This one has been bugging me since long before the election, but I kept putting it on the back burner for when I had more time and I didn't want to come out as trying to sway votes. Today's headline about the US being the top oil producer in the world, in five years, reminded me to get back to it, though. I have read and heard, over and over, from news sources, blogs, and private individuals that Obama is doing everything from purposely blocking new oil well leases to waging total war on fossil fuels and trying to make the US a third world country. I usually pontificate on the sources of rumors, the need to justify the accusations with hard evidence, and give counter arguments but there is just too large of a body of falsehood to tackle in one sitting. So, I'm just going to work my way chronologically through the major myths I've heard over the years and let you do the majority of reading.
The US, because of or despite Obama - whichever lens you wish to view through - is projected to be the world's top oil producer. Regardless of your chosen lens, that fairly debunks the meat of almost all myths around Obama's supposed goals of eliminating drilling and attacking all fossil fuels. Now for a look back at all of the attacks.
1. The Republican backlash in the the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, actually baffles me. Usually I understand where they are coming from, and sometimes even agree, but the push for more drilling immediately after the spill, and basically ignoring any need for a moratorium, whatsoever, pretty well disgusted me.
"Because there was a suspension of belief on the part of the oil industry that an accident like this could ever happen, a suspension of drilling was necessary to bring those companies back to reality," -- House Environment and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Ed Markey, D-Mass.
THE WORST ACCIDENTAL MARINE OIL SPILL IN HISTORY. Let that sink in for a second. How long is long enough, to try to get your hands wrapped around what happened and to hopefully safeguard against it happening again? Now read through this timeline and ask if any of those steps should have been hurried or ignored. Buried in there is also a nugget of information about early expansion plans the Obama Administration had, but shelved until a later date, due to the spill. The intent was there, but hey, they actually had to make a responsible decision to hold off in the wake of a disaster. It would be entirely conceivable that the aftermath of the spill would still be hitting the industry hard within 5 years, but just two years, TWO YEARS later, drilling is booming. Granted, there is a new regulatory entity and further regulations, but such is the price of sins.
2. The $2 billion to Brazil is actually chronologically out of order, but it only gained significant press after the DH spill, so I'm putting it here. Oh, the humanity...if it were true. There is virtually no truth to either the statement or the implication that Obama prefers to help other countries instead of the US. There are plenty of myth-busting sites for this one, but Politifact sums it up best:
"First, the number is wrong. Although there was an initial commitment for $2 billion, it ultimately became a $308 million loan guarantee. Second, Perry ignores that the Ex-Im Bank is an independent federal agency, and he is wrong to attribute its actions to Obama. The initial commitment came when it was controlled by Bush appointees. And although the Obama appointee voted for the $308 million loan guarantee, there is no evidence that it done at the behest of Obama."
3. The Keystone XL pipeline denial is probably the softest myth of the bunch. Here is a fairly concise description of the views from both sides. You're either for or against the reasons Obama gave for rejection of rapid approval, if you actually know what he said, but unfortunately, the rejection gets distorted into tree-hugging, liberal, anti-Big Oil, anti-jobs, etc., etc. and the majority on the Right don't realize or care that there were valid concerns over the time to vet the project. Also, Obama's action is characterized as "killing" the project, when it was never more than a delay. Word on the street is that approval is imminent.
4. From Romney's mouth:
"All of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land, [....] On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half."
This one doesn't need a lot from me because here is a good breakdown of those statements. And This article sums up the first four years best:
"Obama has attempted to take a middle-of-the-road approach to energy development throughout his presidency.
He's resumed leasing in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP (BP) disaster, plans to allow drilling in the Arctic, and has done little to restrict hydraulic fracturing -- or fracking -- in domestic oil and gas fields despite fears that the process is contaminating ground water.
But the number of permits issued and acres available for drilling have generally been lower under Obama's administration than in George W. Bush's administration, which preceded it."
So there you have it, he has behaved like, wait for it, a moderate Democrat!
Monday, November 12, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Tyson's Foods: The New Old Target
Remember when it was all the rage to hate on Target because it was a French-owned company...which turned out to be patently false. To this day, in my household, we still jokingly refer to it by the French pronunciation of "Tar-gjay". Well, it seems that another company, Tyson's Foods, has landed in the cross-hairs of junk chain email forwarders...since 2008! I evidently missed the first round, because I've only just become aware of it through my first email on the topic. So, here's the real deal and my thoughts.
This one has been around the block a few times:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/tyson.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/business/a/tyson_foods.htm
As a matter of practice anyway, more and more companies are reducing the number of fixed holidays and increasing "floating" holidays. I currently only have 6 fixed and 3 floaters. Generally speaking, it is in a company's best interest to observe holidays when their employees wouldn't otherwise be productive anyway, and it isn't uncommon to have regional, state, and even religious holidays observed outside of "normal" federal holidays to mitigate the problem, although floating holidays are becoming the preferred method of handling the issue. Further, any company is free to observe whatever work and holiday schedule it deems appropriate based on whatever criteria it so chooses, e.g. Chik-Fil-A is not open past 10 p.m. or on Sundays, unlike all other fast food chains. Inversely, there are plenty of companies that operate stores/shifts/operations during federal holidays and nobody complains about that practice when they either offset with other days off or holiday pay.
