My dictionary defines the word ethereal as "extremely delicate and light in a way that seems too perfect for this world."
I think that perfectly describes this music track, one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard. I must've played it a thousand times.
It's from the album Requiem for My Friend by the composer Zbigniew Preisner, who has written many lushly beautiful film scores for European films.
Sunday, April 30, 2017
Saturday, April 29, 2017
waiting-room televisions
I have a new pet peeve. Actually, it's an existing annoyance that's now been upgraded to a pet peeve.
I hate waiting-room televisions. My father-in-law often stays overnight with us when he has medical appointments so I can be his designated chauffeur. I have utterly no problem doing that.
That means, however, I often have to sit in a medical appointment room, sometimes for as long as two hours, while he's having his appointment or procedure.
Many waiting rooms now have televisions. This seems to be an idea they've imported from the States.
Some offices are courteous to their patients and leave the TV on, but with the sound muted and showing subtitles. I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with are TVs with a loud volume that cannot be turned down nor can the TV even be turned off. So even if no one is watching the TV, people trying to read in the waiting room must endure some kind of insipid daytime crap on the TV. If you ask for it to be turned down or off, the receptionist will usually say some variation of "I'm not allowed."
I often take my iPod with me to waiting rooms so I can listen to a recorded book, but if the TV is on so loud, then it renders the iPod worthless.
The invasion of waiting-room TVs hasn't just affected medical offices. It's in dental offices, vet clinics, auto service facilities -- pretty much any place people are waiting. They even have the damn things now in supermarket checkout aisles.
Homo sapien is evolving into homo vididiotus.
I hate waiting-room televisions. My father-in-law often stays overnight with us when he has medical appointments so I can be his designated chauffeur. I have utterly no problem doing that.
That means, however, I often have to sit in a medical appointment room, sometimes for as long as two hours, while he's having his appointment or procedure.
Many waiting rooms now have televisions. This seems to be an idea they've imported from the States.
Some offices are courteous to their patients and leave the TV on, but with the sound muted and showing subtitles. I have no problem with that.
What I do have a problem with are TVs with a loud volume that cannot be turned down nor can the TV even be turned off. So even if no one is watching the TV, people trying to read in the waiting room must endure some kind of insipid daytime crap on the TV. If you ask for it to be turned down or off, the receptionist will usually say some variation of "I'm not allowed."
I often take my iPod with me to waiting rooms so I can listen to a recorded book, but if the TV is on so loud, then it renders the iPod worthless.
The invasion of waiting-room TVs hasn't just affected medical offices. It's in dental offices, vet clinics, auto service facilities -- pretty much any place people are waiting. They even have the damn things now in supermarket checkout aisles.
Homo sapien is evolving into homo vididiotus.
Friday, April 28, 2017
directory divergence
My husband are alike in most important ways, but in some ways we're very different. One of those ways is in how we organize computer directories.
I prefer the absolute minimalist approach. Photos are in a folder named "P" and then divided into sub-directories by year. Those are divided into further sub-directories with single letter names, like "F" for family, "V" for vacation, "J" for Joey, "T" for Tombo, "H" for my husband.
This is the same for finances ("F"), taxes ("T"), letters ("L"), etc. Folders always have titles with one or two letters for titles and two numbers for years. The sub-directories go down five or six or seven levels with this system.
Alternatively, the husband prefers the maximum approach for his directories with names so long they fill the entire screen width. Nothing is ever left to doubt.
Now there's nothing wrong with what he does, but I prefer my method because you don't have to spend so much time reading titles to find what you want. He likes his method because you never have to worry about remembering what the one-letter codes mean.
One advantage to my system, I think, is that it would take a thief a while to find anything of importance on my computer because of the cryptic directory system. I also know where I have hidden directories that you can only find by manually typing in locations in a Windows Explorer window, something that drives him completely bananas.
Fortunately, we each have our own computers as well as our own hard drives on the shared desktop computer so we never have to see the other's folder. Out of sight, out of mind.
I prefer the absolute minimalist approach. Photos are in a folder named "P" and then divided into sub-directories by year. Those are divided into further sub-directories with single letter names, like "F" for family, "V" for vacation, "J" for Joey, "T" for Tombo, "H" for my husband.
This is the same for finances ("F"), taxes ("T"), letters ("L"), etc. Folders always have titles with one or two letters for titles and two numbers for years. The sub-directories go down five or six or seven levels with this system.
Alternatively, the husband prefers the maximum approach for his directories with names so long they fill the entire screen width. Nothing is ever left to doubt.
Now there's nothing wrong with what he does, but I prefer my method because you don't have to spend so much time reading titles to find what you want. He likes his method because you never have to worry about remembering what the one-letter codes mean.
One advantage to my system, I think, is that it would take a thief a while to find anything of importance on my computer because of the cryptic directory system. I also know where I have hidden directories that you can only find by manually typing in locations in a Windows Explorer window, something that drives him completely bananas.
Fortunately, we each have our own computers as well as our own hard drives on the shared desktop computer so we never have to see the other's folder. Out of sight, out of mind.
Thursday, April 27, 2017
shameless or shameful?
I have been reading about controversy over ongoing removal of confederate monuments occurring primarily in the southern United States. These are usually memorials to key southern military officers who fought for the Confederacy during the American Civil War.
Both sides of the controversy have comprehensive arguments why the monuments should or should not stay. I won't go into those here, because that's not really my focus today.
The night before last, workers wearing body armor removed a particularly contentious monument that paid tribute to an organization called the Crescent City White League, some of whose members were killed in 1874 in something called the Battle of Liberty Place.
The Crescent City White League was a self-professed white supremacist group that attempted to overthrow the state government which had won office with votes from African-Americans, among others. Some of the White League members died in the attempt, as did seven police officers defending government offices.
So in a nutshell, the monument was in memory of racists who died while failing to violently overthrow the government.
I can see no legitimate argument for keeping in place a monument to a rag-tag band of people who tried to stage a violent coup nearly a decade after the Civil War was over.
I'm amazed that such a monument was ever erected in the first place and that it stood for more than a hundred years. I'm further amazed that some people in New Orleans were angry this week that the White League monument was taken down at all.
Is the White League monument any less insensitive than, say, a monument honoring people in the Klu Klux Klan who died while terrorizing others?
If people want to commemorate violent racists, they can do that in the privacy of their own homes. Public space should not be used to glorify such individuals.
Both sides of the controversy have comprehensive arguments why the monuments should or should not stay. I won't go into those here, because that's not really my focus today.
The night before last, workers wearing body armor removed a particularly contentious monument that paid tribute to an organization called the Crescent City White League, some of whose members were killed in 1874 in something called the Battle of Liberty Place.
The Crescent City White League was a self-professed white supremacist group that attempted to overthrow the state government which had won office with votes from African-Americans, among others. Some of the White League members died in the attempt, as did seven police officers defending government offices.
So in a nutshell, the monument was in memory of racists who died while failing to violently overthrow the government.
I can see no legitimate argument for keeping in place a monument to a rag-tag band of people who tried to stage a violent coup nearly a decade after the Civil War was over.
I'm amazed that such a monument was ever erected in the first place and that it stood for more than a hundred years. I'm further amazed that some people in New Orleans were angry this week that the White League monument was taken down at all.
Is the White League monument any less insensitive than, say, a monument honoring people in the Klu Klux Klan who died while terrorizing others?
If people want to commemorate violent racists, they can do that in the privacy of their own homes. Public space should not be used to glorify such individuals.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
trapeze & tightrope
A few years ago I read novelist Simon Mawer's book The Girl Who Fell from the Sky (published in some countries as Trapeze) and absolutely loved it. The novel tells the story of an ordinary young bilingual British/French woman who becomes a clandestine operative inside Nazi-occupied France during World War II.
While the story is fictional, it is grounded in historical fact. Britain's Special Operations Executive (SOE) sent scores of undercover agents into occupied countries during the war to carry out sabotage, to spirit important people back to Britain, and to assist native resistance operations.
