Some of my friends once worked for the ‘Haagen-Daz’ distributors here in Miami Florida. Maybe they still do. It was a very big operation with freezers the size of a warehouse and temperatures below zero. There was office staff and deliver route drivers but only one warehouse supervisor. His job was to count everything that went into and out of the huge freezer.
Since the freezer was very cold this fellow wore a snow suit to stay warm. Of course he rolled up the sleeves a bit to accommodate a clipboard and pen but the rest of him was insulated and comfortable.
Over time I noticed that the hair on his forearms began to grow thicker and more dense. Our group of friends would sometimes meet over the weekend for burgers and a pool party. Whenever he came outside it was easy to notice that although most of his body had a regular amount of hair, it was his forearms that seemed a bit over grown. The forearms had a kind of Popeye-like quality. The arms seemed much larger and a bit out of proportion because of the overgrown hair.
And it started me thinking. The rest of his body was covered with a snowsuit and the preponderance of hair seemed normal apart from the forearms. I concluded that over time his body was able to detect a great difference in temperature on the forearms and stimulated those hair follicles specifically to produce added growth. It seemed the only plausible explanation.
And so I began to wonder about the baseball cap wearing guys who frequent the neighborhood. I feel that they are doing the opposite to their hair.
By covering their heads they are telling the body that the head is warm enough and does not require added hair growth. And so the hair thins and dissipates. It seems like a certain recipe for baldness.
When I mentioned this theory to some of my new friends they were unconvinced. I guess most people feel that the body is not capable of responding to external stimulus so rapidly.
They suggested that the best way to keep a healthy head of hair was to soak your head in the freezer.
I wonder if that would work?
18 August, 2011
16 March, 2011
ABOUT ALLITERATION
Who doesn’t love a good rhyme? Save the Waves. See the USA in your Chevrolet. Takes a lickin’ and keeps on tickin’, have a bee in your bonnet?
In like fashion Americans have embraced alliteration as a memory aid ever since we ‘sailed the seven seas’. ‘I before E except after C’. Oh, there are plenty more examples and in every walk of life. Our dictionary states the following:
Our dictionary describes alliteration as something like; the commencement of two or more stressed syllables of a word group either with the same sound or sound group (vocalic alliteration).
Cartoon figures. Almost all of the lovable characters to populate our animated tales feature alliterative names; Fred Flintstone, Bugs Bunny, Mickey and Mighty and Minnie Mouse, Pink Panther, Daffy Duck, Porky Pig and more. You can add to this list at your leisure.
So it’s not surprising that product vendors and manufacturers of all kinds have availed themselves of this popular technique. Alliterative product names include: Dirt Devil, Swisher Sweets, Stanley Steamer, Bacon Bits, French Fries, Coca Cola, Rocky Road… think about it.
Celebrities like Marilyn Monroe, Alan Alda, Hulk Hogan and Greta Garbo changed their names to become alliterative. Rachel Ray, Courtney Cox, Steven Spielberg, Sylvester Stallone, Charlie Chaplin, Wendy Williams, Barry Bonds, Kim Kardasian, Vince Vaughn and many others still use their given names. Marion Morrison actually became less alliterative when he changed his name to John Wayne.
Politics has its’ own alliterative presence. Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan, Oval Office, Woodrow Wilson, et al.
There’s lots of comic book characters too: Peter Parker (Spider Man), Clark Kent (- Superman -same sound different letters), Lois Lane, Lex Luther etc.
I suppose you wonder why this is significant?
It’s how we are conditioned. It rhymes. It’s poetic. It lilts. It’s a twirl in the sun that creates a connection.
08 November, 2010
ABOUT POLITICIANS
Truth is irrelevant. What matters is how you portray the opposition.
Let’s face it. Our legislators have very few original thoughts. At one time they were great academicians, now they have speech writers. Their greatest challenge has become how to issue a pithy spin that can enhance their party line while casting a pall on the competition.