Something else to consider is who/what is being hurt when targeting companies. Tyson's Foods Inc. is actually one of the leading Christian owned, faith-in-the-workplace, and charitable donators in the country and a model for Christian valued companies:
http://www.tysonfoods.com/Media-Room/News-Releases/2010/06/Tyson-Chaplaincy-Program-Featured-by-The-Wall-Street-Journal.aspx
http://www.minyanville.com/special-features/articles/john-tyson-christian-church-chaplain-methodist/5/19/2010/id/28276
I think it is fair to say that the majority of people who would be incensed by the chain emails, take action (not buying Tyson's), and forward on, fall into the Christian category, and are probably even strong supporters of Christian valued companies, faith-based organisations, etc. So, it is actually counter-intuitive and counter-productive for them to attack a company which espouses their very same values. Just goes to show that you really need to check your info. I NEVER trust anything I've been blindly forwarded. 99% of the time it has turned out to be false, or at the very least a misrepresentation of the facts/events.
On a side note, I find it very uplifting that Tyson's would show such religious tolerance and understanding to work with the Unions on a compromise for Muslim employees. That makes me want to support them more, not less.
This one has been around the block a few times:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/tyson.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/business/a/tyson_foods.htm
As a matter of practice anyway, more and more companies are reducing the number of fixed holidays and increasing "floating" holidays. I currently only have 6 fixed and 3 floaters. Generally speaking, it is in a company's best interest to observe holidays when their employees wouldn't otherwise be productive anyway, and it isn't uncommon to have regional, state, and even religious holidays observed outside of "normal" federal holidays to mitigate the problem, although floating holidays are becoming the preferred method of handling the issue. Further, any company is free to observe whatever work and holiday schedule it deems appropriate based on whatever criteria it so chooses, e.g. Chik-Fil-A is not open past 10 p.m. or on Sundays, unlike all other fast food chains. Inversely, there are plenty of companies that operate stores/shifts/operations during federal holidays and nobody complains about that practice when they either offset with other days off or holiday pay.
Something else to consider is who/what is being hurt when targeting companies. Tyson's Foods Inc. is actually one of the leading Christian owned, faith-in-the-workplace, and charitable donators in the country and a model for Christian valued companies:
http://www.tysonfoods.com/Media-Room/News-Releases/2010/06/Tyson-Chaplaincy-Program-Featured-by-The-Wall-Street-Journal.aspx
http://www.minyanville.com/special-features/articles/john-tyson-christian-church-chaplain-methodist/5/19/2010/id/28276
I think it is fair to say that the majority of people who would be incensed by the chain emails, take action (not buying Tyson's), and forward on, fall into the Christian category, and are probably even strong supporters of Christian valued companies, faith-based organisations, etc. So, it is actually counter-intuitive and counter-productive for them to attack a company which espouses their very same values. Just goes to show that you really need to check your info. I NEVER trust anything I've been blindly forwarded. 99% of the time it has turned out to be false, or at the very least a misrepresentation of the facts/events.
On a side note, I find it very uplifting that Tyson's would show such religious tolerance and understanding to work with the Unions on a compromise for Muslim employees. That makes me want to support them more, not less.
Friday, June 15, 2012
The Gaffe Pole, or How To Kill a Shark
Amid the recent fervor over Obama's "The private sector is doing fine" gaffe, I have been extremely frustrated over the now-common polarization based on sound bites instead of message. To be clear, here in the opening, I am neither defending Obama's words, nor defending his policies. I could have easily written this a hundred times over the years, based on some gaffe by a politician on either side. It just so happens that, in this case, I was paying more attention to the news at the time and have had more opportunity to gauge the reactions of the media and masses.
So let's get the current news and debate out of the way. As a primer, I encourage everyone to read the full transcript of Obama's press conference. Buried in there is the offending comment that has led to these basic accusations, in a myriad of forms, about Obama:
So let's get the current news and debate out of the way. As a primer, I encourage everyone to read the full transcript of Obama's press conference. Buried in there is the offending comment that has led to these basic accusations, in a myriad of forms, about Obama:
- He is out of touch with the American worker and business.
- He hates the private sector (read into that all of the various things he is doing to destroy it).
- He is delusional and/or lying.
Now take quotes from the ENTIRE press conference and see if the rest of his words match what the GOP would have you presume he meant by the gaffe (and I've included some content that extends to American homeowners and workers since the GOP extrapolates the private sector to mean all of the non-1%):
"But the hole we have to fill is much deeper and the global aftershocks are much greater. That's why we've got to keep on pressing with actions that further strengthen the economy."
"If there's less demand for our products in places like Paris or Madrid it could mean less businesses -- or less business for manufacturers in places like Pittsburgh or Milwaukee."
"In the meantime, given the signs of weakness in the world economy, not just in Europe but also some softening in Asia, it's critical that we take the actions we can to strengthen the American economy right now."
"If Congress had passed it in full, we'd be on track to have a million more Americans working this year. The unemployment rate would be lower. Our economy would be stronger."
"But they left most of the jobs plan just sitting there. And in light of the headwinds that we're facing right now, I urge them to reconsider. Because there's steps we can take right now to put more people back to work."
"In addition, since the housing bubble burst, we've got more than a million construction workers out of work. There's nothing fiscally responsible about waiting to fix your roof until it caves in. We've got a lot of deferred maintenance in this country. We could be putting a lot of people back to work rebuilding our roads, our bridges, some of our schools. There's work to be done; there are workers to do it. Let's put them back to work right now.
