Stupefying. That is about the only word to describe how this past year has been. I cannot believe how many times I have been pushed around. Pushed down. Pushed away. So much of my personal life whirls chaotically around me in hurricane-force winds. And I am in the center of the storm.
In truth, I have bothered close friends with my tales of woe. At least parts of it. You have to have that release. Knowing that no one will actually read this, yet thousands have the chance to see it, makes writing here the hardest. But I need an outlet. Something that allows me to whine, complain, but most importantly never reacts with judgement or pity. I don't need either. I don't need answers. I need the release.
I just want to be released from the negativity. I am a if-the-glass-has-something-in-it-I-still-use-a-varying-degree-of-full kind of guy. Right now, I am empty of positiveness. I crave any glimmer of hope. Of light.
I am tired of doors closing. I am tired of moving towards something only to have it derailed. I am tired of feeling stupefied.
I know there are no details. I don't have it within me to write about/relive some of the events. I just needed to rant, scream, mash keys, and release the feelings. Here's hoping this helps.
Showing posts with label ranting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ranting. Show all posts
July 10, 2011
May 28, 2009
Ever Evolving Science
"Of all the things I've lost, I miss my tail the most." - Lucy, Australopithecus afarensis
So the big news is now "Missing Link Found!", as a 47 million-year-old lemur-like creature with opposable thumbs and fingernails has been discovered. Well, at least his remains were found.
This instantly reminded me of a post from the Dilbert Blog called, "Fossils - Still Bullshit." Scott Adams posits that most of the evidence for evolution is dumbed down so that the masses can understand it. But that the simplification creates misleading and false information.
It has always struck me as a bit absurd that we base how entire species look on one skeleton. (And sometimes on pieces of a skeleton.) Can you imagine a few thousand years from now, after the machines take over the world and then humans again are triumphant, that someone digs up a skeleton and says that this is what Homo Sapiens looked like. And it just happens that they dug up some inbred hillbilly whose grandfather was also his brother. On top of that, the only surviving record from our time is a Li'l Abner cartoon.
This really just gave me an excuse to rant. On an episode of Mythbusters debunking shark myths, they used peppers (Scotch Bonnets, I believe) as a possible shark deterrent. It didn't work. Then the voice over says that only mammals find the capsaicin in peppers to be an irritant. (Yes, I did have to look up how to spell capsaicin.) The voice over continues that capsaicin does not work on birds, and apparently fish. That pepper plants had evolved to better protect their seeds. This was said with all sincerity and as a matter of fact.
And all that came to mind is, "REALLY?!?"
It seems so illogical to me to give plants the ability to think. That a plant would know what class of animal is eating its fruit. That it could figure out that it can produce a substance which would effectively stop that one class from eating its fruit. AND that this substance would not work on other classes of animals. (It still would want birds to take the fruit so that it would spread the seeds to other areas.)
Yet, the scientific evidence is underwhelming. There is not one bit of data that can prove this. It is strictly looking at the facts - capsaicin affects only mammals, mammals chew and destroy the seeds when consuming the seed pods, birds swallow seeds and drop them off with a pile of fertilizer to boot - and then coming up with a story (they call it a theory to make it sound more authentic) how and why this came to be.
Now, for the record, I do not have a problem with the Earth and Universe being billions of years old. If anything it goes towards proving God's omnipotence. Most believe in that God was around long before he ever put us on the planet. Just what did he do "pre-Adam"? Sat in the dark? Why should we think that our existence on this planet is the first and only time that God created life?
The detail that traps "creationists" is the death part. According to them and a strict reading of the Bible, there was no death on the Earth until Adam sinned. So that means the Earth can only be about 6000 years old. Dinosaurs and man were created the same "Sixth" day. They will tell you that dinosaurs even made it onto Noah's ark. That is the only way to get around the death issue.
I am not saying by any means that I know all the answers. But what if God was referring to the death of the soul? I do find it interesting that man is singled out as being formed by God, who then breathes life into him. And the KJV ends the passage with "man became a living soul."
The overwhelming truth to any and all of this is that NO ONE KNOWS! And yet we spend time and money searching for answers about our supposed past. And we take bits and pieces of bones and remains and conjure up stories to help us cope with the nagging fact we want there to be more. We want to feel special and important. We view ourselves as the pentacle of evolution. That the struggle for life on this planet has a clear winner in Man. All the while fearful in knowing how quickly this futile existence really is for (a) man. And that the real epitaph for each of us is "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my life the most."
So the big news is now "Missing Link Found!", as a 47 million-year-old lemur-like creature with opposable thumbs and fingernails has been discovered. Well, at least his remains were found.
This instantly reminded me of a post from the Dilbert Blog called, "Fossils - Still Bullshit." Scott Adams posits that most of the evidence for evolution is dumbed down so that the masses can understand it. But that the simplification creates misleading and false information.
It has always struck me as a bit absurd that we base how entire species look on one skeleton. (And sometimes on pieces of a skeleton.) Can you imagine a few thousand years from now, after the machines take over the world and then humans again are triumphant, that someone digs up a skeleton and says that this is what Homo Sapiens looked like. And it just happens that they dug up some inbred hillbilly whose grandfather was also his brother. On top of that, the only surviving record from our time is a Li'l Abner cartoon.
