This is the time of year for pretend ghosts graveyards, things eerie and not understood. Halloween and November bring darker, rainier and colder days to most cities in the U.S. It puts us in the mood for the pretend horror of Halloween. But in earlier times in my former home of New Orleans, the land of Voodoo and more haunted things than any other city in the U.S., the macabre was the normal.
Here are a few excerpts from the local papers of the day that show you the everyday struggle with hardship and the unexplained. Notice how much better written and more elevated the newspapers were in the days of an educated readership, TV-less, and far more literate than our technologically addicted world.
The first, an excerpt from the New Orleans Courier is a segment describing the difficulty of burial in a traditional graveyard in a city that is six feet below sea level and that flooded with regularity. Caskets bodies frequently popped up out of their recess and bodies fell on the grounds after a rainstorm, giving credence to stories of zombies and the undead walking about and in the city of New Orleans.New Orleans CourierJune 18, 1833A Walk Among the Graves
This afternoon (April 23) I walked under a hot sun - the day was as warm as our 4th of July - among the tombs and graves in the Catholic burying ground. I strolled into a Catholic chapel near by. The priests in the Church were performing ceremonies over a dead body. Colored persons sat there or kneeled there with tapers in their hands.
A sexton with a cross or a spear and a military band over his shoulders, stood back of the cross and the coffin. Two priests and a little boy were making loud noises in Latin and in French, and one was sprinkling the coffin with incense and holy water. The hearse was at the door. The coffin was soon brought out. The priests preceded the hearse. Men and Women with veils, or bare-headed, some under an umbrella and some without, followed the hearse on foot to the grave yard.
The grave yard is all a dead level, and in rainy days inundated with water. It is a morass, a swamp partly rescued from its wilderness. I followed the procession to the grave. The coffin was taken from the hearse.
I now watched the process of interment. The body was that of a colored person who had died of the cholera (which is not an epidemic now). The mourners were fine looking mulattos. They tarried to see the last of their friend. The grave was not two feet and a half deep.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
New Orleans had frequent and deadly yellow fever epidemics in the 19th century. It was so bad that many of the wealthier citizens packed and move to the "north shore' above Lake Pontchartrain were swamps and yellow fever mosquitoes were much less common. The excerpt below describes the frustration with the city government in fighting one such yellow fever ravage. Incidently...I have a great grandfather and his second wife and some children buried in the same Lafayette cemetery focused on in the article below.
This writer excoriated the politicians of the day far worse than even the ugliness we see in the 21st century. There was far less concern with being sued for liable or for any retribution taken when blasting the authorities.
Gross AbusesNew Orleans BeeAug. 9, 1853
Upon inquiry in the proper quarter, we ascertained that the festering and decaying bodies which had been deposited in the Lafayette cemetery, and at length been consigned to mother earth. The eye will no longer be pained and the nostrils offended by the further continuance of this horrible neglect. The Mayor of our city, though absolutely destitute of all direct authority, upon learning the facts on Sunday secured the labors of the chain gang, and set them to work immediately. After many hours of incessant labor, the task was completely yesterday.
The papers speak warmly of misgovernment of our city. Their complaints are just and well founded. A more disgraceful administration of our municipal affairs has never been witnessed. It is unworthy of civilized people. The Council are alone invested with plenary powers for the guardianship, protection and security of New Orleans, and at the very moment when their enlightened and careful deliberations are needed, do they prove utterly recreant to their duty.
Instead of assembling frequently and being ready to meet any emergency that may arise in these disastrous times, they quietly shirk responsibility and adjourning over to October next, abandon the city of the ravages of the Epidemic.
The Fever may extend, may decuple in virulence and mortality or may be flowed by the Cholera, while our worthy Aldermen and exemplary Assistant Aldermen, having adjourned for nearly three months, are unable to provide the slightest means off alleviating public disease and can do nothing except perhaps, take a trip across the lake and enjoy a purer and more healthful atmosphere. Truly our citizens are blessed in their authorities! What paternal solicitude - what undeviating and disinterested attention do the suffering poor receive from them!
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The two most famous Voodoo priestesses of New Orleans were the Madam Marie Laveau and her equally effective Voodoo priestess daughter. This account is of the burial of Mom Laveau after she was supposedly beheaded after her death at age 98. Today her tomb is the most visited in New Orleans . Frequently, the grave is the sight of secret night voodoo rituals, sacrifices of animals and tributes with pictures, flowers, even written requests for Marie to intercede and grant the written wish of the distressed soul who asks for her not so divine intervention.
DEATH OF MARIE LAVEAU- The Daily Picayune June 17, 1881
A WOMAN WITH A WONDERFUL HISTORY, ALMOST A CENTURY OLD, CARRIED TO THE TOMB YESTERDAY EVENING
Those of you who have passed by the quaint old house on St. Ann, between Rampart and Burgundy streets, with the high, frail looking fence in front over which a tree or two is visible, have till within the last few years, noticed through the open gateway a decrepid old lady with snow white hair, and a smile of peace and contentment lighting up her golden features. For a few years past, she has been missed from her accustomed place. The feeble old lady lay upon her bed with the daughter and grandchildren around her ministering to her wants.
On Wednesday the invalid sank into the sleep which knows no waking. Those whom she had befriended crowded into the little room where she was exposed, in order to obtain a last look at the features, smiling even in death , of her who had been so kind to them.
At 5 o'clock yesterday evening, Marie Laveau was buried in her family tomb in St. Louis Cemetery No. 1. Her remains were followed to the grave by a large concourse of people, the most prominent and the most humble joining in paying their last respects to the dead. Father Mignot conducted the funeral services.
Not alone to the sick was Marie Laveau a blessing. To help a fellow creature in distress she considered a priceless privilege She as very successful as a nurse, wonderful stories being told of her exploits at the sick bed. In yellow fever and cholera epidemics she was always called upon to nurse the sick and always responded promptly. Her skill and knowledge earned her the friendship and approbation of those sufficiently cultivated but the ignorant attributed her success of unnatural means and held her in constant dread.
Her days were spent surrounded by sacred pictures and other evidence of religion, and she died with a firm trust in heaven. While God plays around the little tomb where her remains are buried, by the side of her second husband and her sons and daughters, Marie Laveau's name will not be forgotten in New Orleans.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
One more cemetery story, this one from more modern time. It shows the fascination New Orleanians have with their burial sites and rituals consistent with them.Petrified Body Is Visible in Old TombNew Orleans StatesMay 7, 1933The body of a man, apparently petrified, is attracting person to the old Catholic cemetery in Carrollton, some of them having come from St. Bernard parish.
Apparently the tomb was broken open by vandals. The iron casket is exposed and, by turning the iron cover over, the small glass window set in the coffin top, one can get a good view of the man. The insertion of the tomb shows he died in 1876. He has red hair but is bald on top. He had a mustache. His eyes, which are blue, are open and his mouth is open. He wore a turn-down caller at that period.
Someone ventured the opinion that perhaps he died in a yellow fever epidemic, which demands on undertakers were so may all could not be met. Another opinion was that he was thought to be dead and, in the terror of the epidemic, was buried while in a coma.
This is one of many low tombs in this cemetery, which is bounded by Adams, Cohn, Hilary and Spruce streets. There is room for only one coffin in each of the tombs, which are about 4 feet high.
Tombs in the Protestant cemetery in Carrollton also have been broken into but none of the bodies is exposed.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Horror Films
It's the time of the year for spooky things, films included. So I was thinking about horror films and which I most remember either as scary types, funny, or just simple and entertaining. Not being a big fan of movies most of my favorite are the old horror films...for two reasons. First, I have seen more of those than of the modern horror genre and , secondly, I think the absence or infrequency of special effects in them makes then better. Too much of film today is centered on special effects and violence, at the expense of the story and making the watcher use his or her imagination.
Are not the scariest of films the ones where we were not SHOWN the horror, but in which the imagination is left to conjure what we think the horror would be. Exploding heads, gushing blood and the rest of the typical special effect gore today is not nearly as menacing as the old film in which the monster creeps behind the victim, reaches for the intended's throat and......we see no more as the camera cuts to another scene. This proves that the imagination is far more horrifying than the train wreck our real mind sees.
Here are some of my favorite, an "unlucky 13" horror film list to watch at Halloween time, not necessarily ranked from most enjoyable to least because I like them all, and because there are many more that I didn't list. You'll notice most are old films, many in black and white.
1) The Mummy (1936) and The Mummy (1999)- Too very different films about The Mummy but the first version is scary and the second less scary but tongue in cheek great fun.
2) Frankenstein (1931)- maybe the best film of them all. All our ideas about Frankenstein came not from the novel by mary Shelly that gave life to him but rather from this classic Boris Karloff film that is still is relevant
3) The Birds (1963) - The Alfred Hitchcock long lasting horror movie about birds gone wild that leaves us thinking, "This could really happen".
4) Arachnophobia (1990)- Spiders. John Goodman with a blowtorch. What's scarier than the common spider doing uncommonly crazy things?
5) Dawn of the Dead (2004)- In that one the world is over-run with the undead, a group of survivors find refuge in a shopping mall. Wait! I think the mall is like that anyway, during the Christmas shopping rush. The escape to a mall is amusingly ironic.
6) The Fly (1958 and 1986 versions)- a psychological thriller that leaves one "buzzing" with questions about the role of science in life.
7) 28 days later (2002)- it's set in am almost deserted England torn apart wide by biological warfare. I hope the terrorists assembling their biological warfare chemicals were scared straight.
8) The Thing (1951 and 1982)- I prefer the original 1951 version about a crew stationed at an Antarctic base is stalked by a shape shifting alien. This one has you gasping and leaves you wondering.
9) Bride of Frankenstein (1935 ) -This is a comedy as much as it is a horror film and proof that a sequel can be better than the original..
10) The Wolfman (1941)- This is as much a tragic story as a horror film. it forever changed how we think of wolves turning them into monsters.
11) House on the Haunted Hill (1959)- One of the greatest of all horror film actors, Vincent Price, plays a campy host of a house haunted and on display to very nervous "visitors".1
2) Hocus Pokus- a not scary but funny n horror film staring Bette Midler as a singing witch transported to modern day Halloween night.
13) Pit and The Pendulum ( 1960)- I love the descriptiveness and imagination of Poe's writing. This is classic creepy Poe fun.
What are some favorites of yours I did not mention?
Are not the scariest of films the ones where we were not SHOWN the horror, but in which the imagination is left to conjure what we think the horror would be. Exploding heads, gushing blood and the rest of the typical special effect gore today is not nearly as menacing as the old film in which the monster creeps behind the victim, reaches for the intended's throat and......we see no more as the camera cuts to another scene. This proves that the imagination is far more horrifying than the train wreck our real mind sees.
Here are some of my favorite, an "unlucky 13" horror film list to watch at Halloween time, not necessarily ranked from most enjoyable to least because I like them all, and because there are many more that I didn't list. You'll notice most are old films, many in black and white.
1) The Mummy (1936) and The Mummy (1999)- Too very different films about The Mummy but the first version is scary and the second less scary but tongue in cheek great fun.
