...I think it's rather unfair to make the Americans adopt the metric system when WE haven't!

Eh? Last time I heard, Great Britain measures in kilometres and so forth, and even your funny currency was adapted to standard of 100 pence = 1 pound. Where do you use non-metric system?

Constanze: let me break this down bit by bit, 'cause it's rather complicated:

Distance: We still use miles and yards. Any government that tried to impose the metric system would probably face another English Civil War.

Currency: Decimalisation was introduced in the '80s if I recall correctly. However, most people over 30 still convert to pounds, shillings and pence (240 pence to the pound) in their heads and continually ask 'but what's that in old money'? (This is why I have serious doubts that Britain will ever adopt the euro, as we still haven't got over adopting the decimalised pound!)

Other measurements: We do, in theory, use litres for volume and kilograms for weight, but in practice this is rather complicated. The majority of suppliers which produce goods by weight (I'm thinking of local stores in particularly) prefer to put everything in imperial terms of pounds and ounces, because the majority of people (even young people) still find it intuitively easier to think in imperial rather than metric terms. (When my parents have to use kilograms, they think of them in terms of 'bags of sugar'!).

Those grocers, etc., who refuse to adopt EU guidelines to use the metric system tend to be made into plaster saints by the anti-EU newspapers (i.e. all of them).

Interesting. I stayed in Hastings and Dublin for some weeks during the 80s and didn't notice that. Maybe because I didn't go grocery shopping. I was just very relieved that I didn't have to learn this complicated currency business (I still haven't got a clue when reading older english books).

BTW, when the Euro was introduced, many newspapers portrayed the different currency systems, and one article was about the french, who switched from the "old franc" to the "new franc" in the 60s/70s - with 1000 old francs worth 1 new franc, IIRC - and the article described how in everyday life, people thought in new franc, but for expensive things like cars, people used the old franc!

I'd have thought that because the metric system is decimal and logical, it would be much easier to learn than this pounds and ounces stuff. Interesting that even young people think imperial!

British reasons for favouring the imperial system:

1. We're used to it

2. It's universal in the country (unlike as I understand it in Europe before the French revolution, when different areas in one country used different imperial systems - now THAT'S confusing!)

3. It ingratiates us with the Americans

4. It annoys the EU

5. It confuses foreigners (this is a basic requirement of any British institution)

As far as currency is concerned, I (having grown up with decimalised currency) also have some trouble thinking in terms of old money, but again it's what you're used to. I suppose we might be more resistant to change because our currency stayed relatively consistent in value and setup compared to the European and American currencies in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (partly because of the lack of inflation-causing stalemated land wars - one advantage of being an island).

Clarification of the old British pre-decimalised currency:

12 pence to the shilling

20 shillings to the pound (i.e. 240 pence per pound)

Also in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century there was the 'guinea', a gold coin worth 21 shillings or one pound one shilling. I assume this was dropped because that's too silly even for us.

Latin nomenclature was used for the abbreviations - the stylised L, £, for pound (Latin 'libra'), s for shilling and d for pence {Latin 'denarius'). Prices were given in £, s, d as something like: 5 . 3 . 2.

In Germany the switching to the Euro was pretty simple because we can always think of it as Reichsmark v.2 when we feel nostalgic or want to annoy the French.

Distance: We still use miles and yards. Any government that tried to impose the metric system would probably face another English Civil War.

Currency: Decimalisation was introduced in the '80s if I recall correctly. However, most people over 30 still convert to pounds, shillings and pence (240 pence to the pound) in their heads and continually ask 'but what's that in old money'? (This is why I have serious doubts that Britain will ever adopt the euro, as we still haven't got over adopting the decimalised pound!)

When the Amircan colonies declared their independence, some particularly anti-British leaders tried to impose metric measurements just because they weren't English. Even so, decimalizing the coinage was as far as they were ever able to get.

Other measurements: We do, in theory, use litres for volume and kilograms for weight, but in practice this is rather complicated. The majority of suppliers which produce goods by weight (I'm thinking of local stores in particularly) prefer to put everything in imperial terms of pounds and ounces, because the majority of people (even young people) still find it intuitively easier to think in imperial rather than metric terms. }

In America, although bottled soft drinks are sold by the liter (the conversion happened in the eighties, IIRC, and was accepted because it was slightly more than a quart but, initially sold for the sameprice), canned soft drinks are still 12 ounces, and milk is sold by the quart or the gallon.