The housing market is stabilizing and beginning to come back in many parts of the country. But there are still millions of responsible homeowners who've done everything right but still struggle to make ends meet. So, as I talked about just a few weeks ago, let's pass a bill that gives them a chance to save an average of $3,000 a year by refinancing their mortgage and taking advantage of these historically low rates. That's something we can do right now. It would make a difference.
Instead of just talking a good game about job creators, Congress should give the small business owners that actually create most of the new jobs in America a tax break for hiring more workers."
"And the short-term problems are: How do we put people back to work? How do we make the economy grow as rapidly as possible? How do we ensure that the recovery gains momentum?
Because if we do those things, not only is it good for the people who find work, not only is it good for families who are able to pay the bills, but it actually is one of the most important things we can do to reduce deficits and debt. It's a lot easier to deal with deficits and debt if you're growing, because you're bringing in more revenue and you're not spending as much because people don't need unemployment insurance as much; they don't need other programs that are providing support to people in need because things are going pretty good.
Now, that's true here in the United States, and that's true in Europe. So the problem I think President Clinton identified is that if, when an economy is still weak and a recovery is still fragile, that you resort to a strategy of "let's cut more" -- so that you're seeing government layoffs, reductions in government spending, severe cutbacks in major investments that help the economy grow over the long term -- if you're doing all those things at the same time as consumers are pulling back because they're still trying to pay off credit card debt, and there's generally weak demand in the economy as a whole, then you can get on a downward spiral where everybody is pulling back at the same time. That weakens demand and that further crimps the desire of companies to hire more people. And that's the pattern that Europe is in danger of getting into."
"...let's not underinvest in the things that we need to do right now to grow. And that recipe of short-term investments in growth and jobs with a long-term path of fiscal responsibility is the right approach to take for, I think, not only the United States but also for Europe."
"And so, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is, how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry. Because the recipes that they're promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more."
Throughout the above content there is reference after reference about continued concern over private sector growth, job creation, small businesses, etc., etc. Of course it's swathed in political rhetoric, but try to get anything less from any politician.
The highlighted section above represents the crux of the President's intent and the real context of the offending statement:
"The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we've created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government -- oftentimes, cuts initiated by governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in."
Face palm. Were the words stupid? Yes. Should he be taken to task a bit? Absolutely. Does anyone who actually listened/read to the entire conference, and, more importantly, has listened to everything the Administration has put out, really feel he thinks the private sector is fine? The administration does the usual political spin on any good numbers it can find, but I have never heard elsewhere a proclamation that all is well. Trying to stay on message about his proposals, it's pretty obvious that he incorrectly balanced the public and private sector against each other with a value of "fine", which has a more absolute connotation, and would have been better served to have said the private sector is doing "better" (which is obviously up for debate). It's asinine to proceed on the assumption he thinks everything is coming up roses, and base your political view on something so narrow. What everyone should really be debating is whether or not increased government spending, in the form of the various programs and public sector job creation, is the correct strategy. THAT is the important message and differentiation between Obama and Romney, not whether Obama hates the private sector and is out of touch.
I went to the GOP Oracle, Limbaugh, to get a review of the attack points, and I came across these quotes in couple of transcripts:
"So when he comes out and says, "The private sector is doing fine," people who have a genuine intelligence and an understanding of matters economic understand that that is a huge gaffe."
"Now, not even Obama can believe that, and does he really expect us to buy it?"
Yes Ditto-Heads, Rush is telling you that it's a gaffe (unintentional act or remark...) and that Obama could not possibly believe it. Of course Romney has had a lot to say on the matter as well and I'll use him to kill two birds with one stone here. First I'll address the accusation that, by backpedaling, Obama proves he meant what he said. Second, I'll segue to the gaffe roundup.
Who remembers this Romney quote: "I’m not concerned about the very poor."? Pulling from the previous theme, do we really think that? Is that what he meant, literally? When he tried to repair the damage, or backpedaled, did that discredit him further or is that the natural political action? I, for one, would be damn scared of a politician who stood by their gaffes and didn't try to fix them. Here's an MSNBC clip that shows the "backpedal" with some commentary (chosen for no other reason than it was one of the first Google pulled up). And Romney makes a very good point in his retraction -- he "misspoke" -- about the burden of speaking in public all of the time. Basically, these guys are "always on" and there is zero tolerance for mistake. Who of you could speak in public all of the time and never make a mistake? He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone....
So who else has made gaffes and what were the accusations leveled? All of the below are absolutely taken out of context, so do the research if you want to know the real intent:
Romney (campaign speech): Accused of being "out of touch" for the above quote.
McCain (campaign speech): Accused of being "out of touch" for this comment during the financial meltdown:
"Our economy, I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Al Gore (interview): Accused of being delusional and/or a liar:
"I took the initiative in creating the Internet."
John Kerry (campaign speech ): Accused of being a flip-flopping liar:
"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
W has so many gaffes that there are pages and YouTube videos dedicated to him/them, so I won't bother trying to pick one out (to be fair, the majority are just flubs of speech, not true political gaffes, but he still has to hold the record). That may seem unfair, but Dem or GOP, you have to admit he was a gaffe machine. He was accused of being...just about everything.