2) Frankenstein (1931)- maybe the best film of them all. All our ideas about Frankenstein came not from the novel by mary Shelly that gave life to him but rather from this classic Boris Karloff film that is still is relevant
3) The Birds (1963) - The Alfred Hitchcock long lasting horror movie about birds gone wild that leaves us thinking, "This could really happen".
4) Arachnophobia (1990)- Spiders. John Goodman with a blowtorch. What's scarier than the common spider doing uncommonly crazy things?
5) Dawn of the Dead (2004)- In that one the world is over-run with the undead, a group of survivors find refuge in a shopping mall. Wait! I think the mall is like that anyway, during the Christmas shopping rush. The escape to a mall is amusingly ironic.
6) The Fly (1958 and 1986 versions)- a psychological thriller that leaves one "buzzing" with questions about the role of science in life.
7) 28 days later (2002)- it's set in am almost deserted England torn apart wide by biological warfare. I hope the terrorists assembling their biological warfare chemicals were scared straight.
8) The Thing (1951 and 1982)- I prefer the original 1951 version about a crew stationed at an Antarctic base is stalked by a shape shifting alien. This one has you gasping and leaves you wondering.
9) Bride of Frankenstein (1935 ) -This is a comedy as much as it is a horror film and proof that a sequel can be better than the original..
10) The Wolfman (1941)- This is as much a tragic story as a horror film. it forever changed how we think of wolves turning them into monsters.
11) House on the Haunted Hill (1959)- One of the greatest of all horror film actors, Vincent Price, plays a campy host of a house haunted and on display to very nervous "visitors".1
2) Hocus Pokus- a not scary but funny n horror film staring Bette Midler as a singing witch transported to modern day Halloween night.
13) Pit and The Pendulum ( 1960)- I love the descriptiveness and imagination of Poe's writing. This is classic creepy Poe fun.
What are some favorites of yours I did not mention?
Cursive On You
My newspaper this morning surprised me with information about yet another of the many good things killed by modern technology- cursive writing. With the rise of word processing, texting and twittering, young people have fewer needs to write by hand, but I am amazed at how few kids today can write in cursive. It's dying so fast because it is easier and faster to type on a display. Easier and faster are the operative words in today's electronic addicted culture. Quality seems not as important as either speed or ease of production. the cnsensus on handwriting experts is that cursive will soon be as relevant as is speaking Latin.
The newspaper quoted quite a few educators on how much cursive they see now in both their classrooms and on student assignments. For example, at the University of Portland, Richard Christen, an education professor, leafed through short essays his students wrote in class to check for the reporter. Only two of the 17 papers were written in cursive. The rest were printed. The College Board got similar results when it sampled 6,498 essays written for its SAT college entrance exam between March 2005 and January 2006. Only fifteen percent of the essays were written in cursive.
Advocates of cursive writing say it is an artistic enterprise that encourages thinking and imagination. Writers often say they "think differently" when typing as opposed to hand writing in cursive. And researchers using magnetic resonance imaging to study brain activity say handwriting, whether print or cursive, engages more of the brain in learning and forming ideas. But then we are a technology addicted culture that slavishly worship the ease of each new technology.
What shocks me about death of cursive writing in Portland and Oregon is how little it is taught or required here. In my former home of New Orleans, students still learn the old Palmer method of cursive writing, and all students can write easily in cursive by the end of 3rd grade. They still do it as habitually as we did it. But Oregon's public school curriculum standards call for teaching cursive handwriting only to students in third and fourth grade. In fifth grade through grade 12, students are expected merely to write legibly, whether in cursive or print. Strange because I love to write in cursive and remember in school how much the kids liked mastering cursive writing and having their own unique cursive style as they progressed through their schooling years. I recall cursive writing as being a fun activity....but then I hate most of the new technology that you love.
The fact is, before computers, students were expected to write their assignments in cursive all the way through high school. Teachers widely refused to accept print. But today, high school students are expected to deliver their writing assignments in type. Cursive is disparaged as old fashioned just as all victims of new technology is branded as old and outdated. Kids today have the attitude that since they don't need cursive they don't think it is that important, again another mindset that technology brings when it takes over.
Uh, yes I know the irony that this is writing in print and not cursive. No need to tell me, but if you do, would you write it in cursive.
The newspaper quoted quite a few educators on how much cursive they see now in both their classrooms and on student assignments. For example, at the University of Portland, Richard Christen, an education professor, leafed through short essays his students wrote in class to check for the reporter. Only two of the 17 papers were written in cursive. The rest were printed. The College Board got similar results when it sampled 6,498 essays written for its SAT college entrance exam between March 2005 and January 2006. Only fifteen percent of the essays were written in cursive.
Advocates of cursive writing say it is an artistic enterprise that encourages thinking and imagination. Writers often say they "think differently" when typing as opposed to hand writing in cursive. And researchers using magnetic resonance imaging to study brain activity say handwriting, whether print or cursive, engages more of the brain in learning and forming ideas. But then we are a technology addicted culture that slavishly worship the ease of each new technology.
What shocks me about death of cursive writing in Portland and Oregon is how little it is taught or required here. In my former home of New Orleans, students still learn the old Palmer method of cursive writing, and all students can write easily in cursive by the end of 3rd grade. They still do it as habitually as we did it. But Oregon's public school curriculum standards call for teaching cursive handwriting only to students in third and fourth grade. In fifth grade through grade 12, students are expected merely to write legibly, whether in cursive or print. Strange because I love to write in cursive and remember in school how much the kids liked mastering cursive writing and having their own unique cursive style as they progressed through their schooling years. I recall cursive writing as being a fun activity....but then I hate most of the new technology that you love.
The fact is, before computers, students were expected to write their assignments in cursive all the way through high school. Teachers widely refused to accept print. But today, high school students are expected to deliver their writing assignments in type. Cursive is disparaged as old fashioned just as all victims of new technology is branded as old and outdated. Kids today have the attitude that since they don't need cursive they don't think it is that important, again another mindset that technology brings when it takes over.
Uh, yes I know the irony that this is writing in print and not cursive. No need to tell me, but if you do, would you write it in cursive.
Halloween Candy
Halloween brings visions of not only ghosts and goblins but chocolate candy bars, suckers, mallow creme pumpkins, ah, you know what I mean. All that candy that is supposed to go to kids but that disappears into the stomachs of adults as fast as ghosts in kid's room when the lights are turned on. Research shows that parents eat one candy bar of every two the child brings home After trick or treating. I know that I eat a good portion of what candy I buy (Rule 1 of trick or treat candy law is to always buy the candy YOU like for trick or treat so the leftovers can be better enjoyed by YOU) for the trick or treaters in the weeks before Halloween day's give-aways.
Since adults seem to have taken over the other aspects of Halloween, with their drunken costume contests in seedy bars and clubs, they might as well do the trick or treat thing too. It should become acceptable for adults to go trick or treating too. Maybe they could have a separate night where the adults go 'trick or drinking'. They go house to house and have a small drink with each candy they get from the giver. What a sight that would be for the little ones. Mom and dad suffering from both too much booze and too many chocolate bars. Hmmmm, bad idea, I guess. Maybe the adults should just continue to steal juniors candy from the trick or treat bag he brings back Halloween night.
But back to candy. I did some quick research on line and found out that about 5% of all candy consumed for the year occurs on Halloween and the week afterward. The most popular types are in order: chocolate, chewy candies and hard candy. I like them all. in fact I am wary of any adult who doesn't like to eat at least some Halloween candy (Rule 2 of trick or treat is to never trust any adult who won't let his or her son or daughter eat Halloween candy). Any adult who preaches that "candy is bad for you" or that " a nice apple is the best Halloween treat" should have their halloween license revoked. No wonder the crazy adults who give healthy treats instead of decadent and delicious Halloween candy have their houses egged or rolled in toilet paper (and I suspect some of the adults do the egging and rolling) on Halloween night.
They should love me Halloween night. I have plenty of candy goodies ready for the little ones, but alas! This is a new city and new house in a more isolated area and in a new city where it is colder on Halloween night (I should pray for rain to keep them all away from my candy). There will be fewer trick or treaters to eat my bounty of Milky Ways, 10,000 Grand Bars, Tootsie Rolls, Twix bars, bubble gum, old fashioned suckers, and chocolate monster bars (I like the nestle crunch style fingers best of that one).
Maybe I should wear a scary mask and scare away all those sugar addicted kids so I can eat it all myself?
Since adults seem to have taken over the other aspects of Halloween, with their drunken costume contests in seedy bars and clubs, they might as well do the trick or treat thing too. It should become acceptable for adults to go trick or treating too. Maybe they could have a separate night where the adults go 'trick or drinking'. They go house to house and have a small drink with each candy they get from the giver. What a sight that would be for the little ones. Mom and dad suffering from both too much booze and too many chocolate bars. Hmmmm, bad idea, I guess. Maybe the adults should just continue to steal juniors candy from the trick or treat bag he brings back Halloween night.
But back to candy. I did some quick research on line and found out that about 5% of all candy consumed for the year occurs on Halloween and the week afterward. The most popular types are in order: chocolate, chewy candies and hard candy. I like them all. in fact I am wary of any adult who doesn't like to eat at least some Halloween candy (Rule 2 of trick or treat is to never trust any adult who won't let his or her son or daughter eat Halloween candy). Any adult who preaches that "candy is bad for you" or that " a nice apple is the best Halloween treat" should have their halloween license revoked. No wonder the crazy adults who give healthy treats instead of decadent and delicious Halloween candy have their houses egged or rolled in toilet paper (and I suspect some of the adults do the egging and rolling) on Halloween night.
They should love me Halloween night. I have plenty of candy goodies ready for the little ones, but alas! This is a new city and new house in a more isolated area and in a new city where it is colder on Halloween night (I should pray for rain to keep them all away from my candy). There will be fewer trick or treaters to eat my bounty of Milky Ways, 10,000 Grand Bars, Tootsie Rolls, Twix bars, bubble gum, old fashioned suckers, and chocolate monster bars (I like the nestle crunch style fingers best of that one).
Maybe I should wear a scary mask and scare away all those sugar addicted kids so I can eat it all myself?
Catholic Bloggers Gone Wild
A new breed of extremist conservatives (ok, they don't plant bombs, threaten or kill....but they are extreme in their demands) has taken to blogs and Yu Tube to say their church isn't "Catholic enough". They are hunting for the "traitorous clergy" (might we say "infidels"?) among the church nuns, priests or bishops in the American Catholic Church, and they don't mind naming names of those they think are infidel-like. Well, if crazy Muslims can take over the Muslim religion with hate and maniacal behavior, so too could crazy Catholics redefine the Catholic Church. As corrupt as the church is these days it isn't hard to point out failings by the institution or by it's clerics.
One of the leaders of this informal movement, Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV.com and St. Michael's Media , when accused of practicing modern day witch hunts said, "We're no more engaged in a witch hunt than a doctor excising a cancer is engaged in a witch hunt. We're just shining a spotlight on people who are Catholics who do not live the faith."