(When my parents have to use kilograms, they think of them in terms of 'bags of sugar'!).

In America when we hear about a bag weighing one or two "kilos" it usually refers to imported illegal drugs. Sugar is still sold in 2 pound boxes or 5 pound bags.

I'd have thought that because the metric system is decimal and logical, it would be much easier to learn than this pounds and ounces stuff. Interesting that even young people think imperial!

While conversion is simple between different metric levels (the prefix is the latin or greek designation of the power of ten to multiply by), most people find it hard to estimate a metric measurement unless it is close to an imperial one that they are more used to. Even then, they estimate it in the imperial first: That's about a gallon, so that would make it a little more than three and a half liters."

Added to that is the fact that most people learn to convert to metric in math (or in the UK, maths) class, where a more exact conversion, usually to two decimal places is required, and they get the impression that metric is an unnaturally complicated way to measure.

Some more natural intuition of the metric is creeping in ("bags of sugar" in the UK, "bottles of soda" in the US), but it will probably take a new generation raised by the generation now growing up with these as "native" weights to fully accept them. But the more we drop the imperial as we add the metric, the faster and easier it will be, as evidenced by Thande growing up with metric coinage and having difficulty to convert to the imperial.

Also in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century there was the 'guinea', a gold coin worth 21 shillings or one pound one shilling. I assume this was dropped because that's too silly even for us.

However, I suspect that if we hadn't already decimalized our coinage to spite you, we would still be using guneas here. Nothing is too silly for us.

when we ... want to annoy the French

Isn't that all the time?

Canada has been metric since the 70s, but at this point about the only things people still tend to measure in imperial units are a person's height and weight. This sometimes extends to items in the grocery store (fruit, vegetables, meat), but liquids are essentially always measured in metric.

I don't even know what a quart is.

Milk, water, gasoline, anything - all metric. A can of Coke is 355 mL, for example. I have a vague idea of imperial units, though I'm mystified why there would be 5280 feet in a mile...

Metric is vastly simpler, of course, and more precise, so any exposure to science/math makes things much simpler. Why are there 12 inches in a foot and 16 ounces in a pound? Give me 1000g/kg any day.

And why measure temperature where 32 degrees is freezing?

I wish America would go metric so that we don't have to read a recipe that calls for 10 ounces of something, and wonder if they mean weight ounces, or if, in laziness, they dropped the word "fluid".

America could adopt some metric. Replace those freeway signs that say "Exit 3/4 Mile", "Exit 1/2 Mile", "Exist 1/4 Mile" with "Exit 1200 metres", "Exit 800 metres", "Exit 400 metres". Put both figures on highway distance signs and speed limits. Convert items that aren't immediately relevant to household use, like automotive hardware.

Metric in Canada went through along these lines:

On April 1, 1975, weather forecasts switched from Fahrenheit to Celsius. By this time, barometric pressure had already changed from "inches" to millibars.

In 1976 and 1977, can't remember the sequence, wind speed changed from "m.p.h." to "km/h", and rainfall changed to millimetres while snowfall changed to centimetres. Neatly, on average, one centimetre of snow melts down to one millimetre of water!

Also, barometric pressure changed from millibars to kilopascals, though 10 millibars equals 1 kilopascal. 99 to 102 kilopascals is the usual normal barometric reading.

In September 1977, highways changed from miles to kilometres. All of a sudden, only then did auto makers start to put kilometre devices into cars, it seems. Roughly around this time, gas stations changed from gallons to litres.

Grocers were making a long conversion over the decade, moving to metric sizes, though showing both measurements. With so many recipes in Imperial (or "Customary") measurements, it does make it challenging to find the right size bottle or can of an ingredient.

The Metric Commission was established in the early 1970s by the Trudeau government, and disbanded in the early 80s when most conversion had been complete.

Thande,

...4. It annoys the EU ...

I wouldn't say that. My impression is that the europeans regard the British as funny islanders anyway.

Also in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century there was the 'guinea', a gold coin worth 21 shillings or one pound one shilling. I assume this was dropped because that's too silly even for us.

What about half-pound? In some books, the price of something is given as x pounds y shillings z pence. (But you gave the real reason for this ... to confuse the foreigners.)

