On Celebrity Boasts About Leaving The United States

The U. S.  2016 Presidential race will be, if nothing else, remembered as the most bizarre ever.  The remaining four candidates, two from the Democratic party and two from the Republican, each have the highest dislike ratio ever. And they are deserving of it. The "I dislike all of them" refrain (a sentiment which I share) is the most common sound one hears when asked which candidate is best. Because of his bluster and crude presentation, the media both loves (to so stories on him) and hates Donald Trump. To help the mediums promote the Trump is awful spiel are those air headed, ultraliberal, live in a bubble Hollywood actors and actresses. The "Im gonna leave" group usually consists of the least educated, post pretentious and most out of touch with real life members of the Hollywood society.

One example is an actress named Lena Dunham, who along with others of her profession has now threatened to move to Canada if he's elected president. Never mind dozens of left wing film performers did the same before George Bush won the presidency, none of whom actually did leave, Trump says he loves the idea of that self deportation.  In an interview Trump was asked about Dunham's comments  that she would definitely move to Canada if he's elected in November. “Well, she’s a B actor and has no mojo," Trump .

He then stated the obvious that other celebrities have voiced similar plans and that it all helps his campaign. "I heard Whoopi Goldberg said that too. That would be a great, great thing for our country if she got out," he said. "We’ll get rid of Rosie? Oh I love it," he said, referring to Rosie O'Donnell. "Now I have to get elected because I’ll be doing a great service to our country." Oh my.... as much as I would hate to vote for Trump, who I think is unsuited for the presidency, if those left wing Hollywood stars would leave as a result of his election....well...it's something to think about.

Taking Dunham as an example we can see their motivation. She has been has been an active supporter of the inveterate lying, pandering  for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 campaign. At an awards show in New York, she addressed the possibility of moving to Canada if there's a President Trump. "I know a lot of people have been threatening to do this, but I really will", she intoned. Wanna bet on that!  I have a better bargain to make with the Dunhams of the Hollywood scene. If they promise to leave now, I'll vote for whomever they wish. At least I can be certain the stench in the air will be lessened  when they move.  But then, I am not sure Canada is willing to take in a petulant brat like Lena.

Movie Texting

Which age group more frequently goes to movie theaters? It's the so-called millennial age group (the young and stupid). There is not doubt that the younger crowd, who grew up with visual technology in their blood stream, read less and watch movies more. In the United States, far fewer people go to movie theaters anymore. The expense, the annoyances the movie-goer is subjected to, the vacuous nature of most films the target  audience is the teen, and the content clearly bores most adults) have made movie going a dying pastime in the U.S.

Hmmmm How should those movie theaters bring in more ticket buyers to see their films? One bad idea that giant theater chain AMC Theaters suggested it would implement, and the quickly retracted after an avalanche of complaints, was to allow movie-goers to text in the theater. The movie theater chain first said yes to in movie texts and them announced "no way"  to allowing those phone addicts  to text during movies. Originally the "thou shalt text" in  movies nonsense was considered to attract more millennials. But even some of those movie-goers realized the chaos that would result from such an idiotic idea.

"We have heard loud and clear this is a concept our audience does not want," said AMC Theatres CEO Adam Aron said in a statement.  Originally, Aron he suggested making some theaters friendlier to movie-goers who want to use their smart phones while watching a movie. But he came to his senses after the barrage of complaints about that awful idea. "When you tell a 22-year-old to turn off the phone, don't ruin the movie, they hear please cut off your left arm above the elbow," said Aron. "You can't tell a 22-year-old to turn off their cell phone. That's not how they live their life."

So AMC will focus on other plans to entice more consumers to go to the movies, including investing more than $1 billion to enhance theaters and their systems. Better they should try more intelligent scripts, and try to make movie going  once again an adult experience. Aron now says in reaction to the texting during movies idea, "With your advice at hand, there will be NO TEXTING ALLOWED in any of the auditoriums at AMC Theatres, not today, not tomorrow, and not in the foreseeable future."

Score a small victory for civilization. The virtual lost to the sensible. I love it. And apparently most moviegoers agree. According to a national survey conducted by PEW Research, 95% of Americans polled said it's not OK to use a smart phone "at the movie theater or other places where others are usually quiet." Maybe the anti cell abuse campaign is finally finding traction.

30th Anniversary For Chernobyl

This April is the 50th anniversary of the is only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power to cause fatalities from radiation, the Chernobyl meltdown of 1986. I bet you didn't realize that. Though few talk about it anymore, the Chernobyl incident cannot be directly compared to atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons through a single number, with one being simply many more times larger than the other. Because the size of contamination the isotopes released at Chernobyl tended to be longer lived than those released by the detonation of atomic bombs, they produced far different results for the contaminated that a single nuclear explosion.

