Forget the big political or personal events of the past decade. Those gradual lifestyle changes that people do not always notice when they are happening are the kind that sometimes make even greater impact on people. So kick off those clog shoes (I hope you didn't actually buy a pair this decade), turn off that 52 inch big screen TV and get ready for a list of some of the things we had this decade, but didn't have prior to it.
* Infornews- It started about year 2000-2001. The "no news is good news unless it is entertaining" began. It's a sad fact but important news no takes second place to gossip and triviality, that is, if we are fortunate enough to get real news at all. Too, Reality TV is now our reality, and we are all much worse for it.
* Twittering- The new social network introduced tweets, retweets, follows and trending topics, as long as the message fit into 140 characters. I swear that I have never "tweeted" nor had any desire to do so.
* "Going green"- It took hold this decade because of environmental concerns of consumers and profitability advantages for sellers. the question about the excesses of greening is whether or not it has become sickening enough to turn us all blue.
* Tattoos- What was seen as deviant prior to the 2000's is now mainstream. Even moms get them, but I still can't think of a tattoo as anything but body mutilation.
*Cell phones- They are now used by more than 85 percent of the U.S. population and for some have replaced land lines. But not for me. I still fight my one man crusade to show they are the abomination of civilization.
* Facebook- They say it is a time sucking, time wasting obsession for more than 300 million users (me too) that are every where on the globe. Facebook may be a bigger uniter of cultural understanding and tolerance than any single thing prior to this decade.* ipods- It is hard to believe this portable media player was launched in 2001.....seems like everyone has one and they have been with us as long as the telephone.
*Tweenagers- Tweens, especially girls, became an economic force to be reckoned with, buying everything from clothes to electronic devices to music to concert tickets. "Like, it's totally awesome......"
*YouTube videos- The video-sharing site was born in 2005. Political candidates in 2008 even had their on YouTube channels and major news events are even discovered or covered with amateur yu tube productions
*Blogging- the world's favorite new sport in which unqualified writers post, inane commentary about nothing. What's worrisome is that people actually read the blogs in great numbers.
*Fat- This was the decade that fat became the enemy of the state. New York City banned trans fats, and Alabama, second in national obesity rankings, introduced a tax on overweight state workers. I'm just afraid they will take away my doughnuts.
*Starbucks- It is a cliché that there is one on every block..or is it? Well, the product is good, if way too expensive. I think the next decade will see the decline of Starbucks coffee dominance.
*Information Overload- An explosion in Internet use led to an overload of information about practically everything a large part of it being inaccurate? Just another reflection of the dumbing down of societies.
*Instant Gratification- Being able to get anything you want within an instant or throwing a tantrum became the norm. Might this be the theme of the first decade of the 2000's?
On that note, since I don't know if you agree....I am stomping my feet and ending this discussion right now.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
The First Decade Of The 21st Century
We are closing in on the end of the first decade of the 21st century. I know it technically ends on December 31st, 2010 (not December 31 at , 2009). But for the purpose of evaluating the decade I am ending it early (such power I have!). What do you think about this past decade? What are the defining moments? How has life changed since the beginning of the 21st century?
Historians never evaluate an era until it is long past because the effects from each one may be long in coming. Thank God we aren't historians. We can give our opinions and observations about it, and those may make some sense of it all. Since I am writing to you about this (how come I always supply the ideas in our E mails???) I get to go first with an analysis. I yet have no coherent one, so you get rambling observations from me instead.
In no particular order here are a few things from the first 2000 decade that might be significant for the world.
* Wireless power- that wireless stuff sure has impacted how we get news , report it, even transfer personal news to those closest to it. Remember when those students and housewives in Iran used their mobile phones and computers to record and broadcast footage that almost toppled the Iranian government after disputed elections. It didn't, but it sure lessened the vise of the Iranian dictators. There are many more examples of the power of instantaneous information, both good and bad. Google to Wikipedia to MySpace, Facebook and YouTube, those places have changed human relations for better or worse and have all come of age this decade.
* Rural isolation is disappearing- even the most remote and poor places today are armed with information that changes their lives and more importantly, their expectations for a better life. You can't keep them isolated on the farm anymore.
*Altered economic systems- This decade we lost faith in banks and mortgages, in stock markets and the divine right of real estate to increase in value. Some third world countries have become wealthy and some first world wealthy one saddled in debt.
* The dying newspaper, magazine and mainstream mediums- The world no longer wants real news in traditional format. It now cancels newspaper subscriptions and tunes into sound bite journalism as a replacement. So we know less about real issues important to our lives but have greater access to more trivial things that never enrich us but seem to entertain and sedate our brains like the drugs of the 60's decade did to those who were young and lived in it. That more Americans voted for contestants on a silly, vacuous TV show called "American Idol", than voted in the last two U.S. Presidential elections shows that the 2000's have opened as an age of triviality.
* Trendiness and political correctness- This has been the decade for followers, not leaders. We are expected to accept even the most unproved of theories if enough people believe that it becomes "a fact that" the theory is true. From Global Warming ("It's Global Warming and we are all going to die"!) to those crazy "healthy diets" we are told we must eat (My God! Give the children candy too once in awhile) to replacing Christianity with fanatical Islamism to texting and chatting while driving, if you don't participate you'll be pictured as odd.
Ok, your turn to tell me what has been different this past decade..
Historians never evaluate an era until it is long past because the effects from each one may be long in coming. Thank God we aren't historians. We can give our opinions and observations about it, and those may make some sense of it all. Since I am writing to you about this (how come I always supply the ideas in our E mails???) I get to go first with an analysis. I yet have no coherent one, so you get rambling observations from me instead.
In no particular order here are a few things from the first 2000 decade that might be significant for the world.
* Wireless power- that wireless stuff sure has impacted how we get news , report it, even transfer personal news to those closest to it. Remember when those students and housewives in Iran used their mobile phones and computers to record and broadcast footage that almost toppled the Iranian government after disputed elections. It didn't, but it sure lessened the vise of the Iranian dictators. There are many more examples of the power of instantaneous information, both good and bad. Google to Wikipedia to MySpace, Facebook and YouTube, those places have changed human relations for better or worse and have all come of age this decade.
* Rural isolation is disappearing- even the most remote and poor places today are armed with information that changes their lives and more importantly, their expectations for a better life. You can't keep them isolated on the farm anymore.
*Altered economic systems- This decade we lost faith in banks and mortgages, in stock markets and the divine right of real estate to increase in value. Some third world countries have become wealthy and some first world wealthy one saddled in debt.
* The dying newspaper, magazine and mainstream mediums- The world no longer wants real news in traditional format. It now cancels newspaper subscriptions and tunes into sound bite journalism as a replacement. So we know less about real issues important to our lives but have greater access to more trivial things that never enrich us but seem to entertain and sedate our brains like the drugs of the 60's decade did to those who were young and lived in it. That more Americans voted for contestants on a silly, vacuous TV show called "American Idol", than voted in the last two U.S. Presidential elections shows that the 2000's have opened as an age of triviality.
* Trendiness and political correctness- This has been the decade for followers, not leaders. We are expected to accept even the most unproved of theories if enough people believe that it becomes "a fact that" the theory is true. From Global Warming ("It's Global Warming and we are all going to die"!) to those crazy "healthy diets" we are told we must eat (My God! Give the children candy too once in awhile) to replacing Christianity with fanatical Islamism to texting and chatting while driving, if you don't participate you'll be pictured as odd.
Ok, your turn to tell me what has been different this past decade..
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
No More Security
What a reaction to the latest terrorist airline blow-up attempt here in the U.S. In the name of "security" the government now says even toilets will have restricted access. Yep! Toilets will be locked an hour before landing and passengers not allowed to leave their seats on international flights during that same hour time frame. That's one of the "new' security measures to be implemented. I fail to understand why we are now in name of security forbidden to use toilet one hour before landing.
What is stopping another suicide candidate blowing himself in the toilet 2-3 hours before landing? It is a knee jerk reaction which will not serve as a deterrent and, despite attempts by the current administration to make people feel they are safer when flying. this idiotic measure will only irritate both passenger bowels and bladders and passenger patience. Living with the risk of terrorism is the price we pay for living in a free society. The less free we become the more we have surrendered to the terrorists. Now the idiots in our government have surrendered our toilets!
Whose interests are protected by increasing, invasive, offensive, often preposterous "security measures"? Passengers' lives? Citizens' dignity and civil rights? Western world values of freedom? In reality, the strategy of governments to pretend they are "saving us" from terrorism with preposterous, annoying and expensively needless security increases each time there is another terrorist attempt on a plane, is all an illusion. And the vast majority of riders know it.
Flying never was, nor can it every be a guaranteed safe voyage. Security does not need to be increased...just competent! In fact I think most of what passes for airport security is a cosmetic nightmare that does nothing by annoy and delay all..at an expensive cost to passengers. Too, airlines are a civilian method of travel and rely on sales.
If security is increased to the extent that people feel uncomfortable, fewer passengers will travel and already struggling airlines will fold. Do I hear "airline bail-out" coming next in this economic crisis period?
There are hundreds of ways for anyone intent on blowing up your plane to do it...and many of those are not detectable with current 'security measures'. I for one would prefer a simple profiling method of security. Through out all the crazy security checks now in place and just check the people who mostly resemble past terrorists, and let the rest of them go on board normally. It won't make me feel any safer, but my bladder and bowels will appreciate it.
What is stopping another suicide candidate blowing himself in the toilet 2-3 hours before landing? It is a knee jerk reaction which will not serve as a deterrent and, despite attempts by the current administration to make people feel they are safer when flying. this idiotic measure will only irritate both passenger bowels and bladders and passenger patience. Living with the risk of terrorism is the price we pay for living in a free society. The less free we become the more we have surrendered to the terrorists. Now the idiots in our government have surrendered our toilets!
Whose interests are protected by increasing, invasive, offensive, often preposterous "security measures"? Passengers' lives? Citizens' dignity and civil rights? Western world values of freedom? In reality, the strategy of governments to pretend they are "saving us" from terrorism with preposterous, annoying and expensively needless security increases each time there is another terrorist attempt on a plane, is all an illusion. And the vast majority of riders know it.
Flying never was, nor can it every be a guaranteed safe voyage. Security does not need to be increased...just competent! In fact I think most of what passes for airport security is a cosmetic nightmare that does nothing by annoy and delay all..at an expensive cost to passengers. Too, airlines are a civilian method of travel and rely on sales.
If security is increased to the extent that people feel uncomfortable, fewer passengers will travel and already struggling airlines will fold. Do I hear "airline bail-out" coming next in this economic crisis period?
There are hundreds of ways for anyone intent on blowing up your plane to do it...and many of those are not detectable with current 'security measures'. I for one would prefer a simple profiling method of security. Through out all the crazy security checks now in place and just check the people who mostly resemble past terrorists, and let the rest of them go on board normally. It won't make me feel any safer, but my bladder and bowels will appreciate it.
Attacking A Pope
As to the big item in the news.... The recent attack on Pope Benedict by a crazed woman is stirring both the faithful and unfaithful to question why and whether it is just "a sign of the times" that even sacred public figures like a pope are in danger. Well, in short, assaulting a pope is nothing new. Read any history of the papacy and you'll see periods of intense anger toward the pope, physical attacks on him (there was one female pope but she was never attacked) were even more common than in this generation.
In fact, the early popes were so hated in Rome that they feared appearing in public. Often they were pelted with curses and vegetables tossed by the masses who resented the power of, abuse of power by them, and their general indifference toward the common people of Rome. And of course, being such a political power with one of the best armies in Europe the papacy often was under assault from secular rulers, something that hasn't happened in modern times nor is likely to any time in the future.
So, NO, the pope is no less safe today from assault than he was before. The problem of providing an effective security for the head of the Roman Catholic Church that doesn't cut cut him off from his flock is a difficult challenge for his Vatican team of security advisers. The Pope uses an armored vehicle covered with bulletproof glass, the aptly named Pope mobile, in St. Peter's Square when the weather is fine and when he goes on tour abroad. But when he is moving about inside Vatican City, he walks or travels in a normal limousine that is susceptible to attacks, such as happened to Benedict and his predecessor, John Paul II who was shot in the early 80's in the Vatican Square as he rode in the Pope mobile.
People want to see the pope close at hand. A zero risk with increased security and physical barriers doesn't seem realistic in a situation in which there's will be direct rapport between a pope and the flock. So what is to be done to protect the pope from the crazies or the malicious? Not much more than is already being done, because to shield the pope too much is to break the rapport he must have to be effective as the leader of the church.
In a sense, it would turn the papacy into a figure of royalty rather than an equal member of the faith.Attacks on the pope have been common, yet they have been non political in nature most of the time. The question is what would be the reaction if a radical member of another faith were to assault and kill a pope? That's a far different scenario than what happened to Benedict. But in this age of extremism in politics and cultures it could happen
In fact, the early popes were so hated in Rome that they feared appearing in public. Often they were pelted with curses and vegetables tossed by the masses who resented the power of, abuse of power by them, and their general indifference toward the common people of Rome. And of course, being such a political power with one of the best armies in Europe the papacy often was under assault from secular rulers, something that hasn't happened in modern times nor is likely to any time in the future.
So, NO, the pope is no less safe today from assault than he was before. The problem of providing an effective security for the head of the Roman Catholic Church that doesn't cut cut him off from his flock is a difficult challenge for his Vatican team of security advisers. The Pope uses an armored vehicle covered with bulletproof glass, the aptly named Pope mobile, in St. Peter's Square when the weather is fine and when he goes on tour abroad. But when he is moving about inside Vatican City, he walks or travels in a normal limousine that is susceptible to attacks, such as happened to Benedict and his predecessor, John Paul II who was shot in the early 80's in the Vatican Square as he rode in the Pope mobile.
People want to see the pope close at hand. A zero risk with increased security and physical barriers doesn't seem realistic in a situation in which there's will be direct rapport between a pope and the flock. So what is to be done to protect the pope from the crazies or the malicious? Not much more than is already being done, because to shield the pope too much is to break the rapport he must have to be effective as the leader of the church.
In a sense, it would turn the papacy into a figure of royalty rather than an equal member of the faith.Attacks on the pope have been common, yet they have been non political in nature most of the time. The question is what would be the reaction if a radical member of another faith were to assault and kill a pope? That's a far different scenario than what happened to Benedict. But in this age of extremism in politics and cultures it could happen
Bribe On To Victory
Interesting developments in Afghanistan these days. The Obama administration, frustrated with non success in getting rid of the Taliban, has decided to copy the Bush administration to "win the war" there. And what are they doing? Well, uh..they are bribing the citizens to help. U.S. and Afghan officials have agreed on a new nationwide strategy that will funnel millions of dollars in foreign aid to villages that organize "neighborhood watch" programs to help with security. The plan will provide an incentive for Afghan tribal leaders to form their own militias and guard against Taliban insurgents.
If you can't win militarily nor get the support of the locals, bribing is an option. It surely worked in Iraq. At the end of the Bush term the co called "surge" in Iraq was not only an increase in soldiers there but tens of millions of dollars handed out to thugs in Baghdad neighborhoods surrounding villages. Cash for assistance worked there and allowed the war to wind down, and now officials are counting on the greed motive to win out again in Afghanistan.
The theory is that by placing more responsibility for security in the hands of villagers, U.S. troops will be able to focus on more urgent matters at a time when the Taliban is on the rise. Even with less money spent on bribes than in carrying on the war with the U.S. army, There might be greater progress in defeating the Taliban. Having locals turn against rather than harbor the Taliban is a huge benefit to the U.S. army operations.
The bribery is similar in some ways to an initiative that helped turn the tide of the Iraq war by paying members of Sunni tribes, including some former insurgents, to defend their neighborhoods. Even for devoted anti infidel Muslims, money talks loudly. But unlike in Iraq, aid will not go directly to individuals. Afghan villages that cooperate will receive roads, health clinics, fuel, and other aid.
Afghanistan is a corrupt country with a corrupt and utterly weak government. This is different than the Iraq bribery scheme. There, the U.S. military was far more in charge and made recipients of the bribes be accountable for the money they received. I am not sure this Afghan government can do that.The bribe for help strategy is not a U.S. one. it has long been the focus of the U. N. when using "peacekeeping" or monitoring forces in war torn nations. One might claim the use of bribes is a modern war strategy of great appeal in an age of greed for material benefits. fewer soldiers are killed this way, meaning there is less upset back home at the price of war.
Too, the bribe amounts are usually smaller than the cost of sending and equipping more troops and support personnel. Opponents to the bribe strategy say that caving into world opinion, catering to the enemy, giving away taxpayer money when they can't afford it, giving the enemy more while taking away from the American people is a policy doomed to fail. So what do you think?
Is bribery now a reasonable tactic of war? I, but uh..I refuse to pay you a bribe in return for an answer.
If you can't win militarily nor get the support of the locals, bribing is an option. It surely worked in Iraq. At the end of the Bush term the co called "surge" in Iraq was not only an increase in soldiers there but tens of millions of dollars handed out to thugs in Baghdad neighborhoods surrounding villages. Cash for assistance worked there and allowed the war to wind down, and now officials are counting on the greed motive to win out again in Afghanistan.
