The biggest social issue in the world today seems to be the
gay
marriage controversy. That is, should gay marriage be legalized and
placed on an equal footing with heterosexual marriages. Just the other
day over 300,000 French citizens rallied protest the legalization of
gay marriage. It is odd, given that France is a fairly liberal nation
in regard to social behavior. But then, some of the least likely
places and people one would assume to be in favor or against gay major
sometimes hold the opposite view. The issue is quite hard to categorize.
Since 2001 when the first nation to legalize gay marriage, The
Netherlands, made gay marriage legal there have been nine others to do
the same. Six of those are European. Legislation to make gay marriage
legal is also pending in eight nations, including Finland and
Australia, and civil unions or some form of gay partnerships are legal
in more than 20 countries. The U.S. has legalized gay marriage in
several states but not nationwide, as the constitution defines
marriage as a state law province, and each state determines its own
marriage rules. This may change with upcoming court case about states
and the federal government denying entitlement benefits to same sex
couples. If the court rules that no state or the federal government can
deny entitlements such as the social security death benefit to same sex
partners, gay marriage may be de facto instituted everywhere in the U.S.
The change in attitudes here about same sex couples being allowed tom
marry has been an amazing one the past few years. It has changed so
fast. Just five years ago the vast majority of people in the U.S. did
not favor legalization. Now the majority does. In this country there
are numerous social and legal reasons why gay people should be allowed
to marry. Here are a few of the legal ones.
* Health care- Legally married spouses are considered next of kin and
thus are allowed to make critical health care decisions and have
visitation rights. Also, unmarried partners are not eligible for
Medicare or Medicaid and must pay taxes on health care coverage if
they're lucky enough to be included on a family plan.
* Taxes- Unmarried couples are not permitted to file their tax returns
jointly, and therefore are ineligible to take advantages of the many
tax benefits of filing as a couple. They pay much higher tax rates as a
result. Also, the transfer of personal property between unmarried
couples causes bad tax consequences, which do not occur when the couple
is legally wed.
* Death- unmarried couples suffer on the death of one. The survivor is
not eligible to draw on various social security and retirement benefits
that married couples can.
* Immigration- Gay unmarried couples don't have the ability to claim
U.S. residency at the same rate as married couples.
* Insurance- Unmarried couples cannot purchase joint homeowner's or
auto insurance, automatically forcing them to pay higher rates that
married couples do not have to pay. In a great number of cases,
unmarried partners or their children are ineligible to be covered under
family health insurance plans.
* Property- The rules that protect married couples in dividing property
after a split do not apply to unmarried couples who own property
together.
* Family Leave- Unmarried partners are not entitled to the rights
extended by the Family Medical Leave Act. If a partner in a same sex
relationship had a serious health issue where he or she needed taking
care of, their spouse would not be permitted to take time off from work
to do so. In effect, either they'd have to hire someone to do it or
risk losing their job from taking too much time away from work.
* Inheritance- Partners in a legally unrecognized relationship do not
automatically inherit property from a deceased partner without a will.
They are also ineligible to receive the many inheritance rights
afforded legal spouses.
So these things alone explain why gay people see gay marriage as an
important civil rights issue. Unfortunately, for the sake of their
cause, many people see it as a religious or moral issue. The mater will
be settled by that divide between legal and moral views. In this
country and other democratic ones it will be a question of whether
religious or moral opposition will defeat the legal discrimination that
is currently in place. I think the legal advocates will win the day and
gay marriage will become a more accepted and common practice in many
places around the world. It should be interesting to watch the debate.
Friday, March 29, 2013
Malls
I rarely go to shopping malls, mostly because I like neither
shopping nor the crowds that flock to malls. But malls are a fascinating
phenomenon. The first shopping mall , an American invention, was the
Country Club Plaza in Kansas City Missouri. It opened in 1922. Nothing
good ever seems to happen in Missouri, and I include the shopping mall
as another of the no good contributions to that odd American state. In
1956 the Southdall mall opened in Minneapolis, Minnesota (where the
world's biggest mall, The Mall of America, is today). It was the first
enclosed mall. Then in the 1980's the mega malls that are everywhere in
the world now first appeared.
And so it began and now endures. There are malls everywhere today, regardless of the income level of the place in which the mall is found. Most have the same stores, type of stores and much the same merchandise. They are all decidedly western institutions. Go to a mall in China and then one in New Jersey. I bet you could not tell which is in China and which in the United States. If there ever was a prototype retail site it is the mall. They all have movie theaters, food courts, and endless supplies of teenagers walking about mischievously leering at others and carrying ice cream cones or those awful pretzels that the malls sell.
We still have single fixed site stores available as an alternative to malls that I use, but the current generation disdains them. I wonder if malls are like cancer cells in that they keep growing in size and numbers. They encourage some rather strange behavior by the shoppers who patronize them and are even thought of a social meeting places for the young. One thing I notice when at malls is that women seem to dress better than normal when shopping there. But the men are the same fat slobs who wear thong shoes and have beer bellies bulging out of their t shirts. Why do the ladies look so much nicer? I think if you entered a church and observed ho the parishioners are dressed you would find that the ladies who shop at the mall are better dressed than the ones kneeling in the church pews. I wonder why women get dressed up to shop for dressy clothes? There must be some deep psychological explanation for that.
Another thing I notice at the mall is that many of the males shopping there are uncomfortable with the whole mall concept. They would rather be outside. Some are along for the trip because their lady demands their presence, and a few misguided males are there to actually buy clothes. But most want to get in and out as fast as possible. Men do not like "browsing", nor do they want to own 50 pairs of shoes. I find that the teenage boys more often parked in the food court, since we all know teenage boys eat like whales. The older men who are with their wives can often be seen sitting on those dirty but welcoming mall sofa and chairs alone and waiting for the wife or gf to emerge from a store. There is a look on the faces of those men that scream to be rescued and taken home, but there is also a resignation that their lady has only begun to browse/buy for the junk she doesn't need and will probably eventually return for exchange after buying.
There is also allot of opinion pooling at the malls. Though those women who stop mall shoppers to ask opinions are the least bothersome of them. Just say "no thanks" and walk away. But the opinion tester most men hate is that of the ladies that dragged them to the mall in the first place. "Does this dress make me look fat"? Do you like the style of this dress"? "It's on sale...maybe I should buy it"? The smart man will abstain from comment on any of those kinds of questions and just hand over his credit card to his lady. There is no winning for a male in a shopping mall.
Why are there so many "sales" at malls? Some of those sale signs look dusty and dated. I suspect the stores have sales on some of there items every day of the year. The presence of sale signs, even when the shoppers themselves know they are a ruse to induce more buying, is a feature that is designed to help the buyer relieve any guilt he or she may have for purchasing things not needed.
I suppose that an iconic institution like the shopping mall is better left alone than to be analyzed, like the other great mysteries of the universe. But I am perplexed about the popularity of malls. However, if any mall finds out about my antisocial views of their existence maybe they will ban me from shopping at their stores. And that would be a good thing!
And so it began and now endures. There are malls everywhere today, regardless of the income level of the place in which the mall is found. Most have the same stores, type of stores and much the same merchandise. They are all decidedly western institutions. Go to a mall in China and then one in New Jersey. I bet you could not tell which is in China and which in the United States. If there ever was a prototype retail site it is the mall. They all have movie theaters, food courts, and endless supplies of teenagers walking about mischievously leering at others and carrying ice cream cones or those awful pretzels that the malls sell.
We still have single fixed site stores available as an alternative to malls that I use, but the current generation disdains them. I wonder if malls are like cancer cells in that they keep growing in size and numbers. They encourage some rather strange behavior by the shoppers who patronize them and are even thought of a social meeting places for the young. One thing I notice when at malls is that women seem to dress better than normal when shopping there. But the men are the same fat slobs who wear thong shoes and have beer bellies bulging out of their t shirts. Why do the ladies look so much nicer? I think if you entered a church and observed ho the parishioners are dressed you would find that the ladies who shop at the mall are better dressed than the ones kneeling in the church pews. I wonder why women get dressed up to shop for dressy clothes? There must be some deep psychological explanation for that.
Another thing I notice at the mall is that many of the males shopping there are uncomfortable with the whole mall concept. They would rather be outside. Some are along for the trip because their lady demands their presence, and a few misguided males are there to actually buy clothes. But most want to get in and out as fast as possible. Men do not like "browsing", nor do they want to own 50 pairs of shoes. I find that the teenage boys more often parked in the food court, since we all know teenage boys eat like whales. The older men who are with their wives can often be seen sitting on those dirty but welcoming mall sofa and chairs alone and waiting for the wife or gf to emerge from a store. There is a look on the faces of those men that scream to be rescued and taken home, but there is also a resignation that their lady has only begun to browse/buy for the junk she doesn't need and will probably eventually return for exchange after buying.
