The Sad Evolution of Christmas
During my childhood, Christmas was a joyous time. There were two Christmases, in a sense. At the little country school, we always had a Christmas play of some sort. I remember one year when I played the part of a shepherd. My mother made my costume from old burlap bags. I have no recollection of my dialogue... but the play was obviously the story of Jesus' birth. Every child in the school received a small box of hard candy. Loved that!
At church, Christmas was a more serious service, of course, but everyone was happy and we kids usually got another candy treat.
Those things represented one Christmas.
The other Christmas was what came to be known as the commercialization of the holiday.
At home, we had a small Christmas tree. One year my dad came up with a can of aluminum paint and my sisters made ornaments by dipping various objects in the silvery paint. A few days before Christmas, the family went "Christmas shopping" at a dime store... Woolworth's or Kresge's, I think. Each of us kids was given a dollar with which to buy eight gifts... one for each sibling, for mom and dad, and for two female cousins with whom we exchanged gifts.
Parts of the city and many stores were decorated for Christmas. Christmas music was everywhere. Everyone said "Merry Christmas".
But many were not satisfied with those joyful Christmases. The religious wanted to end, or at least contain the "commercial" part. "Put Christ back in Christmas" was their cry. That, of course, infuriated the non-religious. They fell back on the manufactured "religious discrimination" argument and insisted upon an end to bias and prejudice. After all, we had to maintain that Separation of Church and State!
The absurd took hold.
As Thomas Sowell pointed out, not the Bible, the Torah or the Koran mentions Christmas trees, yet it has been determined that a Christmas tree is a religious symbol and must be banned!
The other day I said "Merry Christmas" to an employee in a retail store. He replied, "Happy Holiday"! Dare not offend anyone!
How I long for Christmas Past!
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The Big Show (December 20-21, 2010)
Today is the winter solstice. The day the tilt of the earth and the point in its rotation around the sun are such that the rays of sunlight strike us at the lowest level they will achieve during the year. Beginning tomorrow, the sun light will start to reach us at a slightly steeper angle each day.
More simply put, today is the shortest day - daylight hours - of the year. Interestingly, today is also a full moon. And, there was a total lunar eclipse shortly after midnight our time... at the very beginning of this shortest day!
At sunset on the first day of winter, the point on the horizon where the sun disappears is at its farthest point south. Beginning tomorrow, the sun will set a tiny bit farther to the north. I wanted to mark that point on the horizon, and took this picture:
Unfortunately for my original purpose, all those pretty clouds obscured the sun just before it disappeared below the horizon, so I'll try again today. But, Monday it was so colorful, I decided to zoom in a little and narrow the shot:
Big deal? You bet!
Later, the full moon lit up our yard and cast distinct shadows. I went to bed before the eclipse happened, so I missed that. But I'll bet it looked exactly like this earlier eclipse!
That's cheating, I know... but I was sleepy!
Shortly before 7:00 a.m. (MST) I sat in my kitchen watching that big moon chase the earth's penumbra toward the horizon. Some of those same sunset clouds remained in the west, and it was fun watching the moon peek in and out as though playing hide and seek with the sun which was about to rise behind the higher mountains to our east. The sun responded by turning the clouds pink, just above the setting moon.
No pictures this time. No matter how much you love photography, sometimes you just have to leave the camera and enjoy the show! Especially, when you know the performance will not be repeated in your lifetime.
Today is the winter solstice. The day the tilt of the earth and the point in its rotation around the sun are such that the rays of sunlight strike us at the lowest level they will achieve during the year. Beginning tomorrow, the sun light will start to reach us at a slightly steeper angle each day.
More simply put, today is the shortest day - daylight hours - of the year. Interestingly, today is also a full moon. And, there was a total lunar eclipse shortly after midnight our time... at the very beginning of this shortest day!
At sunset on the first day of winter, the point on the horizon where the sun disappears is at its farthest point south. Beginning tomorrow, the sun will set a tiny bit farther to the north. I wanted to mark that point on the horizon, and took this picture:
Unfortunately for my original purpose, all those pretty clouds obscured the sun just before it disappeared below the horizon, so I'll try again today. But, Monday it was so colorful, I decided to zoom in a little and narrow the shot:
Big deal? You bet!