The theory is that by placing more responsibility for security in the hands of villagers, U.S. troops will be able to focus on more urgent matters at a time when the Taliban is on the rise. Even with less money spent on bribes than in carrying on the war with the U.S. army, There might be greater progress in defeating the Taliban. Having locals turn against rather than harbor the Taliban is a huge benefit to the U.S. army operations.
The bribery is similar in some ways to an initiative that helped turn the tide of the Iraq war by paying members of Sunni tribes, including some former insurgents, to defend their neighborhoods. Even for devoted anti infidel Muslims, money talks loudly. But unlike in Iraq, aid will not go directly to individuals. Afghan villages that cooperate will receive roads, health clinics, fuel, and other aid.
Afghanistan is a corrupt country with a corrupt and utterly weak government. This is different than the Iraq bribery scheme. There, the U.S. military was far more in charge and made recipients of the bribes be accountable for the money they received. I am not sure this Afghan government can do that.The bribe for help strategy is not a U.S. one. it has long been the focus of the U. N. when using "peacekeeping" or monitoring forces in war torn nations. One might claim the use of bribes is a modern war strategy of great appeal in an age of greed for material benefits. fewer soldiers are killed this way, meaning there is less upset back home at the price of war.
Too, the bribe amounts are usually smaller than the cost of sending and equipping more troops and support personnel. Opponents to the bribe strategy say that caving into world opinion, catering to the enemy, giving away taxpayer money when they can't afford it, giving the enemy more while taking away from the American people is a policy doomed to fail. So what do you think?
Is bribery now a reasonable tactic of war? I, but uh..I refuse to pay you a bribe in return for an answer.
The Right To Be Or Not To Be Fat
How far has political correctness come? Too far, I think. We now face pressures to do what the majority in society likes, to think as society says we should and now to only even eat what society says is "healthy".
Yep, now being fat is considered a mortal sin. Just ask the obese students at, Lincoln University, a historically black college near Philadelphia. Until recently they were being told they could not graduate from the school if too fat, unless they took a course that chastises them from being obese. After the media picked up the story the idea was nixed and now it is ok to waddle across the podium and pick up a degree at Lincoln. Amid complaints the so-called "fat course" undermined a school principle of equal treatment, Lincoln's administration reversed its crazy policy the other day and says now the fatter students won't have to take a fitness class to graduate.
Why would a college put in such a non academic and insulting requirement? The school says it had initiated the policy to address high rates of obesity and diabetes, especially in the black community. (which has the highest rate of obesity of all ethnic groups in the U.S., despite being one of the poorest ones as well) Lincoln had earlier sent 80 students e-mails saying they had to take the fitness course to graduate.
The plan was to target students with a body mass index of 30 or above. Doctors consider that the obese point.But political correct stupidity can be brought down by the saving face syndrome, as in the fact that once media ridiculed the school for its obvious lack of respect for the privacy and freedom of its students the "Fitness for Life" course will instead be "suggested" to certain students after a freshman wellness class that addresses a number of health issues besides being too fat.How arrogant of the school!
Must humans all conform to some nebulous standard of fitness to merit a college degree? What other requirements might students be forced to accede. Maybe any student wearing too sandals might be expelled because wearing sandals could be dangerous to the feet. How about lighting in dorm rooms? Perhaps the lamp mom sent her son to use in their dorm provides too little light and might prove injurious to the eyes. better get rid of that lamp or no diploma....
The truth is a person has a right to weight whatever he or she wants, and to suggest extra weight makes one less worthy is not exactly in keeping with the treasured tradition of a college campus' pursuit of academic freedom. Maybe instead of a required fitness course the Lincoln administration should be required as a condition of continued employment, to take a class on political correctness, just so it may see how stupid one becomes when he or she tries to impose personal likes on others
Yep, now being fat is considered a mortal sin. Just ask the obese students at, Lincoln University, a historically black college near Philadelphia. Until recently they were being told they could not graduate from the school if too fat, unless they took a course that chastises them from being obese. After the media picked up the story the idea was nixed and now it is ok to waddle across the podium and pick up a degree at Lincoln. Amid complaints the so-called "fat course" undermined a school principle of equal treatment, Lincoln's administration reversed its crazy policy the other day and says now the fatter students won't have to take a fitness class to graduate.
Why would a college put in such a non academic and insulting requirement? The school says it had initiated the policy to address high rates of obesity and diabetes, especially in the black community. (which has the highest rate of obesity of all ethnic groups in the U.S., despite being one of the poorest ones as well) Lincoln had earlier sent 80 students e-mails saying they had to take the fitness course to graduate.
The plan was to target students with a body mass index of 30 or above. Doctors consider that the obese point.But political correct stupidity can be brought down by the saving face syndrome, as in the fact that once media ridiculed the school for its obvious lack of respect for the privacy and freedom of its students the "Fitness for Life" course will instead be "suggested" to certain students after a freshman wellness class that addresses a number of health issues besides being too fat.How arrogant of the school!
Must humans all conform to some nebulous standard of fitness to merit a college degree? What other requirements might students be forced to accede. Maybe any student wearing too sandals might be expelled because wearing sandals could be dangerous to the feet. How about lighting in dorm rooms? Perhaps the lamp mom sent her son to use in their dorm provides too little light and might prove injurious to the eyes. better get rid of that lamp or no diploma....
The truth is a person has a right to weight whatever he or she wants, and to suggest extra weight makes one less worthy is not exactly in keeping with the treasured tradition of a college campus' pursuit of academic freedom. Maybe instead of a required fitness course the Lincoln administration should be required as a condition of continued employment, to take a class on political correctness, just so it may see how stupid one becomes when he or she tries to impose personal likes on others
Sports Scandals
I like sports. As a child I played many of them and I still follow a few closely, but I must say that the news about sport and athletes has changed. There is less news and talk about the games and players exploits on field and more about their off the field peccadilloes. And the internet Age has changed the speed of transmission of the naughty things athletes do in private.
Things once whispered over a backyard fence now can go around the world in the click of a mouse as the mediums love to gossip about the athletes personal relationships and decisions off the field. It is a shame, and probably why so many sports fans have or are losing interest in competitions on the field because they are weary about the scandals the mediums love to focus on. From scandals about spousal abuse by athletes, to steroid overuse, cheating athletes (on the field and at home in the bedroom), disclosures of non politically correct views or unconventional sexual roles the athlete may assume (he or she is gay or bi sexual)..whatever is salacious is writing about as much as the scores and events of the games themselves.
For example, the dark secrets of sports' most fiercely private public man, golfer legend Tiger Woods, were his own until that fateful post Thanksgiving crash with a fire hydrant as he fled his golf club enraged wife who sought vengeance for Woods string of tangles with mistresses. The gossip about Woods is everywhere, often on unlikely sites, such as the front page of a major serious daily newspaper. And printing and speaking about his private life has somehow made his sport achievements less impressive to watchers.
Style has trumped substance for Woods and many others in sports. Some former fans of the sport now are fans of seeing how the athletes are discredited fro doing what they fans can and still do themselves in private. The joy many get in watching the hero fall is an aberration as curious as any sports contest itself. I wonder why so many fans want to see their heroes discredited and chased from the playing fields. Maybe it is to show that they are simply athletes plain and simple, and that nothing about them is heroic. Bringing the star to a lower level might make the fan feel a simpatico with the athletes on display.
Do we love shaking our finger at public figures when we can? I wonder if their fall from it a greater thrill to see that is their rise to glory?
Things once whispered over a backyard fence now can go around the world in the click of a mouse as the mediums love to gossip about the athletes personal relationships and decisions off the field. It is a shame, and probably why so many sports fans have or are losing interest in competitions on the field because they are weary about the scandals the mediums love to focus on. From scandals about spousal abuse by athletes, to steroid overuse, cheating athletes (on the field and at home in the bedroom), disclosures of non politically correct views or unconventional sexual roles the athlete may assume (he or she is gay or bi sexual)..whatever is salacious is writing about as much as the scores and events of the games themselves.
For example, the dark secrets of sports' most fiercely private public man, golfer legend Tiger Woods, were his own until that fateful post Thanksgiving crash with a fire hydrant as he fled his golf club enraged wife who sought vengeance for Woods string of tangles with mistresses. The gossip about Woods is everywhere, often on unlikely sites, such as the front page of a major serious daily newspaper. And printing and speaking about his private life has somehow made his sport achievements less impressive to watchers.
Style has trumped substance for Woods and many others in sports. Some former fans of the sport now are fans of seeing how the athletes are discredited fro doing what they fans can and still do themselves in private. The joy many get in watching the hero fall is an aberration as curious as any sports contest itself. I wonder why so many fans want to see their heroes discredited and chased from the playing fields. Maybe it is to show that they are simply athletes plain and simple, and that nothing about them is heroic. Bringing the star to a lower level might make the fan feel a simpatico with the athletes on display.
Do we love shaking our finger at public figures when we can? I wonder if their fall from it a greater thrill to see that is their rise to glory?
Life In Prison For Juveniles
What do you think about incarcerating a juvenile in prison with a life without parole possibility sentence? The Supreme Court here is now studying and preparing a ruling as to whether states can keep a juvenile in prison for the rest of his or her life. In my state of Louisiana we have 17 of the total 109 juveniles (17 years of age and and under) in prison under those terms. Two of those offenders, one 13 at the time he raped a 72-year-old woman and the other 17 when he staged a home invasion robbery, have appealed their sentences of life without parole all the way to the Supreme Court. My guess is the court will rule that it is a matter for each individual state to decide.
It could declare life in prison for kids to be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, as it did before in banning the death penalty for any reason for anyone under the age 17. Proponents of letting them go after being rehabilitated say that even though many are violent, remorseless predators (many sexually abuse smaller children). Some of them might never be anything but dangerous psychopaths that society needs to be protected from. Others, proponents claim, might be able to change their behavior as they age and life productive lives in society. Because young brains haven't matured fully teenage impulses and risk assessment are underdeveloped. So proponents claim the kids just need a chance to grow into a normal moral state. Too, they claim unequal application of life in prison, in which juvenile judges often give unfair life sentences to some of the offenders and not others who commit the same type of crime. Too adult criminals who commit they same offense as the juvenile often receive lighter sentences than the teen.
Most of the kids in prison for life have committed violent acts, beginning long before teenage years. There is some doubt that some of them could ever be changed enough to release them into society. As it stands now, the teens in those prisons were convicted after being tried as an adult for heinous crimes. Many states allow this kind of trial because society would be endangered if kids were tried as juveniles and released as required by law before or at age 21.
Those in favor of keeping the worst juvenile offenders in jail for life say that the whole point in sentencing any person to life in prison is to protect society. As long as they are locked in prison, no one else can be victimized out side of it can be another of their victims. Further, they claim that rehabilitation for people capable of such offenses as armed robbery, rape or murder has been demonstrated to be a waste of time.
Therefore, they rationalize, these youth do not deserve to be given any additional opportunity to harm the public. Once they have made it clear that they lack any respect for human life they should to be kept in prison.Your turn...what do you think about life in prison for juvenile offenders?
It could declare life in prison for kids to be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual, as it did before in banning the death penalty for any reason for anyone under the age 17. Proponents of letting them go after being rehabilitated say that even though many are violent, remorseless predators (many sexually abuse smaller children). Some of them might never be anything but dangerous psychopaths that society needs to be protected from. Others, proponents claim, might be able to change their behavior as they age and life productive lives in society. Because young brains haven't matured fully teenage impulses and risk assessment are underdeveloped. So proponents claim the kids just need a chance to grow into a normal moral state. Too, they claim unequal application of life in prison, in which juvenile judges often give unfair life sentences to some of the offenders and not others who commit the same type of crime. Too adult criminals who commit they same offense as the juvenile often receive lighter sentences than the teen.
Most of the kids in prison for life have committed violent acts, beginning long before teenage years. There is some doubt that some of them could ever be changed enough to release them into society. As it stands now, the teens in those prisons were convicted after being tried as an adult for heinous crimes. Many states allow this kind of trial because society would be endangered if kids were tried as juveniles and released as required by law before or at age 21.
Those in favor of keeping the worst juvenile offenders in jail for life say that the whole point in sentencing any person to life in prison is to protect society. As long as they are locked in prison, no one else can be victimized out side of it can be another of their victims. Further, they claim that rehabilitation for people capable of such offenses as armed robbery, rape or murder has been demonstrated to be a waste of time.
Therefore, they rationalize, these youth do not deserve to be given any additional opportunity to harm the public. Once they have made it clear that they lack any respect for human life they should to be kept in prison.Your turn...what do you think about life in prison for juvenile offenders?
Food Claims
Do you ever eat cereal in the morning? A cereal e mail for you today.... Kellogg, the largest cereal maker in the United States, is being challenged by critics of its advertising because some object to the swine flu conscious claim on Cocoa Krispies cereal boxes. In bright yellow banner headline fashion the boxes all say: "Now helps support your child's IMMUNITY." It's ridiculous to imply that a sugar cereal with vitamins mixed in can boost one's immune system, much less protect against the flu. But the media has so many fearful of that strain of flu, marketers want to capitalize on it.
With the media here trying to make H1N1 into a crisis those kinds of claims by food makers have become common. Problem is, the government here has not always held them accountable for their advertising as to truthfulness. This has created situations where food of all types is falsely labeled as being superior to others or possessed with some curative or preventive properties. Recently though, the cereal industry's self created "Smart Choices" nutrition labeling program was voluntarily halted after federal regulators expressed concern that such programs may be misleading. It's a good first step to stop mislabeling.
The claims are in fact bold faced lies that gullible consumers have accepted as truisms. It's the same mentality that enables other trendy but empty campaigns (as in ridiculous Global Warming hysteria) to gain credibility with consumers. The food makers sell more and consumers believe that "eating healthy" is beneficial. But the idea that eating Cocoa Krispies will keep a kid from getting swine flu, or from catching a cold, doesn't make sense," Adding more vitamins to food isn't going to protect one from disease.
As bad as it is for sugary kid cereal makers to claim their products are enriching the body and immune system, the claims of the so called "healthy" food products are even worse. Consumers with even a smidgen of education know that the kid cereal claims are false. But when propagandists for food that is labeled as healthy make wild claims of their favorite food's properties consumers are more often fooled and buy and consume those products. Just look at the signs in any grocery store of the fruit and veggie department. One gets the impression that if he or she heavily doses on veggies there will be no aging shown, no illness possible, he or she will have an ideal body weight, have superior intellectual and physical conditions and can become immortal (Ok, the last one is my exaggeration).
All of cereal maker claims, from the "healthy boxes' to the sugary kid cereals have gone over the edge in advertising the benefits of eating their products. they are microcosms of the greater food labeling/claim problems today. Perhaps governments should take food marketers to court more often to make them prove what they say is what we get. As for me, I will eat some of the good and some of the "bad' foods, based on how they taste. The rest is all empty rhetoric, promises unsubstantiated and pointless.
I think I'll have an unhealthy donut to salute the glories of "unhealthy foods".
With the media here trying to make H1N1 into a crisis those kinds of claims by food makers have become common. Problem is, the government here has not always held them accountable for their advertising as to truthfulness. This has created situations where food of all types is falsely labeled as being superior to others or possessed with some curative or preventive properties. Recently though, the cereal industry's self created "Smart Choices" nutrition labeling program was voluntarily halted after federal regulators expressed concern that such programs may be misleading. It's a good first step to stop mislabeling.
The claims are in fact bold faced lies that gullible consumers have accepted as truisms. It's the same mentality that enables other trendy but empty campaigns (as in ridiculous Global Warming hysteria) to gain credibility with consumers. The food makers sell more and consumers believe that "eating healthy" is beneficial. But the idea that eating Cocoa Krispies will keep a kid from getting swine flu, or from catching a cold, doesn't make sense," Adding more vitamins to food isn't going to protect one from disease.
As bad as it is for sugary kid cereal makers to claim their products are enriching the body and immune system, the claims of the so called "healthy" food products are even worse. Consumers with even a smidgen of education know that the kid cereal claims are false. But when propagandists for food that is labeled as healthy make wild claims of their favorite food's properties consumers are more often fooled and buy and consume those products. Just look at the signs in any grocery store of the fruit and veggie department. One gets the impression that if he or she heavily doses on veggies there will be no aging shown, no illness possible, he or she will have an ideal body weight, have superior intellectual and physical conditions and can become immortal (Ok, the last one is my exaggeration).
All of cereal maker claims, from the "healthy boxes' to the sugary kid cereals have gone over the edge in advertising the benefits of eating their products. they are microcosms of the greater food labeling/claim problems today. Perhaps governments should take food marketers to court more often to make them prove what they say is what we get. As for me, I will eat some of the good and some of the "bad' foods, based on how they taste. The rest is all empty rhetoric, promises unsubstantiated and pointless.
I think I'll have an unhealthy donut to salute the glories of "unhealthy foods".
