Thursday, August 30, 2012
Posts resume Saturday morning
Doing some stuff to get ready for Labor Day weekend, but will be back on track Saturday morning after all that preparation work is done.
Saturday, August 25, 2012
Elementary - the TV series
OK, Sherlock Homes was the first "idiosyncratic" detective.
But now, we've really got a glut of these crazy geniuses - from the guy on Numbers to the guy on Criminal Minds to the guy on Perception to the guy on Psych (with the photographic memory and the extroverted desire to be the center of all attention) and so on and so on. And of course there's the jerk that is House when you get to the medical dramas.
So now we;ve got a modern day Sherlock Holmes who is apparently going to be an absolute creep...
I suppose you can't really judge a TV show by a single 'teaser ' but it looks like that's exactly what his character's going to be.
It's too bad Lucy Liu (who plays Watson) isn't co-starring in The Adventures of Charlie Chan, as I had heard rumors this was in the works. But I suppose the Asian lobby raised a stink, which is really too bad - as I love Charlie Chan.
In the books, written in the 30s when racism against Asians was rampant, Charlie Chan immigrated from Hong Kong to Hawaii when he was 16, so English was not his first language, so of course he didn't speak it very well. But - despite the fact that he did not speak grammatical English, he proved time and again that he was several orders of magnitude smarter than anyone else. (IN the movies, the racism of the white cops was used as comic relief but also was important - because the white cop would look down on him, until Charlie showed how smart he was and how dumb the white cop was. Then the cop would invariably realize his mistake and accept Charlie as the superior police officer and an equal human being.
In this day and age where immigrants to this country who are mocked by certain individuals because they don't speak good English and a lack of good English skills is viewed as a lack of intelligence, a role model like Charlie Chan would be ideal.
Instead, we get Elementary.
But now, we've really got a glut of these crazy geniuses - from the guy on Numbers to the guy on Criminal Minds to the guy on Perception to the guy on Psych (with the photographic memory and the extroverted desire to be the center of all attention) and so on and so on. And of course there's the jerk that is House when you get to the medical dramas.
So now we;ve got a modern day Sherlock Holmes who is apparently going to be an absolute creep...
I suppose you can't really judge a TV show by a single 'teaser ' but it looks like that's exactly what his character's going to be.
It's too bad Lucy Liu (who plays Watson) isn't co-starring in The Adventures of Charlie Chan, as I had heard rumors this was in the works. But I suppose the Asian lobby raised a stink, which is really too bad - as I love Charlie Chan.
In the books, written in the 30s when racism against Asians was rampant, Charlie Chan immigrated from Hong Kong to Hawaii when he was 16, so English was not his first language, so of course he didn't speak it very well. But - despite the fact that he did not speak grammatical English, he proved time and again that he was several orders of magnitude smarter than anyone else. (IN the movies, the racism of the white cops was used as comic relief but also was important - because the white cop would look down on him, until Charlie showed how smart he was and how dumb the white cop was. Then the cop would invariably realize his mistake and accept Charlie as the superior police officer and an equal human being.
In this day and age where immigrants to this country who are mocked by certain individuals because they don't speak good English and a lack of good English skills is viewed as a lack of intelligence, a role model like Charlie Chan would be ideal.
Instead, we get Elementary.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
The latest 5-hour Energy Ad
Have you seen the latest 5-Hour Energy ad? A woman says that 5-Hour Energy talked to 3,000 doctors and asked their opinion. She said, "70% of doctors said they would recommend a "low-cal energy drink" to their patients who drankk"low- cal- energy drinks."
You note that she doesn't say that they would recommend 5-Hour Energy specfically . Or that they would recommend such drinks to anyone other than those that already consumed such things.
So that's a sneaky way of saying that they didn't actually recommend 5-Hour Energy itself.
You note that she doesn't say that they would recommend 5-Hour Energy specfically . Or that they would recommend such drinks to anyone other than those that already consumed such things.
So that's a sneaky way of saying that they didn't actually recommend 5-Hour Energy itself.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Reverse mortgages
Just saw a frail-looking Wayne Rogers (well, he is 80), do a commercial for reverse mortgage. I've seen them from Fred Dalton Thomas, Henry Winkler... and Rush Limbaugh has started doing commercials for them as well...