That means they want to blot out everything "infidelish", from pedophile priests in the church to contributing to and supporting political candidates. Voris has even formed the CIA — the Catholic Investigative Agency — a program from RealCatholicTV to "bring to light the dark deeds of evil Catholics in name only, who are hijacking the Church for their own ends, not the ends of Christ." Uh, anything that the fanatics regard as un Catholic is labeled as heretical. Sound like the early days of Muslim extremism, doesn't it? Maybe it is true that the most ardent purest really loves what he exclaims he hates.
But these bloggers who out non Catholic tendencies in the clergy are a kinder and gentler form of intolerance than are the Muslim nuts. They use, not beheadings, but public recognition/shame that point out the infidels among the church and use prayer as weapons against the fallen clergy they see as lacking. It's supposed to be the group sanction device in which once outed other Catholics would feel pressure to join in condemning and consequently running the infidel clergyman/woman out of their clerical positions.
If a priest, for example, were to express sympathy for or support of same-sex marriage, artificial contraception or abortion rights, he would be targeted as unacceptable and Catholics would be asked to make their displeasure known to the priest's superiors. It seems the activist bloggers just don't think the Catholic Church is conservative enough, another chilling similarity to the early Muslim extremists views about their own clergy. The problem with this strategy though is that Catholics are generally an apathetic lot. Unlike Muslims who fear their religion, Catholics more oft ignore theirs and don't really care what their clergy does unless it personally impacts them.
I think the Church is probably unconcerned about the blog strategy to make Catholicism more in the image of....uh...dare I say it..Muslim intolerance. Aside from a loss of some donation money Catholics will never imitate Muslims. These same bloggers have ranted off line about the church's failings for years and largely been ignored buy the flock. Being "heard" so easily in blogs just makes them fantasize more that they can change Catholicism back into the image ot possessed centuries ago when the Catholic Church was and gave the final word on itself.
But it is interesting to see how Muslim success at taking over their religion and molding it into a more hateful one is now the same goal which some Catholics want in their own theology.
One of the leaders of this informal movement, Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV.com and St. Michael's Media , when accused of practicing modern day witch hunts said, "We're no more engaged in a witch hunt than a doctor excising a cancer is engaged in a witch hunt. We're just shining a spotlight on people who are Catholics who do not live the faith."
That means they want to blot out everything "infidelish", from pedophile priests in the church to contributing to and supporting political candidates. Voris has even formed the CIA — the Catholic Investigative Agency — a program from RealCatholicTV to "bring to light the dark deeds of evil Catholics in name only, who are hijacking the Church for their own ends, not the ends of Christ." Uh, anything that the fanatics regard as un Catholic is labeled as heretical. Sound like the early days of Muslim extremism, doesn't it? Maybe it is true that the most ardent purest really loves what he exclaims he hates.
But these bloggers who out non Catholic tendencies in the clergy are a kinder and gentler form of intolerance than are the Muslim nuts. They use, not beheadings, but public recognition/shame that point out the infidels among the church and use prayer as weapons against the fallen clergy they see as lacking. It's supposed to be the group sanction device in which once outed other Catholics would feel pressure to join in condemning and consequently running the infidel clergyman/woman out of their clerical positions.
If a priest, for example, were to express sympathy for or support of same-sex marriage, artificial contraception or abortion rights, he would be targeted as unacceptable and Catholics would be asked to make their displeasure known to the priest's superiors. It seems the activist bloggers just don't think the Catholic Church is conservative enough, another chilling similarity to the early Muslim extremists views about their own clergy. The problem with this strategy though is that Catholics are generally an apathetic lot. Unlike Muslims who fear their religion, Catholics more oft ignore theirs and don't really care what their clergy does unless it personally impacts them.
I think the Church is probably unconcerned about the blog strategy to make Catholicism more in the image of....uh...dare I say it..Muslim intolerance. Aside from a loss of some donation money Catholics will never imitate Muslims. These same bloggers have ranted off line about the church's failings for years and largely been ignored buy the flock. Being "heard" so easily in blogs just makes them fantasize more that they can change Catholicism back into the image ot possessed centuries ago when the Catholic Church was and gave the final word on itself.
But it is interesting to see how Muslim success at taking over their religion and molding it into a more hateful one is now the same goal which some Catholics want in their own theology.
Memory Of Old LP's
You remember the old LP albums, or as we called them "phonograph records"? They are making a comeback among kids with some current hot groups releasing their music in LP format too. Finding a "record player' is now the rage as thrift stores rarely have them in stop and not enough demand for them yet to cause much production of LP stereos. I gave my LP stereo system and all my LP's to my ex wife years ago, and of course they were all eventually lost in the flood of Hurricane Katrina when her property flooded.
I do have an old wood stereo cabinet record player, radio and..get this.. an 8 track deck player. But the record player is broken. I sent it to a repair shop a couple of months ago after I arrived in Portland and am still waiting to hear whether they can fix it for me. If not, I will buy a cheap record player on line for the sole purpose of finding some old albums that have sentimental meaning to me, because they remind me of what I think, in my youth, was a golden age of music.
I did make a trip to a thrift store to see what kind of albums were out an to purchase any that were appealing. Thrift stores have plenty of record albums and they sell for about two dollars a piece, so it isn't hard to find old albums like those I treasure. But the condition issue is a fly in the ointment. One can only visually inspect the albums and hope their are no scratches or warping areas that would effect the record. Looking at the records at the Salvation Army thrift store near my house here was fun. I spent almost an hour going through the stacks of albums and relived some musical memories as I did.
After plowing through them I bought three albums, a Harry James album tribute to the great trumpeters (a 60's record), a Johnny Mathis Greatest Hits record ( a 70's record) and the prize for me, and Al Hirt Album entitled 'Java'. Al Hirt was the most famous New Orleans Jazz trumpet player in the 60's 70's and 80's. He had several number one records on the pop album charts, one time briefly ahead of the Beatles. How an Al Hirt record (there was actually a second different Hirt record there too) found it's way to a Portland Salvation army store in 2010 would be a story i would like to know. I wonder how had those albums and how much he or she liked Hirt's trumpet selections.There was also a record album by John Gary in the mix. John Gary was a famed New Orleans singer in the 50's, said to have one of the best voices in show biz. I remember hearing Gary sing many times at home as my mom played his records and on the old Am radio stations of the day. I regret not buying that record and may go back to get it later. Why so?
It's not his music as much as the era Gary brings back, Seeing him on the album cover was like a right cross to the chin because I was not unconscious and into the 50's 60's and 70's. With each album I thumbed through...the Lawrence Welk albums, Tennessee Ernie Ford albums, Frank Sinatra, Herb Albert and the Tijuiana Brass, Jim Nabors, Andy Willliams and on and on. they all put me in a simpler place and time when music was treasured as much because it was rare than for the sound quality. There were no ipods, computers, playlists, no music devises at all except the old phonograph record and AM radio. We knew and appreciated music more then because it was something special.
As a child I spent more time in record stores sampling the vinyl disk in a sound proof record sample room than practically anything else in which I engaged. The old single 78 RPM records (it had one song on the front and one on the back) of my youth sold for 50 cents apiece and full albums anywhere from one to 3 or 4 dollars each. Even a small boy I had my own little record player and stacks of single records of "rock and roll' tunes from the 50's and 60's. Years later after I grew to ignore them for other activities, she and all the other mom's I knew, tossed out the records and the treasured baseball cards my brother and I had so worshipped.
Going through those records at the Salvation Army store let me be a child again, let me remember the music, the times, and the people I was with when I heard the songs. Though most of the faces I saw on those record albums are no longer living today they were reborn for me, and when my phonograph is fixed I will play them and become a boy again. I think it's a nice way to become young again.
I do have an old wood stereo cabinet record player, radio and..get this.. an 8 track deck player. But the record player is broken. I sent it to a repair shop a couple of months ago after I arrived in Portland and am still waiting to hear whether they can fix it for me. If not, I will buy a cheap record player on line for the sole purpose of finding some old albums that have sentimental meaning to me, because they remind me of what I think, in my youth, was a golden age of music.
I did make a trip to a thrift store to see what kind of albums were out an to purchase any that were appealing. Thrift stores have plenty of record albums and they sell for about two dollars a piece, so it isn't hard to find old albums like those I treasure. But the condition issue is a fly in the ointment. One can only visually inspect the albums and hope their are no scratches or warping areas that would effect the record. Looking at the records at the Salvation Army thrift store near my house here was fun. I spent almost an hour going through the stacks of albums and relived some musical memories as I did.
After plowing through them I bought three albums, a Harry James album tribute to the great trumpeters (a 60's record), a Johnny Mathis Greatest Hits record ( a 70's record) and the prize for me, and Al Hirt Album entitled 'Java'. Al Hirt was the most famous New Orleans Jazz trumpet player in the 60's 70's and 80's. He had several number one records on the pop album charts, one time briefly ahead of the Beatles. How an Al Hirt record (there was actually a second different Hirt record there too) found it's way to a Portland Salvation army store in 2010 would be a story i would like to know. I wonder how had those albums and how much he or she liked Hirt's trumpet selections.There was also a record album by John Gary in the mix. John Gary was a famed New Orleans singer in the 50's, said to have one of the best voices in show biz. I remember hearing Gary sing many times at home as my mom played his records and on the old Am radio stations of the day. I regret not buying that record and may go back to get it later. Why so?
It's not his music as much as the era Gary brings back, Seeing him on the album cover was like a right cross to the chin because I was not unconscious and into the 50's 60's and 70's. With each album I thumbed through...the Lawrence Welk albums, Tennessee Ernie Ford albums, Frank Sinatra, Herb Albert and the Tijuiana Brass, Jim Nabors, Andy Willliams and on and on. they all put me in a simpler place and time when music was treasured as much because it was rare than for the sound quality. There were no ipods, computers, playlists, no music devises at all except the old phonograph record and AM radio. We knew and appreciated music more then because it was something special.
As a child I spent more time in record stores sampling the vinyl disk in a sound proof record sample room than practically anything else in which I engaged. The old single 78 RPM records (it had one song on the front and one on the back) of my youth sold for 50 cents apiece and full albums anywhere from one to 3 or 4 dollars each. Even a small boy I had my own little record player and stacks of single records of "rock and roll' tunes from the 50's and 60's. Years later after I grew to ignore them for other activities, she and all the other mom's I knew, tossed out the records and the treasured baseball cards my brother and I had so worshipped.
Going through those records at the Salvation Army store let me be a child again, let me remember the music, the times, and the people I was with when I heard the songs. Though most of the faces I saw on those record albums are no longer living today they were reborn for me, and when my phonograph is fixed I will play them and become a boy again. I think it's a nice way to become young again.
No Fault
The other day another local politician got caught stealing money from taxpayers, but he said the expected.... that it "wasn't my a fault". He went on to explain that he didn't know that he was stealing, so it wasn't his fault. If you don't understand what stealing is, how can you be at fault? It's pretty typical today to never take fault for the negative things we do. This "me" generation is one that rarely accepts fault. I often notice that change from years ago when people were self reliant and not fault free....
When I read my newspaper and see a story about one of those awful thugs with which society must deal, the man or woman who deals drugs to kids for instance, his mom is always quoted in the paper as saying, "He's a good boy and would never sell drugs". Then the newscaster would cite the thug's 17 arrests for drug violations, but mom never thought that any of them were his fault. And the mom and dad of the kids who bought the drugs from the thug usually say, "That guy shouldn't have sold the drugs to little Johnny. It wasn't Johnny's fault". I guess mom and dad never thought that Little Johnny had the option to not buy and use them too.
