You may remember this post from April 7th of this year: “Is There Anything that People Won’t Complain About?”

Since that is exactly how I am feeling right now, I am going to repeat it.

You know, for effect.

And because I was going to write something else, but the more I thought about it, the more I felt like this older post and why rehash it when I can just copy and paste it? Like this…

Seriously. Anything? Especially online?

I’ve seen comments lately (and long before lately too) from people that complain about things that really don’t have the slightest bit of anything to do with them. I’m not talking about any place specifically; I’m talking about a number of sites I visit online.

It’s like if I painted a room in my house green. It’s one thing to say that you prefer blue or that you would have painted it white with green accents. There’s no real issue if you want to express your opinion.

It’s if you want to complain, and bitterly complain, that I painted a room green because you think I should have painted it ochre. Or to complain that I painted the room at all because I should get new carpeting. Or whatever.

Especially if you’ve never been to my house, you haven’t loaned me money for the paint or paint brush and you’ve really had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my house, my room or my painting of the room green.

It’s like there are people that live to complain about things.

The real problem is that this sort of attitude permeates our society. And the complainers are often the loudest voices while they are also often the most irrational. And then, if you complain about the complainers, you’re labeled no better than them.

Except the difference is that while their gripe was illegitimate because what you did had nothing to do with them, your gripe is perfectly legitimate because their complaining may be hurting you. But, now you’re the bad guy.

And that’s because the chronic complainers get the attention. They’ll write letters. They’ll annoy people. Then there will be people that will step up and lend legitimacy to the complainers by arguing that, though some of them may be extreme, it’s perfectly reasonable to argue that painting a room in ochre is a better choice than green because it brightens the place up better.

And that makes people happier, which makes them more productive, which makes things better for society.

And, studies released by the paint companies that sell ochre paint confirm those findings.

And then the politicians decide that no one should paint their rooms green and that they should be painted ochre.

And then soon all of us are painting our rooms ochre because of a few complainers that had nothing better to do than to complain about something that didn’t affect them at all to begin with.

Well, that was an easy post. And I feel better now. Sort of. Had too much to eat for supper, so I’m still feeling kind of stuffed. Went to Five Guys Burgers and Fries. Got a “regular” order of cajun fries. Which looked like a small order of fries. Which turned out to be a rather large looking cup of fries which was overfilled, and overflowing into a larger brown bag. So, there was a lot of fries. A lot of fries. And, you know, I can’t waste food. I had to eat the fries. I had to bring the brown bag home and finish the fries. There were a lot of fries. Did I mention the fries?

Yes, I did have fries with that.

Am I complaining? Um, no. Just saying it was a lot of fries.

A lot of fries.

It bears repeating.

A lot of fries.

Until next time,
Believe. Act. Eat Fries!

Yesterday, on Big Hollywood, I read “Flyover State of Mind: Hollywood’s Red State Prejudice” by Carl Kozlowski.

In it, he mentioned that Avatar was the highest-grossing movie of all time but that, based on his estimates, only about 20% of the population had even seen it. (I came up with 31.34%, as you’ll see in the below table, but I used a different method of estimation.)

I decided it might be interesting to see the statistics on movie ticket sales as compared to the percentage of the population that had seen the movie.

Through Box Office Mojo, I got a list of the top 100 movies by ticket sales. (I only used the top 25 here.) And, through the U.S. Census, I was able to get population estimates for the years 1900-1999. I found the 2009 estimate through U.S. News & World Report.

Of course, these estimates are not going to scientifically accurate, and are presented more as a curiosity than an accurate accounting. For one thing, there is no way to filter out repeat ticket sales to the same people. So, one person may see a movie once while another may go back to see the film ten times. As such, the ticket sales will be higher than the number of individuals who have seen the film. On the flip side, this chart also does not account for VHS/DVD sales. These days, some may wait until the film is released on video so they can view at home. On the other hand, some will view it in the theatre and then buy the video to enjoy at home. So, again, there’s no way to determine that based on the available data. On a related note, the films before the advent of home video may have an advantage in ticket sales simply because, back then, the only way to see the movie was at the theatre.

The bottom line is that we cannot get a truly accurate measure of how many individuals have actually seen a given film.

That said, however, it can still paint an interesting picture and provide an alternative perspective to conventional means of estimating a movie’s popularity.

