Another food police report today. This time the "evil" that is being attacked is salt. The medical folks say we eat too much, and of course with that cue, politicians are jumping on the band wagon to save us from salt. It's a safe way to legislate without losing votes. Don't ban tobacco. alcohol, or the obscene proliferation of needless prescription drugs. If you area politician go after what would offend few- the amount of salt consumed in foods.
More specifically, the advisory Institute of Medicine issued a report that calls for the government to establish new federal standards that would cut the amount of salt that manufacturers and restaurants add to foods...to gradually reduce the maximum amount of salt that can be added to foods, beverages and meals. I dare them to try and take my salt shaker away! Isn't it bad enough that in the U.S. the government has taken over so much (and ruined most of it) already that I can hardly wipe my butt with toilet paper without feeling guilty about "destroying the planet" by using paper products.
Citizens should have the sole responsibility for regulating what they eat of what is a legal product (aka salt). Surely, the public needs better food education, given the widespread fast food, junk food, chemically enhanced food for sale. But if those items are legal to consume, the government should step back and allow each consumer the free choice about how much of it to eat or drink. Education about the harmfulness of a product, as in the case of how cigarette usage dramatically decreased after such programs and when social sanctions against it were common, is the democratic way to "protect" (I hate that word as the government uses it) against abusive behavior of legal products.
The American heart association is also advising the government to institute the sodium reductions. One in three Americans have high blood pressure and an additional 20% have been diagnosed with pre-hypertension. "We believe reducing sodium in the food supply in a gradual way could drastically change the eating habits of Americans, which will reduce their risk for heart disease and stroke, " was the statement issued by the AMA in conjunction with the salt reduction recommendations.
It's strange how politics guides such ides, not reason. For example, a proposal in my state legislature yesterday to make those people receiving tax payer paid for food stamps was defeated on the basis that (according to one prominent state legislator opponent) "Government shouldn't be the food police." (for people who receive free food from taxpayers) Yet at the national level politicians want to regulate what things we pay for and we eat. It's sort of inconsistent to be the food police to people who pay for their food, but contend that it's not right to be the food police to welfare recipients????
The salt attack isn't a definite plan of the politicians yet. But given it is a safe crusade and a trendy one (is there any food we can eat without being "warned" about it) food bans could become the new global warming mentality of the next day. I say, let people chose what they wish to eat and whether they will eat it in moderation as doctors recommend. Life isn't about being "saved' from everything we enjoy. It's about being free to make the personal choices the individual, not big brother government, prefers to make.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Guide To "Green" Colleges
From the "I know they are the brainwashed generation and think it is sad department" is the latest in excessive environmental worry. This year for the first time Princeton University has published a "Guide to 286 Green Colleges", a 200-page guidebook that is available free online and is supposed to steer high school grads to the Al Gore college of their choice.
It offers brief profiles and facts about 286 colleges that it says excel in three major areas: 1) Providing students a healthy and sustainable quality of life. 2) Preparing students for green jobs and responsible green citizenship. 3) Using environmentally responsible school policies. The colleges profiled all received "Green Ratings" in the 80s or 90s, on a scale from 60-99, based on Princeton Review surveys of administrators at 697 colleges. How idiotic!
College should be a preparation for the future world of work, not a feel good indoctrination into buying into the alleged "environmentally preferable" products that every snake oil salesmen sells to the gullible "Save the Planet" types.
Hmmmmmmmmm I suggest those high school grads who want to attend one of the green universities should actually fully live the green lifestyle they worship. For starters, no greener should fly or drive an auto to his or her green school. It's a carbon offense to do that. Perhaps renting a horse or walking might be the best way to go. Or..maybe daddy will buy them one of those hybrid cars that are supposed to be vastly superior to regular fossil fuel cars, but are in themselves a pollutant.