And I could go on deeper through more presidents and hopefuls. The point being that none of these really matter in the grand debate of what's important, yet this is what people cling to for their decisions, rather than go into the context and look beyond the gaffe. And then we get pundits who guide their flocks away from doing their own research and thinking and instead tell them things like, "This was a window in to the real [enter Name]", or "He/She backpedaled, so you know he/she is lying", "They're so out of touch that they can even say something like [enter gaffe]". Sound familiar? They reduce the discussion down to some fundamental kernel of "truth" that they are the purveyors of and you should base all decisions on.
Break the cycle and ignore the gaffe and soundbite drivel that you know isn't true. Dig into the issues and policies. Look at the totality of speech and doctrine. Make informed decisions from a diversity of views and information. If you do that, then I gladly accept your disagreement with my views and choices, as should anyone. If not, then I have nothing for you other than to offer to open the gate to the sheep pen so you can go stand with the others.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Partisan Rhetoric: Follow The Trail
I recently overheard a comment that spurred me into a little research project. The comment (slightly paraphrased): "If I was a Democrat or Union Member, I would have been happy that I had to stand around and do nothing while somebody else worked." So right away, you've got a whole loaded gun full of the standard Right rhetoric regarding Democrats and Unions. Without knowing any specifics on the subject in question, one can assume that this non-work situation is the result of either A) some bogus work protection policy put in place by a Democrat controlled governing body and/or B) Union protectionism of superfluous jobs and/or procedures. Either way, it's clear that there's no way this is the result of a Republican initiative, or at least the speaker assumed so and would pass on the usual Right rhetoric bashing the Left for this transgression.
Before I move on the the actual meat of the project, I want to say that had he speaker uttered something along the lines of, "You know I was standing around because some Republican figured out this was a good way to funnel more money to his business cronies." I would have been just as suspicious and incensed. I hate partisan rhetoric, from either side, that is spewed with no basis or backup. If you know, and I mean know, that some problem is a direct result of the actions of one party or the other, then by all means call a spade a spade. And, hopefully, do so with logical arguments and documentation, not here-say and conjecture. Parroting the b.s. of the talking heads of television and radio, following your parents, brother, etc. party lines, and echoing misinformation from emails, blogs, and editorials just further divides this country and throws more green wood on and already blinding political fire.
So here's the object example of knowing your real enemy. The quote above was due to the result of a new certification requirement in Virginia for pyrotechnicians. This requirement unfortunately means that uncertified individuals must be "supervised" by someone certified. That makes a lot of sense on paper, but almost none practically since certifications from other states are not valid. What it means is that someone with an abundance of certifications and experience from another state will still have to have a VA state pyrotechnician present, for no other purpose than to just be there to fulfill the requirement. This is over and above all other state and federal laws regarding pyrotechnic safety and setup. There's the effect, now to the cause (remember the blame is laid at the feet of the Left):
Starting with the actual certification requirement:
http://www.vafire.com/state_fire_marshal/PDFs/PyroCertProcess02092011_rev02172011.pdf
Which was voted in by this board:
http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/AboutDHCD/BoardofHousingandCommunityDevelopment.htm
during this meeting:
http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/AboutDHCD/Board_minutes/minutes%20Jan.24.11.pdf
Tracking down the full makeup of the board would be time consuming, and even then would obviously not give insight to the process and politics involved. But on the surface, this occurred during a Republican governor's tenure:
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/
and went through at least a few of his appointees:
http://projectvirginia.com/mcdonnell-appointments-include-tito-munoz-to-virginia-housing-board/
http://www.publicsafety.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=282
The power to the board was granted and direction given by the General Assembly per:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+27-97
The sponsor to "amend and reenact" that statute (Senate Bill 8):
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+cab+SC10212SB0008+RCSB1
was Republican: http://sov.state.va.us/SenatorDB.nsf/27b5042a70f517f585256c05005bd42f/797ab9ce5739fbd885256ae00070224e?OpenDocument
The full history of the bill is here:
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+SB8
The Senate, at the time, was controlled by Democrats 22/18, but the House was controlled by Republicans ~60/40. The House overwhelmingly passed the bill:
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+vot+HV1641+SB0008
And finally, the Republican governor approved on 4/11/10 (see the history link).
So, if "I were a Democrat or Union Member", I would actually blame Republicans for the fact that I had to stand around and babysit somebody.
Before I move on the the actual meat of the project, I want to say that had he speaker uttered something along the lines of, "You know I was standing around because some Republican figured out this was a good way to funnel more money to his business cronies." I would have been just as suspicious and incensed. I hate partisan rhetoric, from either side, that is spewed with no basis or backup. If you know, and I mean know, that some problem is a direct result of the actions of one party or the other, then by all means call a spade a spade. And, hopefully, do so with logical arguments and documentation, not here-say and conjecture. Parroting the b.s. of the talking heads of television and radio, following your parents, brother, etc. party lines, and echoing misinformation from emails, blogs, and editorials just further divides this country and throws more green wood on and already blinding political fire.