There is also allot of opinion pooling at the malls. Though those women who stop mall shoppers to ask opinions are the least bothersome of them. Just say "no thanks" and walk away. But the opinion tester most men hate is that of the ladies that dragged them to the mall in the first place. "Does this dress make me look fat"? Do you like the style of this dress"? "It's on sale...maybe I should buy it"? The smart man will abstain from comment on any of those kinds of questions and just hand over his credit card to his lady. There is no winning for a male in a shopping mall.
Why are there so many "sales" at malls? Some of those sale signs look dusty and dated. I suspect the stores have sales on some of there items every day of the year. The presence of sale signs, even when the shoppers themselves know they are a ruse to induce more buying, is a feature that is designed to help the buyer relieve any guilt he or she may have for purchasing things not needed.
I suppose that an iconic institution like the shopping mall is better left alone than to be analyzed, like the other great mysteries of the universe. But I am perplexed about the popularity of malls. However, if any mall finds out about my antisocial views of their existence maybe they will ban me from shopping at their stores. And that would be a good thing!
Happiness Day
I think you just missed the world's first International Day
of Happiness. That passed me by too but the United Nations did legislate
March 20 as a day we are supposed to be deliriously happy. London
commuters were greeted with happiness street signs at Liverpool Street
station, but we had none of that here. Maybe London is a happier place
or perhaps the only place to ever pay attention to the dysfunctional
United Nation's decrees.
When the United Nations is supposed to be solving world problems they are often creating those kinds of days. It's hard to believe but he U.N. already has 120 days earmarked to observe everything from jazz to rural women. Alas! Forget wars, famine, disease and other world maladies, the United Nations says that "happiness" is a serious 21st-century global issue," I think that this kind of mentality, that happiness is an "issue", is a modern creation. In other times humans believed that happiness or unhappiness were personal perspectives that governments should leave alone.
I wonder what the United Nations could really do to bring happiness to the world. Forget their trying to solve real problems. They never do that. Specifically, the United Nations does not wave a Disney magic wand and declare us happy, instead it appeals to our sense of responsibility and encourages us to work through our current difficulties and not assign undue blame to others. That is, our happiness largely depends on us, our lifestyles, here and now. Isn't that what mom always told us?
If you are going to create a happy day I think you should make us happy, not nag and preach like mom does. I am not sure how we are to "improve our lifestyles". Do we not all have different interpretations of what lifestyles are best, and even about what makes us happy. Hmmmm In my case I thought I was already pretty happy and didn't need a day to be that.. Most of my daily experiences make me happier. But here are a few things that I experience that do not make me happy: cell phone chatter, self absorbed people, reality TV, any modern culture aspect that is trendy, fat guys sitting next to me on my plane rides, stale donuts, running out of toilet paper, getting the smallest piece of cake, looking at my badly shaped nude body after a shower, asparagus. I guess that's a start. The United Nations should work on removing those if they want me to be truly happy.
When the United Nations is supposed to be solving world problems they are often creating those kinds of days. It's hard to believe but he U.N. already has 120 days earmarked to observe everything from jazz to rural women. Alas! Forget wars, famine, disease and other world maladies, the United Nations says that "happiness" is a serious 21st-century global issue," I think that this kind of mentality, that happiness is an "issue", is a modern creation. In other times humans believed that happiness or unhappiness were personal perspectives that governments should leave alone.
I wonder what the United Nations could really do to bring happiness to the world. Forget their trying to solve real problems. They never do that. Specifically, the United Nations does not wave a Disney magic wand and declare us happy, instead it appeals to our sense of responsibility and encourages us to work through our current difficulties and not assign undue blame to others. That is, our happiness largely depends on us, our lifestyles, here and now. Isn't that what mom always told us?
If you are going to create a happy day I think you should make us happy, not nag and preach like mom does. I am not sure how we are to "improve our lifestyles". Do we not all have different interpretations of what lifestyles are best, and even about what makes us happy. Hmmmm In my case I thought I was already pretty happy and didn't need a day to be that.. Most of my daily experiences make me happier. But here are a few things that I experience that do not make me happy: cell phone chatter, self absorbed people, reality TV, any modern culture aspect that is trendy, fat guys sitting next to me on my plane rides, stale donuts, running out of toilet paper, getting the smallest piece of cake, looking at my badly shaped nude body after a shower, asparagus. I guess that's a start. The United Nations should work on removing those if they want me to be truly happy.
Worst Holidays To Celebrate
Now that St. Patrick's Day is over there I think that isn't
any worthy holidays for me for the next seven months. That would be when
Halloween arrives. But until then I will wonder where the holidays are
and why all the good ones seem to fall between the end of October and
Mid March. It just reminds me that all holidays are not treated equally.
For example, who has fun at Ramadan? If you can name that person I
don't want to meet him/her. They probably would call me an infidel.
Holidays should be above solemnity of that sort and should include a
great deal of silliness.
I was thinking about the holidays that I find too dull to celebrate and have a list for you. It's, well, enough to celebrate. Here are my five worst holidays of the year.
* New Year's Eve- This one is beyond understanding. It's a holiday about nothing (an artificial "changing of the calendar" to an new year) in which people get drunk, kill others while driving in that condition and in which a fat guy dresses in a diaper with a banner announcing the new year. Never do so many people try so hard to have fun. Holidays should never be about trying to have fun. Rather, they should be intrinsically fun.
* Valentine's Day- As a card carrying male I have to hate this one. Women get gifts, flowers, candy, a free meal in a nice restaurant, falsely sincere admonitions of why they are loved....and they believe that the largess is from the heart ( but it's really from social pressure, ladies). What do we men get on Valentine's Day? First there is a lighter pocket book after paying for all that stuff. And then it is a lotttttttttttttttt of pressure to actually be sincere about our love for our lady rather than just being the male pig we are and faking it.
*Good Friday- This is the Catholic celebration of a famous murder,. It commemorates the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Isn't that bit weird? First, why is it "good friday" if Christ was murdered that day? He sure had a bad day. And what are we supposed to do to celebrate on Good Friday? Or perhaps, it is a holiday to honor mass murderers. I think it unnecessary to have a day for that event. Hannibal Lecture already gets way too much attention from Hollywood.
* Black Friday- This one was created by retailers and is celebrated the day after Thanksgiving. We are supposed to spend our money buying gifts to give at Christmas that are "on sale". From my view, shopping is not a celebration. And the fact is that those sales are not really sales of note. You can buy the same junk even cheaper just a few days before Christmas. Don't those shoppers know they are being tricked into buying. That the U.S. has a holiday for spending money recklessly seems to sum up why we are a materialistic people.
* Groundhog Day- Groundhog Day is celebrated in the U.S. each year on February 2nd. On this day in mid-winter, the groundhog awakens from a long winter's nap, and goes outside of his den to see if he sees his shadow. If he does see the shadow that is supposed to mean there will be a full 6 weeks more of winter. Hmmm How do they get all the groundhogs to agree on the shadow thing? This tradition is big on an otherwise cold and dreary mid-winter's day when there isn't much to do anyway. But why are elevating groundhogs? There is even an official Santa groundhog of sort named Punxsutawney Phil who has even more power than does a Kardashian girl!
Feel free to debunk my reasoning on any or all of the five. You can prove me wrong or just celebrate each a little more to spite me. And may all our future holidays be better than those five
I was thinking about the holidays that I find too dull to celebrate and have a list for you. It's, well, enough to celebrate. Here are my five worst holidays of the year.
* New Year's Eve- This one is beyond understanding. It's a holiday about nothing (an artificial "changing of the calendar" to an new year) in which people get drunk, kill others while driving in that condition and in which a fat guy dresses in a diaper with a banner announcing the new year. Never do so many people try so hard to have fun. Holidays should never be about trying to have fun. Rather, they should be intrinsically fun.
* Valentine's Day- As a card carrying male I have to hate this one. Women get gifts, flowers, candy, a free meal in a nice restaurant, falsely sincere admonitions of why they are loved....and they believe that the largess is from the heart ( but it's really from social pressure, ladies). What do we men get on Valentine's Day? First there is a lighter pocket book after paying for all that stuff. And then it is a lotttttttttttttttt of pressure to actually be sincere about our love for our lady rather than just being the male pig we are and faking it.