Reality Internet
The ultimate vulgarity in reality media has just taken place. And this time it was not "reality TV", but rather a "reality internet". Either way it is as pointless and time wasting as the garbage TV shows as alleged "reality". Lynsee (she never gave her full name but revealed everything else about herself....odd... but then this whole episode is odd) is a first-time mom who gave birth to a healthy baby girl on November 7th at 12:46am! She and her husband Anders did so with thousands of people cheering them on via a live video stream on MomsLikeMe.com!
Yep! The lady arranged for cameras to follow her during pregnancy and delivery. But what is the point and why would she do this? "We wanted to share this experience," Lynsee said about the decision she made with her husband Anders. "If I were in a classroom, I'd be teaching about development. It was a way for me to teach… A way for me to use myself as a textbook."
Uh, I think perhaps a financial incentive might be more the motivation. Lynsee sees contracts and dollars ahead, maybe a book deal. It's another person who has become famous "for nothing". Perhaps Lynsee is one of those people who would sell her soul for five minutes of fame. Regardless of her motivation, I doubt seriously if her reality internet experience is of much benefit to anyone. And what a time waster it must be to watch the whole birth process that way.
Sigh... what will be the next reality internet show? Perhaps a bathroom experience where we can all "watch and learn from others' bowel movements"? It's not much farther fetched than Lynsee's birthing reality show.The doctor for Lynsee must be starved for publicity or customers too. To trivialize the birth process this way is not in the medical tradition of privacy. I would have expected the doctor to tell an egotist like Lynsee to get someone else to manage her dog and pony show.
Hmmmmmm I am surprised that she hasn't offered to have a company logo tattooed on her belly to earn some extra money and attention from her newborn. Is there nothing private anymore? Apparently not. The rise of technology today has been accompanied by a fall in modesty and taste. What should be private and treasured is now public and marketed for gain. Civility continues to be lost in the mix and, sadly, few of us even notices or cares about what is happening.
Yep! The lady arranged for cameras to follow her during pregnancy and delivery. But what is the point and why would she do this? "We wanted to share this experience," Lynsee said about the decision she made with her husband Anders. "If I were in a classroom, I'd be teaching about development. It was a way for me to teach… A way for me to use myself as a textbook."
Uh, I think perhaps a financial incentive might be more the motivation. Lynsee sees contracts and dollars ahead, maybe a book deal. It's another person who has become famous "for nothing". Perhaps Lynsee is one of those people who would sell her soul for five minutes of fame. Regardless of her motivation, I doubt seriously if her reality internet experience is of much benefit to anyone. And what a time waster it must be to watch the whole birth process that way.
Sigh... what will be the next reality internet show? Perhaps a bathroom experience where we can all "watch and learn from others' bowel movements"? It's not much farther fetched than Lynsee's birthing reality show.The doctor for Lynsee must be starved for publicity or customers too. To trivialize the birth process this way is not in the medical tradition of privacy. I would have expected the doctor to tell an egotist like Lynsee to get someone else to manage her dog and pony show.
Hmmmmmm I am surprised that she hasn't offered to have a company logo tattooed on her belly to earn some extra money and attention from her newborn. Is there nothing private anymore? Apparently not. The rise of technology today has been accompanied by a fall in modesty and taste. What should be private and treasured is now public and marketed for gain. Civility continues to be lost in the mix and, sadly, few of us even notices or cares about what is happening.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Holiday Stress Events
I am convinced they are all crazy this time of the year. Uh the "they" would be people in general, as in they are all nuts now. The Christmas holidays bring out the frenzies in humans as well as the joy and kindness. You can see it in the way people drive their autos now. Not only do they speed precariously to their destinations, they also multi task while racing. It's an anxiety induced frenzy and that is always one element of our modern Christmas.
Together with the fun and tender times of Christmas we also have the stress of deadlines and the demands to make the holiday what it is actualized to be in the mediums that form our impressions of what a "perfect holiday" should be. I think it is more stressful now because the technologies we commonly use now bring the stress too us more readily. There may no longer be any "simple" Christmas holiday experiences because technology won't allow it (at least for the 90% of humanity addicted to their gadgets).
I observe the chaos every time I go out during the Christmas season. Hmmmmmmmmmm. There seems to be some organized Xmas stress events out there and they can be fascinating to watch. Just the other day while driving to the obligatory shopping venues to get those gifts the retailers say we have to buy I got a taste of these holiday stresses.
* The "Fight for the Parking Space" event- It's a simple equation at any shopping mall parking lot that Einstein would have calculated quickly..E=MC2...That would be energy of crazy drivers looking for a spot to park = mass chaos doubled with occasional profanity when the two competing drivers race for the same spot they both claim as their divine right. Sometimes the lucky spectator will see their competitors actually crash into each other as they both try to squeeze into the spot at the same time. But be careful if one has a red neck and driving a truck..he may be carrying a shooting iron and be quick to use it.
* The "Jump the Line at the Checkout Counter" hurdle- I must Say, as rude as they are, these line jumpers are clever and athletic. They hurdle past those in lien and then claim "I didn't see a line" as they hold their ground to get a quicker checkout for the purchase of their gifts. Most line hurdlers are either to stupid or are too uncouth to understand their own rudeness. Some can even be seen wearing a T shirt with their philosophy of life, "It's all about me".
* The "Scream in the Cell phone" contest- I am not sure why the lady behind me in the post office decided to berate her son publicly, but she did it loudly. And she used language that most moms would not tolerate....they would wash out the mouth with soap of their kids who used it in their home. But she was "mf-ing" him" about his "not being considerate" of her. Sigh....How ironic. But the story has a good ending in this holiday event. It seems the postal clerk told that woman to either put away her phone or get back into the end of the line. I swear I heard sighs of ecstasy from we line dwellers. It was a beloved X mas miracle.
* The retailer " Clearance or X mas Sale" - My God! How many sales can those retailers have? And are any of those sales any different from the normal a sales they advertise all year? I think not. They insult me with English usage challenged ads that proclaim "Final Clearance". When I asked a sales clerk to explain the difference between a "clearance" and a"final clearance" she uttered a simple.."I have to ask the manager. I never thought about it." Being convinced that any manager who would put up such a nonsensical sign as that is probably just as illiterate as the clerk, I uttered, "never mind" and exited. But people respond to the sale frenzy. The day after Thanksgiving here, Black Friday, they line up in front of the store the wee hours of the morning in order to be first in line to buy the "sale" item that can be had weeks later at the same or lower price. And they fight over article once inside. It's a least more exciting to watch than hockey or golf!
Well, those are a few of my favorite Christmas stress events. Hope you always have a stress free holiday
Together with the fun and tender times of Christmas we also have the stress of deadlines and the demands to make the holiday what it is actualized to be in the mediums that form our impressions of what a "perfect holiday" should be. I think it is more stressful now because the technologies we commonly use now bring the stress too us more readily. There may no longer be any "simple" Christmas holiday experiences because technology won't allow it (at least for the 90% of humanity addicted to their gadgets).
I observe the chaos every time I go out during the Christmas season. Hmmmmmmmmmm. There seems to be some organized Xmas stress events out there and they can be fascinating to watch. Just the other day while driving to the obligatory shopping venues to get those gifts the retailers say we have to buy I got a taste of these holiday stresses.
* The "Fight for the Parking Space" event- It's a simple equation at any shopping mall parking lot that Einstein would have calculated quickly..E=MC2...That would be energy of crazy drivers looking for a spot to park = mass chaos doubled with occasional profanity when the two competing drivers race for the same spot they both claim as their divine right. Sometimes the lucky spectator will see their competitors actually crash into each other as they both try to squeeze into the spot at the same time. But be careful if one has a red neck and driving a truck..he may be carrying a shooting iron and be quick to use it.
* The "Jump the Line at the Checkout Counter" hurdle- I must Say, as rude as they are, these line jumpers are clever and athletic. They hurdle past those in lien and then claim "I didn't see a line" as they hold their ground to get a quicker checkout for the purchase of their gifts. Most line hurdlers are either to stupid or are too uncouth to understand their own rudeness. Some can even be seen wearing a T shirt with their philosophy of life, "It's all about me".
* The "Scream in the Cell phone" contest- I am not sure why the lady behind me in the post office decided to berate her son publicly, but she did it loudly. And she used language that most moms would not tolerate....they would wash out the mouth with soap of their kids who used it in their home. But she was "mf-ing" him" about his "not being considerate" of her. Sigh....How ironic. But the story has a good ending in this holiday event. It seems the postal clerk told that woman to either put away her phone or get back into the end of the line. I swear I heard sighs of ecstasy from we line dwellers. It was a beloved X mas miracle.
* The retailer " Clearance or X mas Sale" - My God! How many sales can those retailers have? And are any of those sales any different from the normal a sales they advertise all year? I think not. They insult me with English usage challenged ads that proclaim "Final Clearance". When I asked a sales clerk to explain the difference between a "clearance" and a"final clearance" she uttered a simple.."I have to ask the manager. I never thought about it." Being convinced that any manager who would put up such a nonsensical sign as that is probably just as illiterate as the clerk, I uttered, "never mind" and exited. But people respond to the sale frenzy. The day after Thanksgiving here, Black Friday, they line up in front of the store the wee hours of the morning in order to be first in line to buy the "sale" item that can be had weeks later at the same or lower price. And they fight over article once inside. It's a least more exciting to watch than hockey or golf!
Well, those are a few of my favorite Christmas stress events. Hope you always have a stress free holiday
Friday, December 25, 2009
Gift Of The Magi
The best lesson on the meaning of Christmas is the O'Henry classic short story 'The Gift of the Magi'. Today I will summarize it in the spirit of the Christmas season and as a reminder of what Christmas should be about. The story is simple but speaks volumes about happiness, about Christmas and about meaning in life itself.
In Biblical context the magi were wise men who brought gifts to baby Jesus in the manger, thus inventing the art of giving Christmas presents. Being wise magi their gifts were the best ones. And so I go to my version of the story O' Henry wrote about the Christmas gift. Bear with me. It will be short and follows below...
A man and woman very much in love because they were together, relatively poor, approached Christmas time. Though they had no children and little money, they were happy because they were together, only regretting that this Christmas they were too poor to buy each other a gift. Each had only one possession that they cherished above any other material thing, he a beautiful gold watch left to him by his father and she her long golden cascading hair. It came to be the day before Christmas and they had no money with which to buy each other a gift.
But on his way to work the man realized there as a way he could buy his wife a wonderful present, and she too, during the Christmas Eve day, discovered a way to buy her husband a fine gift. That Christmas Eve night the man came home with his gift tucked under his arm, and she too had wrapped her present for him. They rushed to embrace and gasped as they gazed at each other, tears dribbling to the cheek of both as they looked into each other's eyes. Through bittersweet tears they exchanged gifts. The man opened his. It was a beautiful gold fob for his watch. But he no longer had the watch. He had sold it to buy her a present, a beautiful sparkling gold comb for her hair. But she couldn't use it. She had cut her hair and sold it to a wig maker to pay for the fob she had just presented to her husband.
The looked at each other and at the presents and smiled. They realized at once that in spite of it all, they had given to each other the greatest gift of all- true love.
In Biblical context the magi were wise men who brought gifts to baby Jesus in the manger, thus inventing the art of giving Christmas presents. Being wise magi their gifts were the best ones. And so I go to my version of the story O' Henry wrote about the Christmas gift. Bear with me. It will be short and follows below...
A man and woman very much in love because they were together, relatively poor, approached Christmas time. Though they had no children and little money, they were happy because they were together, only regretting that this Christmas they were too poor to buy each other a gift. Each had only one possession that they cherished above any other material thing, he a beautiful gold watch left to him by his father and she her long golden cascading hair. It came to be the day before Christmas and they had no money with which to buy each other a gift.
But on his way to work the man realized there as a way he could buy his wife a wonderful present, and she too, during the Christmas Eve day, discovered a way to buy her husband a fine gift. That Christmas Eve night the man came home with his gift tucked under his arm, and she too had wrapped her present for him. They rushed to embrace and gasped as they gazed at each other, tears dribbling to the cheek of both as they looked into each other's eyes. Through bittersweet tears they exchanged gifts. The man opened his. It was a beautiful gold fob for his watch. But he no longer had the watch. He had sold it to buy her a present, a beautiful sparkling gold comb for her hair. But she couldn't use it. She had cut her hair and sold it to a wig maker to pay for the fob she had just presented to her husband.
The looked at each other and at the presents and smiled. They realized at once that in spite of it all, they had given to each other the greatest gift of all- true love.
Christmas Music
Every November, right after Thanksgiving, I start dreaming. I dream not of a White Christmas, but of Christmas music. I love the songs of Christmas and the history of them too. Every year for about four weeks in late November and during all of December I am content to listen to the songs of Christmas as much as humanly possible, on my car radio (there are many "all Christmas music" stations to choose from), my computer, in elevators, at shopping malls, in TV shows, wherever it's played (which is practically everywhere)....and it is ubiquitous. And oddly enough, the musical melodies and lyrics of Christmas is good stuff. It can hold its won musically with just about any music format.
The music of Christmas helps define the holiday itself and more importantly, it helps us to retrieve memories of our Christmas past through timeless lyrics and melodies that take us back to when we remember hearing it, perhaps for the first time. Christmas Music is the long lost friend who returns for a visit and enchants us while here. It calms us, stirs our imagination and sense of anticipation, even inspires us to live out the ideals embedded in the holiday itself.
It's impossible to list every Christmas song that we enjoy because there are so many. They come from every era and of every persuasion, be it religious, lay, silly or somber. So much of the religious and somber Christmas music came from the 19th century. That was the time when churches were the center of life, including musical lives. That style endures because the songs still inspire us and set ideals for us to achieve. Humans never stop needing ideals. Perhaps 'Silent Knight' best typifies those 19th century Christmas tunes. It tells us that we can't let those songs disappear because they have become a part of our humanity that is too important to forget.
In the 20th century Christmas music turned more buoyant and commercial. But it is lively and fun...like the favorite 'Jingle Bells'. The songs of that era prove that it doesn't matter what is one's religious persuasion when enjoying Christmas songs is the subject. Most people can recite and hum the Christmas carols they've heard repeatedly since childhood. We all try to sing them, both in and out of the shower, because they just make us feel better about ourselves, and the world around us.
Since the second half of the 20th century writers have turned to composing silly songs for Christmas. From 'Grandma Got Run over By A Reindeer' to The Chipmunks crooning what that star munk Alvin almost destroys when singing with his mates to Jimmy Boyd's classic 'All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth'. Those modern novelty songs remind us that Christmas is supposed to be fun and filled with giggles.
If we allow it, Christmas music does it all. No need to be a Grinch and declare that Christmas singing is corny or "for kids and old folks". If you have an imagination and want to be instantly transported to wonderland, tune into those Christmas tunes while they are still being played and jingle all the way with them
The music of Christmas helps define the holiday itself and more importantly, it helps us to retrieve memories of our Christmas past through timeless lyrics and melodies that take us back to when we remember hearing it, perhaps for the first time. Christmas Music is the long lost friend who returns for a visit and enchants us while here. It calms us, stirs our imagination and sense of anticipation, even inspires us to live out the ideals embedded in the holiday itself.
It's impossible to list every Christmas song that we enjoy because there are so many. They come from every era and of every persuasion, be it religious, lay, silly or somber. So much of the religious and somber Christmas music came from the 19th century. That was the time when churches were the center of life, including musical lives. That style endures because the songs still inspire us and set ideals for us to achieve. Humans never stop needing ideals. Perhaps 'Silent Knight' best typifies those 19th century Christmas tunes. It tells us that we can't let those songs disappear because they have become a part of our humanity that is too important to forget.
In the 20th century Christmas music turned more buoyant and commercial. But it is lively and fun...like the favorite 'Jingle Bells'. The songs of that era prove that it doesn't matter what is one's religious persuasion when enjoying Christmas songs is the subject. Most people can recite and hum the Christmas carols they've heard repeatedly since childhood. We all try to sing them, both in and out of the shower, because they just make us feel better about ourselves, and the world around us.
Since the second half of the 20th century writers have turned to composing silly songs for Christmas. From 'Grandma Got Run over By A Reindeer' to The Chipmunks crooning what that star munk Alvin almost destroys when singing with his mates to Jimmy Boyd's classic 'All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth'. Those modern novelty songs remind us that Christmas is supposed to be fun and filled with giggles.
If we allow it, Christmas music does it all. No need to be a Grinch and declare that Christmas singing is corny or "for kids and old folks". If you have an imagination and want to be instantly transported to wonderland, tune into those Christmas tunes while they are still being played and jingle all the way with them
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Forbidden Holiday Foods
Cheese straws, Swedish meatballs, eggnog, stuffed potatoes, creamed spinach, pot roast, fruitcake, and pecan pie were listed by the New England Journal of Medicine as the worst 8 holiday foods to eat, Supposedly they all have too much fat and calories and make the holiday celebrant gain weight. So the journal lists "alternatives" to each. Most of those involve the so called "low fat" and "healthy" foods that substitute the good tasting ingredients with awful tasting healthy ones. Ugh! Health food makes me sick.