Later, the full moon lit up our yard and cast distinct shadows. I went to bed before the eclipse happened, so I missed that. But I'll bet it looked exactly like this earlier eclipse!
That's cheating, I know... but I was sleepy!
Shortly before 7:00 a.m. (MST) I sat in my kitchen watching that big moon chase the earth's penumbra toward the horizon. Some of those same sunset clouds remained in the west, and it was fun watching the moon peek in and out as though playing hide and seek with the sun which was about to rise behind the higher mountains to our east. The sun responded by turning the clouds pink, just above the setting moon.
No pictures this time. No matter how much you love photography, sometimes you just have to leave the camera and enjoy the show! Especially, when you know the performance will not be repeated in your lifetime.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Remembering Juarez, MX
I just saw a news report revealing that 3,000 persons have been murdered in Juarez, Mexico this year.
I am saddened.
I first visited Juarez, Mexico sixty years ago. At that time we walked across a short bridge over the Rio Grande river, the dividing line between Juarez and El Paso, Texas. Young Mexican boys stood in the knee deep water, facing the bridge. They had fashioned sort of paper funnels and attached them to long, bamboo fishing poles. They pointed their devices toward the bridge where passersby tossed coins. Many times the boys caught the coins with their devices. If they missed, they immediately went to their knees and felt for the coins in the muddy river bottom.
We found the people of Juarez friendly, welcoming to Americans, and anxious to sell something. We bought things. Tequila, leather goods, and all sorts of craft items. We enjoyed delicious food at unbelievably low prices.
Through the years I returned to Juarez many times. The short bridge is gone, as are the coin-catching boys. The muddy bottomed river replaced with a concrete-lined canal in which the water is swift and dangerous. There are three bridges today, long, modern bridges which carry large numbers of pedestrian and auto traffic.
News reports today describe Juarez as being "just south of El Paso". In reality, Juarez and El Paso are one large city, separated by a small river. For generations - centuries, actually - residents of the two cities have passed back and forth. Many have married persons from the other side of the border, so there are numerous families split by the border.
At one time the total metro area was entirely in Mexico. In 1854, the U.S. needed a better route through which to build a railroad toward the west. In the Gadsden Purchase, land between the then existing U.S. border and the Rio Grande were purchased from Mexico, and the border moved south. Remembering this makes it easier to understand why many local residents oppose construction of a fence along the border.
Going south you just drive into Mexico. Vehicles are selected randomly to check for what is being brought into Mexico.
On the U.S. side, U.S. Customs has a much more rigid inspection system. The state of Texas demands payment of taxes for any liquor brought into the state.
We visited Juarez to dine, shop, and just to have fun. We made friends with Mexicans at the big Mercado where we bargained for the wares of Mexican artists and craftsmen. Naturally there were some rip-offs among the many great deals. But prices were low so no one was ever hurt too badly.
I went to Mexico for Dental work performed entirely to my satisfaction at perhaps 80% lower than U.S. prices.
We can not go to Juarez today. It is just too dangerous. I often wonder about the fate of some of the people we once knew. I wonder about the many small businesses which depended on American tourist trade.
Not surprisingly, I get angry when I see Americans smile as they confess to using illegal drugs. I know they just think the are outsmarting the DEA. But there is so much more to the story.
Perhaps decriminalizing drugs would solve the problem. I don't know.
What I do know is that a tragedy has befallen a lot of good, decent people who happen to reside in the path of drugs moving north and cash moving south.
When will it end?
I just saw a news report revealing that 3,000 persons have been murdered in Juarez, Mexico this year.
I am saddened.
I first visited Juarez, Mexico sixty years ago. At that time we walked across a short bridge over the Rio Grande river, the dividing line between Juarez and El Paso, Texas. Young Mexican boys stood in the knee deep water, facing the bridge. They had fashioned sort of paper funnels and attached them to long, bamboo fishing poles. They pointed their devices toward the bridge where passersby tossed coins. Many times the boys caught the coins with their devices. If they missed, they immediately went to their knees and felt for the coins in the muddy river bottom.
