In a few days, my house is going on the market. It's time--not only for someone else to make this house their own, but also for me to get into a situation where there is family nearby. This move is proving to be its own learning curve (and I hate learning curves).
In most of the homes I've sold before, there's been some emotional component. In this case, not. That's a big difference. For one thing, I haven't been living here more than a few years, although that's been long enough to amass "stuff." But mostly, it's because after months of packing and downsizing, I've decided that I should have done it when I moved in rather than as I move out.
I suppose we all have some small shred of the hoarder in our souls. It was too easy to say (as my late partner did), "Well, it doesn't eat much," and then keep it because "there's room" and we might find a use for it someday.
Bad idea.
Bad idea is my big take-away with this house. Without the clutter, the house looks bigger, more orderly, and more able to display the things that truly matter.
The Boehm porcelain birds, for example, look regal and artistic in the china cabinet when they are no longer surrounded by things that say "Souvenir of . . .." Admittedly, the kitsch has sentimental value, but when faced with the need to pack it, I developed an entirely new philosophy: I decided I did not need to own it. I decided I could take pleasure in imagining someone else owning it (and polishing it).
With this new idea in mind, I set at the mass of things with vigor, looking for things that absolutely had to be moved to the new house. In these, I included family heirloom stuff, particularly when it had been promised to someone. Then all furniture in good shape over 50 years old, newer if not made of particle board (hats off Ikea). And things that could lead someone to say, "I remember grandma using that."
Now, I'm not saying that even these first things were all absolute keepers. I packed away the things I couldn't bear to part with (like my grandmother's wedding present, a Wedgwood and silver salad bowl). But the rest definitely could be set out for others to go through to make selections. Why wait until one is dead? Let them have the pleasure of cleaning the stuff.
This idea applied absolutely to physical books that weighed a ton. Unless they were first edition, signed by the author who might notice if they were gone, absolutely needed for craft or profession, or likely to explode in value like comics, I figured they could be enjoyed on line. There was one caveat though. A complete collection of Zane Grey novels with tattered covers that really ought to have gone to charity was saved by the claim of 100% certainty that they would be read yet again. I caved on that one.
And then there was the clothing that we promise ourselves we will wear once we lose a few pounds (particularly if it still has the original tags on it). Just because it was expensive or a steal, though, didn't mean it deserved space. Let someone else enjoy the thrill of finding it amidst racks of faded t-shirts or by rummaging through your garage sale (if you are brave enough to have one).
On the other hand, I resolved to de-China myself, unless it ought to be made in China. Like Ming pottery or jade. Charity shops are clogged with cheap imitations that people tire of. I kept the real stuff, because its appeal lasts. I felt the beauty of a good European porcelain dish bought at an estate sale. It fed my soul. It got to stay.
All bets were off with appliances and electronics. They're all made somewhere else, so I had to decide how much I used it and what shape it was in. Ripped Teflon coating was an immediate discard no matter how much the use. Burned on food stain, ditto. Out went my oversized electric frying pan. If I really needed it, I'd replace it later. I realized that an electric can opener was not a life necessity and that, in fact, I preferred the hand one I had been using for years. The food processor and blender were not negotiable, though. This is personal and preferably done in private, as when men sort their tools.
Old computer equipment, on the other hand, got recycled immediately. I reasoned that it would not be useful as a backup no matter how expensive it was originally (we had three towers each with a different floppy drive). Unless it was a museum piece, an original PC or Apple for example, I knew that Microsoft wouldn't support the older programs any more. I used to love Xywrite, but it got bought out, and I knew that the old hard drives I kept as well as the floppy discs were not going to be helpful except as discussion pieces. It was a wrench because I remembered what I had paid for the equipment (in the thousands), but if it had outlived its usefulness, it was better to reclaim the chemicals rather than have it sit in my closet.
Today I sit in a streamlined house that I could have had all along if I had only had the drive and the courage to go through the process. It's nice, but only part of the process. What comes next is equally important. I'm going to be doing this all again as I unpack. It will be interesting (to me anyway) to see how well I follow through.
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
Bohemian Rhapsody and the Critics
It's a rare occasion when I comment on movies. In fact, I don't think I ever have before. In the case of Bohemian Rhapsody, I am prepared to make an exception. Not because of the movie itself but because of what the critical reception says about critics and criticism.
I use the word "reception" very loosely because the critics, or those who fancy themselves serious critics, did not receive it well at all.
From what I can gather, the critics wanted to see a salacious expose of what they assumed to be Freddie Mercury's sex life. Instead of XXX, they got PG13, however, and they were pissed. They wanted what Bill Maher called "the suck dick" parts. When they didn't get them, they tried to overlook the film, including Rami Mallik's stellar performance, by predicting that the other nominated films were more obvious choices for Oscars.
Clearly, Queen fans did not agree. They turned the movie in a money-making juggernaut, indicating that there was only so much personal detail they wanted to know.
It was hardly surprising that the critics should be demanding the "details" because they did so even when Freddie was alive. As he kept pointing out to them, he was a musician and his private life was private. They behaved as if he was withholding information to which they had a complete right.
Well, if that's what the critics wanted, they'll have to wait for another movie made with a different purpose, and I can guarantee them that very few of Freddy's fans will go see it. The fans went to Bohemian Rhapsody to participate again in the songs that defined their age. Freddie's sexuality wasn't the key then or now. Somehow, he was more than whom he slept with.
