Saturday, February 14, 2009
WHAT STOPS PEOPLE FROM LAUGHING
Until I met my first clinically depressed patient, many years ago,I hadn't realized that you can be surrounded by humor and find nothing funny. It made me aware that there must be many more conditions that make someone unable to appreciate the humor that tickles most of the rest of us.
As I thought about why some jokes fall flat, I remembered that people who don't do well with metaphors, or examples, also don't do well with double entendres or images that can be read on many levels. Schizophrenia, Aspergers, autism and many other conditions are those with words which make concrete images where the humor is lost. An early example I remember was of a patient walking into an inpatient ward meeting as someone was saying, "I'm really in a pickle." The comment was received by the newcomer with incredulity, "That's silly. How can you get into a pickle?" His image was a person trying to get into one of those vinegary, warty cucumbers in a jar and, indeed, if that is what you see, it isn't clear how you can feel like you are in one. Need I say, this group does not get puns, either!
A survey by Hodge-Cronin & Associates found "that of 737 CEOs surveyed, 98 percent preferred job candidates with a sense of humor to those without. Another survey indicated that 84 percent of the executives thought that employees with a sense of humor do a better job than people with little or no sense of humor.
Dr. David Abramis at Cal State Long Beach has studied fun at work for years. He's discovered that people who have fun on the job are more creative, more productive, better decision-makers, and get along better with co-workers. They also have fewer absentee, late, and sick days than people who aren't having fun."
If you look carefully at the description of those better workers, you see people that are not bi-polar! The description can include hypo-manic people who are often comedians, very energetic, think clearly and have not yet lost judgment. Those who don't stop at hypo-mania but keep rising to full blown manic episodes where judgment is lost are very opposite. They can be lots of fun and make us laugh but, if you listen to them long enough, the pressured speech and humor is readily visible as over the top so you can only feel sorry for them as you realize how sick they really are.
Things are funnier when they are being enjoyed and laughed at by others around you; the obvious reason for laugh tracks being added to taped shows. But that gets us back to the focus of what makes us laugh rather than what happens to make people unable to laugh or see anything as a 'half-full glass' or a 'light at the end of the tunnel'. They are the whiners, the downers, and the people who can kill the mood in a room quickly by simply walking into it.
Obviously, bad taste is in the eyes and ears of the beholder. Some people find it disrespectful to be told off-color jokes. Personally I find them safer than physical, boundary-violation behaviors in which too many indulge. Jokes that offend may be in the area of those derogatory ethnic, sexist, racist, gay or lesbian, religious, and jokes about the disabled.
"The human race has only one really effective weapon, and that is laughter. The moment it arises, all our hardnesses yield, all our irritations and resentments slip away and a sunny spirit takes their place." -- Mark Twain While Mark Twain makes an excellent point, it often is that the person who cannot laugh feels there is something wrong but doesn't know how to fix it. Too many of us hear, "What's so funny about that?" or, "Is that funny?; I don't get it."
To find laughter in life is a gift of good mental health. When I feel myself losing it, I immediately go into my list of things to check. Am I overwhelmed; stressed out; experiencing a sad anniversary reaction or some unconscious sad memory; coming down with an illness; in chronic pain; experiencing hives; or is there something else preventing me to be my normally cheery, happy self? It doesn't happen often, but I know enough to get out the light box when it happens in October!
As I thought about why some jokes fall flat, I remembered that people who don't do well with metaphors, or examples, also don't do well with double entendres or images that can be read on many levels. Schizophrenia, Aspergers, autism and many other conditions are those with words which make concrete images where the humor is lost. An early example I remember was of a patient walking into an inpatient ward meeting as someone was saying, "I'm really in a pickle." The comment was received by the newcomer with incredulity, "That's silly. How can you get into a pickle?" His image was a person trying to get into one of those vinegary, warty cucumbers in a jar and, indeed, if that is what you see, it isn't clear how you can feel like you are in one. Need I say, this group does not get puns, either!
A survey by Hodge-Cronin & Associates found "that of 737 CEOs surveyed, 98 percent preferred job candidates with a sense of humor to those without. Another survey indicated that 84 percent of the executives thought that employees with a sense of humor do a better job than people with little or no sense of humor.