The good news is that Chernobyl was the result of inferior technology and incompetent maintenance and operation of the facility. It was the product of a severely flawed Soviet era reactor design combined with human error, something unlikely to happen with most reactors today. Key differences in U.S., European and Asian reactor design, regulation and emergency preparedness make it unlikely that a Chernobyl type accident could occur in those places using the better design.
 
But the problem of Chernobyl is not finished, it has only just begun. In one or two generations from now, the descendants of the population of Belarus and Ukraine that were affected by Chernobyl will vanish and the world may forget about it all together. That would be a loss to our understanding of nuclear contamination effects. The health effects of the Chernobyl accident have been the subject of much study by health professionals, scientists. But what we have now is only unprecedented speculation and exaggeration by parts of the media about what damage to humans and to the environment has been done by Chernobyl.

And the one time great "fear" of nuclear energy is all but gone from popular culture. Nations like France, which generates about 80% of its energy from nuclear reactors swears by the safety and economy of nuclear energy. But here in the U.S. it has been many decades since any nuclear reactor has been built. When those who believe in man made climate change are asked about nuclear energy many different answers come forth, from liking to hating the process. What do we know about and what have we learned from Chernobyl?

Given the secrecy of of the governments of the accident area and the inconclusive reports generated by those who tests to find the answer we know little? We are "in the dark" despite the accident and studies of the effects of it. We may never know. But we can hope on this 30th anniversary that Chernobyl was a one time event. It better be.

Passenger Shaming

There is a new cell phone contribution toward the never ending human cruelty towards fellow humans. It's passenger shaming, as in those Face book posted snapshots of oversized airline passengers violating their seat mates’ airspace or of travelers propping their bare feet against seat backs. How about the shots posted on Face book of the trash they leave behind after their flight. Those are but a few attempts to embarrass passengers, from a distance.....without their knowing about it or contesting the pictures if they are not what they may seem to the viewer.

We who have flown much in recent years, know that airline passengers can be rude and boorish, especially to the flight crew, who many passengers view as their personal servants or slaves. Some passengers probably deserve to be called out, but most don't. But now there is no choice for us, given those idiotic cell phone addicts can upload a photo of someone's bad in flight behavior without ever having to confront the person they same, nor suffer any consequences when they post something that is unfair to the subject of the post.

Where did the passenger shaming movement start? Well, with airline crew members, who are most often the abused persons on a flight.  Most of the original shaming photos came from airline crew members who couldn't believe what they were seeing . You know, those passengers who act like idiots or entitled animals. The word entitled is a key because many cell addicts who observe the bad behavior of their fellow passengers now think they are entitled to act as judge and jury, sentencing passengers (sometimes with their frontal facial views as part of the shame) to a posting intended to humiliate.

The airlines have now tried to stop their employees from using shame photo posts, but cell addicts are love the process an have taken over the shaming game. One wonders what behavior might actually deserve  photo shaming. Perhaps behavior that compromises passenger safety. But just plain old rude behavior seems to be no interest to other unaffected passengers. What about ordinary rudeness, like leaning your seat into someone's personal space or loading your luggage into the bin above another passenger's seat?  Might not a simple, private complaint to a crew member be a better way to protest against bad passenger? But then, outside of stopping their own employees from posting those shaming pictures under their real identity, airlines appear to do little to stop these anonymous posts.

Maybe they want them to believe the enemy is us. I am not sure of that.

Another Phony Cause

Another annoying trendy useless activity that is driving me (even more) crazy is this liberal crowd notion that food has to be labeled as GMO or non GMO. But why? It's silly to think that  food products that have been bred to be more resistant to disease and spoilage are any more "dangerous" to eat that the few non GMO crops left. Using science to make crops more resistant to drought or insects builds on the ancient practice of selectively breeding plants to produce better and tougher characteristics. It's normal!

And doing this in a lab at the genetic level makes it faster, more precise and more effective. But it also makes the climate change alarmist in the bubble types think that something devious is being done when science improves agriculture. The result is the same kind of "save the planet" misinformation and fear mongering we see in other trendy social causes,  The GMO critics are using such ignorance to make people afraid of what is good for them to eat and has saved from starvation hundreds of millions of people in third world areas.

The GMO fear mongers say that forcing companies to label genetically modified foods is simple. Don’t consumers have a right to know what they're eating, they exclaim? But labeling food  that way has risks and consequences its backers rarely acknowledge. On balance it's a bad idea. A key reason is that it validates the notion that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are dangerous. This is absolutely false. But then, when did the environmental extremists ever use reason as a basis for their spurious claims. After looking at more than 130 research projects over a quarter century, for example,  the European Union found that GMOs “are not per se more risky than … conventional plant breeding.”