Don't the "eat healthy at the holidays" people understand that nutrition for the soul at holiday time means eating the good tasting and fun "junk", not their version of what is good for the body. Holidays are short in duration and NOT about healthy bodies (look at fat Santa for proof). Eating the good stuff for a few weeks won't harm anyone physically, but not eating the fun foods will harm the soul through deprivation. It could turn the fruitcake or eggnog deprived celebrant into a scrooge.
The Christmas and New Year celebrations are not about routines, health and self disciplined. They are a catharsis for us in that we can do all the things that we keep ourselves from doing all year long out of fear of the food police and other "nay-sayers". I wish the health nuts would eat in isolation at holiday time so they won't infect us with their notions of healthy foods.
Are not some of our best memories of past holidays the delicious forbidden foods we ate then? How could anyone idealize and memorialize broccoli and asparagus as a treasured holiday memory. It isn't possible. Why spoil the holidays with tasteless foods when a Chocolate butter cream, filled yule log can be so easily had. When sitting around a fireplace at Christmas would you rather have a cup of hot chocolate and a gingerbread cookie or a cup of skim milk and a no fat granola bar? If you choose the latter no need to continue reading this diatribe. You are already a prisoner of the healthy food police.
And who wants to cook Brussels sprouts during holiday time? Not I! It does nothing for my spirit because it isn't special or "unhealthily good tasting". But when I make a fruitcake or gingerbread muffins, maybe my Christmas cheesecake or holiday decorated sugar cookies I get a lift of enthusiasm and feel bonded to the holidays. It's equivalent to decorating the Christmas tree. How can anyone be sullen when doing that or eating a Santa cookie?
As far as I am concerned, those health nuts and their no fat recipes can all fly to the North Pole. I am going to the kitchen for a glass of pumpkin eggnog and to cut myself a big piece of fruitcake.
Don't the "eat healthy at the holidays" people understand that nutrition for the soul at holiday time means eating the good tasting and fun "junk", not their version of what is good for the body. Holidays are short in duration and NOT about healthy bodies (look at fat Santa for proof). Eating the good stuff for a few weeks won't harm anyone physically, but not eating the fun foods will harm the soul through deprivation. It could turn the fruitcake or eggnog deprived celebrant into a scrooge.
The Christmas and New Year celebrations are not about routines, health and self disciplined. They are a catharsis for us in that we can do all the things that we keep ourselves from doing all year long out of fear of the food police and other "nay-sayers". I wish the health nuts would eat in isolation at holiday time so they won't infect us with their notions of healthy foods.
Are not some of our best memories of past holidays the delicious forbidden foods we ate then? How could anyone idealize and memorialize broccoli and asparagus as a treasured holiday memory. It isn't possible. Why spoil the holidays with tasteless foods when a Chocolate butter cream, filled yule log can be so easily had. When sitting around a fireplace at Christmas would you rather have a cup of hot chocolate and a gingerbread cookie or a cup of skim milk and a no fat granola bar? If you choose the latter no need to continue reading this diatribe. You are already a prisoner of the healthy food police.
And who wants to cook Brussels sprouts during holiday time? Not I! It does nothing for my spirit because it isn't special or "unhealthily good tasting". But when I make a fruitcake or gingerbread muffins, maybe my Christmas cheesecake or holiday decorated sugar cookies I get a lift of enthusiasm and feel bonded to the holidays. It's equivalent to decorating the Christmas tree. How can anyone be sullen when doing that or eating a Santa cookie?
As far as I am concerned, those health nuts and their no fat recipes can all fly to the North Pole. I am going to the kitchen for a glass of pumpkin eggnog and to cut myself a big piece of fruitcake.
Santa Clause Letters
I'm beginning to look allot like Santa now, not by force of will but rather by nature. But I guess getting old is not as bad if we turn into a Santa. So today I will play Santa reading his mail. There is so much of it and some from celebrities who want something. Sigh..but only little boys and girls are unselfish enough to ask for things that serve all mankind well. The rest of them are out for the big buck items. Here are a few of the letters Santa has gotten this Christmas season as well as Santa's replies.Dear Santa,I am 13 years old now and the typical teen boy. What I want for Christmas is to be 20 years old, anything but a teen. I treat my parents like servants and rarely speak to them, lust for anything in a skirt, and have pimples and acne the size of China. Help meeeeeeeeeeee.Tommy.Dear Tommy,I'll see if I can find your parents servant outfits, put Lindsay Lohan under your Xmas tree and leave a giant size acne cream in your stocking. Good luck on making it to 20. You'll need it. what a pathetic creature you are. H Ho Ho=====================================================================Dear Santa,Those blonde Barbie girls you sent me this year have given me a pain and threatened my career and marriage. My wife chased me out of the house with a golf club and beat me with it when I tried to escape in the car. It seems she tapped my cell phone and found some of the messages I left to my babes. Can you take back all those Barbies and make people forget what happened?Your golfing pal,Tiger WoodsDear Tiger,Forget it. Just keep your pants on this year and listen to the new CD I am leaving under your Xmas tree..."I Saw Mommy Kissing Tiger Woods".============================================================================Dear Santa,Last year you made me God, and I appreciate it. They voted me the first black President, and because I am a minority everyone is afraid to criticize my many errors as president. Thanks Santa. But this Christmas I want substance to go with my style. Eventually, the voters will expect me to fulfill some of the promises I made and haven't kept. There patience is beginning to wear thin and that Nobel Peace prize you arranged for me is a joke, given I have done nothing to merit it. Please, Santa, make me earn some of the praise I get this year. Perhaps an adviser might help. Do you have an available elf who knows politics and can help?Barrack ObamaDear Barrack,Forget it! I am not sending any of my innocent elves to any politician. However, Sarah Palin is available if you would like her under your tree.===================================================================================Dear Santa,I'll get right to the point! I need plenty of heat. This past 18 months have been rather cool and it's not fitting my phony agenda to shiver this way. Hurry, Santa! My reputation depends on it.Al GoreDear Al,You whined so much about making it seem that Global Warming was happening the past few years I made the climate temporarily warmer so you could claim the earth was getting hotter. Now you want me to cool it because more and more realize that Global Warming is a crock. Sigh.... Can't you make up your mind? Ok, I am going to keep cooling the earth (I like the snow more anyway) so you can pretend the next ice age is coming...by the way, Al, when are you going to get a real job?Globally Cooled Santa
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Forget recessions that cause you to spend less for gifts this holiday season, Christmas is the time for gifts...err...for your favorite pet. Yep, Fido is expecting an Xmas gift this year. At least that is what one would believe when the sales of pet Xmas gifts are tabulated.
Here is a trendy top 10 gift picks list for pets this year:
* PAW- That would be the Positioning Animals Worldwide collar mounted GPS device, a device especially for dogs who love to roam. This idiotic, expensive device is tied to (what else?) the dog owner's cell phone to ring an alert when Fido makes an escape.
* The Drinkwell Pet Fountain- Believe it or not, this is a water fountain designed for cats! Veterinarians say cats need plenty of water, so a water fountain is..oh..it's just stupid! If I had a cat who wouldn't drink out of a water bowl I would tell him to pack his bags and move out....preferably to a water front lot.
* Pet Breed Detection kit- This is a kit (it has an oral swab for detection) used by the owner to test the pet's DNA in order to find out if four legged creature is of pure or mixed breed. And why is that important to know? I have no idea. But perhaps it might make it easier for Fido to join a country club if his good breeding is verified.
* Donate in Fido's name- Some owners dedicate money to causes, human or animal, in Fido's name. Why not donate in the owner's name instead? Perhaps Fido's feelings will be hurt if he is seen as a stingy Scrooge Canine.
* Micro chipped Pet Id's- Just what a pet bird or lizard needs...a jeweled studded micro chipped ID tag. It might make him the next bird brained blinged rap artist
* Pet Fur Yarn- I am not sure a cat would like this one as much as the owner (but then all these crazy gifts are really for humans anyway) The owner collects all that cat hair and has the raw stuff prepped and spun into balls of knit table or crochetable yarn. Hehe Want a cat hair sweater for Xmas?
* Pet Books- No, no. These books that are about or centered around animals aren't for the pets to read or be read too. They are for the pet fanatic owners...who probably would benefit greatly also if someone gave them a book on obsessions...about their pets.
* Dremel Toenail Clipper- A rotary toe nail trimmer for the dog or cat? Haha What is the owner supposed to do before trimming the reluctant pet's toenails? Maybe it comes with pet tranquilizers to knock out Fido before the clipping. otherwise, he's not going to cooperate while you attempt to clip.
* The Furminator- It's a grooming tool to help reduce the shedding the pet normally does by removing the undercoat and loose hair. It is said to reduce shedding up to 90%.
Hmmmmmmmmm Heck with the dogs, the smart lady will use one of these on her human honey.
Who says a dog's life is a bad one....Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. I think both the humans and cats have never forgotten this.
Here is a trendy top 10 gift picks list for pets this year:
* PAW- That would be the Positioning Animals Worldwide collar mounted GPS device, a device especially for dogs who love to roam. This idiotic, expensive device is tied to (what else?) the dog owner's cell phone to ring an alert when Fido makes an escape.
* The Drinkwell Pet Fountain- Believe it or not, this is a water fountain designed for cats! Veterinarians say cats need plenty of water, so a water fountain is..oh..it's just stupid! If I had a cat who wouldn't drink out of a water bowl I would tell him to pack his bags and move out....preferably to a water front lot.
* Pet Breed Detection kit- This is a kit (it has an oral swab for detection) used by the owner to test the pet's DNA in order to find out if four legged creature is of pure or mixed breed. And why is that important to know? I have no idea. But perhaps it might make it easier for Fido to join a country club if his good breeding is verified.
* Donate in Fido's name- Some owners dedicate money to causes, human or animal, in Fido's name. Why not donate in the owner's name instead? Perhaps Fido's feelings will be hurt if he is seen as a stingy Scrooge Canine.
* Micro chipped Pet Id's- Just what a pet bird or lizard needs...a jeweled studded micro chipped ID tag. It might make him the next bird brained blinged rap artist
* Pet Fur Yarn- I am not sure a cat would like this one as much as the owner (but then all these crazy gifts are really for humans anyway) The owner collects all that cat hair and has the raw stuff prepped and spun into balls of knit table or crochetable yarn. Hehe Want a cat hair sweater for Xmas?
* Pet Books- No, no. These books that are about or centered around animals aren't for the pets to read or be read too. They are for the pet fanatic owners...who probably would benefit greatly also if someone gave them a book on obsessions...about their pets.
* Dremel Toenail Clipper- A rotary toe nail trimmer for the dog or cat? Haha What is the owner supposed to do before trimming the reluctant pet's toenails? Maybe it comes with pet tranquilizers to knock out Fido before the clipping. otherwise, he's not going to cooperate while you attempt to clip.
* The Furminator- It's a grooming tool to help reduce the shedding the pet normally does by removing the undercoat and loose hair. It is said to reduce shedding up to 90%.
Hmmmmmmmmm Heck with the dogs, the smart lady will use one of these on her human honey.
Who says a dog's life is a bad one....Thousands of years ago, cats were worshipped as gods. I think both the humans and cats have never forgotten this.
Gingerbread
In one of his less famed plays, William Shakespeare wrote, "And I had but one penny in the world, thou should'st have it to buy gingerbread." I am not sure I would spend my last coin on a gingerbread sweet, but it might not be a great mistake if I did. Gingerbread, the food most identified with our modern Christmas is something I and many others crave at Christmas time. Yes, I've already had a few gingerbread cookies. I like the thin ones with plenty of ginger inside.
First, some history of gingerbread foods that I researched. An early form of gingerbread can be traced to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians who used it for ceremonial purposes. I suppose the strong odor and the fact that ginger is a preservative in food made it appropriate for that. Supposedly, gingerbread made its earliest an appearance in Europe when 11th-century crusaders brought the spice back from the Middle East for the wealthy family cooks to experiment with. Thank goodness they did.
As ginger became more affordable to the common people, gingerbread sweets caught on. Early European recipes mostly consisted of ground almonds, stale bread crumbs, rose water, sugar and, naturally, ginger. Take out the rose water and add some eggs and it's close to what we use today in making gingerbread. When the cookies were baked bore the likeness of new kings, emperors and queens, or religious symbols. In a sense they told stories of hat was going on in the kingdoms. The finished cookie might be decorated with edible gold paint (for those who could afford it) or flat white icing to bring out the details in relief.
Later in England, the bread crumbs were replaced with flour and eggs were added to soften the gingerbread.. But many people today still use stale bread crumbs when making gingerbread. And finally, the Germans made gingerbread a passion and art. They also created the gingerbread house that we love today and tied it to Christmas. I always look in my local store for lebkuchen (the soft gingerbread cookie) from Germany and those thin, crispy pierniczki from Poland.
I know you might hate gingerbread. Some people don't even like the smell, but that is a minority point of view. My preference for ginger is in sweet foods, not entrees. I think it is because my earliest childhood memories of Christmas foods include some ginger based sweet. We tend to most like the foods we ate and enjoyed in childhood. My favorite Christmas sweets besides gingerbread include fruitcakes, peppermint candy canes and mints, decorated Christmas sugar cookies, buche du noel logs, Stollen cake, Panettone My least favorite Christmas sweets include eggnog, plum pudding, wassail, and mince pie. naturally, I ate most of the favorites often in childhood and had little contact then with the least favorites.
I hope this has stirred your Christmas sweet tooth a little and you'll either head for the nearest kitchen to make something sweet and Christmasy or buy an eat an already made Christmas sweet a favorite. Ho Ho Ho
First, some history of gingerbread foods that I researched. An early form of gingerbread can be traced to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians who used it for ceremonial purposes. I suppose the strong odor and the fact that ginger is a preservative in food made it appropriate for that. Supposedly, gingerbread made its earliest an appearance in Europe when 11th-century crusaders brought the spice back from the Middle East for the wealthy family cooks to experiment with. Thank goodness they did.
As ginger became more affordable to the common people, gingerbread sweets caught on. Early European recipes mostly consisted of ground almonds, stale bread crumbs, rose water, sugar and, naturally, ginger. Take out the rose water and add some eggs and it's close to what we use today in making gingerbread. When the cookies were baked bore the likeness of new kings, emperors and queens, or religious symbols. In a sense they told stories of hat was going on in the kingdoms. The finished cookie might be decorated with edible gold paint (for those who could afford it) or flat white icing to bring out the details in relief.
Later in England, the bread crumbs were replaced with flour and eggs were added to soften the gingerbread.. But many people today still use stale bread crumbs when making gingerbread. And finally, the Germans made gingerbread a passion and art. They also created the gingerbread house that we love today and tied it to Christmas. I always look in my local store for lebkuchen (the soft gingerbread cookie) from Germany and those thin, crispy pierniczki from Poland.
I know you might hate gingerbread. Some people don't even like the smell, but that is a minority point of view. My preference for ginger is in sweet foods, not entrees. I think it is because my earliest childhood memories of Christmas foods include some ginger based sweet. We tend to most like the foods we ate and enjoyed in childhood. My favorite Christmas sweets besides gingerbread include fruitcakes, peppermint candy canes and mints, decorated Christmas sugar cookies, buche du noel logs, Stollen cake, Panettone My least favorite Christmas sweets include eggnog, plum pudding, wassail, and mince pie. naturally, I ate most of the favorites often in childhood and had little contact then with the least favorites.
I hope this has stirred your Christmas sweet tooth a little and you'll either head for the nearest kitchen to make something sweet and Christmasy or buy an eat an already made Christmas sweet a favorite. Ho Ho Ho
Monday, December 21, 2009
War On Christmas
I just glanced at an article in a newspaper that analyzed the so called "War on Christmas". Many people today, in reaction to politically correctness that says references to Christmas must be replaced by "holiday themes" because Christmas is a Christian celebration, support the use of Christmas symbols and traditions and frown on any attempt to ban references to the holiday. That's the alleged "battle'. It seems silly to me that a court or government body would legislate in any way about Christmas. It's a private matter, a mostly secular celebration now and not something that governments should spend time regulating. Most people will express themselves the way they want, so I think trying to legislate expression is a futile attempt.
Why are some non Christians opposed to Christmas holiday symbols beign shown publically? Is it insecurity that their own religious holidays gets smaller notice in thsi culture? Are they really offended by Christmas rituals? In the U.S. courts have long ruled that no particular religion may be promoted by the government ahead of the others. But is placing a Christmas decoration with images of Christianity in a public venue really offensive? Some non Christian religious groups even try to ban Christmas carolers because some of their songs are religious oriented. Perhaps they are confusing tradition with religious proselytizing. Americans are in a war that pits the politically correct against Christmas carolers, some say. They say it's a battle that plays out in the halls of Congress, retail stores and public schools across the country, and it's one that's been raging for years. In truth, I don't see much decline in the number of public "religious based' Christmas activity. It might be a small battle rather than a war.
