Turning a negative comment about a negative comment into a positive.

I’ve received two negative comments about my negative comments on the post from yesterday…and with good reason. So I deleted the negative tag at the end cuz I’m a sensitive guy…and also because, as I say, their criticism observation was entirely justified. I remember when my dad would make some self-deprecating remark as was his wont (what’s YOUR wont?!)  and it always upset me because I never thought his comment was justified. Ever. OK, usually. Maybe because I so admired him…adored him.

In this case, it goes back to the issue of what is blog-worthy. And of course, the answer is, WGAF – Who gives a…fart.  It’s like emails that you don’t need to get, or junk mail. If we don’t want it, we can use the trusty delete button. I won’t trash myself again. Thanks for the good feedback on my bad post, everyone.

Though Cheryl said that post was her favorite that she’d seen in a long time because it was so positive…except for the last part. So I’ll take that as a good thing! Thanks, Darlin’!

Kill me now or kill me later

When I was a teenager, the biggest focus in the USA’s foreign policy arena was the Cold War, and trying to reach “détente” with the Soviet Union, to reduce the numbers of ICBMs (which, as a 13-ish year old made me laugh every time I heard some adult very seriously use the expression…kind of along the lines of when someone says Uranus. And thank goodness I have a 14-year old son (for many reasons) so I can still laugh whenever someone refers to Uranus, so it isn’t weird that a 57 year old does. But I digress.) Now where was I…let’s see…your anus…I see BMs…oh, right, nuclear annihilation.  And around the same time, there were talks of secret meetings between Henry Kissinger and the Vietnamese to end the Vietnam War.

Today there was a news bulletin from the NY Times:

 

U.S. and China Reach Climate Deal After Secret Negotiations

China and the United States made common cause on Wednesday against the threat of climate change, staking out an ambitious joint plan to curb carbon emissions as a way to spur nations around the world to make their own cuts in greenhouse gases.

The landmark agreement, jointly announced in Beijing by President Obama and President Xi Jinping, includes new targets for carbon emissions reductions by the United States and a first-ever commitment by China to stop its emissions from growing by 2030.

Administration officials said the agreement, which was worked out secretly between the United States and China over nine months and included a letter from Mr. Obama to Mr. Xi proposing a joint approach, could galvanize efforts to negotiate a new global climate agreement by 2015.

Interesting how the focus of these top-level secret negotiations have changed and yet, remain the same, addressing threats that can end the world as we know it, whether by nuclear bombs or melting ice caps. Is it progress that one way we can kill off all of humanity in a matter of minutes and one will take decades? Maybe, but one can also be cured in a matter of months and one will take decades to turn-around.

Which might also explain why kids have such a tasteless sense of humor

We’ve all noticed how much children dislike foods with strong flavors and generally gravitate to more bland foods like hot dogs, American cheese, white bread and chicken tenders, but as time goes by they are more tolerant of foods with a stronger flavor.

But I’ve also noticed that they seem oblivious to the incredible colors of the leaves during the changing seasons that I am all the more overwhelmed by and am frequently pointing out to our kids.

And I wonder if, as our sense of taste diminishes as we grow older, our sense of appreciation for color and shadow and beauty increases as we get even older, which would also explain why people so often seem to have an enhanced creative streak once they’ve retired.

 

I belong to a private political page on Facebook that consists mostly of liberals, and one of them asked for our opinions of the 3 cable political channels: MSNBC, CNN and FoxNews, and this was my reply:

We watch Morning Joe every morning and usually enjoy it, until recently when they became obsessed with ebola and ISIS/L coverage, but thankfully they're off them now. The rest of their lineup is pretty dreary and repetitive. The panel shows with Chris Hayes and Steve Kornacki are pretty unwatchable - clearly designed by and for MENSA-types, god bless em, but which clearly excludes me. FauxNews is more cartoonish in its presentation, laughable if you don't take it too seriously, which sadly, millions of people do, but for all their warts, they are the only network that understands how to entertain viewers, from their lighting, to their sets, to the appearance of their talent.

The sexy (?) blondes, the morning camera pointing at the same level and directly in front of the woman's short miniskirt in hopes she'll uncross them for a milli-second (cheap thrills being better than none at all), the uber-bright lights, the glossy/shiny lipstick, the clean lines of the sets. I think it's all more of a key to their success than their (lack of) content. MSNBC can't duplicate it now, but if they had pioneered all that, and Fox had MSNBC's "look" I honestly believe the ratings would be much closer in comparison.

But all that said, what is most important is that Fox gives its viewers the same thing that Rush figured out years ago. People want easy, simplistic answers. Black and white stuff. There's disease in Africa, keep them all there and don't let em in here. Next Issue! (with apologies to James McLaughlin...and Phil Hartmann.

https://screen.yahoo.com/phi.../sinatra-group-000000236.html

For better or worse, I've decided I need to get more active on this blog, and for my "subscribed" readers, that's going to be somewhat tiresome since most of the posts will also have appeared on my facebook page, but, since my page has some RW trolls, I fear they are missing some actual balance in their readings, so will put them here too. But I promise not to make these the only entries here. In fact, I have a couple coming up that have to do with sex, so don't totally unsubscribe yet! :-)

Here's the first (repetitive) one:

When Bill Clinton moved to the right after the 1994 midterms that swept Rs into Congressional power, Republicans howled in outrage because he was taking away all their talking points. I never understood that. The article below tries to show, in some cases successfully, that the Rs have finally started to move to the center, at least in word, though not yet in deed.

I would be thrilled if they actually changed their votes to finally pay attention to people at the bottom of the wage scale as we Ds have for decades. For me, it's not about Ds winning, it's about getting the focus of the country on the right kinds of things and if Rs want to join us in that fight, I say, Giddyup!

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-is-moving-left-despite-republican-gains-2014-11

"On the other hand, maybe I need more things to carry through a buffet line, not fewer." - Jamie McVickar on annoying stuff in relaton to the size of his belly

Two totally different things annoy me for the exact same reason:

-         In a list of newsworthy quotes, they first give the quote and then the name of the person who said it and the context. Apparently I’m first to read the quote and then guess the person and their reason for saying it? I need that first, not after reading the quote.

-         Utensils at the beginning of a buffet line. I don’t them at the beginning, they just make it harder to fill up my plate, though for any of you who have seen my belly size the past 20+ years, I can’t make a really great argument for this one personally.

“So Annoyed! I want something done, and I want it done now!”

-         Jamie McVickar, on quote attributions and silverware in buffet lines

Because poor people LOVE being poor

I wish I had been writing down all my thoughts about the disastrous election this week, but one thing that came to me was this:

Middle Class Americans seem to be more upset with people who make less money than they do than they are with people who make more money than they do.

And I’ll bet you can define whether a person is more likely to have voted R or D this week based on their answer to that very question.

Inconceivable when one considers the level of income inequality in this country...and only getting worse.