I'm reading a lot about heroes these days. The media keeps reporting
about this hero or that who in truth seem not so heroic at all, and as a
result, I am confused as exactly what hero is. Just the other day my
local newspaper said a guy who jumped in a shallow river and pulled out a
swimmer who was in distress was a "hero". Since that rescuer was in no
peril himself I don't call him a hero. There has to be some grave risk
on the part of the person if he or she is a hero. And can a person be a
hero if he or she commits only one "heroic act", but is ordinary or even
meek the rest of the time? I always thought heroes were predictable,
that you could count on heroism from them whenever it was needed. And
that implies that there must be very few heroes out there.
The poet Ralph Waldo Emerson had a good definition of a hero. He wrote
once that a hero is no braver than an ordinary man, but he is braver
five minutes longer. It's probably as good a definition as any because
heroes have always been defined by the times in which they lived. Our
own confused age is reflected by the fact that there is no universal
definition of a hero today, just as most things in our lives are viewed
from a relative standpoint so are "heroes". How do you identify a real
hero in an age of moral relativism? It's not easy.
Everyone
would probably agree that heroes exhibit certain qualities. Bravery,
courage, selflessness, a sacrifice, perseverance are all heroic
qualities. But non heroes can exhibit those, for the wrong or bad
reasons, too. Some of the worst thugs in history had all four of those
qualities present, yet their behaviors were so cruel we would not
consider them to be heroes. Then again, misguided people in Libya who
supported Mummar Ghadaffi probably identified him as a hero.
Sometimes we only regard public figures as heroes, a child may regard
the football star who wins the game as a hero. But when that child is
grown and mature he will long have forgotten the football "hero" and
defined a parent or someone else who is unknown to the public as a
hero. And what about the patriotic types who claim that soldiers are
heroes. Surely, not every soldier is a hero. Being placed in danger does
not constitute heroism. Maybe those who make soldiers heroes just do it
because they need someone to be a hero in the confusing world in which
we live.
I suppose there will never be a universal definition
about who is a hero because heroes are not real anyway. They are more
often just creations of our imagination that we use to help us cope with
our "ordinary" lives
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Why I Won't Use Cell Phones
There are just a few things in life that the majority of people
accept as absolutes. There is the idea that it is better to be good than
evil, that politicians lie, that children should be loved and
protected, etc. But one absolute I am resisting is the recent one, that
anyone who doesn't own and use a cell phone is nuts. There are a few of
us non cell users out here, and while I don't object to anyone saying I
am crazy (there is abundant evidence besides the cell phone thing to
make that contention) I do contest the idea that my craziness is because
I hate and refuse to use cell phones.
Every time I tell someone I don't have a cell phone, I notice a constipated look on their face. And when I disclose that I have never had one and do not want to have one anytime in my lifetime, they give me a look of shock (constipated shock). I know it is because they are addicted to their electronic device and they know no they are addicts, but still I find it hard to believe in their view that there is no life without cell phones. So I now make my case to you for not wanting to go near a cell phone.
First, that "You need to stay connected" reason they always declare makes no sense. I can be connected with my email, computer or land line. I surely don't want to carry those with me every second of every day as cell owners do. Cell phones are not just connections, they are the leashes the monkeys who use them are tied to. The very nature of them makes the user more and more addicted to them, moving away from real world experiences to electronic slavery. They may appear to be choosing to use their cells, but in fact, they are dragged by them into their short term gratification.....all the while not seeing the big picture of life. I don't want to "be in touch" every moment of my life as they are. Rather, choosing when to connect is a far better and healthier life style choice than being on a constant state of alert for the next cell phone vibration.
"But you will be inconvenienced not having a cell phone," the cell addicts claim. I say, thank God for that! If someone needs or want something from me or I of them, it can wait. I don't want people to find me whenever they want to. That is stalking, not communicating! Often not being available shows we didn't need "to be in touch" anyway, and that as a result we found better experiences as a substitute to the one the cell call would have brought. It is often through the inconveniences that we experience the difficulties that make life more unpredictable and interesting.