I challenge you to find anyone who admits fault in this No Fault Era in which we live. When we had the big hurricane in 2005 that flooded 70% of all the homes here, the people who did not buy flood insurance (because they tried to save money by doing so) as all are waned to do in flood prone Louisiana, they said it wasn't their fault they didn't have insurance, "I didn't know I needed it" and "They told me not to buy flood insurance", were two common denials of fault. The denial of fault was so convincing to them that they believe their own lies.
Most of the athletes who lose their events at the Olympic Games are No Faulters too. "The course was too slick", "My leg hurts", "The judges favored the team from Russia", " I didn't feel comfortable out there", "My training isn't going well". You've heard those and many more. It would be nice to hear them say the other competitor was better and deserved to win, but that is rare as a used car salesman telling a customer the problems with the cars he sells.
According to parents today kids aren't poor students. The schools are at fault for not teaching better. A murderer isn't at fault. He is just insane or the product of a bad childhood. Big business says it isn't at fault for sleazy tactics that produce those endless defective product recalls. The big government is for not regulating business properly. The Fundamentalist Muslims who blow up innocent people in the name of God say it's the fault of infidels not the crazy Muslims that do the murdering.I trust you know that it's not my fault that I wasted your time writing this stupidity. The Internet demons made me do it.
When I read my newspaper and see a story about one of those awful thugs with which society must deal, the man or woman who deals drugs to kids for instance, his mom is always quoted in the paper as saying, "He's a good boy and would never sell drugs". Then the newscaster would cite the thug's 17 arrests for drug violations, but mom never thought that any of them were his fault. And the mom and dad of the kids who bought the drugs from the thug usually say, "That guy shouldn't have sold the drugs to little Johnny. It wasn't Johnny's fault". I guess mom and dad never thought that Little Johnny had the option to not buy and use them too.
I challenge you to find anyone who admits fault in this No Fault Era in which we live. When we had the big hurricane in 2005 that flooded 70% of all the homes here, the people who did not buy flood insurance (because they tried to save money by doing so) as all are waned to do in flood prone Louisiana, they said it wasn't their fault they didn't have insurance, "I didn't know I needed it" and "They told me not to buy flood insurance", were two common denials of fault. The denial of fault was so convincing to them that they believe their own lies.
Most of the athletes who lose their events at the Olympic Games are No Faulters too. "The course was too slick", "My leg hurts", "The judges favored the team from Russia", " I didn't feel comfortable out there", "My training isn't going well". You've heard those and many more. It would be nice to hear them say the other competitor was better and deserved to win, but that is rare as a used car salesman telling a customer the problems with the cars he sells.
According to parents today kids aren't poor students. The schools are at fault for not teaching better. A murderer isn't at fault. He is just insane or the product of a bad childhood. Big business says it isn't at fault for sleazy tactics that produce those endless defective product recalls. The big government is for not regulating business properly. The Fundamentalist Muslims who blow up innocent people in the name of God say it's the fault of infidels not the crazy Muslims that do the murdering.I trust you know that it's not my fault that I wasted your time writing this stupidity. The Internet demons made me do it.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Clackamas High
I watched my 16 year old daughter Jane's new high school's homecoming football game Friday night. Since she had to play in the drum line before and at half time of the game it was a good opportunity to see her play and to see big school high school football and homecoming in Oregon. You get my observations about it all. I sat next to a farther of two students at the school (Clackamas High) and asked him his impressions of the school through is kids. We agreed it is a very good school with great facilities and that it is student centered rather than parent or staff oriented. Jane likes Clackamas High herself has told me that the kids at the school are "a little spoiled and unaware of all they have".
The Clackamasfootball team is terrible this year, yet the crowd for the game was far larger than the better opponent's crowd, and more enthusiastic. The skill level for football in oregon is below that of Louisiana the facilities for sports are wonderful. This reflects the very high taxes homeowners pay in Oregon and the fact that the biggest portion collected is dedicated to the public schools. That dad I sat next to told me every Oregon high school has a big stadium for it's own use on school grounds. that would be unprecedented in Louisiana.
When I look at the grounds of Clackamas High I see huge, brand new buildings and facilities, a theater, two baseball fields with stands for boys and girls, an opulent gymnasium, a weight room for athletes that some colleges would envy, soccer fields for practice, a tennis court. There is a photography center, ceramic kilns and ceramic molding rooms, an art studio and on and on.
I don't know if Jane will go back to New Orleans to finish her final year of school there or stay here and finish in Oregon, but either way it's been a good experience so far for her to live and study here.
The Clackamasfootball team is terrible this year, yet the crowd for the game was far larger than the better opponent's crowd, and more enthusiastic. The skill level for football in oregon is below that of Louisiana the facilities for sports are wonderful. This reflects the very high taxes homeowners pay in Oregon and the fact that the biggest portion collected is dedicated to the public schools. That dad I sat next to told me every Oregon high school has a big stadium for it's own use on school grounds. that would be unprecedented in Louisiana.
When I look at the grounds of Clackamas High I see huge, brand new buildings and facilities, a theater, two baseball fields with stands for boys and girls, an opulent gymnasium, a weight room for athletes that some colleges would envy, soccer fields for practice, a tennis court. There is a photography center, ceramic kilns and ceramic molding rooms, an art studio and on and on.
I don't know if Jane will go back to New Orleans to finish her final year of school there or stay here and finish in Oregon, but either way it's been a good experience so far for her to live and study here.
No More Empathy
What is life in 2010? We've never been more connected to the people around us...and uh, maybe we've never been more disconnected, either. Does the anonymity of the Internet, cell phone, Ipod and others drive a wedge between our true self and our virtual persona? Are we now disassociated from the consequences our actions have on others by the screen of the anonymous technology we use?
I wonder if the ego we create on line, for example, is a false one. And is that false ego , if it exist, sometimes destined to become the main ego of the addicted to technology user? One thing I am certain of is that most of society does not see the negatives from their addiction to technology. They have blinders to how it controls their time, and directs their behaviors. The kid in the room filled with 200 different cookies but no adult to stop the eating. Now so gorged on their mindless technology, the users often can't see real feelings from the affected ones they post on their tweets or face book pages.
But if that's how empathy has evolved in this age of technology, I think it's safe to say we're facing a serious social disconnect today that most people do not see or want to recognize. The way we become more human is by paying attention to each other because it shows how much we care. But this technology is only a cursory way of communicating. The depth of the communication when using it is lower and allows us to hide that which we could not shield face to face.
Will this mean a less sensitive population? Is empathy for others becoming more rare? Will the world in which we live in the future be a a sterile one? Does the surge of technology given to us without social sanctions and rules for use make us less human and more like the computers we use? Your turn to give your opinion.
I wonder if the ego we create on line, for example, is a false one. And is that false ego , if it exist, sometimes destined to become the main ego of the addicted to technology user? One thing I am certain of is that most of society does not see the negatives from their addiction to technology. They have blinders to how it controls their time, and directs their behaviors. The kid in the room filled with 200 different cookies but no adult to stop the eating. Now so gorged on their mindless technology, the users often can't see real feelings from the affected ones they post on their tweets or face book pages.
But if that's how empathy has evolved in this age of technology, I think it's safe to say we're facing a serious social disconnect today that most people do not see or want to recognize. The way we become more human is by paying attention to each other because it shows how much we care. But this technology is only a cursory way of communicating. The depth of the communication when using it is lower and allows us to hide that which we could not shield face to face.
Will this mean a less sensitive population? Is empathy for others becoming more rare? Will the world in which we live in the future be a a sterile one? Does the surge of technology given to us without social sanctions and rules for use make us less human and more like the computers we use? Your turn to give your opinion.
Band Concert
I went to a band concert at Jane's school tonight. Jane is enrolled in a percussion class this semester, and though not officially in the band, members of that class are selected to play in various band events. She started taking private drum lessons in New Orleans about 6 months ago, so the instrument is relatively new to her.
After seven years of trumpet she decided to quit that but wanted to learn to play the drums (she also played the piano for a few years when small).This school is big, about 2300 students in the high school, and it shows in the size and high quality of the band (The school band was chosen through state competition as the state of Oregon's best last year). There are five bands that play for the school: a concert band, a symphonic band, a jazz ensemble, a percussion drum line band, and an advanced band (the top musicians in all the bands who audtiion to be selected). Each has a few members in more than one band and but most are members of only one or two bands.
Tonight Jane played the cymbals in the concert band, the timpani in the symphonic band and the bass drum in the drum line performance. She says she missed a part with the cymbals but did ok in the rest. I enjoyed seeing her in all of them and didn't notice any big mistakes by her. For a novice in the instrument she is doing well. She had never played the timpany, bass drum nor the cymbols until learning them in school starting this September.
As a child I first took clarinet lessons in school and then was promoted to play clarinet in the school band for almost 10 years, from 2nd grade until I quit in 12th grade because of a greater interest in sports. Though I was only an average player (My brother was a gifted trumpet player and could pick up most instruments and play them very well) it served me usefully in college when I took an ROTC class. Because I was a clarinet player of some ability I was given special privileges and allowed to play music instead of "soldiering". It was an easy "A" in the class.Seeing Jane in the concert with this band (and in other concerts with her former school band in New Orleans) tonight reinforces my belief that music in school is a big academic plus.
Most kids who play musical instruments in the school band are much better students than the typical ones on campus. It also gives them the kind of confidence boost in having to perform that playing school sports does.I remember one year our high school band was having it's concert and the alto sax player was hospitalized and unable to play his part in a concerto that was scheduled for the performance.
The band teacher convinced me to learn alto sax in three weeks (it is similar to clarinet) in order to avoid a cancelling the sax trio selection. Seeing Jane tonight on stage reminded me of that night. I played the alto well enough that only a musician would have noticed any mistakes made. In the months after the concert, I was a much better clarinet player because of the confidence I gained from playing the alto that night. Perhaps Jane will have a similar experience from tonight.
After seven years of trumpet she decided to quit that but wanted to learn to play the drums (she also played the piano for a few years when small).This school is big, about 2300 students in the high school, and it shows in the size and high quality of the band (The school band was chosen through state competition as the state of Oregon's best last year). There are five bands that play for the school: a concert band, a symphonic band, a jazz ensemble, a percussion drum line band, and an advanced band (the top musicians in all the bands who audtiion to be selected). Each has a few members in more than one band and but most are members of only one or two bands.
Tonight Jane played the cymbals in the concert band, the timpani in the symphonic band and the bass drum in the drum line performance. She says she missed a part with the cymbals but did ok in the rest. I enjoyed seeing her in all of them and didn't notice any big mistakes by her. For a novice in the instrument she is doing well. She had never played the timpany, bass drum nor the cymbols until learning them in school starting this September.