It's just that there's something not quite right about this.
The government gives you money for the equity in your home... and yet they say you still own your home? I'd say that's a euphemism.
Once the home-owner dies, the government has to take the home - so they can sell it and recoup the money they've given the home owner.
So there's no way the home can go to the oldster's children - unless they start paying on the loan the government has made!
Wayne Rogers is apparently famous as a financial whiz kid, and so I'd be inclined to trust his recommendation more than Thomas or Winkler...but it does seem odd to me...
It's just that there's something not quite right about this.
The government gives you money for the equity in your home... and yet they say you still own your home? I'd say that's a euphemism.
Once the home-owner dies, the government has to take the home - so they can sell it and recoup the money they've given the home owner.
So there's no way the home can go to the oldster's children - unless they start paying on the loan the government has made!
Wayne Rogers is apparently famous as a financial whiz kid, and so I'd be inclined to trust his recommendation more than Thomas or Winkler...but it does seem odd to me...
Chicken bites - KFC
I hate these kinds of commercials.
A grown man still lives with his parents. He's got headphones on his head and is playing a computer game to the exclusion of all else. His parents come in and want him to stop playing the game and get something to eat - he points out that he has KFC chicken bites.
Is that really the demographic KFC is looking for - losers who live in their parent's basements?
A grown man still lives with his parents. He's got headphones on his head and is playing a computer game to the exclusion of all else. His parents come in and want him to stop playing the game and get something to eat - he points out that he has KFC chicken bites.
Is that really the demographic KFC is looking for - losers who live in their parent's basements?
Every store that sells clothes - commercials
It's almost time for kids to go back to school...so of course stores like Walmart, K-Mart...and something called Payless I think...are hawking their wares.
And they all seem to have the same kind of commercials - little kids dressed in clothing, walking down a runway as if they were models. The girls are always swishing their hips and trying to act sexy - and these are little kids 10, 12 - and the boys, of the same age, strutting down the runway as if they were the lords of creation.
I don't care so much about the boys - boys always think they are the lords of creation - but do 12 year old girls really need to be strutting around looking sexy, reinforcing the paradigm that that's what their on this earth for - to be eye candy to boys?
Not that girls are totally innocent - many's the boy just trying to get along, til a clique of girls start teasing him. A girl wants to date him, he says no, she spreads rumors about his sexuality...
And they all seem to have the same kind of commercials - little kids dressed in clothing, walking down a runway as if they were models. The girls are always swishing their hips and trying to act sexy - and these are little kids 10, 12 - and the boys, of the same age, strutting down the runway as if they were the lords of creation.
I don't care so much about the boys - boys always think they are the lords of creation - but do 12 year old girls really need to be strutting around looking sexy, reinforcing the paradigm that that's what their on this earth for - to be eye candy to boys?
Not that girls are totally innocent - many's the boy just trying to get along, til a clique of girls start teasing him. A girl wants to date him, he says no, she spreads rumors about his sexuality...
Monday, August 13, 2012
Teen magazines for girls
I went to my local Walmart yesterday and checked out all the magazines they had in their large magazine section. Three whole shelves were given over to magazines aimed at girls:
Teen Vogue
Pop
AstroGirl (not, unfortunately, an astronomy mag for girls, just a cool title for a crap mag)
Seventeen
Otaki US
J-14
Twist
QuizFest (NOT a quiz magazine asking about geogrpahy, astronomy, the sciences, etc., but rather quizzes on personal questins!)
TigerBerat
Yikes
I was so sickened when looking at these things. They were all full of fluff and garbage - "fall fashion and beauty tips" were the theme.
I mean, really. Kids reading these things are 14 years old or so...do they really need to dress in the latest fashions - that cost sooo much money? (Obviously, if they're i nCalifornia they do, but the rest of the country - the normal part of our country?)
Of course, these magazines are very popular, else there wouldn't be so many of them. And that's the saddest thing at all. Teenage girls need more in their lives than obsessing over "getting a boyfriend, keeping a boyfriend, getting a boyfriend back after he's dumped you" ya da ya da ya da.