Some things of note. First, you’ll see that Gone with the Wind had more ticket sales than the U.S. population. According to the stats, 154% of the country saw the film. Of course, we know that’s not possible and must necessarily include multiple ticket sales by individuals. Still, this is a striking number, considering this was at the tail-end of the Great Depression.

By contrast, the #2 film on the list, Star Wars, had just 12% fewer ticket sales than Gone with the Wind, but those ticket sales represented under 81% of the population.

Similarly, The Empire Strikes Back was almost equal in ticket sales to Ben Hur, but was seen by 12% less of the population. And, while Avatar had more ticket sales, it was viewed by half the amount of the population of Fantasia.

On the other hand, if you rank the movies by percentage of the population, 8 of the top 10 films remain in the top 10. Only The Exorcist and Titanic leave the ranks of the top ten, dropping into the teens. Fantasia moves into the #7 spot and Ben Hur just makes the cut at #10. It’d be interesting to see how ranks changed if all 100 top films were thrown into the calculations.

Anyway, for your consideration, debate and enjoyment, here is the table:

Sources:
Movies & Ticket Sale Estimates: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=1&p=.htm
U.S. Population Estimates: http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/popclockest.txt
U.S. Population Estimate (2009): http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2008/12/31/us-population-2009-305-million-and-counting

Given the current wave of “political correctness” in describing things not as they are but as suits a particular agenda, should we begin a massive relabeling of people based on their behavioral choices?

Such as…

Should bank robbers, muggers and other money thieves be called “undeserved earners”?

If people commit adultery, maybe instead of calling them an adulterers, we should call them “extramarital activists.”

Murders can be relabeled as “population reductionists.”

Flashers and streakers can be called “anatomic exhibitors.”

Drug dealers could be called “recreational intoxicant distributors.”

And, while we’re at it, we should just call newspaper writers “propagandists” because that’s pretty much what they’ve reduced themselves to these days.

Seriously. Anything? Especially online?

I’ve seen comments lately (and long before lately too) from people that complain about things that really don’t have the slightest bit of anything to do with them. I’m not talking about any place specifically; I’m talking about a number of sites I visit online.

It’s like if I painted a room in my house green. It’s one thing to say that you prefer blue or that you would have painted it white with green accents. There’s no real issue if you want to express your opinion.

It’s if you want to complain, and bitterly complain, that I painted a room green because you think I should have painted it ochre. Or to complain that I painted the room at all because I should get new carpeting. Or whatever.

Especially if you’ve never been to my house, you haven’t loaned me money for the paint or paint brush and you’ve really had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my house, my room or my painting of the room green.

It’s like there are people that live to complain about things.

The real problem is that this sort of attitude permeates our society. And the complainers are often the loudest voices while they are also often the most irrational. And then, if you complain about the complainers, you’re labeled no better than them.

Except the difference is that while their gripe was illegitimate because what you did had nothing to do with them, your gripe is perfectly legitimate because their complaining may be hurting you. But, now you’re the bad guy.

And that’s because the chronic complainers get the attention. They’ll write letters. They’ll annoy people. Then there will be people that will step up and lend legitimacy to the complainers by arguing that, though some of them may be extreme, it’s perfectly reasonable to argue that painting a room in ochre is a better choice than green because it brightens the place up better.

And that makes people happier, which makes them more productive, which makes things better for society.

And, studies released by the paint companies that sell ochre paint confirm those findings.

And then the politicians decide that no one should paint their rooms green and that they should be painted ochre.

And then soon all of us are painting our rooms ochre because of a few complainers that had nothing better to do than to complain about something that didn’t affect them at all to begin with.

You know, for weeks now, people (mostly Conan supporters) have claimed that moving The Tonight Show to 12:05 a.m. would have made it The Tomorrow Show.

In that case, why is the second half of The Tonight Show still considered The Tonight Show? After midnight, it’s no longer “tonight”, right?

Night doesn’t end at 11:59 p.m. Night spans from sunset to sunrise. So, 12:05 is still night, right? If you’re out late, do you refer to midnight as morning? It’s still night.