As a child I first took clarinet lessons in school and then was promoted to play clarinet in the school band for almost 10 years, from 2nd grade until I quit in 12th grade because of a greater interest in sports. Though I was only an average player (My brother was a gifted trumpet player and could pick up most instruments and play them very well) it served me usefully in college when I took an ROTC class. Because I was a clarinet player of some ability I was given special privileges and allowed to play music instead of "soldiering". It was an easy "A" in the class.Seeing Jane in the concert with this band (and in other concerts with her former school band in New Orleans) tonight reinforces my belief that music in school is a big academic plus.
Most kids who play musical instruments in the school band are much better students than the typical ones on campus. It also gives them the kind of confidence boost in having to perform that playing school sports does.I remember one year our high school band was having it's concert and the alto sax player was hospitalized and unable to play his part in a concerto that was scheduled for the performance.
The band teacher convinced me to learn alto sax in three weeks (it is similar to clarinet) in order to avoid a cancelling the sax trio selection. Seeing Jane tonight on stage reminded me of that night. I played the alto well enough that only a musician would have noticed any mistakes made. In the months after the concert, I was a much better clarinet player because of the confidence I gained from playing the alto that night. Perhaps Jane will have a similar experience from tonight.
Peeing On Taxpayers
I want to rant about the status of elderly in the U.S. today. This wil get me in hot waterm, because, even when one is an oldie as I am, the unwritten rule is never oppose anything an oldie wants from taxpayers. They have become the privileged elite in this country in the eyes of politicians, because they vote often and often vote against any politician who neither panders to that group nor throws more wasteful entitlements toward them. The 55 year old and over group now reeks in by far the largest part of the total spending in the U.S. budget, through Social Security and Medicare (two programs set up for them) payments that are way out of line to the contributions made by those who receive them).
The latest "give me more entitlements or I will vote against you" suggestion from the oldies (hereafter re named by me as "Pee" for 'Privileged elite elderly') came as angry Pees were told that they won't be getting a cost-of-living adjustment in their social security check for 2011, the second year in a row that inflation has been too low to trigger one. The law says the cost of living is to be given only when living costs go up. They have gone down again, and by law no increase should be given. But seniors and retiree groups such as AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) demand that Congress give them the increase anyway, because....well, they are old and privileged, I guess?
Of course President Obama, one who never loses an opportunity to pander to those who might support him, declared they will get the $250 increase anyway because....again.... because they are old and privileged (and they will vote for Obama and his party if he supports the give-away). At a time when politicians ought to be making hard decisions to stop driving up the national debt with crazy cash for votes programs, spending money the government doesn't have for a purpose its own formulas say is unnecessary makes little sense. But the Obama administration makes as little sense as the Bush administration does when it comes to being held hostage by special interest groups as powerful as the elderly.
The Pees have a great deal right now already in place. They contributed a small amount to social security when younger and reap huge benefits in social security payments and medicare, which virtually pays the entire medical bills of many of the Pees. To cry that they need the extra money falls on deaf ears to the rest of America, which has neither of those programs and in some cases not even a job. The honest thing for Obama and the rest of the politicians to do now is for them to tell the Pees that this is one entitlement the country can not afford to pay. However, they will not do so, for being reelected means more than being honest or responsible for too many politicians today.
It would be interesting to see this controversy bring about a new look at who gets what from taxpayers funds, a movement for equal contributions and benefits of taxpayer funds. If there ever were to be a reform movement to be fiscally responsible and to distribute tax revenue according to what each taxpayer contributed, the Pees would be absent a great deal more than a cost of living a Social Security benefit.
Put bluntly, Social Security is a supplemental income for the retired and was never intended to be a retired person's entire income. If Pees haven't saved other income during their working years, but instead spent their money for convenience during that time, then it's not the problem of taxpayers to give them even more unwarranted funds. In the end, the non Pee generation will have to make up for the Pee's greed and lack of fiscal control. Obviously AARP has to vouch for the seniors, but the Americans that have to pay for this mess sure don't, and they should demand that privileged classes be transformed into normal ones
The latest "give me more entitlements or I will vote against you" suggestion from the oldies (hereafter re named by me as "Pee" for 'Privileged elite elderly') came as angry Pees were told that they won't be getting a cost-of-living adjustment in their social security check for 2011, the second year in a row that inflation has been too low to trigger one. The law says the cost of living is to be given only when living costs go up. They have gone down again, and by law no increase should be given. But seniors and retiree groups such as AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) demand that Congress give them the increase anyway, because....well, they are old and privileged, I guess?
Of course President Obama, one who never loses an opportunity to pander to those who might support him, declared they will get the $250 increase anyway because....again.... because they are old and privileged (and they will vote for Obama and his party if he supports the give-away). At a time when politicians ought to be making hard decisions to stop driving up the national debt with crazy cash for votes programs, spending money the government doesn't have for a purpose its own formulas say is unnecessary makes little sense. But the Obama administration makes as little sense as the Bush administration does when it comes to being held hostage by special interest groups as powerful as the elderly.
The Pees have a great deal right now already in place. They contributed a small amount to social security when younger and reap huge benefits in social security payments and medicare, which virtually pays the entire medical bills of many of the Pees. To cry that they need the extra money falls on deaf ears to the rest of America, which has neither of those programs and in some cases not even a job. The honest thing for Obama and the rest of the politicians to do now is for them to tell the Pees that this is one entitlement the country can not afford to pay. However, they will not do so, for being reelected means more than being honest or responsible for too many politicians today.
It would be interesting to see this controversy bring about a new look at who gets what from taxpayers funds, a movement for equal contributions and benefits of taxpayer funds. If there ever were to be a reform movement to be fiscally responsible and to distribute tax revenue according to what each taxpayer contributed, the Pees would be absent a great deal more than a cost of living a Social Security benefit.
Put bluntly, Social Security is a supplemental income for the retired and was never intended to be a retired person's entire income. If Pees haven't saved other income during their working years, but instead spent their money for convenience during that time, then it's not the problem of taxpayers to give them even more unwarranted funds. In the end, the non Pee generation will have to make up for the Pee's greed and lack of fiscal control. Obviously AARP has to vouch for the seniors, but the Americans that have to pay for this mess sure don't, and they should demand that privileged classes be transformed into normal ones
Which Grocery Stores To Patronize?
I think I have the Portland grocery store market figured out now. It is very much compatible with the low passion for food in this area, and offers fewer options than does New Orleans. This metro area is primarily a national chain grocery store market. it has few independent grocery stores and none I have found of any size. New Orleans, with its addiction to good food has many local independent groceries that carry specialized local products, often made in store.
But Portland offers more the national chain products, accounting for the lower quality if seafood and meat sold here. For some reason, local fresh meat and seafood offers take a big back seat to cheap but lower quality foreign and national meat and seafood. it amazes me that some of the excellent local food products are exported from Portland and not sold her in order to sell cheaper, lower quality goods to the natives. But, given their indifference to superior taste, Oregonians favor low price over quality.
My strategy here is to visit different stores for the best products offered. It means driving more than I did in New Orleans to find what I want, but most things I want can be found in at least passable quality and at reasonable prices. Customers here say they choose stores based on how coupon friendly they are or what loss leaders stores have on a given week. I am less interested in that than in finding something that I can cook that will taste good. Already, I have had to severely limit some seafood and meat options because the grade of product sold is too low, the price is too high, or because it is frozen (They love frozen raw seafood products here) rather than fresh.
The fruits and veggies here are better than in New Orleans, but that is because this is a lush agricultural region than makes buying local easy and affordable for the grocery stores. All of this may be recession influenced too. But much poor New Orleans offers the grocery shopping much better quality and price than found here in Portland. My impression is that people cook at home much more often in New Orleans, is the consumer there is better educated as to the quality of ingredients sold in grocery stores. That's why New Orleans has specailty food stores that Portland doesn't. It's sometimes hard for me to believe how low the quality of seafood is here, gven that water surrounds Portland and the Pacific Ocean itself is just an hour to the west.
Anyway, I am curious about your own grocery preferences. Are you a selective shopper or do you patronize only one or two stores? What about a store makes it appealing to you? Is it price, the location of the store, the local products sold, that it has higher quality products?
But Portland offers more the national chain products, accounting for the lower quality if seafood and meat sold here. For some reason, local fresh meat and seafood offers take a big back seat to cheap but lower quality foreign and national meat and seafood. it amazes me that some of the excellent local food products are exported from Portland and not sold her in order to sell cheaper, lower quality goods to the natives. But, given their indifference to superior taste, Oregonians favor low price over quality.
My strategy here is to visit different stores for the best products offered. It means driving more than I did in New Orleans to find what I want, but most things I want can be found in at least passable quality and at reasonable prices. Customers here say they choose stores based on how coupon friendly they are or what loss leaders stores have on a given week. I am less interested in that than in finding something that I can cook that will taste good. Already, I have had to severely limit some seafood and meat options because the grade of product sold is too low, the price is too high, or because it is frozen (They love frozen raw seafood products here) rather than fresh.
The fruits and veggies here are better than in New Orleans, but that is because this is a lush agricultural region than makes buying local easy and affordable for the grocery stores. All of this may be recession influenced too. But much poor New Orleans offers the grocery shopping much better quality and price than found here in Portland. My impression is that people cook at home much more often in New Orleans, is the consumer there is better educated as to the quality of ingredients sold in grocery stores. That's why New Orleans has specailty food stores that Portland doesn't. It's sometimes hard for me to believe how low the quality of seafood is here, gven that water surrounds Portland and the Pacific Ocean itself is just an hour to the west.
Anyway, I am curious about your own grocery preferences. Are you a selective shopper or do you patronize only one or two stores? What about a store makes it appealing to you? Is it price, the location of the store, the local products sold, that it has higher quality products?
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Top Halloween Costumes
It's Halloween month and the costume contests and events will start to bring out the costumes. Adult Halloween enthusiasts are planning to spend considerably more on costs this year (after all, Halloween has been confiscated from the kids and become an adult holiday in recent years) According to the National Retail Federation's 2010 Halloween Consumer Intentions and Actions Survey people are planing to costume more this year than last, up from 33% to 40%. Given the people in costumes are adults guess what the top costumes will be this time?
Lady Gaga costumes and some characters, one called "snooze" and the other 'The Situation", from a reality TV show called "Jersey Shore'" are the biggest sellers so far in 2010. This reflects the here today/gone tomorrow popular culture in which we live. It also shows the obsession people have with triviality rather than the serious. A serious culture would mimic a politician or some individual who impact society in a serious way. Instead, we have costumes of people of little, no or questionable talent or substance that are raised to the level of icons.
This is a trend that is on going in the age of pseudo celebrity and electronic instant fame. Though it's too early to know the final toll in 2010 costumes, last year's costumes showed the same fascination with the trivial rather than serious now. In 2009 the theme for adult costumes was "dead celebrities". Many wore outfits of now deceased stars: Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon and infomercial pitchman Billy Mays, Heath Ledger-inspired Joker costumes, and Michael Jackson. And the reality genre was popular too, with Kate Gosselin (that lady with so many children that she exhibits public display in return for celebrity and plenty of cash) being number one.
Because it's not easy to find ready made costumes of those kinds of celebrities, instead of buying packaged costumes, more people are piecing together looks with accessories and clothes from their closet, particularly clothes from 60s, 70s and 80s costumes. Well, it does encourage creativity in the making of it, My mom used to just cut out holes in a old white bed sheet for eyes ears and mouth, an then throw the sheet over my head and call me a ghost.
