Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Select Remnants

AuthorHouse

Chapter One

By Felipe B. Nery - June 14, 2004

We happen to have 3 television sets: one in the breakfast room (between the kitchen and the dining room) which is the one my wife uses, one in the living room which I use and a small one in my den which is hardly, if ever, in use.

Now that we have these television sets strategically placed, we come to the sounds they emit that disrupt each other's moments of listening pleasures and concentrations.

We are not only confronted (annoyed) with the loud noises of abhorred programs (favored solely by each of us) but also with the extra loud noise, ear-shattering blasts and nerve wracking din of commercial and advertising programs. They would regularly jolt me out of my peaceful slumber between programs that make me jump off my seat (on purpose or with mischievous intent).

I now, discover a welcome article in the San Francisco Chronicle that my concern is also the concern of many people Of the TV viewing public who express their displeasure with the TV ads loud noises that they would invariably reach for their remote control devise to hit the mute button. This aggravation has reached the point of intolerance that some San Francisco Bay area lawmakers are (particularly Rep. Anna Eshoo D-Palo Alto) in the process of introducing a bill in Congress that would force federal regulators to lower the volume of TV commercials.

It seems we are not alone being subjected to the ear-splitting ads complaints of which have been raised by millions of American TV viewers. The British is also encountering such a ghastly annoyance, they have passed a law requiring broadcasters to tone down the volume and to limit the "maximum subjective loudness" of TV ads as a result of many complaints received from the viewing public.

To add to the chagrin of the loudness of the TV ads, I generally find it disconcerting to have to be interrupted viewing my favorable program for what it seemed like an eternity (for some 15 minutes). While I agree that commercials are a means to pay for our programs, but the length of them seems to be incomprehensible.

The bill, if approved, would direct the Federal Communications Commission to enact and to enforce new rules within a year setting limits on the volume of ads. It would require that commercials should not have an "average maximum loudness" that exceeds the programming that they accompany.

The bill introduced by Rep. Anna Eshoo is known as the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act - CALM ACT for short. Many House of Representative members went as far as saying this would be the right time to set new standards for volume levels since this country is shifting to digital, high definition TV.

It appears, all future sounds of TV commercial ads would then be in concert with the TV program it accompanies. If the program has an explosive sound, such as with a blast of a bomb or a crash of some sort, the ad would likewise be within the same volume of loudness. In general, advertisers are considering applying some new standards of their own without the intervention of the federal government.

In our case, when the noise becomes too loud, drowning out each other's programs we usually yelled at one another above the din to have either or both of us ratchet down the TV volume. But no amount of yelling seemed to solve the problem, which prompted our niece Helen Cox to spring into action by volunteering to help us buy an ear-phone which would ensure the privacy and eliminate all outward sound to keep peace in the family- the cost is $250.00 each. My wife, without hesitation, declined the offer, while I accepted it. I do not use it all the time- only on special occasions and for my favorite programs, as it hurts my ears for prolonged use.

THE GLOBAL WARMING CONTROVERSY AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

By Felipe B. Nery - June 18, 2008

Meteorologists are attributing the rash of cyclones, tornados and hurricanes occurring in great numbers to global warming where the cold air meets the warm air creating air disturbances resulting in a tornado, cyclone or hurricane. The warm air is caused by the carbon monoxide and dioxide and other chemical elements that accompany them, so they say.

This phenomenon is viewed by the skeptics and offending countries which help to pollute the air with their coal burning factories and now increasingly with their automobiles (with green house gas emission) with cynicism shrugging them off as just a theory, if not a myth because the experts are unable to pin point the fact. Those experts that expound the global warming theory cannot substantiate it with irrefutable proof of where it came from or establish an indisputable proof of the damage caused by the pollution.

The global warming controversy was brought about when the Kyoto Protocol was initially established excluding China and India from the obligation to observe the pact in reducing the amount of pollution from their factories because most countries, at that time, considered China and India as up and coming third world countries and should be given a chance to produce their goods without restrictions.

China and India, since then, have advanced so much, they are no longer considered as third world countries. In fact, they have been and are engaged in outright competition with other industrialized countries. Australia and the U.S.A. are the two countries that didn't ratify the Kyoto Protocol because they felt it would place them at an economic disadvantage as trade competitors. They are adamant about placing China and India on an equal footing with all industrialized countries.

It seems, this controversy will rage on without paying too much attention to the cause of the atmospheric disturbance and floods that have been destroying houses, breaking levees and flooding the grain fields (farm lands) such as soya and corn. Yet, the offenders are not convinced it was the consequence of global warming. What other proofs they need to convince them? The tornados and hurricanes are occurring more often than they used to and all they believe, this is just an Act of Nature or of God, to be more precise!

The meteorologists that issued the warnings are not politicians, they do not take sides - all they do is to explain scientifically the cause and effect of atmospheric conditions. They are not in the business of pointing a finger at anyone, for they only wish to prevent further global warming and further damage by all concerned, regardless of nationality or political persuasion. Their aim is to save the world for all humankind. Through their experience and daily observance, they are able to report to us the weather forecast and to provide us with timely warning of an impending storm so that we may be able to take shelter and to weather the storm. We have relied on their accurate forecast and we have benefited by it, why should we now cast a shadow of doubt and not believe them as to the consequence of global warming?

We are able to observe the brewing of a storm, we are therefore capable of making an assessment of its strength, path and time of arrival. But not so with an earthquake that occurs underground and not within sight of any humans. We can only theorize! This, we may appropriately...