Bohemian Rhapsody is Freddie Mercury and Queen seen from the point of view of the band itself. Band members were not part of his free-flung life outside the band. They had wives and families to occupy them, so there is no necessary reason they would want to explore his lifestyle. They acknowledge it, since Freddie made no particular effort to hide who he was, but they don't dwell on it because the story is the music, the tours, and Live Aid. These are the very things that Freddie himself asked the critics to focus on.
What the fans wanted was a recreation of a time and a particular set of people who played iconic music. This they got in spades. Rami Mallik simply became Freddie. This is only the second time that I've seen the melding of actor and character. The only other actor who convinced me like that was George C Scott becoming General Patton.
Despite the critics, this movie has stirred interest again in a band that was active in the 70s and 80s. I was not a Queen fan at the time. My age was folk music. But after seeing the film, I went out and bought the Platinum Collection of the Best of Queen. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one.
So, critics, from time to time people rebel against you. Please try not to choke on the popcorn as you offer your sneers about things and people that have become icons and are likely to go into history books.
PS: I have advanced degrees in English literature but have read very few Nobel Prize winning authors with anything other than angst. Sometimes critical judgment can be so lofty the writing just doesn't touch the heart.
I use the word "reception" very loosely because the critics, or those who fancy themselves serious critics, did not receive it well at all.
From what I can gather, the critics wanted to see a salacious expose of what they assumed to be Freddie Mercury's sex life. Instead of XXX, they got PG13, however, and they were pissed. They wanted what Bill Maher called "the suck dick" parts. When they didn't get them, they tried to overlook the film, including Rami Mallik's stellar performance, by predicting that the other nominated films were more obvious choices for Oscars.
Clearly, Queen fans did not agree. They turned the movie in a money-making juggernaut, indicating that there was only so much personal detail they wanted to know.
It was hardly surprising that the critics should be demanding the "details" because they did so even when Freddie was alive. As he kept pointing out to them, he was a musician and his private life was private. They behaved as if he was withholding information to which they had a complete right.
Well, if that's what the critics wanted, they'll have to wait for another movie made with a different purpose, and I can guarantee them that very few of Freddy's fans will go see it. The fans went to Bohemian Rhapsody to participate again in the songs that defined their age. Freddie's sexuality wasn't the key then or now. Somehow, he was more than whom he slept with.
Bohemian Rhapsody is Freddie Mercury and Queen seen from the point of view of the band itself. Band members were not part of his free-flung life outside the band. They had wives and families to occupy them, so there is no necessary reason they would want to explore his lifestyle. They acknowledge it, since Freddie made no particular effort to hide who he was, but they don't dwell on it because the story is the music, the tours, and Live Aid. These are the very things that Freddie himself asked the critics to focus on.
What the fans wanted was a recreation of a time and a particular set of people who played iconic music. This they got in spades. Rami Mallik simply became Freddie. This is only the second time that I've seen the melding of actor and character. The only other actor who convinced me like that was George C Scott becoming General Patton.
Despite the critics, this movie has stirred interest again in a band that was active in the 70s and 80s. I was not a Queen fan at the time. My age was folk music. But after seeing the film, I went out and bought the Platinum Collection of the Best of Queen. I'm quite sure I'm not the only one.
So, critics, from time to time people rebel against you. Please try not to choke on the popcorn as you offer your sneers about things and people that have become icons and are likely to go into history books.
PS: I have advanced degrees in English literature but have read very few Nobel Prize winning authors with anything other than angst. Sometimes critical judgment can be so lofty the writing just doesn't touch the heart.
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Families Behaving Badly: Caregiving Unvarnished
Don't get me wrong: there are (must be) families that pull together to take care of elderly relatives. But judging from the reaction when one woman told her support group that she was enjoying the time spent with her declining mother and was willingly giving her life to her, this is a rare. The reactions of the other members of her support group ranged from derisive and resentful to flat-out hostile. The group either didn't believe her or thought she was just showing off. That's how hard it is.
In an effort not to discourage those who have taken on the job of caring for others, most books on caregiving tend to emphasize the positives of caring for a declining relative: e.g. quality time with loved ones and the feeling of doing something worthwhile. What they put only in the tenderest terms are some of the problems. Make that a lot of problems and many of them profound.
Having provided terminal care three times, and still recovering from the last one, I'm not about to sugar coat it. In the most recent instance, I found the caregiving so stressful that I wondered if I was going to die before he did, particularly when I wound up in the hospital with a suspected heart attack (just violent stress-related indigestion thank God).
Unsurprisingly, given the demands, most people are very reluctant to take it on. Within families, when some duck out and leave it to others, the result is a toxic brew of accusations, guilt-flinging, and ultimatums that can resurrect old childhood grievances (you were always the favorite), spawn suspicion (you only care about what's in the will), and predict unfavorable outcomes (just wait until it's your turn--karma's a bitch).
The usual suggestions that caregivers should take care of themselves and get time off are easy to say and, while comforting, very much harder to do. All I can do is offer my own suggestions to you as a sort of sympathy to tell you that you are not alone:
1. You'll do better if you to arrange for a day-care or an overnight facility when needed rather than hoping that anyone will offer (people can chip in on cost). Certain members of the family will show up only when convenient, and patients will be appreciative of these yetis because their appearance seems special. You will probably be taken for granted and even abused (if the patient is kicking, spitting, and biting, guess who is going to get it). The others may feel slightly guilty at escaping, but not enough to do anything about it and even when there is agreement, say, on taking the relative for a day or two, it always seems subject to revision.