Compare any boys magazine aimed at the same age. They're doing interesting things - making models, doing tricks on bikes, hiking, all sorts of fun stuff and not obsessed in the least bit about finding girlfriends. Of course they don't need to be obsessed - girls are trained from the get go to go after t hem these days.
I then went to the checkout counter and saw the gossip magazines there...there was one...the Star I think it was or perhaps the National Enquirer, featuring photos of skeletal women with their heads blocked out so you had to look inside to see who they were... oh my god what Angelina Jolie has done to herself - stick thin. No way could Lara Croft kick butt with those ruler-thin arms. Then there was some British model down to 70 pounds - literally a skeleton with skin on..
And I'm thinking, this is what the obsession with fashion and looking good and getting boyfriends - because you must have a boyfriend when you're 13 or so, otherwise the other girls will tease you for being unattractive to boys and god how horrible that is! - does to women.
Teen Vogue
Pop
AstroGirl (not, unfortunately, an astronomy mag for girls, just a cool title for a crap mag)
Seventeen
Otaki US
J-14
Twist
QuizFest (NOT a quiz magazine asking about geogrpahy, astronomy, the sciences, etc., but rather quizzes on personal questins!)
TigerBerat
Yikes
I was so sickened when looking at these things. They were all full of fluff and garbage - "fall fashion and beauty tips" were the theme.
I mean, really. Kids reading these things are 14 years old or so...do they really need to dress in the latest fashions - that cost sooo much money? (Obviously, if they're i nCalifornia they do, but the rest of the country - the normal part of our country?)
Of course, these magazines are very popular, else there wouldn't be so many of them. And that's the saddest thing at all. Teenage girls need more in their lives than obsessing over "getting a boyfriend, keeping a boyfriend, getting a boyfriend back after he's dumped you" ya da ya da ya da.
Compare any boys magazine aimed at the same age. They're doing interesting things - making models, doing tricks on bikes, hiking, all sorts of fun stuff and not obsessed in the least bit about finding girlfriends. Of course they don't need to be obsessed - girls are trained from the get go to go after t hem these days.
I then went to the checkout counter and saw the gossip magazines there...there was one...the Star I think it was or perhaps the National Enquirer, featuring photos of skeletal women with their heads blocked out so you had to look inside to see who they were... oh my god what Angelina Jolie has done to herself - stick thin. No way could Lara Croft kick butt with those ruler-thin arms. Then there was some British model down to 70 pounds - literally a skeleton with skin on..
And I'm thinking, this is what the obsession with fashion and looking good and getting boyfriends - because you must have a boyfriend when you're 13 or so, otherwise the other girls will tease you for being unattractive to boys and god how horrible that is! - does to women.
Sunday, August 12, 2012
60 is the new 40
On August 10, 2012, the Cheyenne chapter of the AARP hosted a seminar
called Gray Matters - which was free and provided a free lunch -
unfortunately fish and cheesecake, blech - from 4 to 6 was a reception
for all travelers who had come in for the AARP National Spelling Bee to
be held on the 11th.
I attended that and it was a lot of fun. The emcee introduced a few folks, we talked about words, there was a "mock" spelling bee (which only consisted of about 20 people getting up and being questioned on one word...) and so on. And there were finger foods there - Chinese food to be precise. Don't know where they got it from or if they cooked it on site (Little America is a hotel and resort where people come to play golf among other things) but it was delish.
The spelling bee started at the ungodly hour of 8:30 am (Well...8:30 is not so ungodly but I had to get up at the ungodly hour of 6:30 to get there in time for registration, etc.) It started with 4 rounds of 25 words each - which was a Written Test.
The first 25 words were extremely easy. They asked words like "Greetings" and "Navel" and "Mince." I suppose a few might have been considered difficult... "Animus" and "Lacuna."
The second 25 words were equally easy, but I did miss MUGWUMP.
I assume they did this just to help everyone settle the nerves and get new people used to what was going on. People had trouble hearing some of the words (hey, they were all over 50 and most over 60) and the Pronouncer would come down and tell them the word face to face and have them say it back, etc. Indeed, the Pronouncer did an excellent job.
Third round was where they started asking the difficult words.