We found the people of Juarez friendly, welcoming to Americans, and anxious to sell something. We bought things. Tequila, leather goods, and all sorts of craft items. We enjoyed delicious food at unbelievably low prices.
Through the years I returned to Juarez many times. The short bridge is gone, as are the coin-catching boys. The muddy bottomed river replaced with a concrete-lined canal in which the water is swift and dangerous. There are three bridges today, long, modern bridges which carry large numbers of pedestrian and auto traffic.
News reports today describe Juarez as being "just south of El Paso". In reality, Juarez and El Paso are one large city, separated by a small river. For generations - centuries, actually - residents of the two cities have passed back and forth. Many have married persons from the other side of the border, so there are numerous families split by the border.
At one time the total metro area was entirely in Mexico. In 1854, the U.S. needed a better route through which to build a railroad toward the west. In the Gadsden Purchase, land between the then existing U.S. border and the Rio Grande were purchased from Mexico, and the border moved south. Remembering this makes it easier to understand why many local residents oppose construction of a fence along the border.
Going south you just drive into Mexico. Vehicles are selected randomly to check for what is being brought into Mexico.
On the U.S. side, U.S. Customs has a much more rigid inspection system. The state of Texas demands payment of taxes for any liquor brought into the state.
We visited Juarez to dine, shop, and just to have fun. We made friends with Mexicans at the big Mercado where we bargained for the wares of Mexican artists and craftsmen. Naturally there were some rip-offs among the many great deals. But prices were low so no one was ever hurt too badly.
I went to Mexico for Dental work performed entirely to my satisfaction at perhaps 80% lower than U.S. prices.
We can not go to Juarez today. It is just too dangerous. I often wonder about the fate of some of the people we once knew. I wonder about the many small businesses which depended on American tourist trade.
Not surprisingly, I get angry when I see Americans smile as they confess to using illegal drugs. I know they just think the are outsmarting the DEA. But there is so much more to the story.
Perhaps decriminalizing drugs would solve the problem. I don't know.
What I do know is that a tragedy has befallen a lot of good, decent people who happen to reside in the path of drugs moving north and cash moving south.
When will it end?
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Stay calm...
I was going to write today about the accidental inclusion of distractions in the making of TV commercials. I have been making TV commercials for over 35 years. An ongoing dread is that your finished commercial will contain some viewer distraction that will negatively impact your commercial message. Years ago I made a commercial that included the word "gauge" (as in rain gauge) in an on-screen graphic. Today, on-screen graphics are created on a computer and are easily corrected. Back then, if you wanted an on-screen message, such as "50% off every item", an artist lettered the message on a piece of art board. In the studio, this board was shot by a video camera and the resulting video included in your commercial.
Either my artist or I misspelled "gauge" as "guage". Our sponsor received scores of calls correcting the spelling, but virtually no sales.
Currently I notice a commercial for a language learning program called Rosetta Stone. A user of the product taped a testimonial in which he said he had tried other "mediums" without satisfaction. Mediums? Did he mean media? Or had he actually tried consulting fortune tellers?
Another current commercial, for Taxmasters, asks the viewer with the help of an on-screen graphic, if the IRS is "garnishing" their wages. Garnishing? Does that mean a sprig or parsley attached to your paycheck? Did they really mean "garnishee"? Or has the accepted definition of the word garnish changed since my dictionary was published?
Doesn't matter. In both cases I was so distracted I missed the remainder of the message!
I've had commercials include a picture of a person wearing a lettered T-shirt. It is very hard to look at such a commercial and not try to read the lettering on the guy's T-shirt. Big distraction!
That is what I was going to write about. Then I heard that the President had signed into law the "CALM Act". It stands for Commercial audio loudness mitigation, or some such nonsense.
Wow! As I wrote on October 1, that concept is "Dumb and Dumber". It is also impossible. The commercials I make may air in all sorts of programs. Programs in which the audio level may range the entire gamut from a whisper to a scream. Will the TV station's engineers have to adjust the audio level of every commercial to match the surrounding programming? Should I be happy that engineers in many different stations will be tinkering with the audio level on my commercials?
Think about it! How stupid are the people who are making our laws?