2. Understand that giving recognition to you implies you're doing something exceptional and that may not be in the best interests of those ducking out in it. Everyone is going to claim that their lives are too busy for them to become involved. When they do show up, they will behave as if they should be awarded a medal. My friend L's sister-in-law ended spending her time with the father-in-law because when he came to her house, he insisted on using a copper washbasin as a urinal. Not nice, admittedly, but it left everything to fall on L. Yet, when he finally went into an assisted living facility, the sister-in-law showed up for the facility's caregiver appreciation days to have a free manicure. You'll need to speak out and make clear that some special recognition for the primary caregiver (flowers, gift certificate) is a good thing.
3. Non-caregiving relatives are going to be afraid that if they do one thing for you, it will be a slippery slope and you'll make a habit of it. You'll get better response if you give specific assignments and specific dates because they are finite. When D asked her brother to take their mother for a couple of days to allow her and her husband to get away, the brother suddenly had a business trip. When I asked for general relief from my partner's three children, no one responded. When my friend Kimi won a cruise and invited me to go for a week, I was smarter. I sent out specific dates and pointed out that this was one week out of three years with no break. Two of his three children showed up, although it was only my own son traveling for two hours each way for two weekends in a row who made it finally possible.
4. Be prepared to be tough when the time has come for professional care. Finances are often an issue when there is talk of placing the patient into a care facility. All of a sudden keeping the patient at home will suddenly become "essential." You need to suspect the motivation for this sudden sentimentality. The non-caregivers know how much these facilities cost and may want to save their inheritances. They will cover their guilt (assuming they have any) by criticizing you for not respecting the patient's wish to stay home. Don't be surprised if the relative who has been least involved shows up and wants to take over decision-making.
5. Don't assume that being a workhorse is going to be appreciated. If you try to point this out, your motivations will be misconstrued and peddled as fact (she didn't like the will). If you are not the first wife, your care-giving will be dismissed absolutely and any money left to you will in the minds of his children will be payment for whatever service you provided. If you doubt this, look at what happened to Robin Williams' wife who had to sue his children to keep things acquired in her marriage. You may very well not ever see the children again--but only you can decide if that's good or bad.
6. Finally, though, don't be afraid to reach out to others. It's sad when you have to watch someone you love slip away from you and go through personality changes. But the truth is that you have become somehow conflated in their minds with their loss of power and physical health. You are seeing them at their most vulnerable, and they have no one else to vent their frustrations on. I've been there. After I told my partner that I could not bring him home to die because I couldn't provide the intricate nursing care he was getting from Hospice, he turned away and never spoke to me again. Of all the things he had ever done, that was the cruelest. It was only through the kindness of the Hospice counselors that I was able to get beyond that final picture of him, not least because I learned that I was not alone. Others had experienced this rejection as well.
My thoughts are with you all and good luck.
In an effort not to discourage those who have taken on the job of caring for others, most books on caregiving tend to emphasize the positives of caring for a declining relative: e.g. quality time with loved ones and the feeling of doing something worthwhile. What they put only in the tenderest terms are some of the problems. Make that a lot of problems and many of them profound.
Having provided terminal care three times, and still recovering from the last one, I'm not about to sugar coat it. In the most recent instance, I found the caregiving so stressful that I wondered if I was going to die before he did, particularly when I wound up in the hospital with a suspected heart attack (just violent stress-related indigestion thank God).
Unsurprisingly, given the demands, most people are very reluctant to take it on. Within families, when some duck out and leave it to others, the result is a toxic brew of accusations, guilt-flinging, and ultimatums that can resurrect old childhood grievances (you were always the favorite), spawn suspicion (you only care about what's in the will), and predict unfavorable outcomes (just wait until it's your turn--karma's a bitch).
The usual suggestions that caregivers should take care of themselves and get time off are easy to say and, while comforting, very much harder to do. All I can do is offer my own suggestions to you as a sort of sympathy to tell you that you are not alone:
1. You'll do better if you to arrange for a day-care or an overnight facility when needed rather than hoping that anyone will offer (people can chip in on cost). Certain members of the family will show up only when convenient, and patients will be appreciative of these yetis because their appearance seems special. You will probably be taken for granted and even abused (if the patient is kicking, spitting, and biting, guess who is going to get it). The others may feel slightly guilty at escaping, but not enough to do anything about it and even when there is agreement, say, on taking the relative for a day or two, it always seems subject to revision.
2. Understand that giving recognition to you implies you're doing something exceptional and that may not be in the best interests of those ducking out in it. Everyone is going to claim that their lives are too busy for them to become involved. When they do show up, they will behave as if they should be awarded a medal. My friend L's sister-in-law ended spending her time with the father-in-law because when he came to her house, he insisted on using a copper washbasin as a urinal. Not nice, admittedly, but it left everything to fall on L. Yet, when he finally went into an assisted living facility, the sister-in-law showed up for the facility's caregiver appreciation days to have a free manicure. You'll need to speak out and make clear that some special recognition for the primary caregiver (flowers, gift certificate) is a good thing.
