Father's Day is one of those "minor holidays" in the U.S. given that the average father is seen as far less important than the average mom. Let's face it. Society overemphasizes the role of the mom and underemphasizes dad's part in relating to the kids. It is unfair and I often find dad far better parents than mom, but Father's Day does give dad some recognition.
Here's the story how it started. Contrary to some belief, it did not start in order to help greeting card manufacturers sell more cards (There were no greeting cards in existence when Father's Day was started) or because of Mother's Day. Instead, it began in 1909 because a Spokane, Washington woman named Mrs. John Dodd decided to thank her dad, William Smart, for his selfless love after her mom died in childbirth.
It seems that William Smart was a super dad who raised his daughter (Mrs. Dodd) and five other siblings, showing strength and selflessness as a single parent dad. Mrs. Dodd proposed the idea of a Father's Day and the first was observed in 1910 in Spokane. Other cites picked up on the idea in the years that followed and in 1924 President Calvin Coolidge announced his support of the idea. From that point on (it was made an official celebration every 3rd Sunday in June in 1966 by a presidential proclamation from President Lyndon Johnson) the day was widely acknowledged.
So even though dads are often treated as second to moms, discriminated against and given less of a parenting role on this day we are appreciated and that is good.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Charge of the Cell Brigade
I had cell phone shock today. That is the cell phone abusers shocked be (again) with their rude behavior. I happened to be shopping in a store, minding my own business, not more than one minute in the store when it happened. I was surrounded by four chattering idiots (all of whom were female..hmmmmm...).
To loosely paraphrase the Tennyson poem (Charge of the Light Brigade) there were
"Cell addicts to the left of me,
Cell addicts to right off me,
Cells in front of me Volley'd
and thundered, Stormed at me in rudeness"
You get the idea. They were firing cannons of rudeness at me the whole while. I observed an anomaly, in that the four cell addicts represented 4 different types of the many kinds of cell abusers. They were:
1) "I don't care"- This one (who was to the left of me in that store) is oblivious to the world. The I don't care could be assaulted and would not give up his or her phone. Head down, intense look, and damn the world is what the I don't care is.
2) "I am a little embarrassed at my rudeness"- This one (in front of me in the store) chatters away, but in a low voice and with eyes shinning embarrassment as he or she converses through the phone. there is a look in the eye that says "Sorry for my rudeness. I can not stop myself."
3) "Can you hear me"- Maybe the most annoying of the four. This one shouts into her phone, either to let us know he or she is too important to be polite or because he or she is clue less about how obnoxious the behavior is. I could hear this woman's conversation 50 meters away. All of it was inconsequential talk, but she apparently could not bear to shop without the entertainment of her cell phone.
4) " I can't make a decision"- My God! I was subjected to a rambling monologue with this one. She could not make a decision about what to buy and just had to ask her husband (on the other end of the phone) whether to buy 2 packages or three and whether to also buy the thing at all. When she finally, reluctantly checked out her purchases she could be seen still debating her purchase with the other husband (who must either be an idiot or be the most patient husband in America). I was tempted to offer to buy her whatever she wanted if she would hang up and leave the store.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh Those cell addicts... I borrow from Tennyson again.
"Oh the wild charge they made!
All the store wondered.
No honor the charge they made,
Dishonor from the Cell Brigade.
Ignoble Cell Brigade."
To loosely paraphrase the Tennyson poem (Charge of the Light Brigade) there were
"Cell addicts to the left of me,
Cell addicts to right off me,
Cells in front of me Volley'd
and thundered, Stormed at me in rudeness"
You get the idea. They were firing cannons of rudeness at me the whole while. I observed an anomaly, in that the four cell addicts represented 4 different types of the many kinds of cell abusers. They were:
1) "I don't care"- This one (who was to the left of me in that store) is oblivious to the world. The I don't care could be assaulted and would not give up his or her phone. Head down, intense look, and damn the world is what the I don't care is.
2) "I am a little embarrassed at my rudeness"- This one (in front of me in the store) chatters away, but in a low voice and with eyes shinning embarrassment as he or she converses through the phone. there is a look in the eye that says "Sorry for my rudeness. I can not stop myself."
3) "Can you hear me"- Maybe the most annoying of the four. This one shouts into her phone, either to let us know he or she is too important to be polite or because he or she is clue less about how obnoxious the behavior is. I could hear this woman's conversation 50 meters away. All of it was inconsequential talk, but she apparently could not bear to shop without the entertainment of her cell phone.
4) " I can't make a decision"- My God! I was subjected to a rambling monologue with this one. She could not make a decision about what to buy and just had to ask her husband (on the other end of the phone) whether to buy 2 packages or three and whether to also buy the thing at all. When she finally, reluctantly checked out her purchases she could be seen still debating her purchase with the other husband (who must either be an idiot or be the most patient husband in America). I was tempted to offer to buy her whatever she wanted if she would hang up and leave the store.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh Those cell addicts... I borrow from Tennyson again.
