1st day of Spring

[BlueTrain]

The ultimate solution to weather problems would be to close the weather bureau, wouldn't it?

[jbeegoode]

I have come to the conclusion that a lot of the weather warnings in the UK are the result of the spread of the blame culture. They over-warn us so that they can't be blamed if it turns out to be worse than they predicted.

The local Weather guy named "The Weather Wrangler," rarely got the forecast correct. In a place where there is just sunshine 300 days a year, and consistencies before the climate change. it is hard to mess that up. He was very popular. He would tell us that hell was coming at us. I suppose that he knew that lying about weather does good ratings...the jerk.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

Louis Black says the easiest job in the world is the weather forecaster in San Diego.

[ric]

in the uk we get headlines in the newspapers saying the country is going to get snow or cold weather or whatever..... then the small print says its forcast for a scotish mountain top

be a bit like the us press saying florida is going to be inundated by snow when its been forcast for alaska.

[eyesup]

The sort of casual banter on news shows today, drives me up the wall. I don’t want to be in their circle of friends. And they seem to all desperately want to BE your friend. I just want to hear the news. Stop trying to make me fell validated or included. It’s supposed to be news not a coffee clatch.

The traditional news show has vanished only to be replaced by yet more banal entertainment. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that these shows have writers churning out prose to try and make the news “fun”. I just don’t get it.

My son lives in San Diego and I have been there several times. I would agree with that BlueTrain.

Duane

[nuduke]

OK, Mr Anorak here!
By sheer coincidence the conversation about where storm names come from came up at dinner with some people on Friday.  So I looked it up and was gobsmacked at the extent to which some organisations can patronise the public!

Firstly, in the UK the names were decided by a public poll which garnered 10,000 names including some extremely witty but excluded ones - I quote: "Other names were discounted because they were not proper names," the Met Office documents say. These included Apocalypse, Baldrick, Big Boss, Gnasher, Hot Brew, root ripper, Stormageddon, Ssswetcaroline, Vader, Voldermort and branch wobbler, Hammer, Hades, Freebooter, Forkbeard, Megatron, Bluetooth, In A Teacup, Noddy and Poacher

Second, The met office staff the pick 22 names for the coming year and a storm that gets a name is designated as one that might otherwise get an amber or red warning attached to it and now...wait for it....[/color][/font]

[/color][/size]

The rationale behind humanising the storms is that they become more relatable to those affected by them[/q]

  So if they don't have a name we would somehow feel less connected?  How patronising is that?!  I read elsewhere that if the storms have names, people would be more likely to take precautions and also not travel.  So on that basis when you are bowling down the highway would you be more likely to obey the speed regulations if the signs said "Speed Freddy Here!" or "Speed Monica or slower, pretty please!" with a smileyface emoticon?  I would contend that 99.99%* of people could rationally process DATA susch as "We are expecting 60mph winds so strap down your garden furniture and watch for fallen branches on the road.  Do not travel unless necessary."

John

* and those that can't are dribbling imbeciles!

[Greenbare Woods]

The sort of casual banter on news shows today, drives me up the wall. I don’t want to be in their circle of friends. And they seem to all desperately want to BE your friend. I just want to hear the news. Stop trying to make me fell validated or included. It’s supposed to be news not a coffee clatch.

The traditional news show has vanished only to be replaced by yet more banal entertainment. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that these shows have writers churning out prose to try and make the news “fun”. I just don’t get it.

My son lives in San Diego and I have been there several times. I would agree with that BlueTrain.
Duane

I have pretty much quit watching any of the network "news" shows.  The only part that wasn't agenda propaganda was the weather forecast, and with the humanizing of storms I'm not sure about that. 

Their "news" includes a big dose of "special interest" features about cripples, retards, nutters, homeless, and anyone else who has failed at life.  So-called news no longer ever included reports of anyone's success.  Sports news, for example, focuses way more time on "Special" (crippled) person contests than it does on champions who are the best in the world.  Is this cripple less crippled than that cripple?   Who knows?  Who cares?  Of course they can't say "cripple" on PC approved media so its "special." 

