would be cheaper for the states to pay off the welfare ladies than to let them keep producing more babies (stats show that people on welfare have many more kids than those not on it) that require even more entitlement payments.
That idea was shot down quickly on the basis of it being coercive and as "racist" (due to the high percentage of blacks on welfare and having illegitimate babies). No doubt in this situation many will also protest it on the basis that it is coercive. I wonder if other states will copy this and release hardened criminals in order to save money, as is being done in this case. How does that put citizens in jeopardy from further crimes from those released? Too, the bigger question is whether government should become involved in private decisions about organ transplants, even if it is the payee (as in this case) for the treatment of the organ disease.
Finally, what other organizations or individuals might try to trade for organs given the example given by the state of Mississippi, a legal governmental entity that seems to endorse such policies? But I expect opposition to this kind of action to be so great that this one may be an exception rather than a new trend.
Organ donor trading is illegal everywhere and this offer borders on that. At the very least it is organ extortion. Even though sister Gladys came up with the idea for the deal, that a sitting governor of a U.S. state would approve of it is shocking. Governor Barber was a big wig in the Bush administration and is considered a leading a candidate for the Republican nominee to opposes Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. I can't imagine how trading organs for parole will help in that quest. But then what voters respond to today is hard to figure.
Obviously, there is great pressure on a prisoner to "donate" an organ if he or she is given release from prison in return. It is hardly a decision based on free will and sets a bad precedent for others in jail and as away for government to coerce citizens to do things it wants them to do. I remember a few years ago one politician proposed sterilizing welfare payment recipients in return for a guarantee to continue the many cash payment and other entitlements one gets here when she chooses not to work and instead live off taxpayer funding. The idea was it would be cheaper for the states to pay off the welfare ladies than to let them keep producing more babies (stats show that people on welfare have many more kids than those not on it) that require even more entitlement payments.
That idea was shot down quickly on the basis of it being coercive and as "racist" (due to the high percentage of blacks on welfare and having illegitimate babies). No doubt in this situation many will also protest it on the basis that it is coercive. I wonder if other states will copy this and release hardened criminals in order to save money, as is being done in this case. How does that put citizens in jeopardy from further crimes from those released? Too, the bigger question is whether government should become involved in private decisions about organ transplants, even if it is the payee (as in this case) for the treatment of the organ disease.
Finally, what other organizations or individuals might try to trade for organs given the example given by the state of Mississippi, a legal governmental entity that seems to endorse such policies? But I expect opposition to this kind of action to be so great that this one may be an exception rather than a new trend.
Rewriting Great Literature To Fit Today's Standards
There is an interesting controversy involving literature and censorship involving publisher NewSouth Books in Alabama and a Mark Twain scholar named Alan Gribben. It's political correctness perhaps gone wild. You can judge it yourself as to whether it is correct action or just a politically correct one. NewSouth Books announced it will publish the combined works of the 'Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' and 'Tom Sawyer" without the disparaging racial word, "nigger" replacing it with "slave" in an effort not to offend readers. Yep! They are rewriting Mark Twain's novels to fit the sensibilities of today.
The word 'nigger' (commonly used and accepted at the time Twain wrote the book) appears 219 times in Huck Finn and four times in Tom Sawyer. Most English teachers and have defended it as a realistic portrayal of the language at the time and not as a current commentary on a race of people. Yet Gribben is uncomfortable with it and says that "I want to provide an option for teachers and other people not comfortable with 219 instances of that word."
The question begs answering. Should literature be rewritten to fit contemporary standards or should it be left as written for the reader to absorb and evaluate? I choose the former position and feel it is more offensive to censor and edit an author's works than to leave the writing as written, even if some are offended by it. This move to edit history without an uproar from the academic community (very few academic types are opposing the re written version for fear of being branded "racists") is the type of thing that makes it so difficult hold a profession in general respect. I guess those in favor of the changes will also advocate censoring the bible. It is far more offensive than Twain ever was in it's use language and by any definition would not be considered to be politically correct.