While most SOE operatives were men, about fifty were women, many of whom were involved in active combat. About a dozen of those brave women were captured, tortured, and executed by the Nazis.
In 2015, Mawer wrote a follow-up novel to The Girl Who Fell from the Sky, titled Tightrope. I finally had a chance to read a copy, so I first re-read The Girl Who Fell from the Sky and then immediately followed with Tightrope.
Needless to say, I found the second book to be every bit as excellent as the first. The author avoided the trap so many authors fall into when they bring back characters from a previous book yet fail to make them engaging.
Tightrope doesn't have that flaw. The central character is radically changed by of her wartime experiences as she tries to carve a place for herself immediately after the war and, once again, becomes involved in clandestine operations.
She succeeds in many ways but also fails in some important ways, more as a character than in terms of story. She's not always sympathetic but Mawer really peels back all the layers so we can see what makes her tick.
I highly recommend both books and, while I'm at it, also Mawer's earlier novel The Fall about a whole different cast of characters. He has an excellent grasp on creating both detailed, realistic, and contradictory characters and compelling, fresh, and original plots.
The only downside to Mawer is that he's slower than a lot of writers who churn out a book every year. He typically takes about three or four years to finish a new novel, which means we should be due for another one sometime in 2018.
While the story is fictional, it is grounded in historical fact. Britain's Special Operations Executive (SOE) sent scores of undercover agents into occupied countries during the war to carry out sabotage, to spirit important people back to Britain, and to assist native resistance operations.
While most SOE operatives were men, about fifty were women, many of whom were involved in active combat. About a dozen of those brave women were captured, tortured, and executed by the Nazis.
In 2015, Mawer wrote a follow-up novel to The Girl Who Fell from the Sky, titled Tightrope. I finally had a chance to read a copy, so I first re-read The Girl Who Fell from the Sky and then immediately followed with Tightrope.
Needless to say, I found the second book to be every bit as excellent as the first. The author avoided the trap so many authors fall into when they bring back characters from a previous book yet fail to make them engaging.
Tightrope doesn't have that flaw. The central character is radically changed by of her wartime experiences as she tries to carve a place for herself immediately after the war and, once again, becomes involved in clandestine operations.
She succeeds in many ways but also fails in some important ways, more as a character than in terms of story. She's not always sympathetic but Mawer really peels back all the layers so we can see what makes her tick.
I highly recommend both books and, while I'm at it, also Mawer's earlier novel The Fall about a whole different cast of characters. He has an excellent grasp on creating both detailed, realistic, and contradictory characters and compelling, fresh, and original plots.
The only downside to Mawer is that he's slower than a lot of writers who churn out a book every year. He typically takes about three or four years to finish a new novel, which means we should be due for another one sometime in 2018.
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
madame robinson
I've been reading about French politician Emmanuel Macron, one of the final two candidates in their presidential election to be held early next month.
Here's what surprised me: his wife is twenty-five years older than he is. He's currently thirty-nine and she's sixty-four.
They met when he was fifteen and she was his forty-year-old high school teacher. While apparently they had an immediate attraction, nothing sexual happened until he was eighteen, notwithstanding the French age of consent is fifteen.
I'm fifteen years younger than my husband, so wide age gaps don't shock me. With that said, my husband didn't meet me when I was fifteen (I was twenty-three) nor was he my teacher.
But I can't say that I don't find this a little bit disturbing. Some gaps are too much, notably when the younger one is very young.
As a mother, how would I feel if my high school age son became romantically involved with a teacher my age? I think I'd find that creepy.
I have to say honestly I don't understand the mindset of a woman attracted to a boy barely through puberty. Even when I was a teenager and sleeping around, I was only attracted to older males, which in a way I guess is creepy, but not to me.
My husband lost his virginity to a friend's mother when he was a teenager but that was strictly a sex thing. That wouldn't bother me as much because no relationship was involved.
Is this reverse sexism? I don't know. I have to admit the prospect of a young man with a woman old enough to be his mother is more creepy than a young woman with a man old enough to be her father.
Here's what surprised me: his wife is twenty-five years older than he is. He's currently thirty-nine and she's sixty-four.
They met when he was fifteen and she was his forty-year-old high school teacher. While apparently they had an immediate attraction, nothing sexual happened until he was eighteen, notwithstanding the French age of consent is fifteen.
I'm fifteen years younger than my husband, so wide age gaps don't shock me. With that said, my husband didn't meet me when I was fifteen (I was twenty-three) nor was he my teacher.
But I can't say that I don't find this a little bit disturbing. Some gaps are too much, notably when the younger one is very young.
As a mother, how would I feel if my high school age son became romantically involved with a teacher my age? I think I'd find that creepy.
I have to say honestly I don't understand the mindset of a woman attracted to a boy barely through puberty. Even when I was a teenager and sleeping around, I was only attracted to older males, which in a way I guess is creepy, but not to me.
My husband lost his virginity to a friend's mother when he was a teenager but that was strictly a sex thing. That wouldn't bother me as much because no relationship was involved.
Is this reverse sexism? I don't know. I have to admit the prospect of a young man with a woman old enough to be his mother is more creepy than a young woman with a man old enough to be her father.
Monday, April 24, 2017
falling star
The actress Erin Moran died over the weekend. She played Joanie Cunningham on the long-running TV show Happy Days.
When I was a fairly small child, I must have watched every episode of that show at least ten times in afternoon reruns. For whatever reason, it never failed to amuse and entertain me.
Moran was only in her fifties and did not have happy days in her personal life after production for the show ended. She had a few more TV and movie appearances, but her career was effectively over when the show that made her a star went off the air.
In the roughly three decades since then, she had struggled with addiction, mental health, and severe financial issues. News reports said she recently had been evicted from a trailer home in Indiana.
Several obituaries I read mentioned how she got into show business at the age of five after her mother secured a Hollywood agent for her. I wonder if therein lay the root to her problems as an adult.
A five-year-old might like the idea of appearing in commercials and on TV, but he or she cannot make an informed decision about the pitfalls of working in the entertainment business. I have to wonder if it's irresponsible parenting to strive to make your kid famous.
The entertainment business has long exploited and then discarded juvenile talent when they are no longer cute. Often they develop mental health and substance issues as aimless adults.
If they had never been famous, would they have had these same problems? Arguably not.
There really is no true advocate for the child in this process. The industry needs an endless supply of cute kids to exploit onscreen. A never-ending parade of pushy parents have no hesitation in exploiting their own children for vicarious reasons.
In my several years living in Los Angeles, I encountered Hollywood parents on more than one occasion. Their children's careers were their singular obsession.
That leaves me wondering what can be done, if anything. Industry lobbyists would probably prevent any true effort at legislative reform, which might mean severely restricting how and when children can act.
As a parent, I would never, ever push my child into an acting career. I'd much rather my boys had normal childhoods.
After all, what's so bad about not being famous?
When I was a fairly small child, I must have watched every episode of that show at least ten times in afternoon reruns. For whatever reason, it never failed to amuse and entertain me.
Moran was only in her fifties and did not have happy days in her personal life after production for the show ended. She had a few more TV and movie appearances, but her career was effectively over when the show that made her a star went off the air.
In the roughly three decades since then, she had struggled with addiction, mental health, and severe financial issues. News reports said she recently had been evicted from a trailer home in Indiana.
Several obituaries I read mentioned how she got into show business at the age of five after her mother secured a Hollywood agent for her. I wonder if therein lay the root to her problems as an adult.
A five-year-old might like the idea of appearing in commercials and on TV, but he or she cannot make an informed decision about the pitfalls of working in the entertainment business. I have to wonder if it's irresponsible parenting to strive to make your kid famous.
The entertainment business has long exploited and then discarded juvenile talent when they are no longer cute. Often they develop mental health and substance issues as aimless adults.
If they had never been famous, would they have had these same problems? Arguably not.
