I've come to this stage in life where I sit and analyze things to the ninth degree. Lately, it's bothered me about childlike behavior that we see....particularly among teens, college-age folks, and even young adults. So I've come to my five factors over these people:
1. When something goes wrong....their first reaction is to go and find someone to blame. Rather than repairing the situation....analyzing the contributing factors of the problem....resolving to fix the mess, they are totally focused on one single agenda....blame.
Part of this is poor parenting....part of this is poor teachers through school, and part of this involves university professors who are themselves poor quality instructors.
2. Impulse-like behavior. This tends to involve people who can't handle stress or pressure. They react in a impulsive way to events that occur. During this stage, they skip over thinking about consequences and create a bigger mess than necessary. Maybe days later....maybe even months later, they will come back and revisit some event that they triggered and realized that they turned a one-star event into a five-star fiasco.
The problem here is that some folks may try to herd them toward a central point or a resolution situation, and the childlike adult will then push them back and intimidate them into sticking with the impulse that started. I call this a 'wave-effect'. Logic would dictate that thinking take place and some solution ought to be implemented, but this child-like 'creature' can't accept that as the right step.
3. Bullying. You see this over and over now in high schools and university situations. Divide and conquer. There are the insiders and the outsiders. It's acceptable as fifth-graders to act in this way....but you shouldn't be expecting 21-year old adults to behave like this.
Forcing some type of team approach? You now find companies looking at various coaching tactics to force younger employees to work as a team. This was a common thing to see in most people through the 1970s and 1980s. Today? You see a declining behavioral trend.
4. Defensive measures which are marginalized and ineffective. Generally, if some conversation starts with these people....they want to explain their position, which has a 'you-must-believe' scenario attached to it. You listen intently and reach a stage where you offer a counter-statement to the 5th-grade mentality 'kid'. You state the obvious....you will be open-minded and able to hear out a discussion....but you state your position with logical clarity. In the end, you suggest a divided position exists, and the fifth-grade 'kid' can't accept that. At this point, they go with defensive measures which involve yelling, screaming, or just plain bad behavior.
In a university hall where they've decided to stage one of their marginalized yelling/screaming episodes....they usually turn the event into a joke because they can't handle the topic, the discussion, or the alternate view.
5. Finally, this odd situation of not accepting any lessons learned. In this behavior trait....the 'kid' can't bare to discuss the idea that they were wrong, and they could learn a lesson from the mistake or the poor decision made.
This would be OK if we were talking about 11-year old kids. But in this case....we are talking about older teenagers, college kids, and young adults. Admitting they screwed up is bad enough, but then asking them to consider the future, some other walk of life, or some other understanding? Well....no, they can't handle that.
In their mind, there are no lessons learned because there are no mistakes.
The sad thing about all of this is that some kid's parents end up to a great degree...funneling $50,000 to $100,000 for some four-year period, and 'Junior' (or 'Wanda') end up being some product that can't think or comprehend. They believe they are out to change the world but can't resolve the fact that they know very little about the world, or the people in it. The cash that mom and dad throw down into the 'pit'? Well....it's gone and expecting any return on the money is just about impossible.
So as you sit in some mall, or in some staff meeting....coming to the realization that members in your group aren't behaving as adults, and maybe acting like 5th-graders.....you can understand their maturity issue. Don't expect much, but at least there's some logic to illogic.
Tuesday, 13 March 2018
Sunday, 11 March 2018
A DNA Footnote
Last year when I did the DNA test deal....one of the odd pieces that came out of the test....was this .1-percent (yeah, awful low) of a connection that leads DNA-wise to India, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. You can search over both sides of the family tree, for five or six generations....and find nothing that really explains the eastern Asian DNA significance.
So I've spent a couple of hours over the last month looking at a likely scenario.
You see, there is this odd factor in the DNA test results..... a .4-percent Ashkenazi Jew.
