At the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics show in January some TV manufacturers unveiled the latest in TV technology. Soon the remote control or tuner as we've called it in our house since I was a little kid will be obsolete. You'll be able to wave a hand or give a voice command and voila! your TV will change stations. I don't know about you but I have a bad feeling about putting this kind of technology into a device that has multiple users at the same time.
Imagine if you will, a quiet night at home with the family. Dinner is over, the dishes are done and mom, dad, sister and brother grab their spots on the sofa for an hour or three of relaxing in front of the best TV in the house, a 60", 1/8" thick OLED. What to watch? Always a decision fraught with tension. Clap on and the TV turns on. For the sake of argument let's imagine that there is more than one good show on at the same time. Dad, in his deep voice, commands, "channel 4". Channel 4 appears and there are groans all around. No one wants to watch basketball for god's sake! But there is no discussion, no compromise. Brother just shouts out, "Channel 11" and instantly the newest episode of The Simpsons appears. Now we hear groans from mom. "How about channel 165 (HGTV)?" and there we are, House Hunters in Romania looking for the perfect 100 square foot apartment. More shouts of "no, no, not that again!" Mom sighs, gets up, and goes looking for her Kindle. She knows she's lost the battle and doesn't want to be involved in the war.
Teenaged sister yells out, "Channel 400", and True Blood appears, two pale as death characters smooching as if the world is ending. Younger brother covers his eyes and shrieks, "channel 11" whereupon Bart Simpson reappears with Crusty. By this time Dad is getting annoyed to say the least. The game has started and he's missing the first quarter. "Channel 4" he says decisively and Kobe appears in a replay of his missed free throw. The shouting grows increasingly frenzied as numbers are shouted at the TV and programs flip back and forth too rapidly to be seen. Soon Dad and kids are standing, faces red, ordering each other to be quiet. To no avail. Then the insults begin. "Your show sucks!" "You just want to watch cartoons! Big baby!" And on it goes. Teenaged sister finally stalks off slamming her bedroom door, hurling one last insult behind her, "You moron!" Satisfied for the moment, Brother sits down saying "channel 11". He hadn't counted on Dad however and before his eyes Bart and Homer disappear and a Bud Light commercial is playing.
Giving his son a serious stink eye, Dad settles himself in his favorite spot and prepares to enjoy his game. Brother plods off, a mutinous look on his face. Even without the remote, Dad has triumphed! But wait, he looks around. He's alone. Yes he can watch the game but he can also feel the tension in the house. Music blares from the kids' rooms and the master bedroom door is closed and locked.
Ah, family time, 2012.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
15%
You know what this is about. Mitt Romney paid only 15% in federal income taxes last year and who knows how many years before that and yet he actually does nothing. Yes, he has no discernible job. He neither creates something nor provides a service. He does move money around which these days is the best way to make lots and lots of it. He also runs his mouth quite a bit. But that's a freebie. I and others like me pay 35% of my adjusted income to the feds. That doesn't count the money I paid to the state in income and property taxes. One year we paid what amounted to my entire take home salary to the government. What then is my incentive to work? If you are lucky enough to earn a bonus the feds take almost 50% of it right off the top. Talk about no incentive. Tax breaks for ordinary wage earners are almost non-existent while those for the wealthy multiply.
The fact is that working people, who go to work every day and actually do "drive" the economy forward t pay a much greater percentage of their income in taxes than do those who merely shuffle paper. That's just wrong on so many levels! I know the thinking in Washington is that investors "drive" the economy forward but I honestly believe that's faulty reasoning. Look what investors did in 2008. Romney, for example, doesn't invest he just moves money around from one investment to another. People like him don't create businesses, products, or innovations, instead they make money from what is basically gambling, buying and selling stocks, futures, or whatever.
Imagine this: a tanker of oil from the Middle East can be bought and sold as many as 50 times before it reaches refiners in the U.S.. This drives up the price since it's sold for a profit each time. This kind of speculation does not drive the economy forward, rather the reverse as gasoline costs go up. The people who do this have millions and make millions on their transactions and I would speculate that their tax rate is far below my 35%.
Amazingly, Republicans from all over the U.S. support people like Romney despite the fact that they are working people who have no hope of ever acquiring such wealth. In South Carolina, where people receive more federal aid than in nearly any other state, voters are staunchly Republican and against more federal aid and taxes. I say fine, cut their Social Security and Medicare. In fact take them off the federal aid dole altogether and make them work for a living and pay their own medical expenses.
It boggles my mind that working people fall for the rhetoric of the Republicans, believing that the party of big business and the ultra-wealthy will work for their benefit if elected. I seriously doubt if Romney or his cohorts will spend one second thinking about the plight of working Americans or trying to create a fair system of taxation. Few people are altruistic enough to fight for something that goes against their self-interest and I don't see any candidates on the horizon that are endowed with that much character.
