Every main bathroom in today’s homes needs to be totally redesigned. There needs to be a woman’s portion and a man’s section. Their needs are totally different.
A man’s part of the bathroom can be a small drawer for his bath and body essentials, one towel hook and one towel. The single drawer must be able to accommodate a toothbrush and toothpaste, a razor and shaving cream, a stick of deodorant and a bottle of men’s cologne. That’s it.
A woman’s bathroom portion must be able to store a far wider range of lotions and potions, makeup, and enhancements for her body, her hair and her skin. She could have a small drawer for the same contents as a man, but she would also need to have a place for the following:
- face cream, neck cream, eye cream, thigh cream, foot cream, day cream, night cream, cold cream, wrinkle remover and makeup remover.
- hand lotions, body lotions, bath oils, bath beads, shower gels, bubble baths, scented baths, perfumes, colognes and toilet water.
- cleansers, toners, foundation, blush, face powder, lip stick lip gloss, lip liner, eyeliner, eye shadow, eyebrow pencil, mascara, nail polish, nail polish remover, fake fingernails, fake eyelashes…
- shampoos, conditioners, bleaches dyes, rinses, tints, perms, straighteners, wigs, falls, rats, extensions, combs, barrettes, bobby pins, hairpins, hairnets, hair curlers, scrunchies, ribbons, bows, tiebacks, headbands…
- astringents, moisturizers, emulsions, exfoliants, peels, scrubs, depilatories, body wraps, facial masks …
- supplies and tools for, streaking, frosting, teasing, spraying, moussing, blow drying, cutting, layering, curling, eyelash curling, eyebrow plucking, armpit shaving, leg shaving, crotch shaving, leg waxing, eyebrow waxing…
I know this is only a cursory list as I am not very knowledgeable on female cosmetics and beauty supplies. This partial list however does emphasize the need for new bathroom design.
The bathroom of the future should consist of a drawer and towel hanger for the men and an additional walk-in room complete with wall-to-wall Ikea storage units for the ladies. There will also need to be room for the wash cloths, hand towels, bath towels, beach towels, bath sheets, decorative towels, hair towels, slippers, house coats, moisturizing mittens and socks, floor mats, toilet covers, toilet seat covers, toilet drip mats…
If necessary, I would be willing to share my bathroom drawer, if more storage space is needed!
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
150-Year Jail Sentences Don’t Impress Me!
Financier Bernie Madoff, 72 years of age, faces the possibility of 150 years in jail for his illicit financial transactions. Madoff swindled 50-60 billion dollars from trusting investors over the past thirty years. When he has finished serving his jail sentence he will be 222 years old.
Of course, the above scenario is preposterous. It does however illustrate the meaningless nature of the sentences rendered in the court system. Why not simply sentence the guilty to a definite, but realistic number of years. Is the ridiculous number “150” designed to provide some comfort to the victims of the crime or to show that the judicial system really means business? Either way, these kind of dramatic sentences serve no real purpose.
Often the courts seem to relish imposing stern sentences. A criminal can be sentenced to two life terms to be served consecutively or concurrently. What is the point? Others have been sentenced to twenty or thirty or forty years in jail with no parole. Invariably, however, we read of long-term inmates being paroled before half their sentence has been served. Why not just sentence them to ten or fifteen or twenty years to begin with, and mean it?
The court system needs to reexamine their sentencing practices. As they exist today, most sentences mean nothing. They are arbitrary and seldom does the person charged ever serve their full sentence. In the case of Madoff most of his clients who have lost fortunes would just be happy to see him go to jail. At his age, the length of the sentence is quite immaterial.
Or perhaps, it might be more acceptable for Madoff to be made to do charitable or community service with strict supervision. The courts could impound any personal finances he still has and he would have to find a cheap place to live and would have to work to survive. If he could not survive on his own skills and abilities he would be forced to join the ranks of the homeless and destitute.
