I've been noticing lately a lot of appeals (by commercial interests) to images of our grandmothers. There's "Nonna's [grandmother in Italian] Minestrone Soup," Nonna's Pizza (right down the street from me). There's a TV commercial that includes an image of Yiayia (grandmother in Greek), though I think it says "Yiayia wouldn't approve." And there's the Jewish grandmother (the image is perhaps more common in the Eastern US), known as Bubbe in Yiddish. Whether you call her Nonna, Yiayia, Bubbe, Nanna, Nan, Gran, or some other name, I'm confident that grandmothers are much alike, largely regardless of their ethnicity.
The image of our grandmothers is very evocative. Some of the associations are love, nurturing, a big, soft breast that nearly smothered us when we were hugged.
For many Americans, our grandparents' was the immigrant generation; that might have some negative connotations: conservative, backward, unassimilated, maybe more foreign than American.
But the positive side of it all is that our grandmothers are our tie to our heritage, to the food (and of course more) of the "old country."
It's the food thing that's the most important. If Italian and Greek grandmothers are like my Jewish grandmother, grandmother is synonymous with food, with overabundant cooking and baking. I swear that my grandmother cooked and baked for 26 or 28 hours a day. The house always smelled of cooking and baking. At Thanksgiving, there were both beef and turkey; sweet potatoes and mashed potatoes; pie and cake.
Our grandmothers were great cooks, the custodians of age-old recipes that might or might not have been handed down to later generations. And our mothers, however good they were or are as cooks, simply don't put as much time and effort into cooking and baking as Grandma did.
And food is love. If you didn't eat something when you visited my grandparents', my grandmother would be hurt. Very hurt. (There are lots of jokes that embody that stereotype of the Jewish grandmother.) It would be an affront to her cooking, her hospitality, her grandmotherliness. In my particular case, as I wrote elsewhere, I was very thin, so in addition, getting me to eat something would be one brick in the edifice she wished to build of a beefier me; that was a project of hers.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Thursday, December 22, 2011
It's a Good Wind That Blows No Ill: The "Made in America" Campaign
Again I refer to the US television network called ABC and their "ABC World News" evening news program.
They have been carrying on a campaign that urges Americans to buy more American-made items as part of their Christmas gift shopping. The slogan is "Made in America." They have shown video clips of factories that have added workers because of increased sales of their manufactures--in turn, presumably, because of the demand for those products that has been stimulated by ABC.
The numbers of additional workers hired seem to be generally small: 3 here, maybe 10 or so there. I'd be curious to know what the total increased employment is, but that is not given and probably is not even known; but I don't think the impact is a really large one.
Still, I think this is a good thing. I am happy to see American workers rehired or new jobs being created. It's hard to argue with that, since it's good for all of America. Unemployment causes anxiety and suffering, even hunger--which no one in a prosperous land like the US should suffer.
And not only are there restored or newly created American jobs, but this has to be good for the economic statistic called balance of payments: When a country imports more than it exports, that is called a trade deficit and is supposed to be a bad thing--although the great amount of oil that the US imports, to fuel its enormous SUVs, is a big contributor to the US trade deficit.
Now, this is what is called a zero-sum game, meaning that if someone gains, someone else loses. If less imported merchandise is being bought, someone suffers. And it's easy to guess that the main loser in all this would be China.
I don't feel sorry for China if its factories are making fewer goods to be sent to America. In fact, it's not even totally a bad thing for China. Chinese peasants in very large numbers have been leaving the farm to move to the cities and work in factories. This causes at least some social disruption. It can't be totally a bad thing if more peasants remain in the rural areas and grow food.
On the other hand, the "Made in America" trend is not quite totally a good thing for America. If you pay attention to the transportation industry in America, you can't help but be aware that there is a very, very large amount of activity involving goods that come from China: shipping containers, very many of them carrying goods from China, are being moved by American trains and trucks. So that business might be hurt. Still, domestically-made goods have to be transported, too. Maybe some fuel with be saved by manufactures being moved shorter distances.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
They have been carrying on a campaign that urges Americans to buy more American-made items as part of their Christmas gift shopping. The slogan is "Made in America." They have shown video clips of factories that have added workers because of increased sales of their manufactures--in turn, presumably, because of the demand for those products that has been stimulated by ABC.