And this censorship is not for "children" ( though I think works of literature should ever be censored). Gribben intends his version to be for all. Even in the case of children who read Twain, the censorship is hard to justify. Any child old enough to read Twain will already have been exposed to "niggger" countless times in medium, personal conversation and more. If troubled by the references, the child could be given a simple explanation about context use would clarify why the word appears, and if taught to students any competent literature teacher will broach the subject.
So is this useful classical revision or classic political correctness gone wrong?
The word 'nigger' (commonly used and accepted at the time Twain wrote the book) appears 219 times in Huck Finn and four times in Tom Sawyer. Most English teachers and have defended it as a realistic portrayal of the language at the time and not as a current commentary on a race of people. Yet Gribben is uncomfortable with it and says that "I want to provide an option for teachers and other people not comfortable with 219 instances of that word."
The question begs answering. Should literature be rewritten to fit contemporary standards or should it be left as written for the reader to absorb and evaluate? I choose the former position and feel it is more offensive to censor and edit an author's works than to leave the writing as written, even if some are offended by it. This move to edit history without an uproar from the academic community (very few academic types are opposing the re written version for fear of being branded "racists") is the type of thing that makes it so difficult hold a profession in general respect. I guess those in favor of the changes will also advocate censoring the bible. It is far more offensive than Twain ever was in it's use language and by any definition would not be considered to be politically correct.
And this censorship is not for "children" ( though I think works of literature should ever be censored). Gribben intends his version to be for all. Even in the case of children who read Twain, the censorship is hard to justify. Any child old enough to read Twain will already have been exposed to "niggger" countless times in medium, personal conversation and more. If troubled by the references, the child could be given a simple explanation about context use would clarify why the word appears, and if taught to students any competent literature teacher will broach the subject.
So is this useful classical revision or classic political correctness gone wrong?
No Universality
Who's in control in the world today? Who or what is the dominate force in our lives? I am trying to figure that one out and continuing to conclude the answer is "Nobody". Humans are drifting through their days today as the lack of a uniform code of behavior, standard of belief and cultural transmission is making us all isolated individuals. I think the transportation and communication technologies are the ocean wave we ride today, and that is probably not a good thing. They often steer us away from deeper behavior and toward the shallow.
It used to be that we had expected behaviors wherever we lived. Each nation's culture differed from the others and people identified closely with their own so there was a common cultural expectation. No more. Cultural mixing and contamination has produced an "anything goes" mentality today. For example, a person in China may have more in common with one in England than he or she does with most of the other people in China. It's because we have little to identify with today. There is no commonality apart from our technology and the surface cultural manifestations we see in films, books, material good etc. This is not helpful in forming bonds with humans and for establishing a fixed and stable personal identity.
I think this dissolution of identify began in the 60's and has been fast tracked today with more and more technology that people are embracing as they trade human contact for their cell phones, blue rays, computers and the rest of the addictions with which we now feel a closer bond. I wonder how this affects our sense of the quality of our lives. Many probably think they have a higher quality of life today, given their material possessions, but perhaps they are so blinded by those material things that they fail to realize the offerings of human contact and cultural transfer may be more meaningful and fulfilling to them.
We used to call the state of our current condition "cultural relativism" because only the things we want to be important is what is important to us. The rest, the common inks, are rejected. It is a negative state of being because it casts one outside of the mainstream culture. Today I have trouble even identifying a mainstream culture anywhere in the world apart from the most simple nations. And those are fighting (as in the reactionary islamic reaction to the "infidel world") to become what most of the world has become.
I think the lack of a universal guideline and replacement of it with endless other paths that lead to no common ground is an incorrect approach. Humans are not capable of picking and choosing what is best for themselves without a common standard from which to choose. They need a collective mentality to guide them. Once they have that, they can express their individualism within the context of the common culture. It's no wonder, for example, mindless Reality TV and cell phone addiction are the magnets for so many today. There is so little universality with which to identify, the most idiotic magnets seem the simplest and most attractive to us.