Wouldn’t that be a more suitable punishment than incarceration in a warm facility that provides for his basic needs of food, shelter and clothing? I certainly think so!
Of course, the above scenario is preposterous. It does however illustrate the meaningless nature of the sentences rendered in the court system. Why not simply sentence the guilty to a definite, but realistic number of years. Is the ridiculous number “150” designed to provide some comfort to the victims of the crime or to show that the judicial system really means business? Either way, these kind of dramatic sentences serve no real purpose.
Often the courts seem to relish imposing stern sentences. A criminal can be sentenced to two life terms to be served consecutively or concurrently. What is the point? Others have been sentenced to twenty or thirty or forty years in jail with no parole. Invariably, however, we read of long-term inmates being paroled before half their sentence has been served. Why not just sentence them to ten or fifteen or twenty years to begin with, and mean it?
The court system needs to reexamine their sentencing practices. As they exist today, most sentences mean nothing. They are arbitrary and seldom does the person charged ever serve their full sentence. In the case of Madoff most of his clients who have lost fortunes would just be happy to see him go to jail. At his age, the length of the sentence is quite immaterial.
Or perhaps, it might be more acceptable for Madoff to be made to do charitable or community service with strict supervision. The courts could impound any personal finances he still has and he would have to find a cheap place to live and would have to work to survive. If he could not survive on his own skills and abilities he would be forced to join the ranks of the homeless and destitute.
Wouldn’t that be a more suitable punishment than incarceration in a warm facility that provides for his basic needs of food, shelter and clothing? I certainly think so!
Thursday, March 12, 2009
A Little More bin Laden
I have more and more trouble trying to come to grips with the news that we are fed through the media about Osama bin Laden. I really wonder how much is truth and how much is fabricated to serve another purpose.
First of all, we know that bin Laden is a man who is personally wealthy and is well funded by sympathizers. He does not have to live in poverty and struggle to make ends meet. He's intelligent, cunning and financially solvent
One of the things that bothers me is that the authenticity of his videos and audiotapes that are released are always subject to question. We are shown a video or listen to an audio and told that the validity of the tapes is still being confirmed. With all of the sophisticated technology that we possess, an easily verifiable voiceprint of bin Laden must be on file with most intelligence agencies. Likewise, it is fairly easy for today’s scientists to determine if a video is authentic, tampered with or fabricated. Have you ever read that a supposed bin Laden audio was a fraud fabricated by a DJ from Montreal? So why do we always have to include this little charade every time a tape is released?
My other regular question has to do with the location of bin Laden. The American media is forever intimating that Osama lives in some kind of underground fortress or a cave that was once inhabited by wild animals. I find this a little hard to swallow. With the financial resources at his disposal and the support of the Taliban and hill tribes of Afghanistan and Pakistan I would think that his living accommodations would be a little more upscale than a Fred Flintstone bomb shelter. If he does live underground, I would imagine that some very modern amenities would be included like a flat screen television, a hydro-spa and air conditioning. I could also be completely wrong!
Given the large Muslin populations in so many parts of the world, perhaps he is really living in Indonesia, Bangladesh or Nigeria. Since there has been no confirmation of an actual sighting of bin Laden for several years, he might be living in a safe house in Jakarta, with a different hairstyle, a shorter beard and wearing an Indonesian sarong. His money would provide for first-rate protection and security and he might prefer the warmth and sun of Southeast Asia to the snow and freezing winter temperatures of Afghanistan or Pakistan. My wealth has allowed me to flee the winters of Alberta for the tropical climate of the Caribbean and I am not even trying to hide!
Come to think of it, I saw a tall slim, elderly gentleman with a beard who looked remarkably like a Saudi at the casino the other night! Hmmm. This merits investigation!
