Drugs

We've been lied to and refuse to hear the truth.

I met a middle aged woman who is wracked with pain due to fibromyalgia, back injuries and arthritis.  She takes seven medications for her ailments and for the ancillary side effects they each cause.  In other words, she takes drugs for the drugs she takes.  She takes one which keeps her awake and another to help her sleep.  It is pharmaceutical chaos in her blood stream.  I told her how a friend of mine has a back injury which rendered him disabled at the age of 43 and the only drug he can take for the pain is morphine but that knocks him out and makes him sick. He has since discovered marijuana as a control for his pain, sleeping and even staying awake.  When I recommended to this woman that marijuana might offer her relief from both the pain and the prescriptions' side effects, she replied, "I don't do drugs." 

HA!

This country has a weird and unhealthy fetish with what we define as drugs.  Although marijuana is legal in several states, even the monstrosity called FACEBOOK takes it upon itself to police the internet and take down legal pages about marijuana even in the states where the herb is legal.  Not only are they taking down legal pages but harming tax paying businesses and the states at the same time. 

In 2013, 47,055 people died from prescription drugs.  How many died from marijuana use?  Zero.  C'mon Facebook, get with the times and start increasing the quality of life for people suffering from addiction, pain, mental health illness and debilitating diseases rather than denying them a chance to live pain-free and otherwise productive lives. 

What is the difference between Oxycontin and Marijuana?  One is addictive and can cause chills, confusion, difficulty breathing, dizziness, fever, tightness in the chest, abdominal pain, blood in the urine, convulsions, increase in heart rate, muscle pain, rapid weight gain, severe constipation, blurred vision and death.  The other one causes the munchies.

Which would you choose to put into your body? 

Social Media Won't Last Forever

A local priest was recently arrested for using his cell phone to take pictures of a woman changing in a Salvation Army thrift shop.  I guess he didn't know that porn was rampant on the internet and free for the taking.  His court appearance was adjourned until January 20th so we won't know what sex offender crime he will be charged with until then.  Immediately after posting bail though, he closed all his online accounts such as Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and Linkedin.  He didn't have to do that since there was nothing immoral about what he had on those sites (and, they can still be seen in the Google Cache).  What is sad though is that he had pictures of his church, parishioners, his family, cars and everything good about himself and others posted therein.  All that is good about him is gone forever and what remains are the dark sided news articles detailing his deviant behavior.  One "oops" erased a lifetime of "attaboys" but, such is our holier than thou, unforgiving and vengeful society.  The Facebook comments about him from "good" people only wish for him to be shot, rot or burn. 

It got me thinking though about our zeal to digitize photographs, posting them online and expecting that they are going to last forever; That might turn out to be wrong.  If there are photos we wish to keep "forever," we should consider creating a physical instance of them and print them out, then store them in "ye old fashioned" photo album.  I still have my grandmother's album, my mother's and my own childhood albums stashed away in the attic for future generations to view.  A friend of mine has a 20 year old son and they don't have a single hard copy photo of him.  They have thousands of digital photos stored here and there, though.  Today's online, high tech and cloud data storage system will most likely become tomorrow's floppy disc. We are currently living in the digital dark ages and printing our photos is probably more secure over time than merely posting them.

Think about it.  If websites such as Megaupload can be taken down, or if a social media website can go out of business such as Zurker, iMee, Posterous, or they can just fade away into obscurity such as Myspace, what could the future hold for other online storage and social sites where we post everything about our lives to?  If terrorists wanted to hurt everyone in the world in one fell swoop, they'd take down Facebook.  That actually wouldn't be a bad thing . . .

What we know about generations before us we have gleamed from written records and old photographs.  If a disaster were to strike our civilization or time simply wanes on and what is popular now becomes banal and trite in the future, how will historians and archaeologist learn about us if our digital footprint dissolves, is deleted, becomes demagnetized or is simply taken offline by our own doing, our failure to log in anymore, care-less relatives or, our favorite social media site where we store our pics simply ceases to exist?

We can still read 5000 year old hieroglyphs carved in stone.  We can still decipher three thousand year old ink on papyrus.  We still have books written in 1,000 year old ink and paper.  Digital copies of our 100 year old celluloid recordings are quickly being duplicated because they are decaying at a rapid rate.  The earlier magnetic tape recordings less than fifty years old are almost unintelligible because they too are decaying at a rapid rate. It seems our new technology does not have a relatively long shelf life.

Even if the medium still exists, the technology to read them will soon be obsolete and impossible to find.  Consider the following medium for data storage:  vinyl audio records, cassette tapes, 8 track tapes, card readers, punch cards, 5 and 1/4 inch floppy disks, 3 and 1/2 inch disks, zip drives, CD's, DVD's and now, the cloud.  Heck, I have data which I stored on thumb drives and they are unreadable today after the old age of ten years.