Dr. David Abramis at Cal State Long Beach has studied fun at work for years. He's discovered that people who have fun on the job are more creative, more productive, better decision-makers, and get along better with co-workers. They also have fewer absentee, late, and sick days than people who aren't having fun."
If you look carefully at the description of those better workers, you see people that are not bi-polar! The description can include hypo-manic people who are often comedians, very energetic, think clearly and have not yet lost judgment. Those who don't stop at hypo-mania but keep rising to full blown manic episodes where judgment is lost are very opposite. They can be lots of fun and make us laugh but, if you listen to them long enough, the pressured speech and humor is readily visible as over the top so you can only feel sorry for them as you realize how sick they really are.
Things are funnier when they are being enjoyed and laughed at by others around you; the obvious reason for laugh tracks being added to taped shows. But that gets us back to the focus of what makes us laugh rather than what happens to make people unable to laugh or see anything as a 'half-full glass' or a 'light at the end of the tunnel'. They are the whiners, the downers, and the people who can kill the mood in a room quickly by simply walking into it.
Obviously, bad taste is in the eyes and ears of the beholder. Some people find it disrespectful to be told off-color jokes. Personally I find them safer than physical, boundary-violation behaviors in which too many indulge. Jokes that offend may be in the area of those derogatory ethnic, sexist, racist, gay or lesbian, religious, and jokes about the disabled.
"The human race has only one really effective weapon, and that is laughter. The moment it arises, all our hardnesses yield, all our irritations and resentments slip away and a sunny spirit takes their place." -- Mark Twain While Mark Twain makes an excellent point, it often is that the person who cannot laugh feels there is something wrong but doesn't know how to fix it. Too many of us hear, "What's so funny about that?" or, "Is that funny?; I don't get it."
To find laughter in life is a gift of good mental health. When I feel myself losing it, I immediately go into my list of things to check. Am I overwhelmed; stressed out; experiencing a sad anniversary reaction or some unconscious sad memory; coming down with an illness; in chronic pain; experiencing hives; or is there something else preventing me to be my normally cheery, happy self? It doesn't happen often, but I know enough to get out the light box when it happens in October!
Friday, February 13, 2009
WILL THE REPUBLICANS WORK FOR THE COUNTRY INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN INTERESTS?
On 2/12, President Obama spoke in Springfield, Illinois. When he first ran for President I thought he was a snake oil salesman. I've decided he is indeed, a salesman, but what he is selling is a product with all good ingredients in a tonic for the entire country. Every time he speaks of the American Dream it states to once again make it possible for most Americans to reclaim their right to it. It underscores the pettiness and divisiveness of the Republican party and the two who have kept the pot stirred for far too long ...Drudge and Limbaugh (forget Fox News and the sillies who call themselves media. Currently the Republicans (with few exceptions) are making it clear that they are more than just sore losers. The are vindictive and revenge ssems more important to them than the welfare of American citizens.
They continue to be obstructionists when they don't get their way. They offer no constructive ideas for bringing the country back from the disaster their party and Administration made it until President Obama got elected. Greg Judd is a perfect example of today's Republican politician. He asks for a job then proceeds to make it clear he is not a team player and does not see why the President should be responsible for his Cabinet. His actions make him a Poster Boy for everything that went wrong with the Republican party in the past eight years.
President Obama commented on the 'knee-jerk disdain' of government reflected by today's Republicans. He calls for citizens to have a 'fair chance in the race of life.' His attitude is a positive one and, while he comments about the dreadful situation that was left for him to make right, he comments, "We will be remembered by what we choose to do at this time....We were consumed to do petty things when we were called to do great things."
President Obama is trying to unify the country. Interesting since the South is still allowed to fly the Confederate flag and the South is still salivating for revenge to the North for the defeat in the Civil War. These are the same Southerners who backed Bush's ignorant notion that the Middle East lives in Bush's world rather than the world in which they have been pushed around for centuries, with all the accumulated rage for the atrocities promulgated on them.