*Good Friday- This is the Catholic celebration of a famous murder,. It commemorates the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Isn't that bit weird? First, why is it "good friday" if Christ was murdered that day? He sure had a bad day. And what are we supposed to do to celebrate on Good Friday? Or perhaps, it is a holiday to honor mass murderers. I think it unnecessary to have a day for that event. Hannibal Lecture already gets way too much attention from Hollywood.
* Black Friday- This one was created by retailers and is celebrated the day after Thanksgiving. We are supposed to spend our money buying gifts to give at Christmas that are "on sale". From my view, shopping is not a celebration. And the fact is that those sales are not really sales of note. You can buy the same junk even cheaper just a few days before Christmas. Don't those shoppers know they are being tricked into buying. That the U.S. has a holiday for spending money recklessly seems to sum up why we are a materialistic people.
* Groundhog Day- Groundhog Day is celebrated in the U.S. each year on February 2nd. On this day in mid-winter, the groundhog awakens from a long winter's nap, and goes outside of his den to see if he sees his shadow. If he does see the shadow that is supposed to mean there will be a full 6 weeks more of winter. Hmmm How do they get all the groundhogs to agree on the shadow thing? This tradition is big on an otherwise cold and dreary mid-winter's day when there isn't much to do anyway. But why are elevating groundhogs? There is even an official Santa groundhog of sort named Punxsutawney Phil who has even more power than does a Kardashian girl!
Feel free to debunk my reasoning on any or all of the five. You can prove me wrong or just celebrate each a little more to spite me. And may all our future holidays be better than those five
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Old School
I wish more young people would see the value of being "Old
School". Uh,
old school refers to the in which people used to relate to each other
with manners rather than with expediency (as in tweets and messaging
instead of face to face communication). I know that I am old school
because it is the university I grew up attending, and that today's
manner less culture is a whole different kind of institution. But I
believe that etiquette which shows respect for others is a kinder,
gentler, nicer, better way in which to live life. So I have tried to
emphasize to my daughter that old school has its advantages, and I
think she understands and is old school too.
Writing formal thank you notes, walking from an auto to the front door and knocking instead of honking the auto horn, not using a phone in public, holding open a door for anyone who needs assistance because he or she is carrying a bag of groceries, smiling and saying hello when crossing the path of strangers, and deferring to the driver at an opposite street intersection when both cars are stopped area few od the old school behaviors I see with less and less frequency among both old school and new school people. It's a shame.
I understand that old school coincides with being old fashioned, but I like it because I have lived in both the old and new eras and see that the former was a far more enjoyable one in which to be when relating to and with others. I do understand that modern technologies tends to make it easier to not be old school, and that cultures do evolve (or devolve, as in this case) over time. But perhaps being old school might spark a desire in others to give it a try. Parents can teach old school behavior, but only by modeling it with their own actions, and that is something modern humans seem less likely to do.
I wonder if others feel as I do. Do you think society that we create in our dealings with others is kinder today? Am I just old fashioned and out of touch? What do you think?
Writing formal thank you notes, walking from an auto to the front door and knocking instead of honking the auto horn, not using a phone in public, holding open a door for anyone who needs assistance because he or she is carrying a bag of groceries, smiling and saying hello when crossing the path of strangers, and deferring to the driver at an opposite street intersection when both cars are stopped area few od the old school behaviors I see with less and less frequency among both old school and new school people. It's a shame.
I understand that old school coincides with being old fashioned, but I like it because I have lived in both the old and new eras and see that the former was a far more enjoyable one in which to be when relating to and with others. I do understand that modern technologies tends to make it easier to not be old school, and that cultures do evolve (or devolve, as in this case) over time. But perhaps being old school might spark a desire in others to give it a try. Parents can teach old school behavior, but only by modeling it with their own actions, and that is something modern humans seem less likely to do.
I wonder if others feel as I do. Do you think society that we create in our dealings with others is kinder today? Am I just old fashioned and out of touch? What do you think?
Napping Day
You probably missed it, so I'll make you feel stupid
because you are
too tired and weary to know what important days the world celebrates.
It's 'Napping Day'. The day after Daylight Savings time goes into
effect is the International Napping Day celebration where you are
allowed to fall asleep at your computer terminal or snore in front of
the TV set without anyone calling you a lazy bum. This Napping Day
thing started in 1999 and has not yet to become old and tired. Thanks
for what brought it about should be given to the worst idea of the
century, Daylight Savings Time. That's the day in which we all turn our
clocks back to make more daylight for our waking hours. Napping Day is
supposed to help you adjust to Daylight Savings Time. But I think a
better way to adjust to Daylight Savings Time is to do away with DST
altogether.
I dislike Daylight Savings Time and think we can find enough good in darkness to not have to change darkness into light. I know Dracula would agree with that sentiment. But advocating for more naps is a wholly good idea apart from any Napping Day, particularly for one like me who is sleep deprived. I nap every day. Even 30 minutes does the body well. I know you are thinking, "You mean he would be even worse without his nap!" Well, research says that naps boost alertness, increase creativity (ok I admit, after reading this you can tell I need a long nap), boosts productivity, improves learning and memory and makes the spirit more positive.
A survey by the National Sleep Foundation found that 63 percent of Americans do not get enough sleep. One in five respondents admitted being so sleepy during the day that it interfered with their activities at least a few days a week. I used to tell my teachers that very fact when they so rudely awakened me in class by throwing those chalk erasers at me. I admit that may have crossed the line by snoring when the English teacher conjugated verbs, so I hold no grudges against them. But despite my chalky appearance after she connected on her target I am certain I gained more from the nap than from her lectures on dangling participles.
Some pretty prominent types support my view that we should nap, not just on Napping Day but every other day too. Ovid once wrote that, "There is more refreshment and stimulation in a nap, even of a briefest, than in all the alcohol every distilled". Hmmm I fear the drunks won't agree... Even my mom had a wisecrack she told me when I waxed about what I wanted to do in life. She used to say, "You want to follow your dreams. Just shut up and take a nap."
We adults make toddlers take naps every day (sometimes so we can relax enough to take our own nap). Just think how happy workers would be if the boss set up cots for naps every day. Since most employees in most offices sleep at their computer terminals anyway, it would be better to give them a cot on which to do it. Are you feeling sleepy? Even if my boring tirade about napping hasn't induced a coma in you, go for it and take a a nap to celebrate Napping Day.
I dislike Daylight Savings Time and think we can find enough good in darkness to not have to change darkness into light. I know Dracula would agree with that sentiment. But advocating for more naps is a wholly good idea apart from any Napping Day, particularly for one like me who is sleep deprived. I nap every day. Even 30 minutes does the body well. I know you are thinking, "You mean he would be even worse without his nap!" Well, research says that naps boost alertness, increase creativity (ok I admit, after reading this you can tell I need a long nap), boosts productivity, improves learning and memory and makes the spirit more positive.
A survey by the National Sleep Foundation found that 63 percent of Americans do not get enough sleep. One in five respondents admitted being so sleepy during the day that it interfered with their activities at least a few days a week. I used to tell my teachers that very fact when they so rudely awakened me in class by throwing those chalk erasers at me. I admit that may have crossed the line by snoring when the English teacher conjugated verbs, so I hold no grudges against them. But despite my chalky appearance after she connected on her target I am certain I gained more from the nap than from her lectures on dangling participles.
Some pretty prominent types support my view that we should nap, not just on Napping Day but every other day too. Ovid once wrote that, "There is more refreshment and stimulation in a nap, even of a briefest, than in all the alcohol every distilled". Hmmm I fear the drunks won't agree... Even my mom had a wisecrack she told me when I waxed about what I wanted to do in life. She used to say, "You want to follow your dreams. Just shut up and take a nap."
We adults make toddlers take naps every day (sometimes so we can relax enough to take our own nap). Just think how happy workers would be if the boss set up cots for naps every day. Since most employees in most offices sleep at their computer terminals anyway, it would be better to give them a cot on which to do it. Are you feeling sleepy? Even if my boring tirade about napping hasn't induced a coma in you, go for it and take a a nap to celebrate Napping Day.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Papal Election Oddities
Watching the drama of the announcement of the
new pope after the "white
smoke" release from the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican that says a new
pope has been chosen was interesting to one like me who loves
tradition. I can think of nothing more traditional than the behavior of
the Catholic Church, which keeps its rituals as true to the past as is
possible, partly because some of those traditions seem weird today..