Let’s look at it another way. When is Saturday night? Saturday after sunset, right? Saturday Night Live is on at 11:30 p.m., right? It’s not on at 3:00 a.m. on Saturday, is it? When it turns to 12:00 a.m. and becomes Sunday, do you think of that as Sunday morning? Or, do you still think of it as Saturday night?

Do you think of 12:00 a.m. Saturday to sunrise as Saturday night? And then sunset to 11:59 p.m. on Saturday as the second Saturday night? The other Saturday night? The second-half of Saturday night? Or, do you still think of 12:00 a.m. as part of Friday night? It’s still night, right? And, if it’s not Saturday night, it’s Friday night. Even if you don’t think of it as Friday night, it’s still the same night, right? The sun didn’t pop up at 12:00:00 a.m. and dip back down at 12:00:59 a.m., right? So, it’s all the same night. Even though it may be a different day, it’s still the same night. It’s still tonight.

Otherwise, The Tonight Show would have to be a half-hour show.

The average income in the U.S. is $25,000 per year. Assuming a 40-hour work week, that works out to be $12.02 per hour.

The average lifespan in the U.S. is 78 years. Assuming you start work at 18 and retire at 65, that’s 47 working years. That’s 97,760 working hours using a 40-hour work week.

In 2009, the federal government in the U.S. is estimated to have spent somewhere around $3 trillion (varies, depending on source, but $3 trillion is about the “average” figure I’ve come across). That would be $3,000,000,000,000.

It would take 24,958,403,000 hours to pay that off.

It would take 255,303 people working their entire lives to pay that off.

And that’s just this year’s spending.

To pay it off in one year’s time, it would take 11,999,232 average people giving 100% of their income.

In other words, if you figure money spent in terms of hours worked, federal spending in 2009 is the equivalent of nearly 12 million people working all year and not keeping any of their money.

Pretty much sums up where things are headed…

If you read any sort of commentary these days, whether in newspapers, websites or blogs, or listen to them on the radio or watch and listen on television (I think I’ve covered all the bases…), it seems that politics in the U.S. these days is driven by wingnuts and loose screws.

The question is which is better.

Think about it.

First, let’s consider the wingnut. Wingnuts are nuts with wings. That means you can loosen or tighten them without tools. Granted, sometimes they may get rusty and you might need a tool or oil or something to loosen them up, or sometimes you might want to tighten them a bit more and use a tool to do it.

But, the basic function of a wingnut is to allow assembly (or disassembly) without the use of tools.

And, that can definitely be a good thing. For example, if something is loose, you can fix it right then and there. Just turn the wingnut a little. Tighten it up by hand and—presto!—it’s fixed.

If it were a regular nut, sure, you might be able to turn it a bit with your fingers, but chances are it’s still going to be loose. And, that means going to the garage or basement to grab a wrench. And, that may mean putting it off, until later.

And that means that the nut stays loose, which could pose a safety hazard. Maybe it’s not a big safety hazard—after all, if it were, you would have went and gotten a wrench. But, maybe it’s something minor. You just have to remember not to sit in that chair until you’ve fixed it. Maybe you’re on your way to see a movie and are running late, so you’ll fix it later.

Well, after a movie and dinner and maybe some shopping or something, you’ve forgotten all about the chair. So, you get home and sit down.

Crash!

You find yourself on the floor. Hopefully, you didn’t hurt yourself.

The whole incident could have been prevented, of course, had the chair used wingnuts instead of bolts.

Likewise for a shelf, a TV stand, etc.

So, a wingnut can definitely be useful and save you from getting hurt. It can save you money too, because, otherwise, your chair could be broken and you’d need to go out and buy a new one. Or spend a lot of money fixing it.

All of which could have been prevented by a wingnut.

On the other side, we see loose screws. What use is a loose screw?

A loose screw is always a potential hazard.

The important thing here is to distinguish between a loose screw and a screw. Properly tightened in place, a screw is good. But, then it’s not a loose screw. A spare screw, that is, a screw that is not in use or installed, is not a loose screw. It’s a spare screw. A loose screw is a screw that is in place but not quite right. It’s too loose to effectively hold things together.

So, a loose screw is a potential hazard.

Mind you, if something is held together by many screws, one loose screw may not pose too great a danger. However, as the number of loose screws increase, the hazard increases potentially.

The bottom line is that too many wingnuts is rarely going to be a problem whereas too many loose screws is a dangerous hazard.

