The Boomer Blog

Oh Happy Day!  For months now I have been listening to Elvis Radio on Sirus/XM (13 on Sirus, 18 on XM).  All Elvis, all the time – 24/7/365!  I did not intend for this to be the only thing I listen too, but I am finding it difficult to listen to other stations.  There is just nothing as good.

I have been a Elvis fan my entire life, but I also like 50’s & 60’s rock & roll, Blues, and Smooth Jazz.  I am completely confident that Elvis is the best and most popular music personality of all time.  But you know how they always have surveys and contests about “the greatest” this and that, and the results always change.  This is because, as time goes on, conditions and the voters change.  Well, I have a proposal for a fair and accurate way to determine the ranking of artists in the the music industry (at least in modern times).

First of all, the terms “good” or “best” with regards to the performing arts, are completely subjective.  So when we say “best,” we can only mean the most liked by the most people. And because the population is constantly changing, and you cannot survey people who are no longer with us, this is difficult to determine.  But there is still a fair and accurate way to measure greatness.  It involves, of course, how much money people spend and spent.

So here is how to do it.  For each year since records of sales in the music industry have been kept, let’s say start with 1930, take the total revenue of the industry, and see what percentage of the total each artist accounted for that year.  Do this for every year from 1930 to 2009, and then add up all the percentage points for each artist.  Then rank the artists according to their total points.

This method accounts for inflation, increasing population, longivity, and all other variables that have been changing over the years.  Using percentages on an annual basis does this.

If this could be done, I KNOW that Elvis Presley would have the most points by a large margin.

BB

For many years, my online signature block has included the title of this post (along with "all things are connected, therefore nothing is irrelevant" and "everything is relative - the only constant").  These thoughts were formed after several late-night hours of alcohol-fueled discussion on life and the nature of things.  These may be the only absolute, unequivocal truths that there are.  I do not claim to have originated these thoughts of course, just to have become aware of them.  As might have been considered by the Beatles while writing one of there songs, there is nothing you can think that has not already been thought.

There are, of course, many other things that are true, but maybe not under all conditions and in all situations.  Conditions and situations are things that vary, and thus are variables in determining the truth.  It is impossible to test something or measure the truth under completely identical conditions.  If nothing else, time is a variable that will NEVER be the same.

The truths I use in my online signature block are universal truths for all time.  There may be others, and probably are.  To be universal, the truth must hold up under all possible conditions, circumstances, and situations.  To be for all time, the truth must have always been, and always will be.

These are fairly esoteric concepts and seem far removed from everyday life and human consciousness.  But there are many more familiar concepts that come from the more esoteric concepts.  I like the concept of perspective.  None of us see the same exact colors, none of us have had the same exact experiences, and we all have different perspectives on everything.  All things are relative (everything depends on your perspective).

We are all aware of the passage of time, because all things change.  The sun moves, the hands on the clock change position, our bodies change, etc.  In fact, the very concept of change requires the passage of time.  The period of time that must pass for change to occur varies with whatever is changing.

The web of life, global warming, The Internet, the shrinking world, and many other similar concepts remind us on a daily basis that everything is connected, and nothing is irrelevant.

BB

There has been a disturbing trend over the last few years towards discounting science as the one and best explanation of reality. The motivations behind this range from the honest but misguided, to the dishonest and deceitful.  The two most well-known examples are the debates over evolution and global warming.  The debate over evolution has been around the longest, and mostly comes from religion.  Opposition to the facts on global warming is mainly political with the hidden agenda of not passing legislation that would force industry to clean up its act.

Regardless of the source and motivation, trying to reduce the validity of science to the level of faith, assumption, rationalization or what someone wants to be true is idiotic and dangerous.  This is not to say that everything coming from science should be blindly accepted without skepticism.   Science itself is full of skepticism.  But science is a structured, prolonged, redundant, careful, and logical process of observation, analysis, theory, testing, and experimentation.  There is no such thing as a final truth in science.  All facts, scientific laws, theories, and conclusions are open to reevaluation in the presence of new information.

For something to become scientific "fact," or a scientific law, it has to be proven through scientific investigation, experimentation, and analysis.  And, the results have to be duplicated over and over by many different scientists in different locations.  And even then, if new information comes to light, things change.  An existing scientific theory can become a subset of a new theory, true only under the limited conditions of the original theory (the new larger theory includes the new information).

So, there may be a lot of truth in religion and faith, but when it comes to what we KNOW is true, science is the best source.  Science and religion do not need to be mutually exclusive in any case.  But when people start talking about a few fringe "scientists" who deny things like global warming as if their opinions carry the same weight as the thousands of mainstream scientists who agree on global warming, that is dangerous.  When we start teaching creationism in schools as an equal "theory" with evolution, that is dangerous.  A new Age of Darkness is something we should avoid!