The crowds who had gathered in the Vatican Square to await the
announcement of and appearance of the new pope were cheering and in a
frenzy as like that at a sporting event, waving flags and chanting in a
display far more alive than any actual church service that will follow
during the reign of this new pope will be. It seems it takes tradition
to liven the faithful in matters of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is secretive and can appear odd at times. Take the papal section process itself as an example. Sedia Stecorana, the pierced chair has been used since medieval time because any candidate chosen by the cardinals to be the new pope had to sit in that chair with he open bottom space while one of the cardinals reached through the hole and fondled his testicles to prove he was a male. Uh, the examining cardinal who fondled the new pope supposedly called out to the other cardinals, "He has two balls, and they are well hung." Hmmmm Then they molested the pope, and now they just molest the altar boys. Let's hope the new pope wasn't subjected to that quaint squeeze test tradition.
But since Pope John VIII (later ridiculed as "Pope Joan") was elected in 855 and later discovered by the woman hating Catholics to be a woman (after being chosen and reigning for two years she gave birth to a child and was beaten, dragged into the streets and stoned to death on finding out about her deception) it might not be a bad idea to still do an eye ball test when electing a new pope. Who knows? Maybe in the super secretive church it still is the procedure. With all the sex scandals among the clergy I am sure there would be plenty of volunteers to squeeze.
The former Pope, Benedict, is grateful he is still alive and not being replaced as pope because of death. That's because of another weird tradition of the Catholic Church used in selecting a new pope. It seems that by traditional ritual the old pope had to be certified dead before the new one had his balls checked. To do it they used a tried and true method- they hit the supposed dead pope on the head with the "silver hammer" three times to see if there is a response. I suspect they got plenty of response when checking the new pope's balls. The Romans still say about the silver hammer, "There is nothing so dead as a dead pope".
May the new pope enjoy the ball test and avoid the silver hammer for many years to come....
The Catholic Church is secretive and can appear odd at times. Take the papal section process itself as an example. Sedia Stecorana, the pierced chair has been used since medieval time because any candidate chosen by the cardinals to be the new pope had to sit in that chair with he open bottom space while one of the cardinals reached through the hole and fondled his testicles to prove he was a male. Uh, the examining cardinal who fondled the new pope supposedly called out to the other cardinals, "He has two balls, and they are well hung." Hmmmm Then they molested the pope, and now they just molest the altar boys. Let's hope the new pope wasn't subjected to that quaint squeeze test tradition.
But since Pope John VIII (later ridiculed as "Pope Joan") was elected in 855 and later discovered by the woman hating Catholics to be a woman (after being chosen and reigning for two years she gave birth to a child and was beaten, dragged into the streets and stoned to death on finding out about her deception) it might not be a bad idea to still do an eye ball test when electing a new pope. Who knows? Maybe in the super secretive church it still is the procedure. With all the sex scandals among the clergy I am sure there would be plenty of volunteers to squeeze.
The former Pope, Benedict, is grateful he is still alive and not being replaced as pope because of death. That's because of another weird tradition of the Catholic Church used in selecting a new pope. It seems that by traditional ritual the old pope had to be certified dead before the new one had his balls checked. To do it they used a tried and true method- they hit the supposed dead pope on the head with the "silver hammer" three times to see if there is a response. I suspect they got plenty of response when checking the new pope's balls. The Romans still say about the silver hammer, "There is nothing so dead as a dead pope".
May the new pope enjoy the ball test and avoid the silver hammer for many years to come....
St Patrick's Day Is Not Just For The Irish
Since
Portland is not a city with a big Irish influence there isn't much
happening
here for those who want to celebrate in an "Irish way". Potlanders
aren't much for public displays of any type. There are a more solitary
lot. But in my former New Orleans there is a huge Irish presence with
plenty of
parades, green beer, and green people and things decorated for the
day. So St. Patty Day is not alien to me. Growing up my family (my
maternal grandma was Irish) always ate
lamb (an Irish favorite) so I'll make myself Irish stew (lamb stew) one
day this weekend. Hmmmm I wonder if the Irish would be upset if they
found out I was part Irish.
St. Patrick's Day seems to be one of those "accidental holidays" in that it was not a public project but rather slowly and gradually became a public way of announcing one's Irish heritage. Supposedly, the first sign of it in the form of a public display was in London , England. That's something an Irishman would not like to talk about, given they don't see eye to eye with the English.
Did you know that St. Patrick's Day is a public holiday in only three places outside of Ireland..... in Montserrat, in Labrador and in Newfoundland? Too, Boston is where the first St. Patty Day parade was held, and the biggest St. Patrick's Day parade is not in Ireland, but in New York City where 150,000 people are in the parade that is watched by about 3 million people who line the streets.
Even the symbols of modern St. Patrick Day celebrations are not totally of Irish reference or heritage. Take St. Patrick himself, the guy who planted the seeds of Catholicism in Ireland The person on which that modern character is based was Scottish. At the age of 16, he was kidnapped and sold into Irish slavery. Later on in time he became a priest and took on the name Patricius, better known as Patrick. In any case, the Scottish want some recognition for St. Patrick too.
One thing that is especially nice about St. Patrick's Day is that it is a welcoming celebration. The Irish are friendly and welcoming types. They don't really care if you have Irish ancestry. So put on something green this Sunday and punch someone who is not in green. Happy St. Patrick's Day
As the Irish say...
'May your pockets be heavy
Your heart be light,
And may good luck pursue you,
Morning, noon and night.'
St. Patrick's Day seems to be one of those "accidental holidays" in that it was not a public project but rather slowly and gradually became a public way of announcing one's Irish heritage. Supposedly, the first sign of it in the form of a public display was in London , England. That's something an Irishman would not like to talk about, given they don't see eye to eye with the English.
Did you know that St. Patrick's Day is a public holiday in only three places outside of Ireland..... in Montserrat, in Labrador and in Newfoundland? Too, Boston is where the first St. Patty Day parade was held, and the biggest St. Patrick's Day parade is not in Ireland, but in New York City where 150,000 people are in the parade that is watched by about 3 million people who line the streets.
Even the symbols of modern St. Patrick Day celebrations are not totally of Irish reference or heritage. Take St. Patrick himself, the guy who planted the seeds of Catholicism in Ireland The person on which that modern character is based was Scottish. At the age of 16, he was kidnapped and sold into Irish slavery. Later on in time he became a priest and took on the name Patricius, better known as Patrick. In any case, the Scottish want some recognition for St. Patrick too.
One thing that is especially nice about St. Patrick's Day is that it is a welcoming celebration. The Irish are friendly and welcoming types. They don't really care if you have Irish ancestry. So put on something green this Sunday and punch someone who is not in green. Happy St. Patrick's Day
As the Irish say...
'May your pockets be heavy
Your heart be light,
And may good luck pursue you,
Morning, noon and night.'
I Wish They Would Stop Blaming
You know what I am tired of hearing about.
It's that "climate change"
thing, what they used to call 'global warming'. It seems every climate
variation anywhere in the world is blamed on the theory that humans are
controlling climate and making it hotter. I don't believe man is making
the world warmer by doing manly things and wish that every natural
disaster or weather event would not be claimed to be the fault of my
driving my car or using my air conditioning.
The latest stupidity claimed by global warmers is that eye disorders are caused by the increased levels of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the surface of the earth because of ozone depletion. They also claim that increased temperatures have created more eye problems. Fact is, they are blind and should open their eyes more and express fewer opinions as being fact. Here are some other things that climate change/global warmed idiots say are the result of mankind's abuse of earth: shrinking sheep, longer days, shorter days, more shark attacks. the Arab Spring, diabetes, more strokes and heart attacks, high blood pressure, respiratory disease, beer not tasting the same as before, the suicide of farmers in Australia, infertile cows, the collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden, UFO's in England, bigger tuna fish, wetter snowstorms, bad sex, severe acne, dying polar bears, more tornadoes, depression, increased threat of war, more allergies, that big earthquake and tsunami in Japan, armed robbery, prostitution, drug abuse in Ghana, insanity....
Ok, that's just some of climate change. I will stop at "insanity" because I do agree with the climate change nuts that they are insane. In my view the real results of the irrational climate change hysteria is the deadening of the brains of those who believe such nonsense instead of using their own reasoning process, the waste of money on silly green technology, the frightening of children with crazy "it's global warming and we are all going to die" refrains.
Climate does change naturally. It is not a stable phenomenon. Fact is that not only does Earth have natural climate chance but all of our planets as well. Last time I check nobody was driving cars in Venus. We should all act responsibly as to our environment, but exaggerating and lying about the effects humans have on climate is counterproductive to doing that. Humans need truth not scare tactics to motivate them to live in harmony with nature. Anything else than that is just crying wolf.