Two hundred and fifty years ago, if you were reading this, it would be in a letter or a newspaper. And, probably since I couldn’t afford to send a letter to everyone, especially not on a daily basis, and since newspapers wouldn’t (and couldn’t) publish everything submitted to them, you would not be reading this at all.

Recorded human history goes back about 5,000 years. Humans were around thousands of years before that, but any previous written history is long lost and for a long while there was likely no recorded history at all.

Look back at the past couple hundred years and compare them with the thousands that came before them. For a long time, human development was fairly stagnant. Many, many years would go by before we would see something new.

This is partly due to the fact that, for a long time, ideas had no value. You could buy and sell goods; they had value. But, ideas were free for the taking. If someone made something, others could freely copy them. As a result, what incentive is there in creating new things when you have a family to feed and there is more value in goods than in ideas?

We often credit the ancient Greeks with the beginnings of modern civilization. The Greeks invented coined money, thermometers, tumbler locks, among other things. The Greeks also had a patent system, where the inventor of a new device had exclusive rights to it for a period of one year.

The modern day patent system came out of Venice in the 1400’s. The first patent in what is now the United States was issued by Massachusetts in 1646.

The other factor to consider is that, for the vast majority of human history, people were ruled by systems of government that did not favor the individual. The individual was considered the subject or even the property of the government, often a king.

There was often no upward path either. If you were born a peasant, you stayed a peasant. Odds of you becoming the king of your own land were slim to none. With no hope of advancement, there is little drive to achievement.

But, then we come to the New World. In the American colonies, the colonists had more freedom, being far from the crown. In the 1700’s, Ben Franklin invented the Franklin stove, the lightning rod and the concept of mail order.

When the British government became too oppressive to the colonists, they rebelled. And won. Instead of setting up a monarchy (some troops wanted to make George Washington their new king), the colonists set up a democratic republic. The nation would be self-ruled.

There would be no monarchy to dictate what they could and could not do. And the federal government would have limited powers–powers designed to protect essential freedoms rather than power to rule.

So, for a long time in the United States, people had a wide latitude of freedom. And look where we are now!

Refrigeration was invented in 1805, with improvements in the mid-1800’s and early 1900’s. The early 1800’s also saw the invention of the circular saw, dental floss and the profile lathe. The electric telegraph was invented in 1831. Later came sewing machines, the wrench, and the electric relay. In the mid-1800’s, there was ether anesthesia, the rotary printing press, vulcanized rubber, safety pins, rolled toilet paper, the burglar alarm, the can opener and the web printing press, among many other inventions. Later in the 1800’s, there came the motor cycle, the paper clip, barbed wire, tape measure, vacuum cleaner, paper bags, pipe wrench, clothes hangers, fire hydrants, sandblasting, fire sprinklers, electric dental drill, mimeograph, airbrush, phonograph, carbon microphones, the cash register, metal detector, electric fan, electric iron, fountain pen, photographic film, skyscrapers, dish washer, drinking straw, escalator, radio, zipper, tractor, pneumatic hammer, remote control, the flashlight and more!

The early 1900’s saw assembly line production, the mercury vapor lamp, the hearing aid, air conditioning, offset printing press, airplane, electric washing machine, paper shredder, headset, auto pilot, electric blanket, gas mask, the supermarket, silica gel, polygraph, adhesive bandage, radial arm saw, bulldozer, masking tape, cotton swabs, garbage disposal, freon, electric razor, sunglasses, particle accelerator, and many more!

Americans were inventive during the Great Depression as well, giving us the thermistor, strobe light, staple removed, tape dispenser, frequency modulation, black light, pH meter, programming languages, chair lifts, radio telescope, shopping cart, xerography, fiberglass, nylon, teflon and more.

The mid-1900’s brought the blood bank, acrylic fiber, deodorant, microwave oven, chemotherapy, the transistor, defibrillator, mobile phone, instant camera, cat litter, video games, cable tv, barcode, artificial heart, heart-lung machine, automatic sliding doors, radar gun, polio vaccine, hard disk drive, industrial robot, bone marrow transplant, video tape, laser, carbon fiber, integrated circuit, spandex, LED, glucose meter, computer mouse, plasma display, heart transplants, artificial turf, kevlar, hypertext, cordless telephone, compact disc, DRAM, food bank, handheld calculator, crash test dummy, laser printer, smoke detector and more!

