Random Musings of a Tormented Mind

political speeches are rarely off the cuff. most e...

2012-05-19T07:27:38.354-06:00

political speeches are rarely off the cuff. most either have a written card or paper but the more important the office the more expensive the format. i have given talks in years past and always had reference points in front of me. i think everyone does.

Here is a photo of Johnson from the LBJ library ar...

2012-05-18T07:02:51.229-06:00

Here is a photo of Johnson from the LBJ library archives showing a very dark/black shrouded stand
http://www.lbjlibrary.org/assets/lbj_tools/photolab/photos/1/small/a1419-8a_small.jpg

the paper script being prepared for an LBJ speech
http://www.lbjlibrary.org/assets/lbj_tools/photolab/photos/6/small/6108-8_small.jpg

i did find some in the reagan library but what I think people around that time were saying is that it did not hold an entire speech, just cues and lines or pronunciation of names/places that were sometimes difficult.

Who knows. I just found it odd that if they had such great screens back then, 30 or 40 years ago, why isn't it even better now? No screens at all or some other easier thing that isn't so noticeable? Or perhaps less use of it lol

Note again that I said rolling script on a compute...

2012-05-18T06:52:48.128-06:00

Note again that I said rolling script on a computer monitor for teleprompters was BRAND NEW in the early 80s - yet there is a photo of Johnson before 1969 with those glass stands. Before the rolling script, all historical records I saw used manual prompters, someone rolling paper through the machine, or simple cue cards being placed into them, etc. It was considered a major break through to use rolling script for screens in the early 80s, yet I cannot find info about that for the 60s to support Johnson's teleprompter glass photo.

I was tired and didn't take the time to post s...

2012-05-18T06:49:58.340-06:00

I was tired and didn't take the time to post some of the historical records of the teleprompter that I found perplexing. My thoughts about the glass reflection (I know it's just a reflection, even today), are 'what is reflecting from the projector? rolling script on a computer was BRAND NEW in the early 80s' and 'why is the glass transparent to the audience because all early records of teleprompters that I have found say they used a one-way mirror or a SHROUDED piece of glass' to reflect the prompts on.'

- One-way mirrors in the 80s were darkened, not completely transparent, from all historical records on one-way mirrors that I have found. As you can see in the photos, they are all very clear and transparent
""During the early 1980s, a workable solution was found for many of the early teleprompter's inherent problems. A personal computer could be used to generate and scroll electronic text on a monitor. This monitor could be placed above or below the lens of a television camera without being visible to the home viewer. A special one-way mirror or a shrouded piece of window glass could be angled to reflect the monitor's text towards the on-air talent."" from a site listing some historical geekdom stuff about teleprompters.""

- ""The first personal computer–based teleprompter, Compu=Prompt, appeared in 1982. It was invented and marketed by Courtney M. Goodin and Laurence B. Abrams in Hollywood, California. The custom software and specially-redesigned camera hardware ran on the Atari 800 Personal Computer, which featured liquid smooth hardware-assisted scrolling.""

- there is no mention of using computers to scroll the words backwards, in any historical records I can find, which is necessary for reflecting on glass, until much later like mid 90s. The computer script rolling mentioned in the documents I found all speak about rolling it across the screen that the speaker is actually looking at, hooked up to a camera or other such screen. I found old pages about teleprompter companies 'advertising' their wares by using photos of presidents using the clear glass and I have yet to find one that goes back as far as reagan or johnson.

Several other historical records I read through talked about teleprompters on screens until the mid90s, then talked about how with 'modern teleprompters', scripts were ran in reverse in order to reflect on mirrors. MODERN. And always listed 10 to 30 years after the photos I found suggest.

that's what I found odd. I spent more time this morning looking for more information and came across the same thing every time. Photos used in scanned books about the topic always use photos of those past presidents using the chunky old camera and screen combos. I cannot find a single photo of any one way mirror/transparent glass teleprompter monitors in any of those old books. You'd think that would be a big thing to show off their technology rather than using photos of presidents peering into screens.

Relax... No need to torment your mind any longer....

2012-05-18T05:09:53.404-06:00

Relax...

No need to torment your mind any longer.

Its just a peice of glass. The projector is on the ground. The glass is the screen. Very simple technolongy. The president essentially is reading a reflection in the glass. No photoshop. Great bunch of pictures though. I will admit I was shocked to see Johnson. If it is not a reflection, perhaps the area 52 thing is real and the presidents have all been using alien technology...take care...hope you sleep tonight

I had no idea about that so googled and found it l...