Once on campus, no products, food included, should be eaten if produced by the use of resources deemed critical or which have a bad "carbon foot print". Good lucky fighting over the handful of the organic food grown (and often processed without green etiquette as a guide). Oh, and if the student becomes ill and needs critical medication he or she will have to do without it. The Green University would not want to allow any use of drugs that were tested in animals....it's too cruel to be politically correct.
The green student will never use paper to write note on the latest green hype his or her professor teaches. It's environmentally unsound. And the semester grades must be published on recycled paper since the university owns that expensive recycling contract that tax payers pay for. A "good sustain ability education" also means an allotment of only one roll of toilet paper per month per student. Remember the motto of every Green School- "We waste your time with incredibly expensive tuition on politically correct nonsense like 'carbon neutrality' and 'sustain ability' instead of using it for a quality education."
Sign me up for one of those schools too! Err..but make sure you don't let me use any of those polluting lead pencils when I do it...
It offers brief profiles and facts about 286 colleges that it says excel in three major areas: 1) Providing students a healthy and sustainable quality of life. 2) Preparing students for green jobs and responsible green citizenship. 3) Using environmentally responsible school policies. The colleges profiled all received "Green Ratings" in the 80s or 90s, on a scale from 60-99, based on Princeton Review surveys of administrators at 697 colleges. How idiotic!
College should be a preparation for the future world of work, not a feel good indoctrination into buying into the alleged "environmentally preferable" products that every snake oil salesmen sells to the gullible "Save the Planet" types.
Hmmmmmmmmm I suggest those high school grads who want to attend one of the green universities should actually fully live the green lifestyle they worship. For starters, no greener should fly or drive an auto to his or her green school. It's a carbon offense to do that. Perhaps renting a horse or walking might be the best way to go. Or..maybe daddy will buy them one of those hybrid cars that are supposed to be vastly superior to regular fossil fuel cars, but are in themselves a pollutant.
Once on campus, no products, food included, should be eaten if produced by the use of resources deemed critical or which have a bad "carbon foot print". Good lucky fighting over the handful of the organic food grown (and often processed without green etiquette as a guide). Oh, and if the student becomes ill and needs critical medication he or she will have to do without it. The Green University would not want to allow any use of drugs that were tested in animals....it's too cruel to be politically correct.
The green student will never use paper to write note on the latest green hype his or her professor teaches. It's environmentally unsound. And the semester grades must be published on recycled paper since the university owns that expensive recycling contract that tax payers pay for. A "good sustain ability education" also means an allotment of only one roll of toilet paper per month per student. Remember the motto of every Green School- "We waste your time with incredibly expensive tuition on politically correct nonsense like 'carbon neutrality' and 'sustain ability' instead of using it for a quality education."
Sign me up for one of those schools too! Err..but make sure you don't let me use any of those polluting lead pencils when I do it...
Image Of The United States
The BBC has conducted a poll every year since 2005 that asks whether the respondents have a favorable or unfavorable view of a particular nation. From 2005-2009 the U.S ranking was not very good. The George Bush era explains that, as Bush and company practically thumbed its nose at the rest of the world, slapped it in the face and even insulted it with words and a big invasion in the Mid East. But now that Bush is gone. most countries around the world now hold a positive view of the United States. It's the first time since the BBC World Service began tracking such attitudes in 2005.
Here are the rankings of the most popular nations, from most to least.
Germany (59% of the respondents rated it as favorable)
Canada
Japan
European Union
United Kingdom
France
Brazil
India
United States
China
South Africa
Russia
Israel
North Korea
Pakistan
Iran
Iran is viewed least favorably by an average of 15%, followed by Pakistan at 16%. That's no surprise. But that Germany is ranked most favorable is a puzzle. Germany has had a low profile since it and Japan (also a surprise with the 3rd most favorable ranking) were seen as monstrous states during W.W. II. It seems that Nazism and crazed empires can be rehabilitated.
The survey did not ask why the respondents rated each nation the way they did. It just asked 29,000 adults in 28 countries whether the nation is a positive or negative force in the world. A question I have for you is whether perceptions about other countries matter much? Is a country that is disliked or feared receiving fewer or more benefits from the world than a nation that is seen as favorable? In my view, in the end, it probably means little how a nation is viewed and greatly how it impacts other nations in practical ways.
Here are the rankings of the most popular nations, from most to least.
Germany (59% of the respondents rated it as favorable)
Canada
Japan
European Union
United Kingdom
France
Brazil
India
United States
China
South Africa
Russia
Israel
North Korea
Pakistan
Iran
Iran is viewed least favorably by an average of 15%, followed by Pakistan at 16%. That's no surprise. But that Germany is ranked most favorable is a puzzle. Germany has had a low profile since it and Japan (also a surprise with the 3rd most favorable ranking) were seen as monstrous states during W.W. II. It seems that Nazism and crazed empires can be rehabilitated.
The survey did not ask why the respondents rated each nation the way they did. It just asked 29,000 adults in 28 countries whether the nation is a positive or negative force in the world. A question I have for you is whether perceptions about other countries matter much? Is a country that is disliked or feared receiving fewer or more benefits from the world than a nation that is seen as favorable? In my view, in the end, it probably means little how a nation is viewed and greatly how it impacts other nations in practical ways.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Aging
Recently I saw a clip from the 80's of the famous singer Tony Bennett. Tony looked awful in the eighties, much worse than he does today, and he is about 80 years old or so now. It got me to thinking about the way in which people age. I have concluded we age similarly, but at different paces. Does that make sense? But more simply, it means that while we all eventually get "old" and deteriorate, some people show it quickly and some slowly. Some people seem to look better at an older age than when younger (as in the case of the Tony Bennett example). That's a form of the old "he ages well" maxim. Only in Tony's case, he almost seems to suspend the aging process, reverse it, and look younger than previously.
Why is it the girl who looked awful at 22 might look gorgeous at 32? It might be a weight change, maybe some genetic change that kicked in later, a change in hairdo or clothing. I suppose there are many reasons. It's hard to say what makes a person look old because looking old is more than showing wrinkles (some wrinkles are desirable and even called "good character lines"). It's a general body appearance and personality attitude that defines whether or not we are an old woman or young one, and old man or young stud.
Most people also say that men age better than women. That is, they look older later than do women. I think that is purely expectation and bias at work. I doubt there is any scientific evidence that one sex ages faster than another. But we do have perceptions that women are older looking first. It's probably because we idealize beauty in women and because we more quickly notice any mar to a woman's beauty. Men can be considered handsome even if they have pot bellies.
Another thing about aging is that we sometimes idealize an age for a famous person. We always see them as that age. Historical figures are seen that way. Think about it. If I asked for example, "what does Hitler look like"? Everyone sees Hitler as the Nazi image we have seen in war photos. We define him as always being that age and could never imagine him as older or younger. Again our perception (or preconception ) has kept him one age for all time. It's the same with other famous people. Think of the great actor Shawn Connery. He will always be seen by most people as the fit and young James Bond, not the fat and bald old man he is today.
When you look at an old high school yearbook, the principle of aging well comes to you immediately. Just look at your own photo and you'll probably say you looked awful then, but much better when you were 30 years old.
Most of your classmates pictured would fall in the same category. But at some point in your aging process, your 17 year old photo begins to look better than your current image. The way in which we age is tricky to see. If you look at yourself in the mirror today and then one week from now there is no visible difference in appearance. But look today and 5 years later there is noticeable change. This illustrates the principal that aging is slow torture for most of us.
One thing about aging I don't personally understand is why people (mostly women) dye their hair or use wrinkle creams, plastic surgery or other tricks to keep a youthful appearance. It never works. If you dye your hair at age 50, you'll just look like an older person with dyed hair, not a younger one. Everyone knows what the trick is. You can't alter the aging of the mind and soul, even if you can change a few physical features.