The numbers of additional workers hired seem to be generally small: 3 here, maybe 10 or so there. I'd be curious to know what the total increased employment is, but that is not given and probably is not even known; but I don't think the impact is a really large one.
Still, I think this is a good thing. I am happy to see American workers rehired or new jobs being created. It's hard to argue with that, since it's good for all of America. Unemployment causes anxiety and suffering, even hunger--which no one in a prosperous land like the US should suffer.
And not only are there restored or newly created American jobs, but this has to be good for the economic statistic called balance of payments: When a country imports more than it exports, that is called a trade deficit and is supposed to be a bad thing--although the great amount of oil that the US imports, to fuel its enormous SUVs, is a big contributor to the US trade deficit.
Now, this is what is called a zero-sum game, meaning that if someone gains, someone else loses. If less imported merchandise is being bought, someone suffers. And it's easy to guess that the main loser in all this would be China.
I don't feel sorry for China if its factories are making fewer goods to be sent to America. In fact, it's not even totally a bad thing for China. Chinese peasants in very large numbers have been leaving the farm to move to the cities and work in factories. This causes at least some social disruption. It can't be totally a bad thing if more peasants remain in the rural areas and grow food.
On the other hand, the "Made in America" trend is not quite totally a good thing for America. If you pay attention to the transportation industry in America, you can't help but be aware that there is a very, very large amount of activity involving goods that come from China: shipping containers, very many of them carrying goods from China, are being moved by American trains and trucks. So that business might be hurt. Still, domestically-made goods have to be transported, too. Maybe some fuel with be saved by manufactures being moved shorter distances.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Why Study Old Stuff?
History is about dead people. Archeology is about dead people. So is art history. Even literature is mainly about dead people, unless you somehow confine your attention to living writers.
I've been interested in literature for a long time and studied it in college. If you're into some of the really old literature, I think you almost inevitably find yourself concerned with the history of the period as well, and in fact I did. And within the last few years I've acknowledged to myself an interest in archeology.
So, I'm interested in lots of old stuff, even antiques. And I find it disturbing to consider that a lot of people have no interest in the past. I'm sure that the course of study that a lot of people follow in post-secondary schools includes little or no study of the fields that have to do with old stuff or with dead people.
It's disturbing to me and I think it's unfortunate; but I understand it pretty well, I think. There is money to be made, livelihoods to be earned, if you study really new stuff, such as the newest computer hardware and software. By contrast, I might know a lot about Old English poetry, but who values that knowledge and will pay me for knowing it? Where can I put that knowledge to any use, let alone to profit?
So maybe the people who want to learn about some of these areas are not practical-minded, don't care enough about whether they're going to be equipped to make a living. And it's really only sensible to worry about having a field that will produce an income.
Wanting to study IT rather than history is not a new phenomenon. In the protest days of the 1960s and 1970s, students and others were not just protesting a war. Demonstrations on college campuses were protesting that college curricula were not "relevant." And curricula changed. A mark of so-called academic liberalism is that students might study Puerto Rican poets rather than Shakespeare. And while these poets may not be "classic" like Shakespeare, and maybe not as good as Shakespeare, they have the merit of being living. Let's study and worry about our world, and not dig up dusty old books where the language is funny and hard to understand.
The debate over what, if anything, the past has to teach us is ongoing and endless. I for one don't feel that the past has to prove its relevance. Some human concerns are timeless and unchanging. Twenty-first-century people—no matter how much our world seems to have changed in some respects—are not freed from the same life events, emotions, worries that have been aspects of the human condition for thousands of years.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
I've been interested in literature for a long time and studied it in college. If you're into some of the really old literature, I think you almost inevitably find yourself concerned with the history of the period as well, and in fact I did. And within the last few years I've acknowledged to myself an interest in archeology.
So, I'm interested in lots of old stuff, even antiques. And I find it disturbing to consider that a lot of people have no interest in the past. I'm sure that the course of study that a lot of people follow in post-secondary schools includes little or no study of the fields that have to do with old stuff or with dead people.
It's disturbing to me and I think it's unfortunate; but I understand it pretty well, I think. There is money to be made, livelihoods to be earned, if you study really new stuff, such as the newest computer hardware and software. By contrast, I might know a lot about Old English poetry, but who values that knowledge and will pay me for knowing it? Where can I put that knowledge to any use, let alone to profit?