It's all good though. Pretending in this crazy world may be the most sensible way of coping with it. happy costuming!
Lady Gaga costumes and some characters, one called "snooze" and the other 'The Situation", from a reality TV show called "Jersey Shore'" are the biggest sellers so far in 2010. This reflects the here today/gone tomorrow popular culture in which we live. It also shows the obsession people have with triviality rather than the serious. A serious culture would mimic a politician or some individual who impact society in a serious way. Instead, we have costumes of people of little, no or questionable talent or substance that are raised to the level of icons.
This is a trend that is on going in the age of pseudo celebrity and electronic instant fame. Though it's too early to know the final toll in 2010 costumes, last year's costumes showed the same fascination with the trivial rather than serious now. In 2009 the theme for adult costumes was "dead celebrities". Many wore outfits of now deceased stars: Farrah Fawcett, Ed McMahon and infomercial pitchman Billy Mays, Heath Ledger-inspired Joker costumes, and Michael Jackson. And the reality genre was popular too, with Kate Gosselin (that lady with so many children that she exhibits public display in return for celebrity and plenty of cash) being number one.
Because it's not easy to find ready made costumes of those kinds of celebrities, instead of buying packaged costumes, more people are piecing together looks with accessories and clothes from their closet, particularly clothes from 60s, 70s and 80s costumes. Well, it does encourage creativity in the making of it, My mom used to just cut out holes in a old white bed sheet for eyes ears and mouth, an then throw the sheet over my head and call me a ghost.
It's all good though. Pretending in this crazy world may be the most sensible way of coping with it. happy costuming!
End Of The Age Of Entitlements?
Do you too notice what I see (or think I see)? It's the decline and fall of the social welfare state in Europe. The welfare states of Europe that rose out of the ashes of the Second World War are now facing destruction because of the debt crisis that resulted from too many entitlements being given to their citizens. And it all began to crumble in Greece. The average age of retirement in Greece is 53, thanks to a generous benefit system and pensions for state employees. How can any nation support such a system? Well, there are even worse entitlement conditions in other Euroepan nations.
Germany's too generous unemployment benefit provisions and free university education, France's need to raise the retirement age for workers from 60 to 62, the crazy Spanish payments to parents of newborns, the English economy bankrupted by extravagant freebies and on and on. Nearly every western European nation has too few taxpayers and too many welfare recipients. The economic meltdown has exposed Europe as the house of economic cards it is.
So this raises the question. Is this next age to be, not the Age of Entitlements, but rather, The Age of The Ending Welfare State?
Hampered by the financial cost built into the welfare state and by the psychological and financial disincentives built into telling adults the government is mommy and daddy and that one may be irresponsible financially if they wish, European economies began to slow down under the burden of more and more entitlements. The high unemployment that is common in many European countries is now a permanent fixture.
So Europe and its politicians now have no choice but to reduce their expenditures on welfare (which is about half the budget in the typical European nation). The addicted to entitlement Europeans will not relish working longer, harder and with lower pay and benefits while paying the same outrageously high taxes they now pay. Have mercy on the European politicians who tell their citizens the facts and start making the cuts we are already seeing in some western European nations. But let's hope they do it.
The U.S., Canada and other capitalist nations tht have followed the awful European model, who have chosen the entitlement route in recent years, had better take notice of what has happened in Europe and how it has made Europe effete in so many ways. The welfare state in Europe won't totally disappear, but it may now be more targeted to real needs and for those who benefit from it, not luxuriate in it.
I salute the economic meltdown that has forced European nations to grow up and start acting like real countries again. I hope my own nation will take the same path.
Germany's too generous unemployment benefit provisions and free university education, France's need to raise the retirement age for workers from 60 to 62, the crazy Spanish payments to parents of newborns, the English economy bankrupted by extravagant freebies and on and on. Nearly every western European nation has too few taxpayers and too many welfare recipients. The economic meltdown has exposed Europe as the house of economic cards it is.
So this raises the question. Is this next age to be, not the Age of Entitlements, but rather, The Age of The Ending Welfare State?
Hampered by the financial cost built into the welfare state and by the psychological and financial disincentives built into telling adults the government is mommy and daddy and that one may be irresponsible financially if they wish, European economies began to slow down under the burden of more and more entitlements. The high unemployment that is common in many European countries is now a permanent fixture.
So Europe and its politicians now have no choice but to reduce their expenditures on welfare (which is about half the budget in the typical European nation). The addicted to entitlement Europeans will not relish working longer, harder and with lower pay and benefits while paying the same outrageously high taxes they now pay. Have mercy on the European politicians who tell their citizens the facts and start making the cuts we are already seeing in some western European nations. But let's hope they do it.
The U.S., Canada and other capitalist nations tht have followed the awful European model, who have chosen the entitlement route in recent years, had better take notice of what has happened in Europe and how it has made Europe effete in so many ways. The welfare state in Europe won't totally disappear, but it may now be more targeted to real needs and for those who benefit from it, not luxuriate in it.
I salute the economic meltdown that has forced European nations to grow up and start acting like real countries again. I hope my own nation will take the same path.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Free Or Hateful Speech
What constitutes one receiving injury from speech made by another or by a group against that person? Simply, at what the point is speech no longer free, but rather libel? That's a question the Supreme Court here has wrestled with for years. I think there is no country on earth that allows as much injurious speech as the U.S. It's necessary because with too many limits on what is spoken by an individual liberty is lost. There is a fine line between speech that injures a person and is therefore illegal and speech that may hurt the feelings of the recipient of the unkind hateful words of it, but is protected by the first amendment guarantee of free speech. In short, no one has the right it limit anyone else's speech because that talk "hurt their feelings". The standard for control of what is said is much higher.
Four years ago, a handful of religious fanatics (nuts) from Kansas descended on a Maryland small town funeral for a 20 year old U.S. Marine who was killed in Iraq. They used the occasion for a grossly offensive campaign against gays. Picketers waved signs proclaiming, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "You're Going to Hell" and "God Hates You," among other sentiments because the dead soldier, Matthew Synder was gay. As disgusting as the protest was, it was on public property and considered legal.
Matthew's dad later filed suit against the protesters saying that they caused him to become ill, brought on depression and worsened his diabetes. Can unkind words really cause that injury and even if they do, should it be illegal to speak in the manner the protesters used to bring their issue into the public view? At any rate, the law suit sued for damages based on the emotional distress won $5 million for Matthew's dad until a court of appeal invalidated that decision.
So the question is back into the hands of the highest court of all here, The Supreme Court. They will review the case and make a precedent setting decision as to what the limits of hurtful speech are. Justice Kennedy said he wanted help "in finding some line" between speech that merits protection and speech that does not. Good luck on that one!
If the court were smart it might not even hear the case at all. What would you decide if you were on the court? As much as I find those kinds of protests disgusting I would tend to support the free speech of the protesters. They have the right to be fools, to be wrong, to be disgusting because the first amendment right super cedes bad taste.
Four years ago, a handful of religious fanatics (nuts) from Kansas descended on a Maryland small town funeral for a 20 year old U.S. Marine who was killed in Iraq. They used the occasion for a grossly offensive campaign against gays. Picketers waved signs proclaiming, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "You're Going to Hell" and "God Hates You," among other sentiments because the dead soldier, Matthew Synder was gay. As disgusting as the protest was, it was on public property and considered legal.
Matthew's dad later filed suit against the protesters saying that they caused him to become ill, brought on depression and worsened his diabetes. Can unkind words really cause that injury and even if they do, should it be illegal to speak in the manner the protesters used to bring their issue into the public view? At any rate, the law suit sued for damages based on the emotional distress won $5 million for Matthew's dad until a court of appeal invalidated that decision.
So the question is back into the hands of the highest court of all here, The Supreme Court. They will review the case and make a precedent setting decision as to what the limits of hurtful speech are. Justice Kennedy said he wanted help "in finding some line" between speech that merits protection and speech that does not. Good luck on that one!
If the court were smart it might not even hear the case at all. What would you decide if you were on the court? As much as I find those kinds of protests disgusting I would tend to support the free speech of the protesters. They have the right to be fools, to be wrong, to be disgusting because the first amendment right super cedes bad taste.
Is The President Growing Up?
The Rock Star/Messiah image of Obama is dead. Hallelujah! I think Barrack Obama has landed on a level playing field now and will have to govern with more than smoke and mirrors. Perhaps some substance will return in the presidency. It's about time, for the U.S. has slipped as badly under the Obama regime as it did under perhaps the worst president of the century, George Bush. I am hopeful that Disneyland is gone and we will now have a real world leader. At least the opportunity is there.
During his campaign Obama publicly encouraged all of this bizarre messianic image, with silly phrases like "we are the ones we've been waiting for" and invocations of "hope" and "change" in the hope of getting young idealistic voters out to the polls. It worked and he was elected. But after two years of ineptitude many of those young supporters ( and older ones like me) have abandoned ship. The do not believe the nonsense anymore. Has Obama finally seen it and started to act more presidential and less like a rock star? If not, the U.S will continue to flounder.
Grow up, Mr. President, just grow up and lead. That's my refrain these days. Obama is stunned and disappointed to discover that people who can be won over by fantasy campaigns would at some point expect substance. At least he realizes it. Candidate Obama and President Obama are different people. The "Oh, he was only kidding" syndrome has gotten hold as a result.
Candidate Obama was a bipartisan. President Obama is completely partisan and blind to anything else w but what he wants. Candidate Obama said he was hopeful and he promised change from the awful Bush years.. President Obama has been completely partisan president in the George Bush mold and has steered the most implausible legislation through Congress and into law. Now that Obama realizes he must out up or shut up he is not so hopeful anymore. He's turned into a preaching, finger-wagger who spends too much time complaining about how unfair his critics are, how bad his press is and how his lack of success is all Bush's fault.
The first stage of growing up is realizing it's not all about "me". Obama's critics have instructed him in that and he is now aware of it. But how much will the rock star grow up? Will he finally act presidential and lead to end the dysfunctional "way Washington works" as he promised when campaigning for the job he seems unfit to do.
When I voted for him I gave Obama and a Democratic controlled Congress a chance to fix what they said was broken. They have failed miserably. Please hurry and grow up, President Obama.
During his campaign Obama publicly encouraged all of this bizarre messianic image, with silly phrases like "we are the ones we've been waiting for" and invocations of "hope" and "change" in the hope of getting young idealistic voters out to the polls. It worked and he was elected. But after two years of ineptitude many of those young supporters ( and older ones like me) have abandoned ship. The do not believe the nonsense anymore. Has Obama finally seen it and started to act more presidential and less like a rock star? If not, the U.S will continue to flounder.
Grow up, Mr. President, just grow up and lead. That's my refrain these days. Obama is stunned and disappointed to discover that people who can be won over by fantasy campaigns would at some point expect substance. At least he realizes it. Candidate Obama and President Obama are different people. The "Oh, he was only kidding" syndrome has gotten hold as a result.