Cell phones make communicating so simple we become sloppy in out relationships. Some people even define themselves by the amount and frequency of cell phone communications they have. And they often find those phone calls to be the most meaningful relationships they have each day and plan there days around their phones. It's sad.
"Why don't you join the modern world and get a cell phone", some tell me. Fact is, I don't like the "modern world" (as they define it) enough to want one. I find that the more modernity I adopt the less I appreciate the things that matter most to me, and those are the simple non technological ones. When I see the cell robots chattering away about inconsequential mess on a beautiful, sunny, cool day I know they are far more likely to not notice what nature is showing them (my real world). Appreciating the beauty of a rainbow or sunset is one of life's glories. When the cell addict is chattering, he or she is unlikely to notice that. That's also sad.
Another reason for not owning or using a cell phone is the coarseness they bring to society. It's probably because cell phones are addictive and addicts behave badly that this happens. Society has become a colder and more rude place since cell phones and other recent technology captured humans and estranged them from each other. I have no desire to add to that by carrying the greatest modern weapon of cultural assault- the cell phone. Truth is, cell phones are crutches that enable people to be disorganized and self absorbed. Cell phones make people less organized, less capable of short term planning, less able to function on their own and make them much, much less polite to others. Every ring tone heard is the death knell for civility.
"But it's great technology," they say. Well, not all improvements in technology translate as being beneficial for humans. For example, nuclear weapons are a better and newer technology for armies today, but they surely are not weapons humans should use. New doesn't mean better, nor does convenience mean improvement. Every day I wonder why people follow the habits of others and blindly embrace cell phones without once evaluating whether those habits are an asset or liability to them.
Fact is, despite all the reasons cell phones can be convenient for users, in the end, they are like any other addictive product, giving the user a rush and exacting a heavy price to the health and welfare of the user.
Make my graveside epitaph this and I will rest in eternal peace..... 'He never Used a cell phone'
Every time I tell someone I don't have a cell phone, I notice a constipated look on their face. And when I disclose that I have never had one and do not want to have one anytime in my lifetime, they give me a look of shock (constipated shock). I know it is because they are addicted to their electronic device and they know no they are addicts, but still I find it hard to believe in their view that there is no life without cell phones. So I now make my case to you for not wanting to go near a cell phone.
First, that "You need to stay connected" reason they always declare makes no sense. I can be connected with my email, computer or land line. I surely don't want to carry those with me every second of every day as cell owners do. Cell phones are not just connections, they are the leashes the monkeys who use them are tied to. The very nature of them makes the user more and more addicted to them, moving away from real world experiences to electronic slavery. They may appear to be choosing to use their cells, but in fact, they are dragged by them into their short term gratification.....all the while not seeing the big picture of life. I don't want to "be in touch" every moment of my life as they are. Rather, choosing when to connect is a far better and healthier life style choice than being on a constant state of alert for the next cell phone vibration.
"But you will be inconvenienced not having a cell phone," the cell addicts claim. I say, thank God for that! If someone needs or want something from me or I of them, it can wait. I don't want people to find me whenever they want to. That is stalking, not communicating! Often not being available shows we didn't need "to be in touch" anyway, and that as a result we found better experiences as a substitute to the one the cell call would have brought. It is often through the inconveniences that we experience the difficulties that make life more unpredictable and interesting.
Cell phones make communicating so simple we become sloppy in out relationships. Some people even define themselves by the amount and frequency of cell phone communications they have. And they often find those phone calls to be the most meaningful relationships they have each day and plan there days around their phones. It's sad.
"Why don't you join the modern world and get a cell phone", some tell me. Fact is, I don't like the "modern world" (as they define it) enough to want one. I find that the more modernity I adopt the less I appreciate the things that matter most to me, and those are the simple non technological ones. When I see the cell robots chattering away about inconsequential mess on a beautiful, sunny, cool day I know they are far more likely to not notice what nature is showing them (my real world). Appreciating the beauty of a rainbow or sunset is one of life's glories. When the cell addict is chattering, he or she is unlikely to notice that. That's also sad.
