| |
Saturday, June 25, 2005
MILADY PRESIDENT. Once again I find myself asking:" Is it time for a woman to be elected President of the United States? In our present era of re-definitions concerning who may do what in religious and temporal offices, the subject keeps coming up, I find. And I also notice, more people seem to be asking “when”, rather than “why” or “why not?” Two candidates are often set forth - one for each major party. This concern about the possibility of a feminine leader in the Oval Office has been brought about this time by the presence of two very capable women which has led people to visualize of them as President. Neither one has has said "no" to the idea. Oddly, I have not heard any talk whatsoever bout either of them running for the office of Vice-President which might seem to be a more plausible entrance area. That, of course, would come along later on when a male candidate has announced he favor a feminine Vice-President. Voter who cannot see a female president well go along with a feminine candidate running with a strong male lead. If I were betting on it, I would say “no” - we will not see a woman in the oval office for some time. We are not ready, I'd say, in a “grass roots sense “ whatever that term may mean to you. It will be achieved, in time, because there is, to me, no sound no reason why the office should be keep for males only. Many nations have had their Queens, Empresses, Presidents, Premiers, Prime Ministers and have done well in such times. We can see a gradual progression toward such a climate. The word is now “when” and no longer “if”. It is made more urgent with some recent addition to the potential troop of men who are, even now, seeking to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. I still expect Hillary Clinton to seek the nomination of next election.. It, to me, is as I have said before it is a “now or never” situation. The impetus of her attainments to this time will not endure for four additional years. Much depends, for instance, on how the assistance being offered by the Clinton team to the beleaguered California “Recall Election” procedures works out. Notice, too, how many legislative bills Hillary Clinton has co-sponsored as a Senator. These are “back scratching” arrangements with each of them, and they number far in excess of the usual few and in a wide gamut, as well. In her recent actions, she is moving toward the Center and her success is making this transition from being Liberal to perching, for a time, on the edge of Conservative nesting areas may well determine her decision to run. Secretary Rice has to ferret out fences which stand against her candidacy because she is black and a woman, as well, while Hillery Clinton going to have to convince a lot of people she is not just another "Bill. So much is going to hinge on the males interested in the race . From Virginia Governor Warner and Congressman Allen will be among the early runners. Which ones will favor a female running mate? A.L.M. June 24, 2005 [c545wds]
Friday, June 24, 2005
THIS VERY MOMENT Right now - even as we read this short line - a new business is coming into being here in the land in which we live. It's "brand new" in many way, but you can be sure that if it is to be a success it has a typically American quality of curiosity. So many of the attention-getting dot.com business firms were touched with a large portion of plain, old nosy-oriented curiosity because some individual,willing to buck trends and prejudice of many kinds, wanted to see if his idea was possible, or plausible, perhaps even profitable. We all take chances more than we realize, but would we bet our all on an idea for a new business? The one new idea which so often seems to work well, is a quite often not new at all. It has to do with quality. One simply starts an old idea of a business but does it all better than it has been done to that time. A thriving example of that sort of "new" business is being demonstrated locally by a young man who decided he was going into the business of renting films to at-home viewers - discs, tapes or whatever. That's "big time" business pretty much ruled by several monsters shops with gobs of glitter and glamor galore. His was a small shop in a small town but today he owns and operates six such stores in this area and employs thirty-five persons to help meet the demand. A recent interview revealed a point which may be the real key to his success. When a new store turns profitable, he starts another. With six locations going and who know how many more on the way, his positive plan seems to work well. We have to admire any man who sets up a new business in faced of difficult conditions, but there is seldom an all-clear being sounded these days. I have a strong feeling which tells that he or she is taking on a far greater burden than did their counterparts just a few years ago. It is still a good feeling to see a young person and I always wish for them the very best good fortune. It takes much more nerve than it did not too long ago. The financial arrangements are still there is some form or another and any enterprising youth can take a stab at it. My fear is usually in the area of marketing potential. Too often I see a project which is boutique oriented in line with other types of shops. A second thing which bothers me is when I see someone opening a shop which has a limited appeal at best. I might stand a chance in a metro area where it could draw from a million or so potential customers for their special, arty item. I suspect a fast-talking real-estate agent in the background at such start-ups. A.L.M. June 24,2005 [c501wds]
Thursday, June 23, 2005
GROWN UPS Are we guilty of attempting to age our children beyond their actual years? We see indications of that tendency in the news when we see little girl dressed and made up to resemble young women; little boys as romantic counterparts. It is reflected in new events kidnapping attempts. I have talked with present-day school teachers and I find that when they describe today's students, they seem to hesitate in doing so, but eventually come down on the side of: "they're much more mature than we were." The hesitation, I have noticed, is usually in relation to the term "mature" itself. They seem to agree that today's students are, indeed, more mature but they wonder if your definition of that word is the same as theirs. The critical area is that to some of us the term "mature" simply means "older" - physically and mentally - more advanced. Boy's are more muscular and macho in attitude; girls are more ample in bosom and hip areas. We think of them as being more "grown up" and more aware of the aspects of social life which will be the challenge to their future. They have been pushed into this by adults who often urge their children start adult habits early in life - such as girls wearing cosmetics, having their ear lobes pierced for dangling ear decorations from kindergarten years on up. Girls clothing, too, is fashioned as a cut-down version of mother's or of some movie or TV starlet. Boys are expected to emulate the outdoors man ethos, even while being allowed to be couch potatoes in front of the home TV or Nintendo set. Both are expected to learn what life is all about from watching MTV daily. The teacher's opinion can be totally wrong if he or she has misjudged the home upbringing the child. The teachers may deal with things as they should be, while parents deal (or refuse to deal) with things as they really are. They often come down on the positive side in their view, but , in doing so, risk the displeasure of parents and families. The teacher's role is not an easy one these days. An accurate estimate of just where youth stands today in comparison to the youth of our day or any other time, requires that both views be incorporated in any study. Too often what seems to be the immaturity of the child is really that of the parent who never quite grew up. In view of the obvious excesses of recent generations, I think today's youth has a remarkably steady grasp of things which really matter. Both sides need to re-adjust their thinking to be fair about judging what has happened in the past. It is not solely a matter of long-haired boys, or skirt-shy girls; nor is it a matter of taciturn oblivion staring back at you when you examine the face of a young boy or girl. It should not come as any surprise to older people that the youth of today are "poorly informed" on topics which were considered to be "essential" or "basic" in our time. Have you noticed, for instance, how many young people have little or no knowledge of Nursery Rhymes and wash out completely when that subject comes up in TV quiz shows and in common talk? An entire generation has grown up without hearing Mother read Nursery Rhymes at bedtime. It does not appear to be a "big deal" in particular. It is, furthermore, evident that in the upcoming generation many young people now know a fund of Disney versions of the nursery classics and history which are often far removed from any resemblance to the originals. This seems very trivial, too, does it not? Yet, it is indicative of what has taken place in may other aspects of our lives. A Walt Disney version of "the birds and the bees" falls far short of meeting a teen's needs today in the live-a-day world. Certainly our youth are more "advanced" in many ways today, with electronic aspects such as the previous generations never dreamed of having in common, everyday use Life is so much more "open" today; yet minds remain closed. We are failing to make proper use of the advantages we now have and the young people are being put at risk far too soon. If you "hesitate" when asked the same question about maturity today it may well to note that we are seldom, if ever, talking about the same thing. We must agree to common terms and use them consistently if we expect to come up with a workable answer to such continuing and mounting problems. A.L.M. amccsr@adelphia.net June 23, 2005 [c740wds]
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
THAT TIME AGAIN. It is, once again, that time of the year in which countless numbers of otherwise sensable citizens across his land of ours seem to come, suddenly, awake to the disturbing fact that fact that statistics again show the HIV virus infection is not receding. In fact, this months figure show HIV infections have now arrived at a new, higher plateau here in the United States. Some read into the reports a word of celebration in the fact that the figures just in do indicate that, for the year, there has been a decline of the rate of infection among women as compared to that among males. This sort of small encouragement causes a great many people to take heart in current campaigns to acquaint more and more people who meet with the problem. The reasons for this apparent deline among womens are numerous in the telling, of course, but nothing of genuine consequence seems to have,in any way, altered the seriousness of the general picture for both men and women assoicated with the lifestyle which permits, and even encourages the very acts which contribute, to the causes which make the virus infection