Disqualified On The Basis Of Sex

Did you see the story about what I feel is the most interesting of the Miss Universe contestant ever? Jenna Talackova, 23, has been disqualified from the Miss Universe Canada competition because she was born a male. And she doesn't look like it, because she is smoking hot. Jenna says that she began hormone therapy at age 14. At 19, she had sexual reassignment surgery.

The Miss Universe Canada web site states that to enter the pageant, a woman must be a Canadian citizen and between the ages of 18 and 27. If basic requirements are met, they are asked to fill out a longer application form. The form does not mention any rules against sexual reassignment surgery. But when kicking her out of the competition the pageant organizers said it was because "she lied about her gender". Hmmm If she lied maybe she should run for political office instead of for Miss Universe.

Despite the ban, she is as beautiful or more so than the other Canadian contestants and I wish she would be allowed to stay in the competition. But the Miss Universe contest is a private one and exclusive to "natural" women only. If a private contest wants to make dubious rules, so be it. It's there show. I would love to see Jenna be allowed in and overjoyed if she won because it would be good for society, for breaking down sexual stereotypes and because it would be a much more entertaining pageant if opened to transsexuals.

These big beauty contests have become too stuffy and stale. No wonder fewer women want to be involved in them. I say let all the trannies in (If they do it I will place a bet on Miss Thailand to win). It would help break down hate and discrimination aimed at transsexual people and might revive those boring beauty pageants.

Just think of the fun in trying to guess which of the contestants is a tranny and which not, and of all the men who get boners looking at their favorite contestant and then find out the she was once a he. Too, if those stupid reality shows can have audiences vote on the winners of their production, I say the Miss Universe pageant should do the same. When a girl like Jenna wins and it is announced that the most beautiful woman in the universe is a transsexual one, the whole notion of sexual stereotypes will be destroyed. The Mr. Universe pageant (Is there one of those?) could also have their selection in conjunction with the Miss Universe version. Maybe a woman who had a sex change operation to become a man could win the Mr. Universe contest. nobody would know who should wear a dress! Men everywhere would start buying bras and walking in heels.

Maybe even the first male pregnancy would not be far behind! Ok, I am over doing it a little in expecting that. Anyway, I think Jenna's entrance into the contest was fascinating and good for society. I should go by a bra for myself to celebrate....

Too Much Noise

Are you aware that there is allot of noise out there? I am, and I don't like it. No matter where you live today, the noise level has increased and may be affected our peace of minds. It's un natural to live in a world of noise. Uh, noise is not sound. Sound is not unsettling because it is natural. A bird singing, the wind howling...those are sounds. But noises are man made irritants that have increased dramatically over time as humans have perfected newer but noisy technologies.

Some noises are more troubling to me than others. Maybe the most irritating noise is the many annoying ring tones of cell phones. Whoever determined that making loud cell noises was a need for cell users must have been driven mad by to many other noises. The "cute" jingles or obnoxious blaring songs some people use as ring tones are the worst.

And what about profanity we hear every day on the street, in private, everywhere. The loss of civility in society that marks our course culture today produces a product- filthy language. Have you noticed how profanity is spoken more loudly and aggressively than pure language? Have you noticed how people accept it as normal? Profanity may be the worst kind of noise because it is both physically distasteful and morally offensive. That it is so widely used, means it may be the canary in the mine that should tell us that it is time to tone down the noise of all types.

Another noise that is maddening to me is the loud music some people play while driving in their cars. You can bet the music is a filthy rap "song" or music that no one would listen to if it were played at a normal volume. I have never heard anyone blare classical music on his or her car radio as I drove next to them. It's probably because those who listen to classical music are far more intelligent and thoughtful than rap music fans. You can bet if someone is blasting rap music in his car it's not only because he or she likes what is played, but probably because the loud noise that the music makes keeps them from having to think, something those types rarely do in any case.

Perhaps the worst kind of noise for all of us who think the world is much ado about noise is that of cumulative noises. The world's biggest ever and most technological society has too many cars, planes, lawn mowers, TV's and sundry other devices that seem to never stop playing...loudly. They are so noisy that many of us are accustomed to noise and don't notice them much of the time. In that case, the noise has defeated us. Noise is distraction and distraction stops the mind from thinking (as the total noise level increases the aggregate thinking level decreases). When we stop thinking about matters big and small we are less aware and, thus, more easily controlled by people, governments and forces that act in a selfish interest rather than for the individual and common good. As a result, life becomes a little less pleasant.

Is it possible to escape the excessive noise today? Probably short of moving into isolation and living away from them or disdaining them as much as one can, no. It is a shame we can only cope somewhat by understanding noise and trying to adapt to much of it. The world would be a calmer, more tolerant and a kinder place if we had less noise. Just be grateful that you read this and don't have to listen to me reading it. That would be noise of the worst kind.

Don't Eat What Tastes Good

What a surprise. Today I read that another of those scientific "studies" indicates that eating unprocessed red meat (hamburger, pork, roast beef, lamb) and processed meats (bacon, hot dogs, bologna, sausage) may increase a person's risk of premature death and raise their risk of death from heart disease and cancer. And that's not all. In the same newspaper it also said today that people who drink just one sugary drink a day, including soft drinks, fruit juice drinks and sports drinks have a bigger increase in a risk for heart attacks than those who don't drink them. Sigh, I feel feint and need a glass of water after reading about the latest "bad food".

But wait! Don't the experts studies also say that water is filled with carcinogens and can kill you too? I wonder if anything is safe to eat or drink these days? Maybe, but those studies are attempting to kill my enthusiasm for anything good tasting. And that's not healthy! Still, something that has good taste has got to be good to eat. Perhaps those studies and not our food are the real disease causing agents. I have a secret hope that everyone who participated in food study and died prematurely, not from twinkies and ice cream, but from the air he or she breathed breathed air. They have already told us a million times that breathing air is ingesting pollutants and that has been determined to cause early death too. So it's the air pollutants that are is killing us, not the food. Better for me to believe that than the food police. I just want to eat my donuts and other bad food in peace and confidence.

It's odd that so many things we like are said to be bad for us. Too many of the habits and behaviors that are good for our souls are being tabbed as bad for our hearts or some other body part. Life should be enjoyed, and I don't think a diet or organic tofu, or whatever they want me to eat, is going to be pleasurable for me. The minute you name a pleasurable activity today, they define it as bad. I don't want to be starved or killed by a menu of nasty tasting foods. I don't want to be run ragged by needless exercise.

I don't want to be on the trendy tract that people mindlessly board these days in order to conform to the "experts" latest declarations. Being human includes enjoying a variety of activities that involve risks of varying degrees. If we only cat out on the "approved ones" we don't really live life fully.

In all the hysteria to eat what is defined as "healthier" for the body we are losing the concept that feeding our bodies, souls and spirits with goodies is that which makes life more fun and more sensible for us to embrace. Eating a hamburger and french fries should not be a "risk", it should be a reward. In life, all that we do has some element of tradeoff. We give up something to get whatever it is we choose to do. I think the tradeoff of eating the foods we like, regardless whether they are "expert endorsed", has a rather low negative when compared to many other things we do- driving on a freeway, working in a job we hate, being married to the wrong person etc.

Perhaps the experts who warn us of "bad foods" don't understand the degree of risk involved in what they warn against is really quite low in the whole spectrum of risks. Scientists sometimes live in a bubble. They know a lot about their clinical world, but lack a broader understanding of the abstractions in life, those that make life more joyous. I think that tomorrow we should conduct an experiment on the scientists involved in those food studies. If we can get them out of their bubble, we should have their low fat foods and tofu confiscated and instead force them to eat a burger, fries and sugary lemonade drink for lunch.

They really do need a better diet..... for the sake of their souls!

I've Stepped Away From My Desk

How many times have you heard it? I'm referring to the goof-off's favorite phone recorded euphemism that means he or she doesn't want to take your phone call, talk to you or do the work listed in the employee job description. Yes, the dreaded "I have stepped away from my desk" and am not going to answer your call is becoming way too common. Some employees, particularly those who work for the federal or state government, seemingly never answer their phones. The "stepped away from my desk" is on their phone every day, every hour, every time you or I call the office for the information we need. I am certain those employees can't have diseased prostates or bladders that weak. So why are they away so much?

Supposedly, the "I stepped away from my desk" message on the office phone is for the rare times the employee is in a meeting, at lunch or busy with some activity that takes them away from answering their phone. But as government has become bigger and more useless jobs created so politicians can gain votes by filling them, more and more of those employees are away from their desks. I wonder what they are doing while away and why, when I hear that message and leave my number in reply to their recording that I "please leave your name and number and I will return your call as soon as possible" (the second most dreaded employee goof-off message), they either never return my call or do it days later when I no longer need their help.

I have thought about leaving the "stepped away from my desk" message on my own phone for those times when I expect those always missing employees to return my call. But Alas! I am afraid they might leave another even more frustrating message for me in reply and never call back at all, something like, "Because you have stepped away from your desk we assume you know longer need to speak with us and will never dial your number again".

In 1930 in the United States there were about 600,000 employees who worked for the federal government. Of that total almost half were postal workers who had no desks to step away from. Today's more than 3 million federal workers (of which very few are postal workers) have plenty of company in their offices to do about the same amount of work, something equivalent to the six guys fixing a pothole on a city street....one working and five watching them work. So why isn't someone answering the ---- phone!

I am aware that in 1930 there were no answering machines to help the workers to goof-off (no wonder I hate modern technology so much) and avoid answering phones like they do today. But shouldn't someone be responsible for answering phone calls to a government offices? You and I both know the "stepped away from my desk" is a ruse, a scam, a fraud of the worst sort. If necessary to stop the constant stepping away, I say chain them to their desks like the 19th century factory owners used to chain their workers to their work machines.

I myself might even be willing to come out of retirement to answer those ringing phones if the government every decides to respect the callers enough to make sure their phone calls are attended to properly. But I can't promise you I won't step away from my desk from time to time.

The Right To Say Hurtful Words

Time for a political correctness report. In this age in the United States when people are punished for saying what is merely impolite, the University of Southern Mississippi revoked the academic scholarships of five members of its pep band for taking part in what the school claims was a racially insensitive chant directed at an opposing team's player during last week's NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. What did the five band members chant that got them kicked out of the band and are now without their scholarship payments?

No it wasn't profanity or a racist name, which students and fans at every level scream from time to time without penalty at just about every sport contest every where in the world. It seems profanity is acceptable because it is more widely used than what the students yelled at one player, a hispanic guard named Angel Rodriguez. They chanted "Where's your green card", as Rodriguez attempted a free throw late in a game whose outcome was still in doubt. That's it! Apparently, calling opposing players every obscenity imaginable is in the eyes of Southern Mississippi's administration "good college fun", but a veiled reference to citizenship status is going way too far.

It's unkind to even insinuate that Rodriguez might be an illegal immigrant, but I can think of a 100 worse taunts fans make at players that I have heard at basketball games when an opposing player is shooting free throws in front of the opponents home fans. No doubt the five taunters were attempting to rattle Rodriguez, so he might miss the free throws and enhance Southern Mississippi's chances of winning the game. I doubt whether they knew about Rodriguez's background or even cared.

Just to make sure that Southern Mississippi's administration is politically correct and would not dare say anything unkind about any member of a minority group, USM President Martha Saunders issued a public apology from the school to Rodriguez. I am more offended at the school bowing to the stupidity of political correctness than about the remark made toward Rodriguez..

Surely, it was unkind to say what those students did. But should colleges teach that unkindness is equivalent to a criminal behavior? Do people not have the right to say things that hurt others' feelings? I think so and so do courts in a democratic society. Criminal language is not that which hurts feelings, it is speech that is a malicious, false, and defamatory statement. The chant to Rodriguez was none of that. But if the school wants to discourage that kind of taunt, the severe punishment it meted out in this case is a poor way of achieving it.

Perhaps a seminar class on ethics would be a more appropriate punishment than kicking these kids out of the band and taking away their scholarships. The punishment chosen by the school will instead have the opposite effect on these five and those who believe humans have the right to say things that might be interpreted as offensive.

The school released a statement to try to justify the draconian punishment of the students and it's support of political correctness rather than academic freedom. "This is a teachable moment, not only for these students, but for our entire student body and those who work with them., a university statement said." Teachable moment? Right! It teachers that a university isn't a place to express oneself, instead, it's an arena of political correctness. And that rationale is more offensive to me than five college students attempting to make a n opposing basketball player upset as he shot free throws at a basketball game.

Are The Middle Aged The Most Evolved Of Humans?

A professor at Cambridge College named David Bainbridge has a unique twist on human aging. According to his research, humans who reach middle age are the most evolved creatures on the planet. Wow! I am a superior human. Oh wait, I just looked in the mirror and the image I see refutes that. But if scams like "Global Warming is going to kill us all" can be propagated why not this one too. Bainbridge says that older men and women have become perfectly adapted to help their families and society without the burden of raising children. And while some aspects of the human body decline with age, important attributes such as brain power are at least as keen in a person's 40s and 50s as they were decades earlier.

“People below 40 worry about reaching middle age, which I think is very sad,” Bainbridge wrote in his book 'Middle Ages; A Natural History" he claims that mature women and men have such complex and intertwined roles in society that they are “the most impressive living things yet produced by natural selection.” Humans are the only species to stop breeding long before they die, usually remaining healthy for at least another 20 years. Hmmmmm I am not sure varicose veins, chronic forgetfulness, creaking joints and sagging waistlines are a sign of a higher status. Too, I think they stop breeding "for at least another 20 years" because they can't do it anymore. Who gives birth at age 60?

Bainbridge concludes that this provides an evolutionary boost in which middle-aged people can teach children and young adults important skills and perspectives to advance the species ... if they listen..which no normal teen does. Anyway in another of his books, Teenagers: A Natural History he argued that teenagers are the pinnacle of human existence. Maybe this guy is just kidding. I know older folks aren't the higher order, but teens? No way those masses of raging hormones and unpredictability can be pinnacles of anything except skin blemishes like acne.

Bainbridge says that middle age is a time of stability, purpose and cognitive power, not the time when we forget to buy the one item we went to the grocery store for and instead come back with 50 unrelated choices.. Hmmmm I don't quite believe the idea that expectations determine our middle aged life styles. There are physical aging processes that have a far bigger control over humans than does human expectation. But then the old line about being older is true also, “Old age isn't so bad when you consider the alternative.” So what is the point in analyzing which age is best? I try to never grow up anyway.

Although as people move towards old age they lose things they treasure, like their vitality, mental sharpness and better look, they also gain what people spend their lives pursuing. That would be contentment , resolution and sometimes what y those younger whippersnappers rarely find- happiness. But then, unhappy people tend to die earlier leaving more happy oldies to testify that they are better off than at any time in life.

Older people have fewer disputes and come up with better solutions to conflict. They are better at controlling their emotions, better at accepting misfortune and less prone to anger. And if you don't believe me...I'll throw my rocking chair at you!

The End of The Printed Encyclopedia

It's the end of an era of sort. Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., far the biggest of the printed encyclopedias, says it will stop publishing print editions of its encyclopedia. That means the encyclopedia won't be available in book form for the first time in 244 years. But as you might guess, it will continue to publish digital versions of Encyclopedia Britannica. The company says ending the print edition of the 32 volume encyclopedia is a full commitment to on-line and digital publishing of the many educational products the company is famous for publishing. The Encyclopedia Britannica was first published in Scotland in 1768. Wow! That was a long life span. The power of the computer chip is evidenced with the death of those lovable encyclopedia books.

What this means is only one printed version will still be sold in book form in the U.S., the also aged and very popular 'World Book' encyclopedia, the one that was present and heavily referenced in just about every American school library for about two hundred years. The top year for the printed Encyclopedia Britannica was 1990, when 120,000 sets were sold. That number fell to 40,000 in 1996. The company started exploring digital publishing in the 1970s. and the first CD-ROM edition was published in 1989. Then a version went online in 1994. And from there the old format for referencing encyclopedias was doomed.

The cost of the final version of The Encyclopedia Britannica is a whopping $ 1,395, not exactly an inexpensive purchase when one can find free encyclopedias on line or pay a subscription service to use one for less than $50 a year. It used to be that having a set of encyclopedia books was a status symbol that every parent sacrificed to achieve. They have always been expensive to buy. Now prestige is more having a big screen TV or other electronic visual gadgets in the house....what a cultural decline that is! I remember as a child when my parents bought a set of the popular Compton's Encyclopedia for my brother and I.

We lived inside those books for years, its beautifully illustrated entries written by the most prominent experts in the fields of study. I'm surprised that Comptons survived in such good condition. One other advantage of the printed encyclopedia is the authoritative nature of the entries. They are written by pre eminent experts and as a result, are far superior to the "anyone can ad to it" style of Wikipedia.

So I think the greatest benefits to having a book format encyclopedia (and I still have that childhood set of Compton's today) is that all entries were written literately and by authorities of high prominence. It is not so with many on line encyclopedia's today. Too, the silly cultural entries we have today in digital encyclopedia contaminate the genuine ones, as in the latest report on the celebrity meltdown, for example.

The older book forms of encyclopedias tend to be purer and less of an entertainment medium than the on line versions. I also love the feel of the books, seeing the books in front of me (can anyone get excited about an encyclopedia volume inside a Kindle or computer?), and feeling an intimacy with the books that digital never gives. The old written encyclopedias were always more of a reassurance to me that answers could be found to questions without the endless debates and speculations found in politically correct digital ones.

However, the digital forms do have advantages, and those are what have killed the book format. With on-line encyclopedias, users can instantly send comments to editors, they can search across several online sources that may yield more options., they are faster to use, and are updated constantly. Too, as more "professional pay for use" encyclopedias become more prominent on line, perhaps the triviality in many on line encyclopedias today (Wikipedia) can be contained and the encyclopedia will retain its place in the world as a scholarly rather than trendy information source.

As for me, I am holding on to my ancient Compton's encyclopedia set just so I have the "real truth" available when those on line encyclopedias stray from accuracy too much.