So maybe the people who want to learn about some of these areas are not practical-minded, don't care enough about whether they're going to be equipped to make a living. And it's really only sensible to worry about having a field that will produce an income.
Wanting to study IT rather than history is not a new phenomenon. In the protest days of the 1960s and 1970s, students and others were not just protesting a war. Demonstrations on college campuses were protesting that college curricula were not "relevant." And curricula changed. A mark of so-called academic liberalism is that students might study Puerto Rican poets rather than Shakespeare. And while these poets may not be "classic" like Shakespeare, and maybe not as good as Shakespeare, they have the merit of being living. Let's study and worry about our world, and not dig up dusty old books where the language is funny and hard to understand.
The debate over what, if anything, the past has to teach us is ongoing and endless. I for one don't feel that the past has to prove its relevance. Some human concerns are timeless and unchanging. Twenty-first-century people—no matter how much our world seems to have changed in some respects—are not freed from the same life events, emotions, worries that have been aspects of the human condition for thousands of years.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Poor Little Republican Guy
Today I went to buy some food and, as I was loading my purchases into my car I was approached by a young man with a petition he wanted me to sign.
The young man was good-looking and clean-cut—virtually Mormon-missionary clean-cut. The petition, it seems, was to nominate delegates to a Republican nominating convention.
I pointed out that I did not live in that area and, what's more, I'm not a Republican, so I didn't think he wanted my signature.
Of course I could have left the matter there. He wasn't insistent or anything. But, as my bags were going into the car trunk, I felt compelled to express a wish about where, at least sort of generically, I wished Republicans would go, because "that's where they all belong, in my opinion."
Well, was it gratuitous of me to say that? Probably my comment was not in the interests of fostering civil discourse. But consider this: People live in homogeneous neighborhoods. They surround themselves with people who think as they do, and they get lulled into being unaware that real, flesh-and-blood people might hold opinions very divergent from theirs. They also need to see that those who hold views diametrically different from their own do not have horns and tails.
He didn't ask me why I thought that. I almost wish he had, because if he had, I would have said, "I am a gay man and as a gay man, Republicans are my enemies, and they have shown that they are, over and over and over."
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
The young man was good-looking and clean-cut—virtually Mormon-missionary clean-cut. The petition, it seems, was to nominate delegates to a Republican nominating convention.
I pointed out that I did not live in that area and, what's more, I'm not a Republican, so I didn't think he wanted my signature.
Of course I could have left the matter there. He wasn't insistent or anything. But, as my bags were going into the car trunk, I felt compelled to express a wish about where, at least sort of generically, I wished Republicans would go, because "that's where they all belong, in my opinion."
Well, was it gratuitous of me to say that? Probably my comment was not in the interests of fostering civil discourse. But consider this: People live in homogeneous neighborhoods. They surround themselves with people who think as they do, and they get lulled into being unaware that real, flesh-and-blood people might hold opinions very divergent from theirs. They also need to see that those who hold views diametrically different from their own do not have horns and tails.
He didn't ask me why I thought that. I almost wish he had, because if he had, I would have said, "I am a gay man and as a gay man, Republicans are my enemies, and they have shown that they are, over and over and over."
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Christmas Myths
Where to start?
Many people get a Christmas tree every year without giving any thought to the custom or its origins--although it's fairly widely known that the custom originally was a pagan Germanic custom.
Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was born on December 25, and again, of course, the conventional wisdom or custom is given little thought. The best idea on the subject is that at some point, the celebration of Christmas was moved to coincide with the celebration of the Roman festival called Saturnalia.
Then of course there's Santa Claus. A lot of the custom of Santa Claus in America--much the same figure is known in England where he is called Father Christmas--derives from the German festival of St. Nicholas, who was a fourth century saint. However, the feast day of St. Nicholas is December 6. (More directly, the lore of St. Nicholas comes to us via the Dutch and descendents of Dutch settlers in New York--notably Washington Irving (who depicted St. Nicholas in one of his books) and a painter named Weir.)
The image of Santa Claus as it now exists in America is a relatively recent development. It was influenced by the poem usually known as The Night before Christmas, which is actually called “A Visit from St. Nicholas," written by Clement Clarke Moore in 1822 or 1823 (my sources differ).