It used to be that we had expected behaviors wherever we lived. Each nation's culture differed from the others and people identified closely with their own so there was a common cultural expectation. No more. Cultural mixing and contamination has produced an "anything goes" mentality today. For example, a person in China may have more in common with one in England than he or she does with most of the other people in China. It's because we have little to identify with today. There is no commonality apart from our technology and the surface cultural manifestations we see in films, books, material good etc. This is not helpful in forming bonds with humans and for establishing a fixed and stable personal identity.
I think this dissolution of identify began in the 60's and has been fast tracked today with more and more technology that people are embracing as they trade human contact for their cell phones, blue rays, computers and the rest of the addictions with which we now feel a closer bond. I wonder how this affects our sense of the quality of our lives. Many probably think they have a higher quality of life today, given their material possessions, but perhaps they are so blinded by those material things that they fail to realize the offerings of human contact and cultural transfer may be more meaningful and fulfilling to them.
We used to call the state of our current condition "cultural relativism" because only the things we want to be important is what is important to us. The rest, the common inks, are rejected. It is a negative state of being because it casts one outside of the mainstream culture. Today I have trouble even identifying a mainstream culture anywhere in the world apart from the most simple nations. And those are fighting (as in the reactionary islamic reaction to the "infidel world") to become what most of the world has become.
I think the lack of a universal guideline and replacement of it with endless other paths that lead to no common ground is an incorrect approach. Humans are not capable of picking and choosing what is best for themselves without a common standard from which to choose. They need a collective mentality to guide them. Once they have that, they can express their individualism within the context of the common culture. It's no wonder, for example, mindless Reality TV and cell phone addiction are the magnets for so many today. There is so little universality with which to identify, the most idiotic magnets seem the simplest and most attractive to us.
They Banned, What?
Can you guess where this directive came from and what it's about? "Printing and producing any goods related to this day including posters, boxes and cards emblazoned with hearts or halfhearted, red roses and any activities promoting this day are banned," The directive said that "Outlets that violate this will be legally dealt with."
If you lived in the thug-ish religious dictatorship we call Iran, you would. It's the official announcement of a ban on Valentine's Day in Iran. Haha I thought Cuba was harsh when it banned Christmas one year because the sugar cane needed people in the fields gathering it more than they sitting on Santa's lap. Banning Santa Claus in Cuba was bad. Banning love is...well typical of those weird fundamentalist dictators in what was once the enlightened Persia that brought so many cultural and intellectual firsts to the world.
We should have seen this coming, because this is also the country that shaved off the lips of women who dared to wear lipstick and several years ago and even banned music for a time. Music! My goodness.... love, ,lipstick. After banning daytime sex it was only a matter of time that the mullahs would target Valentine's Day. So no Valentine's gifts for Iranian ladies this year. What other normal activity could be banned next? I am guessing it won't be a ban on the nuclear weapons that the Iranians are producing to "spread Islamic love" to us all.
The last man to ditch his Calvin Klein Jeans or sneak an ipod into the mosque is probably the an enemy of God in Iran. Organized religions can be intrusive controlling, violent, irrational......(Ok, enough religion bashing but I have more descriptive adjectives in my semi religious head if you need to read them) But the Iranians are trying for first place in the weird religious practices category.
However, this might be a good trend for we non fanatics if the crazy Muslim dictatorships and terrorists concentrate on banning love as opposed to spreading hate and violence to those who disagree with their view. Perhaps they will stop blowing up innocent "infidels" and murdering dissenting Muslims and instead start a less lethal "ban love" campaign. I think any repression they undertake, even that kind, will satiate their maniacal urge to control others. No more 'Hug you Iman'. Instead it's gonna be 'Slug your Iman if he hugs or loves'.