GCapp: I wish America would go metric so that we don't have to read a recipe that calls for 10 ounces of something, and wonder if they mean weight ounces, or if, in laziness, they dropped the word "fluid".

There are two different ounces? Great, I didn't think of that when I converted recipes!

Constanze: I think you're thinking of the half-crown (mentioned in every Enid Blyton era children's book - "Excellent work, Julian, here's a half-crown!" ) which was worth 2 shillings and sixpence (2s 6d). Our other illogical coins, with explanations for the names, were:

Farthing (Fourth-ing) = 1/4 penny
Ha'penny (Half-penny): 1/2 penny
Thruppenny (Three-penny) = 3 pence
Sixpence = 6 pence
Shilling = 12 pence
Florin = 24 pence
Half-crown = 30 pence (as far as I'm aware the 'full' crown was dropped early in the nineteenth century)

All of which makes perfect sense, if you're an ancient Babylonian.

GCapp,

Although we'll tolerate metric for things like petrol pumps and bottled drinks (though people still convert to imperial in their head when thinking about it), if someone tried to change our road signs it would be poliitcal suicide (as well as actual suicide - think of the road chaos as people suddenly lose their ability to relate what it says on the road signs to the road itself).

As far as temperature is concerned, the British officially use Centigrade but informally use the maddest system imaginable: when it's cold we use Centigrade and when it's warm we used Fahrenheit. I think this is so we can sound more impressive when talking about the weather: "It was three below last night! / They say it'll be over seventy this August!"

Thande,

thanks for the info.

As for the temperature: I didn't know it's ever really warm in Great Britain anyway, with all that rain!

Seventy Fahrenheit - is that about 20 celsius? A hot summer here is over 30 celsius - and that's warm enough, in my opinion, without using fahrenheit!

Decimalisation was introduced in the '80s if I recall correctly

Thande's only a baby, so doesn't remember old things - we went decimal in 1972. I was 11 at the time and was confused as heck even though we had several lessons a week at school on how to convert.

He's right about us olds still converting to old money: my work colleague (who's 55) and I are constantly complaining about the price of, say, a bar of chocolate, wailing, "But that's 9 and 6 [9 shillings and sixpence] in old money! It used to be fourpence!"

Constanze: Sorry, I meant eighties or nineties for the high Fahrenheit temperature, not seventies. And although Britain is universally chilly most of the time, for about 3 weeks in July it usually gets up to about 30 or 35 degrees C and we all die of heat shock as no-one has bothered to spend money on air conditioning.

TomM: ...While conversion is simple between different metric levels (the prefix is the latin or greek designation of the power of ten to multiply by), most people find it hard to estimate a metric measurement unless it is close to an imperial one that they are more used to. ...

Converting is easier in the the metric system not only between the different levels - 1000 gram to one kilogram, 100 centimeters to one meter - but also between units. As GCapp already mentioned, 1 centimeter of snow melts down to one mililiter of water, and one liter of water weighs one kilogramm.

1 centimeter of snow melts down to one mililiter of water

Uh, actually, it doesn't. centimeter is a unit of distance, milliliter is a unit of volume. When people refer to inches or cm of snow, they are referring the the depth of snow over a large area.

Also, even if you meant a cm³ of snow, it wouldn't melt down to one ml of water, it would melt down into less. First ice has a density of 0.9, so one cm³ of ice would melt into about 0.9 ml of water. Second, snow is even less dense thna ice, given that it's "fluffy" and full of air pockets (which makes it such a good insulator, by the way), so it would melt down into much less than one ml.

And constanze, to get back to Tom's point, if you've grown up with the metric system, yes, converting is easier. However, he was referring to those in transition. Example: I'm well acquainted with metric measure. However, I often do the estimation "a liter is rougly equivalent to a quart", or "a meter is just over a yard" because I have an instinctive feeling for the imperial units, having grown up with them.

ScottN,

funny, I can't remember where, but someplace it was mentioned how meteorologists measure things, and they said that when measuring how many cm of snow had fallen, they don't stick a ruler on a piece of wood and then clear it for next day (as I thought they would), instead they have some type of can, take it inside, melt the snow and measure the mililiters, which are then given in centimeters.

I _did_ say, one centimetre of snow melts down to one millimetre of water. I didn't say millilitre.

