Month: April 2023

By on

For all the talk from the right about Tucker Carlson fighting the good fight and taking it to the awful liberals, three things have become abundantly clear. He is dumb. We know he is dumb because he used hateful and derogatory phrases to describe people while using his company’s internet. Anyone who has worked in a major company in the past 25 years knows this is stupid. The company, if he paid any attention to his HR training, owns the system and the correspondence therefore the company has the right to read your emails. Also, once you have sent an email, you have lost all control over who that person will forward that email to. So, in order to protect yourself, it is best to refrain from trash talking your colleagues. Carlson might have skipped the HR training on the proper handling of electronic information but he surely must have known of the dangers of email. Yet, he still blithely went ahead with his disparaging emails. How can you explain such negligence other than stupidity on a rather grand scale.

Tucker Carlson is also just over the top mean. He uses the C word to describe Sidney Powell. He hates Donald Trump. Both Trump and Powell are Carlson allies. He uses the C word again to describe another work colleague. Surprisingly Powell and Trump are supposed to be political allies of Carlson so these aren’t passionate responses where he got carried away attacking his political enemies. These are friends and colleagues. Yet he has nothing but disdain for them. That he is so mean to his supposed friends reveals a duplicitous nature. He supports Powell and Trump on the air but behind their back he disparages them. Since Powell and Trump were making outrageous claims it could have been helpful for a person on the right to say that they were wrong. First because that is the way he truly feels, he should tell his audience his true feelings and not hide behind the agenda he hopes to create. This way they have a better understanding of his thoughts and these people. It also calls into question what his true feelings are. He tries to come off as a fire breathing right wing Republican but, in private, he takes a more moderate position. Which leads to the question, what are his actual position since he gives different opinions during the day time from the ones he expresses on the air?

With all of this verifiable evidence about Tucker Carlson, it is some what amazing that he still has supporters on the right. He isn’t very bright, or nice, and he is obfuscating his actual positions on issues. But, yeah, it is good to have a true believer on board.

By on

I don’t want to bring any more controversy to the abortion debate but I have seen the term medication abortions numerous times in the past week. If I had only seen it once, I would have chalked it up to author error but repeated use of the same term leads me to believe that the accepted term for an abortion brought about by pills is medication abortions. Here are additional example of this phrase here and here. This seems grammatically incorrect. Why is it called medication abortions instead of medicated abortions?

Medicated is an adjective that explains the abortion process the author is talking about. Since abortion is the subject and not medication, medicated abortion is the appropriate expression for the process. Joining medication and abortion doesn’t change the meaning and the term grates on my ears. What is the point? I am baffled. Or am I missing something?

By on

When I am looking for new music, I have gotten into the habit of checking other people’s favorite lists. This is how I discovered Peggy Lee’s version of “Fever” . Since I saw it on several lists, I gave it a listen and was pleasantly surprised at how unique a song it was especially for the time in which Lee sang.

The song came out in the staid 1950’s and it is anything but staid. Lee is clearly singing about sex and not love. She uses the word fever for sex but any adult would know what she is actually talking about and it isn’t love. Her yearning for sex is blatant. She doesn’t hide her desire with sweet talk or some notion of a higher love. She wants to get laid and she is unafraid to say it.

She also takes an inventive approach to the accompanying music. There is only a bass player and a drummer. It is sparse group with the more modest instruments of the band during a time where most songs had a full orchestra. The smaller group gives a quieter tone to the song so that when Lee adds her snapping fingers to the mix, you feel very much like your in Lee’s head as she is pondering the fun she is going to have with her man.

It is lovely way go.

By on

In the last week, I have see two advertisements where the model is touching his junk. I am not sure why this particular pose has gained such popularity but I’ve begun to see it more frequently. Now I enjoy see a good looking man as much as the next guy, well, maybe not the next guy but as much as the next person who might find scantily clad young men attractive, and I don’t mean to sound like a prude but I know I will but is this really the best pose to sell underwear? It makes me think that the underwear must be uncomfortable or binding because they need to rearrange their junk. I mean that is usually the reason I would be feeling my junk. Not exactly, the idea that the advertiser wants the potential customer to have. Or has holding your junk taken on a new meaning that I am unaware of? Honestly, these two gents can get away with it but I am pretty sure I would be arrested if I attempted this. Finally I love the word junk when it is used to describe male genitalia.