Obama's message, oft repeated, that we are in current need of common dreams, that we are one Nation as one people, was not the one by the Bush Administration, which made it clear that poor people didn't matter and didn't need to be heard. What mattered most was the corporate bottom line.
Obama's personal values have been greatly influenced by Abraham Lincoln. How appropriate that Obama is both black and white, representing South and North attempts to be accepted equally. Unquestionably there are racially prejudiced Northerners still. However, it is in the South that the attitude that the slaves were not human and could be treated as domesticated animals has not been entirely removed from the minds of Plantation heirs.
So far, Obama has made few visible errors. Perhaps the fools who keep criticizing him negatively will catch on to the idea that it is not a smart thing to do because it is likely the voters are keeping closer score this time around.
They continue to be obstructionists when they don't get their way. They offer no constructive ideas for bringing the country back from the disaster their party and Administration made it until President Obama got elected. Greg Judd is a perfect example of today's Republican politician. He asks for a job then proceeds to make it clear he is not a team player and does not see why the President should be responsible for his Cabinet. His actions make him a Poster Boy for everything that went wrong with the Republican party in the past eight years.
President Obama commented on the 'knee-jerk disdain' of government reflected by today's Republicans. He calls for citizens to have a 'fair chance in the race of life.' His attitude is a positive one and, while he comments about the dreadful situation that was left for him to make right, he comments, "We will be remembered by what we choose to do at this time....We were consumed to do petty things when we were called to do great things."
President Obama is trying to unify the country. Interesting since the South is still allowed to fly the Confederate flag and the South is still salivating for revenge to the North for the defeat in the Civil War. These are the same Southerners who backed Bush's ignorant notion that the Middle East lives in Bush's world rather than the world in which they have been pushed around for centuries, with all the accumulated rage for the atrocities promulgated on them.
Obama's message, oft repeated, that we are in current need of common dreams, that we are one Nation as one people, was not the one by the Bush Administration, which made it clear that poor people didn't matter and didn't need to be heard. What mattered most was the corporate bottom line.
Obama's personal values have been greatly influenced by Abraham Lincoln. How appropriate that Obama is both black and white, representing South and North attempts to be accepted equally. Unquestionably there are racially prejudiced Northerners still. However, it is in the South that the attitude that the slaves were not human and could be treated as domesticated animals has not been entirely removed from the minds of Plantation heirs.
So far, Obama has made few visible errors. Perhaps the fools who keep criticizing him negatively will catch on to the idea that it is not a smart thing to do because it is likely the voters are keeping closer score this time around.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
MUSIC'S VANISHING, GREEDY, USELESS MIDDLEMAN
Remembering back to the days of the 78s that scratched and broke easily, the upgrade to vinyl, then LPs, 8-track and audio cassettes, then CDs. CDs were once reasonably affordable and those who couldn't afford them could copy them on their computer from someone who had bought a copy.
We then saw file sharing on computers, which became illegal because copyright laws were being violated, but it was less often the musician's complaint than the middlemen raking money off someone else's talent because the music was being heard. Now YouTube has taken over that function. Violation for some is less relevant than exposure that ultimately makes more sales because the musicians can post their own music. The technology has become quite simple.
There have been many more recent changes that are clearly observable for anyone who wants to look for them. By 2007, CD sales were down 20% from the preceding year. The Wall Street Journal notes that CD music sales are down 20% from the same week a year ago. The seven year decline in CD sales doesn’t look to be turning around anytime soon.
Legal music digital download sales are increasing by 50% or so a year; overall industry revenue is still down 25% from a year ago by some estimates.
The faster music labels realize their massively profitable days are over, the better it will be for them, as well as the bands they represent and us, their customers. Digital music sales are not going to make up for lost revenue. Suing their customer base is not going to make up for lost revenue. In fact, absolutely nothing is going to make up that lost revenue. The industry, revenue-wise, is going to continue to shrink.
The problem is that their main product, recorded music, has a zero marginal cost to produce. It’s so cheap to make that consumers can actually make it themselves. And they do. A billion songs a month are downloaded, mostly illegally, from P2P networks.