The latest stupidity claimed by global warmers is that eye disorders are caused by the increased levels of ultraviolet radiation that reaches the surface of the earth because of ozone depletion. They also claim that increased temperatures have created more eye problems. Fact is, they are blind and should open their eyes more and express fewer opinions as being fact. Here are some other things that climate change/global warmed idiots say are the result of mankind's abuse of earth: shrinking sheep, longer days, shorter days, more shark attacks. the Arab Spring, diabetes, more strokes and heart attacks, high blood pressure, respiratory disease, beer not tasting the same as before, the suicide of farmers in Australia, infertile cows, the collapse of gingerbread houses in Sweden, UFO's in England, bigger tuna fish, wetter snowstorms, bad sex, severe acne, dying polar bears, more tornadoes, depression, increased threat of war, more allergies, that big earthquake and tsunami in Japan, armed robbery, prostitution, drug abuse in Ghana, insanity....
Ok, that's just some of climate change. I will stop at "insanity" because I do agree with the climate change nuts that they are insane. In my view the real results of the irrational climate change hysteria is the deadening of the brains of those who believe such nonsense instead of using their own reasoning process, the waste of money on silly green technology, the frightening of children with crazy "it's global warming and we are all going to die" refrains.
Climate does change naturally. It is not a stable phenomenon. Fact is that not only does Earth have natural climate chance but all of our planets as well. Last time I check nobody was driving cars in Venus. We should all act responsibly as to our environment, but exaggerating and lying about the effects humans have on climate is counterproductive to doing that. Humans need truth not scare tactics to motivate them to live in harmony with nature. Anything else than that is just crying wolf.
Wiping Religiously
To escape real world problems today I thought I would
mention the
Finnish toilet paper maker who got in big trouble in Norway for putting
quotes from the Bible, including the words of Jesus, on its rolls. The
Norwegian churches were not amused that even though Mesta Tissue was trying to convey messages about
love, it accidentally included lines from the Gospel of Matthew and
First Corinthians on toilet paper sold in Norway, Denmark and Sweden.
Who would wipe with that! Well, Mesta apologized, promised not to print
them anymore and recalled all the religious tissue.
Mesta Tissue, whose toilet rolls in the Nordics regularly feature witty quotes, poetry or philosophical messages said that pooping is not a sacred task, that the accidental printing was it was just a "mess" that happened, and that it would "wipe" all future rolls clean of any religious thought. Hmmmm I once had an uncle who was constipated so much he probably would have liked the idea of divine inspiration toilet tissue to help him do his business while on the pot. I would search the Bible to see if Jesus weighed in on the subject of religious toilet paper, but in Biblical times they had no toilet paper and instead wiped with whatever was handy.
Hmmm If Mesta had printed the Koran 's words from Allah on that toilet paper I wonder how many people would have been killed in riots by now? Those Muslims are offended when one says hello. I doubt they would like to see infidels wiping with Allah in public rest rooms. Hey! Maybe we should add an 11th commandment, since scripture does not directly address the "to wipe religiously or not to wipe religiously" question. Something like....Thou shalt not wipe your butt with bible scripture. I think both the Muslims and Christians could agree on that. To think it takes ass wiping to unite the religions must be a miracle.
But wait! Remember that quote they used to teach us in elementary school. It was, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness". That line seems to contradict the prohibition about religious wiping. Now I am thoroughly confused as to whether it is nobler in the minds of man to wipe religiously. Maybe Mesta Tissue should put famous religious faces on it's rolls instead, humans like past popes or the founders of religious sects. That could be a grand compromise which only offends humans, not the Gods.
I think I have "gotten to the bottom" of this issue, because I now feel a sudden urge to sit and ruminate on the pot about it and then afterward to "wipe away" everything but my sins...
Mesta Tissue, whose toilet rolls in the Nordics regularly feature witty quotes, poetry or philosophical messages said that pooping is not a sacred task, that the accidental printing was it was just a "mess" that happened, and that it would "wipe" all future rolls clean of any religious thought. Hmmmm I once had an uncle who was constipated so much he probably would have liked the idea of divine inspiration toilet tissue to help him do his business while on the pot. I would search the Bible to see if Jesus weighed in on the subject of religious toilet paper, but in Biblical times they had no toilet paper and instead wiped with whatever was handy.
Hmmm If Mesta had printed the Koran 's words from Allah on that toilet paper I wonder how many people would have been killed in riots by now? Those Muslims are offended when one says hello. I doubt they would like to see infidels wiping with Allah in public rest rooms. Hey! Maybe we should add an 11th commandment, since scripture does not directly address the "to wipe religiously or not to wipe religiously" question. Something like....Thou shalt not wipe your butt with bible scripture. I think both the Muslims and Christians could agree on that. To think it takes ass wiping to unite the religions must be a miracle.
But wait! Remember that quote they used to teach us in elementary school. It was, "Cleanliness is next to Godliness". That line seems to contradict the prohibition about religious wiping. Now I am thoroughly confused as to whether it is nobler in the minds of man to wipe religiously. Maybe Mesta Tissue should put famous religious faces on it's rolls instead, humans like past popes or the founders of religious sects. That could be a grand compromise which only offends humans, not the Gods.
I think I have "gotten to the bottom" of this issue, because I now feel a sudden urge to sit and ruminate on the pot about it and then afterward to "wipe away" everything but my sins...
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Small Piece Of Advice For The Catholic Church
The Catholic Church is about to pick a new pope, and with that in mind
a fallen Catholic (that's me) has a suggestion for the Cardinals about
the papacy and about a new direction the Church might take. Given that
I am a virtual heathen in the eyes of every church on earth and that
every believer out there, I feel qualified to offer this impartial
opinion. Often out of the mouth of idiots there is a trace of reason,
even when the idiot is me.
About the new pope....well, I hope that he (Oh, and maybe after the new pope is finished "poping" the succeeding pope can be a woman, as that would be a significant signal that the Catholic faith sees women as the equal of men, even though you and I both know women are really the superior sex) is a more liberal pope as to recognizing how humans have changed since the now antediluvian practices the church now holds were created. Moving from the middle ages mentality it still clings to and replacing that with a 21st century one can't hurt the Church. We need what is sometimes referred to as a "modern pope" and "modern direction in the Church". For a start, that would mean the Cardinals would hold a 'Church Council on Sexual Equality' to make women equal in the church, to give the church's blessing to gay life styles, and one that would make it acceptable for all priests and nuns and other clerics to marry (either same sex or opposite sex partners) and procreate.
This would bring more men and women into the clergy, and that would relieve the church of some of the sex scandals committed by its currently frustrated group of clergy. Also some of the Catholics who left the Church because of its irrelevance might decide return to it. Hmmm Maybe the new pope would even strut in those red shoes that popes wear (isn't their entire costume a bit foppish!) and announce that he himself is gay. I suspect that quite a few of the past popes have been closet gays anyway, so why not go for it. Most Catholics are also aware of this and probably would not leave the Church because it is led by a guy who walks funny and says mass with a lisp...
There also has to be a no tolerance policy for sexual abuse by members of the clergy. It would be a practical goal for the Church to achieve, given that clergy members could now have a sex life and not have to take on a predator mode of behavior. I know that there would be a precipitous rise in the number of parents who would allow their sons to become altar boys because they would think that Father Bruce is openly doing the nasty with adults instead of behind Church walls with their sons..
Yes, a Church Council on Sexual Equality would be a daring first reform movement for a Church that has become less and less relevant. Surely, some older conservative members would be upset and might leave the Church. But a dying entity like the Catholic Church should risk being relevant if it truly wishes to survive in the 21st century.
About the new pope....well, I hope that he (Oh, and maybe after the new pope is finished "poping" the succeeding pope can be a woman, as that would be a significant signal that the Catholic faith sees women as the equal of men, even though you and I both know women are really the superior sex) is a more liberal pope as to recognizing how humans have changed since the now antediluvian practices the church now holds were created. Moving from the middle ages mentality it still clings to and replacing that with a 21st century one can't hurt the Church. We need what is sometimes referred to as a "modern pope" and "modern direction in the Church". For a start, that would mean the Cardinals would hold a 'Church Council on Sexual Equality' to make women equal in the church, to give the church's blessing to gay life styles, and one that would make it acceptable for all priests and nuns and other clerics to marry (either same sex or opposite sex partners) and procreate.