By on

I don’t like to change technology, upgrade or do anything to make my application new and improved. It annoys me mostly. I only need a rudimentary version of any application which means that any upgrade I get is something I don’t care about and it will somehow interfere with what I do like. Because I don’t like messing with new technology, if I must change, give it a few days and, if I can figure out the few things I want to do, I adopt the upgrade, otherwise, I just give up on it and never use the application again. I know I shouldn’t give up but I would rather read an old paperback novel or play with a deck of cards or write or do any non-technological activity than spend hours trying to figure out to manage this upgrade.

So I was worried when my Kindle died. I tried desperately to revive her but her battery simply wouldn’t recharge anymore. I finally surrendered to the inevitable and let her go to the great technology afterlife in the bottom drawer of my desk. The Kindle dying on that particular day was dire as I hadn’t finished my book for book club and the meeting was imminent. Bob saved the day. He has a lot of old technology laying around the house and he happened to have an old Kindle I could use. Wait by old, I meant it was old for him, it was, unfortunately, newer than my old Kindle. I was delighted to learn that without much effort I could still do the two things I demanded of Kindle which was read my book and read internet news.

Life was good until later that same day, I tried to play Spider. For those of you who don’t know, Spider is a computer game that is version of Solitaire. If you don’t know Solitaire, I don’t know what to say. I can’t explain it easily but I am sure you can Google it and get a much better description of the game than I can ever give. Sorry. Any way, back to Spider, Spider is my meditation, my morning prayer, my evening prayer, my centering device. I play it twice each day. Once when I get up in the morning and once again before I go to sleep at night. Spider was important to me.

So, of course, this is where my new Kindle began to falter. Wait, not falter, it failed. It was, in fact, God damn annoying. Every time I logged in I got an advertisement, and all right, I understand, I am getting Spider for free, I will gladly glance at your ad as I am clicking the X and getting out of the unwanted ad and to Spider. My old Kindle displayed an before I was able to play so this was nothing I couldn’t handle. Or so I thought. This new version cleverly hid the X to get you out of the screen. I swear this is true because I have seen it about a thousand times now and the X always eludes me. I search and search and the only symbol I can find is an arrow pointing to the left. I click on it and it takes me to the internet where a new game appears on my screen. A game I don’t want to play.

There is one particular game that I don’t know why anyone would play which my explain the assiduous need for the company to advertise for it. The game has young woman being kicked out of her house by her no good boyfriend. He is usually kissing on his new girlfriend in front of her. She burst into tears and leaves without a place to go until she finds shelter in a derelict house. The object of the game is to make the house livable for her. The game gives you a few choices to repairs you might make and you need to choose the right one to continue playing. For example you might have to choose between new windows or coal for a fire. Sometimes she has a small child which only adds to the fun if you make the wrong choice as the child begins to cry and shake from the cold. Some masochist must have thought this would be a great game to play but I am think it is dreadful.

Any way, I obviously would rather play Spider than the fix up the house game but again there is no X to get out of the game. The only button I can find is one the loads the application on to my Kindle. I have loaded new games on to my Kindle numerous times. I finally figured out that I can just exit the game through the settings and log in again to Spider which sometimes work and sometimes takes me through the whole process again. On rare occasions it takes me through the whole fucking process a third or fourth time before I get to Spider. But at what price I ask. My peace has been trifled with, my day has been ruined and my night time relaxation has turned to aggravation.

I am sorry to take this out on you, dear Readers, but it needed to be said. Perhaps you can write to your Congressperson on this important matter.

By on

I have no moral qualms about eating animals. The earth is a brutal place where animals killing other animals is a fundamental part of the food chain. I don’t see why humans should be any different than other animals. But I do have trouble with the mistreatment of these animals. They are, after all, feeding us which is a tremendous sacrifice on their part and vital to our existence. I think it is the least we can do is give animals a good life while they are still alive.

So, I read with great horror about the fire that killed 18,000 cows in one barn. How is that possible? I realize that this wasn’t your standard barn but if it was as big as a football field, could 18,000 cows live in it comfortably? Cows are big animals. 18,000 of them roaming, shitting, pissing and eating in a football field sized barn doesn’t seem big enough for that many animals. As far as the fire, or for that matter any disaster that might occur at the barn, how can you get 18,000 panic stricken cows out of a barn safely. What about disease? Isn’t putting 18,000 animals in the same barn risky if some disease should spread through the herd. The very notion that these animals are humanely and safely housed is ludicrous. This wasn’t even the worst barn disaster involving farm animals. Between 100,000 and 400,000 chickens died in another fire. Even if you lowball it at 100,000, that’s a lot of chickens in one barn. Can’t we do better than this?