Another reason for not owning or using a cell phone is the coarseness they bring to society. It's probably because cell phones are addictive and addicts behave badly that this happens. Society has become a colder and more rude place since cell phones and other recent technology captured humans and estranged them from each other. I have no desire to add to that by carrying the greatest modern weapon of cultural assault- the cell phone. Truth is, cell phones are crutches that enable people to be disorganized and self absorbed. Cell phones make people less organized, less capable of short term planning, less able to function on their own and make them much, much less polite to others. Every ring tone heard is the death knell for civility.
"But it's great technology," they say. Well, not all improvements in technology translate as being beneficial for humans. For example, nuclear weapons are a better and newer technology for armies today, but they surely are not weapons humans should use. New doesn't mean better, nor does convenience mean improvement. Every day I wonder why people follow the habits of others and blindly embrace cell phones without once evaluating whether those habits are an asset or liability to them.
Fact is, despite all the reasons cell phones can be convenient for users, in the end, they are like any other addictive product, giving the user a rush and exacting a heavy price to the health and welfare of the user.
Make my graveside epitaph this and I will rest in eternal peace..... 'He never Used a cell phone'
Sitting To Death
I am a confused man (again). Don't tell me to "sit down" and
relax, because what confuses me is the so called research that says
sitting is bad for humans. Yep! They say that people who sit too much
have "sitting disease". I think we are supposed to stop saying "sit down
and relax" and substitute "stand up and live longer" instead. Data
research from the Pennington Biomedical Research Center was just
released that says that sitting cuts off as many years of life as
smoking. I suspect the sitting research people may have been smoking
something that made them bleary headed when they concluded that, but it
is what they claim.
Supposedly, if we spent less than three hours a day sitting, it would add two years to our average life expectancy. I am not sure if office employees will start typing while standing up, or if standing too much shortens lives too. But it seems impractical. And, the research says, that if you like to sit on the couch and watch TV for more than two hours a day you can add about 1 1/2 years to your life.
Pennington claims that sitting is as much of a risk to health as not only smoking, but being obese. I guess the fat, smoker who sits on his couch and watches reality TV is headed of a quick death. But then, anyone who watches that much reality TV is already brain dead. Sigh..first they wanted to take away my fatty food and sweets, then they told me I have to exercise vigorously every day, and now they tell me I can't sit and be lazy. What's next...a ban on donuts!
There is no food, drink or activity that some study won't say is killing us. It's crazy, and I suggest that we kill the studies instead. When we live our lives the way we wish and the way we most feel comfortable, most often we will live the best and longest because we eliminate the stress the researchers place on us to live up to their beliefs. I am not going to take this "sitting down"! As far as I am concerned those researches can just sit on their studies.
Supposedly, if we spent less than three hours a day sitting, it would add two years to our average life expectancy. I am not sure if office employees will start typing while standing up, or if standing too much shortens lives too. But it seems impractical. And, the research says, that if you like to sit on the couch and watch TV for more than two hours a day you can add about 1 1/2 years to your life.
Pennington claims that sitting is as much of a risk to health as not only smoking, but being obese. I guess the fat, smoker who sits on his couch and watches reality TV is headed of a quick death. But then, anyone who watches that much reality TV is already brain dead. Sigh..first they wanted to take away my fatty food and sweets, then they told me I have to exercise vigorously every day, and now they tell me I can't sit and be lazy. What's next...a ban on donuts!
There is no food, drink or activity that some study won't say is killing us. It's crazy, and I suggest that we kill the studies instead. When we live our lives the way we wish and the way we most feel comfortable, most often we will live the best and longest because we eliminate the stress the researchers place on us to live up to their beliefs. I am not going to take this "sitting down"! As far as I am concerned those researches can just sit on their studies.
Governments Censoring Google
Remember that old refrain that the Internet was wonderful because it
was a free and open platform for the exchange of information? I guess
we soon learned that it isn't so. There are restrictions and censorship
all over the Internet. Just ask someone in North Korea, for instance, if
he or she can read anything on the Internet. Google (and its
affiliated partner Yu Tube) probably gets bombarded the most by
governments who ask them to remove content or to turn over content that
the government can use to harass someone who posted it.