One of the branches in the family had this dramatic move in the mid-1600s from southern France to central Germany, and stayed there (around the Rheinland Pfalz region) for about two to three generations....then packed up and left for America in the 1760s era.
My best guess is that one of those members ended up marrying some local German, who had this family connection back to the 300 AD to 700 AD period and some Jewish trader who came into central Germany.
That Jewish trader? Well....only because of the Roman Empire passion for trade....does he end up making his way from Rome to central Germany. Prior to that, this guy probably lived in Judah and his family....for generations...had gone to using the 'Silk Road' which led from the Mediterranean through India and Afghanistan....onto China.
My scenario would suggest that one of these relatives of this guy had some long period of trade going on in perhaps Afghanistan....married up with some local gal, and had Jewish-Ashkenazi-Afghan kids from that situation, who eventually moved off to the Med and one of them ended up in central Germany.
The Silk Road deal? Most folks agree that it began as early as 220 BC. This road connected Rome through Persia, the Med, India, Afghanistan, Greece, and onto eastern China.
A odd factor in the DNA? Yes, and it lays out an awful long route for that sequence to exist today.
So I've spent a couple of hours over the last month looking at a likely scenario.
You see, there is this odd factor in the DNA test results..... a .4-percent Ashkenazi Jew.
One of the branches in the family had this dramatic move in the mid-1600s from southern France to central Germany, and stayed there (around the Rheinland Pfalz region) for about two to three generations....then packed up and left for America in the 1760s era.
My best guess is that one of those members ended up marrying some local German, who had this family connection back to the 300 AD to 700 AD period and some Jewish trader who came into central Germany.
That Jewish trader? Well....only because of the Roman Empire passion for trade....does he end up making his way from Rome to central Germany. Prior to that, this guy probably lived in Judah and his family....for generations...had gone to using the 'Silk Road' which led from the Mediterranean through India and Afghanistan....onto China.
My scenario would suggest that one of these relatives of this guy had some long period of trade going on in perhaps Afghanistan....married up with some local gal, and had Jewish-Ashkenazi-Afghan kids from that situation, who eventually moved off to the Med and one of them ended up in central Germany.
The Silk Road deal? Most folks agree that it began as early as 220 BC. This road connected Rome through Persia, the Med, India, Afghanistan, Greece, and onto eastern China.
A odd factor in the DNA? Yes, and it lays out an awful long route for that sequence to exist today.
"Maybe That Tracker Can't Count That High"
Someone last week was observing CNN on one of their anti-Trump chats, and viewed what had been a regular feature (almost daily in early 2017)....the jobs-created-tracker.
It's a simple graphics chart that they'd get routine updates from the government and it would show jobs created since day one of the Trump administration.
Up until 5 January, it was kept up to date (monthly updates). So sixty days have passed, and.....nothing. The chart still says on 5 January 2018....1,839,000 newly created jobs.
It's a puzzling thing....you'd think that one single guy has three-hundred-odd facts to update for CNN on a monthly basis, and it's like he just went off on a vacation or just refuses to update the number. I noticed someone even suggesting that the counter (tracker) maybe was built to only handle the number going up to 1,839,000 and there's no more that you can add to the number.
The Daily Caller, I noticed, even discussed the idea that CNN laid off the individual who was handling the jobs tracker. Oddly, if true, this is one of the individuals who've actually lost their job at CNN because of lower viewer count (shocking, you know). Daily Caller says fifty folks were lost in this recent period at CNN.
The odds that the graphic will continue to be used? Since they pointed this out....my guess is that CNN is desperately trying to find the method to update the slide and by April....will correct this. But this brings me to this odd conclusion.
CNN's whole view of constructed news since the summer of 2016 and the election period.....was to pump and hype political news a great deal...being the anti-Trump network. At this point, almost two years into this....it's actually harming their bottom line and creating a profit-problem. By the end of 2018? Another fifty to a hundred folks likely to be dismissed. If Trump were around to 2024....what would be left at CNN?