So here's the object example of knowing your real enemy. The quote above was due to the result of a new certification requirement in Virginia for pyrotechnicians. This requirement unfortunately means that uncertified individuals must be "supervised" by someone certified. That makes a lot of sense on paper, but almost none practically since certifications from other states are not valid. What it means is that someone with an abundance of certifications and experience from another state will still have to have a VA state pyrotechnician present, for no other purpose than to just be there to fulfill the requirement. This is over and above all other state and federal laws regarding pyrotechnic safety and setup. There's the effect, now to the cause (remember the blame is laid at the feet of the Left):
Starting with the actual certification requirement:
http://www.vafire.com/state_fire_marshal/PDFs/PyroCertProcess02092011_rev02172011.pdf
Which was voted in by this board:
http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/AboutDHCD/BoardofHousingandCommunityDevelopment.htm
during this meeting:
http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/AboutDHCD/Board_minutes/minutes%20Jan.24.11.pdf
Tracking down the full makeup of the board would be time consuming, and even then would obviously not give insight to the process and politics involved. But on the surface, this occurred during a Republican governor's tenure:
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/
and went through at least a few of his appointees:
http://projectvirginia.com/mcdonnell-appointments-include-tito-munoz-to-virginia-housing-board/
http://www.publicsafety.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=282
The power to the board was granted and direction given by the General Assembly per:
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+27-97
The sponsor to "amend and reenact" that statute (Senate Bill 8):
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+cab+SC10212SB0008+RCSB1
was Republican: http://sov.state.va.us/SenatorDB.nsf/27b5042a70f517f585256c05005bd42f/797ab9ce5739fbd885256ae00070224e?OpenDocument
The full history of the bill is here:
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+sum+SB8
The Senate, at the time, was controlled by Democrats 22/18, but the House was controlled by Republicans ~60/40. The House overwhelmingly passed the bill:
https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+vot+HV1641+SB0008
And finally, the Republican governor approved on 4/11/10 (see the history link).
So, if "I were a Democrat or Union Member", I would actually blame Republicans for the fact that I had to stand around and babysit somebody.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
The Lost Drive-By Visit
Does anybody do the drive-by visit anymore? Have cell phones killed people's ability to be spontaneous and just drive to see someone?
I recently did a drive-by, my first in many years - mainly because it has been a while since I've been near any friends who would appreciate a visit - and I happened to have my wife with me on this occasion. I didn't even think about it, it was just something I was going to do. The friends were literally 1 minute divergence from the path I was taking anyway, so it only made sense to stop since I had wanted to drop something off that I had borrowed, for a while. So, here is a paraphrase of the conversation with my wife on the way:
Me: "Hey, we're gonna stop at Fred's for a minute."
Her: "Oh, did he call?"
Me: "No."
Her: "Did you call him?"
Me: "No."
Her: "What if they're not home." (referring to Fred's wife in the "they")
Me: "Then I'll see them another time."
Her: "But you didn't call ahead. What if they're busy?!"
Me: "Then they won't answer the door or, if they do, then they'll tell me they're busy."
Her: "That rude. I don't understand why you wouldn't call. We're not going there and bothering them."
Me: "I don't see it as bothering them. They're our friends and like to see us. I'm not asking to stay for dinner. We're just stopping by on our way somewhere. I'd rather just visit than call and schedule something."
As it turned out, Fred and his wife were home, invited us in, and were happy to have a short visit. I had gaged the acceptance and openness of my friends correctly. There are some friends I wouldn't do a drive-by to, although very few because people who would actually have a big problem with it probably aren't people I'd like to be friends with. FYI, my wife is a lovely person and I'm not putting her down. I do not think her reaction to actually doing the drive-by is indicative of her response should we receive one. I feel she's just thinking through the action like everyone else today does.
Before I became all adult and professional, say around 23ish, I did drive-bys all the time. The practice mostly stopped because I moved to Washington D.C., away from my old chums and family, and DC is not very conducive to "popping over". But, even there, and other cities I found myself through life, if I was near enough to someone and had the desire, I had no problem rolling over to see them. I like the spontaneous nature of it and I really think people are pleasantly surprised by a personal visit when you really don't "need" to see them. Sometimes it's the drive itself that's fun. I've taken a drive out to a far-flung friend's house just because the drive is nice and seeing someone on the other end of it is a good excuse. If they're not there, well, it's still a nice drive.
My drive-by practice started during the early cell phone era when, obviously, you couldn't call ahead unless you called from your home. I could be weird in this drive-by thing, but I don't think so. I know other people would "just stop by" on their way somewhere. So, with everybody having cell phones now, have we killed our ability to do things unscripted and unscheduled? It's now rude not to call ahead. Why wasn't it before? Does the ability to do something confer a new protocol of politeness? I hope not. I don't want to live my life like I'm going to a popular restaurant all of the time. I don't call ahead for reservations on life. I'm certainly not going to reserve time with friends and family. In return I expect them to not feel obliged to accommodate me.
There's a yin and yang to this drive-by thing and I'm using it as a proxy for a deeper problem I think society is having with technology. The yin is me dropping by unannounced. The yang is my friends and family having the confidence in our relationship and the chutzpah of their own to wave me off with no hard feelings. Extrapolate this now to cell phones (voice and texting), Facebook, Twitter, email, and chat. I watch people run to their cell phone when it rings or there is a notification, conditioned to answer it no matter what the circumstances, short of them being on fire. Facebook comments and posts have to be answered. There is now a compulsion for instant gratification of both giving and receiving responses. I answer my cell phone when it is convenient for me. I call people back when I feel like it. I deal with Facebook, email, and chat when I have time. These are all tools for me, not other people. They're mine. I own them to use them how I please, not how it pleases others. So, I've seemingly gone off track here, but get this: the very same freedom that allows me to not be compelled to bow before my cell phone is also the same freedom that allows me to consider either giving or receiving a drive-by visit.