Its high time Americans come to realize that the Democratic and Republican National Committees are in truth huge, privately held multi-million dollar companies masquerading as not-for-profit corporations. Candidates can only get funding if they adhere to the party line. Only marginal experience is required. Sure an individual prospect must possess ‘likability’ to be selected as a candidate. Let’s call this the ‘Palin’ effect. Being the Governor of Alaska is about equal to being the Mayor of Washington, DC (they have roughly the same population).
I promise you that the vast majority of our legislators have little interest in helping average Americans. They don’t have to be helpful. That might have been their initial goal. However, after a few years in government an otherwise earnest representative is so busy concealing their own personal array of corruptions that they have little time to look after us (we), the puny people.
Additionally, the only way to remain in office is to please the party elders. No party affiliation, no campaign finance. It’s the law of supply and demand - meet the demands of anyone who provides you with the largest supply of money. It’s all about funding. Further the party platform with sound bytes and photo ops. Results are desired but not required. Campaign funding rules the day. The recent mid-term election was perhaps the most expensive in political history. As you are fully aware it was one negative spin after another.
The 21st century has (so far) provided us with vivid, intimate awareness not only about our celebrities, but about our politicians as well. Tabloid magazines. Twitter. Even the Pope and the Queen have Facebook pages. We already know that some of the political electorate is guilty of infidelity, bribery, collusion, conspiracy, blackmail and malfeasance.
It is true that we as the public select our celebrities for adulation and elect our politicians in like fashion. We expect that our experience with previous behavior will deliver superior results. That is sadly more certain among low end workers and diminishes accordingly among our executives.
To paraphrase Mark Twain; 'Two things you never want to see being made: laws and sausages.'
In part and in addition to international relations, we elect the congress to look after our regional and local needs. In a perfect world it is the job of our representatives to secure funding for our schools and improve our infrastructure; to keep our taxes low while promoting industry, creating jobs and soliciting investments that will augment our prosperity. And yet so much prospective funding legislation is ‘pork’. And we call it ‘pork’ because much of it lacks wide ranging, even pertinent distinctiveness; construction projects, or grants that favor campaign contributors. You can find many examples on your own.
The truth is that our legislators are nearly incapable of doing the work for which they were chosen. Ham-fisted. State and local as well as Federal houses of government are peopled with master manipulators. Longevity on the job often indicates a level of expertise in networking through the complicated protocols of ‘the deal’. However, it is more likely that an experienced legislator is skilled at managing hirsute affiliations rather than duties to the electorate. A smooth politician.
To paraphrase Honore de Balzac: “Law is a silvery web that lets the big flies pass and catches the small ones”.
Think about it. America desired independence from Britain because there was taxation without representation. The colonies paid import, export and sin taxes to the crown without even so much as a voice in the royal ear to convey issues in a true way. Out with the old.
We then proceeded to elect our royalty and have been doing so ever since. In with the new. Our representatives are provided with high salaries (they can vote themselves a pay raise), they receive perks like free dining privileges and excellent health care insurance. They are permitted to postpone the obligations of their current office so they might go onto the campaign trail, effectively pursuing a different job while being fully paid for the one they seek to abandon. Try that at work! Perhaps they are named Adams, or Bush or Kennedy or McCain or Clinton.
I suppose there is a case for brand loyalty. I am, after all, inclined to replace a failed appliance that has served well with a model of the same brand. Moreover, I often hope that previous employers will remember to call upon me again when the chance arises.
Now what about lobbyists? Executive legislators can influence the policies of generations to come and as such are continually tempted (if not harangued) with and by special interest groups who seek to interpret the public good according to their own private agenda (s). A flood of data coupled with persuasive incentives hoping to affect a vote or at the very least elicit support. It’s safe to say that our electorate encounters the faces of familiar lobbyists far more frequently than they might encounter ‘Joe or Sally housecoat’.
A revolving door exists between the Department of Defense and Defense contractors; it is the same between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the FDA. The same exists between the FDIC and brokerage firms like Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch. In view of recent events in the Gulf of Mexico I think it’s safe to include the Mineral Management Service and its cozy relationship with the petroleum industry as well.