"Oh the wild charge they made!
All the store wondered.
No honor the charge they made,
Dishonor from the Cell Brigade.
Ignoble Cell Brigade."
Slow Carb Diet
Want to try the latest trendy diet? You can forget the "Low carb" diet that just a year ago everyone was convinced was a divine panacea for weight loss, but is now scorned as being unhealthy and only good for short term loss. The new craze is not low carb, it's "slow carb".
It's what nutritionists call a low-glycernic-load, the key being to eat plenty of satisfying foods that can not quickly be converted into sugar. Supposedly, the slow carb diet is easier to follow because the food tastes a little better than the low carb diets provide to their followers.
So which foods can you eat in the slow carb diet I am not saying you need to lose weight....)? Here is a basic slow carb food pyramid:
- at the bottom of the pyramid ( which is the basis of the slow carb diet) are fruits and vegetables, cooked or served with "healthful oils"(I have no idea what that is, so don't ask me).
- Next comes reduced-fat dairy foods (which I think taste like water), lean meats ( Ugh...code words for dry and tough), fish, nuts and beans.
-Higher up- (these foods are meant to be eaten less often) are whole grains, unrefined grains and pastas.
-At the top of the slow carb pyramid ( meant to be eaten only infrequently) are refined grains, potatoes, and sweets (This addition could make me start this diet right now)
In the Ludwig studies comparing low carb and slow card dieters, the slow carb group consistently lost more weight and felt more satisfied with what they ate. They also were told to eat as much as they want (this diet "fills" the stomach quicker and reduces hunger pangs) and did so without weight gain.
After one year dieting, the slow carb group lost about 8% of their body weight, as opposed to a 6% loss by low carb dieters. Levels of blood fats were down 37% in the slow carb groups and only 19% in the low carb dieting group. Sounds better than the low carb foolishness, but I give this one about a year before it is replaced by the next money making trendy weight loss program.
It's what nutritionists call a low-glycernic-load, the key being to eat plenty of satisfying foods that can not quickly be converted into sugar. Supposedly, the slow carb diet is easier to follow because the food tastes a little better than the low carb diets provide to their followers.
So which foods can you eat in the slow carb diet I am not saying you need to lose weight....)? Here is a basic slow carb food pyramid:
- at the bottom of the pyramid ( which is the basis of the slow carb diet) are fruits and vegetables, cooked or served with "healthful oils"(I have no idea what that is, so don't ask me).
- Next comes reduced-fat dairy foods (which I think taste like water), lean meats ( Ugh...code words for dry and tough), fish, nuts and beans.
-Higher up- (these foods are meant to be eaten less often) are whole grains, unrefined grains and pastas.
-At the top of the slow carb pyramid ( meant to be eaten only infrequently) are refined grains, potatoes, and sweets (This addition could make me start this diet right now)
In the Ludwig studies comparing low carb and slow card dieters, the slow carb group consistently lost more weight and felt more satisfied with what they ate. They also were told to eat as much as they want (this diet "fills" the stomach quicker and reduces hunger pangs) and did so without weight gain.
After one year dieting, the slow carb group lost about 8% of their body weight, as opposed to a 6% loss by low carb dieters. Levels of blood fats were down 37% in the slow carb groups and only 19% in the low carb dieting group. Sounds better than the low carb foolishness, but I give this one about a year before it is replaced by the next money making trendy weight loss program.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Noise Pollution
Forget global warming, air pollution and all the other environmental concerns. There is a new one to be concerned with and it's not one the typical person would think of. It's noise pollution in the world's oceans.
Specifically, the oceans have too much background noise from military sonar blasts and overcrowded commercial shipping lanes that are interfering with sea life. Hearing is the main sense for all marine life, which uses sound for navigation and communication. Some scientists now believe that the spreading ocean noise pollution is blinding marine life, affecting feeding, breeding and other crucial activities.
In a sense, when the noise in the sea is too loud, the fish are confused and blinded. Having said that, it is impossible to measure sound disruption over the entire world ocean system. the information those scientists have gathered has been localized to high traffic areas that may not be representative of the oceans as a whole.
Also, underwater sounds seem to affect some marine animals more than others or to affect them in different ways. And can commercial shipping or the military ever change their ways and still do their jobs adequately? But researchers suspect that dumping so many new and loud sounds into the oceans is a recipe for disaster. It supposedly causes "masking", the condition in which the new noises drown out the natural ocean communications that sea life have always used. So will we have to now treat sea noise pollution as we do pollution on land, water and the atmosphere? It's something to think about.