Those who say "ENOUGH" with attempts to secularize all public Christmas activity believe that if there is not closure to this continuous change in what the government and courts allow for Christmas, then soon it will almost be a completely different event from what we see today, and in the process we would lose the whole emphasis of what the very early beginning of Christmas was all about. Christmas would go from the Christmas spirit to the "holiday" spirit ,and that is a far broader celebration which would would destroy the many unique aspects of Christmas. Are some schools and businesses going too far to "censor" Christmas because they don't know the laws or are overzealous and oversensitive?
Too, why should a society by necessity include other religious traditions in its holiday? Is it necessary to inject Hanukkah or Kwanza into Christmas? War on Christmas? Ho Ho Ho. Maybe there is no such thing at all. For most followers, is the Christmas holiday simply one of the best marketing tools ever invented and no longer religious based? Christmas probably not going to go anywhere anytime soon and as logn as hey don't hide Santa I am ok with it.
Why are some non Christians opposed to Christmas holiday symbols beign shown publically? Is it insecurity that their own religious holidays gets smaller notice in thsi culture? Are they really offended by Christmas rituals? In the U.S. courts have long ruled that no particular religion may be promoted by the government ahead of the others. But is placing a Christmas decoration with images of Christianity in a public venue really offensive? Some non Christian religious groups even try to ban Christmas carolers because some of their songs are religious oriented. Perhaps they are confusing tradition with religious proselytizing. Americans are in a war that pits the politically correct against Christmas carolers, some say. They say it's a battle that plays out in the halls of Congress, retail stores and public schools across the country, and it's one that's been raging for years. In truth, I don't see much decline in the number of public "religious based' Christmas activity. It might be a small battle rather than a war.
Those who say "ENOUGH" with attempts to secularize all public Christmas activity believe that if there is not closure to this continuous change in what the government and courts allow for Christmas, then soon it will almost be a completely different event from what we see today, and in the process we would lose the whole emphasis of what the very early beginning of Christmas was all about. Christmas would go from the Christmas spirit to the "holiday" spirit ,and that is a far broader celebration which would would destroy the many unique aspects of Christmas. Are some schools and businesses going too far to "censor" Christmas because they don't know the laws or are overzealous and oversensitive?
Too, why should a society by necessity include other religious traditions in its holiday? Is it necessary to inject Hanukkah or Kwanza into Christmas? War on Christmas? Ho Ho Ho. Maybe there is no such thing at all. For most followers, is the Christmas holiday simply one of the best marketing tools ever invented and no longer religious based? Christmas probably not going to go anywhere anytime soon and as logn as hey don't hide Santa I am ok with it.
Christmas Tree Rentals
The environmental greeners are at it again. They are renting Christmas trees this again year in many U.S. cities to help "save the environment" again. They seem to save the environment allot, but I wish they would first try to save their own sanity and come to some sense of reason. I have doubts they could even accomplish that.First...about the claim that using fake trees is more environmentally sound...Artificial trees are manufactured using a polyvinyl chloride (or PVC), which is a petroleum derived plastic. The raw material for fake Christmas trees is both non-renewable and polluting. The artificial tree results in the unhealthy emission of a number of carcinogens, such as dioxin, ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride. So don't tell me you are a planet saver when you use a fake tree!
Renting out live Xmas trees, picking them up after the holiday and replanting is supposed to stop the waste in cutting down the trees (even though the trees are farmed and replaced with new seedlings every year, resulting in no net loss of trees). The good thing about renting a live Xmas tree is that the cost is that on average only about 20% higher than buying a cut tree that must be discarded after Xmas. Also, there is no mess with needles when using alive tree. I once had a live Christmas tree, a smaller one that I bought, and I planted it in my backyard after Christmas. But the heat and humidity of New Orleans eventually killed it.
Those artificial trees are not my style. I never had one and plan to never ever have a fake tree. Christmas trees are the most important Christmas decorations in the home, so why put an aluminum tree there? And shopping for a real tree each year is fun. I hate the idea of not having that job at Christmas. I even like hauling it home and setting the real tree in the Xmas stand. It is always hard to get the tree straight and most often there are imperfections. But there is a sense of personal investment a real tree gives that is absent with artificial ones. And no smells come from a fake tree! What better than the fresh smell of a real tree or even the decaying one if it eventually 'goes bad' before New Years Day.
So I like the real tree and the growing use of live potted trees that can be rented or bought and replanted. Don't tell me artificial trees are better. The next thing you'd probably say is that Santa is a fake too. Bah Humbug to that!
Renting out live Xmas trees, picking them up after the holiday and replanting is supposed to stop the waste in cutting down the trees (even though the trees are farmed and replaced with new seedlings every year, resulting in no net loss of trees). The good thing about renting a live Xmas tree is that the cost is that on average only about 20% higher than buying a cut tree that must be discarded after Xmas. Also, there is no mess with needles when using alive tree. I once had a live Christmas tree, a smaller one that I bought, and I planted it in my backyard after Christmas. But the heat and humidity of New Orleans eventually killed it.
Those artificial trees are not my style. I never had one and plan to never ever have a fake tree. Christmas trees are the most important Christmas decorations in the home, so why put an aluminum tree there? And shopping for a real tree each year is fun. I hate the idea of not having that job at Christmas. I even like hauling it home and setting the real tree in the Xmas stand. It is always hard to get the tree straight and most often there are imperfections. But there is a sense of personal investment a real tree gives that is absent with artificial ones. And no smells come from a fake tree! What better than the fresh smell of a real tree or even the decaying one if it eventually 'goes bad' before New Years Day.
So I like the real tree and the growing use of live potted trees that can be rented or bought and replanted. Don't tell me artificial trees are better. The next thing you'd probably say is that Santa is a fake too. Bah Humbug to that!
Friday, November 13, 2009
Electronic Report Cards
Schools are going electronic here in my state and in many other..in issuing report cards. Yep, those schools aren't sending home report cards for parent to sign . Instead, they are making grades available to parents with secure accounts online. Ahhhhhhhhh What is a lousy student to do to hide those grades these days? It's not possible to erase that F and make it an 'A' anymore. Good thing I am finished with school...
Under the computer report card system paper copies of report cards will remain available for those without computers. But few people here don't have a computer at home or at a minimum access to one to see the grades little John made in school Let's see....some of my favorite excuses for hiding my report card from mom and dad are now gone. "The dog ate my report card" "My teacher is so proud of my report card she is keeping it posted at school". "It's being delayed for issuance." None of those will work for today's kids.
Hmmmmmmmmm First they post grades and then what? More data? How is a goof off like I was in my school years supposed to have fun in school anymore? I don't know how much information is available to parents this way, but it might lead to individual student to web where the teachers could give full reports on the student's progress or lack of progress and all their subjects. It would also be an opportunity to inform the parents of their kids' behavior in school which would help coordinate a successful learning atmosphere. Not good for the kiddies.
But I foresee some problems with the school/teachers posting more than just the occasional grade. It would entail a huge time investment for teachers to update a students page every day. When would they be expected to do this? Most teachers are swamped with work in school and have no time for that extra role.
And what about privacy for the kids? No web site is secure from others either sneaking a look at private information or , in the case of the savvy geeks in school, changing grades on line to please mom and dad. Too, what proof does the teacher have that the parents even saw the report card on line or that it didn't end up in their "spam" file? What we have in most schools now, a signed piece of paper as a report card, is a record for both the parent and teacher.
One thing is for sure. I give thanks to the failing Gods above that they didn't have this kind of electronic report card system when I was in school.
Under the computer report card system paper copies of report cards will remain available for those without computers. But few people here don't have a computer at home or at a minimum access to one to see the grades little John made in school Let's see....some of my favorite excuses for hiding my report card from mom and dad are now gone. "The dog ate my report card" "My teacher is so proud of my report card she is keeping it posted at school". "It's being delayed for issuance." None of those will work for today's kids.
Hmmmmmmmmm First they post grades and then what? More data? How is a goof off like I was in my school years supposed to have fun in school anymore? I don't know how much information is available to parents this way, but it might lead to individual student to web where the teachers could give full reports on the student's progress or lack of progress and all their subjects. It would also be an opportunity to inform the parents of their kids' behavior in school which would help coordinate a successful learning atmosphere. Not good for the kiddies.
But I foresee some problems with the school/teachers posting more than just the occasional grade. It would entail a huge time investment for teachers to update a students page every day. When would they be expected to do this? Most teachers are swamped with work in school and have no time for that extra role.
And what about privacy for the kids? No web site is secure from others either sneaking a look at private information or , in the case of the savvy geeks in school, changing grades on line to please mom and dad. Too, what proof does the teacher have that the parents even saw the report card on line or that it didn't end up in their "spam" file? What we have in most schools now, a signed piece of paper as a report card, is a record for both the parent and teacher.
One thing is for sure. I give thanks to the failing Gods above that they didn't have this kind of electronic report card system when I was in school.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Too Fancy Clothes
I had a long Saturday, being on a movie set from 6 am to 6:30 pm. This one was a made for TV movie called 'I Believe in Love'. It stars a former child Disney actress, now turned singer, Hilary Duff. The movie story revolve around a young Cosmopolitan Magazine writer, played by Duff, in New York. She only dates men in business suits.
Yes, it is a comedy. New Orleans his being turned into Manhattan for the film. My tiny contribution that day was to walk with a brief case into a bank (no, I didn't rob it..you were thinking I would in real life) and later in the day to be a background customer in a Brooks Brothers clothing store.
The movie set was in a real Brooks Brothers store. It's one of those "for the wealthy or foolish" only places. Since we were on set for most of the afternoon at that location I perused the clothes there. There were $300 slacks, $200 ties, and suits well over $1000 each. The quality of that merchandise? It was slightly more upscale, but surely does not warrant such high prices. There was the usual silk and wool, but I am not sure it was of quality that is commensurate with the prices asked for purchasing it. Haha I saw the same "made in India". made in China" tags that are on the "cheap" clothing sold in most stores.
The store was still operating between takes and there were some customers picking up merchandise and looking or browsing to buy. I wonder how many sales places like that has each day, given the prices. But then, the mark-up on prices is so high it need not sell in great volume to make a profit. Brooks Brothers started as a men's clothing store many years ago, but the reality of men not being shoppers to the degree that women are turned it into a store for everyone.
This leads me to the observation that we men know of but dare not speak to shopping crazy women. that is, "why are women's clothing so much better looking and of better quality than are men's? Women want us to dress better, but the selection of clothes for men is far more limited to accomplish that. Anyway, I am the sloppy type who does not care about the look of clothes. I prefer comfort and will wear the same group of things too often because they are more comfortable.
Can you imagine a man (hehe... a straight one, not a gay one) in high heels or caked with an hour of make-up? It will not happen. Women have been steered to over dress and over make-up by devices like the better clothing options they can buy.
On balance, we men should be grateful there are fewer options of wear and that we do not have to use make up on our own faces.So the uppity, stylish stores like Brooks Brothers are not only very expensive, but an invitation for men to primp in front of a mirror and wear uncomfortable clothing. You'll never see me in Brooks Brothers any time soon.
Yes, it is a comedy. New Orleans his being turned into Manhattan for the film. My tiny contribution that day was to walk with a brief case into a bank (no, I didn't rob it..you were thinking I would in real life) and later in the day to be a background customer in a Brooks Brothers clothing store.
The movie set was in a real Brooks Brothers store. It's one of those "for the wealthy or foolish" only places. Since we were on set for most of the afternoon at that location I perused the clothes there. There were $300 slacks, $200 ties, and suits well over $1000 each. The quality of that merchandise? It was slightly more upscale, but surely does not warrant such high prices. There was the usual silk and wool, but I am not sure it was of quality that is commensurate with the prices asked for purchasing it. Haha I saw the same "made in India". made in China" tags that are on the "cheap" clothing sold in most stores.
The store was still operating between takes and there were some customers picking up merchandise and looking or browsing to buy. I wonder how many sales places like that has each day, given the prices. But then, the mark-up on prices is so high it need not sell in great volume to make a profit. Brooks Brothers started as a men's clothing store many years ago, but the reality of men not being shoppers to the degree that women are turned it into a store for everyone.
This leads me to the observation that we men know of but dare not speak to shopping crazy women. that is, "why are women's clothing so much better looking and of better quality than are men's? Women want us to dress better, but the selection of clothes for men is far more limited to accomplish that. Anyway, I am the sloppy type who does not care about the look of clothes. I prefer comfort and will wear the same group of things too often because they are more comfortable.
Can you imagine a man (hehe... a straight one, not a gay one) in high heels or caked with an hour of make-up? It will not happen. Women have been steered to over dress and over make-up by devices like the better clothing options they can buy.
On balance, we men should be grateful there are fewer options of wear and that we do not have to use make up on our own faces.So the uppity, stylish stores like Brooks Brothers are not only very expensive, but an invitation for men to primp in front of a mirror and wear uncomfortable clothing. You'll never see me in Brooks Brothers any time soon.
Monday, November 9, 2009
French Identity Crises
I love to make observations about some weaknesses in the "French Armor". That is want to toss spears at the alleged superiority some French and some non French think possesses that nation. So today how about an observation or two on the changing image the French are evolving into. They are in an..uh..identity crisis, I think. And it is all tied to the massive Muslim and African immigration in France over the last 25 years or so. It appears, in a desperate attempt to save it's traditional view of itself, that France is trying to recapture that arrogant "we are special and the best because we are French" image.
To try to stop the "Muslim horde" changes the French now propagandize school kids about how the "real French" are the only authentic ones. They sing patriotic songs in class, study about French heroes of the past, forbid any non French language or clothing to be worn by the kiddies, legislate to ensure all things naturally French have precedence over the foreign etc. And what is wrong with a little romantic Gallic pride you may ask? Isn't it that shared collective culture that makes any nation great? Well, not if that process includes throwing the Muslim culture and beliefs in the trash.
The French have taken a love it or leave it (France) attitude, an either "you are one of us or not...and get out if not" view. It's not a surprise, the French superiority complex has always been around, but with Muslims numbers increasing so fast the French natives are throwing up a reactionary defense to "save France". This is causing a great deal of tension between the native French and the immigrant French, bringing about a huge increase of the discrimination long obvious in France against non ethnic French.Stopping immigration is now the most common election theme of French politicians. And the French citizens vote for anyone who wants to throw out the immigrants or stop more from coming. The fact of the matter is that today what is French is much harder to define than what we saw in the past. A few natives even suggest it is time for a French make-over, that the French stubbornness to be anything other than native is what has caused France to slip into second rate status in the world. These more progressive natives welcome the changes immigrants are bringing to modernize French culture...but they are usually shouted down or shunned when they promote that idea.
Nations always have identity changes/crises. But countries like France, such as Iran for another example, are intolerant and inflexible of change and handle it badly. To make matters worse, the Muslim "invaders' may be be even more intolerant and inflexible that the French culture it attempts to merge with. It's a clash of stubbornness that is bound to produce more friction than any reasonable French citizen wants.
I wonder if this cultural clash is a microcosm of the Muslim versus Non Muslim spat going on in other places in the world. It's so frustrating one wants to tear off his chador and stomp on it in protest.
To try to stop the "Muslim horde" changes the French now propagandize school kids about how the "real French" are the only authentic ones. They sing patriotic songs in class, study about French heroes of the past, forbid any non French language or clothing to be worn by the kiddies, legislate to ensure all things naturally French have precedence over the foreign etc. And what is wrong with a little romantic Gallic pride you may ask? Isn't it that shared collective culture that makes any nation great? Well, not if that process includes throwing the Muslim culture and beliefs in the trash.
The French have taken a love it or leave it (France) attitude, an either "you are one of us or not...and get out if not" view. It's not a surprise, the French superiority complex has always been around, but with Muslims numbers increasing so fast the French natives are throwing up a reactionary defense to "save France". This is causing a great deal of tension between the native French and the immigrant French, bringing about a huge increase of the discrimination long obvious in France against non ethnic French.Stopping immigration is now the most common election theme of French politicians. And the French citizens vote for anyone who wants to throw out the immigrants or stop more from coming. The fact of the matter is that today what is French is much harder to define than what we saw in the past. A few natives even suggest it is time for a French make-over, that the French stubbornness to be anything other than native is what has caused France to slip into second rate status in the world. These more progressive natives welcome the changes immigrants are bringing to modernize French culture...but they are usually shouted down or shunned when they promote that idea.
Nations always have identity changes/crises. But countries like France, such as Iran for another example, are intolerant and inflexible of change and handle it badly. To make matters worse, the Muslim "invaders' may be be even more intolerant and inflexible that the French culture it attempts to merge with. It's a clash of stubbornness that is bound to produce more friction than any reasonable French citizen wants.
I wonder if this cultural clash is a microcosm of the Muslim versus Non Muslim spat going on in other places in the world. It's so frustrating one wants to tear off his chador and stomp on it in protest.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Hate Crimes
Throughout the early '90s, state legislatures across the country began to adopt new measures seeking to outlaw what are referred to as “hate crimes.” A typical hate crime statute increases the severity of punishment for a crime deemed to be motivated by prejudice against a victim's race, religion, ethnic origin, and, in some cases, sexual orientation. It is a crazy notion, I think, to make a crime category based on "intent". But this is the age of political correctness . I am not surprised that such things as "hate crime laws" exist.