But there is fun in Islam land too. This holiday season they enjoyed their chestnuts roasting on an open car fire, jihad swiftly snipping off a nose. . . tiny tots with toy guns all aglow. Yes, a good fanatic Iranian Islamic knows how to have fun with his six wives (and at least one is probably 6 years old). At least Child Rape Day hasn't been canceled in Iran.
If you lived in the thug-ish religious dictatorship we call Iran, you would. It's the official announcement of a ban on Valentine's Day in Iran. Haha I thought Cuba was harsh when it banned Christmas one year because the sugar cane needed people in the fields gathering it more than they sitting on Santa's lap. Banning Santa Claus in Cuba was bad. Banning love is...well typical of those weird fundamentalist dictators in what was once the enlightened Persia that brought so many cultural and intellectual firsts to the world.
We should have seen this coming, because this is also the country that shaved off the lips of women who dared to wear lipstick and several years ago and even banned music for a time. Music! My goodness.... love, ,lipstick. After banning daytime sex it was only a matter of time that the mullahs would target Valentine's Day. So no Valentine's gifts for Iranian ladies this year. What other normal activity could be banned next? I am guessing it won't be a ban on the nuclear weapons that the Iranians are producing to "spread Islamic love" to us all.
The last man to ditch his Calvin Klein Jeans or sneak an ipod into the mosque is probably the an enemy of God in Iran. Organized religions can be intrusive controlling, violent, irrational......(Ok, enough religion bashing but I have more descriptive adjectives in my semi religious head if you need to read them) But the Iranians are trying for first place in the weird religious practices category.
However, this might be a good trend for we non fanatics if the crazy Muslim dictatorships and terrorists concentrate on banning love as opposed to spreading hate and violence to those who disagree with their view. Perhaps they will stop blowing up innocent "infidels" and murdering dissenting Muslims and instead start a less lethal "ban love" campaign. I think any repression they undertake, even that kind, will satiate their maniacal urge to control others. No more 'Hug you Iman'. Instead it's gonna be 'Slug your Iman if he hugs or loves'.
But there is fun in Islam land too. This holiday season they enjoyed their chestnuts roasting on an open car fire, jihad swiftly snipping off a nose. . . tiny tots with toy guns all aglow. Yes, a good fanatic Iranian Islamic knows how to have fun with his six wives (and at least one is probably 6 years old). At least Child Rape Day hasn't been canceled in Iran.
After Christmas Sale Merchandise
At what point do the after Christmas sales of "Christmas items" stop? It's hard to tell. I'm referring to things like Christmas candy (or better said, candy wrapped with Christmas decor), house decorations, that Santa with a clock in his stomach or the singing Christmas Chipmunk. There's plenty more, but you get the idea. After Christmas is over there isn't much of a market for that "stuff".
Many people wait until the after Christmas sale to buy their Christmas merchandise. The organized consumer faithfully buy its, pack it and opened and use it next Christmas. But most of us forget where it is and never find it for next Christmas. Maybe that's why I have 3 new Christmas tree stands in my attic I bought at 75% off during those sales.
Most of the after Christmas merchandise sales start at 50% off the day after Christmas. If you want the good "stuff" you have to accept a 50% reduction, but if you wait long enough you can get that Santa with the clock in his stomach for 75% off or if the store realizes no one is stupid enough to buy it, eventually at 90%. By the time prices fall to 90% off the selection is shabby and strewn all about the aisle. Odds are though, someone will buy it. In fact, there is no specific closing date to end those sales. Some last all the way through January.
It's only a guess, but I think whatever remains on the shelf after the 90% off sale has run it's course and the Valentine's Day merchandise (at full price) takes over the shelf space, the unsold Christmas merchandise is probably destroyed and written off on taxes the store is to pay. But some stores never discount remaining Christmas items. The Dollar store and Big lots, for example, never have those sales. In the case of the dollar store the one dollar asking price is already low enough to motivate the store to box and package the merchandise that is left over for next Christmas.