Specifically, the oceans have too much background noise from military sonar blasts and overcrowded commercial shipping lanes that are interfering with sea life. Hearing is the main sense for all marine life, which uses sound for navigation and communication. Some scientists now believe that the spreading ocean noise pollution is blinding marine life, affecting feeding, breeding and other crucial activities.
In a sense, when the noise in the sea is too loud, the fish are confused and blinded. Having said that, it is impossible to measure sound disruption over the entire world ocean system. the information those scientists have gathered has been localized to high traffic areas that may not be representative of the oceans as a whole.
Also, underwater sounds seem to affect some marine animals more than others or to affect them in different ways. And can commercial shipping or the military ever change their ways and still do their jobs adequately? But researchers suspect that dumping so many new and loud sounds into the oceans is a recipe for disaster. It supposedly causes "masking", the condition in which the new noises drown out the natural ocean communications that sea life have always used. So will we have to now treat sea noise pollution as we do pollution on land, water and the atmosphere? It's something to think about.
Even At The Grocery Store
I saw it again today at the grocery store. It's the second time in two days and there have been many more times. What did I see that prompts me to mention this? You guessed it! It's another cell phone abuse to report.
It's bad enough that I have to listen to the giggling, laughing, loud talk, music and annoying rings of cell phones when I am in public. But now I see that employees of grocery stores are amusing themselves at work by chatting on their phones.
Today it was a stock person who was outside rounding up grocery carts. While pushing the carts he was in an animated conversation on his cell phone about his plans for Friday night. I wonder why the store doesn't supervise their employees better and why there is not a ban on personal phones at the work site. No doubt it's because the supervisors are similarly engaged in cell addition and have no idea that their workers are entertaining themselves while they work. Productivity and manners be damned! This is the age of cell phones. It's killing me..
It's bad enough that I have to listen to the giggling, laughing, loud talk, music and annoying rings of cell phones when I am in public. But now I see that employees of grocery stores are amusing themselves at work by chatting on their phones.
Today it was a stock person who was outside rounding up grocery carts. While pushing the carts he was in an animated conversation on his cell phone about his plans for Friday night. I wonder why the store doesn't supervise their employees better and why there is not a ban on personal phones at the work site. No doubt it's because the supervisors are similarly engaged in cell addition and have no idea that their workers are entertaining themselves while they work. Productivity and manners be damned! This is the age of cell phones. It's killing me..
Jesus Dolls
I've heard of people who claim to personally "talk to Jesus", but now it will be possible to talk to a Jesus doll. In fact, if that's not spiritual enough you can also talk to versions of Moses, the Virgin Mary, David and George Bush.
Hehe Just kidding about Bush, though he seems to think he is divine. It's all possible because a maker of teddy bears is trying to find a new market with churches and religious families. The foot-tall Jesus doll can recite five Biblical versus when a button on his back is pushed, will Moses will tell you all ten commandments and the Virgin Mary will be..uh.. virgin like and will recite a long Biblical verse.
It's a California based company called Teddy Bear Co. that has opened a Biblical doll unit called, One2 Believe, at it's factories, a new venture for the company. Guess how they are selling the doll? If you said "The Internet" you must be blessed with wisdom, because that's the method the company feels will make it not a Holy Roller, but a company rolling in profits. "In the beginning, we don't feel it's right to put it in Toys R Us and be next to a Barbie or a Bratz doll, " said company founder David Socha.
To sell on line One2 Believe has hired a marketing firm with expertise in reaching out to churches and church schools. That should generate enough sales to meet the expectations of the company. it says this year it will sell about 50,000 Biblical dolls (Jesus is suppose to be the biggest seller) at a cost of $24.99.
Given Jesus' attitude toward money changers and his preaching for the meek to inherit the earth, I think he might prefer to change the Biblical dolls into water... and probably hold Socha's head under until he decides to stop trivializing faith.
Hehe Just kidding about Bush, though he seems to think he is divine. It's all possible because a maker of teddy bears is trying to find a new market with churches and religious families. The foot-tall Jesus doll can recite five Biblical versus when a button on his back is pushed, will Moses will tell you all ten commandments and the Virgin Mary will be..uh.. virgin like and will recite a long Biblical verse.
It's a California based company called Teddy Bear Co. that has opened a Biblical doll unit called, One2 Believe, at it's factories, a new venture for the company. Guess how they are selling the doll? If you said "The Internet" you must be blessed with wisdom, because that's the method the company feels will make it not a Holy Roller, but a company rolling in profits. "In the beginning, we don't feel it's right to put it in Toys R Us and be next to a Barbie or a Bratz doll, " said company founder David Socha.
To sell on line One2 Believe has hired a marketing firm with expertise in reaching out to churches and church schools. That should generate enough sales to meet the expectations of the company. it says this year it will sell about 50,000 Biblical dolls (Jesus is suppose to be the biggest seller) at a cost of $24.99.