The country by country total of censorship request for the past six months of last year was just released by Google. What is surprising is how many democratic countries ask too. But then, those requests are more often not about censoring free speech. They are most often legitimate attempt to enforce laws such as those protecting privacy of an individual or restricting hate speech. Dictatorships though, as in China and Iran, often hint to Google to remove content because they want to suppress internal opposition, they don't like the content or are because they see the content as threatening the governments control over its people. When the dictators don't get Google's cooperation they often censor themselves by blocking out access in their countries to Google and Yu Tube with their self imposed filters.
Google says it gets more than 2 million requests alone just to remove addresses from its search engine. It all makes one wonder if there is any communication platform that is truly free, and whether the increasing attempts of governments to censor, for good or evil reasons, content that used to be seen by Internet users without such filters.
Here is a representative sampling of the highlights of the censorship requests as Google reported during that 6 month period, and why Google faces big problems in trying to obey all the requests, both for real and self-serving censorship attempts.
Brazil
We received the most requests for censorship from Brazil, with 418 requests made. We complied with 61% of them
Canada
We received a request from the Passport Canada Office to remove a YouTube video of a Canadian citizen urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet. We did not comply with this request.
China
We received three requests to remove a total of 121 items from our services. We removed ads that violated our AdWords policies in response to two of those requests, but did not comply otherwise. We have withheld details about one request because we have reason to believe that the Chinese government has prohibited us from full disclosure.
YouTube was inaccessible during this reporting period.
France
A single court order resulted in the removal of 180 items from Google Groups relating to a case of defamation against a man and his wife.
Germany
A court order resulted in the removal of 898 search results that linked to forums and blogs containing statements about a government agency and one of its employees that the court determined were not credible.
We received a request to remove 70 YouTube videos for allegedly violating the German Childrens and Young Persons Act. We restricted some of the videos from view in Germany in accordance with local laws.
India
The number of content removal requests we received increased by 49% compared to the previous reporting period.
Italy
We received a request from the Central Police in Italy to remove a YouTube video that satirized Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s lifestyle. We did not comply with this request.
Pakistan
We received a request from the Government of Pakistan's Ministry of Information Technology to remove six YouTube videos that satirized the Pakistan Army and senior politicians. We did not comply with this request.
Norway
Two requests resulted in the removal of 1814 items from AdWords for violating Norwegian marketing laws.
Poland
We received a request from the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development to remove a search result that criticized the agency as well as eight more that linked to it. We did not comply with this request.
Spain
We received 14 requests from the Spanish Data Protection Authority to remove 270 search results that linked to blogs and sites referencing individuals and public figures. The Spanish Data Protection Authority also ordered the removal of three blogs published on Blogger and three videos hosted on YouTube. We did not comply with these requests.
Thailand
We received four requests from the Ministry of Information, Communication and Technology in Thailand to remove 149 YouTube videos for allegedly insulting the monarchy in violation of Thailand's lèse-majesté law. We restricted 70% of these videos from view in Thailand in accordance with local law.
Turkey
We received a request from the Telecommunciations Communication Presidency of the Information and Communications Technologies Authoritiy to remove a YouTube video that contained hate speech and two other videos about Atatürk. We removed the video with hate speech for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines but did not comply with the rest of the request. In addition, we received two requests from the Telecommunications Communication Presidency of the Information and Communications Technologies Authority and a request from the Ankara Public Prosecutor of the Press Bureau to remove a total of seven YouTube videos, claiming that the videos violated law no. 5816 on crimes against Atatürk. We restricted Turkish users from accessing six of these videos.
United Kingdom
We received a request from the UK's Association of Police Officers to remove five user accounts that allegedly promoted terrorism. We terminated these accounts because they violated YouTube's Community Guidelines and as a result approximately 640 videos were removed.
United States
We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove a blog because of a post that allegedly defamed a law enforcement official in a personal capacity. We did not comply with this request, which we have categorized in this Report as a defamation request.
We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 1,400 YouTube videos
for alleged harassment. We did not comply with this request. Separately, we received a request from a different local law enforcement agency to remove five user accounts that allegedly contained threatening and/or harassing content. We terminated four of the accounts, which resulted in the removal of approximately 300 videos, but did not remove the remaining account with 54 videos.