So who is representing you? There is deserving concern that Americas greatest invention, the middle class, is dissolving. A few weeks past President Obama addressed a fund raising dinner at $30K for each plate. That is more than many people earn annually. Even as government contemplates curtailing unemployment benefits, they also deliberate on extending the so-called Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans. So how is representation going for you?
Let’s face it. Our legislators have very few original thoughts. At one time they were great academicians, now they have speech writers. Their greatest challenge has become how to issue a pithy spin that can enhance their party line while casting a pall on the competition.
Its high time Americans come to realize that the Democratic and Republican National Committees are in truth huge, privately held multi-million dollar companies masquerading as not-for-profit corporations. Candidates can only get funding if they adhere to the party line. Only marginal experience is required. Sure an individual prospect must possess ‘likability’ to be selected as a candidate. Let’s call this the ‘Palin’ effect. Being the Governor of Alaska is about equal to being the Mayor of Washington, DC (they have roughly the same population).
I promise you that the vast majority of our legislators have little interest in helping average Americans. They don’t have to be helpful. That might have been their initial goal. However, after a few years in government an otherwise earnest representative is so busy concealing their own personal array of corruptions that they have little time to look after us (we), the puny people.
Additionally, the only way to remain in office is to please the party elders. No party affiliation, no campaign finance. It’s the law of supply and demand - meet the demands of anyone who provides you with the largest supply of money. It’s all about funding. Further the party platform with sound bytes and photo ops. Results are desired but not required. Campaign funding rules the day. The recent mid-term election was perhaps the most expensive in political history. As you are fully aware it was one negative spin after another.
The 21st century has (so far) provided us with vivid, intimate awareness not only about our celebrities, but about our politicians as well. Tabloid magazines. Twitter. Even the Pope and the Queen have Facebook pages. We already know that some of the political electorate is guilty of infidelity, bribery, collusion, conspiracy, blackmail and malfeasance.
It is true that we as the public select our celebrities for adulation and elect our politicians in like fashion. We expect that our experience with previous behavior will deliver superior results. That is sadly more certain among low end workers and diminishes accordingly among our executives.
To paraphrase Mark Twain; 'Two things you never want to see being made: laws and sausages.'
In part and in addition to international relations, we elect the congress to look after our regional and local needs. In a perfect world it is the job of our representatives to secure funding for our schools and improve our infrastructure; to keep our taxes low while promoting industry, creating jobs and soliciting investments that will augment our prosperity. And yet so much prospective funding legislation is ‘pork’. And we call it ‘pork’ because much of it lacks wide ranging, even pertinent distinctiveness; construction projects, or grants that favor campaign contributors. You can find many examples on your own.
The truth is that our legislators are nearly incapable of doing the work for which they were chosen. Ham-fisted. State and local as well as Federal houses of government are peopled with master manipulators. Longevity on the job often indicates a level of expertise in networking through the complicated protocols of ‘the deal’. However, it is more likely that an experienced legislator is skilled at managing hirsute affiliations rather than duties to the electorate. A smooth politician.
To paraphrase Honore de Balzac: “Law is a silvery web that lets the big flies pass and catches the small ones”.
Think about it. America desired independence from Britain because there was taxation without representation. The colonies paid import, export and sin taxes to the crown without even so much as a voice in the royal ear to convey issues in a true way. Out with the old.
We then proceeded to elect our royalty and have been doing so ever since. In with the new. Our representatives are provided with high salaries (they can vote themselves a pay raise), they receive perks like free dining privileges and excellent health care insurance. They are permitted to postpone the obligations of their current office so they might go onto the campaign trail, effectively pursuing a different job while being fully paid for the one they seek to abandon. Try that at work! Perhaps they are named Adams, or Bush or Kennedy or McCain or Clinton.
I suppose there is a case for brand loyalty. I am, after all, inclined to replace a failed appliance that has served well with a model of the same brand. Moreover, I often hope that previous employers will remember to call upon me again when the chance arises.