When I was growing up the NEWS was all about  champions and men or women who succeeded in life.  They were "role models" for children and other adults.  News was "First person to do such and such daring extraordinary accomplishment."  That's been replaced by a story about some do gooder providing a home for a single mom and her 6 children of unknown fathers.   The local spring running event gets 15 seconds on winners  (12 of which are on the slower women) and 15 minutes on its wheelchair division.  Who are children today supposed to look to as role models?  Who are adults supposed to "be like that person"? 

Its all part of propaganda pushing a socialist and racist agenda.  Anything good is invisible.  Anything negative is applauded.   I quit watching.

Bob

[BlueTrain]

President Roosevelt was "crippled." And no doubt a socialist. You're not an anti-socialist, are you?

Should the thought occur to you, you might realize that the average person (which doesn't include us) lumps nudists in with Civil War reenactors and those guys who roam around beaches with metal detectors. A little odd but mostly harmless.

[jbeegoode]

All the the news is owned by private and corporate entities. If you look at the advertising, you will see that serious bias and slant in their favor. There are extremely important ignored issues, like for example healthcare, drugs, insurance which are not covered and why would the corporate entities spend so much Pompey to advertise drugs for such a limited potential market? Simply control of the media news.

When 400 interviews are pro-war and 4 are antu-war and we end up in Iraq and the networks are owned by entities like G.E., then...well...ah come on!

Bob, it is apparent to me that the problem is not just the network news and their entertainment that they call news, it is also CNN and Fox. It is all propaganda, not just what you disagree with. Now, more and more it is filled with lies. In particular, Fox news.

How does this affect us naked people and our rights? We are as BT states, we are marginalized and set in a harmless context. Why? Because we are harmless to corporate concerns which is profit, not morality, not religion, but getting people to believe a certain way, support it, to make a buck at their expense. Otherwise, we don't count unless we are entertaining and bring revenue.
Jbee

[Peter S]

The news may be owned by big corporates, as you suggest, JBee, but what is the alternative?  Ownership by government? Surely even worse. The internet was supposed to bring ownership of news back to “the people”, but their truth and accuracy has been shown to be flawed, and the mechanisms for “citizen journalism” such as Facebook exposed as corporate tools and government stooges. What hope for Everyman?

[jbeegoode]

Media ownership by government in this country is a silly threat. The government is owned by the corporate institutions and the oligarchy that controls so much of that. There has come effectively a complete fusion of the corporate and elite and the state, just like any definitive fascist state like Mousolini's Italy. For several years, PBS has been threatened with having its funds pulled out from under it, by those in the senate that are upset that it tells the truth, unencumbered by the dictate of the state AND it is Accurate for the greater part. For balanced, factual and important news, I usually have to rely on alternative sources, like media outside of the United States.

The reliability of source has to be taken individually on the internet. The information needs to be checked with other sources. But we must remember, that the problem isn't just this idea of fake mews. The problem is that stories and issues that actually are important to people are ignored, stats are ignored that make a more complete picture. Who chooses and why is evident when you look at what is ignored and the actual results of the legislative  process. We the people just keep getting less and the rich more. There is honest internet out there, not facebook. What bias there is must be mitigated by listening to the opposition and depend on one's self...if you have time.
An example is that the elections are a horserace not issues. Any talk of issues is chosen by the machine that runs the parties, and the corporate agenda. The elections are just a distraction from the issues and to look like there is actually democracy happening. 

Anyway, off of too political here, the naked body is an issue that will be ignored, or placed in a context to marginalize it safely away, and keep everybody as ignorant as possible. Sex as body freedom will be sensationalized, because there is profit in it. NAked and sex sells papers, as they say.

Mean while, Clothing is getting less and naked more common and acceptable. As long as it doen't threaten to end endless war, corporate world power, on on and on, and just is a socio/cultural fashion that makes us think that we have free choice, it may be left alone. It still has the option of being demonized to gather support by a political opportunist that needs a shadow to put out there to box, or a scapegoat.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

In the absence of any government or corporate meddling, "the media" has always had some bias, probably justifiably so. I'm thinking here of newspapers, a few of which included their political leaning as part of the masthead. The news can only with great difficulty be neutral. To do so, one would have to assume there is no good or bad. Likewise, newspapers have long been somewhat sensationalist in nature, some less so, some more so. Their ultimate object was to sell papers. But newspapers struggle these days.