This really just gave me an excuse to rant. On an episode of Mythbusters debunking shark myths, they used peppers (Scotch Bonnets, I believe) as a possible shark deterrent. It didn't work. Then the voice over says that only mammals find the capsaicin in peppers to be an irritant. (Yes, I did have to look up how to spell capsaicin.) The voice over continues that capsaicin does not work on birds, and apparently fish. That pepper plants had evolved to better protect their seeds. This was said with all sincerity and as a matter of fact.
And all that came to mind is, "REALLY?!?"
It seems so illogical to me to give plants the ability to think. That a plant would know what class of animal is eating its fruit. That it could figure out that it can produce a substance which would effectively stop that one class from eating its fruit. AND that this substance would not work on other classes of animals. (It still would want birds to take the fruit so that it would spread the seeds to other areas.)
Yet, the scientific evidence is underwhelming. There is not one bit of data that can prove this. It is strictly looking at the facts - capsaicin affects only mammals, mammals chew and destroy the seeds when consuming the seed pods, birds swallow seeds and drop them off with a pile of fertilizer to boot - and then coming up with a story (they call it a theory to make it sound more authentic) how and why this came to be.
Now, for the record, I do not have a problem with the Earth and Universe being billions of years old. If anything it goes towards proving God's omnipotence. Most believe in that God was around long before he ever put us on the planet. Just what did he do "pre-Adam"? Sat in the dark? Why should we think that our existence on this planet is the first and only time that God created life?
The detail that traps "creationists" is the death part. According to them and a strict reading of the Bible, there was no death on the Earth until Adam sinned. So that means the Earth can only be about 6000 years old. Dinosaurs and man were created the same "Sixth" day. They will tell you that dinosaurs even made it onto Noah's ark. That is the only way to get around the death issue.
I am not saying by any means that I know all the answers. But what if God was referring to the death of the soul? I do find it interesting that man is singled out as being formed by God, who then breathes life into him. And the KJV ends the passage with "man became a living soul."
The overwhelming truth to any and all of this is that NO ONE KNOWS! And yet we spend time and money searching for answers about our supposed past. And we take bits and pieces of bones and remains and conjure up stories to help us cope with the nagging fact we want there to be more. We want to feel special and important. We view ourselves as the pentacle of evolution. That the struggle for life on this planet has a clear winner in Man. All the while fearful in knowing how quickly this futile existence really is for (a) man. And that the real epitaph for each of us is "Of all the things I've lost, I miss my life the most."
January 30, 2009
The Celebrity of President
In the age of Paris Hilton, I guess there should not be any shock that we elect someone to the office of the presidency based more on style than on substance. Still, during the first 10 days, we have reports on what Obama is wearing mixed in with the celebrity gossip shows. We hear about his bold decisions he tackles along with what designer's tie he is wearing. (Go check it out on your own if you don't believe me. I am not about to link to any of them.)
Now before anyone (any liberal leaning person anyway) gets all rankled that I am attacking him, let me say three things:
1. I do not think that either of the two candidates were good choices for President. In fact, I do not like the idea of senators even running for the office. Most of our presidents have been governors prior to being elected to the office. The last sitting senator to be elected president was JFK. And one could argue that he was elected on style as well. And at least JFK had more than 70 days worth of actual Senate time under his belt before running!
2. This election was more about voting against someone or something than actually voting for a candidate. There was so much vitriol (yes, using the secondary definition of the word) towards Bush that you would have thought Bush was running for a third term. No one looked at voting records or experience (exception would be Sarah Palin's experience).
3. And Bush certainly did not help his party's chances by allowing gas prices to get so far out of hand. This truly was the snowball that caused the economic avalanche. Never once did he consider opening our reserves or push for new drilling anywhere in or around the US. He had the power to do so, without Congress first pursuing legislation. (Side note: Who is the largest importer of oil to the U.S.? Anyone care to take a guess?)
So here we are at the 10 day mark and two very troubling items have come up. The first is the stimulus. We run into a surreal universe where we can increase our debt load by giving money away AND somehow we can cut taxes. Try this little trick at home tonight. Tell your spouse that since times are tight and prices are rising, you have voluntarily chosen to reduce the amount of income you make. And then while your spouse is dazed tell that person you also want to do your part to stimulate the economy, so you are buying up beach front property in Arizona at a ridiculously high price. Sure you will have a debt load that even your great-grandchildren still won't be able to dent. But that will be their problem, right?
The second comes out of the the "shameful" bonuses paid out last year. Obama blasted bank executives for their irresponsibility (Responsibilty is his theme song) in paying out such large bonuses. After some digging (and you really have to dig through quite a bit) I found a couple of interesting facts. Most of these bonuses were not paid to executives. In fact, banks that were assisted by TARP had to eliminate bonuses to executives. That means that this money went to lower level workers. Also, the bonuses were the total paid over the entire year. Meaning it includes first quarter bonuses. Before the recession hit. And above all else, the banks paid bonuses based on profits and reaching certain benchmarks. This is how the banking and financial industry compensates its workforce. From the top all the way down.