I missed:
QUESTIONARY INERCALATE
TUATARA
SKOSH
VIRIDITY
WIMBLE
The fourth round was the real killer. I only got 12 out of 25 right. I missed:
FELICIFIC
DOVEKIE
FLYTING
NAPERY
COTYLEDONARY
WELTSCHMERRZ
OPPUGNER
AECIOSPORE
SYNCYTIAL
KNUR
IRIDIUM
TUYERE
HYOSCYAMINE
I then stayed for the Oral rounds and was joined by one of my friends from my Scrabble Club. (I think an audience could have assembled for the Written rounds, too. There were chairs there and family were in them...but I think most people only wanted to come see the Oral rounds where you actually saw the speller's faces as opposed to their backs, etc.)
Two of the people I met last night at the reception made it to the Orals. One of them it was his first trip to the Bee and he was successful his first time out. Made it through about 10 rounds. (In the Orals, you miss two words and you're out.) Another one was an elderly woman from Minnesota who also got through about 10 rounds before being knocked out.
There were three sisters and a brother who had come as a sort of family reunion. The eldest sister made it to the Oral rounds but was bounced after only two rounds. This was too bad and it was because she was a bit unlucky - she got two 6-syllable words in a row while some of the others were getting much easier ones (but still, not ones I could have spelled). But she was disqualified along with several other people in the same round, so hopefully she didn't feel too bad.
The words in the Oral Rounds were extremely difficult. Several times more difficult than the toughest words in the final round of the Written.
But, had I studied for a year, I think I could have handled them.
And it is my intention to study for a year and get into the Orals next year.
So, why is the title of this blog entry 60 is thenew 40?
Because it is.
People are living longer. You don't want to outlive your money and more importantly you don't want to outlive your sense of enjoyment of life. And learning new things every day is enjoyment and keeps the mind active.
The AARP Spelling Bee is held every year, and it gives you an excellent reason to travel to Cheyenne and see The Cowboy State. You'll meet lots of interesting people.
You do have to study.
I studied very desultorily for about a month...combine all the time I studied and it was about 10 hours. Not nearly enough, but then, I'm a good speller so the Written Rounds were relatively easy - except for that killer last round.
Why learn words that you'll never, ever say in real life?Well, because they're interesting. And the concepts of what you'll learn, you can apply in other areas. So it's a win win.
So start planning to live a long, healthy, active, intellectual life, and do it now, however old you might be!
I attended that and it was a lot of fun. The emcee introduced a few folks, we talked about words, there was a "mock" spelling bee (which only consisted of about 20 people getting up and being questioned on one word...) and so on. And there were finger foods there - Chinese food to be precise. Don't know where they got it from or if they cooked it on site (Little America is a hotel and resort where people come to play golf among other things) but it was delish.
The spelling bee started at the ungodly hour of 8:30 am (Well...8:30 is not so ungodly but I had to get up at the ungodly hour of 6:30 to get there in time for registration, etc.) It started with 4 rounds of 25 words each - which was a Written Test.
The first 25 words were extremely easy. They asked words like "Greetings" and "Navel" and "Mince." I suppose a few might have been considered difficult... "Animus" and "Lacuna."
The second 25 words were equally easy, but I did miss MUGWUMP.
I assume they did this just to help everyone settle the nerves and get new people used to what was going on. People had trouble hearing some of the words (hey, they were all over 50 and most over 60) and the Pronouncer would come down and tell them the word face to face and have them say it back, etc. Indeed, the Pronouncer did an excellent job.
Third round was where they started asking the difficult words.
I missed:
QUESTIONARY INERCALATE
TUATARA
SKOSH
VIRIDITY
WIMBLE
The fourth round was the real killer. I only got 12 out of 25 right. I missed:
FELICIFIC
DOVEKIE
FLYTING
NAPERY
COTYLEDONARY
WELTSCHMERRZ
OPPUGNER
AECIOSPORE
SYNCYTIAL
KNUR
IRIDIUM
TUYERE
HYOSCYAMINE
I then stayed for the Oral rounds and was joined by one of my friends from my Scrabble Club. (I think an audience could have assembled for the Written rounds, too. There were chairs there and family were in them...but I think most people only wanted to come see the Oral rounds where you actually saw the speller's faces as opposed to their backs, etc.)