And that's on average - snow varies in its wetness. Wet, sloppy snow is heavy to lift, and it probably melts down into a higher amount of water. Then there is occasionally very dry snow.

And yes, there are ounces of weight and fluid ounces of volume. 8 fluid ounces to the cup, and 16 ounces to the pound. Blasted nuisance if you suspect they might mean _fluid_ ounce but didn't say so.

Sorry, I messed this snow thing up. (But then, the only important measure of snow is over one meter - not lousy centimeters - so I can go skiing! )

In Britain, levels of snow that bring the entire transport network to a screeching halt are measured in millimetres.

There are two different ounces? Great, I didn't think of that when I converted recipes!

Actually there are three different ounces.

Fluid ounces are a measure of (liquid) volume. 8 fluid ounces = 1 cup; 16 fluid ounces = 1 pint; 128 fluid ounces = 1 gallon; 1 fl. ounce [US] = 29.5735297 milliliter (a UK fl. ounce is slightly larger.)

Troy ounces are a measure of weight used for rare and precious items. 24 carats = 1 troy ounce. ("Karats," used as a measure of the purity of gold is actiually "carats per troy ounce." 24k gold is pure, 18k is 18/24 = 3/4 pure, etc.); 12 troy ounces = 1 troy pound; 1 ounce [troy] = 31.1034768 gram

Avoirdupois ounces are a measure of weight used for larger and more common items. This is the most common use of the word. 16 ounces = 1 pound (1 ounce [avdp.] = 0.9114583 ounce [troy]; 1 ounce [advp.] = 28.3495231 gram)

Which brings a new level of humor to "Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of gold?"

Ben Sargent.

Oh. My. God. You GOTTA see this. No matter who you are, you GOTTA see this. Michael Richards (Kramer from Seinfeld) goes absolutely nuts.

Kramer's Conundrum. An EXTREMELY interestingly essay about Michael Richards' racist rant, and how, according to Dr. Michael Shermer, someone who spews racial epithets can genuinely believe he is not a racist, as Richards has insisted. The answer, Shermer suggests, may lie in the difference between our conscious and unconscious attitudes, and our public and private thoughts. Shermer points to the Implicit Association Test that Harvard scientists have devised to help illustrate this phenomena, which you can take here.

I took three of the tests: The Gender-Science test, the Fat-Thin test, and the African-American/European American test. The scale provides “slight,” “moderate,” and “strong,” scores, and I admit I found my results both disturbing and eye-opening.

On the Gender-Science IAT, my score indicated that the data "suggest a slight association of Male with Science and Female with Liberal Arts compared with Female with Science and Male with Liberal Arts." I found this odd, because art and music were among the words I was supposed to sort, and I happen to be both a male and a graduate of art school!

I found the results of the Fat-Thin IAT the most surprising. The score was stated, "Your data suggest a slight automatic perference for Fat People compared to Thin People." I don't know how the test came up with this score. Granted, I'm overweight, but I would've feared that my unconscious would go in the other direction. Then again, I do prefer women with curves and some body fat like Sofia Vergara and Salma Hayek, rather than stick figures like Paris Hilton, so maybe this is consistent?

I found the African-European Test results the most disturbing. According to the results, "Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for European American compared to African American." Were I asked my "preferences" prior to taking this test, I would've insisted that I had none. And yet, I felt it happen during the test: I felt my left hand press the "E" key during the second half the test faster, associating the African pictures with "bad" words more quickly than the converse, even though I'm not left-handed. Why in the world is this? I guess I should be grateful that the results were only "slight", but still, I did not like finding this out about myself, even though I was fascinated by it. Is it just that am influenced by being white, as one of the follow-up questions below the test score suggested?

Anyone else take any of the tests? What were your scores?

I've taken two. On the Sexuality, I showed a moderate automatic preference for homosexuals over heterosexuals, which somewhat surprises me. On the African-European, I also showed a moderate automatic preference for African American over European Americans, which does not surprise me. I'll take some more tests later.

I showed a strong automatic preference for European Americans. I noticed it while I was taking the test that it was easier when the African pictures were with "bad words," but that portion of the test is also conducted last, so by that point, I was most comfortable with the interface. I think there should have been some "neutral" portions at the beginning to get accomodated with the interface at first.

