Saturday, August 29, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
ENTERTAINMENT: Archie Broke My Heart! Now What?
I heard this on NPR. - OlderMusicGeek
August 19, 2009
Dear Amy:
I have been going out with my high school boyfriend, "Archie," for 67 years, though honestly it feels like longer.
We've had our ups and downs like any other couple, but for the most part we get along great.
Sure, he has commitment issues, but that's normal, right?
Unfortunately, it seems that whenever Archie and I get in a little tiff, "Veronica," my worst frenemy, sweeps in. She's, like, really manipulative. But what can I say — she's rich and stuck-up, and really knows how to work her curves. Plus, she drives a roadster.
Yesterday, I found out that Archie is planning to marry Veronica! I don't know how many times he has hinted that he and I would live happily ever after, but when I think about it, he never actually said the words. It was always implied, though.
I'm heartbroken. I'm mad, too.
The worst part is that they've asked me to go to the wedding! Veronica is even hinting that she wants me to be a bridesmaid! Can you imagine?
Of course, I'll probably do it because that's just the sort of person I am. But it's hard to imagine picking up the pieces after dating the same guy for three generations.
Amy, what am I supposed to do now?
Betty
Dear Betty:
Here's what you should do.
Pour yourself into a red dress — the one with the big white polka dots on it. Take your hair down for once, OK? You're a natural blonde, Betty — don't be afraid to work it! Don't wear your neck scarf; a simple strand of pearls would be nice.
I want you to hold your head up high, go to that wedding and tell yourself that you are better off without him.
At the wedding reception (I'm sure it will be held at the Riverdale Country Club), if you have a few too many appletinis and decide to tell off Veronica once and for all, and maybe dance a little too close with Reggie or Jughead, so be it! You're a free woman, Betty, and now's your chance to stand up for all the Bettys everywhere!
I have a really good feeling about you, Betty. I know there are many adventures in store for you. Have you thought about getting a job in the city?
You probably haven't heard the last of Archie. No doubt he'll come crawling back to you, just like he always does — and this will probably happen sooner than you think.
The real question you need to ask yourself is — what will you do then?
A link to the original website including a link to listen to the piece
August 19, 2009Dear Amy:
I have been going out with my high school boyfriend, "Archie," for 67 years, though honestly it feels like longer.
We've had our ups and downs like any other couple, but for the most part we get along great.
Sure, he has commitment issues, but that's normal, right?
Unfortunately, it seems that whenever Archie and I get in a little tiff, "Veronica," my worst frenemy, sweeps in. She's, like, really manipulative. But what can I say — she's rich and stuck-up, and really knows how to work her curves. Plus, she drives a roadster.
Yesterday, I found out that Archie is planning to marry Veronica! I don't know how many times he has hinted that he and I would live happily ever after, but when I think about it, he never actually said the words. It was always implied, though.
I'm heartbroken. I'm mad, too.
The worst part is that they've asked me to go to the wedding! Veronica is even hinting that she wants me to be a bridesmaid! Can you imagine?
Of course, I'll probably do it because that's just the sort of person I am. But it's hard to imagine picking up the pieces after dating the same guy for three generations.
Amy, what am I supposed to do now?
Betty
Dear Betty:
Here's what you should do.
Pour yourself into a red dress — the one with the big white polka dots on it. Take your hair down for once, OK? You're a natural blonde, Betty — don't be afraid to work it! Don't wear your neck scarf; a simple strand of pearls would be nice.
I want you to hold your head up high, go to that wedding and tell yourself that you are better off without him.
At the wedding reception (I'm sure it will be held at the Riverdale Country Club), if you have a few too many appletinis and decide to tell off Veronica once and for all, and maybe dance a little too close with Reggie or Jughead, so be it! You're a free woman, Betty, and now's your chance to stand up for all the Bettys everywhere!
I have a really good feeling about you, Betty. I know there are many adventures in store for you. Have you thought about getting a job in the city?
You probably haven't heard the last of Archie. No doubt he'll come crawling back to you, just like he always does — and this will probably happen sooner than you think.