This would bring more men and women into the clergy, and that would relieve the church of some of the sex scandals committed by its currently frustrated group of clergy. Also some of the Catholics who left the Church because of its irrelevance might decide return to it. Hmmm Maybe the new pope would even strut in those red shoes that popes wear (isn't their entire costume a bit foppish!) and announce that he himself is gay. I suspect that quite a few of the past popes have been closet gays anyway, so why not go for it. Most Catholics are also aware of this and probably would not leave the Church because it is led by a guy who walks funny and says mass with a lisp...
There also has to be a no tolerance policy for sexual abuse by members of the clergy. It would be a practical goal for the Church to achieve, given that clergy members could now have a sex life and not have to take on a predator mode of behavior. I know that there would be a precipitous rise in the number of parents who would allow their sons to become altar boys because they would think that Father Bruce is openly doing the nasty with adults instead of behind Church walls with their sons..
Yes, a Church Council on Sexual Equality would be a daring first reform movement for a Church that has become less and less relevant. Surely, some older conservative members would be upset and might leave the Church. But a dying entity like the Catholic Church should risk being relevant if it truly wishes to survive in the 21st century.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Is Older Better
The accepted truth (or stereotype) that the
older we are the less we
like the present culture and the more we embrace the past is hitting me
right in my big mouth. I find myself more out of touch with current
music, fashion, art, literature, TV, movies etc. If you asked me to
identify current culture people or things I am probably going to give
you a blank stare and a shrugged shoulder. But ask me about the those
things associated with the 50's , 60's and 70's I'll never shut up when
answering.
Right now I am reading book about great events in sports since W.W.II and ending in the early 90's.
And I just finished a book of reflections by the late broadcaster/write David Brinkley. I don't read what is currently the rage in books, nor do I listen to contemporary music or watch current TV programs. Lives lived in past excite me and the present seems a bore and vacuous in many ways. But why? Why is it that so many people tend to lose touch with the current and more dearly embrace the past as they age?
I write this now as I sit before my computer dressed in one of my typical 60's outfit. I'm surely not going to wear a pair of those pants that fall to the knees and reveal my butt crack. I have too much respect for society to traumatize it that way. Strange though, I think the young today look better in their current fashionable outfits than they would if they dressed in my old style. Conversely, it should go without saying that anyone over 40 looks ridiculous if dressing in the current style.
Maybe we get stuck in our past because it feels comfortable and we understand that one as we struggle to figure out the Lady Gaga, over the top communication devices or why that kid down the street wears his baseball cap backwards. We might like the Beatles because we have wonderful memories of our own lives when we first heard them or saw them perform live. We idealize the past in order to give us a reason to flee the discomfort of the present.
I can't contend that the past culture is superior to the present. Whatever is currently most popular must be the best for that society since the majority embrace it. But I can say what is more comfortable to me, and it isn't today's world. Humans often choose not on what is "best" but what makes them feel "best". Problem is, the oldies can't seem to understand why the younger folks like their world, and the younger person also is clue less as to why the oldies are stuck in the past. When I was young that used to be called the "generation gap". It is a real phenomenon that makes complete understanding between the two cultures a very difficult ideal to achieve.
I think it might be a good thing that we age this way, that we have a refuge to hold on to that the youngest and most hip can't understand. Otherwise....I would type this while wearing spandex and listening to hip hop or rap music. And that wouldn't be a pleasant site for the world to see.
Right now I am reading book about great events in sports since W.W.II and ending in the early 90's.
And I just finished a book of reflections by the late broadcaster/write David Brinkley. I don't read what is currently the rage in books, nor do I listen to contemporary music or watch current TV programs. Lives lived in past excite me and the present seems a bore and vacuous in many ways. But why? Why is it that so many people tend to lose touch with the current and more dearly embrace the past as they age?
I write this now as I sit before my computer dressed in one of my typical 60's outfit. I'm surely not going to wear a pair of those pants that fall to the knees and reveal my butt crack. I have too much respect for society to traumatize it that way. Strange though, I think the young today look better in their current fashionable outfits than they would if they dressed in my old style. Conversely, it should go without saying that anyone over 40 looks ridiculous if dressing in the current style.
Maybe we get stuck in our past because it feels comfortable and we understand that one as we struggle to figure out the Lady Gaga, over the top communication devices or why that kid down the street wears his baseball cap backwards. We might like the Beatles because we have wonderful memories of our own lives when we first heard them or saw them perform live. We idealize the past in order to give us a reason to flee the discomfort of the present.
I can't contend that the past culture is superior to the present. Whatever is currently most popular must be the best for that society since the majority embrace it. But I can say what is more comfortable to me, and it isn't today's world. Humans often choose not on what is "best" but what makes them feel "best". Problem is, the oldies can't seem to understand why the younger folks like their world, and the younger person also is clue less as to why the oldies are stuck in the past. When I was young that used to be called the "generation gap". It is a real phenomenon that makes complete understanding between the two cultures a very difficult ideal to achieve.
I think it might be a good thing that we age this way, that we have a refuge to hold on to that the youngest and most hip can't understand. Otherwise....I would type this while wearing spandex and listening to hip hop or rap music. And that wouldn't be a pleasant site for the world to see.
No Ability To Discriminate
Did you read about British Queen Elizabeth II having a
stomach
virus? I
don't know how you could avoid not reading or hearing about it. I
suspect if a nuclear bomb exploded in London it would receive about
equal attention to the Queen's tummy ache. So much ado about the
insignificant today is annoying. It seems to me that people today have
no ability to discriminate between real news that affects their lives
and the unimportant or trivial. In this age the important is often lost
to the inconsequential. I suspect it is because of the information
overload that makes it difficult for many to tell the difference
between what they should know and what is merely amusement. What do you
think?
A look at news papers of the day, of the TV schedule, of street talk and there seems to be much less substance than in earlier eras. People tend to find more importance to what their favorite reality TV person does in a given day than to what goes on in the school in which their child attends. It's harder to have meaningful conversations with others unless one becomes a storehouse of the insignificant people, places and things of the day. Too a person tends to ignore what is important because, "I don't have time for that."
What worries me is that kids are the worst offenders of the "I don't care about the important because the trivial is more interesting to me", mentality. This makes sense, given kids are the biggest users of the endless electronic communications that puts everything disseminated on an equal footing. It explains, for example, why a local newspaper's headline about a Hollywood celebrity meltdown is front page news and news of their child's school being closed is buried in back section of the paper.
I thin that as information that is truly important for society to know and discuss has become less discernible it might be a good time for schools to specifically teach news discrimination skills. If not we may have a future society that is too informed about the Snookie or Kardashian crowd and too little about people who really matter and impact our lives.
A look at news papers of the day, of the TV schedule, of street talk and there seems to be much less substance than in earlier eras. People tend to find more importance to what their favorite reality TV person does in a given day than to what goes on in the school in which their child attends. It's harder to have meaningful conversations with others unless one becomes a storehouse of the insignificant people, places and things of the day. Too a person tends to ignore what is important because, "I don't have time for that."
What worries me is that kids are the worst offenders of the "I don't care about the important because the trivial is more interesting to me", mentality. This makes sense, given kids are the biggest users of the endless electronic communications that puts everything disseminated on an equal footing. It explains, for example, why a local newspaper's headline about a Hollywood celebrity meltdown is front page news and news of their child's school being closed is buried in back section of the paper.
I thin that as information that is truly important for society to know and discuss has become less discernible it might be a good time for schools to specifically teach news discrimination skills. If not we may have a future society that is too informed about the Snookie or Kardashian crowd and too little about people who really matter and impact our lives.
Which Bathroom To Use
There 's more strangeness happening in Colorado since
the state
legalized marijuana. Haha Who said Mary Jane won't alter the brain and
cause a parent to behave irrationally. Ok, the pot isn't the reason 6
year old first grader Coy Mathis has been banned from using the girls’
bathroom at her Fountain, Colorado elementary school. It's because she
feels she is transgender and her parents support the notion. How odd
is it to let a 6 year old child change sex? Hmmmm Maybe Coy and family
should move to Thailand where unisex bathrooms abound.
Since Coy has been "expressing her gender identity as female" since she was 18 months old, and living openly as a girl since age four he/she had been using the girls’ rest room until December 2012, when school administrators informed her parents that she would now have to use the boys’ bathroom, a staff bathroom or the nurse's bathroom instead. Here's the story in full from Coy's crazy mom if you wish to click the link. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2013/02/27/1951661/
So Coy's family has filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, the first claim to test the state’s Anti Discrimination Act, which includes protections based on gender identity, this being contrary to the school's belief that letting Coy use the girls’ bathroom would be “damaging” to other students. Most 6 year olds have many wild fantasies, but few parents encourage them to not only act them out but to believe they are real. I doubt that an 18 month old child or even a 6 year old can decide he is a female. When he goes through puberty it might be a better time for Coy to think about that. At age six gender is cultural, not biological.