3. Non-caregiving relatives are going to be afraid that if they do one thing for you, it will be a slippery slope and you'll make a habit of it. You'll get better response if you give specific assignments and specific dates because they are finite. When D asked her brother to take their mother for a couple of days to allow her and her husband to get away, the brother suddenly had a business trip. When I asked for general relief from my partner's three children, no one responded. When my friend Kimi won a cruise and invited me to go for a week, I was smarter. I sent out specific dates and pointed out that this was one week out of three years with no break. Two of his three children showed up, although it was only my own son traveling for two hours each way for two weekends in a row who made it finally possible.
4. Be prepared to be tough when the time has come for professional care. Finances are often an issue when there is talk of placing the patient into a care facility. All of a sudden keeping the patient at home will suddenly become "essential." You need to suspect the motivation for this sudden sentimentality. The non-caregivers know how much these facilities cost and may want to save their inheritances. They will cover their guilt (assuming they have any) by criticizing you for not respecting the patient's wish to stay home. Don't be surprised if the relative who has been least involved shows up and wants to take over decision-making.
5. Don't assume that being a workhorse is going to be appreciated. If you try to point this out, your motivations will be misconstrued and peddled as fact (she didn't like the will). If you are not the first wife, your care-giving will be dismissed absolutely and any money left to you will in the minds of his children will be payment for whatever service you provided. If you doubt this, look at what happened to Robin Williams' wife who had to sue his children to keep things acquired in her marriage. You may very well not ever see the children again--but only you can decide if that's good or bad.
6. Finally, though, don't be afraid to reach out to others. It's sad when you have to watch someone you love slip away from you and go through personality changes. But the truth is that you have become somehow conflated in their minds with their loss of power and physical health. You are seeing them at their most vulnerable, and they have no one else to vent their frustrations on. I've been there. After I told my partner that I could not bring him home to die because I couldn't provide the intricate nursing care he was getting from Hospice, he turned away and never spoke to me again. Of all the things he had ever done, that was the cruelest. It was only through the kindness of the Hospice counselors that I was able to get beyond that final picture of him, not least because I learned that I was not alone. Others had experienced this rejection as well.
My thoughts are with you all and good luck.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Who the Hell Are We?
Today, the news media (corporate) reports that an executive with a German car manufacturer made the mistake of driving in Alabama (where the company had built a plant) without his passport. He was arrested. When one of his associates brought his passport, he was released, but still has to appear in court.
The reactions to this are both predicable and informative of the great divide among us. Some people said it was a pity to have done this to a legitimate visitor on visa given the fact that the states are trying so hard to attract foreign investment (millions of dollars in incentives for this company). Others are saying, serves him right for not carrying his passport at all times; they cite experiences in Europe where they had to produce theirs.
I've been in Europe, little dogies, I AM European (to the extent the British will admit it) and I thought we were better than them over there. If they want to have police states, deity bless em, but that's not the home of the brave and free. Except I guess some of us want to be nasty and impose the police state over here. I'm left wondering why when so many of us have been trying to escape it.
So who the hell are we?
My answer: we are two different sets of people. One set of us is hell bent on applying the rules--goddam, I conformed, so can you. I was raised on a set of values and I'm going to apply them, because by golly they were applied to me. I listened to those old-time preachers and they sounded good to me, so you'd better go my way or I'll call you unAmerican, and I don't care if the rich keep their money as long as the poor, whom I disapprove of, don't get any of my hard earned dollars.
Before you throw me to the curb here--this has pretty much been the attitude of the Catholic Church through the ages, but also, to be fair, of the protestant evangelical sects that replaced but did not depose the varieties of spiritual experience.
Then there's the group that resonate to the idea of class warfare and raising the banner for the poor and downtrodden. It's easier to sympathize with this group because--well--the poor are the poor. But let's admit it, many of these guys know how to play the system. I've seen it myself. I've also seen companies die from union efforts at creating utopia.
So, who the hell am I?
Like so many of fellow independents, I chose from both sides. This, I think, is the great distinguishing characteristic between us in the middle and the dream-ons who populate both extremes. Increasingly, there will be more of us because we will refuse to be forced into choosing between two equally stupid options that don't fit in the twenty-first century.
To our current political wantabes, who are among the nuttiest I have ever had the misfortune to have rammed down my throat on TV, I want to say this: back up on the phony religion (there's a whole bunch of us who see it for the manipulation it is); quit with the ideologies (they're boring us); figure out what's going to work with what most of want: a stable workable approach to life; quit with your theories in favor of what works; and spare us your pretenses and hypocrisy.
If the American tradition is hard work and speaking straight--here I am. Catch up with me if you can.
The reactions to this are both predicable and informative of the great divide among us. Some people said it was a pity to have done this to a legitimate visitor on visa given the fact that the states are trying so hard to attract foreign investment (millions of dollars in incentives for this company). Others are saying, serves him right for not carrying his passport at all times; they cite experiences in Europe where they had to produce theirs.
I've been in Europe, little dogies, I AM European (to the extent the British will admit it) and I thought we were better than them over there. If they want to have police states, deity bless em, but that's not the home of the brave and free. Except I guess some of us want to be nasty and impose the police state over here. I'm left wondering why when so many of us have been trying to escape it.
So who the hell are we?
My answer: we are two different sets of people. One set of us is hell bent on applying the rules--goddam, I conformed, so can you. I was raised on a set of values and I'm going to apply them, because by golly they were applied to me. I listened to those old-time preachers and they sounded good to me, so you'd better go my way or I'll call you unAmerican, and I don't care if the rich keep their money as long as the poor, whom I disapprove of, don't get any of my hard earned dollars.