The federal government has such laws too. Congress has just made an addition to federal "hate crime laws" that are already on the books, extending protection against hate crimes to homosexuals. I am all for protecting homosexuals from bigots and from crimes, but the idea that the reason for a crime makes a crime more or less severe is both false and contrary to fairness. By this reasoning, all crimes should have categories of penalties based on the motivation of the offender. For example, robbery should now be okay as long as the assailant is poor and hungry.
We have many laws now that cover all types of crime. Society can't legislate against what people "think" because of a "motive" for a crime. Most crimes stem from hatred of some kind, and all crime victims suffer equally regardless of intent of the criminal. Properly labeling something a 'hate crime' should be based on using common sense in the sentencing process, not be part of a specific and potentially never ending list that targets crimes toward a particular group of people.
I think hate crime charges detract from the original, far more heinous offense that was committed. Murder is murder, rape is rape, arson is arson, nothing more or less despite who or what the victim is. All the hate crime charges are is a way to further inflame public passion, something that has no place in an American court of law in the first place. But in this age sense is nonsense and reality not politically correct.
The federal government has such laws too. Congress has just made an addition to federal "hate crime laws" that are already on the books, extending protection against hate crimes to homosexuals. I am all for protecting homosexuals from bigots and from crimes, but the idea that the reason for a crime makes a crime more or less severe is both false and contrary to fairness. By this reasoning, all crimes should have categories of penalties based on the motivation of the offender. For example, robbery should now be okay as long as the assailant is poor and hungry.
We have many laws now that cover all types of crime. Society can't legislate against what people "think" because of a "motive" for a crime. Most crimes stem from hatred of some kind, and all crime victims suffer equally regardless of intent of the criminal. Properly labeling something a 'hate crime' should be based on using common sense in the sentencing process, not be part of a specific and potentially never ending list that targets crimes toward a particular group of people.
I think hate crime charges detract from the original, far more heinous offense that was committed. Murder is murder, rape is rape, arson is arson, nothing more or less despite who or what the victim is. All the hate crime charges are is a way to further inflame public passion, something that has no place in an American court of law in the first place. But in this age sense is nonsense and reality not politically correct.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Gadget Mania
I am being driven mad by others e-mail, iPhones, texts, Facebook updates, Twitter "tweets," checking a bank balance, gaming, intuitive online searches with computers, Data is being collected, presented and acted upon in real time today. To the gadget addicts it's all about immediacy and instantaneous data and is so sad. But privacy, intimacy in communication and simple communication are often sacrificed in the process. Just observe people dinning in a restaurant today and you will see some ignoring their dinning mate while they get intimate with their cell phones.
This is the Age of the Gadget, a time when a lack of common sense and self discipline have estranged humans from each other as they have built a wall (the technology) between each other that is a pile of gadgets, most of which are used excessively and rudely. But don't tell them to unplug! It is impossible for them. People tend to go through withdrawal when denied their constant gadget stimulation, as if on heroine. When they can't use one of the devices that seems to control their lives they have no life at all. Users have surrendered to and accepted a lack of privacy that comes with being addicted to their gadgets, surrendering some of their personal freedom in the balance.
But do we need to be connected out side of professional /business reasons? Or are we all so codependent that we want to be connected so as not to feel left out? Too, many people have lost the ability or never learned how to communicate face to face because of those gadgets. The devices have made us lazy and non communicative on a personal level. Solitude is found many forms today, including interacting with others through gadgets.
Some of the devices strip us naked, revealing to anyone, anywhere all about us. I find that a little dehumanizing, and the unknown is often the most attractive qualities people possess. Sure the technology has good aspects, but those are often trampled in search for the negatives. Perhaps getting those gadgets so quickly and so often does not give humans time to evaluate their usefulness. What is new or trendy becomes what is good, not what is beneficial to our lives.
I wonder where the love of all this gadgetry will lead. Will gadgets completely take over human reason and occupy all of our time? Or we will finally, objectively evaluate them and use them for good rather than to escape reality/ What do you think?
This is the Age of the Gadget, a time when a lack of common sense and self discipline have estranged humans from each other as they have built a wall (the technology) between each other that is a pile of gadgets, most of which are used excessively and rudely. But don't tell them to unplug! It is impossible for them. People tend to go through withdrawal when denied their constant gadget stimulation, as if on heroine. When they can't use one of the devices that seems to control their lives they have no life at all. Users have surrendered to and accepted a lack of privacy that comes with being addicted to their gadgets, surrendering some of their personal freedom in the balance.
But do we need to be connected out side of professional /business reasons? Or are we all so codependent that we want to be connected so as not to feel left out? Too, many people have lost the ability or never learned how to communicate face to face because of those gadgets. The devices have made us lazy and non communicative on a personal level. Solitude is found many forms today, including interacting with others through gadgets.
Some of the devices strip us naked, revealing to anyone, anywhere all about us. I find that a little dehumanizing, and the unknown is often the most attractive qualities people possess. Sure the technology has good aspects, but those are often trampled in search for the negatives. Perhaps getting those gadgets so quickly and so often does not give humans time to evaluate their usefulness. What is new or trendy becomes what is good, not what is beneficial to our lives.
I wonder where the love of all this gadgetry will lead. Will gadgets completely take over human reason and occupy all of our time? Or we will finally, objectively evaluate them and use them for good rather than to escape reality/ What do you think?
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
All Saints Day
I did my duty on November 1st. With flowers in hand I headed to see the four tombs at Hope Mausoleum housing my parents and brother, my maternal grandparents and my maternal grandparents and my mom's sister and husband. I placed the requisite flowers, meditated about those long gone loved ones, and browsed to see the condition of the mausoleum, and I observed both the other still alive occupants of the mausoleum and the engravings on some of the dead ones that tell stories ordinary and fascinating. In largely Catholic New Orleans, All Saints Day on November 1st and All Souls' Day on November 2nd have been observed for centuries through rituals celebrating life over death. You are expected to "visits the graves' of departed ones.
New Orleanians pay special attention to their graveyards. Friends and relatives of the deceased show up on those days, cleaning and painting tombs, and decorating them with fall flowers and leaving mementos on the tomb. Sometimes religious services are even held in the cemeteries. In early days, All Saints Day was quite a family event, when everyone socialized, bringing refreshments and leaving keepsakes such as "immortelles”. While this may seem bizarre, it is no more strange than the habits of citizens practiced in late 19th century American west's in which huge cheering s crowds would turn out to watch, eat and party at a town's public hanging of criminals convicted of various deeds. One honors loved dead ones, the other cheers the death of strangers.
Hope Mausoleum is a sedate burial site, a huge marbled palace encased in granite that was constructed because some underground burials were producing too many floating bodies as rains popped up the caskets and deposited the remains above. But we have some weird cemetery rituals that are still on-going at some of the others here.
One example is St. Roch Cemetery. Its chapel is most notable for the "relic room", where plaster casts of body parts, braces, crutches, and the like, are placed in recognition of cures affected through the intercession of St. Roch. Yep! People still go to a cemetery to pray for cures. But wait! Women also still pray there for St. Roch to find a husband for them.
On my visit to Hope I saw mostly old people who were probably there for recently deceased spouses or siblings. The only young people I noticed, and it was crowded, were small children who were no doubt being initiated in the practice of "cemetery visiting". I doubt those kids will retain and interest in such a thing when older. This generation of immediate gratification and electronic stimulation has little room for cemetery visiting. Just as funerals are becoming less frequent and burials in cemeteries being replaced by cremation, the New Orleans habit of remembering loved ones at cemeteries will, no doubt, "die" a slow but steady death.
It's too bad, because cemeteries are really more for the living than for the dead.
New Orleanians pay special attention to their graveyards. Friends and relatives of the deceased show up on those days, cleaning and painting tombs, and decorating them with fall flowers and leaving mementos on the tomb. Sometimes religious services are even held in the cemeteries. In early days, All Saints Day was quite a family event, when everyone socialized, bringing refreshments and leaving keepsakes such as "immortelles”. While this may seem bizarre, it is no more strange than the habits of citizens practiced in late 19th century American west's in which huge cheering s crowds would turn out to watch, eat and party at a town's public hanging of criminals convicted of various deeds. One honors loved dead ones, the other cheers the death of strangers.
Hope Mausoleum is a sedate burial site, a huge marbled palace encased in granite that was constructed because some underground burials were producing too many floating bodies as rains popped up the caskets and deposited the remains above. But we have some weird cemetery rituals that are still on-going at some of the others here.
One example is St. Roch Cemetery. Its chapel is most notable for the "relic room", where plaster casts of body parts, braces, crutches, and the like, are placed in recognition of cures affected through the intercession of St. Roch. Yep! People still go to a cemetery to pray for cures. But wait! Women also still pray there for St. Roch to find a husband for them.
On my visit to Hope I saw mostly old people who were probably there for recently deceased spouses or siblings. The only young people I noticed, and it was crowded, were small children who were no doubt being initiated in the practice of "cemetery visiting". I doubt those kids will retain and interest in such a thing when older. This generation of immediate gratification and electronic stimulation has little room for cemetery visiting. Just as funerals are becoming less frequent and burials in cemeteries being replaced by cremation, the New Orleans habit of remembering loved ones at cemeteries will, no doubt, "die" a slow but steady death.
It's too bad, because cemeteries are really more for the living than for the dead.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Halloween Warning
I am Catholic. But some of the churches policies are baffling to me. The newest pope, Pope Benedict is the most conservative pope we have had in more than 50 years. It almost appears that he believes the church is still the powerful Medieval force it once was, and that the worshippers still believe in Medieval ideology.
The latest crazy Catholic Church pronouncement came the day before Halloween. In it the Vatican warned parents not to let their kids dress up as ghosts and goblins for Halloween, calling it a pagan celebration of "terror, fear and death". The Vatican issued its warning through its official newspaper, L' Osservatore Tomanao, in an article headlined "Halloween's Dangerous Messages."How out of touch is that! Halloween dangerous? Maybe they think the candy given to kids is the apple from the Garden of Eden. Does the church really think we celebrate Halloween in its original/historical form..as a pagan worship? Doesn't the church realize it is a non religious fun day for kids and adults, and that there is no sacrilege involved? Strangely too, the Pope's warning about "evil" Halloween targeted small children who have no concept of Halloween other than trick or treat, Halloween parties and foods and making or carving pumpkins and other innocent Halloween activities....Parents should "be aware of this and try to direct the meaning of the feast towards wholesomeness and beauty rather than terror, fear and death," it said.
The church should not take itself so seriously. I doubt that anyone puts any religious connotation into Halloween anymore. Except the Vatican. But then the Catholic Church still pretends to live in those Medieval days when worshippers who dared defy the church were tortured or condemned to hell. Curious how out of touch the Vatican is even with it's own churches and organizations. When I was a child, the local Catholic school celebrated Halloween. I bet they did on Halloween too. At least that's what I observe here in the New Orleans area. Many Catholic schools and organizations even have Halloween dances and parties for kids or adults.
Perhaps the church should concentrate on some of the evil within itself- the financial and sexual scandals in the church , for instance. Or perhaps deal with the spiritual lives of its followers, followers who are confused about what the Catholic Church is and want a clear definition from the vatican of it. Why doesn't the Roman Catholic Church take a good look at itself? It scares me a lot more than kids knocking on my door with goblin suits on.
The latest crazy Catholic Church pronouncement came the day before Halloween. In it the Vatican warned parents not to let their kids dress up as ghosts and goblins for Halloween, calling it a pagan celebration of "terror, fear and death". The Vatican issued its warning through its official newspaper, L' Osservatore Tomanao, in an article headlined "Halloween's Dangerous Messages."How out of touch is that! Halloween dangerous? Maybe they think the candy given to kids is the apple from the Garden of Eden. Does the church really think we celebrate Halloween in its original/historical form..as a pagan worship? Doesn't the church realize it is a non religious fun day for kids and adults, and that there is no sacrilege involved? Strangely too, the Pope's warning about "evil" Halloween targeted small children who have no concept of Halloween other than trick or treat, Halloween parties and foods and making or carving pumpkins and other innocent Halloween activities....Parents should "be aware of this and try to direct the meaning of the feast towards wholesomeness and beauty rather than terror, fear and death," it said.
The church should not take itself so seriously. I doubt that anyone puts any religious connotation into Halloween anymore. Except the Vatican. But then the Catholic Church still pretends to live in those Medieval days when worshippers who dared defy the church were tortured or condemned to hell. Curious how out of touch the Vatican is even with it's own churches and organizations. When I was a child, the local Catholic school celebrated Halloween. I bet they did on Halloween too. At least that's what I observe here in the New Orleans area. Many Catholic schools and organizations even have Halloween dances and parties for kids or adults.
Perhaps the church should concentrate on some of the evil within itself- the financial and sexual scandals in the church , for instance. Or perhaps deal with the spiritual lives of its followers, followers who are confused about what the Catholic Church is and want a clear definition from the vatican of it. Why doesn't the Roman Catholic Church take a good look at itself? It scares me a lot more than kids knocking on my door with goblin suits on.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Where To Bury Them
There's a new twist on the biggest and real (as opposed to phony global warming issue) problem- overpopulation. Not only are there too many humans alive on this planet. Now there seems to be too many dead ones too. The world's burial spaces are becoming overcrowded. London, population 8 million, is crowded with the living and now with the dead.
There are many millions more under the soil of a city that has been inhabited for 2,000 years. And London is rapidly running out of places to put them. So now the city's largest cemetery is trying to persuade Londoners to share a grave with a stranger. And more cemeteries are thinking of doing the same. This could signal the death of burials and the rebirth of cremation. Even though over half of all Londeners now use cremation, in Britons and the west in general, there are some who have strong beliefs against it. Resummation, or "flame less cremation," a process that uses an alkaline solution to dissolve bodies is a future possibility for those who are "afraid of fire". But it is not yet recognized in British law.
But the problem is a very British one. Many other European countries regularly reuse old graves after a couple of decades. Britain does not, as a result of old piecemeal regulations and national traditions against it. For many, an Englishman's tomb, like his home, is his castle. That is a similar attitude in America, but we have a great deal more open space for more burials. In much of Britain, reusing old graves remains illegal. Instead of birth control, they need death control. Putting more bodies in existing tomb is said to be the least offensive way to do it.
But will mom put Uncle Edward in a tomb already that is already occupied? That is the dilemma. I wouldn't want to be buried with that crazy aunt of mine..just think about being buried with Michael Jackson? Haha Well, if the deceased is not a little boy it might be ok. Some strange burial fellowships might result. Just think how disturbing for the dead it would be if these mismatched people were buried in the same tomb.
- George Bush and any Islamic terrorist
- Kayne West and Taylor Swift
- Beyonce and Whoppie Goldberg
- Pope Benedict and any Rabbi
- Albert Einstein and Mr. Bean
It's too much to bear...Well, with many religions against anything except a single family tomb burial and the contented image that a green, pastoral grave site gives us we probably haven't seen the end of graves and more burials in them. Burial give humans a sense of contentment at death that they need. And who wants to sleep in the same tomb with Michael Jackson!
There are many millions more under the soil of a city that has been inhabited for 2,000 years. And London is rapidly running out of places to put them. So now the city's largest cemetery is trying to persuade Londoners to share a grave with a stranger. And more cemeteries are thinking of doing the same. This could signal the death of burials and the rebirth of cremation. Even though over half of all Londeners now use cremation, in Britons and the west in general, there are some who have strong beliefs against it. Resummation, or "flame less cremation," a process that uses an alkaline solution to dissolve bodies is a future possibility for those who are "afraid of fire". But it is not yet recognized in British law.
But the problem is a very British one. Many other European countries regularly reuse old graves after a couple of decades. Britain does not, as a result of old piecemeal regulations and national traditions against it. For many, an Englishman's tomb, like his home, is his castle. That is a similar attitude in America, but we have a great deal more open space for more burials. In much of Britain, reusing old graves remains illegal. Instead of birth control, they need death control. Putting more bodies in existing tomb is said to be the least offensive way to do it.
But will mom put Uncle Edward in a tomb already that is already occupied? That is the dilemma. I wouldn't want to be buried with that crazy aunt of mine..just think about being buried with Michael Jackson? Haha Well, if the deceased is not a little boy it might be ok. Some strange burial fellowships might result. Just think how disturbing for the dead it would be if these mismatched people were buried in the same tomb.
- George Bush and any Islamic terrorist
- Kayne West and Taylor Swift
- Beyonce and Whoppie Goldberg
- Pope Benedict and any Rabbi
- Albert Einstein and Mr. Bean
It's too much to bear...Well, with many religions against anything except a single family tomb burial and the contented image that a green, pastoral grave site gives us we probably haven't seen the end of graves and more burials in them. Burial give humans a sense of contentment at death that they need. And who wants to sleep in the same tomb with Michael Jackson!