I also don't know if the test indicates a PREFERENCE for European Americans more than an association with African Americans with tragic or bad conditions, which is a slightly different example. Either way, having lived in predominantly white areas, it does not surprise me.

You know I've taken several of those tests and I have a problem with any of the later portions of the tests. In the first few rounds I get used to left and right meaning what they mean in the first few rounds. When we get to any switch-up of those I have a hard time adapting to it.

It's the same reason when I quit working at the movie theater and worked at a store I had a hard time breaking myself of the habit of telling customers to "enjoy the movie", or when my roommate and I were adicted to online Spades on pogo.com I kept mentioning worrying about sandbags on rounds where we called a 'nil' even though 'nil' bets mean no possible sandbags for anyone underbidding.

I'm not saying this as an excust to cover the "preference" scores that I did get but to wonder what would happen if the entire test were reversed to where the minority being the same key as good happens in the first round.

I'm not saying that this holds true for everyone as Juigi obviously didn't have the problem since he prefered the 'rounder' women in a test where the skinny ones are on the 'good' key first. I am wondering how someone like myself would score on a reversed version of the test and how many others might have the same problem, possibly skewing the overall results of the overall preferences in this world.

I stand corrected, on some versons of the race test they do start with African-American and good sharing a key. When I took that test (my second time at the race test) I showed no preference at all, while on the first one I took (White = Good) I showed a strong preference for whites.

I wonder if it's me getting more used to the test, or something depending on which order things are shown in. Sort of like that Penn & Teller: BS episode where everyone chose the second of a pair of identical twins who did a reading for a part, regardless of which twin it was and if he was wearing pharamones or not.

Like I said as a simple test I'm not entirely sure that it does not have it's own bias based on the test itself. Sort of like how in an independant verson of the Pepsi Challenge people were more likely to pick the cup labled M, over the one labled Q (no matter the beverage) while in the origional Pepsi version the Pepsi cup was always M.

I was wondering about that, too, Brian. I guess it's not a flawless test.

I've been named Time's Person of the Year!

So have I. If only they knew me better...

Hey! Me too!!

hmmm, seeing how I have done nothing to further the internet or technological sophistication of this planet, and that I have yet to get into the spirit of YouTube, I guess I'm not person of the year...

I mean that Time's POTY was "YOU!" is a cop-out.

Adrianne Curry, the winner of the first season of America's Next Top Model, an alumnus of The Surreal Life and the wife of Brady Bunch alum Christopher Knight (Peter Brady) made a couple of MySpace blog entries in which she explains why she will boycott both the BET Network and Black History Month.

Here is the first blog entry.
Here is the second one.

What follows are my responses to comments from both entries:

Curry: In my eyes, the Native Americans deserve it MUCH more, seeing how we destroyed their ENTIRE SOCIETY. There are hardly any of them left!
Which is why we don’t have one. There’s not much point in having one if they account for such a small demographic that there’s not enough demand for one. TV networks, much like anything else in a capitalist society, is based on supply and demand. If there one day becomes a demand for a Native American network, there’ll be one. The conditions on reservations have nothing to do with this.

Curry: They also have been proven to have the WORST living conditions on their reservations. I want AN AMERICAN HISTORY MONTH.
Every month is “American History Month”. We’re constantly commemorating things that occurred in history every day. September 11, St. Patrick’s Day, Columbus Day, Presidents’ Day, etc. Turn on the History Channel, and you’ll see that programs are often broadcast that reflect some historical event that occurred the week of the broadcast.

Curry: One where we learn about EVERY race, ALL OF OUR LEADERS, EVERYONE! I think by having a month dedicated to one race, and not one for any other, is RACIST. Every fund set up to only help people of one race is SICK and RACIST.
Not to the people of that race it’s not. To them, it’s merely about promoting respect and unity among that group. Any group that has suffered marginalization or disenfranchisement is naturally going to do this. What’s “sick” or “racist” about that?

Curry: Yes, I get it. Black people were slaves here once. You know what? That does •••• some major balls, however, it is time to move the •••• on.
And what precisely does “moving on” mean? That members of such groups should not remember such atrocities? That they should not educate their young and the young of other groups as to reality of that history? Or is “moving on” just a euphemistic way of saying, “I’d prefer not to be reminded of it”?