Before you throw me to the curb here--this has pretty much been the attitude of the Catholic Church through the ages, but also, to be fair, of the protestant evangelical sects that replaced but did not depose the varieties of spiritual experience.
Then there's the group that resonate to the idea of class warfare and raising the banner for the poor and downtrodden. It's easier to sympathize with this group because--well--the poor are the poor. But let's admit it, many of these guys know how to play the system. I've seen it myself. I've also seen companies die from union efforts at creating utopia.
So, who the hell am I?
Like so many of fellow independents, I chose from both sides. This, I think, is the great distinguishing characteristic between us in the middle and the dream-ons who populate both extremes. Increasingly, there will be more of us because we will refuse to be forced into choosing between two equally stupid options that don't fit in the twenty-first century.
To our current political wantabes, who are among the nuttiest I have ever had the misfortune to have rammed down my throat on TV, I want to say this: back up on the phony religion (there's a whole bunch of us who see it for the manipulation it is); quit with the ideologies (they're boring us); figure out what's going to work with what most of want: a stable workable approach to life; quit with your theories in favor of what works; and spare us your pretenses and hypocrisy.
If the American tradition is hard work and speaking straight--here I am. Catch up with me if you can.
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Biscotti Jars and China
I went out shopping today. It's one of life's pleasures, as long, that is, that I can find things that I want to have in my life. It didn't take long, however, before I began questioning whether the things on offer would really meet that criteria. In other words, were the things being offered for me to buy really the things I wanted to have?
There's a bit of a story here. A few weeks ago, I met Kimi in Las Vegas to celebrate our August birthdays. Beides the slots, one of my favorite things is to go see the garden display at the Bellaggio Hotel. It's always artistic and dramatic and once we've taken pictures, I like to browse the shops around it. This time, I went into one that specializes in Italian imports. I fell in love with a biscotti jar. It was terra cotta and showed the Tuscan countryside with a villa, cypresse (cypress trees), and farm implements--very traditional. I debated for a long time and the only thing that prevented me from buying it was the problem of getting it home on the plane. If I'd had my car there, it would have been a done deal.
Back home in Denver, I regretted my decision. So, I trekked off to Park Meadowns Mall (one of our upscale shopping centers) today, looking for a biscotti jar made in Italy or Portugal. I couldn't find one. Oh there were biscotti or comparable jars all right, but invariably, they were what I consider to be fakes. They were made in China. There was no way I would buy one of them. And I'm not talking about Penneys or Sears here. I'm talking about Dillards and Sonoma-Williams. The latter did have things from Portugal and France, for which I commend them, but there were all too many things that were mere imitations, and not always the best.
This led me to consider the larger meaninng of my quest to find something authentic.What does it mean to us as a society? All I can conclude is that for every thing we buy made in China, we deprive someone in Europe and the US of their jobs just so we can buy cheap imitiations. I suppose I should say someones plural because it takes a lot more than one person to make something of lasting value. I can see cheap-o stuff flooding the discount shops like WalMart and Kmart and even Target, but when it invades even our upper scale shops it means that these store also condone peddling this stuff to us. I have to wonder not only about them but also about the corporations supplying them. Have we become so addicted to accumulation that we don't even care what we collect?
The corporations with their bottom line of squeezing every penny are no small part of this. They slap their names on things they have made outside the country, claiming they need a sweatshop workforce to be competitive. What they are really doing is sending our jobs overseas to get things made more cheaply, and I do put the emphasis on cheap. In going offshore, I think they underestimate us seriously and they run the risk of us boycotting them, which they will deserve.
Today, I went out looking for beauty and quality. I found mere imitations, a cynical assumption of the style of another country to be paraded as real because our corporations have equally cynically assumed we will satisfied by it. From what I can gather, imitation has been China's method--copy the work and design of some other county and sell it cheaper. I, for one, do not see buying cheap stuff as satisfying anymore. In the future, I will look for where something is made and choose accordingly.
I can't be the only one feeling this way. I have to believe there might even be room for a new set of stores called Made in the USA or Not Made in China. Maybe the choices in them would not be as numerous. But I would feel much better knowing where my money is going.
In the meantime, I guess I will just have to go back to Las Vegas and hope they still have the biscotti jar.
There's a bit of a story here. A few weeks ago, I met Kimi in Las Vegas to celebrate our August birthdays. Beides the slots, one of my favorite things is to go see the garden display at the Bellaggio Hotel. It's always artistic and dramatic and once we've taken pictures, I like to browse the shops around it. This time, I went into one that specializes in Italian imports. I fell in love with a biscotti jar. It was terra cotta and showed the Tuscan countryside with a villa, cypresse (cypress trees), and farm implements--very traditional. I debated for a long time and the only thing that prevented me from buying it was the problem of getting it home on the plane. If I'd had my car there, it would have been a done deal.
Back home in Denver, I regretted my decision. So, I trekked off to Park Meadowns Mall (one of our upscale shopping centers) today, looking for a biscotti jar made in Italy or Portugal. I couldn't find one. Oh there were biscotti or comparable jars all right, but invariably, they were what I consider to be fakes. They were made in China. There was no way I would buy one of them. And I'm not talking about Penneys or Sears here. I'm talking about Dillards and Sonoma-Williams. The latter did have things from Portugal and France, for which I commend them, but there were all too many things that were mere imitations, and not always the best.