There really is no true advocate for the child in this process. The industry needs an endless supply of cute kids to exploit onscreen. A never-ending parade of pushy parents have no hesitation in exploiting their own children for vicarious reasons.
In my several years living in Los Angeles, I encountered Hollywood parents on more than one occasion. Their children's careers were their singular obsession.
That leaves me wondering what can be done, if anything. Industry lobbyists would probably prevent any true effort at legislative reform, which might mean severely restricting how and when children can act.
As a parent, I would never, ever push my child into an acting career. I'd much rather my boys had normal childhoods.
After all, what's so bad about not being famous?
Sunday, April 23, 2017
blue whale lunch
This is very rare footage of an adult blue whale feeding, photographed by a drone. As the woman narrating explains how, without a drone, it was not possible to film feeding like this.
Blue whales are the largest creatures ever to have lived on earth, larger even than the biggest dinosaur. The largest blue whales are almost one hundred feet long, and males have a penis that is eight to ten feet long.
They almost exclusively eat krill, which are tiny crustaceans that usually do not grow bigger than an inch long. That's pretty amazing to think a huge whale only eats such tiny critters. Can they even taste them?
It's sad to think such beautiful creatures were almost hunted to extinction until protected by an international agreement in 1966. Their numbers have bounced back some since then, but they're still nowhere near the population they once enjoyed.
Blue whales are the largest creatures ever to have lived on earth, larger even than the biggest dinosaur. The largest blue whales are almost one hundred feet long, and males have a penis that is eight to ten feet long.
They almost exclusively eat krill, which are tiny crustaceans that usually do not grow bigger than an inch long. That's pretty amazing to think a huge whale only eats such tiny critters. Can they even taste them?
It's sad to think such beautiful creatures were almost hunted to extinction until protected by an international agreement in 1966. Their numbers have bounced back some since then, but they're still nowhere near the population they once enjoyed.
Saturday, April 22, 2017
snap
A few days ago, British Prime Minister Theresa May called for a general election. Early, off-schedule balloting like this is referred to informally as a "snap election."
Parliamentary countries can do this, although they all have different procedures for how. Australia has a parliament and can hold snap elections, but the procedure is different than for the Brits (and in my opinion, more complicated and confusing).
The United States cannot do this. I do not believe any of the state legislatures can do it, either.
I think this is unfortunate. Snap elections can be called to boost the ruling party's numbers in the legislature. They can also be called when the legislators have lost faith in their chief executive.
The American system cements a bad chief executive in place. If he or she is a mismanaging mess, the country or state must limp along until the next regularly scheduled election, which could be several years away.
There are periods in our country where America could've used a snap election, specifically during Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon's second term, and possibly George W. Bush's second term. The same could happen soon with the current White House occupant.
Of course, the US constitution would have to be amended to incorporate a snap election option. However, I don't think either party would be so inclined to do this.
The reason is obvious -- it would upset the campaign and fundraising operation system already in place which depends on regular cycles. It would introduce more uncertainty into the campaign planning process, and professional campaigners wouldn't want that.
One nice feature of snap elections is they usually happen fast. Britain started the process a few days ago, and the general election will be held in June -- two months away.
Imagine if the American voting cycle was compressed from the year-long slog it is now to two months (as happens on occasion with special elections for Congress to fill one empty seat). The process would be fast, intense, and focused more on the issues.
Parliamentary countries can do this, although they all have different procedures for how. Australia has a parliament and can hold snap elections, but the procedure is different than for the Brits (and in my opinion, more complicated and confusing).
The United States cannot do this. I do not believe any of the state legislatures can do it, either.
I think this is unfortunate. Snap elections can be called to boost the ruling party's numbers in the legislature. They can also be called when the legislators have lost faith in their chief executive.
The American system cements a bad chief executive in place. If he or she is a mismanaging mess, the country or state must limp along until the next regularly scheduled election, which could be several years away.
There are periods in our country where America could've used a snap election, specifically during Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon's second term, and possibly George W. Bush's second term. The same could happen soon with the current White House occupant.
Of course, the US constitution would have to be amended to incorporate a snap election option. However, I don't think either party would be so inclined to do this.
The reason is obvious -- it would upset the campaign and fundraising operation system already in place which depends on regular cycles. It would introduce more uncertainty into the campaign planning process, and professional campaigners wouldn't want that.
One nice feature of snap elections is they usually happen fast. Britain started the process a few days ago, and the general election will be held in June -- two months away.
Imagine if the American voting cycle was compressed from the year-long slog it is now to two months (as happens on occasion with special elections for Congress to fill one empty seat). The process would be fast, intense, and focused more on the issues.
Friday, April 21, 2017
the opioid crisis
I've written before about how I think totally legalizing all drugs is a mistake. I've heard too many horror stories from my shrink brother, who treats many patients with serious addiction issues.
I saw this article on Vox yesterday, immediately read it, then shot the link to my brother. The title and deck read: "I used to support legalizing all drugs. Then the opioid epidemic happened. America’s worst drug crisis shows what can happen when a dangerous, addictive substance is made easily accessible." It's a great piece to give anyone who thinks total legalization is the only way to go, something my brother firmly believes would be a mistake.
At the same time, I agree with many people that the draconian prosecution and punishment system is not working to deal with people sucked into addiction. While experts disagree on the mechanics of "the addiction gene," some people clearly are more vulnerable to becoming addicts than others.
For people convicted of possessing personal amounts of hard drugs, rather than locking them away with all other criminals, I think they need to be sentenced to lockdown treatment facilities. Arguably this would be a far cheaper, more successful, and more humane way to deal with this problem.
I saw this article on Vox yesterday, immediately read it, then shot the link to my brother. The title and deck read: "I used to support legalizing all drugs. Then the opioid epidemic happened. America’s worst drug crisis shows what can happen when a dangerous, addictive substance is made easily accessible." It's a great piece to give anyone who thinks total legalization is the only way to go, something my brother firmly believes would be a mistake.
At the same time, I agree with many people that the draconian prosecution and punishment system is not working to deal with people sucked into addiction. While experts disagree on the mechanics of "the addiction gene," some people clearly are more vulnerable to becoming addicts than others.
For people convicted of possessing personal amounts of hard drugs, rather than locking them away with all other criminals, I think they need to be sentenced to lockdown treatment facilities. Arguably this would be a far cheaper, more successful, and more humane way to deal with this problem.
Thursday, April 20, 2017
the wanderers
Last night I finished reading a new novel The Wanderers, written by American writer Meg Howrey and published last month. The book is listed as science fiction, and while it is, it really isn't, either. It's a true genre bender.
Although set in the near future a few decades away, inhabited by both humans and robots, and involving a planned space trip, the novel is much more about the characters than any grand plot of interplanetary exploration. With careful, sparse, and often elegant prose, the work has the flavor and precision of literary fiction as opposed to genre writing.
In fact, the characters never leave Earth. In preparation for a flight to and from Mars, three astronauts are required to undergo a realistic seventeen-month dress rehearsal in real spacecraft and elaborate virtual reality simulations in the Utah desert.
The book focuses on the three veteran space travelers -- a woman and two men who've already been to space stations several times apiece on extended voyages -- as they endure the dry run and the effect on their immediate families. The astronauts have an intense closeness and at the same time significant distance as they share parts of their lives but not others while being constantly monitored.
The female-male-male triangle has some mild sexual frisson but nothing too serious. The woman is in her early fifties and the men in their thirties, so while there is some electricity, they tamp it down in a believable way.
I recommend the book with the caveat that it may be more for literary readers than scifi fans. Because it's a smaller, character-driven novel, it lacks many science-fiction conventions but, at the same time, it is far better written than most scifi I've digested.
Although set in the near future a few decades away, inhabited by both humans and robots, and involving a planned space trip, the novel is much more about the characters than any grand plot of interplanetary exploration. With careful, sparse, and often elegant prose, the work has the flavor and precision of literary fiction as opposed to genre writing.