I hope my remarks haven't made you feel older today. If so, just take the mirrors out of your house, and enjoy your life at whatever age you wish yourself to be.
Why is it the girl who looked awful at 22 might look gorgeous at 32? It might be a weight change, maybe some genetic change that kicked in later, a change in hairdo or clothing. I suppose there are many reasons. It's hard to say what makes a person look old because looking old is more than showing wrinkles (some wrinkles are desirable and even called "good character lines"). It's a general body appearance and personality attitude that defines whether or not we are an old woman or young one, and old man or young stud.
Most people also say that men age better than women. That is, they look older later than do women. I think that is purely expectation and bias at work. I doubt there is any scientific evidence that one sex ages faster than another. But we do have perceptions that women are older looking first. It's probably because we idealize beauty in women and because we more quickly notice any mar to a woman's beauty. Men can be considered handsome even if they have pot bellies.
Another thing about aging is that we sometimes idealize an age for a famous person. We always see them as that age. Historical figures are seen that way. Think about it. If I asked for example, "what does Hitler look like"? Everyone sees Hitler as the Nazi image we have seen in war photos. We define him as always being that age and could never imagine him as older or younger. Again our perception (or preconception ) has kept him one age for all time. It's the same with other famous people. Think of the great actor Shawn Connery. He will always be seen by most people as the fit and young James Bond, not the fat and bald old man he is today.
When you look at an old high school yearbook, the principle of aging well comes to you immediately. Just look at your own photo and you'll probably say you looked awful then, but much better when you were 30 years old.
Most of your classmates pictured would fall in the same category. But at some point in your aging process, your 17 year old photo begins to look better than your current image. The way in which we age is tricky to see. If you look at yourself in the mirror today and then one week from now there is no visible difference in appearance. But look today and 5 years later there is noticeable change. This illustrates the principal that aging is slow torture for most of us.
One thing about aging I don't personally understand is why people (mostly women) dye their hair or use wrinkle creams, plastic surgery or other tricks to keep a youthful appearance. It never works. If you dye your hair at age 50, you'll just look like an older person with dyed hair, not a younger one. Everyone knows what the trick is. You can't alter the aging of the mind and soul, even if you can change a few physical features.
I hope my remarks haven't made you feel older today. If so, just take the mirrors out of your house, and enjoy your life at whatever age you wish yourself to be.
Grade Inflation Mentality
Controversy is raging here at my state's leading public University, LSU. It seems that a biology professor of introductory courses is in trouble for doing what she is supposed to do- teaching the class and holding the students responsible for studying the material given. Dominique G. Homberger, the teacher in question, says she won't apologize for setting high expectations for her students and grading them according to what is produced. She is not an advocate of the crazy grade inflation in so many schools today.
As a result, professor Homberger has been removed her from teaching post at mid-semester, and the grades of the students in the class have been boosted to the politically correct level. In so doing, the university's administration has set off a debate about the grade inflation mentality, about the right of a teacher in a university to have due process before being demoted and about the traditional right of a teacher in a university to set standards in her own course.
Homberger teaches the once common but now long forgotten, traditional way. She gives daily quizzes on reading assignments, gives tests that measure true understanding of the material, and never grades on a curve. It is said that when she uses multiple choice questions there are 10 choices for the answer as opposed to the traditional four. Her method of insisting on personal accountability by the student clashes with the spoiled "me, me, me, do for me" mentality of society at large. Thus, many students quickly withdraw from her class and add an easier biology class instead.
Homberger and her supporters say the university's action has violated principles of academic freedom and weakened the faculty and academic reputation and effectiveness of the university (LSU has always had a good reputation for being a challenging college). They say it sends message to untenured faculty members like Homberger that if they fail too many students they will be yanked from the classroom as "punishment".
