Tuesday, November 15, 2011

"Hippies Are Groovy But Occupiers Far Out?" Part 3

Hippies Are Groovy But Occupiers Far Out? [Pt.1] http://bit.ly/vq6OcL 
Hippies Are Groovy But Occupiers Far Out? [Pt. 2] http://bit.ly/vJDoSb

Welcome To Part 3 :  "Hippies Are Groovy But Occupiers Far Out"

Many now have come to consider that maybe the "Occupy People" have made their point. It's being suggested it's time for them to give it up as others want their parks back and feel even their livelihoods are being affected. Have Occupy people become extreme and unreasonable or if I could use a hippie pun, "far out" that is far out in left field? Mayors of various cities are contemplating taking action against them if the Occupiers persist in stating they're committed to holding out. Might there be however a new way of thinking they'd consider?  Why should holding out in parks, 24 hours a day be considered the only exclusive way to effect change?

I'd respectfully appeal to the reasoning of the good Occupy folk--please consider the following. There is what's referred to as, "The Law Of Diminishing Returns" simply put, adding more of the same to a particular way of doing a thing many times won't produce an increased yield of results. In fact continuing on with the same can indeed serve to be counterproductive, or as the saying goes, ''one step forward, two step backwards.''  Did those becoming "Occupiers" actually yield positive results?   I'd say so. Wouldn't it be a shame however to see their positive results diminished and  the impact they've created reduced by not appreciating it's time as a movement to morph, evolve and maybe adopt a new approach?

Currently I see various cities taking action forcibly removing the Occupy people or at least their tents from the parks. Authorities are citing sanitation  reasons.  Some mayors are still going to allow Occupiers back into the parks but are veering away from allowing tents to be once again erected. Could it be that they're really doing the Occupiers a favour? Were many of them truly tired of the tent concept anyway and now they can, without losing face, takes steps in a different direction , letting their voice continually to be heard, but in a new and different way? At least now the Occupiers can claim the right was taken away  without them, of their own choice having left the parks. Thinking out of the box, being creative, and trying new things---aren't they the elements that even a successful sports team uses?

What would one think of a team who only employed one play, or one means to achieve a goal? I believe it's safe to say they'd be thought of as short-sighted not seeing the bigger picture of potentially what it takes to wisely go to the next level.  Might "Occupiers" who have nice warm beds staying in a house or home, getting a good night sleep, being well rested---doesn't it make sense it'd  be more to their advantage?  Periodically, they still could, even a couple of times a week, allow their voice to be peaceably heard in front of some government building,  not spending the night outside in the cold but wisely taking shelter, avoiding hyperthermia, which the winter can bring----what better way to keep their cause alive? Occupiers please listen...99%  of the population may not agree with me but could the number  be as high as ninety who do? Should giving  up the tents be considered a surrender? If I was an occupier why shouldn't I consider that  a blessing!  What are tents after all except just one means to achieve an end?

The End Of This Series :-)

Saturday, November 12, 2011

Hippies Are Groovy But Occupiers Far Out? (Pt-2)

     Part 1 of "Hippies Are Groovy But Occupiers Far Out?" http://bit.ly/vq6OcL

      I welcome you now to Part 2 of "Hippies Are Groovy But Occupiers Far Out?"

One even allowed an elderly person to go ahead of them in a department store line, and another had said, "Thank you Maam" while paying for their goods! Surely that had to count for something! Also they seemed to have common earthly names like the rest of us, for if memory serves me correct, I'm sure I heard one of them call their friend  "Bill" and she was  addressed by the  other as  "Hillary" so how much more down to earth can you get then that? All in all the hippie people didn't cause too much damage, except as I say buying up all our supplies but in the days ahead all store shelves were replenished with stock boys working overtime.  

Fast-forward now to the present date of November 10, 2011, forty one years later. The hippie folk got old and for them most part became respectable members of society. They're now in their sunset years, but the dawning of a new day brings the "Occupy People" which some find reminiscent of the hippies. As there predecessors before them they've been labelled as "good for nothing bums". Occupy people are ticked off at the establishment, and long for a brave new world where fairness and equality reigns. They live in parks, tents and rally in the streets, in multitude of cities, ringing out their message that there must be change. They've been stereotyped  but I wonder if they can be. Are they good for nothing bums guilty of not doing what it takes in applying themselves to become a success? Are they short sighted, failing to see the bigger picture, not understanding the finer points of how to make it in life? Are they merely whiners and cry-babies?