This led me to consider the larger meaninng of my quest to find something authentic.What does it mean to us as a society? All I can conclude is that for every thing we buy made in China, we deprive someone in Europe and the US of their jobs just so we can buy cheap imitiations. I suppose I should say someones plural because it takes a lot more than one person to make something of lasting value. I can see cheap-o stuff flooding the discount shops like WalMart and Kmart and even Target, but when it invades even our upper scale shops it means that these store also condone peddling this stuff to us. I have to wonder not only about them but also about the corporations supplying them. Have we become so addicted to accumulation that we don't even care what we collect?
The corporations with their bottom line of squeezing every penny are no small part of this. They slap their names on things they have made outside the country, claiming they need a sweatshop workforce to be competitive. What they are really doing is sending our jobs overseas to get things made more cheaply, and I do put the emphasis on cheap. In going offshore, I think they underestimate us seriously and they run the risk of us boycotting them, which they will deserve.
Today, I went out looking for beauty and quality. I found mere imitations, a cynical assumption of the style of another country to be paraded as real because our corporations have equally cynically assumed we will satisfied by it. From what I can gather, imitation has been China's method--copy the work and design of some other county and sell it cheaper. I, for one, do not see buying cheap stuff as satisfying anymore. In the future, I will look for where something is made and choose accordingly.
I can't be the only one feeling this way. I have to believe there might even be room for a new set of stores called Made in the USA or Not Made in China. Maybe the choices in them would not be as numerous. But I would feel much better knowing where my money is going.
In the meantime, I guess I will just have to go back to Las Vegas and hope they still have the biscotti jar.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
The Media Are Us
It used to be fashionable to ask Miss America contestants if they thought the media was to blame mounting violence in society. The young woman's reply was always no, she didn't think so, and she came up with some alternative indictment of parents, or schools, or even a crisis in faith.
I was thinking about this the other day as I watched the Murdoch debacle and the demise of the News of the World, and I realized that if I were to turn back the clock and suddenly become nubile while still keeping my experience of years of living, I would beg to differ. Yes, Mr. Parks (that's how far back I go), I would say, the media have a good-sized share of the blame, but so do we all who lapped up squidgy-gate and the rather vulgar conversations between Prince Charles and Camilla. Wherever did we think they got this stuff? We didn't ask because we wanted to know and, after all, they were the wealthy and privileged and it's their duty in life to entertain us. It only counts when the media do it to "ordinary people" like us.
But I'm going to go further and also say that the media have a good sized chunk of the responsibility for the roiling anger consuming this country. The media does not come out (usually) to promote political agendas on the front page. Such opinions are supposedly by-lined and put on the editorial pages, where people can pick and choose which op ed pieces confirm their own prejudices.
But there are subtle ways that the news on the front page can appear to be objective while still presenting a politically slanted view. Let me explain. When I taught college English, I used to tell my students the story of a car accident that supposedly occurred at the bottom of the campus. One car broadsided another. At first I told them that one of the drivers was in his late 80s, just returning from a visit to the doctor's office. The other car was driven by a man in his twenties. Speed was not considered a fctor.
Who might they think was to blame? The wisest ones, onto my ploy, said they didn't know enough. I caught a good number of them assuming that the senior driver was "probably" to blame because everyone "knows" that serniors have declining driving skills.
All right, I'd say, here's some more: the 20 year old driver had a suspended license, there were three other men in the car with him, one of them was partially undresssed, and there were beer cans on the back floor.
My students looked a bit ashamed but then went on to do the same thing. Now, it looked like the younger folk were to blame.
The devil was in the details provided and withheld. And it happens to us all the time if we rely on the media for our information instead of looking more deeply ourselves.
On Tuesday, July 12, The Denver Post ran a front page story with the headline "Draft Ramps Up Kid Rules: The Child-care Lincensing Plan's Focus on Quality Meets Quikc Skepticism." The lead paragraph stressed that the proposed (note: only proposed) rules would "impose (notice that word) sweeping changes on Colorado Licensed child-care centers." The second paragraph quoted "some" child care operators as saying the proposed changes were a "vast overreach." The next paragraph named the operator of three centers who didn't say anything about the overreach business but commented that health and safety needed to be balanced with quality and that there be some flexibility.
By then, all those opposed to government intervention in anything were probably thumping their chair arms and yelling about damned government sticking its nose into everything. This would probably produce a very nice rant if the reader was a tea-bagger, meaning that he or she was probably not going to read the rest of the story on 7A buried inside. Now, on that equivalent of a back page, we learned that the proposals are a draft to be negotiated by the parties involved and that many of the suggested policies were recommended by childcare operators themselves because Colorado is one of bottom states when it comes to regulating early child-care providers.
Looks different doesn't it? The devil was in the order of the details in this account and since the "balance" didn't come until the end, one must conclude that the writer intended to stir things up. In other words, we were snookered and it was a non-story. However, the next day, the Post ran an editorial no less saying that the draft policies went too far as if the story had been credible and only the media reporting had "saved" the day.
Having actually served on some of these committees to propose anything, I know how they work. You throw everything in but the kitchen sink so it can all be negotiated and people can work together as a team to discard anything really unreasonable. That is how democracy and consensus work. In this case, though, the media picked out the controversy, played it up irresponsibly to sell papers, and by doing so fanned the flames of division. Who needs enemies when you have media fighting for readership?