As the marginal price of recorded music continues to fall towards zero, its natural price, bands will need to make money elsewhere. Live concerts will become more and more popular, and will be the largest source of revenue for many artists. Recorded music will be used to promote those live events. Popular artists will still make a very, very good living. Others will have to decide if love of their art is enough to keep going.
In 2007, the NY Times reported a 9.5% decline in album sales. "This is the end of the music industry as we know it," said Forrester principal
analyst James L. McQuivey. No longer will producers fill albums with not-so-great tracks because one on the tracks is not sold singly. Today one can go online and download almost anything.
Since radio stations caved to the exorbitant rates to be paid for playing copywritten songs, gone are the local musicians who used the radio to get heard. Now local musicians bring their own CDs to gigs and sell them directly to the buyer.
For those of us who don't like to be tuned out from the world by headphones, there are the wonderful free Internet music stations which will play your favorite musical genre and random sets. Try Pandora, or Accuradio.
This commentary barely scratches the changes occuring regarding the delivery of music to listeners. Cable stations are offering many stations that carry both audio and video of many genres. Actually, unless you choose not to download your favorite new song, you can hear music all day and not buy a CD.
We then saw file sharing on computers, which became illegal because copyright laws were being violated, but it was less often the musician's complaint than the middlemen raking money off someone else's talent because the music was being heard. Now YouTube has taken over that function. Violation for some is less relevant than exposure that ultimately makes more sales because the musicians can post their own music. The technology has become quite simple.
There have been many more recent changes that are clearly observable for anyone who wants to look for them. By 2007, CD sales were down 20% from the preceding year. The Wall Street Journal notes that CD music sales are down 20% from the same week a year ago. The seven year decline in CD sales doesn’t look to be turning around anytime soon.
Legal music digital download sales are increasing by 50% or so a year; overall industry revenue is still down 25% from a year ago by some estimates.
The faster music labels realize their massively profitable days are over, the better it will be for them, as well as the bands they represent and us, their customers. Digital music sales are not going to make up for lost revenue. Suing their customer base is not going to make up for lost revenue. In fact, absolutely nothing is going to make up that lost revenue. The industry, revenue-wise, is going to continue to shrink.
The problem is that their main product, recorded music, has a zero marginal cost to produce. It’s so cheap to make that consumers can actually make it themselves. And they do. A billion songs a month are downloaded, mostly illegally, from P2P networks.
As the marginal price of recorded music continues to fall towards zero, its natural price, bands will need to make money elsewhere. Live concerts will become more and more popular, and will be the largest source of revenue for many artists. Recorded music will be used to promote those live events. Popular artists will still make a very, very good living. Others will have to decide if love of their art is enough to keep going.
In 2007, the NY Times reported a 9.5% decline in album sales. "This is the end of the music industry as we know it," said Forrester principal
analyst James L. McQuivey. No longer will producers fill albums with not-so-great tracks because one on the tracks is not sold singly. Today one can go online and download almost anything.
Since radio stations caved to the exorbitant rates to be paid for playing copywritten songs, gone are the local musicians who used the radio to get heard. Now local musicians bring their own CDs to gigs and sell them directly to the buyer.
For those of us who don't like to be tuned out from the world by headphones, there are the wonderful free Internet music stations which will play your favorite musical genre and random sets. Try Pandora, or Accuradio.
This commentary barely scratches the changes occuring regarding the delivery of music to listeners. Cable stations are offering many stations that carry both audio and video of many genres. Actually, unless you choose not to download your favorite new song, you can hear music all day and not buy a CD.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
CAN IMMORTALITY BE FROM DEEPFREEZE AFTER ALL?
ScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2009) — "Two Brigham Young University researchers who just returned from Antarctica are reporting a hardy worm that withstands its cold climate by cranking out antifreeze. And when its notoriously dry home runs out of water, it just dries itself out and goes into suspended animation until liquid water brings it back to life."
It continues with: "When water inside a living thing freezes, ice crystals pierce cell walls and kill them. That's what causes "frostbite." It turns out that the worm creates a protein that probably prevents the ice from forming sharp crystals or coats them so they don't puncture anything."