In fact, the characters never leave Earth. In preparation for a flight to and from Mars, three astronauts are required to undergo a realistic seventeen-month dress rehearsal in real spacecraft and elaborate virtual reality simulations in the Utah desert.
The book focuses on the three veteran space travelers -- a woman and two men who've already been to space stations several times apiece on extended voyages -- as they endure the dry run and the effect on their immediate families. The astronauts have an intense closeness and at the same time significant distance as they share parts of their lives but not others while being constantly monitored.
The female-male-male triangle has some mild sexual frisson but nothing too serious. The woman is in her early fifties and the men in their thirties, so while there is some electricity, they tamp it down in a believable way.
I recommend the book with the caveat that it may be more for literary readers than scifi fans. Because it's a smaller, character-driven novel, it lacks many science-fiction conventions but, at the same time, it is far better written than most scifi I've digested.
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
online crime
You probably heard about the Cleveland man accused of murdering a stranger on Easter Sunday and then posting a graphic video of the slaying on Facebook. The saga ended yesterday when the suspect was shot and killed after a police chase in nearby Pennsylvania.
This is not the first time a horrible crime video has been posted or live-streamed online by a suspect and often on Facebook, which more often than not has been slow to take it down. This time, it took more than two hours.
In response to this crime and video posting, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made the statement "we have more to do here." What a big bag of empty nothing that non-comment is. It could be applied to anything. "We have more to do here in cleaning the kitchen."
I'm not a Facebook fan and things like this are part of the reason why. The company is dictatorial about how people may use their services, but then has gigantic flaws and loopholes in their policies and moves like molasses in February to correct problems.
Show your own tits on Facebook and you're censored. Post a video showing a ban brutally murdered in cold blood, go right ahead!
I see several easy fixes for web platforms that might cut down on these kinds of problems.
First, before an account holder's videos go live as soon as they're posted, he or she must have previously posted a minimum number of videos that did not receive more than a certain percentage of complaints. Otherwise, hold the videos for a few hours before they go live.
Second, establish a system so that if a video receives more than a certain number of complaints, it is automatically pulled once it is live. Don't wait for human review.
Will Facebook look for these kinds of cautious solutions? I would surprised if they do.
Their promotional material for their live video streaming service promises "personal and emotional and raw and visceral" material. Then they suggest people post things like waiting for baggage at the airport or eating at a food truck.
Here's a thought: instead of encouraging people to post any old meaningless shit, emphasize quality over quantity. Don't try to squeeze a buck out of every possible interaction and instead focus on making it a meaningful experience.
There is no merit in setting up a system to live-stream garbage. It's a waste of bandwidth and only encourages abuse.
This is not the first time a horrible crime video has been posted or live-streamed online by a suspect and often on Facebook, which more often than not has been slow to take it down. This time, it took more than two hours.
In response to this crime and video posting, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg made the statement "we have more to do here." What a big bag of empty nothing that non-comment is. It could be applied to anything. "We have more to do here in cleaning the kitchen."
I'm not a Facebook fan and things like this are part of the reason why. The company is dictatorial about how people may use their services, but then has gigantic flaws and loopholes in their policies and moves like molasses in February to correct problems.
Show your own tits on Facebook and you're censored. Post a video showing a ban brutally murdered in cold blood, go right ahead!
I see several easy fixes for web platforms that might cut down on these kinds of problems.
First, before an account holder's videos go live as soon as they're posted, he or she must have previously posted a minimum number of videos that did not receive more than a certain percentage of complaints. Otherwise, hold the videos for a few hours before they go live.
Second, establish a system so that if a video receives more than a certain number of complaints, it is automatically pulled once it is live. Don't wait for human review.
Will Facebook look for these kinds of cautious solutions? I would surprised if they do.
Their promotional material for their live video streaming service promises "personal and emotional and raw and visceral" material. Then they suggest people post things like waiting for baggage at the airport or eating at a food truck.
Here's a thought: instead of encouraging people to post any old meaningless shit, emphasize quality over quantity. Don't try to squeeze a buck out of every possible interaction and instead focus on making it a meaningful experience.
There is no merit in setting up a system to live-stream garbage. It's a waste of bandwidth and only encourages abuse.
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
under siege
In the past several years, I have read quite a few books about famous sieges in modern history, both novels and non-fiction. Usual the books are about the 28-month siege of Leningrad during World War II, the five-month siege of Stalingrad during the same period, and the four-month siege of Paris in the 1870s and the concurrent Paris Commune.
There are literally thousands of sieges in recorded history, but the three listed above are arguably the most famous of the modern era. Leningrad was the deadliest, with as many as 2.5 million dying as a result.
Stalingrad was the most brutal because it was both a siege and a prolonged house-to-house battle that destroyed much of the city. For its part, Paris was arguably the most influential on later history, given it was the Petri dish for the Russian Revolution and other leftist upheavals through the 20th century.
The personal stories are what fascinate me about sieges, not the military stuff. I like to read about how ordinary people lived and loved and coped and improvised and survived during harrowing sieges.
I can't really figure out why I find this stuff so interesting. I will admit that I've daydreamed at times -- what would it be like to live in a famous city under siege?
The Siege of Paris sounds like it could actually be fun at times. Leningrad was probably the most grim -- people ate rats, sawdust, wallpaper paste, books, shoes, and when someone died, even people, too. Stalingrad was arguably the most frightening with near-constant shelling, bombing, and snipers.
The picture below shows ordinary people collecting water for daily use from bomb craters in the street during the Leningrad siege (enlargement).
There are literally thousands of sieges in recorded history, but the three listed above are arguably the most famous of the modern era. Leningrad was the deadliest, with as many as 2.5 million dying as a result.
Stalingrad was the most brutal because it was both a siege and a prolonged house-to-house battle that destroyed much of the city. For its part, Paris was arguably the most influential on later history, given it was the Petri dish for the Russian Revolution and other leftist upheavals through the 20th century.
The personal stories are what fascinate me about sieges, not the military stuff. I like to read about how ordinary people lived and loved and coped and improvised and survived during harrowing sieges.
I can't really figure out why I find this stuff so interesting. I will admit that I've daydreamed at times -- what would it be like to live in a famous city under siege?
The Siege of Paris sounds like it could actually be fun at times. Leningrad was probably the most grim -- people ate rats, sawdust, wallpaper paste, books, shoes, and when someone died, even people, too. Stalingrad was arguably the most frightening with near-constant shelling, bombing, and snipers.
The picture below shows ordinary people collecting water for daily use from bomb craters in the street during the Leningrad siege (enlargement).
Monday, April 17, 2017
bird sex
When I was a little girl and spent summer vacations at my grandparents farm, one of my chores was feeding and watering the chickens. I loved doing this, so it really wasn't work.
My grandparents always had a rooster and anywhere from a dozen to two dozen hens. I guess if you're a rooster, that's a pretty ideal situation, because you get all the tail you want without any competitition.
One of the things I remember about the rooster was that he quite frequently fertilized the hens, as in several times an hour, all day long. And this wasn't just a particular rooster, either. They had rooster turnover every few years, and they were all the same way with a very active sex life.
I've seen chickens on occasion since then and, more often than not, I'll see a rooster fertilizing the hens. At the same time, like most people, I see wild birds all the time.
One thing I've noticed about wild birds is they're never having sex. We have a bird feeder in our backyard so there's a near constant supply of birds, all of whom appear to be quite chaste.
On the rarest occasion I might see a male do a dropped-wing dance toward a female, which seems to be the universal avian sexual solicitation. But nothing ever happens after that.
So this leaves me wondering if (1) chickens are the hypersexed maniacs of the avian world or (2) wild birds are more discrete about lovemaking because of some survival instinct.
I mentioned this to my husband and he laughed, saying I'm the only person he's ever met who worries about birds' sex lives.
My grandparents always had a rooster and anywhere from a dozen to two dozen hens. I guess if you're a rooster, that's a pretty ideal situation, because you get all the tail you want without any competitition.