2012-05-17T22:15:28.253-06:00

I had no idea about that so googled and found it lol. And a blurb a few months back about Obama using an apparently common baseless story about Hayes vs the Telephone in one of his speeches (saying basically that Hayes said 'who would want to use a telephone? when talking about the new invention of the times).. but the Hayes historical group said that it's a common quote wrongly attributed to Hayes, who in fact was the first prez with a telephone in the white house and the first to use a typewriter, etc etc.

I was reading comments from Obama supporters saying 'oh no oh dear oh my' and making light of the mistake, saying if it's a common mistake, it's okay, not like Obama lied or anything. And I saw some say that it was used in a Reagan speech as well (though I have not checked that out yet). but my take on it is that we now have tons of technology available to us and STILL there are too many mistakes in presidential speeches. Wrong time lines for events, wrong place names, wrong quotes attributed to the wrong people, etc - so what's the excuse? It should be so much easier for the speech writers now to make sure they have the facts correct before setting the president loose with a bunch of mistakes.

Or the other way I look at it is that I have seen a rather long list of Obama speeches that people fawned over that were actually almost word for word spoken by previous presidents or other people. If I find the link again I will share it. In this case, if Reagan wrongly used that same Hayes quote, I would love to know how similar it was to Obama''s recent speech.

The Rutherford Hayes meme resurfaced as well: ove...

2012-05-17T20:42:25.014-06:00

The Rutherford Hayes meme resurfaced as well:

over the portrait of President Hayes are the words

"I would never insert myself in Obama's biography"

Heh

Yes it is still a choice, but you are talking abou...

2012-05-14T23:45:13.585-06:00

Yes it is still a choice, but you are talking about driving a car (or not) as opposed to surgically removing a living being from a uterus. You are also talking about tax credits for sports that you may or may not choose to put your children into. You are receiving a tax credit, tax back from the income tax that you already paid to the govt in every pay cheque and get a little tiny bit back in return (or a lower looking income total and then you might qualify for a rebate). That is a totally different kettle of fish than someone receiving an entirely free abortion - and if you are to believe the media supporting this like in the ad, then you would know that they say most people who have abortions cannot afford to have a child and therefore this helps in the long-run too. If they cannot afford to have a child, chances are they did not pay much, if anything, into the tax system so they are not even getting anything 'back' by using this service.

And I also think you will find an awful lot of govt involvement in future 'green' energy. My city is planning a giant wind farm that we have already been charged for in our utility bills for over a year, despite the fact it hasnt even started yet. The city is putting a big chunk of money down and that is govt, last time I checked. There has been a windmill farm in the Pincher Creek area for well over a decade, also partially subsidized. The city of Calgary boasts that it's C-train line (govt subsidized at 2 or 3 levels) is 'wind farm energy' because the city buys invisible credits from that wind farm to equal the amount of energy used on the ctrain system. And those are just examples from Southern Alberta, the gas and oil capital of Canada. Imagine what green energy subsidies go on in other provinces.

What my point was in the original post is that the video is saying to get the govt out of women's personal business, while at the same time demanding that they get INTO it by providing affordable access to it. Um okay. Get out, but gimme the money. Isn't that always the way? If the govt was to say that no more women were allowed to have abortions at all, or use the pill, or the morning after pill combo - then THAT is something to scream about. But if it is to say 'stop regulating, but give us the money for it', that is still govt involvement no matter what. People may choose to use the system, but they are not choosing to pay for it like you are in your examples. You choose to buy a car but do not get a subsidy to pay for the whole thing. You choose to put kids in sports camp or music or dance, and pay for it up front, and get a few pennies back from what YOU paid in yourself. I do not see how that compares to a woman going to planned parenthood and booking a medical procedure and not paying a dime, or paying a token amount. In the city near DC where my friend lives, women pay $16 total for the coun.selling and abortion. Or they pay about $4 or less for the pill each month, if not getting it totally free. They are not paying up front and getting a bit of a rebate, they are relying on you to fund their choice almost entirely. And then crabbing if someone says they should not receive that full funding anymore (as per govt heads talking about cutting funding to planned parenthood)

Yes I have seen the vid of the woman falling into ...