Because I'm not expecting someone to call to plan every little detail of our relationship, I don't require a call for someone to visit and I think my friends would all reciprocate. Maybe I even push them into it. Camel Feet is that guy who can just show up, but they expect that unexpected aspect of me, just as they expect me not to answer the phone every single time they call. And, back to the yin and yang, they know they can turn me away with absolutely no hard feelings. The people who feel they have to answer the phone are the same people who couldn't turn me away, regardless of how impractical it is for me to be there, and would truly think I was rude for even showing up without calling first. That's just a crappy way to go through life, in my opinion. If somebody calls at a bad time, I don't answer. If someone shows up at a bad time, I tell them it's a bad time. If I'm either on a call or someone is over and it becomes a bad time, I tell them. Why do people now have a hard time telling each other their real status and just plain being honest? Family and friends should be able to do that with one another, right?
I recently did a drive-by, my first in many years - mainly because it has been a while since I've been near any friends who would appreciate a visit - and I happened to have my wife with me on this occasion. I didn't even think about it, it was just something I was going to do. The friends were literally 1 minute divergence from the path I was taking anyway, so it only made sense to stop since I had wanted to drop something off that I had borrowed, for a while. So, here is a paraphrase of the conversation with my wife on the way:
Me: "Hey, we're gonna stop at Fred's for a minute."
Her: "Oh, did he call?"
Me: "No."
Her: "Did you call him?"
Me: "No."
Her: "What if they're not home." (referring to Fred's wife in the "they")
Me: "Then I'll see them another time."
Her: "But you didn't call ahead. What if they're busy?!"
Me: "Then they won't answer the door or, if they do, then they'll tell me they're busy."
Her: "That rude. I don't understand why you wouldn't call. We're not going there and bothering them."
Me: "I don't see it as bothering them. They're our friends and like to see us. I'm not asking to stay for dinner. We're just stopping by on our way somewhere. I'd rather just visit than call and schedule something."
As it turned out, Fred and his wife were home, invited us in, and were happy to have a short visit. I had gaged the acceptance and openness of my friends correctly. There are some friends I wouldn't do a drive-by to, although very few because people who would actually have a big problem with it probably aren't people I'd like to be friends with. FYI, my wife is a lovely person and I'm not putting her down. I do not think her reaction to actually doing the drive-by is indicative of her response should we receive one. I feel she's just thinking through the action like everyone else today does.
Before I became all adult and professional, say around 23ish, I did drive-bys all the time. The practice mostly stopped because I moved to Washington D.C., away from my old chums and family, and DC is not very conducive to "popping over". But, even there, and other cities I found myself through life, if I was near enough to someone and had the desire, I had no problem rolling over to see them. I like the spontaneous nature of it and I really think people are pleasantly surprised by a personal visit when you really don't "need" to see them. Sometimes it's the drive itself that's fun. I've taken a drive out to a far-flung friend's house just because the drive is nice and seeing someone on the other end of it is a good excuse. If they're not there, well, it's still a nice drive.
My drive-by practice started during the early cell phone era when, obviously, you couldn't call ahead unless you called from your home. I could be weird in this drive-by thing, but I don't think so. I know other people would "just stop by" on their way somewhere. So, with everybody having cell phones now, have we killed our ability to do things unscripted and unscheduled? It's now rude not to call ahead. Why wasn't it before? Does the ability to do something confer a new protocol of politeness? I hope not. I don't want to live my life like I'm going to a popular restaurant all of the time. I don't call ahead for reservations on life. I'm certainly not going to reserve time with friends and family. In return I expect them to not feel obliged to accommodate me.
There's a yin and yang to this drive-by thing and I'm using it as a proxy for a deeper problem I think society is having with technology. The yin is me dropping by unannounced. The yang is my friends and family having the confidence in our relationship and the chutzpah of their own to wave me off with no hard feelings. Extrapolate this now to cell phones (voice and texting), Facebook, Twitter, email, and chat. I watch people run to their cell phone when it rings or there is a notification, conditioned to answer it no matter what the circumstances, short of them being on fire. Facebook comments and posts have to be answered. There is now a compulsion for instant gratification of both giving and receiving responses. I answer my cell phone when it is convenient for me. I call people back when I feel like it. I deal with Facebook, email, and chat when I have time. These are all tools for me, not other people. They're mine. I own them to use them how I please, not how it pleases others. So, I've seemingly gone off track here, but get this: the very same freedom that allows me to not be compelled to bow before my cell phone is also the same freedom that allows me to consider either giving or receiving a drive-by visit.
Because I'm not expecting someone to call to plan every little detail of our relationship, I don't require a call for someone to visit and I think my friends would all reciprocate. Maybe I even push them into it. Camel Feet is that guy who can just show up, but they expect that unexpected aspect of me, just as they expect me not to answer the phone every single time they call. And, back to the yin and yang, they know they can turn me away with absolutely no hard feelings. The people who feel they have to answer the phone are the same people who couldn't turn me away, regardless of how impractical it is for me to be there, and would truly think I was rude for even showing up without calling first. That's just a crappy way to go through life, in my opinion. If somebody calls at a bad time, I don't answer. If someone shows up at a bad time, I tell them it's a bad time. If I'm either on a call or someone is over and it becomes a bad time, I tell them. Why do people now have a hard time telling each other their real status and just plain being honest? Family and friends should be able to do that with one another, right?