One of the things I remember about the rooster was that he quite frequently fertilized the hens, as in several times an hour, all day long. And this wasn't just a particular rooster, either. They had rooster turnover every few years, and they were all the same way with a very active sex life.
I've seen chickens on occasion since then and, more often than not, I'll see a rooster fertilizing the hens. At the same time, like most people, I see wild birds all the time.
One thing I've noticed about wild birds is they're never having sex. We have a bird feeder in our backyard so there's a near constant supply of birds, all of whom appear to be quite chaste.
On the rarest occasion I might see a male do a dropped-wing dance toward a female, which seems to be the universal avian sexual solicitation. But nothing ever happens after that.
So this leaves me wondering if (1) chickens are the hypersexed maniacs of the avian world or (2) wild birds are more discrete about lovemaking because of some survival instinct.
I mentioned this to my husband and he laughed, saying I'm the only person he's ever met who worries about birds' sex lives.
Sunday, April 16, 2017
mister doodlepad
This is Matthew Ezekiel Stager, who was briefly at large earlier this month until recaptured by law enforcement officers when he failed to show up at a transitional center after being released from prison.
I wonder how police recognized him?
I'm guessing most if not all of these facial tattoos were done by another amateur in prison or perhaps Matthew did them himself.
Apparently much of his body is covered with tattoos similar to the ones seen here. I think the moral to this story is that if you go apeshit with the face tattoos you need to plan on a career other than crime.
I wonder how police recognized him?
I'm guessing most if not all of these facial tattoos were done by another amateur in prison or perhaps Matthew did them himself.
Apparently much of his body is covered with tattoos similar to the ones seen here. I think the moral to this story is that if you go apeshit with the face tattoos you need to plan on a career other than crime.
Saturday, April 15, 2017
mismatched shoes
The photo seen below is part of a new ad campaign by designer Céline for her Spring 2017 collection. One industry rag described it as "fashion on an intuitive, clever, understanding wavelength" -- I didn't know clothes could be tuned like a radio dial.
To start, I totally hate the shoes. The mismatched thing is an obvious gimmick. You have to buy two pairs to get that look, so it seems like an obvious ploy to suck more money out of a customer's wallet.
Color aside, I also think the shoe design is unflattering. The mini-boot cuts across a woman's ankle, and the ankle is sometimes what makes her foot look particularly attractive.
I always believe clothes should compliment a woman and make her look better. If you have mismatched shoes, that distracts and makes you appear foolish.
On the other hand, I really like her dress. A lot. I want to find a similar pattern so I can make one for myself.
The over-the-shoulder wrap can be positioned in different ways so it looks like different outfits. If I make this myself, I could whip up a second and third wrap in a contrasting color.
I will not be buying the actual Céline outfit, of course. The dress with wrap costs $2,800 American.
I've always had a love/hate relationship with Céline. I dislike most of the line but some individual pieces I really like. This outfit is a perfect example. Totally hate the shoes and that red with the pink, but totally love the dress and the color.
I predict this "dressed in the dark" look will go nowhere.
To start, I totally hate the shoes. The mismatched thing is an obvious gimmick. You have to buy two pairs to get that look, so it seems like an obvious ploy to suck more money out of a customer's wallet.
Color aside, I also think the shoe design is unflattering. The mini-boot cuts across a woman's ankle, and the ankle is sometimes what makes her foot look particularly attractive.
I always believe clothes should compliment a woman and make her look better. If you have mismatched shoes, that distracts and makes you appear foolish.
On the other hand, I really like her dress. A lot. I want to find a similar pattern so I can make one for myself.
The over-the-shoulder wrap can be positioned in different ways so it looks like different outfits. If I make this myself, I could whip up a second and third wrap in a contrasting color.
I will not be buying the actual Céline outfit, of course. The dress with wrap costs $2,800 American.
I've always had a love/hate relationship with Céline. I dislike most of the line but some individual pieces I really like. This outfit is a perfect example. Totally hate the shoes and that red with the pink, but totally love the dress and the color.
I predict this "dressed in the dark" look will go nowhere.
Friday, April 14, 2017
parents of the year
Christina and Jeff Peyton are a couple from Texas who were so upset at their daughter's choice in boyfriends, they decided the only way to end the relationship was to kill the beau. So they decided to hire a hitman to do the job for them.
They found a hitman and told him what they wanted. "I want him gone," Christina said. "Not out-of-town gone. I want him dead gone."
They promised to pay part of the hit fee up front and rest upon proof of a job well done. When the hitman returned with a photo of what looked like the now-dead boyfriend, the Peytons paid up. And were promptly arrested.
Yep, you guessed it. The hitman was actually an undercover cop.
When I read through this much of the story online, I thought this could make a good movie. It could be black comedy or edgy thriller about a couple who try to undo what they've done once they've hired a hitman to kill their daughter's sweetie-- they have to lose their humanity to find their humanity.
Then I read how much the Peytons were willing to pay for the hit job: $500.
Yep, that's not a typo. Five hundred bucks. That's it.
Obviously we're not dealing with the world's smartest parents here. They did have enough sense to plead guilty to the open-and-shut case this week; Christina will spend eighteen years behind bars and Jeff will clock twenty-one years.
Lucky for them, they were not charged with being stupid for thinking they could hire a genuine hitman for $500.
They found a hitman and told him what they wanted. "I want him gone," Christina said. "Not out-of-town gone. I want him dead gone."
They promised to pay part of the hit fee up front and rest upon proof of a job well done. When the hitman returned with a photo of what looked like the now-dead boyfriend, the Peytons paid up. And were promptly arrested.
Yep, you guessed it. The hitman was actually an undercover cop.
When I read through this much of the story online, I thought this could make a good movie. It could be black comedy or edgy thriller about a couple who try to undo what they've done once they've hired a hitman to kill their daughter's sweetie-- they have to lose their humanity to find their humanity.
Then I read how much the Peytons were willing to pay for the hit job: $500.
Yep, that's not a typo. Five hundred bucks. That's it.
Obviously we're not dealing with the world's smartest parents here. They did have enough sense to plead guilty to the open-and-shut case this week; Christina will spend eighteen years behind bars and Jeff will clock twenty-one years.
Lucky for them, they were not charged with being stupid for thinking they could hire a genuine hitman for $500.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
fortitude
The husband and I have been watching the first season of Fortitude, a British/Scandinavian series filmed in Iceland, and are nearly at the end. The story revolves around a series of bizarre, senseless murders in an Arctic town filled with scientists, exiles, and miners that has never seen a serious crime before.
We're both liking it quite a bit although the pace could be dialed up a bit. The series is surreal and edgy in a unique way and you're never exactly sure who is a hero and who is a monster.
The settings are quite striking and really give the series an otherworldly feel. It makes us want to visit Iceland but also convinces us never to live there -- what a beautifully bleak place.
We haven't discussed what we think the end will be but I have a feeling it will be something off the wall and surreal. I would not be surprised if the characters don't all learn they're actually in hell or something.
The show requires a little bit of patience, particularly in the early episodes, but by about half-way it's really moving along at a good pace. There's one shockingly memorable scene that I can't stop thinking about when one character suddenly disembowels another with a dinner fork.
We're both liking it quite a bit although the pace could be dialed up a bit. The series is surreal and edgy in a unique way and you're never exactly sure who is a hero and who is a monster.
The settings are quite striking and really give the series an otherworldly feel. It makes us want to visit Iceland but also convinces us never to live there -- what a beautifully bleak place.
We haven't discussed what we think the end will be but I have a feeling it will be something off the wall and surreal. I would not be surprised if the characters don't all learn they're actually in hell or something.
The show requires a little bit of patience, particularly in the early episodes, but by about half-way it's really moving along at a good pace. There's one shockingly memorable scene that I can't stop thinking about when one character suddenly disembowels another with a dinner fork.