I know the opposing argument is industrial farming is what has made cheap meat prices possible. If we housed animals better, we would need to spend more money which would bring up the price of food. Yes. Of course. We can’t be humane because it would cost too much money which has become a standard response to any problem we aren’t interested in fixing. It is just too damn expensive. We just have to learn to live with the homeless, insufficient public transportation, high rents, and paying people low wages. As an answer, I find too much money is a pretty lame response anymore because, of course, there is money, indeed plenty of money, there is however no will to make these things happen. Who wants to pay $5.00 for a hamburger?

Animals don’t have effective advocates mostly because a most of them are pressing vegetarianism as the answer. This radical change in the way Americans eat just isn’t going to happen. Beef, pork, and poultry are mainstays in the American diet. They can’t easily be removed from the American diet without resistance from people who like this diet. They want to eat meat. I don’t blame them. I want to eat meat.

What could change is how we view industrial livestock production. Which will be difficult and frustrating and will take years to have an effect but I think would have a more lasting impact on the American people. The first step is we need to care about the lives of animals which is easier said than done. Every time I learn anything about what happens to animals my reaction is usually the same — I don’t want to know what happens to my food. Their treatment almost always sounds cruel and inhumane. I would much rather an animal lived in the wild and was hunted for food than for an animal to live through industrial farming. Unfortunately that isn’t the way it happens and, to be fair, I understand why so much of our meat is produced this way. It is easier, cheaper and efficient for us that it might be painful for the animal is beside the point. We need this food.

But we can care about the animal and try to make their lives better. In order for it to happen we would have to actively learn what happens to animals and what actions would be possible to improve their lives. This would also mean we would have to change a lot of people’s attitudes towards animals. They aren’t just dumb animals that can be mistreated simply because they are dumb animals. They don’t care how they live as long as you feed them. As someone who has met cows and pigs , I don’t believe that for one minute. They are living creatures who deserve more from life than being stuck in barns and pens laying in their own shit and piss, never seeing the light of day for years on end. Because we have the capacity to think and to improve how we do things, we can care about their living conditions and make those changes when possible.

By on 2 Comments

I occasionally look for new music in Google with some key phrase like “Best Songs.” A list of songs will appear which I then listen to and buy. I thought I saw the song “Marie” by the Gleeman on one of these lists. Since I decided to write about “Marie” I tried to duplicate the search but I am somehow am unable to find it on any lists, so now I can’t really explain how I encountered Marie but I believe it was on somebody’s list of best songs.

The reason that I’m so interested in finding out how I found “Marie” is that it is not a song I would usually listen to. There are a lot of elements I don’t particularly like. The sentiment of being able to do anything you want is something I distrust and think is sometimes used destructively (see this post for more of my thoughts). The lyrics are a bit too saccharine for my taste. The singer’s voice is almost too overpoweringly good. I prefer, particularly in male singers, a more roughed voice, say like Tom Waits, then the Gleeman’s beautiful and perfect vocals.

Yet I find myself, after several listens, liking “Marie” so much that I keep repeating the song several times a day. The Gleeman sings with such vigor and excitement that I found myself enjoying it despite my reservations. I believe it will be one of the songs I will listen to so many times that I will become sick of it and stop listening to it for a long time and then rediscover it years down the road and fall in love with it all over again.All I can say is, right now, it made me feel really good for just a moment and, in the end, I think that is all you can really ask from a song. I know this is a terrible explanation because I can’t tell you why I like it, but I do like it and think that maybe some of you might find yourself in the same boat.

By on

I believe that Christians are so hypersensitive about gay/trans grooming is they do so much grooming of their own that they can’t believe other groups aren’t doing the same. Christian grooming is so pervasive that any attempt to reign in Christianity is seen as hostility towards Christianity. When they are asked to stop their proselytizing, particularly in public spaces, they see this as hostility as opposed to equal treatment of religion. There are now substantial numbers of pagans, Jews, Muslims and Hindus in the mix. With this type of diversity, it is best, in the interest of fairness, to eliminate religion from the public sphere. It is after all the Constitution that binds Americans together and not a specific religion.