We received a court order to remove 218 search results that linked to allegedly defamatory web sites. We removed 25% of the results cited in the request.
The number of content removal requests we received increased by 103% compared to the previous reporting period.
The country by country total of censorship request for the past six months of last year was just released by Google. What is surprising is how many democratic countries ask too. But then, those requests are more often not about censoring free speech. They are most often legitimate attempt to enforce laws such as those protecting privacy of an individual or restricting hate speech. Dictatorships though, as in China and Iran, often hint to Google to remove content because they want to suppress internal opposition, they don't like the content or are because they see the content as threatening the governments control over its people. When the dictators don't get Google's cooperation they often censor themselves by blocking out access in their countries to Google and Yu Tube with their self imposed filters.
Google says it gets more than 2 million requests alone just to remove addresses from its search engine. It all makes one wonder if there is any communication platform that is truly free, and whether the increasing attempts of governments to censor, for good or evil reasons, content that used to be seen by Internet users without such filters.
Here is a representative sampling of the highlights of the censorship requests as Google reported during that 6 month period, and why Google faces big problems in trying to obey all the requests, both for real and self-serving censorship attempts.
Brazil
We received the most requests for censorship from Brazil, with 418 requests made. We complied with 61% of them
Canada
We received a request from the Passport Canada Office to remove a YouTube video of a Canadian citizen urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet. We did not comply with this request.
China
We received three requests to remove a total of 121 items from our services. We removed ads that violated our AdWords policies in response to two of those requests, but did not comply otherwise. We have withheld details about one request because we have reason to believe that the Chinese government has prohibited us from full disclosure.
YouTube was inaccessible during this reporting period.
France
A single court order resulted in the removal of 180 items from Google Groups relating to a case of defamation against a man and his wife.
Germany
A court order resulted in the removal of 898 search results that linked to forums and blogs containing statements about a government agency and one of its employees that the court determined were not credible.
We received a request to remove 70 YouTube videos for allegedly violating the German Childrens and Young Persons Act. We restricted some of the videos from view in Germany in accordance with local laws.
India
The number of content removal requests we received increased by 49% compared to the previous reporting period.
Italy
We received a request from the Central Police in Italy to remove a YouTube video that satirized Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s lifestyle. We did not comply with this request.
Pakistan
We received a request from the Government of Pakistan's Ministry of Information Technology to remove six YouTube videos that satirized the Pakistan Army and senior politicians. We did not comply with this request.
Norway
Two requests resulted in the removal of 1814 items from AdWords for violating Norwegian marketing laws.
Poland
We received a request from the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development to remove a search result that criticized the agency as well as eight more that linked to it. We did not comply with this request.
Spain
We received 14 requests from the Spanish Data Protection Authority to remove 270 search results that linked to blogs and sites referencing individuals and public figures. The Spanish Data Protection Authority also ordered the removal of three blogs published on Blogger and three videos hosted on YouTube. We did not comply with these requests.
Thailand
We received four requests from the Ministry of Information, Communication and Technology in Thailand to remove 149 YouTube videos for allegedly insulting the monarchy in violation of Thailand's lèse-majesté law. We restricted 70% of these videos from view in Thailand in accordance with local law.
Turkey
We received a request from the Telecommunciations Communication Presidency of the Information and Communications Technologies Authoritiy to remove a YouTube video that contained hate speech and two other videos about Atatürk. We removed the video with hate speech for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines but did not comply with the rest of the request. In addition, we received two requests from the Telecommunications Communication Presidency of the Information and Communications Technologies Authority and a request from the Ankara Public Prosecutor of the Press Bureau to remove a total of seven YouTube videos, claiming that the videos violated law no. 5816 on crimes against Atatürk. We restricted Turkish users from accessing six of these videos.
United Kingdom
We received a request from the UK's Association of Police Officers to remove five user accounts that allegedly promoted terrorism. We terminated these accounts because they violated YouTube's Community Guidelines and as a result approximately 640 videos were removed.
United States
We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove a blog because of a post that allegedly defamed a law enforcement official in a personal capacity. We did not comply with this request, which we have categorized in this Report as a defamation request.