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Pilot Failure
If you think those cell phone addicted drivers who text and chat on their phones are bad news on the highways, how about the latest technology intrusion that has surfaced, not on the roads, but in air travel? It's the lap top pilot. According to U.S. federal airline regulators, two Northwest Airline pilots used laptop computers in the cockpit while in flight and didn't pay attention to their duties as they flew past their Minneapolis destination last week. They flew more than 125 kilometers past Minneapolis airport before a stewardess finally told them they had flown too far. The two pilots on that flight later told investigators that they flew for 78 minutes without speaking to controllers because they became so engrossed in a new computer program that arranges pilot schedules. Haha Well....at least they weren't on a chat line or cruising porn sites. Or were they????
To ignore contact with air controllers and fly blindly is not only negligence but is gross incompetence. I doubt any airline will ever let those two fly again and the Federal Aviation Administration may pull their licenses permanently. One would think the safety of the passengers and crew would take precedence over using a computer while in the sky. But even common sense is lost to allure of technology these days. Flying while ignoring the flight progress while instead playing on a computer is like doing a high dive into a river before checking the depth and clearance of the water.
If the technology explanation given is true and explains why the pilots lost touch (there are endless others reason they may have lost contact besides the one given by Northwest Airlines that Northwest might feel had to be hidden from the public), I wonder how many other pilots are playing with technology unrelated to their flight and what else is going on in the cockpit. How safe are passengers? And are the airlines aware of this and hiding the problem from the public?
It used to be stories about drunk pilots were the ones that frightened passengers, but strict rules about drinking before flights were and are strictly enforced some time ago, and that is no longer a problem of any magnitude.Finally, what else threatening safety goes on in the cockpit that we don't know about? On top of many new fees airlines are imposing, delays at airports, silly security checks, cramped flights and canceled or late flights, this latest airline problem surely does not motivate many to fly.
To ignore contact with air controllers and fly blindly is not only negligence but is gross incompetence. I doubt any airline will ever let those two fly again and the Federal Aviation Administration may pull their licenses permanently. One would think the safety of the passengers and crew would take precedence over using a computer while in the sky. But even common sense is lost to allure of technology these days. Flying while ignoring the flight progress while instead playing on a computer is like doing a high dive into a river before checking the depth and clearance of the water.
If the technology explanation given is true and explains why the pilots lost touch (there are endless others reason they may have lost contact besides the one given by Northwest Airlines that Northwest might feel had to be hidden from the public), I wonder how many other pilots are playing with technology unrelated to their flight and what else is going on in the cockpit. How safe are passengers? And are the airlines aware of this and hiding the problem from the public?
It used to be stories about drunk pilots were the ones that frightened passengers, but strict rules about drinking before flights were and are strictly enforced some time ago, and that is no longer a problem of any magnitude.Finally, what else threatening safety goes on in the cockpit that we don't know about? On top of many new fees airlines are imposing, delays at airports, silly security checks, cramped flights and canceled or late flights, this latest airline problem surely does not motivate many to fly.
Richest Dead Celebrities
Forbes magazine annual posts a list of the world's richest people. It's interesting. But I just saw another rich list top ten from Forbes that is eerie. It's the top ten money making rich DEAD people for 2009. According to Forbes, the richest dead celebrity isn't Michael Jackson. Although the Jackson's estate has been big news since his death in June, the top-earning dead celebrity is French fashion designer Yves Saint Laurent. Too bad Yves can't toast to be number one. He's dead...remember?
Here is the full list and amounts each dead person made in 2008-2009.
1. Yves Saint Laurent- $350 Million
2. Rogers and Hammerstein (Composers who did in the late 70's)- $235 million
3. Michael Jackson- $90 million
4. Elvis Presley- $55 million
5. J.R. Tolkien- $50 million
6. Charles Schulz- $35 million
7. John Lennon- $15 million
8. Dr. Suess- $15 million
9. Albert Einstein- $10 million
10.Michael Crichton- $9 million
If the list is examined it can be seen that some dad guys (they are all men on the list) persevere in death to keep making money. Einstein has been gone along time, yet he is still in the top ten. Surely, Michael Jackson will climb up some as the estate is inflated with Jackson products that it will sell to cash in on his recent death. last year's top ten dead had five different names, all recently dead celebrities. It seems the closer on is to death the more money he makes.
I wonder if there is a list of the poorest dead celebrities? Haha Well, it would be no less pointless as the dead list is. Somehow I doubt that the dead celebrities care.......they didn't take it with them.
.
Here is the full list and amounts each dead person made in 2008-2009.
1. Yves Saint Laurent- $350 Million
2. Rogers and Hammerstein (Composers who did in the late 70's)- $235 million
3. Michael Jackson- $90 million
4. Elvis Presley- $55 million
5. J.R. Tolkien- $50 million
6. Charles Schulz- $35 million
7. John Lennon- $15 million
8. Dr. Suess- $15 million
9. Albert Einstein- $10 million
10.Michael Crichton- $9 million
If the list is examined it can be seen that some dad guys (they are all men on the list) persevere in death to keep making money. Einstein has been gone along time, yet he is still in the top ten. Surely, Michael Jackson will climb up some as the estate is inflated with Jackson products that it will sell to cash in on his recent death. last year's top ten dead had five different names, all recently dead celebrities. It seems the closer on is to death the more money he makes.
I wonder if there is a list of the poorest dead celebrities? Haha Well, it would be no less pointless as the dead list is. Somehow I doubt that the dead celebrities care.......they didn't take it with them.
.
Halloween Costumes
Given it's Halloween time, it's also time for the costume report. That is, what costumes will the kids and adults most wear this year. With the economy offering consumers more tricks than treats, Halloween spending is lower this year. I can see that in the scarcity of outdoor Halloween decorations this year. It looks like the Halloween Grinch stole them, given one has to look for them much a harder now. Just last year the neighborhoods were teeming with them. Either ghostly spirit for celebrating Halloween is down due to the economic collapse or people are spending fewer boo bucks this year in decorations.
Consumers are expected to spend on average $55.31 on Halloween this year, compared with $66.54 a year ago, that is according to a survey conducted by BIGresearch that was commissioned by the National Retail Federation. The National Retail Federation is the group that makes surveys and statistical studies of your spending so retailers can better target how to separate you from your money. Anyway, total spending on the Halloween holiday is expected to reach $4.75 billion. A good chunk of that spending goes toward costumes. They estimate 47 million adults and 58 million children across the country plan to dress up for Halloween this year.
A poll of 8,526 consumers was conducted from September 1-9, 2009., and here is what the people said they or their kids will wear on Halloween.
Top Ten Halloween Costumes 2009 for Adults
10. Police Officer
9. Athlete
8. Scary Costume/Mask
7. Devil
6. Cat
5. Wench/Tart/Vixen
4. Clown
3. Pirate
2. Vampire
1. Witch
Top Ten Halloween Costumes 2009 For Kids
10. Batman
9. Tinker Bell
8. Star Wars Character
7. Disney Princess
6. Vampire
5. Pumpkin
4. Pirate
3. Spider-Man
2. Witch
1. Princess
What is striking about the list is that they are all traditional and predictable ones. Nothing trendy there in this age of 5 minutes of fame and trendy slavery. Where is the Michael Jackson costume? Where is the Obama Mask? How about a Swine Flu outfit? Surely there will be a few of those and some crazier ones. But it seems the recession has injured the Great Pumpkin and his monsters this year to. I say "Boo" to that!
Consumers are expected to spend on average $55.31 on Halloween this year, compared with $66.54 a year ago, that is according to a survey conducted by BIGresearch that was commissioned by the National Retail Federation. The National Retail Federation is the group that makes surveys and statistical studies of your spending so retailers can better target how to separate you from your money. Anyway, total spending on the Halloween holiday is expected to reach $4.75 billion. A good chunk of that spending goes toward costumes. They estimate 47 million adults and 58 million children across the country plan to dress up for Halloween this year.
A poll of 8,526 consumers was conducted from September 1-9, 2009., and here is what the people said they or their kids will wear on Halloween.
Top Ten Halloween Costumes 2009 for Adults
10. Police Officer
9. Athlete
8. Scary Costume/Mask
7. Devil
6. Cat
5. Wench/Tart/Vixen
4. Clown
3. Pirate
2. Vampire
1. Witch
Top Ten Halloween Costumes 2009 For Kids
10. Batman
9. Tinker Bell
8. Star Wars Character
7. Disney Princess
6. Vampire
5. Pumpkin
4. Pirate
3. Spider-Man
2. Witch
1. Princess
What is striking about the list is that they are all traditional and predictable ones. Nothing trendy there in this age of 5 minutes of fame and trendy slavery. Where is the Michael Jackson costume? Where is the Obama Mask? How about a Swine Flu outfit? Surely there will be a few of those and some crazier ones. But it seems the recession has injured the Great Pumpkin and his monsters this year to. I say "Boo" to that!
Thursday, October 29, 2009
No Burqas
The massive immigration going on all around the world is quite a mess. Nearly every nation with a higher of development is being invaded by legal and illegal immigrants. Immigration is good, but only when it is regulated and the immigrant is self supporting and skilled in a trade his or her new nation needs. The problem now though is that so many immigrants are not self supporting, educated or skilled. So many of them enter their new nation to escape poverty or oppression back home, not because they can envision adapting to a new culture or even want to. They often want to live in their new culture the same way they did in their former one.
The Europeans have their Muslim invasions, the U.S. has its Hispanic hordes pouring in illegally by the millions, China has an invasion from North Korea, Taiwan from China and so on. The only nations free from the influx are those with geographic isolation and restrictive laws against immigration. And they suffer from the opposite effect, too little immigration of the "good kind" (educated, talented immigrants who willingly adapt to the new culture). In short, the world is in flux because of too much movement of its peoples.
One example of the reaction some of those invaded nations are showing against this wave after wave of immigrants comes from probably the least tolerant culture of all- France. France's immigration minister has proposed a debate on French "national identity," saying it should not include face covering Muslim veils such as the burqa. Minister Eric Besson says "the burqa runs counter to national values." he said, "For me, no burqas in the street."
A French parliamentary commission is holding six months of discussions on the wearing of face- and body covering veils, and some politicians have suggested a ban. Minister Besson also defended a government decision to send illegal Afghan immigrants back to Kabul on charter flights last week. Basically, what France is saying is that if the Muslim immigrants don't like living like those natives of the French culture, then they should return to their countries of origin where they can live freely according to their customs and traditions.
But can a democratic nation enforce "conformity"? I think not . Too, from a practical standpoint there will be no purges of immigrants in France. Does the nation conform to the immigrants or the immigrants conform to the nation? Perhaps it is a mix of both. Whatever it is, cultural clashes between immigrants and natives of their new country are bound to happen more often in the future.
The Europeans have their Muslim invasions, the U.S. has its Hispanic hordes pouring in illegally by the millions, China has an invasion from North Korea, Taiwan from China and so on. The only nations free from the influx are those with geographic isolation and restrictive laws against immigration. And they suffer from the opposite effect, too little immigration of the "good kind" (educated, talented immigrants who willingly adapt to the new culture). In short, the world is in flux because of too much movement of its peoples.
One example of the reaction some of those invaded nations are showing against this wave after wave of immigrants comes from probably the least tolerant culture of all- France. France's immigration minister has proposed a debate on French "national identity," saying it should not include face covering Muslim veils such as the burqa. Minister Eric Besson says "the burqa runs counter to national values." he said, "For me, no burqas in the street."
A French parliamentary commission is holding six months of discussions on the wearing of face- and body covering veils, and some politicians have suggested a ban. Minister Besson also defended a government decision to send illegal Afghan immigrants back to Kabul on charter flights last week. Basically, what France is saying is that if the Muslim immigrants don't like living like those natives of the French culture, then they should return to their countries of origin where they can live freely according to their customs and traditions.
But can a democratic nation enforce "conformity"? I think not . Too, from a practical standpoint there will be no purges of immigrants in France. Does the nation conform to the immigrants or the immigrants conform to the nation? Perhaps it is a mix of both. Whatever it is, cultural clashes between immigrants and natives of their new country are bound to happen more often in the future.
Worry Warts
I have always liked the attitude of Alfred E Neuman, the fictitious character and symbol who graces every cover of Mad Magazine. His motto is "What, Me Worry?" Alfred is more than a little laid back. He's practically in a coma when it comes to worry, believing that nothing is truly worth worrying about. So why do I admire the empty headed Alfred? It's because he is the antithesis of the "What should I worry about next generation" in which we now live. Too many people today worry too much about the wrong things.
Humans are just not good at assessing risk, and today's improved communication mediums means they get information about matters big and small that can cause them confusion about what is important and what is not. often the mediums propagandize silly matters and convert them into things about which we are told we should worry. Further, modern communication devices themselves can cause humans to turn the trivial matter into the worrisome one. Maybe that's why so many today worry about "terrorism" and "global warming" and so little about things like not using their credit cards too much or making sure they are parenting correctly.
So how can we find out what's is truly dangerous enough to worry about? We humans tend to respond to uncertainty with irrational emotion, fear, blame, paralysis than we should exhibit. Uncertainty also has a nasty way of making us conjure the very worst possibilities. With the questionable theory of global warming, for instance, the reaction is to imagine hellish temperatures, rising oceans, a planet in chaos. How many times have we read about "saving the planet" or that "we are all going to die because of global warming"? Truth is, we can neither save nor destroy the planet and the earth will not smother us in heat.
Whether global warming is real or not it makes no sense for us to exhibit hysterical behavior as a reaction to it. Most real problems humans face have solutions, and every generation has had some imagined problems that worried them too much. But instead of panicking and collectively wringing hands, those who were more focused on solution than worry did solve the problems of the age. In ancient times people worried about the sun burning our or burning up earth, in medieval times too many worried about witches casting evil spells and promoting devilish deeds. In the modern age we have worried too much about nuclear holocaust.
Most problems humans face are quickly solvable. Virtually every unsolvable problem we've faced in the past has turned out to be solvable, and the script has nearly always been the same for solving them. A band of clever, motivated people most often inventors and scientists, usually found an answer to the real problems and exposed the phony ones. the phony problems that worried people then....they just died of their own lack of credibility.
What we all should do is examine the worry we are told is critical in order to see if it is real and, more importantly, if it effects us whether we can do anything to thwart it. Check the source of information about the alleged next worry. Check it at many sources. Question what is stated. We should be skeptical and objective in evaluating something before blindly worrying ourselves about it . And if what we are told is a problem and seems to be much ado about nothing, don't let trendiness or media sources manipulate us into worrying about it.
We must become Alfred E Neuman and look the worry mongers in the eye and say, "What, me worry"?
Humans are just not good at assessing risk, and today's improved communication mediums means they get information about matters big and small that can cause them confusion about what is important and what is not. often the mediums propagandize silly matters and convert them into things about which we are told we should worry. Further, modern communication devices themselves can cause humans to turn the trivial matter into the worrisome one. Maybe that's why so many today worry about "terrorism" and "global warming" and so little about things like not using their credit cards too much or making sure they are parenting correctly.
So how can we find out what's is truly dangerous enough to worry about? We humans tend to respond to uncertainty with irrational emotion, fear, blame, paralysis than we should exhibit. Uncertainty also has a nasty way of making us conjure the very worst possibilities. With the questionable theory of global warming, for instance, the reaction is to imagine hellish temperatures, rising oceans, a planet in chaos. How many times have we read about "saving the planet" or that "we are all going to die because of global warming"? Truth is, we can neither save nor destroy the planet and the earth will not smother us in heat.
Whether global warming is real or not it makes no sense for us to exhibit hysterical behavior as a reaction to it. Most real problems humans face have solutions, and every generation has had some imagined problems that worried them too much. But instead of panicking and collectively wringing hands, those who were more focused on solution than worry did solve the problems of the age. In ancient times people worried about the sun burning our or burning up earth, in medieval times too many worried about witches casting evil spells and promoting devilish deeds. In the modern age we have worried too much about nuclear holocaust.
Most problems humans face are quickly solvable. Virtually every unsolvable problem we've faced in the past has turned out to be solvable, and the script has nearly always been the same for solving them. A band of clever, motivated people most often inventors and scientists, usually found an answer to the real problems and exposed the phony ones. the phony problems that worried people then....they just died of their own lack of credibility.
What we all should do is examine the worry we are told is critical in order to see if it is real and, more importantly, if it effects us whether we can do anything to thwart it. Check the source of information about the alleged next worry. Check it at many sources. Question what is stated. We should be skeptical and objective in evaluating something before blindly worrying ourselves about it . And if what we are told is a problem and seems to be much ado about nothing, don't let trendiness or media sources manipulate us into worrying about it.
We must become Alfred E Neuman and look the worry mongers in the eye and say, "What, me worry"?
Carry-On Mess
Have you flown lately? It isn't getting any more pleasurable to fly from or into the U.S. With fees increasing on just about everything overcrowded planes and dysfunctional flight schedules the passenger's comfort is the last thought on the minds of the airlines. But what is turning my stomach these days is the infamous "carry-on bag rule".