The association of Santa Claus with the North Pole also originated in the 1820s. A boost to the image and popularity of Santa Claus among children was given by the 1902 book The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus by L. Frank Baum, who wrote the Wizard of Oz books. The idea that Santa keeps a list of children and whether they have been naughty or nice throughout the preceding year comes from the 1934 song, "Santa Claus Is Coming to Town."
And then our picture of a fat and jolly Santa Claus, with a long beard and a red costume, basically originated with Coca-Cola advertisements in the 1930s.
Bottom line: The idea and image of Santa Claus, as widely prevalent in the US, is relatively modern and, you might say, manufactured, rather than being any ancient tradition that was an intrinsic part of the Christmas festival.
Updated December 16, 2011.
Update December 21, 2011: Only one of the four gospels (Matthew) mentions the "wise men" of the nativity story, and there they are simply called "kings of the East"--and not numbered as three. There is no mention of the names Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar, nor that one of them was Black. All of those notions are "medieval accretions."
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Many people get a Christmas tree every year without giving any thought to the custom or its origins--although it's fairly widely known that the custom originally was a pagan Germanic custom.
Second, there is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was born on December 25, and again, of course, the conventional wisdom or custom is given little thought. The best idea on the subject is that at some point, the celebration of Christmas was moved to coincide with the celebration of the Roman festival called Saturnalia.
Then of course there's Santa Claus. A lot of the custom of Santa Claus in America--much the same figure is known in England where he is called Father Christmas--derives from the German festival of St. Nicholas, who was a fourth century saint. However, the feast day of St. Nicholas is December 6. (More directly, the lore of St. Nicholas comes to us via the Dutch and descendents of Dutch settlers in New York--notably Washington Irving (who depicted St. Nicholas in one of his books) and a painter named Weir.)
The image of Santa Claus as it now exists in America is a relatively recent development. It was influenced by the poem usually known as The Night before Christmas, which is actually called “A Visit from St. Nicholas," written by Clement Clarke Moore in 1822 or 1823 (my sources differ).
The association of Santa Claus with the North Pole also originated in the 1820s. A boost to the image and popularity of Santa Claus among children was given by the 1902 book The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus by L. Frank Baum, who wrote the Wizard of Oz books. The idea that Santa keeps a list of children and whether they have been naughty or nice throughout the preceding year comes from the 1934 song, "Santa Claus Is Coming to Town."
And then our picture of a fat and jolly Santa Claus, with a long beard and a red costume, basically originated with Coca-Cola advertisements in the 1930s.
Bottom line: The idea and image of Santa Claus, as widely prevalent in the US, is relatively modern and, you might say, manufactured, rather than being any ancient tradition that was an intrinsic part of the Christmas festival.
Updated December 16, 2011.
Update December 21, 2011: Only one of the four gospels (Matthew) mentions the "wise men" of the nativity story, and there they are simply called "kings of the East"--and not numbered as three. There is no mention of the names Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar, nor that one of them was Black. All of those notions are "medieval accretions."
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Monday, December 12, 2011
The Tea Party Should Be Called the Koch Party
I have previously stated my belief that the Tea Party is not a populist nor a grass-roots political movement, not truly the "common man" rebelling against excessive government and excessive taxes, as some of their demonstrations and sloganeering have tried to persuade us. I am happy to be able to say that I find the same idea expressed elsewhere. Here is what Wikipedia has to say about the Tea Party:
One million members may sound like a lot but it represents only one-third of one percent of the American population.
And the Wikipedia article quotes others:
Some have claimed that the Tea Party is racist. Going back at least to Ronald Reagan, conservatives have tried to play upon racism. If they were a little more blunt in how they state what they believe, we would more plainly see their unwillingness to pay taxes that, in their opinion, go for welfare paid to people who simply don't want to work. A poll (by the University of Washington?) showed that only 35% of Tea Party supporters believe that Blacks are hard working.
Updates December 17, 2011, December 18, 2011
The Koch brothers fund the Acton Institute and the Heartland Institute (among many other Right organizations), which are anti-environmental organizations which deny human-caused global warming. Many of the Kochs' organizations, like a lot of Right organizations, are interlocking in their funding, etc.
If there's anybody who didn't already know the power of money--the influence upon and control of our national affairs--he should just look at the Kochs.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Former ambassador Christopher Meyer writes in the Daily Mail that the Tea Party movement is a mix of "grassroots populism, professional conservative politics, and big money", the last supplied in part by Charles and David Koch.[134] