Monday, April 7, 2008
Can you hear me now?
Allowing cell-phone use aboard airplanes is a slippery slope...
Allowing the use of cell phones in emergency situations should most definitely be allowed. As 9-11 shows, and in case of crashes or mechanical malfunctions, God forbid, people should be allowed to make their calls to loved ones.
However, I believe that this lax approach to air-communication simply provides another excuse for annoyances in small spaces. Is the idea of someone annoyingly chatting on their cell phone enough to ban it? Perhaps not. Larger people that lop over onto my seat are annoying. Talkers in general who want to introduce themselves and know your life story are beyong irritating. People who insist on leaning over you to look out the window when you land, though they likely had the chance to get the damn window seat themselves, are annoying. There is no rule banning these people.
Children can be annoying, and they're allowed on planes... ok, I went too far. (But you know it's true.)
Anyway, we all have a right to peace and quiet, or to space, or to be left alone. I look at airplanes as a means to an end- getting me to a new destination. I do not look at them as social, business, or even speed-dating opportunities. Would you, sitting in a small airplane- perhaps in the middle of a 3-seat row, desire someone next to you chatting away with their best friend, spouse, or even mother-in-law? I usually ask that the person next to me let me be- to read, sleep, listen to my headphones, etc. And I vocally request, if flying Midwest, to save me my cookies should I sleep through their delivery.
But that's just me. Perhaps the tables were turned and I needed to make a call. You claim your right to free speech - to chatter all you want on your cell phone. But where do we draw the line? What if I have a work item that needs to be taken care of before my vacation officially starts when I hit the ground in 2 hours? Or a family member has an emergency. Where do we distinguish between those emergency calls or the calls that could still wait a few more hours. It's a tough call - and who decides who makes it?
In a world of increasing online and technological communication, we must cherish our phone calls and re-connect times with our loved ones and friends. But we also have lost that face-to-face, eye-to-eye communication skill and our connections are shallow, though we may refuse to admit it. Perhaps you email your coworker 24 times a day, but if you consider a coworker a friend, do you really know how he or she is?
Will being allowed to make phone calls on an airplane really make a difference to your life? Oh sure, if you have a blackberry, now you can e-mail in the sky!! Whoopeee! (Crackberries!)
Maybe use that time instead to organize your thoughts, write them down, think about your day, unwind, sleep, rest, pray, practice a skill, etc. Think about the gift of airplane time.
And now think about how cellphones could kill it.
You can use your cell phone in the skies over Europe as early as this summer under new European Union rules — allowing travelers to stay in touch but also raising the cringe-inducing prospect of being stuck next to a chatterbox at 30,000 feet.I think there are several arguments that can made and should be acknowledged.
Announcing the guidelines Monday, EU officials said they expect several Europe-based airlines to move within the next few months to launch services, effectively making the 27-nation bloc the first region in the world to scrap bans on the use of cell phones in the sky.
Allowing the use of cell phones in emergency situations should most definitely be allowed. As 9-11 shows, and in case of crashes or mechanical malfunctions, God forbid, people should be allowed to make their calls to loved ones.
However, I believe that this lax approach to air-communication simply provides another excuse for annoyances in small spaces. Is the idea of someone annoyingly chatting on their cell phone enough to ban it? Perhaps not. Larger people that lop over onto my seat are annoying. Talkers in general who want to introduce themselves and know your life story are beyong irritating. People who insist on leaning over you to look out the window when you land, though they likely had the chance to get the damn window seat themselves, are annoying. There is no rule banning these people.
Children can be annoying, and they're allowed on planes... ok, I went too far. (But you know it's true.)
Anyway, we all have a right to peace and quiet, or to space, or to be left alone. I look at airplanes as a means to an end- getting me to a new destination. I do not look at them as social, business, or even speed-dating opportunities. Would you, sitting in a small airplane- perhaps in the middle of a 3-seat row, desire someone next to you chatting away with their best friend, spouse, or even mother-in-law? I usually ask that the person next to me let me be- to read, sleep, listen to my headphones, etc. And I vocally request, if flying Midwest, to save me my cookies should I sleep through their delivery.
But that's just me. Perhaps the tables were turned and I needed to make a call. You claim your right to free speech - to chatter all you want on your cell phone. But where do we draw the line? What if I have a work item that needs to be taken care of before my vacation officially starts when I hit the ground in 2 hours? Or a family member has an emergency. Where do we distinguish between those emergency calls or the calls that could still wait a few more hours. It's a tough call - and who decides who makes it?