Just board a flight today and try to stow your carry on. The passengers scramble to stow gear before others fill the overhead bins, drag bags heavier than allowed, slip aboard with more than the two items typically permitted and bump into seat mates while cramming in belongings. It's havoc on board. Because the airlines charge so much to check in regular bags fliers try to cram as much in the overhead bins or next to their seat .
The problem has become bad since the major airlines began imposing fees for the first checked bag on domestic flights. Congress is considering legislation to limit and standardize carry on size and to ensure enforcement at airport checkpoints. This is something the airlines probably don't want because some frustrated passengers, fed up with fees, would revolt against those limitations on the basis of the costs they impose in checking in more luggage. If they stop flying the airlines would lose even more revenue amidst the huge losses they already gave these days.
The mantra for fliers today is "It's a fight for the overheads". By the time the last boarding group races for space in the compartments on a typically packed flight, there is panic. Some passengers are left standing in the aisle with no place to put their belongings and they take extra time looking for a spot for their bags, which can delay the flight even further. But the airlines have brought this on all by themselves by charging for checking bags. It's like the Great Race when boarding zones are called out as everyone races to get on the plane as fast as possible in order to not be left without a bin to stow their luggage What I most dislike about the carry on crunch is:
- People who bring full-size luggage on flights
- People who board early, before their zone is called, many times the airport checkers let them through
- People who bring on more than 3 bags
- People who have carry on bags deemed too large at the boarding gate, checked when there's no room on the plane, fly free
- People breaking the carry on rules because the policy is not or unevenly enforced.
Good luck with your bags next time you fly.
Just board a flight today and try to stow your carry on. The passengers scramble to stow gear before others fill the overhead bins, drag bags heavier than allowed, slip aboard with more than the two items typically permitted and bump into seat mates while cramming in belongings. It's havoc on board. Because the airlines charge so much to check in regular bags fliers try to cram as much in the overhead bins or next to their seat .
The problem has become bad since the major airlines began imposing fees for the first checked bag on domestic flights. Congress is considering legislation to limit and standardize carry on size and to ensure enforcement at airport checkpoints. This is something the airlines probably don't want because some frustrated passengers, fed up with fees, would revolt against those limitations on the basis of the costs they impose in checking in more luggage. If they stop flying the airlines would lose even more revenue amidst the huge losses they already gave these days.
The mantra for fliers today is "It's a fight for the overheads". By the time the last boarding group races for space in the compartments on a typically packed flight, there is panic. Some passengers are left standing in the aisle with no place to put their belongings and they take extra time looking for a spot for their bags, which can delay the flight even further. But the airlines have brought this on all by themselves by charging for checking bags. It's like the Great Race when boarding zones are called out as everyone races to get on the plane as fast as possible in order to not be left without a bin to stow their luggage What I most dislike about the carry on crunch is:
- People who bring full-size luggage on flights
- People who board early, before their zone is called, many times the airport checkers let them through
- People who bring on more than 3 bags
- People who have carry on bags deemed too large at the boarding gate, checked when there's no room on the plane, fly free
- People breaking the carry on rules because the policy is not or unevenly enforced.
Good luck with your bags next time you fly.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Bronze John Visited
New Orleans has the reputation for being the most haunted of cities in the U.S. We still have ghost sightings on a regular basis. voodoo is practiced even today, and the history of the city is rife with tales of the dead and un dead walking and creating havoc with the locals. I could give many examples of why the city of Anne Rice and literal ghosts and goblins is Halloween ready every day of the year. But today I will write to you about one of the many of our cemetery legacies to the past frights in New Orleans.
The Yellow fever epidemics of the 19th century gave the city tens of thousands of lost souls who crowded the cemeteries as wave after wave of the yellow fever (brought by mosquitoes, not evil spirits, it affected the liver to the extent that the sufferer turned a yellow tint of color) epidemic ravaged the city in the last century, giving New Orleans a reputation as graveyard of the nation. They called the fever, Bronze John . . . Yellow Jack . . . the Saffron Scourge and more. New Orleanians then always listened for the first whispers of the fever outbreak. During the plague season, from July to October, as much as a third of the population evacuated the city to escape not only the heat and mosquitoes, but death itself.
In the worst plague years, from 1851 to 1855, up to 10 percent of the people of New Orleans who didn't flee town died in the epidemics. The mortality rate was about 60 percent for those who caught not only Bronze John, but also smallpox, malaria and cholera. As thousands died in the brief months of the plague season, New Orleans' already scarce burial space was jammed beyond capacity.
Many of the cemeteries that are now tourist attractions are crammed with victims of the plague . . . in some cases buried in mass graves. There was a rapid expansion of cemeteries as they struggled to stay ahead of the growing demand. That's why the tourists here always make the cemetery tour. Just reading the tombstones of our above ground burial sights is an education about the city then and now.
But how to cope with so many deaths??? Because of fear of infection, funerals had been banned for decades at the famous St. Louis Cathedral (site where Napoleon sold Louisiana to the U.S. and oldest Catholic Church in the U.S.). The priests of St. Louis Cathedral built a little chapel now known as Our Lady of Guadalupe beside St. Louis Cemetery No. 1 (where some of my own relatives are buried), so that yellow fever victims could be blessed before they were buried.
The sheer mass of corpses demanded quick and shallow burial. Bodies buried only a foot underground surfaced quickly during the torrential rains, because of the extremely shallow water table here, it exposed the public to the sight of their decaying neighbors. Ugh! No wonder the huge Mausoleums later became so popular. No one wants to see Uncle Claude pop up from the ground after a heavy rain storm.
It was nearly 50 years after the New Orleans Yellow Fever plagues before scientists identified the virus as the carrier. New Orleans, with its above ground sewage gutters, filthy streets, surrounding swamps and stagnant runoff pools was a perfect breeding ground for the mosquitoes that carried yellow fever.
But alas! I am safe from Bronze John. Modern eradication programs, underground sewage and more sophisticated medical and public health expertise has ended the visits of Bronze John.
On Aug. 11, 1853 the New Orleans Daily Crescent newspaper reported the scene at one of the cemeteries. To get you in the mood for Halloween spooks. Here is what people in New Orleans read that day.
“At the gates, the winds brought intimation of the corruption lurking within. Not a puff was not laden with the rank atmosphere from rotting corpses. Inside they were piles by the fifties, exposed to the heat of the sun, swollen with corruption, bursting their coffin lids…what a feast of horrors. Inside, corpses piled in pyramids and without the gates, old and withered crones and fat huxter women . . .dispensing ice creams and confections, and brushing away . . . the green bottleflies that hovered on their merchandise and that anon buzzed away to drink dainty inhalations from the green and festering corpses."
Happy Halloween!
The Yellow fever epidemics of the 19th century gave the city tens of thousands of lost souls who crowded the cemeteries as wave after wave of the yellow fever (brought by mosquitoes, not evil spirits, it affected the liver to the extent that the sufferer turned a yellow tint of color) epidemic ravaged the city in the last century, giving New Orleans a reputation as graveyard of the nation. They called the fever, Bronze John . . . Yellow Jack . . . the Saffron Scourge and more. New Orleanians then always listened for the first whispers of the fever outbreak. During the plague season, from July to October, as much as a third of the population evacuated the city to escape not only the heat and mosquitoes, but death itself.
In the worst plague years, from 1851 to 1855, up to 10 percent of the people of New Orleans who didn't flee town died in the epidemics. The mortality rate was about 60 percent for those who caught not only Bronze John, but also smallpox, malaria and cholera. As thousands died in the brief months of the plague season, New Orleans' already scarce burial space was jammed beyond capacity.
Many of the cemeteries that are now tourist attractions are crammed with victims of the plague . . . in some cases buried in mass graves. There was a rapid expansion of cemeteries as they struggled to stay ahead of the growing demand. That's why the tourists here always make the cemetery tour. Just reading the tombstones of our above ground burial sights is an education about the city then and now.
But how to cope with so many deaths??? Because of fear of infection, funerals had been banned for decades at the famous St. Louis Cathedral (site where Napoleon sold Louisiana to the U.S. and oldest Catholic Church in the U.S.). The priests of St. Louis Cathedral built a little chapel now known as Our Lady of Guadalupe beside St. Louis Cemetery No. 1 (where some of my own relatives are buried), so that yellow fever victims could be blessed before they were buried.
The sheer mass of corpses demanded quick and shallow burial. Bodies buried only a foot underground surfaced quickly during the torrential rains, because of the extremely shallow water table here, it exposed the public to the sight of their decaying neighbors. Ugh! No wonder the huge Mausoleums later became so popular. No one wants to see Uncle Claude pop up from the ground after a heavy rain storm.
It was nearly 50 years after the New Orleans Yellow Fever plagues before scientists identified the virus as the carrier. New Orleans, with its above ground sewage gutters, filthy streets, surrounding swamps and stagnant runoff pools was a perfect breeding ground for the mosquitoes that carried yellow fever.
But alas! I am safe from Bronze John. Modern eradication programs, underground sewage and more sophisticated medical and public health expertise has ended the visits of Bronze John.
On Aug. 11, 1853 the New Orleans Daily Crescent newspaper reported the scene at one of the cemeteries. To get you in the mood for Halloween spooks. Here is what people in New Orleans read that day.
“At the gates, the winds brought intimation of the corruption lurking within. Not a puff was not laden with the rank atmosphere from rotting corpses. Inside they were piles by the fifties, exposed to the heat of the sun, swollen with corruption, bursting their coffin lids…what a feast of horrors. Inside, corpses piled in pyramids and without the gates, old and withered crones and fat huxter women . . .dispensing ice creams and confections, and brushing away . . . the green bottleflies that hovered on their merchandise and that anon buzzed away to drink dainty inhalations from the green and festering corpses."
Happy Halloween!
Monday, October 26, 2009
Where Have All The Nicknames Gone?
You know what is disappearing today? It's the old fashioned nickname. I don't hear many nicknames anymore and it's a shame. In most cases nicknames are endearing or ennobling appellations (or as comic W.C. Fields used to exclaim when he heard an odd name, "What a euphonious appellation"). I know some kids can be cruel when nicknaming their friends or foes. But on the whole a good nickname stamps a person as a distinct individual and the vast majority are given with good intention.
When I was a boy just about everyone in my neighborhood had a nickname. Celebrities had nicknames, adults, kids, everyone....I suppose this generation is too politically correct to brand others with nicknames. Parents today seem to cut short any nicknames their kids get from other children at school or on the playground. The scream in protest to the school or the other parents that their little one will be stigmatized if the other kids call him "Four Eyes" because he wears glasses or "Fatty" if he shows too much girth. I think the adults are he ones who nip the nicknaming practice in the bud theses days. It's too bad because they erase the stamp of individuality when they do that.
I can't think of any of Jane's friends who has a nickname, and that is the norm today. In my school days we all wanted one. My nickname when I was a little one was taken from a very popular pop song called "Bony Marony". It was about a very skinny girl that displayed more bones than sex appeal. The song said something like, "Here comes Bony Morony...Run guys, Run"! Because I was so skinny my bones showed when I took off my shirt, I got the name in shortened form. I was "Marone". I liked it, my parents didn't object and it was fun to have a reputation as the skinny kid called Marone. Everyone knew Marone.
Too, there were allot worse nicknames among my friends than the one I had. The best was given by my older brother to a kid also with the same name as my own "Jimmy". When too many kids were named Jimmy it was not good for communication. Distinctions had to be made by renaming them. This fellow, the other Jimmy, had a bit of a belly and an even bigger rear end. One day my brother remarked that he had a chubby butt and so named him "Chub Butt". Haha My brother was a comic of sort. I remember him once saying, "Here comes Chub Butt...and he is carrying a full load." All the kids picked it up and would utter it too.
Uh, yes...Chub Butt liked his nickname too..no stigmas at all because nicknames were normal to us. The silly nicknames like we had as kids usually die a natural death as the kids get older or the personality or physical characteristic for which they were named dies. I think the kids that used to get nicknames most often were either the ones who have too common names or who had some characteristic about them that was obvious and too different to ignore. The kids with unusual first names or no distinction didn't get nicknames very often. They seemed to not need one. Kids then understood that most of the time a nickname wasn't given in malice. Instead it was often a form of recognition and affection. As for the kids who got cruel nicknames....it was at least better than being physically attacked and usually was not of lasting consequence to the nicknamed person.
We kids gave nicknames so much then (and I still give people nicknames today!) because we grew up with so many adult celebrities and sport stars who had nicknames. For example, nicknames like "Pee Wee " Reese instead of Harold Reese, the given name of that famed short baseball star were part of the players persona. Take Pee Wee's away and he might as well be naked. Often the nickname is a better fit for the person than the birth name. How about these examples of nicknames compared to birth name?
- "Lawrence of Arabia" (T. E. Lawrence)
- "Madonna" (Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone)
- "Babe" Ruth (George Ruth)
- "Pele" (Edson Arantes do Nascimento)
- "Ringo" Starr (Richard Starkey)
- "Cher" (Cherilyn LaPierre)
-"Twiggy" (Leslie Hornby)
- "Mahatma" Ghandi (Mohandas Ghandi)
- "Mr. Bean" (Rowan Atkinson)
- "The Red Baron" (Manfred Von Richtofen)
- "Dr. Suess" (Theodore Geisel)
- "Jet Li" (Li Laianjie)
- "Typhoid" Mary (Mary Mallon)
- "Uncle Ho" (Ho Chi Minh)
- "Woody Allen" ( Allen Konigsberg)
- "Bono" (Paul Hewson)
- "Sting" (Gordon Matthew Sumner)
Can you say any of the of birth names is better than the nickname? Uh...think about it while I think about a nickname to call you...
When I was a boy just about everyone in my neighborhood had a nickname. Celebrities had nicknames, adults, kids, everyone....I suppose this generation is too politically correct to brand others with nicknames. Parents today seem to cut short any nicknames their kids get from other children at school or on the playground. The scream in protest to the school or the other parents that their little one will be stigmatized if the other kids call him "Four Eyes" because he wears glasses or "Fatty" if he shows too much girth. I think the adults are he ones who nip the nicknaming practice in the bud theses days. It's too bad because they erase the stamp of individuality when they do that.
I can't think of any of Jane's friends who has a nickname, and that is the norm today. In my school days we all wanted one. My nickname when I was a little one was taken from a very popular pop song called "Bony Marony". It was about a very skinny girl that displayed more bones than sex appeal. The song said something like, "Here comes Bony Morony...Run guys, Run"! Because I was so skinny my bones showed when I took off my shirt, I got the name in shortened form. I was "Marone". I liked it, my parents didn't object and it was fun to have a reputation as the skinny kid called Marone. Everyone knew Marone.
Too, there were allot worse nicknames among my friends than the one I had. The best was given by my older brother to a kid also with the same name as my own "Jimmy". When too many kids were named Jimmy it was not good for communication. Distinctions had to be made by renaming them. This fellow, the other Jimmy, had a bit of a belly and an even bigger rear end. One day my brother remarked that he had a chubby butt and so named him "Chub Butt". Haha My brother was a comic of sort. I remember him once saying, "Here comes Chub Butt...and he is carrying a full load." All the kids picked it up and would utter it too.
Uh, yes...Chub Butt liked his nickname too..no stigmas at all because nicknames were normal to us. The silly nicknames like we had as kids usually die a natural death as the kids get older or the personality or physical characteristic for which they were named dies. I think the kids that used to get nicknames most often were either the ones who have too common names or who had some characteristic about them that was obvious and too different to ignore. The kids with unusual first names or no distinction didn't get nicknames very often. They seemed to not need one. Kids then understood that most of the time a nickname wasn't given in malice. Instead it was often a form of recognition and affection. As for the kids who got cruel nicknames....it was at least better than being physically attacked and usually was not of lasting consequence to the nicknamed person.
We kids gave nicknames so much then (and I still give people nicknames today!) because we grew up with so many adult celebrities and sport stars who had nicknames. For example, nicknames like "Pee Wee " Reese instead of Harold Reese, the given name of that famed short baseball star were part of the players persona. Take Pee Wee's away and he might as well be naked. Often the nickname is a better fit for the person than the birth name. How about these examples of nicknames compared to birth name?
- "Lawrence of Arabia" (T. E. Lawrence)
- "Madonna" (Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone)
- "Babe" Ruth (George Ruth)
- "Pele" (Edson Arantes do Nascimento)
- "Ringo" Starr (Richard Starkey)
- "Cher" (Cherilyn LaPierre)
-"Twiggy" (Leslie Hornby)
- "Mahatma" Ghandi (Mohandas Ghandi)
- "Mr. Bean" (Rowan Atkinson)
- "The Red Baron" (Manfred Von Richtofen)
- "Dr. Suess" (Theodore Geisel)
- "Jet Li" (Li Laianjie)
- "Typhoid" Mary (Mary Mallon)
- "Uncle Ho" (Ho Chi Minh)
- "Woody Allen" ( Allen Konigsberg)
- "Bono" (Paul Hewson)
- "Sting" (Gordon Matthew Sumner)
Can you say any of the of birth names is better than the nickname? Uh...think about it while I think about a nickname to call you...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)