But let's be honest. We get the media we deserve. If we aren't willing to educate ourselves to look skeptically at what is presented to us as fact and if we aren't willing to embrace even a rudimentary form of intellectual engagement with the world--and we're seeing mounting evidence that many of us are not--then we are going to continue being presented with gossip masquerading as truth. Shame on us for settling for this.
I was thinking about this the other day as I watched the Murdoch debacle and the demise of the News of the World, and I realized that if I were to turn back the clock and suddenly become nubile while still keeping my experience of years of living, I would beg to differ. Yes, Mr. Parks (that's how far back I go), I would say, the media have a good-sized share of the blame, but so do we all who lapped up squidgy-gate and the rather vulgar conversations between Prince Charles and Camilla. Wherever did we think they got this stuff? We didn't ask because we wanted to know and, after all, they were the wealthy and privileged and it's their duty in life to entertain us. It only counts when the media do it to "ordinary people" like us.
But I'm going to go further and also say that the media have a good sized chunk of the responsibility for the roiling anger consuming this country. The media does not come out (usually) to promote political agendas on the front page. Such opinions are supposedly by-lined and put on the editorial pages, where people can pick and choose which op ed pieces confirm their own prejudices.
But there are subtle ways that the news on the front page can appear to be objective while still presenting a politically slanted view. Let me explain. When I taught college English, I used to tell my students the story of a car accident that supposedly occurred at the bottom of the campus. One car broadsided another. At first I told them that one of the drivers was in his late 80s, just returning from a visit to the doctor's office. The other car was driven by a man in his twenties. Speed was not considered a fctor.
Who might they think was to blame? The wisest ones, onto my ploy, said they didn't know enough. I caught a good number of them assuming that the senior driver was "probably" to blame because everyone "knows" that serniors have declining driving skills.
All right, I'd say, here's some more: the 20 year old driver had a suspended license, there were three other men in the car with him, one of them was partially undresssed, and there were beer cans on the back floor.
My students looked a bit ashamed but then went on to do the same thing. Now, it looked like the younger folk were to blame.
The devil was in the details provided and withheld. And it happens to us all the time if we rely on the media for our information instead of looking more deeply ourselves.
On Tuesday, July 12, The Denver Post ran a front page story with the headline "Draft Ramps Up Kid Rules: The Child-care Lincensing Plan's Focus on Quality Meets Quikc Skepticism." The lead paragraph stressed that the proposed (note: only proposed) rules would "impose (notice that word) sweeping changes on Colorado Licensed child-care centers." The second paragraph quoted "some" child care operators as saying the proposed changes were a "vast overreach." The next paragraph named the operator of three centers who didn't say anything about the overreach business but commented that health and safety needed to be balanced with quality and that there be some flexibility.
By then, all those opposed to government intervention in anything were probably thumping their chair arms and yelling about damned government sticking its nose into everything. This would probably produce a very nice rant if the reader was a tea-bagger, meaning that he or she was probably not going to read the rest of the story on 7A buried inside. Now, on that equivalent of a back page, we learned that the proposals are a draft to be negotiated by the parties involved and that many of the suggested policies were recommended by childcare operators themselves because Colorado is one of bottom states when it comes to regulating early child-care providers.
Looks different doesn't it? The devil was in the order of the details in this account and since the "balance" didn't come until the end, one must conclude that the writer intended to stir things up. In other words, we were snookered and it was a non-story. However, the next day, the Post ran an editorial no less saying that the draft policies went too far as if the story had been credible and only the media reporting had "saved" the day.
Having actually served on some of these committees to propose anything, I know how they work. You throw everything in but the kitchen sink so it can all be negotiated and people can work together as a team to discard anything really unreasonable. That is how democracy and consensus work. In this case, though, the media picked out the controversy, played it up irresponsibly to sell papers, and by doing so fanned the flames of division. Who needs enemies when you have media fighting for readership?
But let's be honest. We get the media we deserve. If we aren't willing to educate ourselves to look skeptically at what is presented to us as fact and if we aren't willing to embrace even a rudimentary form of intellectual engagement with the world--and we're seeing mounting evidence that many of us are not--then we are going to continue being presented with gossip masquerading as truth. Shame on us for settling for this.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
What Would Shakespeare Blog
Recently, I accept the challenge to imagine what Shakespeare, the greatest writer in our language that ever was, would blog about if he were alive today. I found the experience both amusing and profound. I'm sure he would have laughed at the same pretensions and lunacy as we do, just as I am sure he would be just as depressed at how little we have learned from those before us. We are still the same people, just in different times and settings and, unfortunately, armed with better and more destructive technology.
Here is what I wrote:
One thing about William Shakespeare, he never met a human being he couldn’t bump up into an archetype. His characters were never just people. That’s not how his brain worked. He looked for meaning and played with life by asking questions. What if Aristotle’s idea of the tragic hero could be tweaked, maybe turned upside down, and used to show how we grubby human beings fall short of anything like true heroism? What if a sociopath were to be dropped into the middle of unreflective, morally complacent people—who would win? What if an ambitious man were suddenly shown a short-cut to real power, how would he handle it? Shakespeare populated his world with people faced with moral, ethical, and emotional problems and moved them on his chessboard while he worked out his answers.