Candidate Obama was a bipartisan. President Obama is completely partisan and blind to anything else w but what he wants. Candidate Obama said he was hopeful and he promised change from the awful Bush years.. President Obama has been completely partisan president in the George Bush mold and has steered the most implausible legislation through Congress and into law. Now that Obama realizes he must out up or shut up he is not so hopeful anymore. He's turned into a preaching, finger-wagger who spends too much time complaining about how unfair his critics are, how bad his press is and how his lack of success is all Bush's fault.
The first stage of growing up is realizing it's not all about "me". Obama's critics have instructed him in that and he is now aware of it. But how much will the rock star grow up? Will he finally act presidential and lead to end the dysfunctional "way Washington works" as he promised when campaigning for the job he seems unfit to do.
When I voted for him I gave Obama and a Democratic controlled Congress a chance to fix what they said was broken. They have failed miserably. Please hurry and grow up, President Obama.
No News But Plenty Of Teasers
The "teaser" is a staple in TV today. It's been around for some time, but now local TV news stations are refining the tease. What is a teaser? Typically a teaser consists of auditory or visual information, or both, providing the viewer a glimpse of what he or she can expect as programing continues. as in, "Coming up in our next segment will be".... followed by a brief glimpse of what is promised if the viewer stays tuned to the broadcast. It hints but doesn't show anything and it frustrates the viewer because he or she would rather hear the news than be teased about it.
The news broadcast may begin a newscast with a tease for an upcoming story, then shift the focus: "But first, we bring you our top story..." Details when we return. But first, we bring you our top story." Teasers can be vague to make the viewer wonder and stay tuned or they may be overt, in which the audience stays tuned because it is made to feel there is something too important to miss. Usually, the more teasers in a news broadcast the less competent and informative is the station. Good local news shows have fewer teasers because they spend more time on serious news and, thus, do not need to tease to keep their audience.
Every American city has plenty of TV stations using the tease. Portland has many more than New Orleans, and its so frustrating here that no station has a clear lead in audience size. That's because when all stations tease they all begin to look and sound alike. They become interchangeable as to quality presented. So it then comes down to some crazy reason why the viewer picks on news cast over another, not because one station gives a better presentation than the others. I prefer a certain station news broadcast here in Portland because it has two of the prettiest and sexiest weather girls on TV. Huh If I am not going to get a quality TV news presentation on any of the stations, then I might as well take the sexist road and watch the station with the hottest babes.
According to a recent University of Southern California media study, a composite half-hour of LA local TV news contains 8:25 of ads; 2:10 of teasers; 3:36 of sports and weather; and 15:44 for everything else. That's a lot of fluff and way too many teasers. Only about half of a half-hour of news is news. And of that half much of it is entertainment related rather than factual news that the viewer should know. So teasers sometimes tease us to wait for what is nothing more than frivolous news. It used to be we were teased about important news stories. Now it may be something so trivial that the viewer turns angry when he or she sees that they have been tricked into staying up late at night to hear the next reality show gossip.
The old joke about the broadcaster reading "The U.S. is under a nuclear attack...details on our second segment" seems almost too real now to laugh too loudly. Oh...since I have to watch teasers when I try to learn news events on TV. you get a teaser from me today. "My E mails may have already caused you severe brain damage. Open your mailbox next Friday to see if you can be saved".
The news broadcast may begin a newscast with a tease for an upcoming story, then shift the focus: "But first, we bring you our top story..." Details when we return. But first, we bring you our top story." Teasers can be vague to make the viewer wonder and stay tuned or they may be overt, in which the audience stays tuned because it is made to feel there is something too important to miss. Usually, the more teasers in a news broadcast the less competent and informative is the station. Good local news shows have fewer teasers because they spend more time on serious news and, thus, do not need to tease to keep their audience.
Every American city has plenty of TV stations using the tease. Portland has many more than New Orleans, and its so frustrating here that no station has a clear lead in audience size. That's because when all stations tease they all begin to look and sound alike. They become interchangeable as to quality presented. So it then comes down to some crazy reason why the viewer picks on news cast over another, not because one station gives a better presentation than the others. I prefer a certain station news broadcast here in Portland because it has two of the prettiest and sexiest weather girls on TV. Huh If I am not going to get a quality TV news presentation on any of the stations, then I might as well take the sexist road and watch the station with the hottest babes.
According to a recent University of Southern California media study, a composite half-hour of LA local TV news contains 8:25 of ads; 2:10 of teasers; 3:36 of sports and weather; and 15:44 for everything else. That's a lot of fluff and way too many teasers. Only about half of a half-hour of news is news. And of that half much of it is entertainment related rather than factual news that the viewer should know. So teasers sometimes tease us to wait for what is nothing more than frivolous news. It used to be we were teased about important news stories. Now it may be something so trivial that the viewer turns angry when he or she sees that they have been tricked into staying up late at night to hear the next reality show gossip.
The old joke about the broadcaster reading "The U.S. is under a nuclear attack...details on our second segment" seems almost too real now to laugh too loudly. Oh...since I have to watch teasers when I try to learn news events on TV. you get a teaser from me today. "My E mails may have already caused you severe brain damage. Open your mailbox next Friday to see if you can be saved".
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Not So Expert Testimony
In what must be another sign of the near end of our civilization, Comedian Stephen Colbert was called by Congress to testify (and he did so in character with sly innuendoes and clever remarks reflecting negatively on Congress itself) before the Congressional Subcommittee for Immigration and Agriculture on the subject of illegal immigration. What makes Colbert an expert on that or any political issue must be, according it Congress, his routines on TV that are commentaries on the current dysfunctional scene we all know and hate.
Celebrities have been called to testify before Congress before on matters of their specialty,. but not a comedian to orate about the illegal immigration mess. It now seems that journalism is so sick that comedians like Colbert and his clone, Jonh Stewart, are leading the debate in this country about serious issues. It's a bit troubling when a comic doesn't reflect the insanity around him, but rather is seen as the ideal society to which society should reach and hold on to and as the source of truth about what society should or should not do.
Gee, instead give me the Marx Brothers or Steve Martin any day. At least they were funny and not merely cynical and pompous. I don't see many truths in ambassadors Stewart and Colbert messages. But then, unlike the millions who adore them, I also find news from other sources than TV comics like them. Why did Congess call Colbert to testify? Does Congress now practice self flagellation in the form of self imposed ridicule? Why do Americans seek their news from entertainers instead of serious journalists?
But then....there is a reason so many take comedians seriously as commentators on the many ills of modern society. Sadly, it's because they only seek laughs and need not lie like those politicians and journalists who have a personal interest in telling lies or some hidden agenda to push, that Colbert and his like are seen as truth tellers.
But surely if the public read and explored more those issues on its own comics would return to comedy, not news makers. Only an uninformed public would settle for a comedian's version of "political truth". Americans today segregate themselves into factions promoting distinctly separate views, often extreme ones. So it makes sense to them that they get their news from whomever confirms their own biases and prejudices. The true journalist won't so that. Hence, comics are the source of information. Uh..don't believe it? In 2009 Comedian John Steward was named "the most trusted man in news" by a poll of readers of the oldest and most reliable of news magazines, Time Magazine.
Let's see..a satirical character mocking Congress while testifying before them about a serious subject. Oh yes, this is the United States. It makes sense after all.
Celebrities have been called to testify before Congress before on matters of their specialty,. but not a comedian to orate about the illegal immigration mess. It now seems that journalism is so sick that comedians like Colbert and his clone, Jonh Stewart, are leading the debate in this country about serious issues. It's a bit troubling when a comic doesn't reflect the insanity around him, but rather is seen as the ideal society to which society should reach and hold on to and as the source of truth about what society should or should not do.
Gee, instead give me the Marx Brothers or Steve Martin any day. At least they were funny and not merely cynical and pompous. I don't see many truths in ambassadors Stewart and Colbert messages. But then, unlike the millions who adore them, I also find news from other sources than TV comics like them. Why did Congess call Colbert to testify? Does Congress now practice self flagellation in the form of self imposed ridicule? Why do Americans seek their news from entertainers instead of serious journalists?
But then....there is a reason so many take comedians seriously as commentators on the many ills of modern society. Sadly, it's because they only seek laughs and need not lie like those politicians and journalists who have a personal interest in telling lies or some hidden agenda to push, that Colbert and his like are seen as truth tellers.
But surely if the public read and explored more those issues on its own comics would return to comedy, not news makers. Only an uninformed public would settle for a comedian's version of "political truth". Americans today segregate themselves into factions promoting distinctly separate views, often extreme ones. So it makes sense to them that they get their news from whomever confirms their own biases and prejudices. The true journalist won't so that. Hence, comics are the source of information. Uh..don't believe it? In 2009 Comedian John Steward was named "the most trusted man in news" by a poll of readers of the oldest and most reliable of news magazines, Time Magazine.
Let's see..a satirical character mocking Congress while testifying before them about a serious subject. Oh yes, this is the United States. It makes sense after all.
Providers Versus Users
In Europe the welfare state concept is out of hand, far worse than the growing welfare system in the U.S. and Canada. For example, Sweden has 105 local districts where the majority of the population lives off of various public benefits, and does not work. This unintended consequence of the welfare state has taken a heavy toll on public services there, since an increasing share of tax revenue must be diverted to fund welfare payments, rather than social services. In essence an ever growing part of the Swedish population does not even think that working to support ones self is necessary. And looking at the rest of western Europe one can see the great decline economically there is the rest of too many welfare programs.
There are many reasons welfare is out of control, including the oft cited "stupid, spoiled and lazy" westerners who are everywhere. But one huge contribution to the growth of welfare is immigration. Although the United States’ welfare rolls are already swollen, every year we import more people (most illegal peasants with little education and job skill) who wind up on public assistance.
Many immigrants are poor, indeed, that is why they immigrate. The immigrants we admit to the U.S. are much poorer than the native population and are increasing the size of our impoverished population. Too, the Obama administration seeks to legalize the millions of illegals here and welcome millions more of the poorest and least fit immigrants.
But immigration is just one factor, and not the biggest of them, that is present in all western nations with out of control welfare systems. It merely reflects the attitude of the west that free is best and that anyone who can get the freebies deserves them. Much of society now seems to believe that the individual is not the prime responsible party in care of the family. The government is viewed as mommy and daddy to anyone who can't or does not want to support his or her self.
But the dilemma is how much more can a society give to the users? At what point do the providers revolt? They already are fed up with their status. The recent financial meltdown has brought this issue into clearer focus. It could get ugly before it's resolved.
There are many reasons welfare is out of control, including the oft cited "stupid, spoiled and lazy" westerners who are everywhere. But one huge contribution to the growth of welfare is immigration. Although the United States’ welfare rolls are already swollen, every year we import more people (most illegal peasants with little education and job skill) who wind up on public assistance.
Many immigrants are poor, indeed, that is why they immigrate. The immigrants we admit to the U.S. are much poorer than the native population and are increasing the size of our impoverished population. Too, the Obama administration seeks to legalize the millions of illegals here and welcome millions more of the poorest and least fit immigrants.
But immigration is just one factor, and not the biggest of them, that is present in all western nations with out of control welfare systems. It merely reflects the attitude of the west that free is best and that anyone who can get the freebies deserves them. Much of society now seems to believe that the individual is not the prime responsible party in care of the family. The government is viewed as mommy and daddy to anyone who can't or does not want to support his or her self.