Here is the university statement explaining its decision to remove her from her teaching post. "The class in question is an entry-level biology class for non-science majors, and, at mid-term, more than 90% of the students in Dr. Homberger's class were failing or had dropped the class. The extreme nature of the grading raised a concern, and we felt it was important to take some action to ensure that our students receive a rigorous, but fair, education. Professor Homberger is not being penalized in any way; her salary has not been decreased nor has any aspect of her appointment been changed."
Its a sickening statement, in my view. American universities have always been a challenge that required hard work and study. No one has presented any evidence that Homberger was unreasonable in her demands, that her tests were unfair or that she exceeded reasonable course requirements. The students dropped their enrollment in her class because they were too lazy to meet her standards, and the university sided with them in favor of pandering and in opposition to academic integrity.
Further, Homberger said that her tough policy was already having an impact on her students, and that the grades on her second test were much higher (she was removed from teaching right after she gave that exam), and that quiz scores were up sharply. Students got the message from her first test, and were working harder, she said.
This is one example of the new Americans sense of entitlement. "I deserve to have what I want, need not earn it and expect you to give it to me." A small piece of academic integrity died at LSU when Homberger was pushed out. In my view it is sad.
As a result, professor Homberger has been removed her from teaching post at mid-semester, and the grades of the students in the class have been boosted to the politically correct level. In so doing, the university's administration has set off a debate about the grade inflation mentality, about the right of a teacher in a university to have due process before being demoted and about the traditional right of a teacher in a university to set standards in her own course.
Homberger teaches the once common but now long forgotten, traditional way. She gives daily quizzes on reading assignments, gives tests that measure true understanding of the material, and never grades on a curve. It is said that when she uses multiple choice questions there are 10 choices for the answer as opposed to the traditional four. Her method of insisting on personal accountability by the student clashes with the spoiled "me, me, me, do for me" mentality of society at large. Thus, many students quickly withdraw from her class and add an easier biology class instead.
Homberger and her supporters say the university's action has violated principles of academic freedom and weakened the faculty and academic reputation and effectiveness of the university (LSU has always had a good reputation for being a challenging college). They say it sends message to untenured faculty members like Homberger that if they fail too many students they will be yanked from the classroom as "punishment".
Here is the university statement explaining its decision to remove her from her teaching post. "The class in question is an entry-level biology class for non-science majors, and, at mid-term, more than 90% of the students in Dr. Homberger's class were failing or had dropped the class. The extreme nature of the grading raised a concern, and we felt it was important to take some action to ensure that our students receive a rigorous, but fair, education. Professor Homberger is not being penalized in any way; her salary has not been decreased nor has any aspect of her appointment been changed."
Its a sickening statement, in my view. American universities have always been a challenge that required hard work and study. No one has presented any evidence that Homberger was unreasonable in her demands, that her tests were unfair or that she exceeded reasonable course requirements. The students dropped their enrollment in her class because they were too lazy to meet her standards, and the university sided with them in favor of pandering and in opposition to academic integrity.
Further, Homberger said that her tough policy was already having an impact on her students, and that the grades on her second test were much higher (she was removed from teaching right after she gave that exam), and that quiz scores were up sharply. Students got the message from her first test, and were working harder, she said.
This is one example of the new Americans sense of entitlement. "I deserve to have what I want, need not earn it and expect you to give it to me." A small piece of academic integrity died at LSU when Homberger was pushed out. In my view it is sad.
Age Inappropriate Wear
My news from BBC.com says that British clothing chain 'Primark' responding to scathing criticism from politicians and children's groups, has withdrawn its sale of a line of padded bikini for girls as young as seven. Those little Lindsay Lohan style outfits came in candy pink with gold stars and black with white polka dots. I am wondering what person created this product and even more which store buyer could have accepted the idea and sold it in Primark stores. As usual, give the overwhelming revulsion at the idea that toddlers be turned into sex objects, the company apologized for the product and offered to give to charity any profits from idiots who bought it.