In the end, his “answers” had to be partial because unknowable things can be resolved only in the acceptance that “the rest is silence.” But what a journey he took us on.
Shakespeare took his characters where he found them: from history books, from the ranks of the royal courtiers, from everyday people around him. He turned every one into a moral or intellectual lesson. He found no shortage of material in sixteenth-century England, just as he would find no shortage now. The world is still populated by the same greedy, unaware, willfully ignorant, morally complacent, and unreflective types. He would understand modern politics because he had seen it all before.
For example, he wrote about a king who confused the power of his position with his personal authority. “A dog’s obeyed in office,” was the sad lesson that king had to learn. He could have been writing about George Bush. But the lesson he might have drawn from the Bush administration is that just because one has the power to do something (like invade another country) does not mean one should. At the end of the Shakespeare play, the stage is littered with the bodies of the king’s family (you can never just remove a targeted piece of evil like Saddam Hussein, Shakespeare told us, everyone must suffer in the process). The stage at the end of the Bush drama is littered with the deaths of thousands of people who gave their lives abroad and the near death of our economy. A dram of evil, indeed.
What would he have made of Bill Clinton? Here was a man capable of doing good and admirable in so many ways, yet brought down by his own weaknesses. The tragic flaw, Shakespeare might have pointed out, just as Aristotle described it. The rueful Clinton, apparently having learned his lesson, now says he indulged in a sordid affair “because he could.” Prime Shakespeare material. He might have said the same about Representative Weiner.
Or how about the swath of Tea Party candidates? “A flag upon the waters,” Shakespeare would have said. He never liked popular movements anyway. He didn’t trust the people not to be ignorant and just go for popularity.
All in all, Shakespeare wrote about power. His subjects were courtiers, hangers-on become pawns to those in power, women who encouraged murder but wanted to be blameless, parents who destroyed their children, and psychopaths who ruined others just for the experience. Today he easily could find comparable if not exact duplicates. With the internet, he would only need to read the headlines.
Shakespeare was fascinated by the getting, the keeping, the abusing, and the losing of political advantage. Politics and history were his natural milieu. He showed us the truth of Santayana’s comment that those unaware of the past are doomed to repeat it. So, as we head into yet another election cycle, it would behoove us to remember this cynical and yet hopeful observer of humanity, who would advise us that nothing is new under the sun. We could do a lot worse than to go back and and reread his plays.
Here is what I wrote:
One thing about William Shakespeare, he never met a human being he couldn’t bump up into an archetype. His characters were never just people. That’s not how his brain worked. He looked for meaning and played with life by asking questions. What if Aristotle’s idea of the tragic hero could be tweaked, maybe turned upside down, and used to show how we grubby human beings fall short of anything like true heroism? What if a sociopath were to be dropped into the middle of unreflective, morally complacent people—who would win? What if an ambitious man were suddenly shown a short-cut to real power, how would he handle it? Shakespeare populated his world with people faced with moral, ethical, and emotional problems and moved them on his chessboard while he worked out his answers.
In the end, his “answers” had to be partial because unknowable things can be resolved only in the acceptance that “the rest is silence.” But what a journey he took us on.
Shakespeare took his characters where he found them: from history books, from the ranks of the royal courtiers, from everyday people around him. He turned every one into a moral or intellectual lesson. He found no shortage of material in sixteenth-century England, just as he would find no shortage now. The world is still populated by the same greedy, unaware, willfully ignorant, morally complacent, and unreflective types. He would understand modern politics because he had seen it all before.
For example, he wrote about a king who confused the power of his position with his personal authority. “A dog’s obeyed in office,” was the sad lesson that king had to learn. He could have been writing about George Bush. But the lesson he might have drawn from the Bush administration is that just because one has the power to do something (like invade another country) does not mean one should. At the end of the Shakespeare play, the stage is littered with the bodies of the king’s family (you can never just remove a targeted piece of evil like Saddam Hussein, Shakespeare told us, everyone must suffer in the process). The stage at the end of the Bush drama is littered with the deaths of thousands of people who gave their lives abroad and the near death of our economy. A dram of evil, indeed.
What would he have made of Bill Clinton? Here was a man capable of doing good and admirable in so many ways, yet brought down by his own weaknesses. The tragic flaw, Shakespeare might have pointed out, just as Aristotle described it. The rueful Clinton, apparently having learned his lesson, now says he indulged in a sordid affair “because he could.” Prime Shakespeare material. He might have said the same about Representative Weiner.
Or how about the swath of Tea Party candidates? “A flag upon the waters,” Shakespeare would have said. He never liked popular movements anyway. He didn’t trust the people not to be ignorant and just go for popularity.
All in all, Shakespeare wrote about power. His subjects were courtiers, hangers-on become pawns to those in power, women who encouraged murder but wanted to be blameless, parents who destroyed their children, and psychopaths who ruined others just for the experience. Today he easily could find comparable if not exact duplicates. With the internet, he would only need to read the headlines.
Shakespeare was fascinated by the getting, the keeping, the abusing, and the losing of political advantage. Politics and history were his natural milieu. He showed us the truth of Santayana’s comment that those unaware of the past are doomed to repeat it. So, as we head into yet another election cycle, it would behoove us to remember this cynical and yet hopeful observer of humanity, who would advise us that nothing is new under the sun. We could do a lot worse than to go back and and reread his plays.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