We received a request from a local law enforcement agency to remove 1,400 YouTube videos
for alleged harassment. We did not comply with this request. Separately, we received a request from a different local law enforcement agency to remove five user accounts that allegedly contained threatening and/or harassing content. We terminated four of the accounts, which resulted in the removal of approximately 300 videos, but did not remove the remaining account with 54 videos.
We received a court order to remove 218 search results that linked to allegedly defamatory web sites. We removed 25% of the results cited in the request.
The number of content removal requests we received increased by 103% compared to the previous reporting period.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Too Many Cookbooks
I was dusting some bookshelves in my house and got ambitious enough
to remove all the books to dust properly. This is a major story in
itself, a male who dusts properly. But I'll leave that topic until later
because I want to write something about all the cookbooks I have here. I
have way too many, like so many others who like to cook. Next to the
Bible, cook books may be the most common books of all. Yet most people
use only a few recipes from a few of the cook books they have, probably
because we tend to cook the familiar.
I bought all those cook books from bookstores and thrift stores, when every cookbook or any other kind of book someone else decided was no longer appropriate for them, costs just a couple of dollars. I often shop for books at thrift stores, like Goodwill. There is a huge selection of books in all condition of all subject matter, and it's fun to select readings by impulse rather than following the crowd and reading what every one else thinks is hot. Most books that are big sellers are not literary masterpieces, they are simply manifestations of the human habit of following the herd and pretending to like it.
Cookbooks don't follow that rule. There are cookbooks from every possible source, available and waiting for the buyer. Cook books are easier to write and appeal to so many that endless titles are published. I have many off beat cook books many of which I skim through but never select recipes from. Some are better for their curious content than for their eatable recipes. Among the more than 150 titles I have is the: an Amish cookbook (Those Pennsylvania Dutch immigrants who still live as if they are in the 18th century but who have a good reputations for baking recipes), the Thai and Danish cookbooks I received from friends, celebrity cookbooks (I like the amusing celebrity commentary, not the recipes which are probably not their own anyway), regional cookbooks (country, city or state cookbooks like The Savanna or Charleston cookbook) style cookbooks (like...cooking in one pot, in a microwave, barbecuing, sauté cooking etc. I won't allow any of those awful "healthy or diet cooking" selections in my house), Nationalistic cookbooks (The pretentious French seem to have more "French" cooking books than have any other national selection, but Italian cookbooks are my favorite), Feature cookbooks (desserts breads and meats are popular), cookbooks published by charity organizations (schools, clubs, churches, the women's league, the YMCA etc.), Instructive cookbooks (step by step for cooking novices), and Picture cookbooks (people buy them because of the lush photographs of the food or scenic areas the food represent. These books sit on coffee tables more than in a kitchen and their recipes often are never tried).
There are more types but you get the idea. Cookbooks are as varied as are the humans who write them. My favorite ones are the cookbooks of my favorite foods of my youth and life thereafter, the Cajun/Creole and the New Orleans or Louisiana cookbooks, of which I have many. I like those recipes best and use those books far more than the others.
I think most cookbooks are lightly read and used. They are warm and fuzzy books that give us the promise that we might actually use them for something tasty. Yet, they never pressure us to look at or use. Too, one never knows where the next great recipe can be found, whether in a popular cookbook or an obscure one. Whatever, don't let them gather too much dust on your bookshelves. Get cooking.....
I bought all those cook books from bookstores and thrift stores, when every cookbook or any other kind of book someone else decided was no longer appropriate for them, costs just a couple of dollars. I often shop for books at thrift stores, like Goodwill. There is a huge selection of books in all condition of all subject matter, and it's fun to select readings by impulse rather than following the crowd and reading what every one else thinks is hot. Most books that are big sellers are not literary masterpieces, they are simply manifestations of the human habit of following the herd and pretending to like it.