Now what about lobbyists? Executive legislators can influence the policies of generations to come and as such are continually tempted (if not harangued) with and by special interest groups who seek to interpret the public good according to their own private agenda (s). A flood of data coupled with persuasive incentives hoping to affect a vote or at the very least elicit support. It’s safe to say that our electorate encounters the faces of familiar lobbyists far more frequently than they might encounter ‘Joe or Sally housecoat’.
A revolving door exists between the Department of Defense and Defense contractors; it is the same between pharmaceutical manufacturers and the FDA. The same exists between the FDIC and brokerage firms like Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch. In view of recent events in the Gulf of Mexico I think it’s safe to include the Mineral Management Service and its cozy relationship with the petroleum industry as well.
So who is representing you? There is deserving concern that Americas greatest invention, the middle class, is dissolving. A few weeks past President Obama addressed a fund raising dinner at $30K for each plate. That is more than many people earn annually. Even as government contemplates curtailing unemployment benefits, they also deliberate on extending the so-called Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of Americans. So how is representation going for you?
25 August, 2010
ABOUT SIT-COMS
For the less initiated this particular blog addresses: ‘situation-comedies’. You know. Those semi-endearing, character driven, often ridiculous televised portrayals of life we once enjoyed before there were true ‘reality shows’. As far back as ‘Ozzie and Harriett’ and the ‘Honeymooners’ up to and including ‘Two and a Half Men’ and the ‘Big Bang Theory’, they are prime time staples.
They’re still 30 minutes long (21 if you deduct commercials). There are still 7 main characters. They still use laugh tracks, a practice I find personally insulting. I know when to laugh and I do not require prompting.
I sometimes reference these shows as ‘comfort media’. We’ve seen these programs many times. We know the names and histories of the characters and cast. Many have concluded production and exist now only in ‘syndication’.
Syndication as you know is that state wherein a show that was terminated as far back as the fifties can still find a market (albeit sometimes in international translations) on today’s broadcast schedule. How else could a twenty something of today embrace ‘I Love Lucy’ or ‘Bewitched’ or the black and white televised images of ‘Amos and Andy’!
One can hardly turn on the tube without encountering reruns (sorry, ‘encore presentations’) of ‘Friends’ or ‘Everybody Loves Raymond’, or ‘Frasier’ or ‘Cheers’ or ‘Reba’ and many more. In fact, the entire schedule of the ‘TV Land’ network is comprised of the very many half hour shows that lost popularity among previous audiences decades ago… hence they were cancelled. But just as the ‘Mummy’ might say: “Death is only the beginning”. Where else can cheesy effects, clumsily written stereotypes, stiff acting and fabricated pretense find an everlasting time slot.
They’re still 30 minutes long (21 if you deduct commercials). There are still 7 main characters. They still use laugh tracks, a practice I find personally insulting. I know when to laugh and I do not require prompting.
I sometimes reference these shows as ‘comfort media’. We’ve seen these programs many times. We know the names and histories of the characters and cast. Many have concluded production and exist now only in ‘syndication’.
Syndication as you know is that state wherein a show that was terminated as far back as the fifties can still find a market (albeit sometimes in international translations) on today’s broadcast schedule. How else could a twenty something of today embrace ‘I Love Lucy’ or ‘Bewitched’ or the black and white televised images of ‘Amos and Andy’!
One can hardly turn on the tube without encountering reruns (sorry, ‘encore presentations’) of ‘Friends’ or ‘Everybody Loves Raymond’, or ‘Frasier’ or ‘Cheers’ or ‘Reba’ and many more. In fact, the entire schedule of the ‘TV Land’ network is comprised of the very many half hour shows that lost popularity among previous audiences decades ago… hence they were cancelled. But just as the ‘Mummy’ might say: “Death is only the beginning”. Where else can cheesy effects, clumsily written stereotypes, stiff acting and fabricated pretense find an everlasting time slot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Quotation of the Day
Followers
