Americans have fewer TVs on average than they did in 2009

And the number of households with no TVs at all grew.


Source: Arstechnica.com
Megan Geuss
February 28, 2017

Americans went from having an average of 2.6 TVs per household in 2009 to having 2.3 TVs in 2015, according to survey data from the US Energy Information Agency (EIA).

The data comes from the agency’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), which has been conducted periodically since the 1970s to understand American energy use. The 2015 survey included 5,600 respondents who were contacted in person and then given an option to follow up by mail or online. A fine-detail report on the survey results is due to be released in April 2017.

The latest data shows that in 2015, 2.6 percent of households had no TV at all, a jump from the previous four surveys in 2009, 2005, 2001, and 1997 in which a steady 1.2 to 1.3 percent of households didn’t own a TV. The 2015 data also showed that the number of people with three TVs or more dropped in 2015. That year, 39 percent of households had more than three TVs, whereas 44 percent had more than three TVs in 2009.

Interestingly, the number of households with one or two TVs increased in 2015 to 58 percent, from 54 percent in 2009.

The EIA doesn’t go into what has caused this shift, but it does note that “younger households tend to have a lower concentration of televisions per person and a higher concentration of portable devices such as laptops and smartphones. Older households are more likely to have higher concentrations of desktop computers.” (Anecdotally, the Ars staff seems to agree that having one or two really nice TVs for family viewing as well as auxiliary devices for streamed media is preferable to having several just-okay TVs.)

The government surveys TV use because it’s a component of a household’s overall energy consumption. According to the EIA, about 6 percent of all electricity consumption in US homes comes from TVs, cable boxes, DVRs, video game consoles, and other peripheral equipment.

As TVs get bigger and higher in resolution, they can demand a lot more electricity, too. Last September, the Natural Resources Defense Council hired a third-party research firm to study TV energy use and found that several TV manufacturers were building their TVs to narrowly pass federal energy use tests, while consuming much more electricity if any of the TVs’ baseline settings were changed.

Read More at: ArsTechnica.com

Advertisements

Breakaway Ruminations #5 – How TV Robs You Of Life & Valuable Time

TV

TheBreakaway
Zy Marquiez
March 10, 2017

“There is a vitality, a life force, an energy, a quickening that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all time, this expression is unique. And if you block it, it will never exist through any other medium and will be lost.”
—Martha Graham

Individuals go on through their lives, following their daily endeavors in many different fashions.  People from all walks of life take a variety of paths which follows what they see as best choice in their life.  The one commonality that we each have individually is that we are blessed to have ample amount of time.

Time is quite an interesting concept.  As a thought-form, time brings about a kaleidoscope of different ideas.  Time is often correlated with work, appointments, deadlines, key dates, precious moments, and many other instances.  Because of this, time is valued to some extent by everyone, even if we don’t inherently ruminate upon this regularly.

Curiously though, because we are lucky enough as individuals to have a lot of time, we often have blatant disregard for it in one sense or another.  Everyone, including myself, usually takes time for granted because most people live long lives and we are lucky to have it every day.

Speaking of time, the average person watches 5 hours of TV per day with some watching even more than that.  At 5 hours per day, that amounts to 1,825 hours per year. That is 18250 hours per decade, and 91,250 hours per 50 years. That’s a lot of time! Over the course of 50 years, the total amount of time spent watching TV daily amounts to 3802 consecutive 24-hour days over that span.  Or “just” 5 hours a day, for 50 years.

For the sake of simplicity, let us assume most of us happen to get 8 hours a day sleeping. In an entire 168 hour work-week where the average person spends 56 hours a week sleeping, and 40 hours a week working, that leaves one with 72 hours free. If one were to spend 35 hours a week viewing television, then that would leave 37 hours of free time. That’s nearly half of all of one’s available time spent watching television. That seems ludicrous, does it not?  That doesn’t even begin to cover other activities individuals may carry out.

The point of bringing this is up is that, even though many people tend to think they “don’t have any time” to do constructive things [i.e. take better care of their health], my rebuttal to that is that, in fact most [if not all] do.  Even the busiest people on earth can learn to rearrange their schedules to be more efficient, especially if time is being used watching TV or meandering about aimlessly online.