The problem, then, is that Christians see this diminution in access to public spaces is somehow hostility to Christianity. But how? Are Christians forbidden from practicing their religion anywhere in the United States? Do they get thrown in prison for going to church services? Are they discriminated against if they apply for jobs? Are they put in large arenas and fed to lions? I am pretty certain that the hostility, in no way, matches these more hostile examples of the treatment of Christians. They just don’t happen in the United States.

A recent Supreme Court case found that it is legal for a football coach (in other words a public school teacher) to lead his team in prayer after the game. The majority opinion was that a little prayer is neutral. It give some comfort to the Christians in the audience and does no harm to the non-believers. All right then if a prayer is neutral, which runs counter to Christian thinking by the way, why worry about it if it isn’t included in a public space. Why argue about it at all then? Nothing is stopping the Christian players from getting together and praying and leaving the non-Christians out of it. But the non-believers aren’t forced to participate? It is up to the individual whether they participate. Well, yes, but when the person in charge of your team is praying, there might be an impetus to participate in the prayer in order to stay in his good graces.

Would the Court feel the same if they coach decided to exercise his first amendment rights to free speech if he decided to talk about Trans Rights. Indeed, we know that many states have curtailed teachers from engaging in this particular form of free speech. So talking about Trans people is grooming and wrong while praying is free speech and positive for Christians and neutral for everyone else. This begs the question who is the prayer for — the Christian children or the pagan children. If for the Christian children, it is hardly necessary. These children should be praying at home it their parents are so devout and, if they aren’t praying at home, why should I think it is so important to make these children pray after the football game? This leaves the pagan children who may not know anything about Christianity and who’s parents don’t want them to know anything about Christianity. Why do they need to see prayer? Because it is good? Because Christians are good? Because Christians don’t encourage transgender children to act on their feelings?

I can hear Christians getting exasperated with my arguments. No one is forcing the non-believers to prayer. The non-believers can keep respectfully silent while the Christians pray. Wait. Why? If you are expressing your first amendment rights to prayer on public property why do I have to respect you for that? If you are praying in your church, sure I have to respect you? But if you are praying on public lands, I owe you nothing. I can scream as loud as I want, interfere with your prayers in any way I see fit because you are actively grooming children to be Christians. You believe it is neutral and harmless, others may not believe the same thing. Why should the non-believers stand idly by while you foist your beliefs on others? What’s the harm in a little prayer? Well, then what is the harm in a little Satanic chant?

If you want to pray, have at it. Pray all you want but if you do it audibly in a public space, know that you are irritating me and thus are harming me. You can’t claim a Christian prayer is both neutral to non-believers and good for believers. Your aim is to influence non-believing children and that, by your own definition, is grooming and wrong. So stop it.

By on

Now that I am retired and safely out of the work environment, I have been thinking of ideas that can make the work day better for those still toiling away. I was trying to think of a way to get greater employee participation while, also, inspiring employees to both improve their performance and strive to maintain this level throughout the year.

The program is called Grab, Hold and Nudge. The company identifies its five best employees each month. Require all employees to attend a motivation event to be held in a wrestling/boxing ring. Then, from the ceiling, the company drops 1,000 $1 bills. The employees can keep as much as they can Grab and Hold while being free to Nudge the others in the ring to shake loose any of the bills they are holding. At the end of five minutes the employees can keep all the bills in their hand. Any unsecured money would be put into the pot for the following month.

There are several benefits to a program such as this:

  1. It encourages everyone to participate because every one could use some extra crash and let’s face it even an extra $20 is worth a little rumble in the ring. Full Employee Participation.
  2. Since this would be a monthly event, there would be plenty of time in a year to improve your performance and get that place in the ring. 12 Opportunities Each Year
  3. It is a measly $12,000 for all that potential motivation. Surely this could be made up by paring down the annual Summer Picnic or the Winter Party. Maybe skip the free alcohol or the starters menu. Cost Friendly
  4. The employees not in the ring would be inspired by all the cash and fun they will see in the ring. Think about all those cheering employees encouraging their friends to grab any unsecured cash while also seeing a tangible benefit what could happen to a good employee. The company could almost charge admission as it would be so exciting to watch. Inspiring
  5. But try not to charge as the competitive nature of Grab, Hold and Nudge teaches important behavioral lessons. First it would inspire employees to get in that ring and if that means working just a little bit harder, gosh darn it, I am going to do it. More importantly it shows the advantage of an aggressive and mercenary behavior in a work environment. Let me tell you, nobody will forget seeing the scramble for cash and the necessary skills you need to pocket all that money. It is difficult to be cut throat until you see the advantages of being cut throat and let me tell you five minutes watching people fighting for cash is worth more than a day of people skills training. Training and Development.
  6. Most of all it would bring a little fun for the audience and a little blood pumping exercise for the contestants. Your employees will be talking about each event and looking forward to the next month’s entertainment. Fun