First of all, we know that bin Laden is a man who is personally wealthy and is well funded by sympathizers. He does not have to live in poverty and struggle to make ends meet. He's intelligent, cunning and financially solvent
One of the things that bothers me is that the authenticity of his videos and audiotapes that are released are always subject to question. We are shown a video or listen to an audio and told that the validity of the tapes is still being confirmed. With all of the sophisticated technology that we possess, an easily verifiable voiceprint of bin Laden must be on file with most intelligence agencies. Likewise, it is fairly easy for today’s scientists to determine if a video is authentic, tampered with or fabricated. Have you ever read that a supposed bin Laden audio was a fraud fabricated by a DJ from Montreal? So why do we always have to include this little charade every time a tape is released?
My other regular question has to do with the location of bin Laden. The American media is forever intimating that Osama lives in some kind of underground fortress or a cave that was once inhabited by wild animals. I find this a little hard to swallow. With the financial resources at his disposal and the support of the Taliban and hill tribes of Afghanistan and Pakistan I would think that his living accommodations would be a little more upscale than a Fred Flintstone bomb shelter. If he does live underground, I would imagine that some very modern amenities would be included like a flat screen television, a hydro-spa and air conditioning. I could also be completely wrong!
Given the large Muslin populations in so many parts of the world, perhaps he is really living in Indonesia, Bangladesh or Nigeria. Since there has been no confirmation of an actual sighting of bin Laden for several years, he might be living in a safe house in Jakarta, with a different hairstyle, a shorter beard and wearing an Indonesian sarong. His money would provide for first-rate protection and security and he might prefer the warmth and sun of Southeast Asia to the snow and freezing winter temperatures of Afghanistan or Pakistan. My wealth has allowed me to flee the winters of Alberta for the tropical climate of the Caribbean and I am not even trying to hide!
Come to think of it, I saw a tall slim, elderly gentleman with a beard who looked remarkably like a Saudi at the casino the other night! Hmmm. This merits investigation!
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Let’s Play, “Who Am I?”
“He was brought up with good manners. He matured as an extremely humble and very generous person. He insists on joining his comrades in every act. Very frequently he cooks for them and serves them. He lives a simple life in a small flat or in a shed and insists that his family eat simply and dress simply. Guess #1?
He is known to be strictly truthful and would never lie, but he is politically conscious and believes there is a room for political involvement even if you are a devout person. Despite being shy he has a dominating personality. He speaks very little and looks serious most of the time. He often appears with a soft smile but he seldom laughs. His followers see an aura about him and show great respect to him although is not really charismatic. He is not known for giving distinguished speeches, and there are very few audio or video recordings of him. Guess #2?
He is very educated (as an engineer and in business administration) and spends a good deal of time reading. He is fond of media monitoring and information gathering and research. There is always a data management team with him wherever he goes. Guess #3?
One of his outstanding features is his courage. More than once he has needed treatment in hospital for injuries resulting from bombings and explosions. Despite his courage he is very cautious person. He will not keep any electronic instrument close to his vicinity. He even avoids wearing a simple watch because he believes this might help in targeting him.” Final guess?
I’m sure by now that you will have guessed that the above is a description of Osama bin Laden, written by a journalist. When I first read this brief description of Osama the person, I found it rather hard to reconcile it with my perception of the world’s number one terrorist.
Before becoming Public Enemy Number One in much of the western world, bin Laden was a self-made multimillionaire. He was a construction company owner and his net worth was believed to be between $200-300 million.
Somehow, the man described above and the man who is portrayed in our media seems more like Jekyl and Hyde, than the same person. I guess personal attributes are often buried so far below the surface of the public persona or media portrait that we don’t ever think of words such as humble, generous and shy to describe a man like bin Laden!
I know I guessed wrong to the question of “Who Am I?”
He is known to be strictly truthful and would never lie, but he is politically conscious and believes there is a room for political involvement even if you are a devout person. Despite being shy he has a dominating personality. He speaks very little and looks serious most of the time. He often appears with a soft smile but he seldom laughs. His followers see an aura about him and show great respect to him although is not really charismatic. He is not known for giving distinguished speeches, and there are very few audio or video recordings of him. Guess #2?