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
penny-wise, pound-foolish
You've almost certainly heard about United Airlines' huge public relations nightmare ignited when they had a doctor physically dragged off a flight for refusing to give up his ticketed seat because the plane was overbooked. The New York Times published a good overview about the airline's conflicting stories and unforced errors in handling this situation.
I'm no airline expert but I can see several really stupid management mistakes that could easily have avoided this whole incident by just applying some common sense.
First, always bump people before they board a plane. It's easier psychologically to give up something before you actually have it.
Second, don't be so skimpy in the money offers made to people to surrender their seats. If you bump people without their consent, by law you must pay $1,350 per passenger plus a replacement ticket at no cost. So if you're trying to coax people into giving up their seats, don't offer then $100 or $150; give them something worth their while.
Had United offered people $1,000 a head to bump and did it before they boarded the plane, they probably would've had more takers than they needed. Sure, it would have cost a few grand, but how much is the current public relations nightmare costing them?
They were penny-wise but pound-foolish. They were trying to say a few thousand on bump costs and now they'll end up losing millions because of the horrendously bad publicity.
I'm no airline expert but I can see several really stupid management mistakes that could easily have avoided this whole incident by just applying some common sense.
First, always bump people before they board a plane. It's easier psychologically to give up something before you actually have it.
Second, don't be so skimpy in the money offers made to people to surrender their seats. If you bump people without their consent, by law you must pay $1,350 per passenger plus a replacement ticket at no cost. So if you're trying to coax people into giving up their seats, don't offer then $100 or $150; give them something worth their while.
Had United offered people $1,000 a head to bump and did it before they boarded the plane, they probably would've had more takers than they needed. Sure, it would have cost a few grand, but how much is the current public relations nightmare costing them?
They were penny-wise but pound-foolish. They were trying to say a few thousand on bump costs and now they'll end up losing millions because of the horrendously bad publicity.
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
cassette porn
I must admit this is the first time I've ever seen old music cassettes being used as porn props. I guess we're supposed to imagine the women are so turned on by the music that they take off all their clothes, tear open the cassettes, and rub the tapes all over their naked bodies.
The photography and the styling are very well done, but I can't say I find it particularly erotic because it's so silly. Maybe it makes more sense if you're stoned or something.
If this floats your boat, then you might want to look at the whole photo sequence. Warning: innocent cassettes are wantonly destroyed in furtherance of smut.
The photography and the styling are very well done, but I can't say I find it particularly erotic because it's so silly. Maybe it makes more sense if you're stoned or something.
If this floats your boat, then you might want to look at the whole photo sequence. Warning: innocent cassettes are wantonly destroyed in furtherance of smut.
Monday, April 10, 2017
reality TV idea
Over the last decade or so, TV journalists have repeatedly speculated in print whether reality TV was waning as a genre. While ratings for individual programs may be down somewhat because quantity is ever increasing, there's no sign the artform -- if it can be called that -- will die out anytime soon.
With that in mind, I had a sudden brainstorm for a new reality TV series idea: Lap Dancing With the Stars. I know it might seem like I'm joking but I'm actually completely serious.
There's a never-ending supply of C-list and D-list washed-up celebrities who could be used. Start with some out of shape male and female contestants, whip them into shape, and teach them how to lap dance.
They'd obviously be clothed when they performed, but they could wear something snug and revealing that didn't restrict movement. Surely the producers could find some one-hit singing talent and has-been sitcom and cop-show stars of yesteryear to fill out the contestant pool.
Once they were fully trained, then the various contestants would enter elimination rounds common on many times of reality TV shows. The results would produce insalubrious moments, indecorous commentary, dancing disasters, costume mishaps, and more. The titillation and tease factor would be high.
Obviously ABC wouldn't do this because it would devalue their own show Dancing With the Stars, but some of the indy cable channels might produce such a program. So there you go, Hollywood -- steal my idea and make millions.
With that in mind, I had a sudden brainstorm for a new reality TV series idea: Lap Dancing With the Stars. I know it might seem like I'm joking but I'm actually completely serious.
There's a never-ending supply of C-list and D-list washed-up celebrities who could be used. Start with some out of shape male and female contestants, whip them into shape, and teach them how to lap dance.
They'd obviously be clothed when they performed, but they could wear something snug and revealing that didn't restrict movement. Surely the producers could find some one-hit singing talent and has-been sitcom and cop-show stars of yesteryear to fill out the contestant pool.
Once they were fully trained, then the various contestants would enter elimination rounds common on many times of reality TV shows. The results would produce insalubrious moments, indecorous commentary, dancing disasters, costume mishaps, and more. The titillation and tease factor would be high.
Obviously ABC wouldn't do this because it would devalue their own show Dancing With the Stars, but some of the indy cable channels might produce such a program. So there you go, Hollywood -- steal my idea and make millions.
Sunday, April 9, 2017
celebrity candles
Fading actor Antonio Banderas is now selling Antonio Banderas Scented Candles "inspired by his passion for the Mediterranean." They're $21 American.
Do the candles smell like Antonio when he's passionate about the Mediterranean, I wondered? A sort of musky male funky working-hard type of sweaty scent? Does he write around touching himself during this passionate embrace of the European sea?
No, it turns out they smell partly like leather, according to the linked article. Is that like a burnt shoe smell? Who knows what a burnt shoe even smells like? Hot feet? I don't want to know.
This is not the first time Antonio has tried pimping his name for bucks. Already available are Antonio Banderas wines, wallets, sunglasses, and more.
You can't fault falling stars like Antonio for trying to milk money out of their names. If people are gullible enough to buy designer candles, then sell them by all means, Señor.
As for me, I plan to continue buying my candles at the dollar store.
Do the candles smell like Antonio when he's passionate about the Mediterranean, I wondered? A sort of musky male funky working-hard type of sweaty scent? Does he write around touching himself during this passionate embrace of the European sea?
No, it turns out they smell partly like leather, according to the linked article. Is that like a burnt shoe smell? Who knows what a burnt shoe even smells like? Hot feet? I don't want to know.
This is not the first time Antonio has tried pimping his name for bucks. Already available are Antonio Banderas wines, wallets, sunglasses, and more.
You can't fault falling stars like Antonio for trying to milk money out of their names. If people are gullible enough to buy designer candles, then sell them by all means, Señor.
As for me, I plan to continue buying my candles at the dollar store.
Saturday, April 8, 2017
nutball zealots
Until yesterday, I never heard of a woman named Mary Colbert, but after I read about her, I wanted to punch her in the mouth. She and her husband publish various evangelical-themed books with titles like The What Would Jesus Eat Cookbook.
Their books are hyped with appearances on various evangelical TV and radio shows and also at trade fairs.
Like some evangelicals are known for doing, Mary frequently appoints herself to speak for God. Of course there's no proof God has any say in this, but she doesn't want you to question her claim.
Via a website called Deadstate, which apparently is an LA-based lefty contrarian place, I learned Mary was on a religious TV show recently saying God supported a particular elected official and that he was a "chosen one."
What proof is there that said politician is the chosen one? Well, I guess we're supposed to take Mary's word on that.
So this is what she had to say about those of us who don't support "the chosen one":
"All we have to do is recognize them and when you recognize a chosen one and you have the discernment to know that they’ve been chosen and know that that’s the will of God, then your life will be blessed. And if you come against the chosen one of God, you are bringing upon you and your children and your children’s children curses like you have never seen. It puts a holy fear in me."
Pardon my French, Mary, but you can go fuck yourself.
You don't speak for God. And you don't have any clue what any supreme being intends for my children or grandchildren, if pre-destination is indeed even a thing.
Remember "suffer little children to come unto me," Mary? So are you saying God would punish those same children because of some political figure a grandparent opposed long before the child was born?
Karma is a bitch, Mary. Remember that.
Their books are hyped with appearances on various evangelical TV and radio shows and also at trade fairs.
Like some evangelicals are known for doing, Mary frequently appoints herself to speak for God. Of course there's no proof God has any say in this, but she doesn't want you to question her claim.