Curry: Do we hear the Jews crying that they were made slaves for thousands of years? Do we hear them whine that they should OWN the pyramids in Egypt because THEY broke their backs making them?
Putting aside the fact that there is no historical evidence that the Pyramids were built with slave labor, let alone Jewish slave labor, Jews most certainly do form support groups, just as blacks do, and do look out for their own. So there’s no inconsistency here. And conversely, in what way have blacks “whined that they should own” something they built at slaves?

Curry: Do we hear them ••••• and moan about Hitler, etc?
Well, we see them telling stories of how they lost their families to him, and wish to remain conscious enough of current trends so that people like him never come to power again. Does that count as “bitching and moaning”? The problem with this remark is one of phrasing. If you couch activism in positive terms, then its’ just that. If you arbitrarily choose to couch it in negative terms, then it’s “bitching and moaning”. Any otherwise positive activity can be framed as “bitching and moaning”.

Curry: It's time for us to UNITE AS ONE.
“Uniting as one” is not mutually exclusive from taking pride in the group to which one belongs.

Curry: I do not think that singling out one race, giving one race opportunities to go to college (I know a TON of poor white.asian, indian, american indian, etc etc that could use that too!), giving one race the EXCUSE to blame things on others for being whatever nationality they are, is a good way at making sure we NEVER kill racism.
Sounds good to me. Can you explain where you’ve seen anyone do this?

Curry: Think I am racist? I am not. I know what racism is. I dated a guy named "Justin" in Junior high. Nothing serious, but I really liked him. He was the blackest of black...
I just love it when people insist that they somehow can’t be racist because “they know” what racism “really” is, and because they have friends/children/loved ones belonging to the race in question. The prejudicial thinking with which we form impressions of people and things based on superficial rather than substantive information is so insidious and hardwired into our brains that it far transcends aesthetic issues like who we date. Not everyone is racist, but every human being has a penchant, to one degree or another, of prejudicial thinking. Dating a black man is not automatic proof that one is not racist.

Curry: Let us teach or children that there is NO DIFFERENCE!
That’s a great philosophy on which to build a future. But again, how do we address issues stemming from the past that account for the status of things now in the present? Again, do we pretend that they do not exist?

Curry: I will also no longer acknowledge Black History Month…I am asking you ALL to join me.
So in other words, we shouldn’t pay attention when people wish to educate us on the historical accomplishments of blacks, accomplishments that are noteworthy precisely because so many people may be unaware of them? We should ignore programs that profile important figures who fought for civil rights or otherwise accomplished things that we didn’t know that blacks had accomplished?

Hmm…………no thanks.

Curry: I was asking that we not name things to separate ourselves. I never claimed we shouldn’t learn our own history…
And one of the things people in order to “learn history” is to have things like “Black History Month”, during which there is much education about history, from bookstores that put more African-American literature in their displays and windows, to TV networks that broadcast more programs on black history. But according to you, “Black History Month” constitutes naming something to “separate ourselves”, and you indicated you would boycott it. So how does this work? How is the phrase “Black History Month” anything other than a name? Why does naming something to identify constitute a “separation”? Why does “uniting” mean that we can’t even have a dialogue on the ways in which we are or were different? Calling something “black” separates it from us? How do you figure this?

Curry: I am very aware of all the amazing things hat black people have done for our country, and we should always be aware of it. However, separating our races sounds like racism to me.
Again, if we should always be aware of it, then why criticize Black History Month? Isn’t making people “aware of it” one of the things that BHM does? How does having a period in which we take note of the accomplishments of a given group constitute a “separation” of that group, let alone racism?

Curry: It just does. So go ahead, claim I am the one who is ignorant for wanting us all to be EQUAL!
Boycotting Black History Month, while simultaneously claiming that we should be educated on the accomplishments of certain groups, is not the same thing as “wanting us all to be equal”.

(The following are my responses to her second blog entry.)

Curry: I wrote my last blog in such hurry and a fury because I felt what I was typing so deeply.
Don’t kid yourself, Adrianne. This blog is hardly any more lucid.

Curry: I am appalled that anyone would claim I am just some stupid white ••••• that doesn't know •••• about anything. I did NOT grow up rich. I did NOT hang out with rich people. Watch the show "Roseanne" and you tell ME if that family seemed well off. That is just about where I came from. My family is blue collar all the way! Just because I worked hard to get where I am it means I don't know how hard it is to LIVE LIFE? I was addicted to drugs, raped, abused, beaten, etc. I DO NOT DWELL ON IT! I choose to rise above it!
Whether you grow up rich or poor or suffered through adversity has nothing to do with whether you or your comments are well-informed or whether they are racist.