2012-05-14T23:34:14.744-06:00

Yes I have seen the vid of the woman falling into a fountain many times lately. It's hilariously stupid. But I am not sure what you mean by posting the link - that people should be fined for such elicit behaviour, or not?

Most accidents are entirely preventable. Whether you are walking along and not paying attention and have no phone or anything else in your hand, or you are wiping out while texting. Or while talking to your friend who is right beside you (google videos of people walking into poles and such and you will find tons that were taken long before the invention of the cellphone). Or other types of accidents - I was walking down a snowy sidewalk last winter and did not see a man hole that was embedded in the sidewalk, and I turned my ankle into it hard and ended up with my first real sprain. It hurt like hell. But I was not on my cell phone, I just forgot it was there even though I have walked that same path every morning. Perhaps I should have received a fine for forgetfulness when I sought medical treatment, in order to pay back some of my cost to the medical system?

Watching America's Funniest Home Videos will give you a lot of fodder for video proof of people being stupid, and that show has been running for a very long time, again before cell phones were common place.

My reason for posting this is to ask how far we should go for fining people for their actions. What will the next thing be? There are often accidents involving people wearing improper footwear such as flip flops or high heels that get caught on the gas or brake pedals - perhaps anyone found driving without good sturdy footwear should be fined.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg11glsBW4Y

2012-05-14T17:08:09.781-06:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mg11glsBW4Y

I don't want to belabour the point but I just ...

2012-05-09T07:36:52.468-06:00

I don't want to belabour the point but I just don't see how someone paying for something or subsidizing something is giving them any say in what you choose to do.

It may make it easier for me to make a choice one way or another, but it's still my choice.

For example, the Canadian government heavily subsidizes the very profitable oil industry and is gutting environmental regulation to help the oil industry. This makes it a lot cheaper to drive my car, but it is still my choice whether to drive my car or take the bike or walk to work. No one is "having a say" in how I choose to go to work.

Same with the many many many tax credits the Conservatives have brought in (and others have brought in before them). Would you say that the Conservatives are "having a say" in my choice of sports camp (tax credit) over computer camp (no tax credit), or are they just trying to influence individual behaviour but ultimately they don't really have a say?

the first time I listened to the clip, I agreed wi...

2012-05-08T20:19:15.970-06:00

the first time I listened to the clip, I agreed with all of it because I was focused on the very in-your-face argument of it being my vagina, not your's. however, when I listened for the second time, I focused more carefully on each word and realized that there was equal mention of two subjects - the right to choose, and govt provision affordable access to birth control. The right to choose argument is not what I have a problem with and you should see in my original post that I outright said if the govt tried to ban abortion, they would be right back in the vagina and I do not agree with that. I also said I do not believe that the govt should legislate on this issue.

But funding is what I concentrated on because there were two mentions of it in the video, along with two mentions of 'choice' - a 50-50 split. Having the govt decide what it's going to fund, how much, where, what kind, etc etc etc is still allowing the govt to have some say in your vagina, plain and simple.

the video is quite clever, it gets a message out there for sure - but interlaced is the message that govt should PROVIDE birth control, which is not the govt staying out of our business, but in fact allowing the govt to remain in. If you start demanding things of the govt, they have more control. History has certainly shown that so why do we never learn?

If the video had simply said that the govt should provide access to birth control, or better yet, not block access to birth control, then I could have let that slide. But it didn't. It said provide access to AFFORDABLE birth control. The only way that can be achieved is if the govt got it's hands right in there and put controls, checks and balances, paperwork, personnel, committees, etc in there along with money from the tax coffers to pay for all of the above. That's govt involvement in the vagina, in women's lives. They like it if they get what they want, but don't like it if they don't. How about NO govt involvement in personal matters? that should be the ticket - but it never is.

Because funding is used for this stuff now, the taxpayers DO have a say in what is done with the money, as do the politicians. That's how I look at it and I have talked about that on this blog before. If someone does not have interest (money) in an issue, they don't have much say. They can have an opinion, but they don't have any control. Start throwing money at an issue, and it becomes EVERYONE'S issue. That is how these things work.

bottom line, if you don't want anyone having a say in what you do with your vagina, stop expecting people to pay for it. Seems simple to me.

How is giving someone the right to choose letting ...

2012-05-08T10:29:55.505-06:00

How is giving someone the right to choose letting the government choose/meddle/in?