He is very educated (as an engineer and in business administration) and spends a good deal of time reading. He is fond of media monitoring and information gathering and research. There is always a data management team with him wherever he goes. Guess #3?
One of his outstanding features is his courage. More than once he has needed treatment in hospital for injuries resulting from bombings and explosions. Despite his courage he is very cautious person. He will not keep any electronic instrument close to his vicinity. He even avoids wearing a simple watch because he believes this might help in targeting him.” Final guess?
I’m sure by now that you will have guessed that the above is a description of Osama bin Laden, written by a journalist. When I first read this brief description of Osama the person, I found it rather hard to reconcile it with my perception of the world’s number one terrorist.
Before becoming Public Enemy Number One in much of the western world, bin Laden was a self-made multimillionaire. He was a construction company owner and his net worth was believed to be between $200-300 million.
Somehow, the man described above and the man who is portrayed in our media seems more like Jekyl and Hyde, than the same person. I guess personal attributes are often buried so far below the surface of the public persona or media portrait that we don’t ever think of words such as humble, generous and shy to describe a man like bin Laden!
I know I guessed wrong to the question of “Who Am I?”
Friday, March 6, 2009
ET Will Soon Be Coming Back!
The aliens are coming! The aliens are coming! The time for a close encounter of the third kind is getting nearer and nearer. For years mankind has speculated about another species similar to man, living on another planet somewhere in the universe. As each year passes that dream is closer to becoming a real possibility.
Most people are not getting as excited as I am, but I just found out that there are now over 300 new planets that have been discovered in the past twelve years. They are not planets in our solar system but they are planets in other systems in the galaxy called exoplanets.
For most of my life I was taught there were only nine planets. Mars, Venus, Mercury, Saturn and Jupiter have been know since classical times as they are visible to the naked eye. The invention of the telescope uncovered Uranus and Neptune and for about eighty years we welcomed Pluto into the club. Pluto has since had its membership revoked but we have been discovering new planets outside of our solar system at a rate of twenty or thirty a year.
About 330 exoplanets have been discovered thus far. Most of these new planets however have been very different in their composition than Earth. This January the COROT space telescope found a unique planet 390 light years away from Earth with many similarities to Earth. It has been appropriately christened COROT-Exo-7b.
In March 2009, NASA will launch the Kepler telescope designed to focus on searching for planets in habitable zones of space where the temperatures on the planet might support liquid water and where it might be possible to sustain life. The search for another life form is getting very focused, very quickly!
For the past two or three thousand years we have been stuck with only eight known planets, but in the past twelve years we are now aware of over 300. How long can it be before someone hits the jackpot and discovers a planet similar to our Earth with the possibility of sustaining a life form?
It won’t be long before someone starts selling tickets for the First Alien Encounter Barbecue and Dance!
Most people are not getting as excited as I am, but I just found out that there are now over 300 new planets that have been discovered in the past twelve years. They are not planets in our solar system but they are planets in other systems in the galaxy called exoplanets.
For most of my life I was taught there were only nine planets. Mars, Venus, Mercury, Saturn and Jupiter have been know since classical times as they are visible to the naked eye. The invention of the telescope uncovered Uranus and Neptune and for about eighty years we welcomed Pluto into the club. Pluto has since had its membership revoked but we have been discovering new planets outside of our solar system at a rate of twenty or thirty a year.
About 330 exoplanets have been discovered thus far. Most of these new planets however have been very different in their composition than Earth. This January the COROT space telescope found a unique planet 390 light years away from Earth with many similarities to Earth. It has been appropriately christened COROT-Exo-7b.
In March 2009, NASA will launch the Kepler telescope designed to focus on searching for planets in habitable zones of space where the temperatures on the planet might support liquid water and where it might be possible to sustain life. The search for another life form is getting very focused, very quickly!