I fear that Obama does not understand capitalism. Or, more sinisterly, I fear he wishes to do away with capitalism. One news report mentioned he chastised Citigroup for its proposal to purchase a $50 million jet. But think about this for a second. How many people does it take to build a jet? How many people were paid for their labor to design, manufacture and assemble the pieces that become a jet? Isn't that the whole idea of his stimulus plan is to get people working?
In that same news report is a quote from our newly crowned leader:
All too true. But government is digging a canyon. And Mr. President, that will become the responsibility of our children's children's children to fill. Is that how you want your 4 years to be remembered?
Now before anyone (any liberal leaning person anyway) gets all rankled that I am attacking him, let me say three things:
1. I do not think that either of the two candidates were good choices for President. In fact, I do not like the idea of senators even running for the office. Most of our presidents have been governors prior to being elected to the office. The last sitting senator to be elected president was JFK. And one could argue that he was elected on style as well. And at least JFK had more than 70 days worth of actual Senate time under his belt before running!
2. This election was more about voting against someone or something than actually voting for a candidate. There was so much vitriol (yes, using the secondary definition of the word) towards Bush that you would have thought Bush was running for a third term. No one looked at voting records or experience (exception would be Sarah Palin's experience).
3. And Bush certainly did not help his party's chances by allowing gas prices to get so far out of hand. This truly was the snowball that caused the economic avalanche. Never once did he consider opening our reserves or push for new drilling anywhere in or around the US. He had the power to do so, without Congress first pursuing legislation. (Side note: Who is the largest importer of oil to the U.S.? Anyone care to take a guess?)
So here we are at the 10 day mark and two very troubling items have come up. The first is the stimulus. We run into a surreal universe where we can increase our debt load by giving money away AND somehow we can cut taxes. Try this little trick at home tonight. Tell your spouse that since times are tight and prices are rising, you have voluntarily chosen to reduce the amount of income you make. And then while your spouse is dazed tell that person you also want to do your part to stimulate the economy, so you are buying up beach front property in Arizona at a ridiculously high price. Sure you will have a debt load that even your great-grandchildren still won't be able to dent. But that will be their problem, right?
The second comes out of the the "shameful" bonuses paid out last year. Obama blasted bank executives for their irresponsibility (Responsibilty is his theme song) in paying out such large bonuses. After some digging (and you really have to dig through quite a bit) I found a couple of interesting facts. Most of these bonuses were not paid to executives. In fact, banks that were assisted by TARP had to eliminate bonuses to executives. That means that this money went to lower level workers. Also, the bonuses were the total paid over the entire year. Meaning it includes first quarter bonuses. Before the recession hit. And above all else, the banks paid bonuses based on profits and reaching certain benchmarks. This is how the banking and financial industry compensates its workforce. From the top all the way down.
I fear that Obama does not understand capitalism. Or, more sinisterly, I fear he wishes to do away with capitalism. One news report mentioned he chastised Citigroup for its proposal to purchase a $50 million jet. But think about this for a second. How many people does it take to build a jet? How many people were paid for their labor to design, manufacture and assemble the pieces that become a jet? Isn't that the whole idea of his stimulus plan is to get people working?
In that same news report is a quote from our newly crowned leader:
"The American people understand that we've got a big hole that we've got to dig ourselves out of," Obama said. "But they don't like that people are digging a bigger hole even as they are being asked to fill it up."
All too true. But government is digging a canyon. And Mr. President, that will become the responsibility of our children's children's children to fill. Is that how you want your 4 years to be remembered?
October 15, 2008
But They Are 60 Cents Cheaper!
My Addiction; my Habit; the elixer that makes life bearable; that bubbly, caffeinated nectar of the gods called Dr. Pepper has been savagely brutalized by these economic hard times. The standard 12 piece refrigerator pack has shrunk to an 8 pack. Would this still have happened if the bailout had come quicker?
April 28, 2008
Naked Spinning Ballerinas I Have Known
I haven't spent as much time online recently. Instead, I have been diving headlong into HTML and CSS. It is amazing how little I know about either. I decided I want to create a site for my Orlando Daily Photo blog that would allow for advertising. More on that another time.
So, I just went through some email accounts that I haven't cleared out in awhile. A couple were at least 3 months full. Much to my surprise, there were only a few viagra ads. Much to my chagrin, there were quite a few viral emails from family and friends. Once past my "Why the hell are you sending me this?" reaction, I decided I need to respond. The question is, how?
I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Well, maybe one to two. I have thought about telling them to set up a stumbleupon or mixx account. But I am sure they know I won't visit their sites. No matter even if I promise to do so daily. I don't want to call them directly. This will validate to them that I actually opened and read it! And obviously, after sharing my opinions through writing caused such a stir, emailing them might not be the best.
Instead, I think I will simply email these nice people the same exact things they send me. Maybe I will send it twice. Or three times! I know that it sounds stupid, but my logic is this:
First, they must love getting and reading these. So maybe they will enjoy seeing them again. And again. And then again.
Second, maybe by the third time that ballerina will finally spin the other way for them! What joy that will be! (And why the hell is she naked? Does that help in the spinning process?
Third, maybe (hopefully) they will see what it is like to be bombarded with inane images, stories, jokes and quizzes.
I will let you know how it goes!
So, I just went through some email accounts that I haven't cleared out in awhile. A couple were at least 3 months full. Much to my surprise, there were only a few viagra ads. Much to my chagrin, there were quite a few viral emails from family and friends. Once past my "Why the hell are you sending me this?" reaction, I decided I need to respond. The question is, how?
I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. Well, maybe one to two. I have thought about telling them to set up a stumbleupon or mixx account. But I am sure they know I won't visit their sites. No matter even if I promise to do so daily. I don't want to call them directly. This will validate to them that I actually opened and read it! And obviously, after sharing my opinions through writing caused such a stir, emailing them might not be the best.
Instead, I think I will simply email these nice people the same exact things they send me. Maybe I will send it twice. Or three times! I know that it sounds stupid, but my logic is this:
First, they must love getting and reading these. So maybe they will enjoy seeing them again. And again. And then again.
Second, maybe by the third time that ballerina will finally spin the other way for them! What joy that will be! (And why the hell is she naked? Does that help in the spinning process?
Third, maybe (hopefully) they will see what it is like to be bombarded with inane images, stories, jokes and quizzes.
I will let you know how it goes!
February 21, 2008
Random Gibberish
So I have a new layout and cannot think of something to blog about. Figures. Sort of like staring at a blank canvas that's already ornately framed. You don't want to put something in the center of the frame that will certainly degrade or lessen the effect.
Here are some items that, on their own, are not enough for even a lousy post. They seem utterly appropriate for an occasion such as this.
- If a man says something and a woman is not around to hear it, is he still wrong? Maybe I should set up a poll on this.
- When I had to have my gall bladder removed, the only annoying thing was having to wear that plastic cone. I mean really. Bite at your stitches once and it haunts you all your life. I didn't get a good night's sleep for a week.
- Why do people ask me about Chase, only to interrupt me with anecdotes of their child, sort of related to whatever I was talking about? I am the one with the interesting child.
- The sound of one hand clapping is still much sweeter than the sound of one head slapping a glass door.
- Too many people put more time and effort into the wedding than they do the marriage.
- If a bunch of cats jumped on each other would you still call it a dogpile?
So there it is. Random gibberish. And now my new shiny template has been officially tainted.
(At least I didn't fill it with how my day was, or what I ate. I will let other blogs handle those kinds of topics!)
O Hell, I'm gonna ruin it sooner or later. I guess I'll go with sooner.
Here are some items that, on their own, are not enough for even a lousy post. They seem utterly appropriate for an occasion such as this.
- If a man says something and a woman is not around to hear it, is he still wrong? Maybe I should set up a poll on this.
- When I had to have my gall bladder removed, the only annoying thing was having to wear that plastic cone. I mean really. Bite at your stitches once and it haunts you all your life. I didn't get a good night's sleep for a week.
- Why do people ask me about Chase, only to interrupt me with anecdotes of their child, sort of related to whatever I was talking about? I am the one with the interesting child.
- The sound of one hand clapping is still much sweeter than the sound of one head slapping a glass door.
- Too many people put more time and effort into the wedding than they do the marriage.
- If a bunch of cats jumped on each other would you still call it a dogpile?
So there it is. Random gibberish. And now my new shiny template has been officially tainted.
(At least I didn't fill it with how my day was, or what I ate. I will let other blogs handle those kinds of topics!)
January 26, 2008
Poor Unfortunate Souls
In the last couple of days, I came across a site called Re-Imagineering. It is a blog with the intent to bring light to as they call it "past missteps". The purpose then is that others in the management portion of the Walt Disney Company can then read these and work to "restore magic missing from the parks".
Most of the pieces written here do a great job critiquing how the Eisner era focused on how the theme parks could be milked for maximum revenue, after years of really languishing and maintaining a status quo following Walt Disney's death. The theme parks have moved away from what Walt originally intended. Their view is that we should get back to the original ideal.
I put all of this out in front so that you can decide if you wish to read the middle section. I am about to go on a rant. I am not concerned if anyone truly does read it the middle. I just wanted to get this off my chest. But I would like you to read the ending part. It is something that should scare the $#!+ out of every person in Canada and America. And this is the absolute perfect forum for this.
So, those that know me, I love most things Disney. And when you get right down to it, I love most Disney things that Walt actually was involved with. Nobody, and nothing really, is perfect. There is always room for improvement. But with Walt, he was almost spooky perfect when it came to running his company. From having the vision for creating so many firsts in animation, to taking an idea and working it out until it was great. He wasn't so much perfect, but driven to perfection. He expected and accepted nothing less than the absolute best work from himself and those that surrounded him. He also had an uncanny knack for knowing what people wanted. And he grew an empire that no one will ever be able to duplicate or improve upon.
Those who have come after him do not have that balance of creativity and leadership that Walt mastered. Michael Eisner brought much needed leadership, but no creativity. He made the company a powerhouse again and financially solvent. But his way of doing so left many feeling like he did not care about carrying on Walt's vision. This is most apparent in the theme parks.
Eisner made sure the parks made money. The exits of many rides are now little shops housing merchandise relating to the characters you just saw. There are several kiosks throughout pushing their timeshares. They are even labelled on the maps along with the attractions! It is a different style of management. Not all together wrong; the parks are more popular than ever. And certainly more profitable. And with the extra cash has come new parks and new attractions in the older ones. But those who prefer Walt's vision get bent out of shape by it.
The latest post at Re-Imagineering points out one of those ideas that did not work out. At the entrance of Epcot there are several monuments that are part of the Leave a Legacy program. For a fee you can have your image(s) and small inscription placed on one of the blocks. Sort of a tribute to your visiting Walt Disney World. It looks like a futuristic cemetery. I cannot believe that someone didn't stop this early on.
Now the author of the post is uses the moniker of "Mr. Banks", a character from Mary Poppins. It seems that the authors tend to think they need anonymity from their employer. And perhaps with a grain of truth, in that they tend to write from a haughty-I'm-right-you're-wrong attitude. Or it may be that they are in impotent, low positions where their views are not taken seriously, and this is the only way they feel their voice can be heard.
The author, to make his case, just cannot write this in a factual, erudite fashion. He has to insert this:
"Leave a Legacy is an element of the Disney Parks that divides guests rather than unites them. Those with enough status, bearing and disposable income can proudly shout, ‘I’m part of the legacy!” while those strained by the already steep entrance fee and unwilling to participate can’t help but be reminded that they’re not. Isn’t Epcot, indeed every Disney theme park, supposed to celebrate our common humanity rather than underline our differences?"
(Rant. Building.)
I felt compelled to respond to this. I pointed out that not only is this inflammatory, but simply a non-issue with this. He replied that he knew this, was unapologetic ,and that it was gratuitous. He simply wanted the reader to become enraged, and cry out, "Those Poor Unfortunate Souls!" The entire purpose is so that his bosses, which I am sure do not read or give credence to their blog, will come back to the ideals of Walt.
(Can't Control It. Gonna BLOW!)
Where has personal responsibility gone? Instead of facts, you have to stoop so low as to sway support to your cause through conjecture and lies? You have to project what you think someone "feels" into your missive?
(PRIMARY RANT)
The absolute worst part is that it feeds a dangerous mentality. We feel that the needs of a few supersede those of the whole. It is this mentality that says all kids must participate in whatever team sport they choose. All must play each game. Problem: Not all kids are good enough. Solution: We just won't keep score. Because that is fair to all. At least to those few who really can't play. Never mind that the good players cannot hone their skills through competition. It won't matter later on in life. The "loser" kids will continue into adulthood and never face competition. No, because when it's hiring time or promotion time, EVERYONE WILL BE TREATED THE SAME!
Wrong.
Think that I am taking this too far or going off-topic? No. To purport that divisiveness shouldn't be acceptable at a theme park is spin. You and others like you would love to see a world where "we" - insert any majority - are careful not to offend "them" - insert small group. The trouble is it is a very slippery slope. And one that continues to drag us down. Don't believe me? Read this wonderful bit of news from Canada. They are thinking about SETTING LIMITS ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION! And don't say that this is just a Canada thing. A step here. A step there. We walk closer to this daily with "political correctness" and frivolous lawsuits. Or when a radio personality is fired for saying something divisive? Who is to say what is divisive? And who gets the final say?
I take my freedoms very seriously. But with freedom comes a level of responsibility. To assert that the smaller group has rights above the whole is dangerous. And not without consequence.
Most of the pieces written here do a great job critiquing how the Eisner era focused on how the theme parks could be milked for maximum revenue, after years of really languishing and maintaining a status quo following Walt Disney's death. The theme parks have moved away from what Walt originally intended. Their view is that we should get back to the original ideal.
I put all of this out in front so that you can decide if you wish to read the middle section. I am about to go on a rant. I am not concerned if anyone truly does read it the middle. I just wanted to get this off my chest. But I would like you to read the ending part. It is something that should scare the $#!+ out of every person in Canada and America. And this is the absolute perfect forum for this.
So, those that know me, I love most things Disney. And when you get right down to it, I love most Disney things that Walt actually was involved with. Nobody, and nothing really, is perfect. There is always room for improvement. But with Walt, he was almost spooky perfect when it came to running his company. From having the vision for creating so many firsts in animation, to taking an idea and working it out until it was great. He wasn't so much perfect, but driven to perfection. He expected and accepted nothing less than the absolute best work from himself and those that surrounded him. He also had an uncanny knack for knowing what people wanted. And he grew an empire that no one will ever be able to duplicate or improve upon.
Those who have come after him do not have that balance of creativity and leadership that Walt mastered. Michael Eisner brought much needed leadership, but no creativity. He made the company a powerhouse again and financially solvent. But his way of doing so left many feeling like he did not care about carrying on Walt's vision. This is most apparent in the theme parks.
Eisner made sure the parks made money. The exits of many rides are now little shops housing merchandise relating to the characters you just saw. There are several kiosks throughout pushing their timeshares. They are even labelled on the maps along with the attractions! It is a different style of management. Not all together wrong; the parks are more popular than ever. And certainly more profitable. And with the extra cash has come new parks and new attractions in the older ones. But those who prefer Walt's vision get bent out of shape by it.
The latest post at Re-Imagineering points out one of those ideas that did not work out. At the entrance of Epcot there are several monuments that are part of the Leave a Legacy program. For a fee you can have your image(s) and small inscription placed on one of the blocks. Sort of a tribute to your visiting Walt Disney World. It looks like a futuristic cemetery. I cannot believe that someone didn't stop this early on.
Now the author of the post is uses the moniker of "Mr. Banks", a character from Mary Poppins. It seems that the authors tend to think they need anonymity from their employer. And perhaps with a grain of truth, in that they tend to write from a haughty-I'm-right-you're-wrong attitude. Or it may be that they are in impotent, low positions where their views are not taken seriously, and this is the only way they feel their voice can be heard.
The author, to make his case, just cannot write this in a factual, erudite fashion. He has to insert this:
"Leave a Legacy is an element of the Disney Parks that divides guests rather than unites them. Those with enough status, bearing and disposable income can proudly shout, ‘I’m part of the legacy!” while those strained by the already steep entrance fee and unwilling to participate can’t help but be reminded that they’re not. Isn’t Epcot, indeed every Disney theme park, supposed to celebrate our common humanity rather than underline our differences?"
(Rant. Building.)
I felt compelled to respond to this. I pointed out that not only is this inflammatory, but simply a non-issue with this. He replied that he knew this, was unapologetic ,and that it was gratuitous. He simply wanted the reader to become enraged, and cry out, "Those Poor Unfortunate Souls!" The entire purpose is so that his bosses, which I am sure do not read or give credence to their blog, will come back to the ideals of Walt.
(Can't Control It. Gonna BLOW!)
Where has personal responsibility gone? Instead of facts, you have to stoop so low as to sway support to your cause through conjecture and lies? You have to project what you think someone "feels" into your missive?
(PRIMARY RANT)
The absolute worst part is that it feeds a dangerous mentality. We feel that the needs of a few supersede those of the whole. It is this mentality that says all kids must participate in whatever team sport they choose. All must play each game. Problem: Not all kids are good enough. Solution: We just won't keep score. Because that is fair to all. At least to those few who really can't play. Never mind that the good players cannot hone their skills through competition. It won't matter later on in life. The "loser" kids will continue into adulthood and never face competition. No, because when it's hiring time or promotion time, EVERYONE WILL BE TREATED THE SAME!
Wrong.
Think that I am taking this too far or going off-topic? No. To purport that divisiveness shouldn't be acceptable at a theme park is spin. You and others like you would love to see a world where "we" - insert any majority - are careful not to offend "them" - insert small group. The trouble is it is a very slippery slope. And one that continues to drag us down. Don't believe me? Read this wonderful bit of news from Canada. They are thinking about SETTING LIMITS ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION! And don't say that this is just a Canada thing. A step here. A step there. We walk closer to this daily with "political correctness" and frivolous lawsuits. Or when a radio personality is fired for saying something divisive? Who is to say what is divisive? And who gets the final say?
I take my freedoms very seriously. But with freedom comes a level of responsibility. To assert that the smaller group has rights above the whole is dangerous. And not without consequence.
December 11, 2007
Everything You Know is Wrong
First, please read this post and then this post.
Very simply put, in this age of information, the unwashed masses are fed a steady diet of pablum. The bane of our existence is the media. Both print and television continue to take stories and bastardize them. This is especially true of anything relating to science. They take away any big words so that a five year-old can understand them. They add a touch of sensationalism to keep people's interest. And the worst part, they know that their audience will not go out and independently validate the so-called facts.
On the local news a few days back, there was a story concerning the high amounts of sodium in processed foods. Foods like frozen dinners will have 30% to 50% of the recommended daily allowance of sodium in one serving. The FDA was looking at ways to crack down on this. But the twist was how the news outlet presented the facts. They stated that one should consume about one teaspoon of sodium a day. But most people are getting 4000 milligrams a day instead. This was a graphic on the screen with the 4000 in a larger font. The voice over then said that this was about twice what one should consume. This confusing graphic is exactly what I am talking about. Yes, too much sodium will lead to high blood pressure and heart disease. But, there was no need to sensationalize the point in such a confusing way.
In Scott Adams' post about fossils and evolution, and in John's post about global warming, the science part of the stories are glossed over. Assuredly, the media outlets feel that the average person (the aforementioned five year-old) would not understand the science involved. And they have achieved the self-fulfilling prophecy.
The good news is that there is intelligent life still on this planet. We must be vigilant in our efforts to educate ourselves and our children. You cannot take any bit of information as fact. You must validate and decide for yourself. Nothing from the media can be taken at face value. Except for maybe sports scores.
Very simply put, in this age of information, the unwashed masses are fed a steady diet of pablum. The bane of our existence is the media. Both print and television continue to take stories and bastardize them. This is especially true of anything relating to science. They take away any big words so that a five year-old can understand them. They add a touch of sensationalism to keep people's interest. And the worst part, they know that their audience will not go out and independently validate the so-called facts.
On the local news a few days back, there was a story concerning the high amounts of sodium in processed foods. Foods like frozen dinners will have 30% to 50% of the recommended daily allowance of sodium in one serving. The FDA was looking at ways to crack down on this. But the twist was how the news outlet presented the facts. They stated that one should consume about one teaspoon of sodium a day. But most people are getting 4000 milligrams a day instead. This was a graphic on the screen with the 4000 in a larger font. The voice over then said that this was about twice what one should consume. This confusing graphic is exactly what I am talking about. Yes, too much sodium will lead to high blood pressure and heart disease. But, there was no need to sensationalize the point in such a confusing way.