Everyone will have different reasons for how they individually spend their time, and how much time they spend doing what they do, and that’s really their own business.  This post isn’t about judging people, but about self-analysis and ruminating upon the possibility of addressing misconception of individuals not having enough time, which seems to be an illusion to certain extent.

Ponder this: what would you do if you only had one month left to live?  Think about it seriously.

The fact this post is being read by you shows that by that very fact you have lived many years, and yet not all species have that opportunity, or are that lucky.  Some animals, in fact, do not live long at all, when compared to human years.

Butterflies, on average, only live one month.  Their entire life span narrows onto one month.  Sure, many will say that “but they’re a different species” and “time is relative” and those assertions would be right, but one thing is sure: even with magnitudes more of free time than butterflies, nearly half of all free time seems to be wasted, unless for some odd reason watching TV is so valuable that one need invest nigh half of all their free time doing it.

Let’s ruminate further.  Think about when someone presses pause on a movie.  Think upon that for a really long time.  After quite a while, wouldn’t the screen seem lifeless, like there’s nothing going on?  No movement, no change – nothing.  For one to notice the signatures of life there has to be change, motion, cycles, ebbs and flows and much more.

Now, when someone sits on a couch, for hours, days on end, doesn’t it seem antithetical to the very nature of all living organisms?  Doesn’t life move?  Doesn’t life experience?  Doesn’t life change?  If sitting nigh half your time, which is extremely bad for your health for what it’s worth and ironically robs you of your time, is to be seen as a symbol for life, then what does that say of a large portion of society?

Our ancestors conquered movement, doing incredible things that most people couldn’t imagine now days.  But these days, not only do some people “have no time,” but they don’t even exercise when their health depends on it.  Was guilty of this myself at a time, but no more.

Thankfully, life gave me a few chances to be able to learn from past mistakes, and after severe bouts with disease I took control of my life, instead of letting life control me.

My main thought at the time was: what would I do if 50 years from now, when looking back at life with one foot out the door, someone told me I had wasted thousands of hours throughout my life?  I know I’d have an ocean of regret, if not more.  That would crush my soul even more than the fact that I was going to miss those I loved very much.  I would be thinking how much more time I could have had with the people I loved.  I would do anything – ANYTHING – for merely one more hour, or even minutes when my loved ones.

Being able to spend one more moment with someone you love is precious.  Imagine being able to spend hundreds of hours more, or even thousands, over the course of a lifetime?

Why wait, and why not start now?

After all, the time is there for the taking.

And we all have it.  Until we don’t.

___________________________________________________________
This article is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Zy Marquiez and TheBreakaway.wordpress.com.

The Individual Vs. The Staged Collective

individuality
Source: NoMoreFakenews.com
Jon Rappoport
December 26 2016

Trumpets blare. In the night sky, spotlights roam. A great confusion of smoke and dust and fog, and emerging banners, carrying the single message:

WE.

The great meltdown of all consciousness into a glob of utopian simplicity…//

There are denizens among us.

They present themselves as the Normals.

And once again, I find it necessary to return to the subject of The Individual.

This time, I’m prompted by the madness swirling around the film, Vaxxed. I’ve written about the film and the controversy from several angles, but here I want to point out another factor. The CDC whistleblower at the heart of the story is one man going up against The Group.

I don’t call William Thompson an unsullied hero. Far from it. He lied, he committed fraud, he hid the fraud for 10 years, he buried evidence that the MMR vaccine increased the risk of autism in children, and finally, perhaps because he was caught in his own web, he confessed.

But the group, his employer, the grotesque CDC, his fellow scientists—and especially the hideous rotting press, a dumping ground for professional agents, front men, con artists, shysters, wormy night crawlers (and I’m speaking more kindly of them than I should)—have attacked Thompson and the film mercilessly.

Beyond all political objectives in this attack, there is a simple fact: those group-mind liars who have given up their souls will rage against the faintest appearance of one who tries to keep his. And in this rage, the soulless ones will try to pull the other down to where they live.

And somehow, it all looks normal and proper and rational.

In the 1950s, before television had numbed minds and turned them into jelly, there was a growing sense of: the Individual versus the Corporate State.

Something needed to be done. People were fitting into slots. They were surrendering their lives in increasing numbers. They were carving away their own idiosyncrasies and their independent ideas.