Undoubtedly many could be but I suspect if one were to go among their numbers like the hippie movement years before that just like them you might even find an odd one which is nice, hey just like the hippies!    What is the Occupy Movement? Do they know themselves? There are  absolutely no precise goals they want to accomplish except it seems to strongly vocalize their exasperation of the conduct and treatment from the powers which be. Does that however equate to a non-message as some would claim? History would say no. The message of the 60's and 70's was similarly the same, and as one might recall the Beatles sang out "All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance". What peace, and where, and at all times?  Not too much was clear nor precise but the call went out the same for necessary change.

Part 3 of "Hippies Groovy But The Occupiers Far Out" ----> Coming Soon

Hippies Groovy But The Occupiers Far Out?? (Part 1)

It was true! I saw it myself! No one was trying to stop it, even the police! Rumours had been circulating around the town to the effect, but I had to verify it myself.  The date was August 7, 1970  and over 100,000 hippie people had invaded our town, population 8,500.  The event was "Strawberry Fields" rock concert being held at Mosport race track, in the heart of Ontario. Our community from the 401 was the quickest link to the venue.  Ours was pretty much the only place one could pick up supplies---groceries and bar type alcoholic beverages. I can still visualize the store shelves bare and empty. 

The hippie people had bought everything out! It was quite a surreal experience much like you'd imagine in a apocalyptic film, where the transport of goods have been stopped or disrupted from reaching the desperate in need. Sure we knew we'd be able to make the best of it and keep alive...at least for a few days. Our town would eventually be back to normal, but this was really something unique the hippie people were doing. As stated I heard about it but had to see it myself. Word had it that at the bottom of the dam, located right at the entrance of our town, THE HIPPIES WERE SWIMMING IN THE NUDE!!!    I scurried quickly to the dam only to find a large number of townspeople looking over the bridge.

Some had smiles on their faces and others had a profound look of shock. "There's something you don't see everyday!" I heard one say. I gazed down myself and yes, there they were swimming in the nude, not even wearing a stitch!   I pondered that for sure I really had something that would  stand out for a report for my "Dear Diary".  Many in the town didn't know what to think, not so much even about the peculiar escapades of these daring, let-it-all-hang-out souls, but more so concerning exactly just what was the underlying philosophy of these alien invaders. I heard through the grapevine that a few of our town's people even talked to them, and surprise, surprise--the verdict, and general consensus was that odd ones were actually nice.  IMAGINE THAT!  : ))

Part 2 of "Hippies Groovy But The Occupiers Far Out" ----> Coming Soon

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

Renaming Asteroids Gentle Kind Names

Nothing seems right about it! We have planets albeit a billion plus sizes larger than asteroid YU55, but considering however the potential impact this small and seemingly insignificant rock could have on our planet wouldn't one assume it should deserve a more interesting  better name then a designated code? Does YU55 seem impressive enough? I'd say not! Surely we could do better, considering that if 55 ever impacted the earth it would equal a 4,000 megaton explosion, or a 7.0 earthquake, or if hit on the water would create a 70 foot wave of wiping out who knows what. I'd contend the 55 isn't too comforting either for what would be the first thing on peoples mind if the said asteroid did pay us a visit. "Oh no!!" people would exclaim. "Now we've got to worry about 1 through to 54, and where will it all end?"

I say calm down the people. Could we maybe call asteroid YU55, "One And Only" or maybe "The Lone Wolf" ? How rare really are the events like the arrival of YU55? It's been suggested it has crossed our path at various times and has never been detected. Could more out there be doing the same? Perhaps it's not worth worrying about? Assessing the past the last time we had a suspected incident of a major comet/asteroid impact was in Siberia in Tunguska where an asteroid hit in 1908. It does seem however they've been few and far between and yet some aren't happy until they continually remind us that we still might be due.

I for one would like to believe that we might be ok although wouldn't it be prudent if we addressed potential future concerns? Outside of sending rockets to redirect their path, again I'd suggest various names they be labelled. Honestly now how many could really work themselves up into a frenzy of panic if the name of the approaching boulder/mountain was called, "Gentle Ben" or how about "Lovely Lucy"?  With names like that who  could possibly have concerns of these menacing celestial visitors? "Gently Ben" would be thought of as way too considerate, and wouldn't hurt a fly, and as for "Lovely Lucy" being so kind she'd never dream of destroying  humanity! There could be a possibility however there's of a side to them we'd never seen.  : ))