Given Jesus' attitude toward money changers and his preaching for the meek to inherit the earth, I think he might prefer to change the Biblical dolls into water... and probably hold Socha's head under until he decides to stop trivializing faith.
The Homeland Security Debacle
Today I want to write about a paradigm of how government scams the electorate by using fear and mirrors to garner support. Of course the Bush government did it with regularity, for it was the most manipulative and insincere U.S. administration of my lifetime. It's easy to kick them while showing how they operate. My example is what the Bush administration called "Homeland Security".
Homeland Security as a concept and as anew department in the U.S. government was created after 911 in an hysterical reaction to the terrorists event. Surely, the U.S. was lacking in security against terrorism, as all countries are. But the creation of that big spending program was not necessary. Politicians see new programs as an opportunity to win votes by giving lucrative contracts to friends and supporters at public expense.
In this Bush and company were unparalleled. In the first eyar alone nearly 5 billion dollars was been spent on screening devices to monitor U.S. ports, borders, airports, mail and air, and now the government says all the equipment is not good. Because it is unreliable (Can any government really stop all individual terrorist acts? I think not), ineffective or too expensive to operate, it wants to spend more to replace it all with what I think is more of the same.
This Homeland Security Department now says it can, for a few more billion, put a 'shield around America'. It is of course, a lie. New technology to do so does not exist and throwing more money at this project will only be an attempt to make political gain for politicans who sue the program as a scare tactic and company. Americans are falsely told they are "safer" and that if they do not support this waste, they are "un-American".
Here are some of the reasons why this spending is a waste.
1) Radiation monitors at ports and borders can not distinguish between radiation from a nuclear bomb and naturally occurring radiation (such as found in everyday items like ceramic tile).
2) It is physically and monetarily impossible to secure the huge number of ports in the U.S.
3) There are not enough air monitors in U.S. cities and there are too many cities to protect if they were effective.
4) Passenger screening at airports has proven to be no more effective than prior to 911 and it is unlikely ever going to be possible to adequately screen the huge number of air passengers, though the government still will delay us needlessly when we fly because so many people think they are safer. In the Bush world perception, not reality is 100 % of the reason to act.
5) Postal security is so bad (largely because of the difficulty of inspecting for biological agents in the mail) that only a small percentage of mail can be checked without avoiding huge delays in mail delivery that Americans will not accept.
Having written all of this, I now wait for the Homeland Security to be funded more and more money as Obama and his administration continue the shell game. The Bush Administration pretended to protect Americans and Americans pretend to be protected. It's an entitlement the Obama and other administrations to follow wil nto likely get rid of.
Homeland Security as a concept and as anew department in the U.S. government was created after 911 in an hysterical reaction to the terrorists event. Surely, the U.S. was lacking in security against terrorism, as all countries are. But the creation of that big spending program was not necessary. Politicians see new programs as an opportunity to win votes by giving lucrative contracts to friends and supporters at public expense.
In this Bush and company were unparalleled. In the first eyar alone nearly 5 billion dollars was been spent on screening devices to monitor U.S. ports, borders, airports, mail and air, and now the government says all the equipment is not good. Because it is unreliable (Can any government really stop all individual terrorist acts? I think not), ineffective or too expensive to operate, it wants to spend more to replace it all with what I think is more of the same.
This Homeland Security Department now says it can, for a few more billion, put a 'shield around America'. It is of course, a lie. New technology to do so does not exist and throwing more money at this project will only be an attempt to make political gain for politicans who sue the program as a scare tactic and company. Americans are falsely told they are "safer" and that if they do not support this waste, they are "un-American".
Here are some of the reasons why this spending is a waste.
1) Radiation monitors at ports and borders can not distinguish between radiation from a nuclear bomb and naturally occurring radiation (such as found in everyday items like ceramic tile).
2) It is physically and monetarily impossible to secure the huge number of ports in the U.S.
3) There are not enough air monitors in U.S. cities and there are too many cities to protect if they were effective.
4) Passenger screening at airports has proven to be no more effective than prior to 911 and it is unlikely ever going to be possible to adequately screen the huge number of air passengers, though the government still will delay us needlessly when we fly because so many people think they are safer. In the Bush world perception, not reality is 100 % of the reason to act.
5) Postal security is so bad (largely because of the difficulty of inspecting for biological agents in the mail) that only a small percentage of mail can be checked without avoiding huge delays in mail delivery that Americans will not accept.
Having written all of this, I now wait for the Homeland Security to be funded more and more money as Obama and his administration continue the shell game. The Bush Administration pretended to protect Americans and Americans pretend to be protected. It's an entitlement the Obama and other administrations to follow wil nto likely get rid of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)