But television, under the control of psyops experts, became, as the 1950s droned on, the facile barrel of a weapon:

“What’s important is the group. Conform. Give in. Bathe in the great belonging…”

Recognize that every message television imparts is a proxy, a fabrication, a simulacrum, an imitation of life one step removed.

When this medium also broadcasts words and images of belonging and the need to belong, it’s engaged in revolutionary social engineering.

Whether it’s the happy-happy suburban-lawn family in an ad for the wonders of a toxic pesticide, or the mob family going to the mattresses to fend off a rival, it’s fantasy time in the land of mind control.

Television has carried its mission forward. The consciousness of the Individual versus the State has turned into: love the State. Love the State as family.

In the only study I have been able to find, Wictionary partially surveys the scripts of all television shows from the year 2006, to analyze the words most frequently broadcast to viewers in America.

Out of 29,713,800 words, including the massively used “a,” “an,” “the,” “you,” “me,” and the like, the word “home” ranks 179 from the top. “Mom” is 218. “Together” is 222. “Family” is 250.

This usage reflects an unending psyop.

Are you with the family or not? Are you with the group, the collective, or not? Those are the blunt parameters.

“When you get right down to it, all you have is family.” “Our team is really a family.” “You’re deserting the family.” “You fight for the guy next to you.” “Our department is like a family.” “Here at Corporation X, we’re a family.”

The committee, the group, the company, the sector, the planet.

The goal? Submerge the individual.

Individual achievement, imagination, creative power? Not on the agenda. Something for the dustbin of history.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World: “‘Ninety-six identical twins working ninety-six identical machines’! The voice was almost tremulous with enthusiasm. ‘You really know where you are. For the first time in history.’”

George Orwell, 1984: “The two aims of the Party are to conquer the whole surface of the earth and to extinguish once and for all the possibility of independent thought.”

The soap opera is the apotheosis of television. The long-running characters in Anytown are irreversibly enmeshed in one another’s lives. There’s no escape. There is only mind-numbing meddling.

“I’m just trying to help you realize we all love you (in chains).”

“Your father, rest his soul, would never have wanted you to do this to yourself…”

“How dare you set yourself apart from us. Who do you think you are?”

For some people, the collective “WE” has a fragrant scent—until they get down in the trenches with it. There they discover odd odors and postures and mutations. There they discover self-distorted creatures scurrying around celebrating their twistedness.

The night becomes long. The ideals melt. The level of intelligence required to inhabit this cave-like realm is lower than expected, much lower.

Hypnotic perceptions, which are the glue that holds the territory together, begin to crack and fall apart, and all that is left is a grim determination to see things through.

As the night moves into its latter stages, some participants come to know that all their activity is taking place in a chimerical universe.

It is as if reality has been constructed to yield up gibberish.

Whose idea was…

Continue Reading At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com

Watching Too Much TV Linked To Early Death

Source: Mercola.com
By: Dr. Mercola
July 11, 2014

If you watch television for three or more hours a day, your risk of premature death is double that of someone who watches only one hour or less, according to new research published in the Journal of the American Heart Association.1 The health risks of too much sedentary behavior, including too much sitting, are now widely known.

An earlier study, published in 2009, also linked sitting with biomarkers of poor metabolic health, showing how total sitting time correlates with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other prevalent chronic health problems,2 which explains why it could easily increase your risk of premature death.

What’s interesting about the current study, however, is that it didn’t compare television watching to other more active activities… it compared it to computer usage and driving time – two activities that also involve sitting.

Somewhat surprisingly, computer use and driving time were not associated with an increased risk of death the way television watching was, which begs the question, is TV damaging to your health in other ways beyond sitting?

How Does Watching TV Damage Your Health?

While no link was found between using a computer or driving and premature death, for every two additional hours spent watching TV, a person’s risk of death from heart disease rose by 44 percent and risk of death from cancer climbed by 21 percent.3

The researchers were skeptical, so they set out to examine other variables that might be driving up death rates linked to TV watching, like increased consumption of processed foods and sugary drinks (widely known to rise with television viewing), smoking, an unrelated serious illness, following (or not following) a Mediterranean diet, age, sex, and weight.