Cookbooks don't follow that rule. There are cookbooks from every possible source, available and waiting for the buyer. Cook books are easier to write and appeal to so many that endless titles are published. I have many off beat cook books many of which I skim through but never select recipes from. Some are better for their curious content than for their eatable recipes. Among the more than 150 titles I have is the: an Amish cookbook (Those Pennsylvania Dutch immigrants who still live as if they are in the 18th century but who have a good reputations for baking recipes), the Thai and Danish cookbooks I received from friends, celebrity cookbooks (I like the amusing celebrity commentary, not the recipes which are probably not their own anyway), regional cookbooks (country, city or state cookbooks like The Savanna or Charleston cookbook) style cookbooks (like...cooking in one pot, in a microwave, barbecuing, sauté cooking etc. I won't allow any of those awful "healthy or diet cooking" selections in my house), Nationalistic cookbooks (The pretentious French seem to have more "French" cooking books than have any other national selection, but Italian cookbooks are my favorite), Feature cookbooks (desserts breads and meats are popular), cookbooks published by charity organizations (schools, clubs, churches, the women's league, the YMCA etc.), Instructive cookbooks (step by step for cooking novices), and Picture cookbooks (people buy them because of the lush photographs of the food or scenic areas the food represent. These books sit on coffee tables more than in a kitchen and their recipes often are never tried).
There are more types but you get the idea. Cookbooks are as varied as are the humans who write them. My favorite ones are the cookbooks of my favorite foods of my youth and life thereafter, the Cajun/Creole and the New Orleans or Louisiana cookbooks, of which I have many. I like those recipes best and use those books far more than the others.
I think most cookbooks are lightly read and used. They are warm and fuzzy books that give us the promise that we might actually use them for something tasty. Yet, they never pressure us to look at or use. Too, one never knows where the next great recipe can be found, whether in a popular cookbook or an obscure one. Whatever, don't let them gather too much dust on your bookshelves. Get cooking.....
Mr. Postman
Post office outlets are rapidly closing around the country now, and
the end of "snail mail" as we know it is near. It's sad because postal
delivery and the buildings that house branches of the post office in
every community have been a part of shaping the community feeling (that
is also evaporating everywhere in many other ways) that make life more
pleasant. First we lost many of the neighborhood bakeries, and now the
post office is leaving us too. Progress does leave collateral damage.
As businesses and people more often use E mail, the fax and other electronic methods to pass information along, and as the popularity of the personal letter continues to decline, there is no doubt snail mail is already in intensive care. Speed and cost have killed tradition. Too bad because there is something special about waiting for an important letter. It makes for a more exciting experience. Sending an E mail today is all about immediacy, and there is much less emotion attached to it. To illustrate this listen to one of my favorite Beatle songs about just that, 'Please Mr. Postman'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8BPcNUQy-0
The Lyrics say it all. The lines below from the song not only pine about lost or anxious love, but also about the power of the anticipation of receiving a letter. But in today's instant communication world the anticipation might last a few seconds. Though the song should hold interest forever, given the quality of the music, I wonder if kids today who have never lived in a world where there was only snail mail could fully understand or appreciate the angst the song displays. And that is a pity as well. A life lived only in instant gratification is far less interesting than one lived in anticipation, even in those cases where the anticipation might be negative. Mr. Postman, please bring a letter to me today...
'There must be some word today from my (boy) girlfriend so far away.
Please, Mister Postman, look and see.
Is there a letter, a letter for me?
I've been standing here waiting, Mr. Postman, oh, so patiently
For just a card or just a letter sayin' (s)he'll be comin' home to me.'
'So many days have passed me by.
You saw the tears in my eyes.
You wouldn't stop to make me feel better
By leavin' me a card or a letter'.
As businesses and people more often use E mail, the fax and other electronic methods to pass information along, and as the popularity of the personal letter continues to decline, there is no doubt snail mail is already in intensive care. Speed and cost have killed tradition. Too bad because there is something special about waiting for an important letter. It makes for a more exciting experience. Sending an E mail today is all about immediacy, and there is much less emotion attached to it. To illustrate this listen to one of my favorite Beatle songs about just that, 'Please Mr. Postman'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8BPcNUQy-0
The Lyrics say it all. The lines below from the song not only pine about lost or anxious love, but also about the power of the anticipation of receiving a letter. But in today's instant communication world the anticipation might last a few seconds. Though the song should hold interest forever, given the quality of the music, I wonder if kids today who have never lived in a world where there was only snail mail could fully understand or appreciate the angst the song displays. And that is a pity as well. A life lived only in instant gratification is far less interesting than one lived in anticipation, even in those cases where the anticipation might be negative. Mr. Postman, please bring a letter to me today...