It's a simple graphics chart that they'd get routine updates from the government and it would show jobs created since day one of the Trump administration.
Up until 5 January, it was kept up to date (monthly updates). So sixty days have passed, and.....nothing. The chart still says on 5 January 2018....1,839,000 newly created jobs.
It's a puzzling thing....you'd think that one single guy has three-hundred-odd facts to update for CNN on a monthly basis, and it's like he just went off on a vacation or just refuses to update the number. I noticed someone even suggesting that the counter (tracker) maybe was built to only handle the number going up to 1,839,000 and there's no more that you can add to the number.
The Daily Caller, I noticed, even discussed the idea that CNN laid off the individual who was handling the jobs tracker. Oddly, if true, this is one of the individuals who've actually lost their job at CNN because of lower viewer count (shocking, you know). Daily Caller says fifty folks were lost in this recent period at CNN.
The odds that the graphic will continue to be used? Since they pointed this out....my guess is that CNN is desperately trying to find the method to update the slide and by April....will correct this. But this brings me to this odd conclusion.
CNN's whole view of constructed news since the summer of 2016 and the election period.....was to pump and hype political news a great deal...being the anti-Trump network. At this point, almost two years into this....it's actually harming their bottom line and creating a profit-problem. By the end of 2018? Another fifty to a hundred folks likely to be dismissed. If Trump were around to 2024....what would be left at CNN?
Saturday, 10 March 2018
Five Observations over Stormy Daniels
This Trump-Daniels thing has a twist or two....but I've down to five odd observations:
1. This $140,000 that came as hush-money.....did Stormy actually report the money to the IRS and how exactly would you claim the money on the IRS form? You'd assume that $40,000 of that (minimum) would end going to the IRS. For some reason, I have my doubts that she reported the income.
2. If the IRS gets hyped up and comes in....would they stop merely at the $140,000 in an audit? Or would they go and look for all of the other potential hush-money pay-offs of the past decade? Were there other hush-money pay-offs? If you didn't report those....you'd have to pay taxes now, and a fine. You could be talking about just one single hush-payoff, or two-dozen hush-money situations. All of that would lead to terrible problems with tax lawyers, and tens of thousands just in lawyer fees to handle the cases.
3. Did Donald and others just pay Storm for liaisons (unlike Bill Clinton's past)? And if they did pay.....did Stormy report the income to the IRS?
4. With almost a twenty-year career in adult movies.....where does this lead onto now?
5. With all this public activity, the term 'discretion' is basically thrown out the door....so what happens to the contacts list of Stormy? Did she lost a bunch of contacts now....since she can't maintain discretion? Does anyone even care?
For some odd reason, I suspect that some network (cable related) will offer her a reality TV show series, and find out that six months into the deal that there's not that much interest in watching Stormy in reality.
1. This $140,000 that came as hush-money.....did Stormy actually report the money to the IRS and how exactly would you claim the money on the IRS form? You'd assume that $40,000 of that (minimum) would end going to the IRS. For some reason, I have my doubts that she reported the income.
2. If the IRS gets hyped up and comes in....would they stop merely at the $140,000 in an audit? Or would they go and look for all of the other potential hush-money pay-offs of the past decade? Were there other hush-money pay-offs? If you didn't report those....you'd have to pay taxes now, and a fine. You could be talking about just one single hush-payoff, or two-dozen hush-money situations. All of that would lead to terrible problems with tax lawyers, and tens of thousands just in lawyer fees to handle the cases.
3. Did Donald and others just pay Storm for liaisons (unlike Bill Clinton's past)? And if they did pay.....did Stormy report the income to the IRS?
4. With almost a twenty-year career in adult movies.....where does this lead onto now?
5. With all this public activity, the term 'discretion' is basically thrown out the door....so what happens to the contacts list of Stormy? Did she lost a bunch of contacts now....since she can't maintain discretion? Does anyone even care?