In a world of increasing online and technological communication, we must cherish our phone calls and re-connect times with our loved ones and friends. But we also have lost that face-to-face, eye-to-eye communication skill and our connections are shallow, though we may refuse to admit it. Perhaps you email your coworker 24 times a day, but if you consider a coworker a friend, do you really know how he or she is?
Will being allowed to make phone calls on an airplane really make a difference to your life? Oh sure, if you have a blackberry, now you can e-mail in the sky!! Whoopeee! (Crackberries!)
Maybe use that time instead to organize your thoughts, write them down, think about your day, unwind, sleep, rest, pray, practice a skill, etc. Think about the gift of airplane time.
And now think about how cellphones could kill it.
Troops down, violence up
Gee, you think there might be a trend here?
"Iraq violence up as troop levels drop"
It's not rocket science, people.
If we pull out- and I fear if Hillary or Barack are President, when we pull out- the war will come back to our soil faster than you can say "end the war."
The surge was working. Why can't we just let it.
"Iraq violence up as troop levels drop"
WASHINGTON - Since the US military began reducing its troop presence in Iraq three months ago, several key indicators of violence in the troubled nation have risen, according to new military figures released this weekend, sparking fears that security gains hailed by the White House are already eroding.I believe the withdrawal speaks for itself, independent of the surge. If we withdraw before Iraq is stable, we lose. We admit defeat (yes, even though Harry Reid did it ages ago for us!). If we believe that we are "postponing the inevitable deadly chaos" of a tumultuous region, we again lose. That is an admission that there is no hope, there is no forseeable solution to the fight.
The rise in violence - blamed on both Shi'ite militants and Sunni extremists allied with Al Qaeda - has prompted war critics to argue that President Bush's surge of 30,000 more troops last year, designed to stabilize the nation, merely postponed the inevitable deadly chaos that will follow an eventual US withdrawal.
It's not rocket science, people.
If we pull out- and I fear if Hillary or Barack are President, when we pull out- the war will come back to our soil faster than you can say "end the war."
The surge was working. Why can't we just let it.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Prayer request
I think we should pray for these girls.
ELDORADO, Texas — Child Protective Services and law enforcement on Sunday were still trying to locate and remove all the children living at a West Texas compound founded by polygamist leader Warren Jeffs.The thought is truly more than I can handle.
Meisner said CPS officials are having difficulty locating the 16-year-old girl who phoned authorities to complain of abuse last week. Many of the girls are young mothers, and they share similar names — or are changing them, she said. Authorities are also having difficulty determining the girls' ages.
State troopers armed with a search warrant raided the compound to look for evidence of a marriage between the girl who complained and 50-year-old Dale Barlow.
Under Texas law, girls younger than 16 cannot marry, even with parental approval. The girl allegedly had a baby at 15. Her call was the first in Texas complaining of possible abuse, though Jeffs, Barlow and other members of the sect have faced prosecution in Arizona and Utah.
Jeffs is jailed in Kingman, Ariz., where he awaits trial for four counts each of incest and sexual conduct with a minor stemming from two arranged marriages between teenage girls and their older male relatives.
In November, he was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of five years to life in prison in Utah for being an accomplice to the rape of a 14-year-old girl who wed her cousin in an arranged marriage in 2001..
Spare me the trailer for this movie
Already this "W" movie sounds like a liberal-hit at the box office, one that I certainly wouldn't spend $8.50 on.
And bad choice for Condi... bad choice.
"Stone has said he wants to draw a fair-minded portrait of the polarizing figure. Sources familiar with the script say Bush is depicted as an easily distracted figure predisposed to personal agendas, though they say the script occasionally shows a more sympathetic side."Perhaps the old term for movie will apply - this certainly will be a show!
And bad choice for Condi... bad choice.
Comments
If any anonymous coward proceeds to use profanity against myself or President Bush in a comment on this blog, it will be rejected, as one was earlier today.
Show some respect!
Show some respect!
Friday, April 4, 2008
This isn't messed up...
I'm sorry, what?
I cannot imagine the therapy bills for this child...
CHICAGO (April 3) - A transgender man who is six months pregnant said in an interview aired by Oprah Winfrey on Thursday that he always wanted to have a child and considers it a miracle.Didn't we already realize this was a bad idea in the just as bad Arnold Schwarzenegger movie?
"It's not a male or female desire to have a child. It's a human desire," a thinly bearded Thomas Beatie said. "I have a very stable male identity," he added, saying that pregnancy neither defines him nor makes him feel feminine.
I cannot imagine the therapy bills for this child...
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
NKOTB is BACK!
YES!!!!!!!!!!!
I suppose I can turn from GMA to the Today Show for just this once.