The late 1900’s gave us optical fiber, personal computers, eMail, operating systems, digital camera, ethernet, compact fluorescent light bulbs, the space shuttle, the graphical user interface, the Internet, voice mail, GPS, sulfur lamps and more.

All-in-all, there are over 7,000,000 patents in the United States. This is not to say that other countries have been idle, but it is important to bear in mind that, in comparison with centuries past, people in many countries have more freedoms and rights than in centuries past.

All these inventions move the world forward. Without freedom and property rights, people would have little incentive to create new things. Too many people think that inventions come about because of an altruistic desire for people to help others. While that may be the case for some people, most people just want to make a buck. Many immigrants came to this country, not looking for a handout, but looking to strike it rich. In their native lands, their “upward mobility” was restricted. In the U.S., they could develop new ideas and profit by them and achieve things they could only dream of in their homeland. And, for those already here, it didn’t matter whether they were born in poverty, they had equal opportunity to make it. There was no class system to hold them back.

It wasn’t some big government program that gave them any guarantees or incentives to succeed. It wasn’t people voting for the government to give them money or benefits that moved us forward. It wasn’t the government guaranteeing a minimum income, a livelihood or a bailout that allowed us to flourish.

It was freedom. It was liberty. It was the right of the people to own their own property and ideas. It was their own self-determination, self-motivation and drive to succeed and, yes, even a quest for profits, that brought us farther along in the past couple hundred years than in the prior few millennia.

Perhaps the greatest recognition of this is the Statue of Liberty, whose formal title is Liberty Enlightening the World. But, long before Lady Liberty greeted immigrants from Europe in New York Harbor, the promise of liberty was the great hope of all mankind.

Remember that, Liberty Enlightening the World. Look at how Liberty has enlightened the world in these past couple centuries!

Freedom works. Liberty is what gives us all hope. And that’s not something we should take away or change.

Anyone remember Logan’s Run? In the fictional world, people reported for execution, euphemistically reported to a “sleepshop”, when they reached a certain age. In the novel, the age was 21; in the movie, the age was 30.

In the slippery slope of a national health care plan which emphasizes reducing medical costs, how long before such an extreme situation could become reality? And, even if not to the extreme of being made law, how long before the aged would simply be viewed as burdens that should “hurry up and die” in order to free up resources for the younger set?

In a paper co-authored by Obama’s advisor, “Dr.” Ezekiel Emanuel, the point was made that health spending on the elderly should be reduced and the focus should be on those between the ages of 15 and 40. Apparently, even young children are considered low value.

In Oregon, which Obama praises as a good example, medical rationing for the elderly already occurs. A woman redeveloped lung cancer and her Oregon Health Plan denied treatment, instead offering to pay for assisted suicide.

It’s important to keep in mind that the national health care plan is not about expanding health care coverage for all Americans, as it is supposed, but reducing health care costs. Since the sick and elderly incur the most costs in health care, how else will health care costs be reduced but by reducing care?

No doubt there are bureaucrats that see no value in extending life by a mere few months or short number of years if the patient is not a “productive” member of society. But, for friends and family members, every additional minute of life and time spent with that loved one is precious. There is much to be said for companionship, passing along experience, and so many intangible things that may not be considered valuable to some bureaucrat but are to families and friends.

Think of young children. They often don’t remember much from their younger years, so for their parents that want them to enjoy the experience and to share in the lives of grandparents or great-grandparents, every additional moment that can be spent increases the likelihood of the children carrying some precious memory with them for the rest of their lives so that they too can share something of distant relatives with their own children, grandchildren and even great grandchildren some day.

You cannot put a price tag on life. And that’s what you get when government bureaucrats are deciding who gets care and who is thrown to the wolves.

Our current health system, while flawed, has done much to find ways to cure and treat diseases and other medical problems, adding months and years to people’s lives. Many things which were death sentences for people in the past are no longer so. Life is precious and we have, and we should, do everything we can to secure and extend life.

When a baby is dirty, you bath him or her and you dump out the dirty bath water. What Obama and his cronies are trying to do with health care is dump the baby and keep the dirty bath water. Such a strategy will dramatically reduce costs, but you won’t have the baby anymore.