I bet if you look at your Christmas decorations you'll be reminded of things you bought after Christmas. In truth most of the decorations I bought (as opposed to what I inherited from my mother) was purchased at a big discount after Christmas. This includes Christmas cards. Christmas cards sit on the shelf largely unsold before the holiday, by after Christmas ends and they go on sale, it's like feeding time at the zoo. They quickly disappear. I think many of them are with me, because I have enough boxes of Christmas cards to send for the next 8 Christmas days. But that may be fewer than the extra Christmas string lights I bought after Christmas. Lights are another big seller after the fact.
Wrapping paper also sells well at after Christmas sales. But I never buy that I already have two huge Christmas wrapping boxes stored with it. Experienced after Christmas day shoppers don't pay much attention to wrapping and cards. They are well overstocked already and want more unusual or specialized items. Often they like the once expensive but now greatly reduced Christmas linen tablecloths or towels. For them, buying the Santa with the clock in his stomach would be unheard of.
Oh, am I taking you away from the after Christmas sales with my rambling monologue? You better hurry to the stores before they sell the last Singing Elvis Santa doll....
Many people wait until the after Christmas sale to buy their Christmas merchandise. The organized consumer faithfully buy its, pack it and opened and use it next Christmas. But most of us forget where it is and never find it for next Christmas. Maybe that's why I have 3 new Christmas tree stands in my attic I bought at 75% off during those sales.
Most of the after Christmas merchandise sales start at 50% off the day after Christmas. If you want the good "stuff" you have to accept a 50% reduction, but if you wait long enough you can get that Santa with the clock in his stomach for 75% off or if the store realizes no one is stupid enough to buy it, eventually at 90%. By the time prices fall to 90% off the selection is shabby and strewn all about the aisle. Odds are though, someone will buy it. In fact, there is no specific closing date to end those sales. Some last all the way through January.
It's only a guess, but I think whatever remains on the shelf after the 90% off sale has run it's course and the Valentine's Day merchandise (at full price) takes over the shelf space, the unsold Christmas merchandise is probably destroyed and written off on taxes the store is to pay. But some stores never discount remaining Christmas items. The Dollar store and Big lots, for example, never have those sales. In the case of the dollar store the one dollar asking price is already low enough to motivate the store to box and package the merchandise that is left over for next Christmas.
I bet if you look at your Christmas decorations you'll be reminded of things you bought after Christmas. In truth most of the decorations I bought (as opposed to what I inherited from my mother) was purchased at a big discount after Christmas. This includes Christmas cards. Christmas cards sit on the shelf largely unsold before the holiday, by after Christmas ends and they go on sale, it's like feeding time at the zoo. They quickly disappear. I think many of them are with me, because I have enough boxes of Christmas cards to send for the next 8 Christmas days. But that may be fewer than the extra Christmas string lights I bought after Christmas. Lights are another big seller after the fact.
Wrapping paper also sells well at after Christmas sales. But I never buy that I already have two huge Christmas wrapping boxes stored with it. Experienced after Christmas day shoppers don't pay much attention to wrapping and cards. They are well overstocked already and want more unusual or specialized items. Often they like the once expensive but now greatly reduced Christmas linen tablecloths or towels. For them, buying the Santa with the clock in his stomach would be unheard of.
Oh, am I taking you away from the after Christmas sales with my rambling monologue? You better hurry to the stores before they sell the last Singing Elvis Santa doll....
Heroes
When I observe the media today, more and more I see that it has changed the meaning of the word hero. It's probably because the media can make "heroes" of anyone, for any reason, at any time, even when the person anointed in no way displays heroic characteristics. In fact, what the media thinks you and I will find amusing or interesting it what it defines as "heroic". And sadly most people who read or watch the story of the hero that is created from non heroic substance believe it is so.
An example of this is the airplane incident involving an aircraft that crashed in the Hudson River, off Manhattan, in 2009, due to birds getting into and disabling the craft's engine. The pilot, Captain Sullivan, forced the plane down into the Hudson River in fear it would crash on land killing those aboard. It was a nice landing and what he and every other pilot is trained to do. It should have been the expectation. Yet the media and the public branded captain Sullivan as a "hero". To this day he receives adulation and status as that of the Greek Gods did....for simply doing his job.