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Teabagging n00bs after pwning them! Epic Fail!
I was shooting basketball at the local rec center last night and there were half a dozen 9-11 year olds in my proximity. I nearly fell over laughing when one of them exclaimed, 'I so pwned you!'.
(For anyone that doesn't know this term, the short answer is that it's pronounced "poaned", as in, "owned" with a "p" at the front and it means exactly the same thing as when one is "owned", in sports or gaming parlance. Feel free to Google the history, but it's derived from PC gamers often mis-typing "owned" as "pwned" because of the proximity of the "p" on the keyboard.)
I've been playing video games since they existed, I still play games on Xbox Live, and I have a number of friends who play WoW, so I'm well versed in the various geek terms that have become prevalent across different platforms. I hear this stuff all the time through those filters, so I never really think about it until a source outside of the norm crashes through to wake me up to the mainstream usage. A 9 year old pwned somebody on the court last night! Whoa!
Are 90's and 00's gamers the equivalent of the previous generation's surfers of the 50's and 60's? Surf lingo hit the scene heavy in the late 50's and through the 60's and gave us lasting terms, such as "Dude!", "Air" (almost all X-Games get "Air" and surfers were the originals), "Bail Out" (see "Air"), "Gnarly", "Heavy", "Kook/Kooky", and "Sick!" (good sick, not bad sick). Even the shaka or "Hang Loose" hand gesture has it's place. Unfortunately, while surfers gave us generally pleasant terms, gamers contributions have generally been derisive.
Starting with the title phrase, to teabag is the ultimate insult. I implore all parents and adults out there to be aware of this upcoming vulgar gesture. What concerns me is that this one is slipping under the parental radar in gaming, so when it makes its real life appearance, many won't even know what the gesture represents. A "simulated" teabag would look like a weird squatting dance, probably with reduced downward motion to not look too stupid. Make no mistake, this is as vulgar as flipping the bird or making the upraised fist, hand in the crook of the elbow gesture (fyi, I'm purposefully not telling you what it really is so you can go find out yourselves). Do I teabag in games? Absolutely, although judiciously. (There is a rationale behind the usage, as it's the only non-verbal F-You one can give in games.) Do I want to see it in person? Absolutely not, and I'll punish my children unmercifully if I ever catch them doing it either.
Newb/n00b: Newbies have been around since man first organized itself for competition, but now we have a way to brand them.
Fail and Epic Fail: Do I really need to tell you what these mean? Fail is derived from a the "Blazing Star" game's terrible Japanese to English translation for defeat: "You fail it! Your skill is not enough! See you next time! Bye bye!"
A few for the positive side, or at least not exactly negative: w00t = Wow! Loot! or Wonderous Loot. The double 00 is an idiotic geekism. (See the perversion of newb above). (Wikipedia attributes woot to other derivatives, but they don't make sense given the 00 inclusion) W00t has now transcended its gaming origins to be generally used as a positive exclamation, most commonly as "Woot!". Also, can be used when leveling up in a game, as can "Ding!".
There are some more floating out there, but I don't see any of them floating to the surface anytime soon. Or, as some would say, they haven't become a meme yet. I specifically referenced surf lingo because it predates "meme", which I think is a pompously overused term by people who try to make themselves sound smarter and cooler on the Internets.
(For anyone that doesn't know this term, the short answer is that it's pronounced "poaned", as in, "owned" with a "p" at the front and it means exactly the same thing as when one is "owned", in sports or gaming parlance. Feel free to Google the history, but it's derived from PC gamers often mis-typing "owned" as "pwned" because of the proximity of the "p" on the keyboard.)
I've been playing video games since they existed, I still play games on Xbox Live, and I have a number of friends who play WoW, so I'm well versed in the various geek terms that have become prevalent across different platforms. I hear this stuff all the time through those filters, so I never really think about it until a source outside of the norm crashes through to wake me up to the mainstream usage. A 9 year old pwned somebody on the court last night! Whoa!
Are 90's and 00's gamers the equivalent of the previous generation's surfers of the 50's and 60's? Surf lingo hit the scene heavy in the late 50's and through the 60's and gave us lasting terms, such as "Dude!", "Air" (almost all X-Games get "Air" and surfers were the originals), "Bail Out" (see "Air"), "Gnarly", "Heavy", "Kook/Kooky", and "Sick!" (good sick, not bad sick). Even the shaka or "Hang Loose" hand gesture has it's place. Unfortunately, while surfers gave us generally pleasant terms, gamers contributions have generally been derisive.
Starting with the title phrase, to teabag is the ultimate insult. I implore all parents and adults out there to be aware of this upcoming vulgar gesture. What concerns me is that this one is slipping under the parental radar in gaming, so when it makes its real life appearance, many won't even know what the gesture represents. A "simulated" teabag would look like a weird squatting dance, probably with reduced downward motion to not look too stupid. Make no mistake, this is as vulgar as flipping the bird or making the upraised fist, hand in the crook of the elbow gesture (fyi, I'm purposefully not telling you what it really is so you can go find out yourselves). Do I teabag in games? Absolutely, although judiciously. (There is a rationale behind the usage, as it's the only non-verbal F-You one can give in games.) Do I want to see it in person? Absolutely not, and I'll punish my children unmercifully if I ever catch them doing it either.