I'm on the school's side on this one. Though it's fair that the alleged transgender Coy should not be forced to use the boy's bathroom. The school is clearly aware of this and has offered an alternative with the nurse's bathroom. Transgendered at six years old? Are you kidding me? To Coy's parents I suggest guiding Coy be a little boy until he is old enough to understand which sex he is or wants to be.
Since Coy has been "expressing her gender identity as female" since she was 18 months old, and living openly as a girl since age four he/she had been using the girls’ rest room until December 2012, when school administrators informed her parents that she would now have to use the boys’ bathroom, a staff bathroom or the nurse's bathroom instead. Here's the story in full from Coy's crazy mom if you wish to click the link. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2013/02/27/1951661/
So Coy's family has filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, the first claim to test the state’s Anti Discrimination Act, which includes protections based on gender identity, this being contrary to the school's belief that letting Coy use the girls’ bathroom would be “damaging” to other students. Most 6 year olds have many wild fantasies, but few parents encourage them to not only act them out but to believe they are real. I doubt that an 18 month old child or even a 6 year old can decide he is a female. When he goes through puberty it might be a better time for Coy to think about that. At age six gender is cultural, not biological.
I'm on the school's side on this one. Though it's fair that the alleged transgender Coy should not be forced to use the boy's bathroom. The school is clearly aware of this and has offered an alternative with the nurse's bathroom. Transgendered at six years old? Are you kidding me? To Coy's parents I suggest guiding Coy be a little boy until he is old enough to understand which sex he is or wants to be.
Modern Addictions
I was thinking about change in the world, or
at least changes that I
have seen in my own lifetime. One of the changes is that there seem to
be many more new addictions today than ever before existed. But that
makes sense, given the way change comes and goes so quickly today.
People tend to latch on to something that is new more often with a
clenched fist that is hard to break. Some addictions never change.
There is the addiction to alcohol, drugs, sex etc. Those things are
universal and unaffected by new influences in the world.
But the biggest new addiction today seems to me to be to electronic communication devices. Just go outside and walk awhile in a crowd and you'll see humans that behave rationally in most instances behaving irrationally with their cell phones and other devices. I wonder if electronic communication devices are inherently addictive. Surely, anyone who was a parent in the 50's or 60's would say yes as they remember their teenage children chattering endlessly on the land line phones of the day. But cell phones attract even more time wasting than the old line line calls. I guess the convenience and ease of use of electronic devices today makes them more likely to addict us. Too, they are devices that allow us to escape reality.
There are other modern addictions besides electronic ones. How about shopping? As societies have become wealthier more and more members are shopping way more often. Look at closets in houses built 50 years ago and those houses that are built today. Most modern ones have far more of the walk-in closets or at least far more closet space overall, space needed to fit all the junk we buy due to our shopping addiction. Anyone who "shops for fun" too much must be addicted to shopping.
Another modern addiction is the food addiction. Look around and see how many obese people are out there. Never before in history have so many been so overweight. This also seems to be caused to a great degree by having so much more affluence everywhere in the world. We have more free time and more money to eat, so we do it. If one looks at what we eat it also shows that we are addicted to food. We eat plenty of empty calories because it is an attempt to find some satisfaction with life that we think the food addiction will bring to our lives.
One more of the modern addictions might be an addiction to the trivial in favor of the important. People today are less informed and interested in what they should know than ever before because they are so fascinated by stupidity. Maybe we try to escape what we see as an unpleasant reality by focusing on triviality. The problem is that with every stupidity we embrace there is less opportunity to spend time on the real. No wonder most people can name their favorite reality TV performer but can not identify their government officials or their child's teacher.
Worse than all the new addictions we are finding in our society is the fact that humans seem satisfied with the addicted behavior, to almost prefer to be addicted than not. I wonder, is the world today that unpleasant?
But the biggest new addiction today seems to me to be to electronic communication devices. Just go outside and walk awhile in a crowd and you'll see humans that behave rationally in most instances behaving irrationally with their cell phones and other devices. I wonder if electronic communication devices are inherently addictive. Surely, anyone who was a parent in the 50's or 60's would say yes as they remember their teenage children chattering endlessly on the land line phones of the day. But cell phones attract even more time wasting than the old line line calls. I guess the convenience and ease of use of electronic devices today makes them more likely to addict us. Too, they are devices that allow us to escape reality.
There are other modern addictions besides electronic ones. How about shopping? As societies have become wealthier more and more members are shopping way more often. Look at closets in houses built 50 years ago and those houses that are built today. Most modern ones have far more of the walk-in closets or at least far more closet space overall, space needed to fit all the junk we buy due to our shopping addiction. Anyone who "shops for fun" too much must be addicted to shopping.
Another modern addiction is the food addiction. Look around and see how many obese people are out there. Never before in history have so many been so overweight. This also seems to be caused to a great degree by having so much more affluence everywhere in the world. We have more free time and more money to eat, so we do it. If one looks at what we eat it also shows that we are addicted to food. We eat plenty of empty calories because it is an attempt to find some satisfaction with life that we think the food addiction will bring to our lives.
One more of the modern addictions might be an addiction to the trivial in favor of the important. People today are less informed and interested in what they should know than ever before because they are so fascinated by stupidity. Maybe we try to escape what we see as an unpleasant reality by focusing on triviality. The problem is that with every stupidity we embrace there is less opportunity to spend time on the real. No wonder most people can name their favorite reality TV performer but can not identify their government officials or their child's teacher.
Worse than all the new addictions we are finding in our society is the fact that humans seem satisfied with the addicted behavior, to almost prefer to be addicted than not. I wonder, is the world today that unpleasant?
Most And Least Psychotic Occupations
When you were at work did you ever experience the feeling
that everyone
around you was unstable? Maybe that you were the only level-headed
worker in a workplace
populated by colleagues whose fits and outbursts are unpredictable, or
even psychopathic? Uh, I am not writing about psychopathic people who
write about this kind of stupidity. So wipe your mind clear of my name
and let's stick to the other psychopaths out there.
Well, according to "The Wisdom of Psychopaths" by Oxford psychologist Kevin Dutton, certain fields are more likely to attract actual psychopaths than others. Those fields with the highest number of psychopaths and my impressions are:
1. CEO (We never see nor hear of those CEO 'Guys", so maybe they are behavior like psychopaths in private) 2. Lawyer (Is there any negative personality trait a lawyer doesn't possess?) 3. Media (television/radio and I hope it includes those who are addicted to watching reality TV) 4. Salesperson( making us wait in the check-out line forever is psychopathic) 5. Surgeon (oh, that's not good) 6. Journalist (When they cover a Kardashian meltdown instead of the nuclear one, I agree) 7. Police officer (No need to comment. Just watch those guys in action) 8. Clergy person (When you don't donate enough to the church collection plate those clergy types turn into Joe Pesci) 9. Chef (take away their knives!) 10. Civil servant (I have yet been served by them because they always seem to be playing with their cell phone apps when I need help.)
And not to be undone in our world of insanity are the sane ones. Here are the occupations with the lowest rates of psychopaths: 1. Care aide 2. Nurse 3. Therapist 4. Craftsperson 5. Beautician/stylist 6. Charity worker 7. Teacher 8. Creative artist 9. Doctor 10. Accountant
All those least list occupations seem to me to be of a better ilk. Maybe that Dutton fellow is right about this. Do what you want with this information, but may it help you be a bit more aware of your surroundings as you go about your day looking over your shoulder in fear that one of those psychs on the first list may be watching you.
Well, according to "The Wisdom of Psychopaths" by Oxford psychologist Kevin Dutton, certain fields are more likely to attract actual psychopaths than others. Those fields with the highest number of psychopaths and my impressions are:
1. CEO (We never see nor hear of those CEO 'Guys", so maybe they are behavior like psychopaths in private) 2. Lawyer (Is there any negative personality trait a lawyer doesn't possess?) 3. Media (television/radio and I hope it includes those who are addicted to watching reality TV) 4. Salesperson( making us wait in the check-out line forever is psychopathic) 5. Surgeon (oh, that's not good) 6. Journalist (When they cover a Kardashian meltdown instead of the nuclear one, I agree) 7. Police officer (No need to comment. Just watch those guys in action) 8. Clergy person (When you don't donate enough to the church collection plate those clergy types turn into Joe Pesci) 9. Chef (take away their knives!) 10. Civil servant (I have yet been served by them because they always seem to be playing with their cell phone apps when I need help.)