'There must be some word today from my (boy) girlfriend so far away.
Please, Mister Postman, look and see.
Is there a letter, a letter for me?
I've been standing here waiting, Mr. Postman, oh, so patiently
For just a card or just a letter sayin' (s)he'll be comin' home to me.'
'So many days have passed me by.
You saw the tears in my eyes.
You wouldn't stop to make me feel better
By leavin' me a card or a letter'.
Bikini Time
It's a great month for all we men. This is the Sixty-six year
anniversary of a sacred item. The bikini made its first appearance
sixty six years ago and it is still a male favorite.. This is
significant because the world revolves around who looks good in a
bikini,....or something like that. Thank God the bikini is a female
clothing item. You might have a nightmare if I wore one, or any other
man for that matter. Never was a clothing item more suited for the body
beautiful types and unsuitable for the other 99% of humans. Fortunately,
those who are misshapen and would look bad in a bikini usually have the
sense to not wear one.
Contrary to popular belief, the bikini was not named after Bikini Atoll, the Pacific island where the U.S. military tested the atom bomb (the idea being that the swimsuit was like the atom – small, but powerful). The earliest representation of the bikini was found in an ancient Roman mosaic. The picture depicts several women in skimpy, two piece garments engaged in sporting events such as running, lifting weights and throwing the discus. I am sure Roman fat guys like me must have enjoyed looking at those hot murals. They probably drank beer and ate pizza as they gawked at the bikini ladies.
Once the bikini look arrived there was no stopping it. Even in puritan Victorian England bikinis made the scene. They became a way for women to rebel against society's rules about showing too much skin and its stigma against displaying any part of the female body. Young Victorian ladies ladies flocked to seaside resorts attired in swim wear made of wool or heavy flannel, scandalizing beach goers in costumes that left little to the imagination above the neck and below the ankle. That kind of bikini may not excited me now, but that was revealing attire for those days and leads us to the sensational bikini ancestor, the thong.
I have to give those lousy French a small credit. After the bikini disappeared they brought back and for updated the bikini. They re introduced it to the world after W.W.II in the form of the sexy bikinis we love today. We must have become bikini mad now because there is the bikini waxing ritual (thank Goodness kit's also only for women) and that infamous song from the early 60's, "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini". How can anyone resent , even a bad sing when it honors the bikini?
Hmmm I think I am beginning to sound like a dirty old man, so I will stop writing about bikinis, log off and try to find some bikini ladies off line.
Contrary to popular belief, the bikini was not named after Bikini Atoll, the Pacific island where the U.S. military tested the atom bomb (the idea being that the swimsuit was like the atom – small, but powerful). The earliest representation of the bikini was found in an ancient Roman mosaic. The picture depicts several women in skimpy, two piece garments engaged in sporting events such as running, lifting weights and throwing the discus. I am sure Roman fat guys like me must have enjoyed looking at those hot murals. They probably drank beer and ate pizza as they gawked at the bikini ladies.
Once the bikini look arrived there was no stopping it. Even in puritan Victorian England bikinis made the scene. They became a way for women to rebel against society's rules about showing too much skin and its stigma against displaying any part of the female body. Young Victorian ladies ladies flocked to seaside resorts attired in swim wear made of wool or heavy flannel, scandalizing beach goers in costumes that left little to the imagination above the neck and below the ankle. That kind of bikini may not excited me now, but that was revealing attire for those days and leads us to the sensational bikini ancestor, the thong.
I have to give those lousy French a small credit. After the bikini disappeared they brought back and for updated the bikini. They re introduced it to the world after W.W.II in the form of the sexy bikinis we love today. We must have become bikini mad now because there is the bikini waxing ritual (thank Goodness kit's also only for women) and that infamous song from the early 60's, "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini". How can anyone resent , even a bad sing when it honors the bikini?
Hmmm I think I am beginning to sound like a dirty old man, so I will stop writing about bikinis, log off and try to find some bikini ladies off line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)