Newb/n00b: Newbies have been around since man first organized itself for competition, but now we have a way to brand them.
Fail and Epic Fail: Do I really need to tell you what these mean? Fail is derived from a the "Blazing Star" game's terrible Japanese to English translation for defeat: "You fail it! Your skill is not enough! See you next time! Bye bye!"
A few for the positive side, or at least not exactly negative: w00t = Wow! Loot! or Wonderous Loot. The double 00 is an idiotic geekism. (See the perversion of newb above). (Wikipedia attributes woot to other derivatives, but they don't make sense given the 00 inclusion) W00t has now transcended its gaming origins to be generally used as a positive exclamation, most commonly as "Woot!". Also, can be used when leveling up in a game, as can "Ding!".
There are some more floating out there, but I don't see any of them floating to the surface anytime soon. Or, as some would say, they haven't become a meme yet. I specifically referenced surf lingo because it predates "meme", which I think is a pompously overused term by people who try to make themselves sound smarter and cooler on the Internets.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
White Fat vs. Brown Fat: Its Cold Out There!
I was perusing some headlines and I noticed a new study regarding warmer indoor temperatures contributing to obesity. Weight loss gimmicks, fads, wisdom, research, etc. always interest me due to the gross level of misinformation and narrow focus they present. This latest one didn't disappoint.
It has to be one of the stupider lines of research I've seen. Really? You mean that if people make it warm and cozy inside and decide not to go outside and exercise or work, they'll get fatter? Thanks for that news flash! How about you try a real comparison: measure people that "live in the cold" against those who are warm but workout regularly. But, make sure you are using test groups that have the same relative daily caloric expenditure.
If cold is the primary factor during winter, then I would expect all of those NYC hotdog, magazine, and other street vendors to be "brown fat" laden and ready to be muscle machines come warm weather (you have to read the article and underlying science to understand what I'm talking about). Obviously, there are some serious gaps in the study. There may be interesting science around brown and white fat cells, but once again American science has perverted a line of research to conform it to a specific goal(s).
What is that goal or goals? Well, of course, our ultimate desire is to be fat and lazy without the effects of being fat and lazy. So, if researchers can figure out a way to trick the body into producing more of those "good" brown fat cells and less white, via the next miracle weight-loss drug, then they'll declare success. The next goal is somewhat hidden in the article, at least until you reach the end. The theory goes that if we want to fight obesity, then we should all turn down our thermostats...which just happens to save energy and reduce carbon emissions.
I'm absolutely not against saving energy and reducing carbon emissions, but don't try to sneak an agenda in through the back door of a national health issue. Furthermore, why in the world does research always focus on such narrow parameters, putting blinders on to correlations? It's almost a guarantee that whoever they studied in the "cold" has a higher energy output than whatever slobs they found sitting around inside their cozy homes. If you read the wording carefully, you'll notice that the real comparison is between indoors and outdoors, not true controlled temperature tests. Does it take a scientist to figure out that the average person who spends more time outside in the winter will be less fat? Let's look at the groups who would be outside: athletes, manual laborers, farmers, nature buffs, etc. It's easy to see that those groups all have more active lifestyles.
It has to be one of the stupider lines of research I've seen. Really? You mean that if people make it warm and cozy inside and decide not to go outside and exercise or work, they'll get fatter? Thanks for that news flash! How about you try a real comparison: measure people that "live in the cold" against those who are warm but workout regularly. But, make sure you are using test groups that have the same relative daily caloric expenditure.
If cold is the primary factor during winter, then I would expect all of those NYC hotdog, magazine, and other street vendors to be "brown fat" laden and ready to be muscle machines come warm weather (you have to read the article and underlying science to understand what I'm talking about). Obviously, there are some serious gaps in the study. There may be interesting science around brown and white fat cells, but once again American science has perverted a line of research to conform it to a specific goal(s).
What is that goal or goals? Well, of course, our ultimate desire is to be fat and lazy without the effects of being fat and lazy. So, if researchers can figure out a way to trick the body into producing more of those "good" brown fat cells and less white, via the next miracle weight-loss drug, then they'll declare success. The next goal is somewhat hidden in the article, at least until you reach the end. The theory goes that if we want to fight obesity, then we should all turn down our thermostats...which just happens to save energy and reduce carbon emissions.
I'm absolutely not against saving energy and reducing carbon emissions, but don't try to sneak an agenda in through the back door of a national health issue. Furthermore, why in the world does research always focus on such narrow parameters, putting blinders on to correlations? It's almost a guarantee that whoever they studied in the "cold" has a higher energy output than whatever slobs they found sitting around inside their cozy homes. If you read the wording carefully, you'll notice that the real comparison is between indoors and outdoors, not true controlled temperature tests. Does it take a scientist to figure out that the average person who spends more time outside in the winter will be less fat? Let's look at the groups who would be outside: athletes, manual laborers, farmers, nature buffs, etc. It's easy to see that those groups all have more active lifestyles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)