And not to be undone in our world of insanity are the sane ones. Here are the occupations with the lowest rates of psychopaths: 1. Care aide 2. Nurse 3. Therapist 4. Craftsperson 5. Beautician/stylist 6. Charity worker 7. Teacher 8. Creative artist 9. Doctor 10. Accountant
All those least list occupations seem to me to be of a better ilk. Maybe that Dutton fellow is right about this. Do what you want with this information, but may it help you be a bit more aware of your surroundings as you go about your day looking over your shoulder in fear that one of those psychs on the first list may be watching you.
Those Old Comedy Records
I like old comedy albums. In the days of more limited
technology,
comics used to release their best bits on LP albums, the height of that
popularity being in the 50's and 60's. And there were other styles of
humor on record too. The records that replayed famous errors made on
live broadcasts were extremely popular in the 50's and 60's. One might
think he or she would tire easily of listening to the same comedy cuts
on a record that was played over and over, but just as in hearing a
music record again and again, listening to good comedy is a pleasure
even when you know what is coming. One begins to admire the skill of
the artists or the weirdness of the comment as the record is played
over and over.
Because I have an old "record player" and I seek out those I sometimes run across old comedy albums at thrift stores. One I recently found is entitled, 'All Time Great Bloopers' (from radio programs in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's). "A collection of unintended indiscretions made before microphone and camera" the record introduction says. The bloopers were mistakes made by people who were on those live radio programs as host, announcers, news persons, guests etc. Today we call those things "out-takes", but they are not shocking or as funny given the non limits on what one can say or do publicly in our age of excess. In the old days of live radio one's mistakes went out onto the air immediately as well as to recording tapes. There was no delay on what was said by the radio speaker in such primitive technological times (another reason I prefer the old technology to the pristine new).
I have heard blooper records before but not in some time, so this one made me think again about them. What surprises me about this one is how raw, some sexual innuendoes included, these bloopers were. We tend to think of those earlier days as being more controlled and less risqué, but when speaking accidentally they were not always so. Any profanity ot sexual misstatement said were mistakes that elicited instant embarrassment from the speaker, not gratuitous vulgarity for cheap laughs. That makes them all the more amusing to hear. The blunder was only acceptable and funny to listeners because they were given to the audience only mistakenly. In my view that is what "reality communication" is, not the contrived mess of reality TV shows that dull the brain for viewers today.
Something this record reminds me of is how a culture can be defined by the simplest elements of it, as in a comedy record that illustrates what people were thinking and saying 50 years or more ago. What we laugh at can tell us about what our attitudes and manners are. Most of the entries on this record are innocent ones, and surely that age was far more innocent than what our age is today. Too, one can learn the historic events of the time, even from the silliness of it, as in selections on the record of British Royalty from an event in which the announcer made an embarrassing but funny reference to a forbidden part of Queen's body, or some of the entries on the record that showed how politicians, performers and simple men on the street have thoughts then seen as inappropriately but now routinely expressed and uncensored.
As the record begins, an announcer in opening a National Broadcasting Company (NBC) radio show says, "This is the Nation Broad castrating Company". Another very serious host speaking of a very serious matter begins laughing hysterically and can't stop, even as he reads the obituary notice in hand. A contestant on a quiz program gives what she thinks is the correct answer to the host's question, which is supposed to be "Alexander Dummies". Instead she blurts, "Alexander Dumbness". Another woman guest in a morning show whose content is about bad rumors being unkindly spread or castigated keeps saying the neighbor man "castrates" her husband. A commercial advertisement about cigars breaks down when the speaker starts choking after a drag on the sponsor's product.
When a lady is interviewed on a quiz show and the host finds out she has 7 brothers and 7 sisters, he asks her, "And how many children do you have?" She replies, "One. "Only one", says the host in surprised tone. "Damn! Give me some time, I have only been married one month", she answers. When the laxative sponsor of a mystery hour, 'Phillip's Milk of Magnesia', says, "And now Philip's Milk of Magnesia presents 'Women on the Run', the audience becomes hysterical. When a man on the street reporter attempts to interview a sweet looking lady on the street it breaks down instantly.
"Ma'am may we ask you a few questions,' the interviewer says. "Hell No!, replies the fleeing lady. A football player named Peters injuries his leg during a game broadcast and the announcer says, "Looks like the team will have to play with their peters out." A county fair show host says, "Ladies, today Mr. Robbers will have his nuts on display on aisle nine". At a golf tournament broadcast the announcer presents U.S. Open Champion Arnold Palmer as, "Arnold Palmer, U.S. Opium Champion." "How large is your family", a quiz show hosts asks a lady. "Two boys, three girls, one adult and one adulteress" she says.
There's plenty more on the record but I am ending it here before I start writing like they sound. Enjoy a laugh today, intended or unintended.
Because I have an old "record player" and I seek out those I sometimes run across old comedy albums at thrift stores. One I recently found is entitled, 'All Time Great Bloopers' (from radio programs in the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's). "A collection of unintended indiscretions made before microphone and camera" the record introduction says. The bloopers were mistakes made by people who were on those live radio programs as host, announcers, news persons, guests etc. Today we call those things "out-takes", but they are not shocking or as funny given the non limits on what one can say or do publicly in our age of excess. In the old days of live radio one's mistakes went out onto the air immediately as well as to recording tapes. There was no delay on what was said by the radio speaker in such primitive technological times (another reason I prefer the old technology to the pristine new).
I have heard blooper records before but not in some time, so this one made me think again about them. What surprises me about this one is how raw, some sexual innuendoes included, these bloopers were. We tend to think of those earlier days as being more controlled and less risqué, but when speaking accidentally they were not always so. Any profanity ot sexual misstatement said were mistakes that elicited instant embarrassment from the speaker, not gratuitous vulgarity for cheap laughs. That makes them all the more amusing to hear. The blunder was only acceptable and funny to listeners because they were given to the audience only mistakenly. In my view that is what "reality communication" is, not the contrived mess of reality TV shows that dull the brain for viewers today.
Something this record reminds me of is how a culture can be defined by the simplest elements of it, as in a comedy record that illustrates what people were thinking and saying 50 years or more ago. What we laugh at can tell us about what our attitudes and manners are. Most of the entries on this record are innocent ones, and surely that age was far more innocent than what our age is today. Too, one can learn the historic events of the time, even from the silliness of it, as in selections on the record of British Royalty from an event in which the announcer made an embarrassing but funny reference to a forbidden part of Queen's body, or some of the entries on the record that showed how politicians, performers and simple men on the street have thoughts then seen as inappropriately but now routinely expressed and uncensored.
As the record begins, an announcer in opening a National Broadcasting Company (NBC) radio show says, "This is the Nation Broad castrating Company". Another very serious host speaking of a very serious matter begins laughing hysterically and can't stop, even as he reads the obituary notice in hand. A contestant on a quiz program gives what she thinks is the correct answer to the host's question, which is supposed to be "Alexander Dummies". Instead she blurts, "Alexander Dumbness". Another woman guest in a morning show whose content is about bad rumors being unkindly spread or castigated keeps saying the neighbor man "castrates" her husband. A commercial advertisement about cigars breaks down when the speaker starts choking after a drag on the sponsor's product.
When a lady is interviewed on a quiz show and the host finds out she has 7 brothers and 7 sisters, he asks her, "And how many children do you have?" She replies, "One. "Only one", says the host in surprised tone. "Damn! Give me some time, I have only been married one month", she answers. When the laxative sponsor of a mystery hour, 'Phillip's Milk of Magnesia', says, "And now Philip's Milk of Magnesia presents 'Women on the Run', the audience becomes hysterical. When a man on the street reporter attempts to interview a sweet looking lady on the street it breaks down instantly.
"Ma'am may we ask you a few questions,' the interviewer says. "Hell No!, replies the fleeing lady. A football player named Peters injuries his leg during a game broadcast and the announcer says, "Looks like the team will have to play with their peters out." A county fair show host says, "Ladies, today Mr. Robbers will have his nuts on display on aisle nine". At a golf tournament broadcast the announcer presents U.S. Open Champion Arnold Palmer as, "Arnold Palmer, U.S. Opium Champion." "How large is your family", a quiz show hosts asks a lady. "Two boys, three girls, one adult and one adulteress" she says.
There's plenty more on the record but I am ending it here before I start writing like they sound. Enjoy a laugh today, intended or unintended.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)