The risk from mandatory GMO labeling is the promotion of unfounded fear and the fact that the food industry will have to respond by producing fewer GMO products. That could have a particularly murderous impact in poorer parts of the world, where food is already scarcer and more expensive, where GMOs mark the difference between eating or starvation I say, let the GMO fanatics use those voluntary labels that sates boldly that a product is  non GMO. The manufacturers are happy to deceive consumers into wasting their money on expensive non GMO products and can selectively label their pitch toward the gullible "save the planet" crowd.

It's bad enough that shoppers today must sift through all the phony claims that are labeled on food. From "all natural" to "natural" to "organic" to the seemingly endless other specific food labels. I say the only sensible label to require today is "FSO". That would be "For Stupid Only" consumers who believe every idiotic claim made by every charlatan who dips more deeply into their pockets with each label.

Rules For A Better Flight

I read an article about flying today. In it the "experts" pontificated (probably from their first class airplane seat, paid in full by their employer) on how we should best meet the demands and stresses of flying on an airplane these days. According to them we should do the following when we fly:

1) Drink plenty of water so we can hydrate-  They even say we should drink a quart of water for every four hours we are in the air. Hmmm In most of the airports I use the passenger must dispose of all water or any liquid when going through the torture chamber called "security". Thus, the option to buy a small bottle at the boarding gate means one must either refinance his mortgage by paying for the most inflated price item ever sold by a human, or wait until after boarding the plane, where futilely begging for a small cup of water is about the only option left.

2) Never take that sleeping pill once on the flight-  If you do and the flight is delayed, they say, you're knocked out by the time it's time to board the replacement flight. And they we are barely rouse ourselves s when it's time to de-plane. I have doubts about this also. There are times when the crying baby, or loud conversations or the miserable kids kicking my seat make me want to take an entire a bottle of pills. Heck! I may go for heroine to shut that out. I say the drowsy state the experts warn about are nothing compared to hours of dysfunctional human behaviors endured on board.

3) Do not drink alcohol on board- They recommend that passengers avoid alcohol altogether if they want to leave the plane feeling rested and refreshed. I don't drink alcohol any time, but I notice those passengers who consume a few of those $10 bottle of airplane wine seem to have more fun on board than I do.  Come to think of it, some of them are so rested they need to be carried off the plane. Their contented smiles don't seem so bad to me.

4) Pick the best seat as soon as possible- That's common sense, and also something many people don't do. I am one that wants an aisle seat, and I pick my seat as soon as I buy my ticket. However, with the airlines bumping passengers faster than Barrack Obama tells lies. I always seem to get the center seat on the rescheduled flight. We are in an age of airline supremacy. A seat selected is not exactly a seat assigned.

5) Bring the food you want to eat on the flight- I have been able to resist buying that overprices, junk food the airlines sell after sitting an extra 12 hours in an airport due to flight delays. But my soggy turkey on french isn't that appealing either. My solution is to fight off the hunger with meditation. You know, I meditate about stupid things like these flight comments. Sorry.

I hope you read these remarks carefully but are smart enough to ignore them. After all, we are all prisoners of the torture chamber the airlines call the aircraft vehicle and might be wiser to just suffer in silence.

Dying April Fool's Day Tradition

I survived April Fool's Day this year.  No one played a single joke on me, which is a mixed blessing because it means I am either too esteemed to be pranked or I am too irrelevant to be the subject of a simple AFD joke. Hmmm It's probably the latter. But I was thinking about that curious day, about how it has changed from what it was when I was a child. I think April Fool's day is like AM radio, it's a dying species due to lack of interest. But why?

It might be that we play fewer silly jokes on each other today because political correctness does not allow anymore for much humor. I suspect every April Fool joke today "hurts the feelings" of the pranked too much to risk pranking him. My goodness! If a person is not a white, Caucasian male today, one dare not do or say anything in jest against he or she. The targets are too few and far between today to expend the energy of creating an April Fool's joke. Maybe that's why I never hear any of those Polish or Italian jokes anymore. That's sad.

On April 1st there should be amnesty on all laws relating to defamation and political correctness-apart from those encouraging violence. I should be able to tease a woman, or member of a minority and, yes, even a transgender person. Wait....I forgot that the transgendered being is the sacred being. Better exempt that one form the amnesty. April Fool's Day could become the one true day of freedom and equality, a day in which people are not "special" because of their minority status. But then, could it happen that way?

I guess the April Fool joke is on me, because I suspect society is too far gone into political correctness to ever again see its members be able to laugh at and with each other at the same time. And, sadly, that's no joke.