I have never been a real fan of organized religion.  The idea the more atrocities have been committed in the name of religion than any other single reason is probably true, but I also know that religion and church can do a lot of good also.  It is just that, for me, I do not believe that anyone knows any more about what or who God is (or even if there is one) than anyone else.  In my opinion, anyone who tries to control the behavior or morals of someone else by claiming to know what God wants, is deluded or lying.  Organized religion seems to be more about controlling people than anything else.

The closest I ever felt to the concept of God was when I was attending college in a small Northern California town.  One winter evening, after dark, I took a walk along the railroad tracks that led out of town into the woods.  It was snowing, and as I got further into the woods, all sounds from town faded and were gone.  I stood there in the total silence feeling the snow brushing my face.  I could actually hear the whisper of the snow flakes hitting the existing snow on the ground.

The furthest I have ever felt from what I think God would be like was when I was a small boy sitting on the hard wood pew in a non-air conditioned church on a very hot summer day.  The chubby kid sitting next to me, wearing a suit and tie, passed out from the heat.  In addition, it always seemed to me that organized religion preached the tactics of threats and bribery.  Be good and you will go to heaven, be bad and go to hell.  As I said - control of people seems to be the agenda.

So, I guess you could say that Nature is my God.

BB

Link: http://boomerflashbacks.com/

A nice site for telling stories of years past - when all us boomers were growing up.

From the site: Welcome home! BoomerFlashbacks is where those of us lucky enough to grow up in some of the most exciting, changing, amazing times can share stories, thoughts and photos.

All my life I have been writing poetry at those times when I have had the need to express my emotions.  Happy times, being in love, sad times, and sometimes just very thoughtful times.  I have had my poetry up on my own web site, and have had individual poems published in "The Stars and Stripes" (a military newspaper), other places, and on some other web sites.  I have tried to have them published in book form a couple of times, but until recently, that required a publisher taking some of the cost and risk, and poetry was not that viable.

But now it is a brave new world.  Electronic publishing and as-needed printing has made it possible for anyone to publish, and I have taken advantage of that to publish my first book of poetry!!  It is called "My Life in a Poem - Volume I," and provides an emotional chronology of my life.

Volume I contains the poetry that I wrote early in life - my late teens and early twenties. The time period was approximately 1968 through 1974. The major events reflected in these poems included such things as falling in love for the first time, seeing the destructiveness of the drug culture, meeting my first wife, getting married, getting drafted into the Army, going through basic training and Advanced Infantry Training (AIT), spending thirteen months in Vietnam, coming home, having my marriage fall apart, and the separation from my marriage.

I also have a 2nd volume completed and a 3rd volume started.  I will publish these in the future.  I have links here on this blog, and on the main Boomer Blog, in the right sidebar, and on my main personal site (desautel.net) in the left sidebar.  Look for the following icons:

  This links to the paperback version on Amazon.com

  The paperback version is also available on the publisher's site (Wordclay)

  This icon links to the Electronic version for Amazon Kindle owners

So, let's all go out and but many copies of my book!!  LOL!

BB

The desire to be “fair and balanced” is a noble goal, and should be the basic tool used in the dissemination of information in order to educate, inform, and provide knowledge to the American public.  The problem lies in the fact that the phrase “fair and balanced” is incorrectly defined and applied as “make both sides look just as good.”  The fallacy in that definition is that both sides are NEVER equally good, correct, honest, factual, and right.  To give an extreme example, if the sides of an issue were being fought by Adolf Hitler on one side and Mother Teresa on the other, would it be “fair and balanced” to make these two individuals look equally good and right?

In my opinion, the word ‘fair’ in the phrase “fair and balanced” should NOT be applied to the opponents on both sides of the issue, but rather to those who are being informed by the dissemination of information.  The AUDIENCE for the mainstream and mass media outlets are the ones we should be treating fairly.  The ONLY way to do that is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  Facts, facts, and more facts.  If one side of an issue is being deceitful, making untrue claims, and making misleading statements, reporting on the fight over that issue should point out the falsehoods and present the truth.  Being “balanced” simply means that you cover both sides equally, NOT that you support both sides equally.  The end game should always be to inform the people honestly and factually.

What ever happened to journalistic integrity?  All news outlets of all sizes and types have a duty to inform, but ALSO to debunk.  Why do the major news networks shy away from calling a lie a lie?  When Sarah Palin talks about death panels in health care reform, why do we have to turn to MSNBC to hear the truth?  The death panel claims are simply not true, and this is very easily determined.  Why do we not hear ABC, NBC, and CBS headlining the fact that there are no death panels and never were?  It is a particularity warped idea that doing so would somehow be unfair or unbalanced.  It is not the job of the media to even the scales and make both political parties seem equal when it comes to honesty and facts.  It is the job of news media to research the issues and present the facts AND debunk the lies.