The real question you need to ask yourself is — what will you do then?
A link to the original website including a link to listen to the piece
Monday, August 17, 2009
POLITICS: Op-Ed: Cut Health Care Spending On The Elderly
This is from National Public Radio. - OlderMusicGeek
August 17, 2009
In an opinion piece for the New York Times, author Richard Dooling makes a radical proposal. He argues that it's time to stop spending so much money on health care for dying, elderly patients. Otherwise, he sees a generational spending gap on the horizon.
From the introduction of the NPR show:
To be clear, Richard Dooling is not talking about pulling the plug on granny. That accusation was tossed around last week in the health care debate. But Richard Dooling argues that we do spend too much money on surgery after surgery for grandma, with so much evidence of wasteful and even harmful treatment, he writes, shouldn't we instantly cut some of the money spent on exorbitant, intensive care medicine for dying elderly people and redirect it to pediatricians and obstetricians offering preventive care for children and mothers instead.
Listen to the interview
From The New York Times op-ed piece:
IN the 1980s, I worked as a respiratory therapist in intensive-care units in the Midwest, taking care of elderly, dying patients on ventilators. I remember marveling, along with the young doctors and nurses I worked with, over how many millions of dollars were spent performing insanely expensive procedures, scans and tests on patients who would never regain consciousness or leave the hospital.
When the insurance ran out, or Medicare stopped paying, patients and their families gave the hospital liens on their homes to pay for this care. Families spent their entire savings so Grandma could make yet another trip to the surgical suite on the slim-to-none chance that bypass surgery, a thoracotomy, an endoscopy or kidney dialysis might get her off the ventilator and out of the hospital in time for her 88th birthday.
The rest of the opinion piece
August 17, 2009
In an opinion piece for the New York Times, author Richard Dooling makes a radical proposal. He argues that it's time to stop spending so much money on health care for dying, elderly patients. Otherwise, he sees a generational spending gap on the horizon.
From the introduction of the NPR show:
To be clear, Richard Dooling is not talking about pulling the plug on granny. That accusation was tossed around last week in the health care debate. But Richard Dooling argues that we do spend too much money on surgery after surgery for grandma, with so much evidence of wasteful and even harmful treatment, he writes, shouldn't we instantly cut some of the money spent on exorbitant, intensive care medicine for dying elderly people and redirect it to pediatricians and obstetricians offering preventive care for children and mothers instead.
Listen to the interview
From The New York Times op-ed piece:
IN the 1980s, I worked as a respiratory therapist in intensive-care units in the Midwest, taking care of elderly, dying patients on ventilators. I remember marveling, along with the young doctors and nurses I worked with, over how many millions of dollars were spent performing insanely expensive procedures, scans and tests on patients who would never regain consciousness or leave the hospital.
When the insurance ran out, or Medicare stopped paying, patients and their families gave the hospital liens on their homes to pay for this care. Families spent their entire savings so Grandma could make yet another trip to the surgical suite on the slim-to-none chance that bypass surgery, a thoracotomy, an endoscopy or kidney dialysis might get her off the ventilator and out of the hospital in time for her 88th birthday.
The rest of the opinion piece
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Sunday, August 09, 2009
ENTERTAINMENT: Is It Raining?: An Interesting Piece Of Performance Art
My friend, Ernest T Spoon sent me this. - OlderMusicGeek.
CULTURE/SOCIETY: Why Is 10:10 The Default Setting For Clocks And Watches?
I found this on Yahoo. I always wondered about this, and the answer was pretty much what I expected. But I still found it interesting and thought I'd share. - OlderMusicGeek
Why is 10:10 the Default Setting for Clocks and Watches?
by Matt Soniak - August 9, 2009 - 10:10 AM
Reader Humaira writes: “I have always wondered why clocks, watches, and timepieces always say (roughly) 10:10 before you set the correct time. If you go into a store selling any kind of time-telling device, that is the default factory setting. Why is that?!!”