The fact is that working people, who go to work every day and actually do "drive" the economy forward t pay a much greater percentage of their income in taxes than do those who merely shuffle paper. That's just wrong on so many levels! I know the thinking in Washington is that investors "drive" the economy forward but I honestly believe that's faulty reasoning. Look what investors did in 2008. Romney, for example, doesn't invest he just moves money around from one investment to another. People like him don't create businesses, products, or innovations, instead they make money from what is basically gambling, buying and selling stocks, futures, or whatever.
Imagine this: a tanker of oil from the Middle East can be bought and sold as many as 50 times before it reaches refiners in the U.S.. This drives up the price since it's sold for a profit each time. This kind of speculation does not drive the economy forward, rather the reverse as gasoline costs go up. The people who do this have millions and make millions on their transactions and I would speculate that their tax rate is far below my 35%.
Amazingly, Republicans from all over the U.S. support people like Romney despite the fact that they are working people who have no hope of ever acquiring such wealth. In South Carolina, where people receive more federal aid than in nearly any other state, voters are staunchly Republican and against more federal aid and taxes. I say fine, cut their Social Security and Medicare. In fact take them off the federal aid dole altogether and make them work for a living and pay their own medical expenses.
It boggles my mind that working people fall for the rhetoric of the Republicans, believing that the party of big business and the ultra-wealthy will work for their benefit if elected. I seriously doubt if Romney or his cohorts will spend one second thinking about the plight of working Americans or trying to create a fair system of taxation. Few people are altruistic enough to fight for something that goes against their self-interest and I don't see any candidates on the horizon that are endowed with that much character.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Toddler Dog
My puppy is almost a year old and still not house trained. We have to close off all the rooms in the house to keep her from sashaying in and either peeing on the carpet or chewing up a cord. So far she's hungry for my headphones and has destroyed two pairs. She goes so far as to try to get them out of my ears if I'm lying on the floor stretching. What is that about? She also has a taste for hubby's pillow and will lick it forever if allowed. Now my pillow holds no such allure for some reason. Sigh..
Izzy has a whole bed full of toys. She doesn't and won't sleep in the bed but it's a repository for her many toys. She has a real affinity for green toys. Yeah, I know dogs are color blind but what can I say, she's a "green" dog. All of said toys end up right in the walkway of the family room of course. The nylon bones, squeaky toys, balls, and yarn knots have to be picked up every day and returned to the bed she won't sleep in. The great thing about Izzy and her toys is that she plays with them by herself. Yes, by herself. She throws the ball around and runs after it. She plays hide and squeak with the green spiky thing. I've never seen a dog play with it's own toys before. I throw the ball for her and she plays with me too but she's nearly as happy playing on her own.
She's uninterested in her dog bed as I said. Instead she likes to drape herself on the corner of the couch where she can look out the window and be nearly as high as we are. Since she has hair instead of fur she often looks like an old mop head thrown on the couch. Boneless also describes her very well.
My biggest problem with her is that she doesn't come when called, ever. In fact the word "come" seems to be dog speak for take off like a shot in the opposite direction. She's always been a little skittish but this goes beyond skittish to just plain ornery. If she were a kid we'd call it oppositional defiant disorder. Here we just call her a stubborn little bitch and try all manner of tricks to get her sorry butt where we want her to go. She's sure that something terrible is going to happen if she comes when called. Since she's not too impressed by food, treats don't work. However, petting Mickey, our other dog, is guaranteed to evoke "sibling rivalry". THEN she wants in on the action. But you have to be quick and not make eye contact or she'll slip right out from under your fingers. And if she gets out in the front yard....let's just say I look like an idiot trying to corral her as she streaks from one house to another having a grand game of chase with me coming in last.
My neighbors across the street have a dog that's the same breed as Izzy and say they've never been able to teach him to come. Their saving grace was to teach him to "stay" so they can go get him. I have to admit I used to feel superior watching their antics as they chased Nick down while my dog never left the yard. Now I'm the one the neighbors are laughing at. What goes around, comes around I guess.
Next week Izzy and I start obedience training. Not a moment too soon. For either of us.
Izzy has a whole bed full of toys. She doesn't and won't sleep in the bed but it's a repository for her many toys. She has a real affinity for green toys. Yeah, I know dogs are color blind but what can I say, she's a "green" dog. All of said toys end up right in the walkway of the family room of course. The nylon bones, squeaky toys, balls, and yarn knots have to be picked up every day and returned to the bed she won't sleep in. The great thing about Izzy and her toys is that she plays with them by herself. Yes, by herself. She throws the ball around and runs after it. She plays hide and squeak with the green spiky thing. I've never seen a dog play with it's own toys before. I throw the ball for her and she plays with me too but she's nearly as happy playing on her own.