This is the today’s great failing of the mass media.  Fox News and MSNBC are on opposite sides of the fence, but that does not mean that they are equally biased and slanted.  Fox News is nothing but an outlet for lies, hate speech, race-baiting, and opposition to the left, right or wrong.  MSNBC spends a lot of its time debunking the lies of Faux News.  If MSNBC has the facts correct and Faux News is lying, why is that not being reported in the mainstream media?  Because these two cable news outlets are battling each other, the mainstream media acts as if they are both equally extreme and dishonest.  That is simply not the case.

So again, being “balanced” means treating both sides that same.  That treatment should be comprised of verifying the truthful statements and debunking the lies – for BOTH sides.  If that means that one side gets clobbered because they are telling lies and the other side gets validated because they are telling the truth, that is STILL being balanced and treating both sides equally.  Covering up the lies of one side to make them seem as honest as the other is unequal treatment – unfair to the truth-telling side, and doing something “extra” for the other side.

The people want the truth, they deserve the truth, and a successful economy and country requires the truth!

BB

I have started a new blog site called The Reverse Spin.  It is my political blogging site, and I have copied all of my political posts from this blog over to The Reverse Spin.  The Politics category will remain on this site, but I will be using it less.  If I do post something political here, it will also be on The Reverse Spin.

BB

It is an absolute and easily verified fact that NONE of the various health care bills and proposals being considered by Congress and the White House include ANY form of euthanasia or denial of care based on age or perceived value of someones life. There are no death panels, and no one will be pulling the plug on grandma. Yet, this particularly heinous lie is still being spread and believed. How the Hell did this happen?

The proposal, submitted by a Republican, that has been so hideously twisted simply provides coverage for patients and relatives to receive end-of-life counseling and information, including living wills. The complete lie that is completely the opposite of the actual proposal was initiated by a woman working for pharmaceutical organizations, it was brought to national attention by Sarah Palin, and it has been propagated by the lie mongers at Faux (Fox) News and hate speech pundits such as Rush Limbaugh (Flush Limp-Bough). And worse of all, Republican Congressmen and Senators are either ignoring the lies being told their constituents, or actually hinting that they might be true!

I have watched some poor seniors in their 70's and 80's show up at Town Hall meetings who were just livid with anger and frustration because they believe the lies they have been told. So what happens if one of these seniors has a heart attack and dies as a direct result of anger and frustration based on lies told by purported news organizations and their elected representatives? Would not these liars be responsible? Could not they be prosecuted for negligent homicide?

How can Fox News, Rush Limbaugh or any of those who control the dissemination of information thru mass media be allowed to twist, lie, spin, and mislead the public when it comes to the important issues and elections that will affect their lives in serious ways? This is NOT free speech! free speech is not, and has never been, absolute. Speech that causes serious harm to others is not covered under free speech. That is why you cannot yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, and that is why we have slander and libel laws. Is hate speech free speech? Exciting a crowd to riot or talking someone into committing murder are not free speech. There are MANY things you cannot say in MANY situations because they are illegal. They are illegal because they cause serious harm to others.

In this health care debate, there are many who are protesting because they have been hired or enticed in some way by the large insurance and drug companies who profit most from the status quo. There are many protesting because they are enticed or paid by conservative political organizations (again with profit motives). But there are also regular citizens protesting because they have been lied to and manipulated by Right-Wing media and radio personalities. These poor people are protesting against their own self interests! Health care reform is in EVERYONE's best interest EXCEPT those who are making obscene profits off of the suffering and even death of the American people, AND those who are willing to see that suffering continue for their own political gain.

Republicans are without honor and integrity if they do not immediately condemn the dangerous lies being told about Obama and the health care proposals. They have their priorities totally ass-backwards. Their first duty seems to be to radical Right-wing nuts like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Lou Dobbs. Their second loyalty is always to big business and the wealthy, and they seem to have no loyalty to the people they are elected to represent. To allow, or even contribute to, the lying and misleading that is being directed at their constituents is, in my mind, the most un-American and unpatriotic of behaviors. They care nothing for the people, America, or the Constitution.

And Fox News should be forced to take the word "News" out of their title, because they have no regard for truth and facts. They simply do and say ANYTHING that they think will advanced the Conservative and Republican agenda and defeat the agenda of Liberals and Democrats. They do not care how much damage they are doing to the American people nor do they seem to care that they could very well be pushing some whack job over the edge with their hate speech.

BB

Today's television landscape is littered with reality, talent, dancing, and other useless programs that barely seem to have had any thought put into them whatsoever. To begin with, reality shows are not about reality, but contrived and childish situations where people are rewarded for disgusting and deceitful behavior. The rush to one up each other with reality shows has produced some very idiotic offerings. Dating in the dark?? Geesh!

So, I am not forced to watch these shows, so why do I care? Because the available time slots are full of asinine and completely unwatchable trash. For every contrived and unbelievable reality show in prime time, that is one less decent program available to watch. If you count reality shows, talent contests of one kind or another, obstacle courses, nanny programs, wife swapping shows, strangers trying to live together, bachelor and bachelorette shows, and chefs acting like assholes and getting rewarded for it, you probably have more than half of the shows on TV!

Enough already!!
BB