At last, New Kids on the Block are getting back together. A person involved in planning the long-rumored reunion told us yesterday that the mega-selling boy band will make their comeback official with an announcement Friday on the "Today" show.I particularly am a fan of Donnie dancer-turned-actor.
According to our source, all five original New Kids - Joey McIntyre, Donnie Wahlberg, Danny Wood, and Jordan and Jonathan Knight - have committed to the reunion, which comes on the 20th anniversary of the Boston band's biggest-selling LP, "Hangin' Tough." A tour is planned, the details of which will be announced soon on the group's newly redesigned website nkotb.com.
I suppose I can turn from GMA to the Today Show for just this once.
The black discussion
I've come upon a Washington Times article quoting Condolleeza Rice on the racial divide that is still evident in our modern society.
She continued: As a result, Miss Rice told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."
"That particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today," she said. Why is it so hard for us? We all know our history and the impact of slavery and divisions between skin colors and how that is still impacting America. Why can we not move past it?
Even last week in the Wisconsin Supreme Court contest's first debate, Justice Louis Butler called upon his own skin color- proudly marking it as an honorable distinction. He is proud "to have been the first African American Justice on the Supreme Court." Later he claimed he was a child of the civil rights movement, that people died for his rights, etc. While it is true, why does it have to be highlighted? Why is it part of the conversation, or something that should impact an election?
If you don't vote for the black man, are you racist? If you do, does that mean you are more accepting of skin color and ready to move out of the past? OR, as black person would you be racist because you are voting solely on skin color?
I believe it is up to all of us- old and young, political figures and everday Joes, to recognize our history for what it is and to move forward from that.
The more we tip-toe around politically correct phraseology and allow politicians to bring the discussion back to race, the longer we will dwell on that negative history and continue to pit black against white.
Talk about it. Talk about race and differences and societal stigmas in school when it's taught in history class. Bring the white and black cliques together. They already "know they are all humans, just with different skin pigmentations" and roll their eyes - because we're just not allowing them to accept that and recognize their common human attributes. We keep bringing the discussion back to race and re-dividing. Teachers and politicians, members of the media and I'm sorry to say - more black people than white- are drawing the attention to skin color differences.
When's it going to change, if not now?
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said yesterday that the United States still has trouble dealing with race because of a national "birth defect" that denied black Americans the opportunities given to whites at the country's very founding.Agreed, Secretary Rice. However, is it not the continued dwelling on this fact that continues to set us back in our "graying" of the divide between black and white skin colors in our communities?
"Black Americans were a founding population," she said. "Africans and Europeans came here and founded this country together — Europeans by choice and Africans in chains. That's not a very pretty reality of our founding."
She continued: As a result, Miss Rice told editors and reporters at The Washington Times, "descendants of slaves did not get much of a head start, and I think you continue to see some of the effects of that."
"That particular birth defect makes it hard for us to confront it, hard for us to talk about it, and hard for us to realize that it has continuing relevance for who we are today," she said. Why is it so hard for us? We all know our history and the impact of slavery and divisions between skin colors and how that is still impacting America. Why can we not move past it?
Even last week in the Wisconsin Supreme Court contest's first debate, Justice Louis Butler called upon his own skin color- proudly marking it as an honorable distinction. He is proud "to have been the first African American Justice on the Supreme Court." Later he claimed he was a child of the civil rights movement, that people died for his rights, etc. While it is true, why does it have to be highlighted? Why is it part of the conversation, or something that should impact an election?
If you don't vote for the black man, are you racist? If you do, does that mean you are more accepting of skin color and ready to move out of the past? OR, as black person would you be racist because you are voting solely on skin color?
I believe it is up to all of us- old and young, political figures and everday Joes, to recognize our history for what it is and to move forward from that.
The more we tip-toe around politically correct phraseology and allow politicians to bring the discussion back to race, the longer we will dwell on that negative history and continue to pit black against white.
Talk about it. Talk about race and differences and societal stigmas in school when it's taught in history class. Bring the white and black cliques together. They already "know they are all humans, just with different skin pigmentations" and roll their eyes - because we're just not allowing them to accept that and recognize their common human attributes. We keep bringing the discussion back to race and re-dividing. Teachers and politicians, members of the media and I'm sorry to say - more black people than white- are drawing the attention to skin color differences.
When's it going to change, if not now?
Nerk Nerk.
I can't wait to read all the liberal blogs tomorrow about Gableman's win.
Oh, I'm sorry, is it rude to gloat?
Hee Hee.
Oh, I'm sorry, is it rude to gloat?
Hee Hee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