know as HIV to become one of mankind's greatest scourges. Just this week the Governor of Massachusetts has set forth yetanother attempt to make the state reverse its present legislation – unique among the state laws of then nation ti make illegal to perform same sex marriages. He is,I believe, also asking that the same such denial be set up in relation to so-called civil marriages, as well. It is hisintent, it seems, to kill such wild adventures in licentious legislation during those hectic months associated with our national elections. Figures today show that we now have an around l,039,000 to l,285,000 million people in the United States who have been infected with HIV, the AIDS virus. In 2003 the totals stood around 850,000 to 950,000, Half of them are black. The hardest hit group were,logically, gay men. Even more frightening to many people is the fact that about 25% of those more-or-less two million people actually are HIV infected but don't know it yet. It is also true that the actual rate of increase among stricken men more than offsets the decline among women. We have never faced a problem such as this? A.L.M. amccsr@adelphia.net June 17, 2005 [c407wds]
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
COOKIE CRUMBLES I don't remember a Chinese word for "meat". I think I did see it not too long ago on a fortune cookie vocabulary listing. It's something short - "mo" or "ho", as I remember, but it reminds me of how short Chinese meals are on the meat portions served. I see this as a good thing in many ways. First, it is economical, not only for the Chinese cooks but for us as well, to cut down on our large servings of meat as the main portion of our meals. The smaller intake of meats show at the waistlines, as well - or, better still, do not show at the waste line. The Chinese cook tends to use meat as a condiment and not as a main en tree. I think that would be good for our general health, as well, because I have long felt we overdo the eating of meats at mealtime. Notice how fragmented the meat portion in so much Chinese cookery. Everything used, it appears, is diced up into bite-size pieces and added to other foods - pastas, fruits and vegetables - to tone it up a bit with a beef, pork or chicken flavor. Americanized Chinese cookery may, of course, vary from the way it is in real-life China but when you visit a Chinese restaurant here - be it Peking, Schwartz's. Hunan or Cantonese "style" the printed menus always read pretty much the same. They are, it seems, modified somewhat to include a meat term so the American can feel he is ordering a substantial meal. There are Chicken, Beef, Pork and Sea a generous slab of beef on his plate in Western Style is going to be disappointed when he is served a steaming platter of noodles or rice in which cubes or shreads of beef appear like raisins in raisin bread or dry cereal dishes. The sauces are beefy as well, so the end result is that you can enjoy such a meal and feel satisfied if you accept the Chinese standard and do not expect a chunk of meat with a bit of rice or noodles nearby. It is easy to see why it is an economic thing, too. Check the prices of meats in Japanese and Chinese markets and there is ample evidence to show that the Chinese diet cannot include large quantities of meats and continue to operate either at home or commercially. The natural westerner's assumption, at this point is that the Chinese must, then, consume large quantities of vegetables and fruits. Not so. Consult the menu at your nearby Chinese restaurant and you will find a limited number of vegetables in use. Seldom do you find they go beyond - broccoli, snow peas, black beans, bean curd, rice, garlic and chillies - yes, and tomatoes, if you class that as a vegetable in spite of it being a fruit in a technical sense. I suppose we could list bamboo shoots, bean sprouts, and even pasta, with vegetables as well ...but is still falls far short of the westernized diner's idea of what a vegetable meal might be. One looks in vain for "desserts" as well. The Fortune Cookie - free or four for one dollar, and up - is the common touch of sweetness at the end of a meal. I like it. A.L.M. June 21, 2005 [c559wds]
Monday, June 20, 2005
OUR WORK FUTURE It amazes me that we continue to experience with all sorts of difficulties in our educational system without anything seriously being done about correcting obvious wrongs. We become aware of such lapses in our system at this time of the graduation speeches are so numerous. It is a special time which makes many critics wonder. We become aware of many problems which exist and ,while we have had a plethora of suggestions as to what needs to be done. Some of them are quite valid, I'm sure, but very little, if anything, actually gets done about making the adjustments needed to bring about such urgently needed changes. We should regret the day the term "educators" became common in our language with the intent of giving the word "teachers" a more glamorous aura. It has become a common term which now seems to include everyone from the "almost"or soon-to-be" or, "barely" certified teacher - on up the academic ladder to the holders of Master's Degrees - as well as everyone else who happens to have a job , doing almost anything in or around the school area. All are spoken of as being "prominent educators in our community" It is time to put "teaching" back in the respective and respected niche it once occupied ...an area set apart to mean someone trained to teach youngsters - a graduate of a college or university dedicated to the specific training of