The results linking television time and premature death still held strong, which suggests television may be uniquely damaging. The study’s authors suggested part of the problem may be the extremely sedentary nature of television watching. When you’re driving or working at a computer, your body moves (albeit minimally) and your mind is engaged, which are not the case when watching TV.

Although not addressed in the study, exposure to light at night, even from your television, can also interfere with your body’s circadian rhythm and hormone production, wreaking havoc on your health. So this may be yet another way television is associated with chronic disease.

Furthermore, watching TV actually has a major impact on your brain chemistry, and the longer you watch, the easier your brain slips into a receptive, passive mode, meaning that messages are streamed into your brain without any participation from you. Dr. Aric Sigman, a British psychologist, analyzed 35 different scientific studies on television and its effect on the viewer.4

He found the damage comes not from the TV programs themselves, but from the vast amount of time kids, in particular, are spending watching television and computer screens. This activity produces an almost narcotic effect on your brain, actually numbing areas that would be stimulated by other activities, like reading. Dr. Sigman has identified 15 negative effects that he believes can be blamed on watching television, stating:5

“Watching television, irrespective of the content, is increasingly associated with unfavorable biological and cognitive changes. These alterations occur at viewing levels far below the population norm.

Given the population’s sheer exposure time to this environmental factor it is more than puzzling to consider how little awareness and action has resulted.”

The risks Dr. Sigman revealed include:

Obesity Delayed healing Heart trouble Decreased metabolism Damaged eyesight
Alzheimer’s disease Decreased attention span Hormone disturbances Cancer Early puberty
Autism Sleep difficulties Increased appetite Limited brain growth Diabetes

TV Increases the Time You Spend Sitting in a Completely Relaxed State

Too much sitting, whether in front of a computer, in your car or watching television, should be avoided for optimal health. And it makes sense that TV watching may be the worst of the sitting offenders, drawing your body and mind into a completely sedentary, passive state. At least with driving and computer usage, the study’s author explained:6

“You have tension in your muscles. You are moving little parts of your body, like your hands. You are not completely relaxed as you are when you are watching television.”

Instead of parking yourself in front of the TV at night, consider doing something else, or at the very least engage in some minor activity while the TV is on. The reason this is so critical for your health is that when you move, you increase the force of gravity on your body.

Anti-gravity environments speed up cellular deterioration; this we know from astronauts in outer space. Dr. Joan Vernikos,7 former director of NASA’s Life Sciences Division and author of Sitting Kills, Moving Heals, was in fact one of the primary doctors assigned to keep NASA astronauts from deteriorating in space.

In an anti-gravity situation, your body deteriorates at a far more rapid pace, and interestingly enough, sitting for an extended period of time simulates a low-gravity type environment for your body. The key is to disengage from this low anti-gravity situation as much as possible using intermittent movement.

The Health Damage of Too Much Sitting Is Well Established

There may be some differing health effects between sitting for different activities (television versus reading, for instance), but as these continue to be explored, know this: even if you are a fit athlete who exercises regularly, you may still endanger your health simply by sitting too much. For example, one 2012 analysis that looked at the findings from 18 studies found that those who sat for the longest periods of time were twice as likely to have diabetes or heart disease, compared to those who sat the least.8

Besides increasing your risk of metabolic problems, researchers warn that the combination of sitting too much and exercising too little can more than double the risk of heart failure in men.9 Last year, a Swedish study also concluded that those who live a generally active life have better heart health and live longer than those who remain sedentary for most of the day.10 This held true even for those who didn’t engage in a regular exercise routine. The study revealed:11

  • Those who reported overall higher levels of daily intermittent movement suffered fewer heart-related problems
  • For every 100 of the sedentary people who experienced a heart attack or stroke, only 73 of the highly active group had such an event
  • For every 100 of the least active who died, only 70 of the most active died
  • Those who had high daily activity levels and engaged in a regular exercise program had the lowest risk profiles overall

Try These Intermittent Movement Activities While You Watch TV

There are many reasons to limit the amount of television in your life, but when you do watch it, make it a point to get up every 15 minutes. Dr. Vernikos’ research demonstrated that the minimum number of times you need to interrupt your sitting in order to counteract its cardiovascular health risks is in the neighborhood of 35 times per day. Her research clearly shows that sitting down and standing up repeatedly for 35 minutes does NOT have the same effect as standing up once, 35 times over the course of the entire day.