Since this is what destroys human tissue when it is frozen, it must be what would prevent a frozen body from being brought back to life later as some are hoping. However, while the article doesn't branch out that far, it makes me wonder if it will not make a frozen corpse possibly brought back to life sometime in the future when science has solved a few more problems.
Just imagine all the wonderful things to come to those who might still be around!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
UNCOVERING ETHIC VIOLATIONS: HOW DO WE DO IT?
Since I tend to read a plethora of information sites (not having subscribed to a newspaper in 8 1/2 years)it makes me wonder how people stay informed. I believe that it is the seniors group that is more apt not to have gone onto the Internet for their News. Speaking with them, those who read a single large city paper and their local news, they seem pitifully uniformed to me.
How then, can Washington insiders expect the voters to speak up and correct mistakes of which they are completely unaware? For example, MedScape Today reports that "Federal regulations require clinical trial sponsors to collect financial information from investigators at the outset of trials, and to report on their efforts to minimize the possibility that financial self-interest could color trial results, notes the report from the office of Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).....Trial sponsors — usually the company developing or licensing the drug or device in question — only have to disclose this information when they apply for marketing approval, and even then there's a loophole: they can claim that they "acted with due diligence" to collect financial information from each investigator to satisfy regulations.
Report Found Few Financial Disclosures
Yet 42% of new drug marketing applications filed in fiscal year 2007 were short on investigator financial disclosures, and in fully one fifth of cases where such information was disclosed, FDA reviewers took no action, the watchdogs reported.
"In FY 2007, only 1% of clinical investigators disclosed a financial interest," the report's authors write."
For fun, I Googled politicians ethic violations. The results: Results 1 - 10 of about 112,000 for Politicians ethics violations. (0.30 seconds) An article in the NY Times on 1/7/09 suggests that, more properly, action was initiated on a more appropriate level than simply a lone (or group) voter. Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts Proposes Ethics Reform to Curb Corrupt Politicians and Lobbyists. What a novel idea!!
A year ago, Jack Cafferty of CNN wrote: FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
"In case you’re not convinced our government is broken, consider this: A new study shows that almost 60% of government employees at all levels — federal, state and local — say they’ve seen violations of ethical standards, policies or laws at their workplaces in the last year. This includes everything from conflicts of interest, abusive behavior, altering documents and financial records to lying to employees, vendors or the public.
And apparently it’s worse at the state and local levels. The nonprofit research group “Ethics Resource Center” found 63% of those at the local level witnessed at least one kind of misconduct. At the state level, it was 57%, and 52% at the federal level.
And it’s going to get worse. The head of this group says it looks like we’re headed toward more ethical misconduct in government in the future, not less.
They found that 30% of the incidents go unreported. One reason for that is some employees who reported misconduct said they experienced retaliation. Researchers also say there aren’t enough systems in place to stop these problems once they’re exposed.
The center says the answer to this problem is what it calls a “strong ethical culture.” A lovely idea to be sure. But when you watch example after example of government dishonesty and abuse go uninvestigated and unpunished, what’s the message? That it doesn’t matter because no one will do anything about it anyway.
Here’s my question to you: Does it surprise you that almost 60% of government employees at all levels say they’ve seen ethics violations at work?"
If the people we vote into office don't report their abusive colleagues, what recourse does the average voter have without knowledge of the violations? If anyone has suggestions, I'd like to hear them.
How then, can Washington insiders expect the voters to speak up and correct mistakes of which they are completely unaware? For example, MedScape Today reports that "Federal regulations require clinical trial sponsors to collect financial information from investigators at the outset of trials, and to report on their efforts to minimize the possibility that financial self-interest could color trial results, notes the report from the office of Daniel R. Levinson, Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).....Trial sponsors — usually the company developing or licensing the drug or device in question — only have to disclose this information when they apply for marketing approval, and even then there's a loophole: they can claim that they "acted with due diligence" to collect financial information from each investigator to satisfy regulations.
Report Found Few Financial Disclosures
Yet 42% of new drug marketing applications filed in fiscal year 2007 were short on investigator financial disclosures, and in fully one fifth of cases where such information was disclosed, FDA reviewers took no action, the watchdogs reported.