teachers for the specialized job of teaching the youth of our land. All colleges which used to proudly bear the name "Teacher's College" have erased the name and the concept that went along with it. The term "educators" has seeped into politics, as well. and our President and Vice-President talk at great length - and loudly, at times, - governmental flaunt their expertize concerning "education". Our President some years ago spoke of "hiring l00,000 new teachers", but never mentioned where these trained teachers were to be found or where they are going to find classrooms in which to do their teaching. Few colleges, today, make any pretense of trying to prepare young people for teaching. "Teaching" is, in the main, now considered to be a by-product of the educational process which centers on a wider variety of subject matter than was ever thought possible. The attitude seems to be "they can always teach." if they are unsuccessful in their specialized field. Far too many individuals do not find suitable employment in their exotic field of study at college and they apply to the local high school to become a teacher. Here they are welcomed with open arms by administrators - who, remember, are "educators" - who are looking for a body to fill a job-slot which is open on the staff. So, magically, the Phys. Ed. major from college starts teaching English, French, Math or Biology - whatever happens to be open at the time. Hiring new teachers to work in non-existent classrooms is hardly the way to go about it. As long as continue to have this ostrich attitude it is all costing vast amounts of money, time and youthful minds. We need basic reform and large part of it all, it would seem to me, would be that we redefine what we mean - really mean - when we say "educators." If, in the next decade we can find a way to actually train even a cadre group; just a fraction of the mythical hundred thousand young people to be genuine teachers in the finest sense of the word we will have taken a first step toward solving some of our problems. We have political, economic and social problems, to consider, as well. What do you think ought to be done to put a stop to the flagrant off-shoring of employment opportunity? Even now when next fall's college classes are being formed it is already evident that fewer young people will be training in computer technology, largely because they see a marked trend showing the truly worthwhile computer jobs being shipped overseas. Why train for a field which have been exported to foreign shores where our manufacturing skills and capabilities have, long ago, been shamefully exiled? A.L.M. June 20, 2005 [c704wds]
Sunday, June 19, 2005
FAILURES! Are we a spiritually bankrupt people? How much longer can we choose to stand here idle and refuse to accept an opportunity which has been freely given to us for our use? How many more days, months and years are we going to let go by in wasteful ruin a gift placed long ago in our hand for our use and enjoyment? How much longer will selfish men and women continue to stand in opposition to the use of rotor fans to utilize the power of the wind? The common winds can and ought to be put to use for the betterment of all Mankind. The seas of this Earth-World and,now, even the spaced above and that beyond it has been long gone as a special enclaves held in psych-thrall by selfish, posturing, individuals who deem a special attainment to hold wind as a hostage to their concept of supposed beauty. How much longer can we look at a blessing which is of apparent for all o use an not make good use of it? Much of the talk about "beauty" is used as a clumsy facade -much like the cheap, gaudy paper signs and banners protesters wave so senselessly before themselves when marching in parades against change. Certainly those very persons would not say the ugly towers we call skyscrapers are all seemly and things of outstanding beauty. Critics concede that,in such structures, tending to be higher and higher, more grotesque and garish, redeeming qualities of usefulness which make them acceptable and worthwhile. Many structures are ugly, and become more acceptable with their usefulness. We need the energy we can generate from wind-driven units. Be they located on mountain ridges, at various levels in the newest high rise b buildings or on islands offshore. It would be different, perhaps, if it were something new an different we were contemplating but we are talking of doing that which we have done before - and successfully so as long as it remained practical to do so. A mere glance at the thousands of windmills in England and Northern Europe illustrates their role in draining the flooded fen areas and bring forth farm able, fertile fields. We,even while bettering life for everyone with a less costly energy source,could also bring about economic sanity in the fossil fuel industries. Standing as a modern symbol of greed and avarice the person who, today, sees the wind blowing across his "his"mountain, "his" lake,"his" cabin, house,palace or rancho grande hold our future as hostage to his personal likings. He hold title to much of that which he does own as a result, no doubt, of his family's earnings - profits from from skyscraper-housed businesses, a lines of oil field derricks, miles of power lines and gleaming, television and radio station, communication towers springing up everywhere and vying only with newest higher and brighter fast food food advertising signs for sky space. We need to "lighten up" and "be real" about this question of who owns the wind. A.L.M. June 19, 2005 [c519wds]
|
|