I was going to write today about the accidental inclusion of distractions in the making of TV commercials. I have been making TV commercials for over 35 years. An ongoing dread is that your finished commercial will contain some viewer distraction that will negatively impact your commercial message. Years ago I made a commercial that included the word "gauge" (as in rain gauge) in an on-screen graphic. Today, on-screen graphics are created on a computer and are easily corrected. Back then, if you wanted an on-screen message, such as "50% off every item", an artist lettered the message on a piece of art board. In the studio, this board was shot by a video camera and the resulting video included in your commercial.
Either my artist or I misspelled "gauge" as "guage". Our sponsor received scores of calls correcting the spelling, but virtually no sales.
Currently I notice a commercial for a language learning program called Rosetta Stone. A user of the product taped a testimonial in which he said he had tried other "mediums" without satisfaction. Mediums? Did he mean media? Or had he actually tried consulting fortune tellers?
Another current commercial, for Taxmasters, asks the viewer with the help of an on-screen graphic, if the IRS is "garnishing" their wages. Garnishing? Does that mean a sprig or parsley attached to your paycheck? Did they really mean "garnishee"? Or has the accepted definition of the word garnish changed since my dictionary was published?
Doesn't matter. In both cases I was so distracted I missed the remainder of the message!
I've had commercials include a picture of a person wearing a lettered T-shirt. It is very hard to look at such a commercial and not try to read the lettering on the guy's T-shirt. Big distraction!
That is what I was going to write about. Then I heard that the President had signed into law the "CALM Act". It stands for Commercial audio loudness mitigation, or some such nonsense.
Wow! As I wrote on October 1, that concept is "Dumb and Dumber". It is also impossible. The commercials I make may air in all sorts of programs. Programs in which the audio level may range the entire gamut from a whisper to a scream. Will the TV station's engineers have to adjust the audio level of every commercial to match the surrounding programming? Should I be happy that engineers in many different stations will be tinkering with the audio level on my commercials?
Think about it! How stupid are the people who are making our laws?
Sunday, December 05, 2010
Watching TV with the missus.
Watching TV with my wife is always a trip. Imagine it's a news broadcast and an important foreign diplomat is about to answer a pointed question. I strain to understand him.
Wife: "Oh, No!"
Me: "What? What did he say?"
Wife: "It's his tie! That is a horrible tie!"
I strain to focus on the tie. Looks okay to me. Nice green and pink stripes.
The TV host thanks his guest for his opinion and goes to another story. Rats. I missed his comment.
The camera cuts to the female co-anchor who will introduce a second guest.
Wife: "Finally!"
Me: "What did she say?"
Wife: "She didn't say anything, but she finally pickled a dress that makes her look slimmer!"
Me: "She's wearing a dress???"
They go into a commercial break and the commercial is for Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Me: "Now, that is ridiculous!"
Wife: "What happened?"
Me: "Nobody drives like that. Can you imagine some idiot paying thirty thousand for a vehicle then go speeding up a canyon over boulders, like he wanted to tear the suspension out of it?"
Wife: "Oh.... I wasn't watching."
Still I wouldn't miss a minute of it. Especially when she makes popcorn and scoots closer on the sofa to share!
Watching TV with my wife is always a trip. Imagine it's a news broadcast and an important foreign diplomat is about to answer a pointed question. I strain to understand him.
Wife: "Oh, No!"
Me: "What? What did he say?"
Wife: "It's his tie! That is a horrible tie!"
I strain to focus on the tie. Looks okay to me. Nice green and pink stripes.
The TV host thanks his guest for his opinion and goes to another story. Rats. I missed his comment.
The camera cuts to the female co-anchor who will introduce a second guest.
Wife: "Finally!"
Me: "What did she say?"
Wife: "She didn't say anything, but she finally pickled a dress that makes her look slimmer!"
Me: "She's wearing a dress???"
They go into a commercial break and the commercial is for Jeep Grand Cherokee.
Me: "Now, that is ridiculous!"
Wife: "What happened?"
Me: "Nobody drives like that. Can you imagine some idiot paying thirty thousand for a vehicle then go speeding up a canyon over boulders, like he wanted to tear the suspension out of it?"
Wife: "Oh.... I wasn't watching."