Via a website called Deadstate, which apparently is an LA-based lefty contrarian place, I learned Mary was on a religious TV show recently saying God supported a particular elected official and that he was a "chosen one."
What proof is there that said politician is the chosen one? Well, I guess we're supposed to take Mary's word on that.
So this is what she had to say about those of us who don't support "the chosen one":
"All we have to do is recognize them and when you recognize a chosen one and you have the discernment to know that they’ve been chosen and know that that’s the will of God, then your life will be blessed. And if you come against the chosen one of God, you are bringing upon you and your children and your children’s children curses like you have never seen. It puts a holy fear in me."
Pardon my French, Mary, but you can go fuck yourself.
You don't speak for God. And you don't have any clue what any supreme being intends for my children or grandchildren, if pre-destination is indeed even a thing.
Remember "suffer little children to come unto me," Mary? So are you saying God would punish those same children because of some political figure a grandparent opposed long before the child was born?
Karma is a bitch, Mary. Remember that.
Friday, April 7, 2017
noblesse oblige
The true story told in this article is pretty disturbing: a maid in Kuwait somehow was stuck outside a window in a highrise apartment building during an apparent suicide attempt. She was literally dangling from the fingers of one hand, as you can see in the video embedded in the link.
She begged her employer for help, but instead her bossed laughed while she filmed her before the maid plunged to the ground far below. Miraculously, the woman survived because she was caught by the building's awning.
This kind of shabby treatment of "the help" is common in other countries. Domestic help are often treated like little more than chattel, as the linked article details
It's amazing how, as our world continues to be more technologically advanced, many people still have a regressive mentality about basic human rights.
While I have many complaints about my upbringing, this is one thing my parents taught us well: respect people. We usually had a housekeeper who lived with us when I was a child, and we always had to treat her as part of the family. That courtesy extended to people outside the home: store clerks, taxi drivers, janitors, you name it.
This is a cultural value and not something easily learned nor taught. But it's certainly something those of us who practice it should do a better job of exporting.
She begged her employer for help, but instead her bossed laughed while she filmed her before the maid plunged to the ground far below. Miraculously, the woman survived because she was caught by the building's awning.
This kind of shabby treatment of "the help" is common in other countries. Domestic help are often treated like little more than chattel, as the linked article details
It's amazing how, as our world continues to be more technologically advanced, many people still have a regressive mentality about basic human rights.
While I have many complaints about my upbringing, this is one thing my parents taught us well: respect people. We usually had a housekeeper who lived with us when I was a child, and we always had to treat her as part of the family. That courtesy extended to people outside the home: store clerks, taxi drivers, janitors, you name it.
This is a cultural value and not something easily learned nor taught. But it's certainly something those of us who practice it should do a better job of exporting.
Thursday, April 6, 2017
the iceman's murderer
I thought this article was pretty fascinating, about the mummy of a man who was murdered some 5,300 years ago in what is now the Italian Alps.
The historic record shows some early ancient civilizations were in their beginnings around 3300 BC, when this Alpine man was killed, but they were nothing like the grand affairs that would eventually become. This was the beginning of the Bronze Age, when almost all humans were both illiterate and had no concept writing even existed.
If I had access to a time machine, I think prehistoric cultures like this would be a fascinating place to visit, perched on the cusp of more modern civilization.
What were the people like? How extensive was their vocabulary? How common was the concept of monogamy or was it non-existent? Did people quickly resort to violence or where they more peaceful and only reacted when provoked?
I would not be surprised if these early humans treated a visitor from the future as some sort of deity. Or is that Hollywood talking -- would they just smash you over the head and try to steal anything you were carrying they thought was valuable?
Maybe that's what happened to the man who became the mummy in question. He was on a mission of peace to people who had no need of what he was selling.
The historic record shows some early ancient civilizations were in their beginnings around 3300 BC, when this Alpine man was killed, but they were nothing like the grand affairs that would eventually become. This was the beginning of the Bronze Age, when almost all humans were both illiterate and had no concept writing even existed.
If I had access to a time machine, I think prehistoric cultures like this would be a fascinating place to visit, perched on the cusp of more modern civilization.
What were the people like? How extensive was their vocabulary? How common was the concept of monogamy or was it non-existent? Did people quickly resort to violence or where they more peaceful and only reacted when provoked?
I would not be surprised if these early humans treated a visitor from the future as some sort of deity. Or is that Hollywood talking -- would they just smash you over the head and try to steal anything you were carrying they thought was valuable?
Maybe that's what happened to the man who became the mummy in question. He was on a mission of peace to people who had no need of what he was selling.
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
her secret place
I'm currently reading a terrific Simon Mawer novel called The Girl Who Fell From the Sky (published in some countries as Trapeze). The story is based on some true events and features a young British/French woman who parachutes into France during World War II as part of the Special Operations Executive's secret mission to send several dozen women behind enemy lines to assist partisans.
At one point in the story, with no other choice of a hiding place, the protagonist must put critically important radio crystals in her vagina. Alone, slipping them in her special place, she ends up masturbating before she's done.
This passage is of interest: "She looks down at herself. What did the nuns used to say? You should not be overfamiliar with your own body. It is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and it is not yours to do with as you please. Rather, you must honor God with it."
Now the writer is male, so a nun likely never told him this, but it's certainly plausible one may have told his wife or some other female relative or acquaintance.
The advice is funny in a way but also deeply frustrating. I can imagine this sort of thing is probably still told to some young women to discourage "self abuse."
I've never quite understood the adult fear of masturbating youths. I would think they'd want to encourage masturbation, to keep their young charges from resorting to actual sex as an alternative.
At one point in the story, with no other choice of a hiding place, the protagonist must put critically important radio crystals in her vagina. Alone, slipping them in her special place, she ends up masturbating before she's done.
This passage is of interest: "She looks down at herself. What did the nuns used to say? You should not be overfamiliar with your own body. It is the temple of the Holy Ghost, and it is not yours to do with as you please. Rather, you must honor God with it."
Now the writer is male, so a nun likely never told him this, but it's certainly plausible one may have told his wife or some other female relative or acquaintance.
The advice is funny in a way but also deeply frustrating. I can imagine this sort of thing is probably still told to some young women to discourage "self abuse."
I've never quite understood the adult fear of masturbating youths. I would think they'd want to encourage masturbation, to keep their young charges from resorting to actual sex as an alternative.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
frightening
I read this article yesterday and the following portion really gave me pause:
In the U.S., the proportion of people saying it would be good or very good for the “Army to rule” rose from one in 16 in 1995 to one in six in 2014. Ominously, the trend was strongest among the young. When asked to rate on a scale of one to 10 how essential it was for them to live in a democracy, 75 percent of Americans born in the 1930s chose 10, but the proportion dropped with each succeeding decade, falling to only about 30 percent for people born in the 1980s.
WTF?
This is very disturbing. Coming on the heels of the op-ed I wrote about on Sunday that discussed how many millennials believe "the husband should make all the important decisions in the family," I'm left wondering what the hell has happened to my generation.
I also ponder where such people can be found back home. Is this startling indifference a result of the educational system? A difference between rural/exurban America, a far different world than the American cities and upscale suburbs I'm used to?
I'd love to see a similar survey for Australians. I'd like to think they're more democratically minded, but I could well be wrong again.
In the U.S., the proportion of people saying it would be good or very good for the “Army to rule” rose from one in 16 in 1995 to one in six in 2014. Ominously, the trend was strongest among the young. When asked to rate on a scale of one to 10 how essential it was for them to live in a democracy, 75 percent of Americans born in the 1930s chose 10, but the proportion dropped with each succeeding decade, falling to only about 30 percent for people born in the 1980s.
WTF?
This is very disturbing. Coming on the heels of the op-ed I wrote about on Sunday that discussed how many millennials believe "the husband should make all the important decisions in the family," I'm left wondering what the hell has happened to my generation.