See the pattern?  Not only does the digital data decay rapidly but the hardware to read those formats is rapidly disappearing, too.  Don't expect the thousands of family photos you have stored on your phone, the cloud, your computer, on Facebook or on a disk will be there in 100, 50, 20 or even 5 years.  As the priest in my opening paragraph taught us, your digital footprint can be wiped out overnight, or your cloud company can go out of business or taken down such as Megaupload.  Social media websites or your working personal computer can be gone tomorrow taking your whole digital life with them.

There is a solution.  Get yourself to one of those struggling scrap booking stores dotted across the country and find out how you can get your precious memories stored in a slightly more secure photo album.  And don't use home laser or inkjet printers as they too fade over time.  Have your pictures printed from high quality printers using quality paper and ink.

Then, instead of just posting your picture to Facebook for your 800 closest friends to see, invite family and friends over for a meal, sit on the floor around the fireplace with a glass of wine and look through the photos together, sharing stories, making new memories and maybe taking more pictures.

Time weaves ribbons of memories to sweeten life when youth is through.  Like memories, our technology and online presence can fade and disappear.  How cool will it be for your great grandchildren to be rummaging through the attic and find a photo album of their ancestors - hopefully it won't be a book filled with selfies.  As I look through the old black and white photo album of my grandmother, I don't see many pictures of her but, I do see the pictures of the many people whom she loved.

-Malcolm Kogut.

Facebook Stalking

Senator Chuck Schumer is at it again.  Whenever something happens in the world somehow Mr. Schumer will find a way to propose a law about it.  For instance, last month when a Malaysia Airline was shot down over the Ukraine, Schumer suggested that we equip our commercial airlines with anti-missile defenses so that an event like that doesn't happen here.   Remember when Avonte Oquendo, the boy with autism whose remains were found  after he disappeared at age 14 from his school in October?  Senator Schumer proposed “Avonte’s Law,” which would place electronic tracking devices to be worn by children with autism.  My sister raised an autistic child and never lost her once.  That was just good parenting.  My own mom had a lucrative career building bombs while working at the arsenal.  When she had her first child she quit to become a stay at home mom.  We may not have had two cars and steak for dinner every night but no new legislation was required for my mom to raise four kids.

This weeks Schumerian target are those ubiquitous wristband fitness devices.  There are dozens of them on the market and Senator Schumer has targeted Fitbit.  He claims that these wrist pedometers are a  "privacy nightmare" and that they collect personal information on your health, sleep, and location - information which should be just that – personal.  Without doing his research, Schumer opined that Fitbit will sell your personal information.  Fitbit responded with;  "Fitbit does not sell user data. Our privacy policy prevents us from doing this. We are committed to our users' privacy and welcome the opportunity to work with Senator Schumer on this important issue."  Alas, it is too late for Fitbit.  Just google "privacy nightmare."  I wonder why Schumer didn't target other giants of the industry such as Nike or Garmin. 

Most users of these fitness devices eagerly and willingly register these tools and freely upload their information for the world to see.  Personally, I would register the device under a fake name for I don't want the world to see how lazy I am.  Actually, I am not lazy but as a piano player, I spend much of my time sitting lifelessly at either the piano or computer.  I also spend an enormous amount of time practicing away from the piano either on my sofa or in a deck chair by the pool.  You may think that I'm napping but in reality I am working very studiously at composing, memorization and improvising.

If Mr. Schumer is truly concerned about our privacy, especially the personal information many of us freely post about ourselves, maybe he should look into Facebook.

When I was a kid I had a neighbor who was always looking out her window watching us kids play.  I would look over to her house to see the curtains rustle as she hid from view.  In college, every kid in the dorm practiced the art of voyeurism.  A friend of mine admitted that she was always watching the man next door and it bothered her conscience when she was caught lustily watching him. 

If we knew someone was stalking us and gathering information on us, it would certainly creep us out.  Our personal information is none of their business.  So how come we are accepting of people using Facebook to cyberstalk us?  The answer is simple; we do it to other people ourselves. 

Facebook serves as a covert method of investigation and discovering a wealth of information about people we don't actually know.  Every time we meet someone new, one of the first things we will do is look them up on Facebook in order to learn everything about them and even "friend" them to get more.  We want to know who their parents and siblings are, what they have been up to lately, where they live, where they vacation, who their friends are, where they work, how old they are, who they are they dating, status updates, photo uploads, photo tags, photo comments, wall posts, friend additions, group memberships, attended events, mutual friends, where they may have commented and what they "like."  Facebook doesn't have the physical elements of being stalked in the real world, such as being followed or watched but the ulterior motive is just the same and just as real. 

Online stalking may also consist of people communicating with you in ways that unsettle you (whether purposefully intended or unknowingly), especially with respect to suggesting or implying that they're watching and noting your every comment and update.  Peter Baterip was accused of stalking an ex girlfriend and contacting her on Facebook using a fake identity over the course of 18 months.  There have been numerous stories of teens (and adults posing as teens) who bully and harass people to the point of the victims even completing suicide in some cases.  Many employers take to Facebook to gather information about their employees.  One local man was fired from his job when he called in sick but later posted a selfie of himself at a baseball game on Facebook.  His boss was one of his "friends."  There was a Roman Catholic priest in TX who was accused of Facebook stalking.  There was nothing wrong with that except all his stalkees were teenage boys in his parish.  Without committing a crime, he was removed from active ministry. 

Facebook stalking, like regular stalking, allows the stalker to secretly gather information about the person they are interested in.  Facebook stalking is less likely to have an illegal component and is generally accepted by it's voyeuristic victims.  The argument being, that if you didn't want others to know about your life, you wouldn't post it all over the internet.   But, the real reason is that - we all do it and don't feel we are being voyeuristic about it.  That's actually called denial.  Maybe we are not willing to look into the abyss because we are afraid what will be staring back at us.   I don't know, does the shoe fit?

Have you ever searched Facebook for someone you dated like fifteen years ago?  Have you ever searched Facebook for high school friends to see who aged better, or who has the better job, who went bald, who got fat or who married whom?  Stalking has become a perfectly normal activity.   So you searched an ex-lover or new acquaintance on Facebook, who cares?  If a neighbor watches you out his window or takes a photo of you, why is that different or worse? 

Does Schumer know about Facebook stalking?  Sure he does but no one will ever do anything about it because we all do it, so that makes it okay.  After it was discovered that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was the Boston Bomber, his Facebook page received  millions of hits within hours before it was taken down.  But, not before people took snapshots of his pages and downloaded all the data.  Nothing creepy about that.  Do you want to see his pages?  Sure you do.  Just go to Google Images and search "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev facebook page."  Want to see who his friends are?  Sure you do.  Want to see him shirtless?  Sure you do.  Nothing creepy here because, *you* are doing it and not some creepy person or organization you don't know, such as Fitbit.   Unlike Fitbit, I wonder if Facebook sells your personal information . . . ?  Does Schumer know about this?

PS, if you are lonely or bored, turn off Facebook and go outside to meet real people.  A high-five is much healthier than a poke.  A real friend is much more healthier than a "friend."  

Facebook, String Theory and Zugzwang; Part One of Three

It is no secret that I dislike Facebook.  I used to have four accounts.  There was my real one where I had about 250 "friends," my dog had one and she had about 300 friends, my porch had one and it had about 500 friends (it posted a lot of pictures), then I had one named after a famous witch and she had 300 friends.   The reason I had the fake accounts was because I didn't want to share personal information on other websites and I didn't necessarily want everyone knowing where I was making comments or what I may have been liking.  I would often use my porch or dog to like things in order to get coupons or enter contests.  I would also use these accounts to fill out profile information.  For instance my dog made over $80,000 per year where as my porch made only $7,000.  The witch always declined to answer, as did I.  This way I could keep my real account pure and clean from the Facebook spy-bots looking to steal my data, profit off of and profile me.

People today are too sozzled by Facebook, Twitter and texting.  I recently sat down with a mother and daughter for an hour of chat.  The daughter rarely took her face and thumbs off her phone.  The only time she looked up was to take a selfie.

Forbes reports that nearly half a trillion dollars is lost in productivity each year due to employees reading their Facebook pages, texting and not working.  The average users spends a cumulative amount of about two hours each day taking occasional peeks at their pages and stalking others. 

In string theory, the impact of Facebook on our lives is mind boggling.  First, if a person was not spending so much time looking at what other people were doing, they could be outside actually doing something themselves.  And, not sharing it would be a plus, too.  Nobody really cares what that pizza you are about to destroy looks like.

Other alternative realities which could transpire because of Facebook is that you might post a comment on your homepage which your boss doesn't like and he fires you.  Maybe you call in sick but then post a picture of yourself at the beach, your boss then sees it on one of his friend's page and you're fired.  Maybe because of you "liking" certain things or commenting on other peoples' pages, a prospective employer takes a look at it and passes on you for employment because he doesn't like your likes or sees you spend a LOT of time on FB or doesn't like some of your friends.  Maybe an old high school friend makes contact with you through Facebook and you meet and have an affair.  Maybe an old high school friend contacts your spouse, they meet and have an affair.  What if someone ignores your friend request?  What if someone unfriends you?  The alternative realities of this one site and how they can change the direction of our lives are staggering. 

I prefer the zugzwang option and not to make a move.  In other words, not to have Facebook at all.  That eliminates a lot of string theory options which are not in my control.  An example of zugzwang would be two parents of a 16 year old child who are getting a divorce and the child is given the choice of living with either his mother or father.  Either choice will change his life drastically.  Instead, he chooses to run away and live on his own.  Not to decide is to decide.  Just look it up.  It is a chess term.

So the next move is in your hands: Read Facebook each day and watch the lives of your friends unfold or don't read it.  Another option is zugzwang and just close your account and go live life yourself.

-Malcolm (who realizes that he could be out on the lake skating but is inside blogging) Kogut.

Texting Laws

A man on the street was bent over searching for something on the ground when a passerby approached and asked him what he was doing;
"Looking for my car keys."
the slumped seeker sighed.
"Where did you lose them?"
the passerby piqued.
The hunched over man replied with a dismissive head gesture,
"Across the Street."
"Then why are you looking over here?"
the passerby queried.
The car key seeker said,
"The light is better over here."

That is what a lot of the laws which congress passes are like.  They are useless feel good legislation which don't really do anything.  They seek solutions to problems and issues but in the wrong place.  It does however make the sponsors of the light-seeking-law look good when it comes time for re-election  but that's about it.  Governor Cuomo (D) of NY recently came under fire from Conservative Party Chairman Mike Long because Cuomo passed a gun law which does nothing to protect people but does further his political career.  A lot of these laws bring in barrels of money via fines and tickets and police departments may even receive grant money for new toys, computers and staff - which is all good for the town coffers.

The city of Troy in NY purchased a computerized gun shot triangulation system to pinpoint the approximate location of where a gun is fired from anywhere in the city.  They discovered that a 911 call does the same.  This system was paid for through grant money and tax payers.  It hasn't deterred crime.  It only taught the criminal that they need to leave the scene faster.  That system is now for sale.  I bet you can buy it from them cheap.

Murder is against the law but people still do it.  Smoking marijuana is against the law but people still do it.  Cheating on taxes is against the law but people still do it.  Eighteen year old adult high school senior students who have sex with their sixteen year old infant high school sweethearts is against the law but these hormone enraged pedophiles still do it.  Drinking and driving is against the law but people still do it.  Texting while driving is against the law but people still do it.  The no-texting law is one such law which I beleive has made society and our roads less safe - because people still do it - only now, less safe. 

A friend asked me to ride with her to the mall because she needed help getting supplies for a birthday party she was hosting.  While driving, she rummaged through her purse and pulled out her cell phone, placed it on her knee, then began typing one letter at a time.  I asked her what she was doing and she said that she was posting a status update on Facebook to let everyone know where she was.  I told her that texting while driving was against the law but she said that she would be careful.  We eventually got there and made it safely home in one piece despite two more texts and the attendant reading of the replies which began filtering in almost immediately.  I thought to myself - what are these people doing reading Facebook?  Why aren't they out living REAL life for themselves?

When I used to text while driving, I would hold my phone up over the steering wheel so that I could see both the road and the phone at the same time.  This was even more safe than using a GPS which was positioned less in my line of vision, or even more safe than looking down to change a radio station.  Texting laws are making our roads less safe because people don't want to risk getting a ticket so, they are texting in their lap rather than texting more safely in sight of the road.

Of course texting while driving is not safe at all and people should employ common sense and respect for other drivers by NOT DOING IT.  I'm not worried about me getting in an accident, I'm more worried about the other driver getting me into an accident.  Surely, any text that is so important that it must be fired off at that particular moment is worth pulling over to do properly and safely.  You don't want your last Facebook update to be "Traffic is horrendous tod . . ." 

Programming the GPS, adjusting the raido, putting on makeup, flossing teeth, eating or even talking to someone in the passenger seat can be equally distracting.  It all really depends on each individual and their multi-tasking skills but even so, if the law isn't doing anything but making the roads more dangerous, what can be done?  Pass more laws?  Increase the prison time for Facebook updaters?  Ban Facebook?  Make it a law that you have to text in front of the steering wheel?

Enter WRGB, channel six;  Each morning during the news they run PSA's about texting and how dangerous it can be.  They list the statistics of how many deaths there have been during the past year because of texting; How many accidents; How many feet you will not be in control of your vehicle should you look down for a moment; How many children were killed because of texting parents; How much it costs the insurance companies which is then passed down to everyone else. 

The greatest public service WRGB has provided is that they have asked viewers to take a "No Texting Pledge" at the WRGB website.  I haven't formally taken the pledge but their ads have awakened me into being a more safe driver.  I bet their announcements, ads and pledge campaign have prevented more accidents than the laws have.  I'm also willing to bet that the law has caused more accidents from people trying not to get caught and ticketed because they are texting more surreptitiously and dangerously in their laps. 

When given the choice between educating people so that they change their habits or, passing a law which many people will try to evade for whatever reason, I am sure that more people would say that education is a more powerful tool.  But then, if not passing feel-good-legislation, what would our elected officials do with their free time?