For the past two or three thousand years we have been stuck with only eight known planets, but in the past twelve years we are now aware of over 300. How long can it be before someone hits the jackpot and discovers a planet similar to our Earth with the possibility of sustaining a life form?
It won’t be long before someone starts selling tickets for the First Alien Encounter Barbecue and Dance!
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Not a Chick Magnet But a Noise Magnet
Everybody has the ability to attract others into their life space. Some guys are chick magnets and some guys attract animals as though they were human milk bones. Some people just seem to pull interesting people towards them and others repel friends and acquaintances like a smelly diaper. But we all have some capability to affect others.
Unfortunately, for some reason, I attract the loud and noisy into my sphere. As the poem Desiderata proposes, “Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexatious to the spirit.” Somehow, no matter where I am, if there is someone with a big mouth, a loud voice or an irritating cackle they manage to invade my world.
On a recent flight home, we found our way into the waiting lounge about an hour before the flight. The seating area was sparsely populated and I chose a seat away from the television screens so that I could quietly read my book. Within five minutes, two young couples sat in the row next to us and began to chat. One of the men had an incredibly irritating voice and he proceeded to tell all within a five-mile radius about his holiday adventures. We learned of his favorite drinks, his excessive consumption and the resulting vomiting and heaving. I gave thanks that he did not sit near me on the plane or I would have been forced to gag him.
The same thing often happens in restaurants as well. In the booth next to us Joe Yapper expounds on his golf score, his best shot and the miraculous putt on the seventh hole for all to hear. To punctuate his dismal story he has a hilarious laugh and uses it to mark the end of every sentence. Even changing tables would not remove the piercing prattle from my ears.
One of my biggest vexations is the person who must chat in a movie. No matter how quietly they are explaining the last scene to their companion, it always pre-empts the dialogue on the screen. Today’s movies are not that intricate or complex that they need explanation or commentary, but that does not deter the movie mouth. I’m sure that if I were the only one in the theater, hiding in a front row seat, the next customer would sit behind me and talk even if he had no companion. I just attract the yappy, the chatterers and the vocally irritating.
What happened to the sanctity of personal space? What happened to respecting the rights and comfort of others? What happened to being seen and not heard? Perhaps I need to go on the offensive. I should develop a bellicose, braggadocio persona full of verbal diarrhea with a belly laugh and an end of statement snort! Come to think of it, that may not be a bad idea! Har-de-har, yuck-yuck, yabber-yabber, snort!
Unfortunately, for some reason, I attract the loud and noisy into my sphere. As the poem Desiderata proposes, “Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexatious to the spirit.” Somehow, no matter where I am, if there is someone with a big mouth, a loud voice or an irritating cackle they manage to invade my world.
On a recent flight home, we found our way into the waiting lounge about an hour before the flight. The seating area was sparsely populated and I chose a seat away from the television screens so that I could quietly read my book. Within five minutes, two young couples sat in the row next to us and began to chat. One of the men had an incredibly irritating voice and he proceeded to tell all within a five-mile radius about his holiday adventures. We learned of his favorite drinks, his excessive consumption and the resulting vomiting and heaving. I gave thanks that he did not sit near me on the plane or I would have been forced to gag him.
The same thing often happens in restaurants as well. In the booth next to us Joe Yapper expounds on his golf score, his best shot and the miraculous putt on the seventh hole for all to hear. To punctuate his dismal story he has a hilarious laugh and uses it to mark the end of every sentence. Even changing tables would not remove the piercing prattle from my ears.
One of my biggest vexations is the person who must chat in a movie. No matter how quietly they are explaining the last scene to their companion, it always pre-empts the dialogue on the screen. Today’s movies are not that intricate or complex that they need explanation or commentary, but that does not deter the movie mouth. I’m sure that if I were the only one in the theater, hiding in a front row seat, the next customer would sit behind me and talk even if he had no companion. I just attract the yappy, the chatterers and the vocally irritating.