You may have a point about government funding health to be a bad thing, but it is a very different and separate thing. You are mixing apples and oranges since no one is requiring anyone to take birth control or have an abortion or attend a government funded hospital.

What a lovely tribute you have both written to thi...

2012-04-24T11:24:32.144-06:00

What a lovely tribute you have both written to this wonderful person. Thank you.

RIP

2012-04-19T16:43:21.702-06:00

RIP

Very nice post. Thanks.

2012-04-18T21:20:42.257-06:00

Very nice post. Thanks.

Hello Random M..... Thank you so very much for...

2012-04-18T17:59:48.332-06:00

Hello Random M.....

Thank you so very much for this heart-felt tribute so such a positive older citizen of this great country of ours... Thanks to your blog we get a very positive view of Canada's history via its inhabitants.... and learn a lot about present day through your viewpoints at your blog.... Rest in peace Mrs. Hansen.....

I can understand if other parties were the ones sh...

2012-04-17T22:28:39.031-06:00

I can understand if other parties were the ones shouting the most about the WR candidate and Smith's response, but it's been the PCs loudly and clearly in most of the media I have seen (actually, 99% of it) and that just blows my mind.

I have started to think after the past several years that politicians' number one hope in the world is that people have short memories. Too short to remember their boondoggles and any past history whatsoever. It makes no sense that they would act like this when it was spread across headlines in recent years of their OWN party doing these same things (only moreso, but actually trying to legislate on it, not just expressing opinions), unless they truly think people do not recall the past.

And sadly they are right. An awful lot of people have no memory of those past headlines. I am one of them. I remembered Ted Morton's name for various reasons, for example, but could not pinpoint it until I took the time to google and then it came rushing back. But I checked those things out BEFORE talking about it with anyone else, before bashing and crashing. I went to Smith's twitter, for example, to see what was being said about her own comments about conscience of thought and a recent post (or 10) directed people to the Charter of Rights so I went and read that to refresh my mind. All this before commenting to anyone about the topic, not even to my partner, so that I could at least try to be educated about it. I would guess that the vast majority of people do not do that. And the politicians and media know that.

Good Post Kez. I agree 100% My own point of view...

2012-04-17T14:16:26.156-06:00

Good Post Kez.

I agree 100%

My own point of view is essentially libertarian. If someone isn't hurting me, they should have freedom to organize their life in whatever manner appears best to them. Not my business.

What bothers me, is Alison Redford is a former Conservative Party of Canada nomination candidate - which party has many members who share this particular religious belief that homosexuality is wrong, including MP David Sweet who ran for nomination at the same time as Redford, and who is the former CEO of "Promise Keepers" a group who openly advocated the ability to "cure" homosexuality.

Alison Redford brought in Bill 44 as Attorney General, specifically aimed at allowing parents to remove their children from school where views contrary to their own religious views on homosexuality were being taught.

And.

Yet.. there she is piling on about this Pastor's views - and, incidentally, the formal views of the Catholic, Methodist, Evangelical, Jewish, Mormon and Muslim churches.

Do I agree with them?

Nope.

But then I eat pork, drink occasionally, and go shopping on Sundays.

Big deal.

You don't have to be confrontational at all. J...

2012-04-17T09:03:02.785-06:00

You don't have to be confrontational at all. Just explain that you are frustrated by the conflicting information you are receiving and are having difficulty getting your son's citizenship documentation sorted out. They are there to help people with problems like this. That is one of the purposes of a constituency office.

A lot of people are surprised when they find out that the federal government is so dysfunctional, disorganized and have no real policy or procedures for some pretty surprising situations. Your lucky that you don't need a document translated. I had that situation once and every person I talked to had a different version of what was required. My MP's office sorted it out.

Hold Ally accountable for stating that only her op...

2012-04-17T08:39:22.147-06:00

Hold Ally accountable for stating that only her opinion is true and anyone who disagrees with her has an "illegitimate" opinion. Who the HELL does he thinks she is? The thought police are trying to control how we think and speak. THAT is very scary to me!

I heard the leader of the Alberta NDP say on the n...

2012-04-17T07:51:32.897-06:00

I heard the leader of the Alberta NDP say on the news that the comment went beyond freedom of speech. So I guess we can now expect the Alberta Human Rights Commission to get involved and censor the good Reverend because someone’s feelings were hurt.
God I love our pseudo democracy! Happy Charter of Rights day ya’ll!

continued - I have noticed a lot of people saying ...