Two cautionary notes. Grab, Hold and Nudge does not necessarily transfer to countries more dependent on coin currency than paper currency. For example, dropping one thousand pound coins from the ceiling in the UK could create a situation akin to the first twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan. Nobody wants a blood bath so you might test this out first because coins can easily become bullets depending upon the height you drop them from. Just find a few stray cats and dogs, put them in the ring and see how to diminish any possible carnage from the coins.

There also is a slight chance that overly enthusiastic audiences members might rush the perimeter for any cash that might slip off the ring. I have found putting a moat surrounding the ring as an easy deterrent. If your company has a lot of minimum wage employees, you might think about adding some barbed wire to the moat as most people won’t risks the cuts and bruises acquired from such an impediment. Otherwise enjoy all of the fun this new inspiring program will bring to your workplace.

Good luck and let me know your thoughts on this innovative new program.

By on

During the 2009 banking crisis, I had a conversation with a prosperous real estate man. He wasn’t the least bit fazed by all the individuals losing their homes because they could no longer afford the monthly mortgage payments. He said it was a good lesson for these people who will now make better decisions regarding their future home purchases. When I pointed out that banks should learn this same difficult lesson so they too will learn their lesson about risky behavior. He was quiet for a moment as he absorbed my point.

Once he got his footing, he argued that this was different. The collapse of banks could lead to a much bigger collapse of the whole economic system, devastating everyone. The country can’t takes such a terrible risk because we don’t know where an economic collapse would take us. Of course, he is right. However, he also adamant that the ordinary person still needed to learn the lessons of the free market even if the too big to fail companies are spared this lesson. He understood the unfairness of it all, understood that it wasn’t quite the perfect capitalist system he talked about. But we, and I include myself in this, choose to live with this imperfect version of Capitalism because nobody wants an economic catastrophe that might occur if we let the rich go under.

This disconnect from theory and practice for the rich while maintaining the importance of market principles for the poor is a distinctly American position. Almost every other Western Economy offers a greater social safety net for its ordinary citizens while regulating companies too big to fail and taxing the rich who benefit from this protection of their businesses. Americans, on the other hand, protect the rich while letting the poor fall prey to the mercies of the market. So the game is rigged and everybody knows it but can’t admit it because socialism is bad. This misunderstanding of the government safety net is so out of whack with actual reality that I have met people who believe Medicare isn’t socialized medicine when it actually epitomizes how socialized medicine should work. But I can choose my own doctors with Medicare, it isn’t socialized medicine if I can choose my own doctors. I beat my head against the wall.

Instead we continue to push the facade that the market rules, the market decides and nothing is personal. If a person makes good decisions, they prosper. If a person make bad decisions, the person grows poor. Except this isn’t exactly how the system works. The people with a lot of money can make bad decisions and absolutely nothing happens to them because if they do go down the drain they can take the rest of us with them. Too big to fail is not market capitalism. Yet, we cling to this schizophrenic version of a market economy.

Once we see things differently, maybe, we could get the rich to take more responsibility for their protected enterprises. Greater regulation of business and higher taxes seems like a fair trade for this protection and, if you are thinking soberly about the continuation of capitalism, it is the only way to bring an element of fairness back into our version of a market system. It might even save capitalism from its very worst instincts.

Yet, as Robert Reich pointed out, these paragons of pure capitalism, are complaining about any effort to rein them in. They helpfully remind us that regulation and higher taxes are not how a free market works best. Right. Thanks. But if you are talking about how capitalism is supposed to work then, in a free market failing businesses are allowed to fail, aren’t they? Failing businesses would stop handing out bonus checks to their upper management if they knew the government wasn’t going to bail them out because they would need the money to save the business. So when this begins to happen, I will happy to listen to talk about how free markets are supposed to work. Until then you need to explain what concessions you are willing to make for the too big to fail guarantee that the taxpayers are giving your companies and it better be good too.