In modern times, unlike the hero of classical mythology, the hero is often simply an ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances, who, despite the odds being stacked against him or her, typically prevails in the end. Nothing beyond what is expected is required. It is such a loose definition that according to it, most of us are also "heroes". But what Sullivan did was his job, as trained, nothing more or less than that.
I roll my eyes when I hear that anyone in the military who has been in Afghanistan or Iraq is a "hero". But that's what we get from both the media and in public discourse. "Support our heroes in the military" reads the bumper sticker. No doubt there are heroes among the military, those who go above and beyond reasonable risk and sacrifice and show courage in resolve in their action. But that is a minuscule fraction of soldiers. To describe anyone in the military as a hero is a slap in the face of the truly heroic soldier.
Athletes are not heroes because they score goals that decide a games outcome (they are highly paid entertainers). People with afflictions such as birth defects who overcome them to live a more normal life are not heroes (they are victims who adapt). Firemen who put out fires that put them in jeopardy are not heroes (they are, as Captain Sullivan, merely doing their job as trained and are highly compensated monetarily for doing it).
Heroes are those who go above and beyond what is expected at great risk and without expectation of compensation for their action. I think the reason we have so many alleged "heroes", most of which have been created by the power of the expansive mediums today, is because we want to create heroes in order to give some moral compass in the increasingly selfish era in which we live. It would be healthier if we tried to recognize real heroes engage in heroic activity or did so ourselves when presented with an opportunity for heroism, as opposed to creating false heroes to worship.
False heroes create false impressions and confuse us as to what the truly heroic is. A hero need not be famous or glamorous. In fact, most heroes go un noticed by the public. And that's the way it should be most of the time.
An example of this is the airplane incident involving an aircraft that crashed in the Hudson River, off Manhattan, in 2009, due to birds getting into and disabling the craft's engine. The pilot, Captain Sullivan, forced the plane down into the Hudson River in fear it would crash on land killing those aboard. It was a nice landing and what he and every other pilot is trained to do. It should have been the expectation. Yet the media and the public branded captain Sullivan as a "hero". To this day he receives adulation and status as that of the Greek Gods did....for simply doing his job.
In modern times, unlike the hero of classical mythology, the hero is often simply an ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances, who, despite the odds being stacked against him or her, typically prevails in the end. Nothing beyond what is expected is required. It is such a loose definition that according to it, most of us are also "heroes". But what Sullivan did was his job, as trained, nothing more or less than that.
I roll my eyes when I hear that anyone in the military who has been in Afghanistan or Iraq is a "hero". But that's what we get from both the media and in public discourse. "Support our heroes in the military" reads the bumper sticker. No doubt there are heroes among the military, those who go above and beyond reasonable risk and sacrifice and show courage in resolve in their action. But that is a minuscule fraction of soldiers. To describe anyone in the military as a hero is a slap in the face of the truly heroic soldier.
Athletes are not heroes because they score goals that decide a games outcome (they are highly paid entertainers). People with afflictions such as birth defects who overcome them to live a more normal life are not heroes (they are victims who adapt). Firemen who put out fires that put them in jeopardy are not heroes (they are, as Captain Sullivan, merely doing their job as trained and are highly compensated monetarily for doing it).
Heroes are those who go above and beyond what is expected at great risk and without expectation of compensation for their action. I think the reason we have so many alleged "heroes", most of which have been created by the power of the expansive mediums today, is because we want to create heroes in order to give some moral compass in the increasingly selfish era in which we live. It would be healthier if we tried to recognize real heroes engage in heroic activity or did so ourselves when presented with an opportunity for heroism, as opposed to creating false heroes to worship.