What happened to the sanctity of personal space? What happened to respecting the rights and comfort of others? What happened to being seen and not heard? Perhaps I need to go on the offensive. I should develop a bellicose, braggadocio persona full of verbal diarrhea with a belly laugh and an end of statement snort! Come to think of it, that may not be a bad idea! Har-de-har, yuck-yuck, yabber-yabber, snort!
Monday, March 2, 2009
Sir Elton – I Doubly Resent Him Now!
I don’t like to be taken advantage of and I don’t like to be misinformed. I think Sir Elton John has done both.
Earlier I wrote a commentary on the fact that if I wanted to attend an Elton John concert, I was being blackmailed into contributing to his charity. It was only a dollar but I resented it. If I paid $80+ for a ticket and a $10 handling fee and a credit card interest charge, then I still was required to pay an extra one-dollar to support The Elton John AIDS Foundation.
Again, I was opposed to the principle of the extra dollar, not the money. Sir Elton can select his favorite charities and I should have the same right to select my favorite charities.
The resentment of my charitable contribution to The Elton John AIDS Foundation doubled today. I assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that the money would be used to combat AIDS in some fashion. In today’s paper, there was a list of contributors to the Bill Clinton Foundation. Many of the gifts were from large corporations, individual billionaires and countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Oman. A contributor of $1 – 5 million that caught my eye was the Elton John AIDS Foundation.
I am a little confused as to why the Elton John AIDS Foundation should be contributing to the Bill Clinton Foundation, whose primary function is to fund the Bill Clinton Library. My one-dollar, that I was assured was helping to combat AIDS, was being donated to help build a library. It all sounded like a case of classic misdirection.
On further investigation, I was reminded that Bill Clinton also uses some of his foundation’s funds to address the global AIDS problem. So I guess I could assume that my one dollar was carefully passed from Elton John to Bill Clinton and then I am sure to a hospital for AIDS survivors in Botswana or Kampala. Or was it? If one foundation donates to a parallel foundation can I assume the later foundation is more effective and efficient? It would be far simpler if there were only ONE foundation that was focusing on AIDS, one on cancer, one on diabetes etc.
Having been blackmailed into contributing to some AIDS benefit, I want to be assured that my dollar has not been frittered away by inter-foundation ping-pong!
Earlier I wrote a commentary on the fact that if I wanted to attend an Elton John concert, I was being blackmailed into contributing to his charity. It was only a dollar but I resented it. If I paid $80+ for a ticket and a $10 handling fee and a credit card interest charge, then I still was required to pay an extra one-dollar to support The Elton John AIDS Foundation.
Again, I was opposed to the principle of the extra dollar, not the money. Sir Elton can select his favorite charities and I should have the same right to select my favorite charities.
The resentment of my charitable contribution to The Elton John AIDS Foundation doubled today. I assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that the money would be used to combat AIDS in some fashion. In today’s paper, there was a list of contributors to the Bill Clinton Foundation. Many of the gifts were from large corporations, individual billionaires and countries such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Oman. A contributor of $1 – 5 million that caught my eye was the Elton John AIDS Foundation.
I am a little confused as to why the Elton John AIDS Foundation should be contributing to the Bill Clinton Foundation, whose primary function is to fund the Bill Clinton Library. My one-dollar, that I was assured was helping to combat AIDS, was being donated to help build a library. It all sounded like a case of classic misdirection.
On further investigation, I was reminded that Bill Clinton also uses some of his foundation’s funds to address the global AIDS problem. So I guess I could assume that my one dollar was carefully passed from Elton John to Bill Clinton and then I am sure to a hospital for AIDS survivors in Botswana or Kampala. Or was it? If one foundation donates to a parallel foundation can I assume the later foundation is more effective and efficient? It would be far simpler if there were only ONE foundation that was focusing on AIDS, one on cancer, one on diabetes etc.
Having been blackmailed into contributing to some AIDS benefit, I want to be assured that my dollar has not been frittered away by inter-foundation ping-pong!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)