In Scott Adams' post about fossils and evolution, and in John's post about global warming, the science part of the stories are glossed over. Assuredly, the media outlets feel that the average person (the aforementioned five year-old) would not understand the science involved. And they have achieved the self-fulfilling prophecy.
The good news is that there is intelligent life still on this planet. We must be vigilant in our efforts to educate ourselves and our children. You cannot take any bit of information as fact. You must validate and decide for yourself. Nothing from the media can be taken at face value. Except for maybe sports scores.
November 14, 2007
Negativity
It seems anymore that the news has really moved towards emphasizing the bad news. Like today, the angle for one local radio news story was how the record number of tourists to the area had brought with it a spike in the amount of flu cases here this year. It seems that Universal and SeaWorld are announcing their best summers since 9/11. Walt Disney World will not give out figures, but are saying they exceeded their expected turnout. Yet, somehow, this was a bad thing for the area. *long sigh*
I noticed a long time ago that here and in New Orleans that news focused on the sensational. This was in stark contrast to Dallas. Big D police had requested very early on that news outlets not talk about gangs in Dallas. This actually helped in that gangs did not do crimes in order to publicize their existence. Even now, if you check out the Dallas Morning News versus the Orlando Sentinel or the Times-Picayune, you will find more negative stories in Orlando and New Orleans. Is it really that bad? Is it really that great in Dallas?
It permeates into our lives. When I ask people who they would vote for and why, the why is all about what they do not like about the other candidate. We seem to be moving to voting against someone instead of voting for someone.
Is there a way to reverse this? I realize the irony of being negative about negativity, but the first step is admitting there is a problem. I want to start now and focus my energy on what is going right:
No devastating hurricanes this year.
Streetcars are running on St. Charles Avenue once again.
The Cowboys have a solid shot at the Super Bowl.
Ikea opened in Orlando.
The economy is running strong.
Health-wise, my whole family is great.
I donate blood on a regular basis because I can.
Right now, I am content.
I noticed a long time ago that here and in New Orleans that news focused on the sensational. This was in stark contrast to Dallas. Big D police had requested very early on that news outlets not talk about gangs in Dallas. This actually helped in that gangs did not do crimes in order to publicize their existence. Even now, if you check out the Dallas Morning News versus the Orlando Sentinel or the Times-Picayune, you will find more negative stories in Orlando and New Orleans. Is it really that bad? Is it really that great in Dallas?
It permeates into our lives. When I ask people who they would vote for and why, the why is all about what they do not like about the other candidate. We seem to be moving to voting against someone instead of voting for someone.
Is there a way to reverse this? I realize the irony of being negative about negativity, but the first step is admitting there is a problem. I want to start now and focus my energy on what is going right:
No devastating hurricanes this year.
Streetcars are running on St. Charles Avenue once again.
The Cowboys have a solid shot at the Super Bowl.
Ikea opened in Orlando.
The economy is running strong.
Health-wise, my whole family is great.
I donate blood on a regular basis because I can.
Right now, I am content.
September 14, 2007
Why America Is The Way It Is
Just so we are all starting at the same point, here is the underlying assumption made: I (and you) already know this little gem of wisdom. This is simply to help vent and rant.
At the "nationally branded" department store tonight - Not that one, the other one. Yes, bulls eye. - I witnessed that well known struggle of mother and child where said child goes ballistic because said mother tells child "No". This child wanted a toy. Mother said she already had a similar toy. Child counters with "But this one does 'Y', and mine only does 'X'!" Then mother says the immortal words, "You think money grows on trees? Do you know how hard I work just to put food on the table and clothes on your back? You don't even say 'Thank you' to me!"
Well, of course not! This child has been given no reason to be thankful! You have made her feel like she is the center of the universe! You have given to her at every other turn, you have taken her to wherever she has needed to go, and you have never taken the time to explain to her what her limits are!
And mainly this is due to the fact YOUR PARENTS treated you as the center of the universe. You have only perpetuated the myth.
My parents taught us the value of money very early on. We were not "given" an allowance. We had chores to do. If we did the chores, we received compensation. They explained this is why people must work. If you did not work, you did not get money. If you have no money, you did not get to buy things. And we were taught what tithing was, and we had to give 10% each week.
Unfortunately, too many Americans feel that they are "entitled" to a certain standard of living. Far too many people do not know that what "VALUE" is. Far too many are given things, money, food, shelter, etc., when they haven't earned it. Far too many do not comprehend that these things have no VALUE to them. They do not understand that these items will not bring them satisfaction. They have lost the VALUE of their humanity.
Before anyone goes off about "widows and orphans", I am all for giving a helping hand to get people back on their feet. We all need that from time to time. Unfortunately, we have created an entire industry based on the down-trodden. Instead of bringing people up, we keep people down. We give and give without thinking of the consequence it has on the recipient.
Even FDR recognized that during the Great Depression, people would work in order to get help from the government. The creation of the Public Works Administration did more than give people jobs. It helped revive America's economy.