Will Rogers said that in Russia, the government tells the corporations what to do. But in the United States, the corporations tell the government what to do. He was saying that as a joke (and that was 75 years ago!). These days, however, the big corporations are huge and multi-national. They are beholden to no one and no corporation can be said to be patriotic.

Regarding our particular interests, the bigger problem is how more and more things are criminalized.  You are seen sunbathing nude in your backyard (you might say "garden" but here, that would mean among the tomato plants) and suddenly you're a sex criminal.  But there are many unjust and unreasonable punishments being handed out today. Politicians get points, apparently, for being harder on crime than the next guy. Sometimes I wonder how much we believe what we say we believe.

[jbeegoode]

We used to have two newspapers in Tucson, one more liberal and one more conservative. Getting real news has to do with having many owners. Now, most news is controlled by a handful (6 or 7) entities, which is less than that in practice. Oh, to have the statistic at hand.

We used to have three or four TV news outlets. They broadcast a half an hour because the government mandated a certain amount of programming to news. They competed on the basis fair and balanced, truthful, responsible. Ah, for the days of Walter Cronkite.

There has been a campaign to discredit certain media. People are told, that if some are bad, all are bad, or you can't trust the news, unless it agrees with you. If you can't trust your news, there is no integrity and there is no informed public and there is no democracy. In such a world, I feel very vulnerable to be a nudist. I feel naked in a bad way, small and to be whisked away like a bug with a politicain's ploy. I'm being portrayed as insignificant, odd and a minority, when I am none of these.
Jbee

[BlueTrain]

Well, to be frank about it, you probably are all those thing. So am I. But on the other hand, great changes have often come about because of only one person doing something. And sometimes because of more than one person--with one person getting most of the credit. Sometimes, though, someone claims credit and hasn't done anything to deserve it. Anyhow, it's hard to claim that nudists are anything but a minority.

But I think you are correct in that there is a campaign to discredit the media, although it might be more correct to say "control" the media. People like to be told certain things and the media (I wish there was a better word) is the vehicle for speaking to the masses, unwashed and otherwise. Truth is one thing but what people want to hear, even us, is something else. There will always be things that we don't want to hear, things that we will pretend don't happen and so on. Problems arise when you begin to believe your own exaggerations.

Don't be too hard on politicians, though. Having known a couple personally, I can say that most are honest and a most difficult job. It is work, too, and the worst thing a politician can do, maybe, is to avoid the work that it takes.

[jbeegoode]

When I was growing up in Falls Church they were talking about putting the beltway through our living-room. They ended up placing it a few miles further out through the farm that we used to go to to buy dairy. Since then, the second beltway was built, years ago. I was under the impression that any wildlife was choked out for a greater distance than 20 miles from the White House back door. It was heartening to read that you all still have some of the Virginia that I grew up in. I remember the old stonewalls along the thin country roads, sliding down rocks in a creek and forests.

Which brings me to: my memory tells me that April showers bring May flowers. We would be learning to dance around the May pole for the big celebration on the 1st. Spring was glorious, dogwood and cherry, iris and green grass. Easter was nice weather. Michigan was still listening to "Think Summer " campaigns on the radio on April first,, but that was because it was just around the corner. 

Shouldn't you all be thawing out and even revving your engines, chomping at the bit cause the gate is about to open, here comes the bell?

So, everyone....where do you plan to go first when that gate opens? Continue around the track again, or a trip report? What's your bucket list? Maybe that should be a thread title. Bluetrain began a list of places dear to his heart. Can see yourselves heading out and getting all naturist-like? Where will you go?

We're going to the hot springs this weekend. We have a day trip planned in the Santa Ritas. When the heat comes, I plan a long day, or an overnight on the backside (northside) of the Catalinas.

In May I hope to do three days in remote mountain pools, where there are several, but I only know one or two, or up north to find snow melt streams along the Verde River...May is way up in the air. There is a lot on my plate; so much so that we'll be missing the Mexican beaches this spring.
Jbee