False heroes create false impressions and confuse us as to what the truly heroic is. A hero need not be famous or glamorous. In fact, most heroes go un noticed by the public. And that's the way it should be most of the time.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Baby Boomer Changes
The Baby Boomer generation (those born from 1946- 1964) got notably older on Jan 1st because on that day the oldest members of the baby boom generation turned 65 years of age. According to the Pew Research Center, for the next 19 years, about 10,000 people become Baby Boomers every single day. Right now there are 79 million baby boomers, about 26 percent of the U.S. population. It's an unprecedented domination of society by a single defined generation. Of course I have some stupid comments to make about the boomers. It seems they have changed quite a bit from the days of 1960's drugs, sex and other excess. They have become the sedate boomers, living like and embracing the same calm culture of elderly generations have in the past.Here are some changes I see in the Baby Boomers, from then to now.
THEN Now
marijuana laced brownies fiber cereal
"never trust anyone over 30" "the current generation of kids is no good"
no need for deodorant or make-up Botox injections, dyed hair color to hide gray
sexy leggings support hosiery
late night bar hopping early bird specials at the diner
sandals one pair of gray Velcro shoes to match anything
tight jeans expandable able waistband pants
illegal drugs antioxidants, vitamin supplements and laxatives
The Beetles The Beatles (well, some things never change)
anti materialism vacation condos
money is evil tax shelters for their wealth
liberalism rules! the Tea Party and conservatism rules
"Hell no, we won't go" to war) "Hell! I wish I could have a bowel movement."
'Love-ins' Viagra prescriptions
too young and irresponsible to drive a car too old and feeble to see well and drive
protest marches walkers and canes
loud music hearing aids
backpacking luxury cruises
reading political manifestoes watching reality TV and playing Soduko
THEN Now
marijuana laced brownies fiber cereal
"never trust anyone over 30" "the current generation of kids is no good"
no need for deodorant or make-up Botox injections, dyed hair color to hide gray
sexy leggings support hosiery
late night bar hopping early bird specials at the diner
sandals one pair of gray Velcro shoes to match anything
tight jeans expandable able waistband pants
illegal drugs antioxidants, vitamin supplements and laxatives
The Beetles The Beatles (well, some things never change)
anti materialism vacation condos
money is evil tax shelters for their wealth
liberalism rules! the Tea Party and conservatism rules
"Hell no, we won't go" to war) "Hell! I wish I could have a bowel movement."
'Love-ins' Viagra prescriptions
too young and irresponsible to drive a car too old and feeble to see well and drive
protest marches walkers and canes
loud music hearing aids
backpacking luxury cruises
reading political manifestoes watching reality TV and playing Soduko
It happened In 2011
Since year 2011 has now begun, and since I am the all-knowing, all-powerful seer of the internet, it's you lucky day. I am going to tell you what happened in the first half of 2011 even before it happens. This should provide ample savings for you as you will no longer end to buy newspapers, news magazines and will save time reading web sites about the events of the day. Just keep this delusional....err..informative page for future reference.
January- My first prediction is wrong on the first day of the year (a painful, but necessary prediction here)... Obama makes a speech in which he declares all taxes dead that everything is free....the stock market crashes in response to the latest Obama nonsense...a cell phone user in Michigan is actually observed using his phone in a mannerly way, shocked observers are rushed to the ER in response....Kwanga and Pongal are celebrated and 99% of the world looks confused and mumbles, "What is that about"...
February- On Groundhog Day a groundhog emerges and sees a TV with a Reality TV show on. The groundhog turns and goes back into his hole and vows never to re emerge...On Valentine's Day a single man somewhere in Asia actually buys a gift that his sweetheart likes....Most of the rest of the male species sleeps on the couch Valentine's night... a fundamentalist Muslim terrorist doesn't blow up others or even himself'.....North Korea attacks South Korea, surrenders 1 minute later and negotiates a peace treaty to receive 1 billion dollars in South Korean reconstruction funds.