I suggest you take a break to do one set of three exercises, anywhere from once every 15 minutes to once per hour. I personally am very disciplined and committed to doing these movements at least once every 15 minutes. This is important not only during television watching but also during other types of screen time or while you’re doing desk work.

The following videos, featuring Jill Rodriguez, offer a series of helpful intermittent movement beginner exercises you can do virtually anywhere. For a demonstration of each technique, please see the corresponding video in the table below. The videos use a desk for demonstration purposes, but you could also use the back of a chair, a coffee table, or the back of your couch for support.

Technique #1: Standing Neck-Stretch: Hold for 20 seconds on each side.

Technique #2: Shoulder Blade Squeeze: Round your shoulders, then pull them back and pull down. Repeat for 20-30 seconds.

Technique #3: Standing Hip Stretch: Holding on to your desk, cross your left leg over your right thigh and “sit down” by bending your right leg. Repeat on the other side.

Technique #4: The Windmill: Stand with feet shoulder-width apart, then pivot your feet to the right. Push your hip out to the left. Raising your left arm skyward, and your right arm toward the floor, lower your body toward the floor while looking up, then raise your torso back to standing position. Repeat on the other side.

Technique #5: Side Lunge: Starting with your feet together, take a medium step sideways, and bend down as if you’re about to sit. Use your arms for balance by reaching out in front of you. Return to starting position, and repeat 10-20 times. Repeat on the other side.

Technique #6: Desk Push-Up: Place hand a little wider than shoulder-width apart on your desk. Come up on your toes to make it easier to tip forward. Lower your chest to the edge of the desk, and push back up. Do 10 repetitions.

Technique #7: Squat to Chair: With your feet shoulder-width apart, sit down, reaching forward with your hands, and stand back up in quick succession. Do 15-20 repetitions.

Technique #8: Single Leg Dead Lift: Place your right hand on your desk, and place your weight on your right leg. Fold your torso forward, while simultaneously lifting your left leg backward. Do 10 repetitions on each side.

Technique #9: Mountain Climber: Get into a push-up position on the floor. Pull your right knee forward to touch your right wrist or arm, then return to push-up position. Repeat on the other side. Try to pick up the pace, and do 20 quick repetitions.

Continue Reading At: Mercola.com

What Is The Best Use Of Your Time

By: Zy Marquiez
November 17, 2015

“There is a vitality, a life force, an energy, a quickening that is translated through you into action, and because there is only one of you in all time, this expression is unique. And if you block it, it will never exist through any other medium and will be lost.”
—Martha Graham

Recently, someone who has been in my life by way of friendship shared a post on social media. A simple post, really. Or was it?

Let us backtrack one second.

Just earlier today, my mind was traveling through the endless escape that was insomnia, and lo and behold, idea after idea kept sprouting like a field of seeds which was bathed in eternal rain and sunshine.

Gears were turning, levers were pulled, ideas created, filtered, musings edited, so on and so forth. My purpose at this point seemed like an afterthought.  Since sleeplessness had reared its ugly head, this itself gave me a great opportunity; it occurred to me, why not use it?

Thus, after a while of catching up with news online, my said friend had shared a picture that stated one of the very questions that myself just happened to be ruminating on. Quite a coincidence.

It’s a rather simple, yet direct question: What is the best use of your time?

Really, what is it? Is it currently doing what you are doing? Personally, even being cognizant of how important efficient time-management is to me, it can still be daunting to try and be 100% efficient, 100% of the time. Seems rather mechanical doesn’t it? In my personal case, it’s just important that time is not misused, and would rather learn something interesting, learn something important. Better yet, time used in fashion to help myself, and/or help others. Now that is a large driver in my life.

Let us tackle the issue of time use with a simple notion.

Many folks have a penchant for watching TV. A lot of TV. For the myriad reasons that it takes place, the bottom line is that the average person watches 5 hours of TV per day. That amounts to 1,825 hours per year. That is 18250 hours per decade, and 91,250 hours per 50 years. That’s a lot of time! Over the course of 50 years, the totality of the time spent watching TV daily amounts to 3802 consecutive 24-hour days, over that span.  Or “just” 5 hours a day, for 50 years.