First things first, let’s get the myths out of the way. There are plenty of people out there who think that clocks in advertisements and in-store displays are set this way memorialize Abraham Lincoln/John F. Kennedy/Martin Luther King Jr. because that was the time at which they were shot or died. In reality, Lincoln was shot at 10:15 p.m., and died the next morning at 7:22 a.m., JFK was shot at 12:30 p.m. CST and was pronounced dead 1 p.m. and MLK was shot 6:01 p.m. and pronounced dead at 7:05 p.m.
Another theory has it that 10:10 was the time that an atomic bomb was dropped on either Nagasaki or Hiroshima, and the setting is in memory of the casualties. The Fat Man bomb was actually dropped on the former at 11:02 a.m. local time and the Little Boy on the latter at 8:15 a.m. local time.
The real reason for the setting? Aesthetics. The 10:10 position gives the clock or watch a number of benefits:
• The hands not overlapping, so they’re fully and clearly visible and their styling can be admired.
• The arrangement of the hands is symmetrical, which people generally find more pleasant than asymmetry, making the product more appealing to customers.
• The manufacturer’s logo, usually in the center of the face under the 12, is not only visible, but nicely framed by the hands.
• Additional elements on the face (like date windows and secondary dials), usually placed near the 3, 6, or 9, won’t be obscured.
According to the folks at Timex (who set their products at 10:09:36 exactly), the standard setting used to be 8:20, but this made the face look like it was frowning. To make the products look “happier,” the setting was flipped into a smile (occasionally, you’ll still see the 8:20 setting on some clocks or watches where the manufacturer’s logo is at bottom of the face above the 6).
Why is 10:10 the Default Setting for Clocks and Watches?
by Matt Soniak - August 9, 2009 - 10:10 AM
Reader Humaira writes: “I have always wondered why clocks, watches, and timepieces always say (roughly) 10:10 before you set the correct time. If you go into a store selling any kind of time-telling device, that is the default factory setting. Why is that?!!”
First things first, let’s get the myths out of the way. There are plenty of people out there who think that clocks in advertisements and in-store displays are set this way memorialize Abraham Lincoln/John F. Kennedy/Martin Luther King Jr. because that was the time at which they were shot or died. In reality, Lincoln was shot at 10:15 p.m., and died the next morning at 7:22 a.m., JFK was shot at 12:30 p.m. CST and was pronounced dead 1 p.m. and MLK was shot 6:01 p.m. and pronounced dead at 7:05 p.m.
Another theory has it that 10:10 was the time that an atomic bomb was dropped on either Nagasaki or Hiroshima, and the setting is in memory of the casualties. The Fat Man bomb was actually dropped on the former at 11:02 a.m. local time and the Little Boy on the latter at 8:15 a.m. local time.
The real reason for the setting? Aesthetics. The 10:10 position gives the clock or watch a number of benefits:• The hands not overlapping, so they’re fully and clearly visible and their styling can be admired.
• The arrangement of the hands is symmetrical, which people generally find more pleasant than asymmetry, making the product more appealing to customers.
• The manufacturer’s logo, usually in the center of the face under the 12, is not only visible, but nicely framed by the hands.
• Additional elements on the face (like date windows and secondary dials), usually placed near the 3, 6, or 9, won’t be obscured.
According to the folks at Timex (who set their products at 10:09:36 exactly), the standard setting used to be 8:20, but this made the face look like it was frowning. To make the products look “happier,” the setting was flipped into a smile (occasionally, you’ll still see the 8:20 setting on some clocks or watches where the manufacturer’s logo is at bottom of the face above the 6).
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Monday, August 03, 2009
ENTERTAINMENT and POLITICS: Red State Update On Comic-Con And Being Moderates
My buddy, Ernest T Spoon, sent me this. Almost as funny as when Triumph was at the Comic-Con! - OlderMusicGeek
And while I was on YouTube, I also found this! - OlderMusicGeek
And while I was on YouTube, I also found this! - OlderMusicGeek
Sunday, August 02, 2009
ENTERTAINMENT: Johnny Cash's Version Of "In My Life"
Just cus I heard it and liked it so much! - OlderMusicGeek