Here is the statement Primark issued on it's web site when first offering the product for sale. "Every girl wants to look her best and at Primark we make no exception for the younger ladies, all the high fashion trends can be found in our Girlswear section, no matter what age you are" Wow! What is the next aged inappropriate product to sell to parents of kids who don't want to live a normal childhood? Maybe liquor stores will offer mini vodka bottles for preteens, or small sized condoms for a 10th birthday gift? In this age of disappearing childhood it could happen.
I remember reading Shakespeare's Seven Ages of Man poem. In it there is no teenage period defined because in the time preteens graduated to adulthood immediately rather than living what is now a distinct teenage era. In earlier centuries society demand that. But now we have the economic freedom to allow kids to have a longer childhood. It is good, I think.
The mediums today, particularly those of TV, film, and music, send the "grownup immediately" message to children, and the unthinking Premark corporation merely reflects that. Thrusting small children into a sexualization as grown women is the message of much medium presentations today.
Take the child beauty pageant as an example. Is there anything worse than forcing a preteen to display her child-like body in a sexualized adult form? The degree to which parents participate in making little Suzie look like the town streetwalker says something about the values a society holds dear.
Society should realize that an age of innocence for kids is a golden one. It helps them transition into the crueler adult world better prepared for the madness of it. Otherwise we might have a generation of more Lindsay Lohans. How sad it would be.
Here is the statement Primark issued on it's web site when first offering the product for sale. "Every girl wants to look her best and at Primark we make no exception for the younger ladies, all the high fashion trends can be found in our Girlswear section, no matter what age you are" Wow! What is the next aged inappropriate product to sell to parents of kids who don't want to live a normal childhood? Maybe liquor stores will offer mini vodka bottles for preteens, or small sized condoms for a 10th birthday gift? In this age of disappearing childhood it could happen.
I remember reading Shakespeare's Seven Ages of Man poem. In it there is no teenage period defined because in the time preteens graduated to adulthood immediately rather than living what is now a distinct teenage era. In earlier centuries society demand that. But now we have the economic freedom to allow kids to have a longer childhood. It is good, I think.
The mediums today, particularly those of TV, film, and music, send the "grownup immediately" message to children, and the unthinking Premark corporation merely reflects that. Thrusting small children into a sexualization as grown women is the message of much medium presentations today.
Take the child beauty pageant as an example. Is there anything worse than forcing a preteen to display her child-like body in a sexualized adult form? The degree to which parents participate in making little Suzie look like the town streetwalker says something about the values a society holds dear.
Society should realize that an age of innocence for kids is a golden one. It helps them transition into the crueler adult world better prepared for the madness of it. Otherwise we might have a generation of more Lindsay Lohans. How sad it would be.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Treme Debuts
The premier episode of that new HBO series, Treme, was shown this weekend They cut me out of the first episode. (I was a homeless drunk asleep on the street) That might be a plus for the series. Hmmmmmmmm Next time I should skip alcohol and drink milk instead. They wouldn't dare edit out a milk drinker!
I think the pilot was way too confusing for outsiders to the culture of the city. So many unfamiliar events were thrown in the face of viewers in rapid succession It introduced all the main characters (too many) of the next 10 season episodes (the first season has all been shot now) to the extent that the viewer never grasped any of them individually. It seemed to be more instructive than entertaining. Too, some were stereotyped and an image that the city is mostly peopled with black residents and defined by them is not a correct one. But then, the series does not pretend to be an inclusive one. It purports to show one segment of it.
On the positive side, Treme showed the poor area of the city fairly well, and the traditional music culture of the city that largely emanated from that section(Treme). I think once viewers understand the city they should like the series because the people in it it are highly unusual, as New Orleans is itself. The centered of the series is the working class area called Treme, but all sections will get at least a brief glance. For example, I worked one episode that was shot entirely in the French Quarter area in Jackson Square, and another in a more upscale neighborhood near the wealthy Garden District.