My ranting aside, I fear for the America my child will grow up to find. We have to do something now to break this cycle of entitlement. We have to show our children that path may be harder, but earning what you have is far more fulfilling. We have to teach them what VALUE truly is.
At the "nationally branded" department store tonight - Not that one, the other one. Yes, bulls eye. - I witnessed that well known struggle of mother and child where said child goes ballistic because said mother tells child "No". This child wanted a toy. Mother said she already had a similar toy. Child counters with "But this one does 'Y', and mine only does 'X'!" Then mother says the immortal words, "You think money grows on trees? Do you know how hard I work just to put food on the table and clothes on your back? You don't even say 'Thank you' to me!"
Well, of course not! This child has been given no reason to be thankful! You have made her feel like she is the center of the universe! You have given to her at every other turn, you have taken her to wherever she has needed to go, and you have never taken the time to explain to her what her limits are!
And mainly this is due to the fact YOUR PARENTS treated you as the center of the universe. You have only perpetuated the myth.
My parents taught us the value of money very early on. We were not "given" an allowance. We had chores to do. If we did the chores, we received compensation. They explained this is why people must work. If you did not work, you did not get money. If you have no money, you did not get to buy things. And we were taught what tithing was, and we had to give 10% each week.
Unfortunately, too many Americans feel that they are "entitled" to a certain standard of living. Far too many people do not know that what "VALUE" is. Far too many are given things, money, food, shelter, etc., when they haven't earned it. Far too many do not comprehend that these things have no VALUE to them. They do not understand that these items will not bring them satisfaction. They have lost the VALUE of their humanity.
Before anyone goes off about "widows and orphans", I am all for giving a helping hand to get people back on their feet. We all need that from time to time. Unfortunately, we have created an entire industry based on the down-trodden. Instead of bringing people up, we keep people down. We give and give without thinking of the consequence it has on the recipient.
Even FDR recognized that during the Great Depression, people would work in order to get help from the government. The creation of the Public Works Administration did more than give people jobs. It helped revive America's economy.
My ranting aside, I fear for the America my child will grow up to find. We have to do something now to break this cycle of entitlement. We have to show our children that path may be harder, but earning what you have is far more fulfilling. We have to teach them what VALUE truly is.
June 26, 2007
Me and The Blues
It seems that a pall of negativity has taken up residence around here recently. No matter where I turn, someone is telling me how "horrible" their life has become. It seems to be stronger at work, thankfully, but even friends and family are focusing on the negative.
Now, as I've said before, I'm a big picture sort of guy. I don't fret about things I cannot control. But what do you say to people, especially co-workers, when they start up?
One guy's ex-wife is moving out of state, and taking their son with her. They had no real stipulations about this. He could have fought it, but the kid seems okay with it. So he is doing what he thinks is right for his son. But every day he works, he brings this up. Usually 2 or 3 times each day. And usually, I swing the conversation back to whatever task we have to do. In truth, I really do not care.
And that is I guess what is really bothering me. I find that I am really apathetic towards all my co-workers. Ironically, I am the one they come to first. Probably due in part to my position. Partly because I have never turned a deaf ear to anyone. Ever. And yet, I find my mind drifting away from the conversation and onto what tasks I can give them. And the longer I listen, the longer their task list becomes.
With family and friends, it's different. Maybe because I am more invested in the relationship. Maybe because I actually care what happens to them, since I am involved in some way? Maybe because I can give comfort and care to them.
Most of the time, co-workers are looking for a place to vent. At least that's what I tell myself. If someone asks for advice, I give it. But it's still sterile. Maybe clinical is a better choice of word. No matter how you slice it, I keep them at a distance.
Is this bad? Or evil? How do you handle work relationships? There are only two that I would even consider hanging out with. But my position could make things complicated in that they are subordinate at work, but not socially. It's lonely at the top.
Anyway, enough complaining. Right now it's midnight. Me and the blues.
Now, as I've said before, I'm a big picture sort of guy. I don't fret about things I cannot control. But what do you say to people, especially co-workers, when they start up?
One guy's ex-wife is moving out of state, and taking their son with her. They had no real stipulations about this. He could have fought it, but the kid seems okay with it. So he is doing what he thinks is right for his son. But every day he works, he brings this up. Usually 2 or 3 times each day. And usually, I swing the conversation back to whatever task we have to do. In truth, I really do not care.
And that is I guess what is really bothering me. I find that I am really apathetic towards all my co-workers. Ironically, I am the one they come to first. Probably due in part to my position. Partly because I have never turned a deaf ear to anyone. Ever. And yet, I find my mind drifting away from the conversation and onto what tasks I can give them. And the longer I listen, the longer their task list becomes.
With family and friends, it's different. Maybe because I am more invested in the relationship. Maybe because I actually care what happens to them, since I am involved in some way? Maybe because I can give comfort and care to them.
Most of the time, co-workers are looking for a place to vent. At least that's what I tell myself. If someone asks for advice, I give it. But it's still sterile. Maybe clinical is a better choice of word. No matter how you slice it, I keep them at a distance.
Is this bad? Or evil? How do you handle work relationships? There are only two that I would even consider hanging out with. But my position could make things complicated in that they are subordinate at work, but not socially. It's lonely at the top.
Anyway, enough complaining. Right now it's midnight. Me and the blues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)