2012-04-16T23:53:11.911-06:00

continued - I have noticed a lot of people saying that a marriage commissioner should lose his/her appointment if they refuse to marry someone based on their personal beliefs - and while I actually agree that if someone applies for the position, they should be willing to perform any legal ceremony that comes their way - but then we get back to the Charter again. It does not stop a couple from getting MARRIED, it stops them from getting married by that particular person.

I can foresee some nastiness like for example, someone decides to really screw up a couple by pretending they are going to do the ceremony and on purpose not showing up that day.. ugh that would be horrible - but it could happen to ANYONE for ANY reason, not just gay couples. So to me that would be solved by making sure in the marriage commissioner's job info, it states clearly that they MUST absolutely perform any ceremony they have contracted to do, and make sure it's in writing, etc. someone could still cause trouble but then that is supposed to be an issue for Human Rights and anything else covered by the contract. Huge fines, termination of appointed status, etc etc.

But in the end, all of this seems to have come about by someone questioning Smith with specifics and she gave the only answer she should, based on the charter. And if we get into the doctor issue, it gets even messier. Most people have no idea what they are even talking about anyway. You may be shocked, for example, that almost everyone I have talked to about that side of the issue had NO idea that Canada allows abortions at any point of pregnancy. They had no clue. So knowing that, once they realized they were advocating for doctors to occasionally be forced to abort an otherwise healthy 9 month fetus from an otherwise healthy mother, they were not so vocal. Even having to do that once in a person's career could have devastating effects on a person deep down. You don't have to be religious to have a problem pulling a perfect child out of a woman's womb dead and then discard it. Yikes. I can't imagine there are many OBGYNs out there who would want to do it. There are NONE in my whole city that will do it at any point, women have to go to Calgary for that. So yeah - that's a whole other kettle of fun to get into and it's shocking the number of people who advocate for this stuff and have no idea of the basics. Or the possible repercussions.

I actually have and am glad you brought it up. I h...

2012-04-16T23:40:52.440-06:00

I actually have and am glad you brought it up. I have read the nasty stuff and then I went in search of things the news may not want to print, and I found all sorts about this man. Some written by friends, church members, potential constituents, etc and they had glowing reports of a man that is open and accepting of everyone. That completely wars with how he is being treated in the press so I was not sure what to make of it. Perhaps it is actually a good thing that all of this dirty laundry is being aired - for some people to have rational discussions about it. Unfortunately most of the stuff I have seen is decidedly IRrational, but there are some lights in the dark tunnel that are trying to shine through at least.

I should share some deep dark family secrets too - not long back, my gay brother did not think such a big stink should be made about gay marriage. He did not understand why so many people were trying to buck the system. He does not think that the govt should have such a heavy hand in marriage anyway - applying for a license (permission from the govt to marry someone of your own choosing, a personal deep decision), having to follow their rules such as certain wording being in all ceremonies, etc. He thought it was actually not smart for gay couples to fight so hard to let the govt have a little more control over them.

It was ME that disagreed with him. Fancy that - a straight person being FOR legal gay marriage and a gay person being AGAINST it lol. It led to some lively discussions, believe me. We both sort of fall in the middle now - we do not believe that certain couples should not be allowed to marry legally, and we thought there should be a hell of a lot more protection for gay couples such as life insurance, etc where some long term partners were being cut out because their union was not deemed 'legal' for such purposes. I used to say 'well, if they want the govt to take more of their money because their taxes will be combined instead of single, all the more power to them' lol.

But I find that when the more vocal supports of these rights get going, they do not even realize when they are in turn stomping out what should be the rights of others! When I got married in alberta in 1992, I had to meet the marriage commissioner and decide if I accepted him, but he also had to agree to accept us as a couple. It was almost like a contract. So it seems to me that this man could have decided he was not the right one to perform my ceremony - even for a straight couple... does it not? I remember having to shake hands and say like a little phrase and he asked us if we accepted him, etc. Then we went from there. It's an important day for most couples, so I guess they take it seriously that both the couple and the commissioner are in agreement?

That is this Pastor's opinion of what GOD thin...

2012-04-16T23:25:19.340-06:00

That is this Pastor's opinion of what GOD thinks of homosexuality and how GOD will deal with them after they die. Have you looked at all into what this Pastor thinks about how all people should be treated in this world by the government and by other people while they are alive?
Which one do you think is most important in this election?