She's uninterested in her dog bed as I said. Instead she likes to drape herself on the corner of the couch where she can look out the window and be nearly as high as we are. Since she has hair instead of fur she often looks like an old mop head thrown on the couch. Boneless also describes her very well.
My biggest problem with her is that she doesn't come when called, ever. In fact the word "come" seems to be dog speak for take off like a shot in the opposite direction. She's always been a little skittish but this goes beyond skittish to just plain ornery. If she were a kid we'd call it oppositional defiant disorder. Here we just call her a stubborn little bitch and try all manner of tricks to get her sorry butt where we want her to go. She's sure that something terrible is going to happen if she comes when called. Since she's not too impressed by food, treats don't work. However, petting Mickey, our other dog, is guaranteed to evoke "sibling rivalry". THEN she wants in on the action. But you have to be quick and not make eye contact or she'll slip right out from under your fingers. And if she gets out in the front yard....let's just say I look like an idiot trying to corral her as she streaks from one house to another having a grand game of chase with me coming in last.
My neighbors across the street have a dog that's the same breed as Izzy and say they've never been able to teach him to come. Their saving grace was to teach him to "stay" so they can go get him. I have to admit I used to feel superior watching their antics as they chased Nick down while my dog never left the yard. Now I'm the one the neighbors are laughing at. What goes around, comes around I guess.
Next week Izzy and I start obedience training. Not a moment too soon. For either of us.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Waterboarding for Babies
I belong to a gym or rather a club. It's a tennis and racquetball club with several pools, yoga studio, Pilates studio, and of course a gym. I don't belong to the tennis and racquetball part of the club since I don't play tennis. In the summer or when the weather is warm I like to swim laps in the Olympic sized pool. The short way, not the long way. There is also a highly regarded children's swim school there. They learn in a very warm salt water pool. The water isn't salty it's just not treated with chlorine. Frankly, I don't know how the system works and I don't care. The point is, this is one of the shallow pools in which infants, toddlers, and children take swim lessons. There is another pool just outside the Pilates studio that is used for the same thing.
In actuality these pools are torture chambers for many infants. The CIA and their waterboarding technicians have nothing on the instructors and parents of these babies. I know the cry of a scared infant when I hear one and let me say that many of these infants are terrified to be floating on their backs with the sun beating down on their eyes. It's a terrible thing to witness. For at least 30 minutes these infants (6 months or less) scream. How can this be a good thing? Babies cannot be considered water safe and parents are fooling themselves if they think a 9 month old that falls into a pool can simply turn over and float until someone notices.
When I swim I wear goggles and a swim cap and still water gets in my ears and it's so uncomfortable I can't wait to get out and put some drops in my ears to dry up the water. It's hard to imagine how miserable these babies feel with water in their ears in addition to the sun and the fear of being suspended in the water with a stranger. How can parents bear to listen their babies shriek and cry in pain and terror. I can't stand it and they're not my kids. I have to leave the pool area to avoid smacking some parent upside the head. In the Pilates studio we have to close the windows when a baby is having a "lesson" because it's too painful to listen to the crying. I don't know what these poor babies are learning in their "lessons" but it's not swimming.
When my kids were still in diapers I took them to Mommy and Me swim classes at the YMCA. At the beginning it was just getting them used to the water and I was in the water with them. I didn't pass the responsibility off to some stranger. Later, when they were ready to really learn how to swim I put them in classes with instructors. By that time they weren't afraid of the water. Of course they hadn't been subjected to water torture as infants which really helped.
In actuality these pools are torture chambers for many infants. The CIA and their waterboarding technicians have nothing on the instructors and parents of these babies. I know the cry of a scared infant when I hear one and let me say that many of these infants are terrified to be floating on their backs with the sun beating down on their eyes. It's a terrible thing to witness. For at least 30 minutes these infants (6 months or less) scream. How can this be a good thing? Babies cannot be considered water safe and parents are fooling themselves if they think a 9 month old that falls into a pool can simply turn over and float until someone notices.
When I swim I wear goggles and a swim cap and still water gets in my ears and it's so uncomfortable I can't wait to get out and put some drops in my ears to dry up the water. It's hard to imagine how miserable these babies feel with water in their ears in addition to the sun and the fear of being suspended in the water with a stranger. How can parents bear to listen their babies shriek and cry in pain and terror. I can't stand it and they're not my kids. I have to leave the pool area to avoid smacking some parent upside the head. In the Pilates studio we have to close the windows when a baby is having a "lesson" because it's too painful to listen to the crying. I don't know what these poor babies are learning in their "lessons" but it's not swimming.
When my kids were still in diapers I took them to Mommy and Me swim classes at the YMCA. At the beginning it was just getting them used to the water and I was in the water with them. I didn't pass the responsibility off to some stranger. Later, when they were ready to really learn how to swim I put them in classes with instructors. By that time they weren't afraid of the water. Of course they hadn't been subjected to water torture as infants which really helped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)