Too, the day after the premier HBO announced it has renewed Treme for another season of episodes (which will start shooting after hurricane season here in October or November). It's almost unheard of to order a second season of episodes before the first has even premiered.
Some background about the "real" Treme in case you happen to watch any of the episodes should include the fact that Treme, is not only America's oldest mainly black neighborhood but was the site of significant economic, cultural, political, social and legal events that have shaped the course of events in the past two centuries. Yet, few outside of New Orleans know its enormous cultural importance to the country as a whole.
For example, Jazz was founded in Treme. Treme is named after Claude Treme, a hat maker and real estate developer who migrated from Saugivny in Burgundy, France, and settled in New Orleans in 1783. Treme section was heavily French and Spanish speaking into the 1900's since the population that lived there and in New Orleans as a whole came from those two countries (who originally settled the whole region ).
After 1800, free blacks and eventually those African slaves who either obtained, bought or bargained for their freedom were able to acquire and own property in Treme, so it became more of a "black area" of the city of New Orleans. The ability to acquire, purchase and own property during an era when America was still had slavery was remarkable and only in New Orleans did this occur with any regularity and consistency. It is one reason that people in New Orleans have always had many mixed neighborhoods of all races and income status. I think also, it is why there has always been less racial prejudice and discontent here in New Orleans.
So that is the background of both the real section of New Orleans called 'Treme' and the HBO TV series named after it. Both are a different animal from the usual stereotypical United States images.
I think the pilot was way too confusing for outsiders to the culture of the city. So many unfamiliar events were thrown in the face of viewers in rapid succession It introduced all the main characters (too many) of the next 10 season episodes (the first season has all been shot now) to the extent that the viewer never grasped any of them individually. It seemed to be more instructive than entertaining. Too, some were stereotyped and an image that the city is mostly peopled with black residents and defined by them is not a correct one. But then, the series does not pretend to be an inclusive one. It purports to show one segment of it.
On the positive side, Treme showed the poor area of the city fairly well, and the traditional music culture of the city that largely emanated from that section(Treme). I think once viewers understand the city they should like the series because the people in it it are highly unusual, as New Orleans is itself. The centered of the series is the working class area called Treme, but all sections will get at least a brief glance. For example, I worked one episode that was shot entirely in the French Quarter area in Jackson Square, and another in a more upscale neighborhood near the wealthy Garden District.
Too, the day after the premier HBO announced it has renewed Treme for another season of episodes (which will start shooting after hurricane season here in October or November). It's almost unheard of to order a second season of episodes before the first has even premiered.
Some background about the "real" Treme in case you happen to watch any of the episodes should include the fact that Treme, is not only America's oldest mainly black neighborhood but was the site of significant economic, cultural, political, social and legal events that have shaped the course of events in the past two centuries. Yet, few outside of New Orleans know its enormous cultural importance to the country as a whole.
For example, Jazz was founded in Treme. Treme is named after Claude Treme, a hat maker and real estate developer who migrated from Saugivny in Burgundy, France, and settled in New Orleans in 1783. Treme section was heavily French and Spanish speaking into the 1900's since the population that lived there and in New Orleans as a whole came from those two countries (who originally settled the whole region ).
After 1800, free blacks and eventually those African slaves who either obtained, bought or bargained for their freedom were able to acquire and own property in Treme, so it became more of a "black area" of the city of New Orleans. The ability to acquire, purchase and own property during an era when America was still had slavery was remarkable and only in New Orleans did this occur with any regularity and consistency. It is one reason that people in New Orleans have always had many mixed neighborhoods of all races and income status. I think also, it is why there has always been less racial prejudice and discontent here in New Orleans.
So that is the background of both the real section of New Orleans called 'Treme' and the HBO TV series named after it. Both are a different animal from the usual stereotypical United States images.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)