March- while going through airport security screening, Paris Hilton exclaims "That's Hot"! It's headline news the next day. ...While in New Orleans for Mardi Gras I bare my breasts for the celebration and realize they are bigger than Angelina Jolies'....On St. Patrick's Day an Irishman is found in Dublin who is confirmed as being sober....nuclear weapons are fired at Iran by Israel but no one notices because it's the same day as the 'American Idol' finals
April- On April Fool's Day the Obama administration does not promise more entitlements, but every one realizes it's just a joke....April 2nd, 'Good Friday' passes without notice because it just wasn't a good day.....Earth Day is recognized and Al Gore announces "It's Global Warming and we're all going to die"! Al's global warm stock portfolio triples in value....Mariah Carey sings a song without using that inane falsetto trill. Concert goers accuse the promoters of identity fraud.
May- In a shocking turn of events, one of my E mails actually makes sense.....Barack Obama celebrates the arrival of the 50th million Hispanic illegal immigrant by announcing , "They all just want to work"... Reporters discover that the 50th million illegal is a drug dealing gang member whose last job was machine gunning American border agents....Mother's and arrives and I am asked "Did you really have a mother?".....The Chinese government blocks it's own web sites because they are "a source of anti state propaganda" The rest of the world immediately subscribes to receive them.....
June- Justin Bieber reaches puberty.....World reaction is shocked and a nuclear holocaust follows and only those awful cell phones survive. Martians arrive to take possession of what is left of the earth but wisely decide it's not worth the effort.That's it! Hoping the beginning of your new year is better than the rest of year will be.
January- My first prediction is wrong on the first day of the year (a painful, but necessary prediction here)... Obama makes a speech in which he declares all taxes dead that everything is free....the stock market crashes in response to the latest Obama nonsense...a cell phone user in Michigan is actually observed using his phone in a mannerly way, shocked observers are rushed to the ER in response....Kwanga and Pongal are celebrated and 99% of the world looks confused and mumbles, "What is that about"...
February- On Groundhog Day a groundhog emerges and sees a TV with a Reality TV show on. The groundhog turns and goes back into his hole and vows never to re emerge...On Valentine's Day a single man somewhere in Asia actually buys a gift that his sweetheart likes....Most of the rest of the male species sleeps on the couch Valentine's night... a fundamentalist Muslim terrorist doesn't blow up others or even himself'.....North Korea attacks South Korea, surrenders 1 minute later and negotiates a peace treaty to receive 1 billion dollars in South Korean reconstruction funds.
March- while going through airport security screening, Paris Hilton exclaims "That's Hot"! It's headline news the next day. ...While in New Orleans for Mardi Gras I bare my breasts for the celebration and realize they are bigger than Angelina Jolies'....On St. Patrick's Day an Irishman is found in Dublin who is confirmed as being sober....nuclear weapons are fired at Iran by Israel but no one notices because it's the same day as the 'American Idol' finals
April- On April Fool's Day the Obama administration does not promise more entitlements, but every one realizes it's just a joke....April 2nd, 'Good Friday' passes without notice because it just wasn't a good day.....Earth Day is recognized and Al Gore announces "It's Global Warming and we're all going to die"! Al's global warm stock portfolio triples in value....Mariah Carey sings a song without using that inane falsetto trill. Concert goers accuse the promoters of identity fraud.
May- In a shocking turn of events, one of my E mails actually makes sense.....Barack Obama celebrates the arrival of the 50th million Hispanic illegal immigrant by announcing , "They all just want to work"... Reporters discover that the 50th million illegal is a drug dealing gang member whose last job was machine gunning American border agents....Mother's and arrives and I am asked "Did you really have a mother?".....The Chinese government blocks it's own web sites because they are "a source of anti state propaganda" The rest of the world immediately subscribes to receive them.....
June- Justin Bieber reaches puberty.....World reaction is shocked and a nuclear holocaust follows and only those awful cell phones survive. Martians arrive to take possession of what is left of the earth but wisely decide it's not worth the effort.That's it! Hoping the beginning of your new year is better than the rest of year will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)