Curry: I have been beaten up for being "the white girl" a few times, so don't tell me I don't know how it feels to be discriminated against.
Of course you do. All one has to do is look at any given photo of you on your MySpace page and the first thing they’ll think is, “Oh yeah. Now THAT supermodel knows about racial discrimination! Nelson Mandela should share his Nobel Peace Prize with her!”

Curry: My message about trying to rise above segregation, separation, and racism has been twisted
Well, for my part, I’ve responded only to exactly what you’ve said, and never “twisted” anything.

Curry: This felt good. I feel like I have got my point across better this time.
It’s been said that the more things change, the more things say the same.

Curry: I need to learn to relax on my impulse and calm down before I share. ; ) My Boo always tells me that.
Perhaps you should starting heeding that advice.

Titanic survivor dies. There is now only one left.

Oh, so it wasn't the unsinkable molly brown....

Molly Brown died in 1932.

She was 45 years old while on board the Titanic. Unlikely that she'd survive to 2007. If she did, she'd have been 140.

Good LORD. My friend Sam told me about this earlier this evening at a screening we were staffing. He told me to Google or YouTube "baby dropping", or something, but I was just checking usemycomputer.com as I do every day, and came across this. As my other friend/coworker Colm said, Michael Jackson would love this.

Yeah, I saw that on Reuters' weird news yesterday. Wild.

Answer to Piracy on the open seas...

Give the Captain and the crew AK-47s, UZIs & rocket propelled grenade launchers

Give them permission to "Shoot to kill" any pirates on the open seas...then sink their ships

PROBLEM SOLVED.

The last survivor of the Titanic dies.

I read about that. I wonder if DeCaprio & Winslet will attend the funeral...seeing they donated a wad of money to her.

Today is Pearl Harbor Day.

Please take a moment to remember those who died in the surprise attack.

One more reason why Italians rock.

Happy Holidays, everyone!

I think I just died a bit inside.

This is just absolutely disgusting. Whoever came up with this idea should be dragged out to a public square, whipped bloody, and then shot in the chest with a shotgun.

I remember when Saturday Night Live parodied our obsession with sexually provocative clothing by doing a fake diaper commercial for thong diapers, set to Cisco's "Thong Song". Now someone has actually come up with an idea in that vein and marketed it.

{...Cisco's "Thong Song".} - Luigi Novi

Sisqo's "Thong Song".

House made out of bookcases.

I'd love to live in one. But why aren't there more shots of the place?

Not too sure where to put this one, but here seems to be appropriate.

Notre Dame cathedral in Paris has been heavily damaged by an intense fire. The fire appears to have been accidental, possibly caused by ongoing renovation work.

More details here : https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/15/world/notre-dame-cathedral-fire/index.html

It was Frollo, I tell you... Frollo!

In the same vein, this morning's carricature in a local newspaper.

This sums up Brexit rather well:

https://i.imgur.com/lvlU3wO.jpg

30 years ago, on Christmas Day, 1989, Romanian dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife, Elena, were executed by firing squad. Unlike the other Communist leaders of Eastern Europe, Ceausescu tried to crush the pro-democracy protests by force. He and his family ran Romania like it was their own private property and were not prepared to give that up.

However, Ceausescu underestimated the force of history that was against him. When the Romanian military turned on him (after he had ordered them to gun down protestors), that was all she wrote.

When the shots were fired, most were aimed at Elena, which showed how hated she was (in private she called the people of Romania "worms", which showed how much she despised them).

Later, when things had calmed down, some felt that they should have been given a proper trial, however, things just moved too fast for that. It was like what happened to Mussolini in 1945. Many felt that he should have gotten a trial as well.

Mind you, I felt no sympathy for Ceausescu and his wife. At least it was fast for them, unlike many of the people they had tortured and killed over their two decade reign of terror.

Today marks the 80th Anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbour.

As FDR himself said: December 7th, 1941. A date which will live in infamy.

Why is it considered so bad or Evil to be "woke"
Why do many consider "woke" and
"Social Justice Warriors" to be
Bad