"In FY 2007, only 1% of clinical investigators disclosed a financial interest," the report's authors write."
For fun, I Googled politicians ethic violations. The results: Results 1 - 10 of about 112,000 for Politicians ethics violations. (0.30 seconds) An article in the NY Times on 1/7/09 suggests that, more properly, action was initiated on a more appropriate level than simply a lone (or group) voter. Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts Proposes Ethics Reform to Curb Corrupt Politicians and Lobbyists. What a novel idea!!
A year ago, Jack Cafferty of CNN wrote: FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
"In case you’re not convinced our government is broken, consider this: A new study shows that almost 60% of government employees at all levels — federal, state and local — say they’ve seen violations of ethical standards, policies or laws at their workplaces in the last year. This includes everything from conflicts of interest, abusive behavior, altering documents and financial records to lying to employees, vendors or the public.
And apparently it’s worse at the state and local levels. The nonprofit research group “Ethics Resource Center” found 63% of those at the local level witnessed at least one kind of misconduct. At the state level, it was 57%, and 52% at the federal level.
And it’s going to get worse. The head of this group says it looks like we’re headed toward more ethical misconduct in government in the future, not less.
They found that 30% of the incidents go unreported. One reason for that is some employees who reported misconduct said they experienced retaliation. Researchers also say there aren’t enough systems in place to stop these problems once they’re exposed.
The center says the answer to this problem is what it calls a “strong ethical culture.” A lovely idea to be sure. But when you watch example after example of government dishonesty and abuse go uninvestigated and unpunished, what’s the message? That it doesn’t matter because no one will do anything about it anyway.
Here’s my question to you: Does it surprise you that almost 60% of government employees at all levels say they’ve seen ethics violations at work?"
If the people we vote into office don't report their abusive colleagues, what recourse does the average voter have without knowledge of the violations? If anyone has suggestions, I'd like to hear them.
Monday, February 9, 2009
VICTIMIZING THE VICTIM
This morning on Meet the Press, the discussion was about the Representatives and Senators who, like Tom Daschle, take from lobbyists, though not directly, or are not easily visible. Imagine my shock when Barney Frank said it was up to the voters to change this. I'm a voter and I never knew it was happening, even though I read news diligently. I have no way of going about finding out about which politicians are crooks unless they are as visible in their lies as Bush and Cheney had been (and Cheney is still ). Naturally, Frank gave no instructions as to how the voters might find out what their colleagues presumably don't know...or do they, and collude in the process?
Transparency seems to be the operative word here. In 1999 there was an excellent presentation to define transparency. The first entry is "citizen's access to information". Now this was before the Bush administration in which no other governmental agency had access to information, not the news media, not the Legislative branch, or anyone else who might have been helpful. Where does the voter stand a chance with a group that, in secrecy, can vote itself raises and perks only to then announce it as a fait accomplis to the 'voters'? Where does the voter stand a chance with a body of politician's who found it more important, for almost two years, to attempt to impeach Clinton rather than worry about the citizen's welfare, for which they were elected? Does Representative Frank think that, with all the pressing priorities, the Legislative Branch will make taking away all those perks top of the priority list?
After all, what is the job of the Ethics Committee? Does anyone know outside of the committee itself? The US House of Representatives has a Committee on Rules. Apparently the Ethics Committee is a sub-committee part of the Senate's Committee on Rules. Judging from their Annual Report, they are not overloaded with work. There seem to be few whistle blowers within the body. Does anyone really check to see if rules are followed? If so, who would that be? Why does the truth only come out when someone is looking to get vetted and examined more closely.
My suggestion would be that every candidate who is running for office go through a similarly thorough examination under whatever political microscope is used to find out if the Nanny, probably hired by the staff and not the politician, was an illegal immigrant. To expect such knowledge is as likely as to expect Bush 41 and Bush 43 to know the price of broccoli in the local supermarket.