For some odd reason, I suspect that some network (cable related) will offer her a reality TV show series, and find out that six months into the deal that there's not that much interest in watching Stormy in reality.
The Consequence of the Sugar Tax
Roughly two years ago....the city leaders of Philly stood up and passed a radical new tax.....a tax on sodas (with sugar). If you were within the city limits of Philly...you paid 1.5 cents per ounce on a sugar soft drink. A twenty ounce container? That mean 30 cents going to the city. Then they turned around and said that this newly found money would go to fund roughly 6,500 seats in a kindergarten situation for city residents (not to reach 100-percent until 2023).
Well...it's been two years almost....and what can be said is an odd thing. Most grocery stores and drink shops have seen a continual drop. People buy their sodas outside of the city limits now.
No one says much over the consequence of this, but if you went an extra five miles to buy bulk in sodas.....wouldn't you go and buy OTHER things in bulk while at this non-city-tax establishment?
I noticed this brought up this week and discussed to some degree.
The city has a problem in that they chased people away from town and gave them a reason to shop in non-city-tax establishments. To meet this goal of the 6,500 seats in the child-promise deal? Well....yeah, there's a Philly discussion going on....of raising more taxes....in order to reach the goal of the first tax (the sugar tax).
Why not admit failure and just dump the 6,500 seat idea? The political folks just can't bring themselves to admit that they really screwed up.
You can sit and do the math. If you had a couple of members in the family, and regularly drunk 4,000 ounces of soda a year (a hefty amount, I admit) then your debt to the city would be around $60 a year. You could drive one single time out beyond the city ($2 of extra gas) and pocket the $58 into your pocket by buying bulk. In fact, you could find in the entire city.....ten thousand families doing this and pocketing $600,000 a year.
Well...it's been two years almost....and what can be said is an odd thing. Most grocery stores and drink shops have seen a continual drop. People buy their sodas outside of the city limits now.
No one says much over the consequence of this, but if you went an extra five miles to buy bulk in sodas.....wouldn't you go and buy OTHER things in bulk while at this non-city-tax establishment?
I noticed this brought up this week and discussed to some degree.
The city has a problem in that they chased people away from town and gave them a reason to shop in non-city-tax establishments. To meet this goal of the 6,500 seats in the child-promise deal? Well....yeah, there's a Philly discussion going on....of raising more taxes....in order to reach the goal of the first tax (the sugar tax).
Why not admit failure and just dump the 6,500 seat idea? The political folks just can't bring themselves to admit that they really screwed up.
You can sit and do the math. If you had a couple of members in the family, and regularly drunk 4,000 ounces of soda a year (a hefty amount, I admit) then your debt to the city would be around $60 a year. You could drive one single time out beyond the city ($2 of extra gas) and pocket the $58 into your pocket by buying bulk. In fact, you could find in the entire city.....ten thousand families doing this and pocketing $600,000 a year.
Wednesday, 7 March 2018
This Oscar Thing
Personally, I haven't watched the Oscars show.....since around 1992. Yeah, it's well over twenty years....going on thirty years. I just don't care. In an entire year, I might go to three total movies and frankly....the award means very little to me in terms of getting me to watch the movie.
As for the viewer count going down? The show over the past decade (you can look over comments made by people) is mostly a political forum and folks don't care if they lose viewers or not.
So where does the lowly rated show go now?
I'm of the mind that the producers and Academy will meet in three months and discuss this whole matter and opt for some non-political type guy to moderate it. Six weeks will pass, and they will admit that they can't find such a person existing who would give them the dynamics required. So a female will be found to moderate, and the 2019 show will be another full-blast political show....which has even fewer viewers than this year's show.
All of this will lead onto a trend where the major networks finally opt around 2021....NOT to carry it, and one of the cable networks buy into this....for a much-lesser price.