Not sure about how others see it, but for me at least, that’s an overwhelming amount of time that could be rather well spent elsewhere.

This is just a nuts and bolts cursory overview of time management in relation to efficiency. Furthermore, that does not take into account the amount of time people spend watching videos/tv online.

For the sake of simplicity, let us assume most of us happen to get 8 hours a day sleeping [yeah, its probably not that much, but let’s stick with it for a moment]. If one were to subtract an 8-hour sleep cycle from the total of 24 hours in a day, then you have 16 available hours to do as you please. Without even getting into whether one works or not, 5 out of those 16 available hours, or nigh 1/3 of all of the average person’s free time is being used by the average person to watch TV.

Fast forward far into the future. Let us crank the levers of imagination here for a second.

At the back end of one’s entire life, one can imagine that sooner or later in a moment of introspection a person might ponder about all those great times. You know, back in the day – a phrase that even many younglings use now days as if they’ve been around for many decades, and such. If one can imagine one of the people that spent an enormous amount of time watching TV, would that person be happy with themselves if they spent nigh 1/3 of all of the free time they had while they were alive watching television?

Let us be more precise. Where does adding 40 hours of work a week put us?

In an entire 168 hour work-week where the average person spends, 56 hours a week sleeping, and 40 hours a week working, that leaves one with 72 hours free. If one were to spend 35 hours a week viewing television, then that would leave 37 hours of free time. That’s nearly half of all of one’s available time spent watching television. That seems ludicrous, does it not?

Many people will propound the idea that they are tired, want to decompress, have had a ‘long day’, so on and so forth. One hears it quite often. That is completely understandable, to a point. But, don’t you think a person rather spend that free time with their loved ones? By the way, if watching TV with your loved ones is the APEX of quality time, then…you might want to rethink the meaning of the word quantity quality.

Why pose such a question? Because, in a world where poverty, all disease, war, et al. are not only endemic, but increasing, does it not stand to reason that a person should do all they can to protect themselves mentally/physically/psychologically/spiritually? Seems reasonable. But are people really putting that much – if any – time to not become a statistic? That however does not seem like a reasonable assumption, seeing as the numbers of folks facing a myriad of issues are increasing year in and year out unceasing.

If people were really doing everything they could to break free of the matrix of control that harvests them, would poverty, disease, war, etc. be increasing? Definitely not.

Some will instantly throw their hands in the air and say, but the republicans/democrats this, or the corporations that, or secret societies “control everything!” While there is endemic corruption in the modern landscape, do those groups/institutions really ‘control everything’?

Do they really? We just made a reasonable case that nearly half of all the free time the average person has in their entire lifetime is carried out choosing to watch TV. Don’t the very groups that people are quick to blame benefit from the inaction of watching TV, that when added up of a combined populace, numbers in the millions of hours of…watching TV? How many hours of extra labor [if one wanted too], or extra self-education, or extra exercise could be carried out by the individual if he/she were to apply a microscopic amount of all that extra TV time, into striving to be the very best of themselves? Think folks would get the picture?

The interesting aspect is that this whole mental exercise also does not take into account how much money goes directly into funding things that people claim they oppose, but which they financially support day in and day out. How many tens of millions of dollars are being spent inefficiently, rather than perhaps investing in the best thing one could, themselves? That number has to be beyond astronomical.

How could an individual ever breakaway their consciousness from this system/matrix, if so much time is spent doing such things?

Now that the levers of imagination have been shifted accordingly, what do you think people will decide? Keep in mind, one need not use all of the time that was use watching TV, doing something else. Just one hour daily, used in an ultra-efficient manner that directly benefits your mind/body/soul would be worth pursuing.

What kind of benefits would accrue if those hours add into the dozens or even hundreds per year? What about thousands of hours over a lifetime? That would create quite a powerful and capable individual – a boundless universe of conscious creation.

How much could one change in their life? What about their community? What about the world? How much could one create spending just a minute amount of time pushing yourself farther than you ever thought possible?

Why don’t we find out? The door is wide open. It’s only a choice.

A blank canvas awaits – a large marble uncut stone slab – for wondrous creation. Await those who want more. It awaits those who are not satisfied with their current path.