Transparency seems to be the operative word here. In 1999 there was an excellent presentation to define transparency. The first entry is "citizen's access to information". Now this was before the Bush administration in which no other governmental agency had access to information, not the news media, not the Legislative branch, or anyone else who might have been helpful. Where does the voter stand a chance with a group that, in secrecy, can vote itself raises and perks only to then announce it as a fait accomplis to the 'voters'? Where does the voter stand a chance with a body of politician's who found it more important, for almost two years, to attempt to impeach Clinton rather than worry about the citizen's welfare, for which they were elected? Does Representative Frank think that, with all the pressing priorities, the Legislative Branch will make taking away all those perks top of the priority list?
After all, what is the job of the Ethics Committee? Does anyone know outside of the committee itself? The US House of Representatives has a Committee on Rules. Apparently the Ethics Committee is a sub-committee part of the Senate's Committee on Rules. Judging from their Annual Report, they are not overloaded with work. There seem to be few whistle blowers within the body. Does anyone really check to see if rules are followed? If so, who would that be? Why does the truth only come out when someone is looking to get vetted and examined more closely.
My suggestion would be that every candidate who is running for office go through a similarly thorough examination under whatever political microscope is used to find out if the Nanny, probably hired by the staff and not the politician, was an illegal immigrant. To expect such knowledge is as likely as to expect Bush 41 and Bush 43 to know the price of broccoli in the local supermarket.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
WHY: BECAUSE IT WAS THERE?
From BBC News:
Woman scores Atlantic swim first
Jennifer Figge
Figge swam for up to eight hours at a stretch
A 56-year-old American athlete has become the first woman on record to swim the Atlantic.
Jennifer Figge took 24 days to swim from the Cape Verde islands off Africa to Trinidad. The exact distance she covered has yet to be calculated.
She swam inside a cage to protect her from sharks.
Figge, who had originally planned to make landfall in the Bahamas, now plans to finish by swimming from Trinidad to the British Virgin Islands.
She first dreamed of swimming across the Atlantic Ocean as a little girl.
Jennifer Figge
Looking back, I wouldn't have it any other way
Jennifer Figge
The swimmer finally moved nearer her goal when she left Cape Verde Islands on 12 January, facing waves of up to 9m (30 ft).
Each day she would spend up to eight hours in the water at a stretch before returning to her support boat.
Crew members would throw the athlete energy drinks as she swam along, if it was too stormy divers would deliver them in person.
She saw pilot whales, turtles, dolphins, Portuguese men-of-war, but no sharks.
"I was never scared," she told the Associated Press news agency.
"Looking back, I wouldn't have it any other way. I can always swim in a pool."
Jennifer Figge's journey comes 10 years after a French swimmer, Benoit Lecomte, made the first known solo trans-Atlantic swim covering 6,400km (4,000 miles) in 73 days.
Figge had planned to swim 3,380km (2,100 miles), but she was blown off course and reached Trinidad rather than the Bahamas.
Woman scores Atlantic swim first
Jennifer Figge
Figge swam for up to eight hours at a stretch
A 56-year-old American athlete has become the first woman on record to swim the Atlantic.
Jennifer Figge took 24 days to swim from the Cape Verde islands off Africa to Trinidad. The exact distance she covered has yet to be calculated.
She swam inside a cage to protect her from sharks.
Figge, who had originally planned to make landfall in the Bahamas, now plans to finish by swimming from Trinidad to the British Virgin Islands.
She first dreamed of swimming across the Atlantic Ocean as a little girl.
Jennifer Figge
Looking back, I wouldn't have it any other way
Jennifer Figge
The swimmer finally moved nearer her goal when she left Cape Verde Islands on 12 January, facing waves of up to 9m (30 ft).
Each day she would spend up to eight hours in the water at a stretch before returning to her support boat.
Crew members would throw the athlete energy drinks as she swam along, if it was too stormy divers would deliver them in person.
She saw pilot whales, turtles, dolphins, Portuguese men-of-war, but no sharks.
"I was never scared," she told the Associated Press news agency.
"Looking back, I wouldn't have it any other way. I can always swim in a pool."
Jennifer Figge's journey comes 10 years after a French swimmer, Benoit Lecomte, made the first known solo trans-Atlantic swim covering 6,400km (4,000 miles) in 73 days.
Figge had planned to swim 3,380km (2,100 miles), but she was blown off course and reached Trinidad rather than the Bahamas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)