The viewer count will continue to a lesser spiral, and by 2025....it'll quietly disappear as a nationally-viewed show. Maybe it'll still be data-streamed and sent live to Europe....but I think you are within ten years of seeing the Oscars amount to something of zero importance to more than seventy-percent of the American population.
As for the viewer count going down? The show over the past decade (you can look over comments made by people) is mostly a political forum and folks don't care if they lose viewers or not.
So where does the lowly rated show go now?
I'm of the mind that the producers and Academy will meet in three months and discuss this whole matter and opt for some non-political type guy to moderate it. Six weeks will pass, and they will admit that they can't find such a person existing who would give them the dynamics required. So a female will be found to moderate, and the 2019 show will be another full-blast political show....which has even fewer viewers than this year's show.
All of this will lead onto a trend where the major networks finally opt around 2021....NOT to carry it, and one of the cable networks buy into this....for a much-lesser price.
The viewer count will continue to a lesser spiral, and by 2025....it'll quietly disappear as a nationally-viewed show. Maybe it'll still be data-streamed and sent live to Europe....but I think you are within ten years of seeing the Oscars amount to something of zero importance to more than seventy-percent of the American population.
A Loser TV Show Idea
One of the networks has gone out and scheduled up production of this hour-long drama.
The layout? Well....."Joe" is married to this black dude (yep...a gay marriage). And the black dude husband has come up and gotten shot/killed....by the cops. So begins....'Red Line'. No one says if Joe was a drugged up thug....a PhD scientist....a fighter pilot.....or a community organizer. Maybe that part doesn't really matter.
I sat there reading the two-line description to this.
Basically, this is supposed to draw a bunch of black and gay viewers. That's the logic.
Most of the general black community? The minute you suggest that "George' (the black dude) has gotten killed....yeah....maybe fifty-percent of the black viewer community would get hyped up and watch the show. But then you say that the person left....is not "Tonya" but a white husband? Well....about 90-percent of the black community will just start laughing and saying....'the hell you say'.
The gay crowd? Well, they will look over the idea and then ask....yeah, but isn't this Noah Wyle guy 'regular' (non-gay) in real life? Couldn't they find a real gay actor? So they might go and watch two episodes of this, and along about the 3rd show....just shake their head because there is little there to be interested in.
A sort of fake political trend for some TV production? To be honest, they've run out of good ideas, and this is what we are stuck with now.
Fixing this? Maybe if you'd had "Joe" (the black dude shot), and his wife (Tonya) was ex-Army and Green Beret....sworn to kill the cop eventually for doing her husband wrong, then it might make for one good season. But the black dead dude and the white model-looking dude script? It just ain't going to work.
The layout? Well....."Joe" is married to this black dude (yep...a gay marriage). And the black dude husband has come up and gotten shot/killed....by the cops. So begins....'Red Line'. No one says if Joe was a drugged up thug....a PhD scientist....a fighter pilot.....or a community organizer. Maybe that part doesn't really matter.
I sat there reading the two-line description to this.
Basically, this is supposed to draw a bunch of black and gay viewers. That's the logic.
Most of the general black community? The minute you suggest that "George' (the black dude) has gotten killed....yeah....maybe fifty-percent of the black viewer community would get hyped up and watch the show. But then you say that the person left....is not "Tonya" but a white husband? Well....about 90-percent of the black community will just start laughing and saying....'the hell you say'.
The gay crowd? Well, they will look over the idea and then ask....yeah, but isn't this Noah Wyle guy 'regular' (non-gay) in real life? Couldn't they find a real gay actor? So they might go and watch two episodes of this, and along about the 3rd show....just shake their head because there is little there to be interested in.
A sort of fake political trend for some TV production? To be honest, they've run out of good ideas, and this is what we are stuck with now.
Fixing this? Maybe if you'd had "Joe" (the black dude shot), and his wife (Tonya) was ex-Army and Green Beret....sworn to kill the cop eventually for doing her husband wrong, then it might make for one good season. But the black dead dude and the white model-looking dude script? It just ain't going to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)