Two of the people I met last night at the reception made it to the Orals. One of them it was his first trip to the Bee and he was successful his first time out. Made it through about 10 rounds. (In the Orals, you miss two words and you're out.) Another one was an elderly woman from Minnesota who also got through about 10 rounds before being knocked out.
There were three sisters and a brother who had come as a sort of family reunion. The eldest sister made it to the Oral rounds but was bounced after only two rounds. This was too bad and it was because she was a bit unlucky - she got two 6-syllable words in a row while some of the others were getting much easier ones (but still, not ones I could have spelled). But she was disqualified along with several other people in the same round, so hopefully she didn't feel too bad.
The words in the Oral Rounds were extremely difficult. Several times more difficult than the toughest words in the final round of the Written.
But, had I studied for a year, I think I could have handled them.
And it is my intention to study for a year and get into the Orals next year.
So, why is the title of this blog entry 60 is thenew 40?
Because it is.
People are living longer. You don't want to outlive your money and more importantly you don't want to outlive your sense of enjoyment of life. And learning new things every day is enjoyment and keeps the mind active.
The AARP Spelling Bee is held every year, and it gives you an excellent reason to travel to Cheyenne and see The Cowboy State. You'll meet lots of interesting people.
You do have to study.
I studied very desultorily for about a month...combine all the time I studied and it was about 10 hours. Not nearly enough, but then, I'm a good speller so the Written Rounds were relatively easy - except for that killer last round.
Why learn words that you'll never, ever say in real life?Well, because they're interesting. And the concepts of what you'll learn, you can apply in other areas. So it's a win win.
So start planning to live a long, healthy, active, intellectual life, and do it now, however old you might be!
Friday, August 10, 2012
No posts today
I'm participating in the AARP Spelling Bee held in Cheyenne on
Saturday, Aug 11. Today, Friday, there's a day-long "orientation," talk
about keeping active, and mock spelling bee, and I want to attend it.
Will let you know on Sunday how I did...I'm not expecting to win but I do hope to get out of the writtens into the orals. There are 60 participants which must be whittled down to 15 - done so by 4 rounds of 25 written words each. I should be able to beat out 45 people to get on to that platform for the oral round, even if I lose on the first question!
Well, we'll see.
Will let you know on Sunday how I did...I'm not expecting to win but I do hope to get out of the writtens into the orals. There are 60 participants which must be whittled down to 15 - done so by 4 rounds of 25 written words each. I should be able to beat out 45 people to get on to that platform for the oral round, even if I lose on the first question!
Well, we'll see.
Thursday, August 9, 2012
Olympics coverage here in the USA
No, not devolution media, except in the sense that you'd think that after 40 years of covering the Olympics, NBC would be able to do it right.
During the day they show certain events. Well and good. You'd think late at night they'd show footage of different events that took place simultaneously during the day. Or more footage of participants in other events they've shown us.
But no so. They just repeat the stuff they've already shown!
Extremely annoying!
During the day they show certain events. Well and good. You'd think late at night they'd show footage of different events that took place simultaneously during the day. Or more footage of participants in other events they've shown us.
But no so. They just repeat the stuff they've already shown!
Extremely annoying!
Monday, August 6, 2012
Arby's Commercial
I really dislike the latest Arby's commercial. Skinny white guy comes out of a store and says he can win anything by taking a photograph of his Arby's cup and sending it to Arby's to win prizes.
So he knocks over someone's salt, deliberately breaks two mirrors with an umbrella, and gets hit by a piano.
Not funny, just stupid.
In particular, the deliberately breaking of two mirrors, outside an antique store. That's at the very least, vandalism. Depending on how much they were worth, a felony.
Yet he walks on - but deservedly gets hit by a piano a second later. (With fine print on the screen, "Do not attempt." Not "do not attempt" in front of him breaking the mirrors, but in front of him getting hit by a piano.)
So he knocks over someone's salt, deliberately breaks two mirrors with an umbrella, and gets hit by a piano.
Not funny, just stupid.
In particular, the deliberately breaking of two mirrors, outside an antique store. That's at the very least, vandalism. Depending on how much they were worth, a felony.
Yet he walks on - but deservedly gets hit by a piano a second later. (With fine print on the screen, "Do not attempt." Not "do not attempt" in front of him breaking the mirrors, but in front of him getting hit by a piano.)