Still I wouldn't miss a minute of it. Especially when she makes popcorn and scoots closer on the sofa to share!
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Wikileaks
Everyone's talking about Wikileaks. Almost everyone. We are not hearing from president Obama. Does that mean he is okay with releasing restricted government documents?
My turn.
1. Foreign diplomats should confer in secret. Imagine if Saddam Hussein had confessed to Colin Powell, "Look, I do not have any WMDs, not trying to get any, but my bluff is all that protects me from hostile neighbors. Don't blow my cover and I will cause no trouble for the west." There may not have been an Iraq war!
2. There is no excuse for those confidential documents having been unguarded. During World War Two our restricted communications were encoded. Once decoded, they were heavily guarded. what happened?
3. Private Bradley Manning. As a United States soldier, he swore an allegiance which he appears to have broken. If so, he should be punished severely. When you swear to abide by certain rules, then renig, sorry isn't good enough.
4. Julian Assange. No whistle blower he. He obtained someone's private property. Was asked to return it, but refused. Who needs this guy?
Everyone's talking about Wikileaks. Almost everyone. We are not hearing from president Obama. Does that mean he is okay with releasing restricted government documents?
My turn.
1. Foreign diplomats should confer in secret. Imagine if Saddam Hussein had confessed to Colin Powell, "Look, I do not have any WMDs, not trying to get any, but my bluff is all that protects me from hostile neighbors. Don't blow my cover and I will cause no trouble for the west." There may not have been an Iraq war!
2. There is no excuse for those confidential documents having been unguarded. During World War Two our restricted communications were encoded. Once decoded, they were heavily guarded. what happened?
3. Private Bradley Manning. As a United States soldier, he swore an allegiance which he appears to have broken. If so, he should be punished severely. When you swear to abide by certain rules, then renig, sorry isn't good enough.
4. Julian Assange. No whistle blower he. He obtained someone's private property. Was asked to return it, but refused. Who needs this guy?
Friday, December 03, 2010
Don't Ask, Don't Tell!
Operating from the position of "I was a soldier; I am a soldier; I will always be a soldier", I feel entitled to express my opinion in this current debate.
I believe we should keep the rule in place... but broadly extend it to all military personnel. Simply put, I won't ask your sexual orientation... because I don't give a damn. Don't tell me your sexual orientation... because I don't give a damn! And, my sexual orientation is none of your business.
I don't know what fantasies roar through your brain when you get horny! I don't want to know. So please don't make my knowing a part of the equation.
If we are soldiering - which at 82 I will be doing only in my own fantasy - let's think, talk and act soldiering.
If we are off on leave and you have the chance to hook up with someone, go for it, but let me do my own hooking up, according to my own orientation. I'll see you tomorrow when we fall out for reveille. I won't share my details with you. Please don't share yours with me.
The thought of an intimate encounter on my part, according to my sexual orientation, may seem very exciting, indeed. The thought of my soldier buddy having a sexual relationship with anyone regardless of gender, is disgusting. It's not something I would deny you. I just don't want to know about it... think about it!
I won't ask. Please don't tell.
Operating from the position of "I was a soldier; I am a soldier; I will always be a soldier", I feel entitled to express my opinion in this current debate.
I believe we should keep the rule in place... but broadly extend it to all military personnel. Simply put, I won't ask your sexual orientation... because I don't give a damn. Don't tell me your sexual orientation... because I don't give a damn! And, my sexual orientation is none of your business.
I don't know what fantasies roar through your brain when you get horny! I don't want to know. So please don't make my knowing a part of the equation.
If we are soldiering - which at 82 I will be doing only in my own fantasy - let's think, talk and act soldiering.
If we are off on leave and you have the chance to hook up with someone, go for it, but let me do my own hooking up, according to my own orientation. I'll see you tomorrow when we fall out for reveille. I won't share my details with you. Please don't share yours with me.
The thought of an intimate encounter on my part, according to my sexual orientation, may seem very exciting, indeed. The thought of my soldier buddy having a sexual relationship with anyone regardless of gender, is disgusting. It's not something I would deny you. I just don't want to know about it... think about it!
I won't ask. Please don't tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)