But the dilemma is how much more can a society give to the users? At what point do the providers revolt? They already are fed up with their status. The recent financial meltdown has brought this issue into clearer focus. It could get ugly before it's resolved.
Driven To Suicide
The suicide of 18-year-old Tyler Clementi, the super bright Rutgers student, who's private gay sex romp in his own dorm room was secretly filmed and displayed on the Internet by a roommate and another twisted soul is a sad commentary on technological excess and moral emptiness. His suicide is the latest in a series of incidents in which a young person appears to have been driven to kill him/herself by online humiliation.
The internet is not the problem here so much as that technology has provided an avenue for some to lose sight of common decency. We have movies (American Pie) that glorify these types of behaviors, reality TV, where people are constantly filmed doing and saying things that no "real," decent person would want on television. But for 15 seconds of fame many will do anything. It's why when asked why reality TV participants are asked their reason for humiliating themselves. Most answer "To be famous. For them, being famous for "nothing" seems better than keeping dignity.
In some twisted way the roommate who secretly filmed the sex romp felt showing it world-wide on the net was acceptable, even amusing. Destroying a life became secondary to the acting out of the "reality" mode of behavior. They call it "cyberbullying" but by any name it is a vacuous moral state and I wonder if our increasingly savvy technology is making it easier to act as badly as the two who "outed Clementi. We have four ruined lives, one dead student, two who outed him and will forever live with the scares (and I hope, a long prison term) and the "other" man in the film that was shown on the net.
When society lowers its standards and gives personal freedom to the extent it has been given it spirals downward. For today the technology has been given without a code of etiquette and ethics to accompany it. We have huge cookie jars filled with goodies and no mommy to regulate how much we eat.
This always brings to question whether or not some believe technology excuses us from some of the long treasured social mores. Is it ok to behave differently (less respectful of others) when using a phone, behind a computer, or with camera in hand? And why would any decent person watch such a video that the two showed? Do we have less obligation to act morally if only spectator? Surely, the millions of idiots who adore the reality TV genre would have to think long and hard to answer "No".. for their behavior seems to indicate the opposite.
The sad aspect to the story of the suicide is that fault lies not in our technology, but in ourselves. And it's a whole lot harder to improve humans.
The internet is not the problem here so much as that technology has provided an avenue for some to lose sight of common decency. We have movies (American Pie) that glorify these types of behaviors, reality TV, where people are constantly filmed doing and saying things that no "real," decent person would want on television. But for 15 seconds of fame many will do anything. It's why when asked why reality TV participants are asked their reason for humiliating themselves. Most answer "To be famous. For them, being famous for "nothing" seems better than keeping dignity.
In some twisted way the roommate who secretly filmed the sex romp felt showing it world-wide on the net was acceptable, even amusing. Destroying a life became secondary to the acting out of the "reality" mode of behavior. They call it "cyberbullying" but by any name it is a vacuous moral state and I wonder if our increasingly savvy technology is making it easier to act as badly as the two who "outed Clementi. We have four ruined lives, one dead student, two who outed him and will forever live with the scares (and I hope, a long prison term) and the "other" man in the film that was shown on the net.
When society lowers its standards and gives personal freedom to the extent it has been given it spirals downward. For today the technology has been given without a code of etiquette and ethics to accompany it. We have huge cookie jars filled with goodies and no mommy to regulate how much we eat.
This always brings to question whether or not some believe technology excuses us from some of the long treasured social mores. Is it ok to behave differently (less respectful of others) when using a phone, behind a computer, or with camera in hand? And why would any decent person watch such a video that the two showed? Do we have less obligation to act morally if only spectator? Surely, the millions of idiots who adore the reality TV genre would have to think long and hard to answer "No".. for their behavior seems to indicate the opposite.
The sad aspect to the story of the suicide is that fault lies not in our technology, but in ourselves. And it's a whole lot harder to improve humans.
Open Or Closed
The most disingenuous word in government today may be "security", as in, "We are taking away your rights or freedom for security reasons.". Americans can curse George Bush for the security ruse that now is frequently brought into play when politicians want excuses for bad or dishonest policy ("Oh, but we did this to protect you from terrorists"). It was the Bush crowd that made secrecy a standard for all our government, political persuasion aside. Now, instead of an open democracy we have a closed one that is filled with scripted pronouncements, lies and illusions. No wonder politicians can lie more often and more easily.
The reason that I mention this is because I just read a story about how the public has lost much of its once unhindered access to the Capital and White House grounds. Now, the public is permitted to see the Capitol only from the extreme outside as Senators and Representatives there have arranged the time honored "capital tour" to be conducted far away from them. But then, members of Congress even avoid their constituents when they go back home to their districts. It's part of the elite mindset that politicians have. They want to be seen and spoken to by constituents as little as possible.
Security concerns, swelling crowds and the wish to keep the public away means the average person isn't allowed to see much of the Capitol for very long. For any single citizen, the chance of seeing a Senator walk by or to speak with him or her is almost an impossible one. Thirty minute tours of a small part of the Capital or Supreme Court building is not what an open democratic society should have. It's what is given today. But it wasn't always that way, and shouldn't be now. Security concerns should not trump reason and openness in a free society. Taxpayers have the right to see what they pay for the government structures and engage those who represent them inside of them.
I remember as a boy how I was given complete access to roam the White House, even going unescorted into the famed Lincoln bedroom and getting a glimpse of the President of the United States as he entered a limousine on the grounds of the White House. He stood just a few meters from the tourists that day. Years later when I was a teacher I took students to Washington DC for a week of the "Close-up" program, Congressmen roamed the hallways and grounds of the capital openly and apparently were unafraid of contact with the public. We rode in underground elevators with Congressmen. One could say "hello" and often engage in a conversation with them.
Being in touch with constituents is a primary part of the function of an elected official in a democracy. That politicians today only want scripted meetings with constituents or that they give staff members of their offices the duty to contact voters instead of doing it themselves is a sad sign of the times. The only safety concern government officials here have now is not for the voting public, but rather safety from an elected representative having to openly face those whom he or she is supposed to represent. From my view that is a far worse terrorism than all the phony terrorist scenarios we hear from politicians today.
The reason that I mention this is because I just read a story about how the public has lost much of its once unhindered access to the Capital and White House grounds. Now, the public is permitted to see the Capitol only from the extreme outside as Senators and Representatives there have arranged the time honored "capital tour" to be conducted far away from them. But then, members of Congress even avoid their constituents when they go back home to their districts. It's part of the elite mindset that politicians have. They want to be seen and spoken to by constituents as little as possible.
Security concerns, swelling crowds and the wish to keep the public away means the average person isn't allowed to see much of the Capitol for very long. For any single citizen, the chance of seeing a Senator walk by or to speak with him or her is almost an impossible one. Thirty minute tours of a small part of the Capital or Supreme Court building is not what an open democratic society should have. It's what is given today. But it wasn't always that way, and shouldn't be now. Security concerns should not trump reason and openness in a free society. Taxpayers have the right to see what they pay for the government structures and engage those who represent them inside of them.
I remember as a boy how I was given complete access to roam the White House, even going unescorted into the famed Lincoln bedroom and getting a glimpse of the President of the United States as he entered a limousine on the grounds of the White House. He stood just a few meters from the tourists that day. Years later when I was a teacher I took students to Washington DC for a week of the "Close-up" program, Congressmen roamed the hallways and grounds of the capital openly and apparently were unafraid of contact with the public. We rode in underground elevators with Congressmen. One could say "hello" and often engage in a conversation with them.
Being in touch with constituents is a primary part of the function of an elected official in a democracy. That politicians today only want scripted meetings with constituents or that they give staff members of their offices the duty to contact voters instead of doing it themselves is a sad sign of the times. The only safety concern government officials here have now is not for the voting public, but rather safety from an elected representative having to openly face those whom he or she is supposed to represent. From my view that is a far worse terrorism than all the phony terrorist scenarios we hear from politicians today.
Selling Foods That Prevent Disease
Nestle, one of the world's most successful packaged food companies and the maker of many of those chocolates I love to eat, has announced plans to marker new foods that act like medicine. Err....sort of like medicine...at least they claim. Nestle announced it would invest about $500 million in a new venture called 'Nestle Health Science' to develop foods and supplements designed to help prevent diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer's and cardiovascular disease. Is that possible?
I am already overloaded with sensory info from food sellers about their alleged "healthy foods" and am "sick" of it. Misleading health claims from food makers have already done damage to people in making them thinking their "healthy eating' can actually prevent discomfort (as in those pro biotic yogurts that stop constipation). Now Nestle proposes to start a new information (misinformation) program that will claim eating their food can prevent disease.
Disease claims and labeling language on packaged foods are already too complex and dishonest. I wonder how governments will regulate claims that a food can "Help prevent Alzheimer's" or "Keep your heart healthy". I doubt there can be regulations so specific to stop the same mania society presents today about foods. We already categorize foods as good and bad (often wrongly), demonizing some foods that are fine and ennobling others that are not what they are claimed to be.
I would much prefer to have the governments of the world ban any claim that a food is healthy or not healthy. Listing ingredients is enough information to allow consumers to choose what they want. Frankly, there are times I would prefer a Nestle Crunch chocolate bar to an apple or other "healthy" food choice, and I do not think eating that candy bar will harm me anyway, and I don't think it is "healthy" to make people feel guilty about a food choice.
The world today is lost in trendiness and political correctness. this includes food labeling. Humans today cant even eat bacon and eggs without feeling guilty that they are abusing their bodies. It is nonsense! We should take political correctness and trendiness out of our kitchens and stomachs. Eating should be a satiating concept, not a torture of guilt. I raise my donut in toast to the end of denomination of food.
I am already overloaded with sensory info from food sellers about their alleged "healthy foods" and am "sick" of it. Misleading health claims from food makers have already done damage to people in making them thinking their "healthy eating' can actually prevent discomfort (as in those pro biotic yogurts that stop constipation). Now Nestle proposes to start a new information (misinformation) program that will claim eating their food can prevent disease.
Disease claims and labeling language on packaged foods are already too complex and dishonest. I wonder how governments will regulate claims that a food can "Help prevent Alzheimer's" or "Keep your heart healthy". I doubt there can be regulations so specific to stop the same mania society presents today about foods. We already categorize foods as good and bad (often wrongly), demonizing some foods that are fine and ennobling others that are not what they are claimed to be.
I would much prefer to have the governments of the world ban any claim that a food is healthy or not healthy. Listing ingredients is enough information to allow consumers to choose what they want. Frankly, there are times I would prefer a Nestle Crunch chocolate bar to an apple or other "healthy" food choice, and I do not think eating that candy bar will harm me anyway, and I don't think it is "healthy" to make people feel guilty about a food choice.
The world today is lost in trendiness and political correctness. this includes food labeling. Humans today cant even eat bacon and eggs without feeling guilty that they are abusing their bodies. It is nonsense! We should take political correctness and trendiness out of our kitchens and stomachs. Eating should be a satiating concept, not a torture of guilt. I raise my donut in toast to the end of denomination of food.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)