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The New Normal - sit com
I just heard this commercial for the first time (I've seen it a few times but always with the sound down.)
The premise is as you might expect - a straight woman has an 8 year old (I'm guessing on the age) child...and lives with her mother. She also lives with two gay friends who acts as "dads" to the child (and presumably this woman is pregnant so they're going to act as dads to the new baby, too.)
First off, of course, this isn't "the new normal." The new normal is for a woman to not have a husband or male presence in the house of any kind, have an illegitimate baby, and live in poverty for the rest of her life.
But out in California, I suppose, it could be normal there. Who knows what goes on in that state?
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing loving gay couples standing by their straight friends. Not at all.
It's just that this is the typical sit-com formula. The mother verbally abuses everybody - the 8 year old girl-child is a smart-mouth who of course knows everything. (She calls her grandmother a bigot. It's true, but should a little child be talking to her grandmother that way?)
Frankly, I think parents should boycott all sitcoms - just allow their kids to watch the good ones - the Cosby show, the Brady Bunch, etc - shows in which parents know things and are not fools, and kids may rebel but always learn that parents know best.
The one thing I wish all sitcoms would get rid of is this verbal abuse character. There's always one in every sitcom, whom the other characters just tolerate and who is supposed to be, apparently, "Crusty but loveable." (It will turn out, of course, that this homophobic grandma isn't really bigoted, she just likes to pretend she is.)
The premise is as you might expect - a straight woman has an 8 year old (I'm guessing on the age) child...and lives with her mother. She also lives with two gay friends who acts as "dads" to the child (and presumably this woman is pregnant so they're going to act as dads to the new baby, too.)
First off, of course, this isn't "the new normal." The new normal is for a woman to not have a husband or male presence in the house of any kind, have an illegitimate baby, and live in poverty for the rest of her life.
But out in California, I suppose, it could be normal there. Who knows what goes on in that state?
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing loving gay couples standing by their straight friends. Not at all.
It's just that this is the typical sit-com formula. The mother verbally abuses everybody - the 8 year old girl-child is a smart-mouth who of course knows everything. (She calls her grandmother a bigot. It's true, but should a little child be talking to her grandmother that way?)
Frankly, I think parents should boycott all sitcoms - just allow their kids to watch the good ones - the Cosby show, the Brady Bunch, etc - shows in which parents know things and are not fools, and kids may rebel but always learn that parents know best.
The one thing I wish all sitcoms would get rid of is this verbal abuse character. There's always one in every sitcom, whom the other characters just tolerate and who is supposed to be, apparently, "Crusty but loveable." (It will turn out, of course, that this homophobic grandma isn't really bigoted, she just likes to pretend she is.)
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Badmintoners at the Olympics
Not really "devolution media" in the sense that it's the producers fault...just thought I'd mention it.
8 Olympic female badmintoners, - one the Gold medal favorites from China - were tossed out of the Olympics yesterday for deliberately trying to lose their matches.
Apparently the way the Badminton games are set up, if you lose one match you're not knocked out of gold medal contention - you just get an easier game the next time.
So all these badmintoners - 2 teams from Korea, 1 from China and 1 from Indonesia, deliberately tried to lose - not even pretending to play well. They'd hit the shuttle cock into the net at serve, or hit it wide, and they continued to do this even though they were loudly booed throughout their matches and even though they were warned several times by the referee.
It's interesting...what did they think they would accomplish by being so blatant about trying to lose? Did they really think they would not be thrown out of the Olympics for what they did? When they had warning after warning after warning?
8 Olympic female badmintoners, - one the Gold medal favorites from China - were tossed out of the Olympics yesterday for deliberately trying to lose their matches.
Apparently the way the Badminton games are set up, if you lose one match you're not knocked out of gold medal contention - you just get an easier game the next time.
So all these badmintoners - 2 teams from Korea, 1 from China and 1 from Indonesia, deliberately tried to lose - not even pretending to play well. They'd hit the shuttle cock into the net at serve, or hit it wide, and they continued to do this even though they were loudly booed throughout their matches and even though they were warned several times by the referee.
It's interesting...what did they think they would accomplish by being so blatant about trying to lose? Did they really think they would not be thrown out of the Olympics for what they did? When they had warning after warning after warning?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
