The internet sites are a blaze with year end lists and one I have found that has some variance and is fun is the 'Top Political Phrase's' of 2010 lists. There are several and the duplications aren't as frequent as one might think, probably because in this age of mean spirited political election campaigns, deliberate attempt to obscure or lie by using catchy words, and because most voters have such a limited vocabulary theses days suing deceitful phrases or words like we see on car bumpers seems to work well ion politics.
So in the spirit of the horrid political worlds in which we all live, here are twelve of 2010's most overused, attention getting and perplexing words and phrases used by those politicians (and suck-up-to-them journalists) we so love to hate.
* Refudiate- This is a word Sarah Palin accidentally coined when she confused the real word "repudiate" with her own uneducated version, "refudiate". When caught in her mistake in saying the non word several times in a speech, Sarah said she meant to misuse the word because "English is a living language" and 'Shakespeare liked to coin new words too' Haha I don't think Shakespeare and Sarah are much of an intellectual.
* Anchor baby- These are babies born to illegal immigrants. Because the U.S. Constitution says that anyone born on U.SA. spoil is given automatic U.S. citizenship, during the past 40 years, 40 million illegal immigrants from the border of Mexico and the U.S. have poured in to stay for good, many intending to have a baby so they and their baby can never be deported. The chant for those wanting the illegal immigrant invasion stopped is often, "No more anchor babies".
* Man up- Female candidates for election in the U.S. said this to their male opponents to disarm them. It was a taunt for all sorts of male politicians who were, according to the female a opponent, weren't being forceful enough. One candidate Christine O'Donnell told her opponent, "This is not a bake off, get your man-pants on".
* Obamacare - the negative connotative name opponents of President Obama's health care plan gave to it to brand his with the mostly unpopular and unwanted socialist medical system passed by Congress at Obama's insistence.
* Inherited- Obama's constant explanation of why his policies have failed so consistently since taking office. "I inherited the mess from George Bush".
* Bailout- The term some politicians in congress use for the latest unpaid entitlement they pass for that segment who will most likely thank them for their freebie by voting for them next election.
*Stop playing political games- what politicians say about anyone who oppose them when they are about to lie to the voters. It's a defense by offense tactic that voters don't seem to understand.
* The change we can believe in- Originally this was a mantra by Obama and his supporters to appeal to voters to elect Obama. Now, after two years of failure and ineptitude, the Republicans say it derisively to point out to voters that the changes Obama promised while campaigning aren't at all the same changes they are currently seeing.
* We need more time to debate the bill- The Republican chant applied to anything the Democrats or President Obama wants. It actually means, "Let's delay and delay this Obama measure until we kill the bill completely".
* Non partisan- when Obama wants a terrible bill passed by Congress and needs Republican votes to do it, he calls for "non partisan" cooperation. But the reality is that this means he wants Republicans to agree with and vote for their programs.
*Stimulus Bill- A measure passed by Congress that is supposed to stimulated the economy and end the recession, but only stimulates a lot of politicians' pockets.
* Tea party- a completely disorganized grass roots political movement in opposition to the socialism of modern America and Obamaism that has upset the balance of power in the U.S. government.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Is It Really A Crime?
Can a wife can expect to have privacy with a computer she shares with her husband? That is, is it identity theft for a husband or wife to enter the other's mailbox and read his or her mail, even if in a despearte attempt to catch the other committing a wrong? Well, the head prosecutor in Michigan thinks it is. He has accepted felony charges against a man named Leon Walker after Leon did just that in an attempt to try to see if his wife was having an affair with another man.
Oh, my. Now Leon could go to jail (up to 5 years in this case) for spying in his soon to be ex wife's computer cheating. The Mrs. was so upset at getting caught cheating that she filed not only for divorce from Leon, but also asked that Leon be arrested and charged with hacking into another E mail. Leon says he was protecting his child from a cheating mom because mom was having a relationship with a registered wife beater who was a danger to Leon's son. Anyway, Leon has been arrested, charged and goes to trial soon.
I find the whole idea of a prosecutor trying to send a person to jail for the common "crime" of looking at a spouse's mail a bit extreme application of a law that is meant for more malicious instances of identity theft, stealing secrets for financial gain, slandering others etc.? Is listening in on a telephone conversation one's wife is having with a lover a crime too? What about the wife's adultery in this instance, which has been admitted by her? Is that prosecutable offense too? Technically that isalso illegal, but no charges have been filed against Mrs. Walker by that prosecutor for the "crime" of adultery.
This application is a perversion of the anti hacking law. Remember, Leon did nothing malicious after entering her mailbox. He checked to see if she was cheating, and when he found the evidence o confirm his suspicion he printed it to confront the parties who were cheating. Surely, it is wrong to spy on another person and to use their E mail boxes in do so. But making a crime for it is extreme.
To make every dispute between the husband and wife illegal would make a farce of any marriage. If for example, Mrs. Walker threw a rolling pin at Leon for coming in late at night, would that be a battery offense a prosecutor should charge Mrs. Walker with? Suppose Leon took $10 from his wife's wallet to pay the pizza delivery man for pizza ordered for their child? Is that a crime of theft to prosecute too? There are a plethora of similar "crimes" that married couples commit between each other. Haha Well, maybe that proves that marriage really is a crime, but prosecuting for it makes no sense.
The cuckolded husband should be excused for trying to protect his son. Unless a marriage contract specifies that one cannot read his wife's email, the husband is only ethically guilty of spying, not criminally guilty for doing it. Hmmm I suppose, like so many cheated spouses do, he should have hired a private investigator to check on Mrs. Walker because the law says that's not a crime. Strange!
But the whole idea that a district attorney would bring charges for something like this is....well, criminal.
Oh, my. Now Leon could go to jail (up to 5 years in this case) for spying in his soon to be ex wife's computer cheating. The Mrs. was so upset at getting caught cheating that she filed not only for divorce from Leon, but also asked that Leon be arrested and charged with hacking into another E mail. Leon says he was protecting his child from a cheating mom because mom was having a relationship with a registered wife beater who was a danger to Leon's son. Anyway, Leon has been arrested, charged and goes to trial soon.
I find the whole idea of a prosecutor trying to send a person to jail for the common "crime" of looking at a spouse's mail a bit extreme application of a law that is meant for more malicious instances of identity theft, stealing secrets for financial gain, slandering others etc.? Is listening in on a telephone conversation one's wife is having with a lover a crime too? What about the wife's adultery in this instance, which has been admitted by her? Is that prosecutable offense too? Technically that isalso illegal, but no charges have been filed against Mrs. Walker by that prosecutor for the "crime" of adultery.
This application is a perversion of the anti hacking law. Remember, Leon did nothing malicious after entering her mailbox. He checked to see if she was cheating, and when he found the evidence o confirm his suspicion he printed it to confront the parties who were cheating. Surely, it is wrong to spy on another person and to use their E mail boxes in do so. But making a crime for it is extreme.
To make every dispute between the husband and wife illegal would make a farce of any marriage. If for example, Mrs. Walker threw a rolling pin at Leon for coming in late at night, would that be a battery offense a prosecutor should charge Mrs. Walker with? Suppose Leon took $10 from his wife's wallet to pay the pizza delivery man for pizza ordered for their child? Is that a crime of theft to prosecute too? There are a plethora of similar "crimes" that married couples commit between each other. Haha Well, maybe that proves that marriage really is a crime, but prosecuting for it makes no sense.
The cuckolded husband should be excused for trying to protect his son. Unless a marriage contract specifies that one cannot read his wife's email, the husband is only ethically guilty of spying, not criminally guilty for doing it. Hmmm I suppose, like so many cheated spouses do, he should have hired a private investigator to check on Mrs. Walker because the law says that's not a crime. Strange!
But the whole idea that a district attorney would bring charges for something like this is....well, criminal.
Climate Science
I have a selection below from a scientist written in the Oregonian newspaper, about the never ending Global Warming/Climate Change propaganda we get so often today. The problem for those of us who don't accept the global warming postulates because there is no real evidence present beyond speculations and "must be's", is that we are inundated with Global Warming scare tactics on a daily basis. We are told continuously that the "debate is over", and that this is the warmest decade on record. This of course should be nonsense. But the power of the mediums to shape opinion today is great, even when it is done with opinion rather than fact.
In the piece below, Fulks updates the string of climate lies that get perpetuated continuously throughout the year and are getting more absurd and irrational by the day, and speculates (as global warmers do) as to the truth about what is driving this rush to judgment scam. The latest inanity I read was from Judah Cohen who is promoting the idea that warmer temperatures produce more cold and snow. His New York Times laden fantasy was printed there recently.
History is full of examples where junk science has been accepted as correct even after it has been proven such. In my view global warming is an example because it is not based on verifiable evidence The Scientific Method gets a new treatment every time global warmers present their facts. As a non scientist who does not have any more measure of truth than facts as a basis for belief, until I see evidence to the contrary, I will not accept the speculations, often wild and based on lies and manipulation of data. In my view being trendy (we how deny the global warming religion as said to be out of touch) isn't as important as waiting for evidence before accepting dogma.
Fact is there has been no proof ever offered to date that any recent warming was caused by human carbon emissions or carbon dioxide. That conclusion is the great leap of faith people in Global warming must make, the must be, has to be explanation basis). Co2 is not even the controlling greenhouse gas of the earth. It is radiatively inferior to water vapor and clouds. The global warmers claim that humans are causing a warming of the earth is like saying my spitting in the ocean is polluting it.
The selection below won't change your mind about your belief in global warming, but perhaps seeing SOMETHING besides the continued nonsense the mediums print and the public apes agreement to will at least let you know that there may be a hole, not in the ozone, but in the theories of the global warming advocates.
by, Gordon J. Fulks
From near record high to near record low temperatures, this November in the Pacific Northwest, from relatively warm ocean conditions and "dead zones" to relatively cold ocean conditions and fabulous salmon runs off our Pacific Coast, from an unusually cold winter to an unusually hot summer in Russia, from near record low Arctic sea ice to near record high Antarctic sea ice, our climate displays wide variability.But an army of psychologists, journalists, and even scientists make sure that the warm swings they deem alarming get the greatest attention.These propagandists know that the selling of global warming is all about perception, not reality.
If the data will not support their story line for another United Nations climate conference in Cancun, an army of data manipulators stand ready. They re-work averages to show continued warming during the last decade when honest assessments show flat or slightly declining temperatures.Some can be relied upon to say that 2010 was the warmest year "ever," when honest scientists say that the El Nino this year was very similar to 1998. Also, the recent warm period was not as warm as the previous Medieval Warm Period, something climate alarmists deny ever existed. The simple truth is that there is nothing unusual going on today, let alone anything related to human carbon dioxide emissions.
Climate variations are expected on a planet with vast oceans and atmosphere that are never in complete equilibrium. Climate variations are expected with a sun that varies slightly in total solar irradiance, varies more in X-ray and ultraviolet output, and varies substantially in magnetic irregularities which modulate galactic cosmic rays.Climate variations are also expected in a solar system with large planets like Jupiter that alter the earth's orbit and produce the huge climate changes called Ice Ages. But how is someone who never studied science going to figure out who is telling the truth?Science is not what I say, just because I have a good education and long experience. It is all about honesty, logic, and evidence.
The simplest solution is to look out the window. The British Met Office, the United Kingdom's national weather service, used its new $50 million super computer to predict a mild winter in Britain, 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than last year. So far, the reality is record breaking cold, heavy snow and paralyzing ice.But what if the New York Times, President Obama, the National Academy of Sciences, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Yale University say to be very worried? Perhaps you should question their expertise.
President Obama relies on scientists whom he funds to give him the answers he wants. The National Academy of Sciences is run to support government programs by an electrical engineer. He discovered that global warming is far more lucrative than electrical engineering.The UNIPCC is run by a railroad engineer who writes romance novels. Yale University promoters are really psychologists who want you to believe that they are climate experts when their real expertise is propaganda. News mediums rely on all the above.
The interlocking relationships are highly incestuous, with vast conflicts of interest and/or little scientific expertise. Among scientists, belief in global warming comes down to cold cash. Those who benefit most from government largesse -- an estimated $100 billion to date -- are typically true believers, while independent scientists easily spot the scam.
This creates a split based on age and experience. Young scientists like Juliane Fry of Reed College, are eager for fame, funding and tenure, all of which are more likely if they support global warming.Older scientists like Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the greatest meteorologist alive today, oppose climate hysteria. They built their fame on an approach now considered quaint: the scientific method.
Among global warming advocates there is occasional candor about their real goals. Christiana Figueres, the new executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, said of the U.N. climate efforts: "This is the greatest societal and economic transformation that the world has ever seen."Global warming is about politics, not legitimate science. Figueres calls herself a "global climate change analyst." Her formal education in climate science consists of Al Gore's training program to promote "An Inconvenient Truth."
That should worry everyone.
*Gordon J. Fulks, PhD can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.
In the piece below, Fulks updates the string of climate lies that get perpetuated continuously throughout the year and are getting more absurd and irrational by the day, and speculates (as global warmers do) as to the truth about what is driving this rush to judgment scam. The latest inanity I read was from Judah Cohen who is promoting the idea that warmer temperatures produce more cold and snow. His New York Times laden fantasy was printed there recently.
History is full of examples where junk science has been accepted as correct even after it has been proven such. In my view global warming is an example because it is not based on verifiable evidence The Scientific Method gets a new treatment every time global warmers present their facts. As a non scientist who does not have any more measure of truth than facts as a basis for belief, until I see evidence to the contrary, I will not accept the speculations, often wild and based on lies and manipulation of data. In my view being trendy (we how deny the global warming religion as said to be out of touch) isn't as important as waiting for evidence before accepting dogma.
Fact is there has been no proof ever offered to date that any recent warming was caused by human carbon emissions or carbon dioxide. That conclusion is the great leap of faith people in Global warming must make, the must be, has to be explanation basis). Co2 is not even the controlling greenhouse gas of the earth. It is radiatively inferior to water vapor and clouds. The global warmers claim that humans are causing a warming of the earth is like saying my spitting in the ocean is polluting it.
The selection below won't change your mind about your belief in global warming, but perhaps seeing SOMETHING besides the continued nonsense the mediums print and the public apes agreement to will at least let you know that there may be a hole, not in the ozone, but in the theories of the global warming advocates.
by, Gordon J. Fulks
From near record high to near record low temperatures, this November in the Pacific Northwest, from relatively warm ocean conditions and "dead zones" to relatively cold ocean conditions and fabulous salmon runs off our Pacific Coast, from an unusually cold winter to an unusually hot summer in Russia, from near record low Arctic sea ice to near record high Antarctic sea ice, our climate displays wide variability.But an army of psychologists, journalists, and even scientists make sure that the warm swings they deem alarming get the greatest attention.These propagandists know that the selling of global warming is all about perception, not reality.
If the data will not support their story line for another United Nations climate conference in Cancun, an army of data manipulators stand ready. They re-work averages to show continued warming during the last decade when honest assessments show flat or slightly declining temperatures.Some can be relied upon to say that 2010 was the warmest year "ever," when honest scientists say that the El Nino this year was very similar to 1998. Also, the recent warm period was not as warm as the previous Medieval Warm Period, something climate alarmists deny ever existed. The simple truth is that there is nothing unusual going on today, let alone anything related to human carbon dioxide emissions.
Climate variations are expected on a planet with vast oceans and atmosphere that are never in complete equilibrium. Climate variations are expected with a sun that varies slightly in total solar irradiance, varies more in X-ray and ultraviolet output, and varies substantially in magnetic irregularities which modulate galactic cosmic rays.Climate variations are also expected in a solar system with large planets like Jupiter that alter the earth's orbit and produce the huge climate changes called Ice Ages. But how is someone who never studied science going to figure out who is telling the truth?Science is not what I say, just because I have a good education and long experience. It is all about honesty, logic, and evidence.
The simplest solution is to look out the window. The British Met Office, the United Kingdom's national weather service, used its new $50 million super computer to predict a mild winter in Britain, 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than last year. So far, the reality is record breaking cold, heavy snow and paralyzing ice.But what if the New York Times, President Obama, the National Academy of Sciences, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Yale University say to be very worried? Perhaps you should question their expertise.
President Obama relies on scientists whom he funds to give him the answers he wants. The National Academy of Sciences is run to support government programs by an electrical engineer. He discovered that global warming is far more lucrative than electrical engineering.The UNIPCC is run by a railroad engineer who writes romance novels. Yale University promoters are really psychologists who want you to believe that they are climate experts when their real expertise is propaganda. News mediums rely on all the above.
The interlocking relationships are highly incestuous, with vast conflicts of interest and/or little scientific expertise. Among scientists, belief in global warming comes down to cold cash. Those who benefit most from government largesse -- an estimated $100 billion to date -- are typically true believers, while independent scientists easily spot the scam.
This creates a split based on age and experience. Young scientists like Juliane Fry of Reed College, are eager for fame, funding and tenure, all of which are more likely if they support global warming.Older scientists like Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the greatest meteorologist alive today, oppose climate hysteria. They built their fame on an approach now considered quaint: the scientific method.
Among global warming advocates there is occasional candor about their real goals. Christiana Figueres, the new executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, said of the U.N. climate efforts: "This is the greatest societal and economic transformation that the world has ever seen."Global warming is about politics, not legitimate science. Figueres calls herself a "global climate change analyst." Her formal education in climate science consists of Al Gore's training program to promote "An Inconvenient Truth."
That should worry everyone.
*Gordon J. Fulks, PhD can be reached at gordonfulks@hotmail.com. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.
RIP For Personal E mailing
Every year I notice more and more decline in personal E mail account usage. Now the question that I ask is whether personal E mail correspondence will only be a footnote within the next few years. Fact is, the youngest (and the future of computer usage) computer users much prefer online chatting, text messaging and phone tweets to old reliable E mail. Just like the old fashioned phone call from a land line home phone is dying, so is E mailing personal information.
As an oldie, like many others who came on line when there was no IM or chat alternative, I am clinging to E mail and still prefer it, probably for the opposite reason younger computer users like their own favored mode of communication. They want immediacy and I don't. The problem with E mail, according to those liking the faster methods of reaching another person, is that it involves time consuming signing into the mail box, typing in a subject heading and composing a literate paragraph or two.The young users like words, phrases, slang and want to get on with it immediately because they also want an immediate reply. They see time differently than the average person who prefers the slow, more thoughtful and more precisely written E mail. Too E mail users don't want to have communication immediately. They separate their E mail and personal lives far more than do the users who like instantaneous responses.
Now that social networking sites have chat areas and other more instant response attributes, the younger user feels no need to bother with E mail messages for normal social discourse. People can conduct the same activities on the social networks as they did before via email, IM, and other communication properties, but now they can do so more efficiently. This is more appealing to younger users who have grown up and are more comfortable with the newer modes.
A quirky irony to this movement away for personal communication by E mail is that you need an e-mail account as an id to sign in to face book or whatever other social media site you prefer more than E mailing. To, business hates the social networking sites for the very reason many like it- it's too open. An E mail account ensures a business more privacy and does not have an open or vulnerable platform that could reveal what the business does not want others to see.
So E mail may become an almost exclusive business province, while the faster alternatives to E mail are used for personal contacts. As the number of personal contacts I have through E mailing decreases each year I see that. It's a kind of downgrading of E mail to a segment market as opposed to universal usage. But then greater choice is a good thing. Others can tweet and chat and Im all they want. My first preference is still E mail.
As an oldie, like many others who came on line when there was no IM or chat alternative, I am clinging to E mail and still prefer it, probably for the opposite reason younger computer users like their own favored mode of communication. They want immediacy and I don't. The problem with E mail, according to those liking the faster methods of reaching another person, is that it involves time consuming signing into the mail box, typing in a subject heading and composing a literate paragraph or two.The young users like words, phrases, slang and want to get on with it immediately because they also want an immediate reply. They see time differently than the average person who prefers the slow, more thoughtful and more precisely written E mail. Too E mail users don't want to have communication immediately. They separate their E mail and personal lives far more than do the users who like instantaneous responses.
Now that social networking sites have chat areas and other more instant response attributes, the younger user feels no need to bother with E mail messages for normal social discourse. People can conduct the same activities on the social networks as they did before via email, IM, and other communication properties, but now they can do so more efficiently. This is more appealing to younger users who have grown up and are more comfortable with the newer modes.
A quirky irony to this movement away for personal communication by E mail is that you need an e-mail account as an id to sign in to face book or whatever other social media site you prefer more than E mailing. To, business hates the social networking sites for the very reason many like it- it's too open. An E mail account ensures a business more privacy and does not have an open or vulnerable platform that could reveal what the business does not want others to see.
So E mail may become an almost exclusive business province, while the faster alternatives to E mail are used for personal contacts. As the number of personal contacts I have through E mailing decreases each year I see that. It's a kind of downgrading of E mail to a segment market as opposed to universal usage. But then greater choice is a good thing. Others can tweet and chat and Im all they want. My first preference is still E mail.
A Woman's First Impression
True or false? It takes a woman just three minutes to make up her mind about whether she likes a man or not? According to a study of 3000 women, most women believe 180 seconds is long enough to decide whether or not a man could be Mr. Right, or Mr. Wrong. The instinct thing, I guess. Women do claim to have more instinctual ability than men and to act on instinct for most of their decisions. But three minutes to determine if the woman likes the man or doesn't?
This study also said that only infrequently do women change their impressions of the man that they perceived in that first brief meeting time. First impression becomes last impression in those incidences. Gee, I hope the man doesn't step on the lady's foot or spill his drink on her. According to this survey that would doom him to be perceived as a not right man.
The average female spends the time observing the man's looks, physique and dress style as well as his smell, accent and his eloquence. Women also quickly judge how he interacts with her friends and whether he is successful or ambitious. Of course all of those are subjective qualities that may be perceived differently by each lady. So what is the man to do? Should he douse himself in smelly cologne and hope it's a pleasing odor or buy the trendiest outfit to wear in case there is a first meeting with lady he likes?
Hmmm Most women believe 180 seconds is long enough to judge a male. Haha Then why does it take weeks for her to choose a dress or pair of shoes when in the mall? The study also found women rarely change their mind about a man after their initial reaction and that 88% of the women studied believe they are always right in their assumptions and judgments Then why do women always take back that blouse they purchased at the mall back for a refund?
Maybe this is why we men hear so often from women what lousy choices they make in choosing their boyfriends or husbands. They might do better throwing men into the mall shopping choice category, the logical way women a careful choose what they wish to buy and quickly return what was a "mistake purchase". Oh well, 180 seconds is probably about 175 longer than some men take to judge the woman they first meet. Those men just look, see big boobs and then declare the woman fit and ready for action....
This study also said that only infrequently do women change their impressions of the man that they perceived in that first brief meeting time. First impression becomes last impression in those incidences. Gee, I hope the man doesn't step on the lady's foot or spill his drink on her. According to this survey that would doom him to be perceived as a not right man.
The average female spends the time observing the man's looks, physique and dress style as well as his smell, accent and his eloquence. Women also quickly judge how he interacts with her friends and whether he is successful or ambitious. Of course all of those are subjective qualities that may be perceived differently by each lady. So what is the man to do? Should he douse himself in smelly cologne and hope it's a pleasing odor or buy the trendiest outfit to wear in case there is a first meeting with lady he likes?
Hmmm Most women believe 180 seconds is long enough to judge a male. Haha Then why does it take weeks for her to choose a dress or pair of shoes when in the mall? The study also found women rarely change their mind about a man after their initial reaction and that 88% of the women studied believe they are always right in their assumptions and judgments Then why do women always take back that blouse they purchased at the mall back for a refund?
Maybe this is why we men hear so often from women what lousy choices they make in choosing their boyfriends or husbands. They might do better throwing men into the mall shopping choice category, the logical way women a careful choose what they wish to buy and quickly return what was a "mistake purchase". Oh well, 180 seconds is probably about 175 longer than some men take to judge the woman they first meet. Those men just look, see big boobs and then declare the woman fit and ready for action....
The Ban Mode
They are banning grocery store plastic bags here in most cities in Oregon. The ban chant is the favorite of those who call themselves "environmentalists". Though they are most often well intentioned in their chanting for their causes (both good and bad), they are more and more just plain wrong and intolerant in their pursuit of them. The plastic grocery bag ban that is soon to go into effect here is a microcosm of the problem and why so many more Americans are having a hard time swallowing their alleged "science" and their strong arm tactics in implementing what they say is best for humans.
They have banned coal, phosphate detergent, Styrofoam and on and on. Now plastic grocery bags? Environmental organizations have as their real goal the imposition of their particular view of the world on everyone. The individual causes they champion are far less important to them than that, The problem is that their world is less of a factual and more emotional one. In the case of plastic grocery bags, they have said that these bags end up in the ocean, take too long to break down and are just all-round unhealthy for the environment. Their solution here has been to lobby government along with self interested paper companies funding their campaign in order to eliminate this choice entirely for consumers and retailers.
Yep! The big lumber mills here are bankrolling the anti plastic bag propaganda because those companies stand to make a whole lot more money if paper becomes the required bag in retail stores. What those environmental lobbyists don't say is that paper bags take much more energy to produce than a single plastic bag. This definitely conflicts with environmentalist goals of reducing energy use.
Comparing entire life cycles, one paper bag produces almost five times the atmospheric pollutants and 15 times the waterborne pollutants of a single plastic bag. Ironically, the major reason why plastic bags were developed was to improve the environment. And when used properly, it does. There is an irrefutable evidence that they do when they are recycled. That is the real environmental problem, not paper versus plastic. They are not being recycled as they should be. Might a wiser policy be to stop making those polluting paper bags and instead require that the lazy shopping public bring back plastic bags and place them into a bin for recycling on their next shopping trip.
I did that in New Orleans, and it's even easier to recycling plastic here....but the environmental paper lobby instead wants to pollute more with paper bags. Odd, huh? I guess the multi millions the environmental groups get in contributions here may have some influence on their siding with paper mils on this issues. Too, I wonder why the environmental crazies (Global Warmers included) never mention banning all the other plastic products made and consumed in U.S. They overlook the fact that grocery and other retail stores plastic bags are but a tiny component of that. Why don't the environmentalists call for a ban of all plastics everywhere? It's because even the confused public can't be hoodwinked into such a preposterous idea and if they were, the world economies would rapidly crash and burn.
The only problem with plastic is littering and the lack of effort by communities to enforce littering and recycling rules. Yet, plastic bags are demonized and the mostly trendy and uninformed public believes as much of the nonsense about plastic as they believe that humans control and are changing climate in the world. Maybe the environmental extremists should point the finger where it really belongs, at the misuse of plastic. But then, that won't garner them any money from the paper manufactures who finance their wacky programs.
They have banned coal, phosphate detergent, Styrofoam and on and on. Now plastic grocery bags? Environmental organizations have as their real goal the imposition of their particular view of the world on everyone. The individual causes they champion are far less important to them than that, The problem is that their world is less of a factual and more emotional one. In the case of plastic grocery bags, they have said that these bags end up in the ocean, take too long to break down and are just all-round unhealthy for the environment. Their solution here has been to lobby government along with self interested paper companies funding their campaign in order to eliminate this choice entirely for consumers and retailers.
Yep! The big lumber mills here are bankrolling the anti plastic bag propaganda because those companies stand to make a whole lot more money if paper becomes the required bag in retail stores. What those environmental lobbyists don't say is that paper bags take much more energy to produce than a single plastic bag. This definitely conflicts with environmentalist goals of reducing energy use.
Comparing entire life cycles, one paper bag produces almost five times the atmospheric pollutants and 15 times the waterborne pollutants of a single plastic bag. Ironically, the major reason why plastic bags were developed was to improve the environment. And when used properly, it does. There is an irrefutable evidence that they do when they are recycled. That is the real environmental problem, not paper versus plastic. They are not being recycled as they should be. Might a wiser policy be to stop making those polluting paper bags and instead require that the lazy shopping public bring back plastic bags and place them into a bin for recycling on their next shopping trip.
I did that in New Orleans, and it's even easier to recycling plastic here....but the environmental paper lobby instead wants to pollute more with paper bags. Odd, huh? I guess the multi millions the environmental groups get in contributions here may have some influence on their siding with paper mils on this issues. Too, I wonder why the environmental crazies (Global Warmers included) never mention banning all the other plastic products made and consumed in U.S. They overlook the fact that grocery and other retail stores plastic bags are but a tiny component of that. Why don't the environmentalists call for a ban of all plastics everywhere? It's because even the confused public can't be hoodwinked into such a preposterous idea and if they were, the world economies would rapidly crash and burn.
The only problem with plastic is littering and the lack of effort by communities to enforce littering and recycling rules. Yet, plastic bags are demonized and the mostly trendy and uninformed public believes as much of the nonsense about plastic as they believe that humans control and are changing climate in the world. Maybe the environmental extremists should point the finger where it really belongs, at the misuse of plastic. But then, that won't garner them any money from the paper manufactures who finance their wacky programs.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Peculiar Christmas Traditions
If you ask most people what is the most peculiar Christmas tradition they know, they''ll probably give you a soliloquy of Uncle Fred's Sweater with the picture of a big fat naked Santa, or Aunt Midlred's inedible cranberry surprise dessert that mom forced you to eat and smile afterward as you uttered "It Tastes as fresh as snow". (Mom said no gifts unless you gave a unique compliment every year. I think we do personalize weird Christmas because most of us have weird relatives in the family that show up at Christmas time. Hmmmmm I wonder if you and I are the weird ones in their eyes? Never mind....
I thought about this today on a broader scheme, as in what are the world's peculiar Christmas traditions? Not being an expert on weird (despite my seemingly obvious behavioral qualifications) I decided to research the subject and found that, yes, there is a lot of weirdness at Christmas in many different places on earth. So to make your holiday bright ( as the song says) here are some peculiar Christmas traditions to inspect and perhaps implement yourself this year.
*Kiviak- this one comes from a weird place, Greenland. Any place that calls itself Greenland but is in a constant state of freezing temperatures deserves to be first on the list. Kiviak is a bird that is wrapped in seal skin and buried under a rock in the frost several months before Christmas. The Christmas tradition is to dig up the kiviak, squeeze out the rotted guts, and then eat the auk. No, I'm not kidding. I would love to feed Kiviak to Aunt Mildred as revenge for the cranberry surprise.
* Kallikantzaroi- This one comes from Greece. A Kallikantzaroi (I bet you can't say that while you drink your egg nog!) are evil spirits that live deep inside the earth most of the year, but wreak havoc on Greek homes over the Christmas holiday. Sound kind of like a reality TV show cast don't they? But aside from that, the Greeks hang a pig jaw inside the chimney to keep them from coming down it.. I guess the pigs of Greece are the real victims of Kallikantzaroi.
* Church skating- they do this in Venezuela at Christmas....not skating inside the church as the priest says mass or skating to get away from church as I do if called to attend. In this peculiar traditions. The streets in Caracas are closed off in order to allow churchgoers to get there by roller-skate. I assume at the mass prayers are said for the injured and maimed skaters who didn't make it to the church.
* Lose a shoe, gain a man- If you're a woman you can do this simple Christmas Eve tradition from the Czech Republic. Just go outside in the daytime, stand with your back to your door, and toss one of your shoes over your shoulder. If it lands with the toe facing the door, it means you'll get married within the year. Rumor has it Angelina Jolie adapted this tradition to adopting babies. For Jolie, the shoe has fallen for adoption quite a few times. Anyway, trading your shoe for a man seems a losing proposition to me. In most cases a shoe is infinitely better than the man inside it.
* El Caganer. This is a Catalonian tradition that translates to mean “the great defecator”. Yep, it's a statue of a little man pooing, pants down and all, that is supposed to be a monk or peasant. He is placed a little bit away from the rest of the figures in your nativity scene and when you see El Caganer and his load underneath his naked butt it allegedly means the year will yield a good harvest for the region's farmers. I bet Lindsay Lohan has done a few El Caganer imitations both in season and out.
* Guess Who's Coming to dinner- This one is Portuguese, It says that on Christmas Day you set extra places at your dinner table for the souls of the dead. Offer them food and they will bring you luck throughout the year. This free meal concept has been taken to new heights here by Barack Obama. If you drop by the White House for Christmas dinner (and you promise to vote for him and donate campaign contributions) I am sure you'll get a free meal and and get many more unfunded entitlements this Christmas. No rush though. Barack has been and will pass out freebies all year long.
Not that's' really peculiar...
I thought about this today on a broader scheme, as in what are the world's peculiar Christmas traditions? Not being an expert on weird (despite my seemingly obvious behavioral qualifications) I decided to research the subject and found that, yes, there is a lot of weirdness at Christmas in many different places on earth. So to make your holiday bright ( as the song says) here are some peculiar Christmas traditions to inspect and perhaps implement yourself this year.
*Kiviak- this one comes from a weird place, Greenland. Any place that calls itself Greenland but is in a constant state of freezing temperatures deserves to be first on the list. Kiviak is a bird that is wrapped in seal skin and buried under a rock in the frost several months before Christmas. The Christmas tradition is to dig up the kiviak, squeeze out the rotted guts, and then eat the auk. No, I'm not kidding. I would love to feed Kiviak to Aunt Mildred as revenge for the cranberry surprise.
* Kallikantzaroi- This one comes from Greece. A Kallikantzaroi (I bet you can't say that while you drink your egg nog!) are evil spirits that live deep inside the earth most of the year, but wreak havoc on Greek homes over the Christmas holiday. Sound kind of like a reality TV show cast don't they? But aside from that, the Greeks hang a pig jaw inside the chimney to keep them from coming down it.. I guess the pigs of Greece are the real victims of Kallikantzaroi.
* Church skating- they do this in Venezuela at Christmas....not skating inside the church as the priest says mass or skating to get away from church as I do if called to attend. In this peculiar traditions. The streets in Caracas are closed off in order to allow churchgoers to get there by roller-skate. I assume at the mass prayers are said for the injured and maimed skaters who didn't make it to the church.
* Lose a shoe, gain a man- If you're a woman you can do this simple Christmas Eve tradition from the Czech Republic. Just go outside in the daytime, stand with your back to your door, and toss one of your shoes over your shoulder. If it lands with the toe facing the door, it means you'll get married within the year. Rumor has it Angelina Jolie adapted this tradition to adopting babies. For Jolie, the shoe has fallen for adoption quite a few times. Anyway, trading your shoe for a man seems a losing proposition to me. In most cases a shoe is infinitely better than the man inside it.
* El Caganer. This is a Catalonian tradition that translates to mean “the great defecator”. Yep, it's a statue of a little man pooing, pants down and all, that is supposed to be a monk or peasant. He is placed a little bit away from the rest of the figures in your nativity scene and when you see El Caganer and his load underneath his naked butt it allegedly means the year will yield a good harvest for the region's farmers. I bet Lindsay Lohan has done a few El Caganer imitations both in season and out.
* Guess Who's Coming to dinner- This one is Portuguese, It says that on Christmas Day you set extra places at your dinner table for the souls of the dead. Offer them food and they will bring you luck throughout the year. This free meal concept has been taken to new heights here by Barack Obama. If you drop by the White House for Christmas dinner (and you promise to vote for him and donate campaign contributions) I am sure you'll get a free meal and and get many more unfunded entitlements this Christmas. No rush though. Barack has been and will pass out freebies all year long.
Not that's' really peculiar...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)