So, again, I find that the daily barrage of news that we are in a recession seem to run counter to what people are doing. This time around it is on the national level. Picture three talking head pundits arguing about what people should do with their money. The consensus leaned on sitting on your money. Don't take risks. One even went so far to argue that, in the short term at least, many should not spend needlessly on big ticket items. It was really a bit of doom and gloom.
Then the commercial break comes. First is the etrade baby (he cracks me up!) touting how easy it is to invest. Then, next is the guy who puts his social security number everywhere, and tells you how he can protect your identity. This is followed by ads for a flat screen television, a luxury car, and a travel website.
It really made me wonder: Which is more persuasive? Are we more swayed by "experts" or by advertisers?
Showing posts with label News/Noteworty Item. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News/Noteworty Item. Show all posts
March 26, 2008
Recession and Commerce
February 27, 2008
Global Smarming
Yes, I know "Smarming" is not a word.
Okay, whenever I hear the words "global" and "warming", my eyes will glaze over and usually roll into my forehead. And that mainly happens because most of the evidence seems based on waht has happened over the past few years or decades. In truth, we have nothing in terms or long-term definitive proof of these claims. And really, there is no definitive proof against these claims either. I do think there are ways that we can improve how we protect the environment. Recycling and trash reduction are very valid and good things to do no matter how you feel about the issue.
But then, I found this article yesterday. Global warming sceptics buoyed by record cold. I am sure most of you have heard about it. Again, I am not saying that this should be taken as empirical evidence. And even the author of the piece makes this note:
Okay, whenever I hear the words "global" and "warming", my eyes will glaze over and usually roll into my forehead. And that mainly happens because most of the evidence seems based on waht has happened over the past few years or decades. In truth, we have nothing in terms or long-term definitive proof of these claims. And really, there is no definitive proof against these claims either. I do think there are ways that we can improve how we protect the environment. Recycling and trash reduction are very valid and good things to do no matter how you feel about the issue.
But then, I found this article yesterday. Global warming sceptics buoyed by record cold. I am sure most of you have heard about it. Again, I am not saying that this should be taken as empirical evidence. And even the author of the piece makes this note:
*smirk* Very well said."OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades," writes Lorne Gunter in the National Post.
"But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature."
February 04, 2008
Duck! Plane!
I saw the image before reading the article that appeared in the Daily Mail. It claims that this is the real deal. Yeesh!
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.
July 06, 2007
This I Believe - The Site
NPR has never been something that I could listen to for very long. Being a visual person, I always had a hard time with the concept of a painter or sculptor talking about their work and experience, but not actually seeing their work. And don't even get me started on when chefs discuss their creations.
But one thing I do like is a segment called "This I Believe". These are essays by people, both famous and unknown, in all walks of life, who express what it is that they believe. (Thus the name...) This is a revival of Edward R. Murrow's format from the 1950's. The idea is for people to voice what drives them. But the important part is that others hear them out. During the 50's, there were very few outlets where people could opine, especially to more than just their neighbors and family. This format must have been very liberating.
Now, anyone with internet access and time can have their opinions, rants, and ramblings read by people all over the world. In mere seconds. But is anyone really listening?
That is one of the main reasons for reading the essays. I admit, there are many I do not agree with. But I read them all the way through. Mostly because I respect the fact that the person has taken the time to put their belief out there for all the world to see and hear. If you were to do this, wouldn't you want others to listen to you? Check it out. To be continued.
But one thing I do like is a segment called "This I Believe". These are essays by people, both famous and unknown, in all walks of life, who express what it is that they believe. (Thus the name...) This is a revival of Edward R. Murrow's format from the 1950's. The idea is for people to voice what drives them. But the important part is that others hear them out. During the 50's, there were very few outlets where people could opine, especially to more than just their neighbors and family. This format must have been very liberating.
Now, anyone with internet access and time can have their opinions, rants, and ramblings read by people all over the world. In mere seconds. But is anyone really listening?
That is one of the main reasons for reading the essays. I admit, there are many I do not agree with. But I read them all the way through. Mostly because I respect the fact that the person has taken the time to put their belief out there for all the world to see and hear. If you were to do this, wouldn't you want others to listen to you? Check it out. To be continued.
June 29, 2007
Shuttle Musings
This is from the June 8th Atlantis launch. The remarkable thing about this rather unremarkable shot is the fact that we are on the 528 at the time. The 528 is the toll road that runs straight towards the Kennedy Space Center and Cocoa Beach. We are sitting in bumper to bumper traffic as so many have come out to watch the launch. Yes, we got in the car at the spur of the moment and headed that way to see if we could get a closer view. This is as close as we could get. That remarkable part I was talking about? We are still in Orlando, directly north of Orlando International Airport. Some 40 to 45 miles away!The shuttle and all things NASA are major news stories here in Central Florida, of course. Almost anytime there is a launch, shuttle or simply another satellite, there is plenty of media coverage. It is definitely gets as much attention as the theme parks get. Now, shuttle launches seem to be news everywhere. There was a time when that was not true.
Back in college, shuttle launches were so routine that no one stopped to watch. But then one day in 1986, that all changed. I had just sat down in Calculus, or as I called it Math as a Second Language, beside John (yeah, "Dubber") when another guy comes in and says did you hear the shuttle blew up? The image on our calculus book coincidentally was that of the shuttle on the launch pad at night. No one really took him seriously. Not until others came in with the same story. After class it was a bee line to any television to find out what had happened.
(Side note: 1986 - Cable still a toddler so the majority of people were watching network news. No internet, so zero information from that source. No cell phones. Some "car phones", those monsters that were just this side of portable, but those were mostly used by law enforcement. Our kids will think we lived in the dark ages...)
My point is that by then there had been some two dozen shuttle launches, and, with all the hundreds of other rocket launches since the sixties, it was no longer "news-worthy". We had conquered space.
(Side note 2: Moonraker came out in 1979, two years before we actually launched the first shuttle. This was 007 meets Star Wars. Worst. Bond. Movie. Ever. But it shows just how much hoopla went into the shuttle program. It is amazing how some 6 years later, we wouldn't care anymore.)
So here we are; 26 years and 2 disasters later. The shuttle is news-worthy, but not in a good way. The shuttles are being shunted. They are old and out-dated. NASA is talking about life after shuttles. So why is everyone watching?
To put it simply, too many cable news networks need to fill airtime and the very inkling of another disaster makes them drool like Pavlov's dog near a fire alarm's bell. Several minutes were spent showing the super slo-mo of the launch and how foam may have hit the shuttle. Several more minutes spent on the "blanket" and how it would affect re-entry. Showing (with scale models) what the crew would have to do to fix it. Then several minutes detailing how far away a storm could be to where the shuttle would land. (34 miles in most cases, 32 miles in others. Seems to me to be cautionary, just go with 35...)
Anyway for better or worse, the shuttles primarily and NASA peripherally, are news. At least it's better than another blurb about Paris Hilton...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)