I also ponder where such people can be found back home. Is this startling indifference a result of the educational system? A difference between rural/exurban America, a far different world than the American cities and upscale suburbs I'm used to?
I'd love to see a similar survey for Australians. I'd like to think they're more democratically minded, but I could well be wrong again.
Monday, April 3, 2017
not the vice consul
No, I'm not in the running to be the American Vice Consul in Sydney. I don't even know if such a position exists. That was an April Fool's joke.
I did fool at least one person, a law student who wrote an earnest email about how I couldn't be prosecuted because I hadn't actually submitted the application and went to the interview not knowing what it was about.
But if that was the case, shouldn't I have immediately stopped the interview and told them the truth? Given that the interview never actually took place nor was there any application, I think I'm in the clear.
There was a kernel of truth in this story. My cousin in Pennsylvania joked that he was going to fill out a fake application for me and send it to the White House when they were looking for new people, but once he saw how long and detailed the questionnaire was, he decided it wasn't worth the time.
I did fool at least one person, a law student who wrote an earnest email about how I couldn't be prosecuted because I hadn't actually submitted the application and went to the interview not knowing what it was about.
But if that was the case, shouldn't I have immediately stopped the interview and told them the truth? Given that the interview never actually took place nor was there any application, I think I'm in the clear.
There was a kernel of truth in this story. My cousin in Pennsylvania joked that he was going to fill out a fake application for me and send it to the White House when they were looking for new people, but once he saw how long and detailed the questionnaire was, he decided it wasn't worth the time.
Sunday, April 2, 2017
the housewife resurgence
Last week the New York Times featured an interesting opinion item that asks the question: do millennial men want stay-at-home wives?
I was really surprised by the answers.
In a nutshell, among people roughly aged 18 to 35, male/female attitudes about husband/wife roles has backslid from a more progressive viewpoint in the 1990s to a more traditional, male-dominant viewpoint today. In short, more people in my demographic want to go back to the days of June and Ward Cleaver.
I am a millennial but my husband is a little too old to be one. I'm a stay-at-home mom out of choice but still do occasional modeling gigs. My husband works sporadically out of choice and spends a lot of time at home.
Thanks to my investments and his pension, neither of us needs to work full-time as long as we live modestly. We'd rather spend more time with each other and the children than try to make as much money as possible.
With that said, we are a marriage of total equality. Important decisions are made together. I completely handle the finances, by mutual consent.
He usually handles the mechanical stuff around the house because he knows more about that. We share domestic household chores, but I do more than he does. All told, our hours balance out.
We both agreed to this arrangement. But the article notes, nearly 40 percent of high school seniors believe "the husband should make all the important decisions in the family."
What?
Where are these people and who's giving them these ideas?
I was really surprised by the answers.
In a nutshell, among people roughly aged 18 to 35, male/female attitudes about husband/wife roles has backslid from a more progressive viewpoint in the 1990s to a more traditional, male-dominant viewpoint today. In short, more people in my demographic want to go back to the days of June and Ward Cleaver.
I am a millennial but my husband is a little too old to be one. I'm a stay-at-home mom out of choice but still do occasional modeling gigs. My husband works sporadically out of choice and spends a lot of time at home.
Thanks to my investments and his pension, neither of us needs to work full-time as long as we live modestly. We'd rather spend more time with each other and the children than try to make as much money as possible.
With that said, we are a marriage of total equality. Important decisions are made together. I completely handle the finances, by mutual consent.
He usually handles the mechanical stuff around the house because he knows more about that. We share domestic household chores, but I do more than he does. All told, our hours balance out.
We both agreed to this arrangement. But the article notes, nearly 40 percent of high school seniors believe "the husband should make all the important decisions in the family."
What?
Where are these people and who's giving them these ideas?
Saturday, April 1, 2017
in a real pickle
I think I'm in really deep trouble.
Earlier this week I received a registered letter that I was to report to the American consulate yesterday at a specific time for an urgent appointment "about my application." My first thought was that something was wrong with my passport renewal materials.
So I went to the meeting at the consulate and learned that it was actually a job interview for the Vice Consul position, to be conducted by the new American Consul himself. I could see a letter, resume, and fax cover sheet on his secretary's desk and immediately recognized my cousin's distinct handwriting, so I pretty quickly realized he had submitted it as a joke, a fact I confirmed with a later phone call to Pennsylvania.
When I contacted my cousin right after the interview, he said he submitted a fake resume for me about two months ago to the special address in Washington for people applying for jobs in the new Trump administration. He also wrote a bogus cover letter saying I was seeking the job as American Vice Consul here in Sydney, which is a presidential appointment.
Notwithstanding I was totally confused at the beginning of the interview, I played along and answered whatever questions I was asked about my opinions on various issues. I learned later that, on the bogus resume, my cousin had said I had a masters degree in international relations from Georgetown and that I had written various article about Australian-American relations for a variety of international journals.
Long story short, at the end of the interview, the Consul offered me the job, subject to confirmation by the US Senate sometime next week when they'll apparently just pro forma okay several hundred appointees all at once. I'm due to start at the job in a week.
There was no point in the process where I could stop the Consul and say it was apparently all a bad joke. I also realized I could be prosecuted for submitting a fraudulent application if I admitted it was bogus.
So I'm in a real pickle here. I'm sure at some point someone will check the fake resume and learn I dropped out of high school, have a GRE, and have only ever worked as a model, waitress, and exotic dancer.
I guess I should talk to a lawyer to see if I can be extradited back to the United States for prosecution. And I'm sure the press will get wind of it somehow, about how the Trump administration appointed a former nude dancer as Vice Consul.
I have no love lost for the Trump administration, but it's not really fair they'll be tarred and feathered for my cousin's practical joke. Of course, it still looks bad for them that they hired someone totally unqualified for the job.
Quite frankly, I see no positive end for this mess. I'll either be extradited or I'll never be able to return to the United States for fear of arrest.
Earlier this week I received a registered letter that I was to report to the American consulate yesterday at a specific time for an urgent appointment "about my application." My first thought was that something was wrong with my passport renewal materials.
So I went to the meeting at the consulate and learned that it was actually a job interview for the Vice Consul position, to be conducted by the new American Consul himself. I could see a letter, resume, and fax cover sheet on his secretary's desk and immediately recognized my cousin's distinct handwriting, so I pretty quickly realized he had submitted it as a joke, a fact I confirmed with a later phone call to Pennsylvania.
When I contacted my cousin right after the interview, he said he submitted a fake resume for me about two months ago to the special address in Washington for people applying for jobs in the new Trump administration. He also wrote a bogus cover letter saying I was seeking the job as American Vice Consul here in Sydney, which is a presidential appointment.
Notwithstanding I was totally confused at the beginning of the interview, I played along and answered whatever questions I was asked about my opinions on various issues. I learned later that, on the bogus resume, my cousin had said I had a masters degree in international relations from Georgetown and that I had written various article about Australian-American relations for a variety of international journals.
Long story short, at the end of the interview, the Consul offered me the job, subject to confirmation by the US Senate sometime next week when they'll apparently just pro forma okay several hundred appointees all at once. I'm due to start at the job in a week.
There was no point in the process where I could stop the Consul and say it was apparently all a bad joke. I also realized I could be prosecuted for submitting a fraudulent application if I admitted it was bogus.
So I'm in a real pickle here. I'm sure at some point someone will check the fake resume and learn I dropped out of high school, have a GRE, and have only ever worked as a model, waitress, and exotic dancer.
I guess I should talk to a lawyer to see if I can be extradited back to the United States for prosecution. And I'm sure the press will get wind of it somehow, about how the Trump administration appointed a former nude dancer as Vice Consul.
I have no love lost for the Trump administration, but it's not really fair they'll be tarred and feathered for my cousin's practical joke. Of course, it still looks bad for them that they hired someone totally unqualified for the job.
Quite frankly, I see no positive end for this mess. I'll either be extradited or I'll never be able to return to the United States for fear of arrest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
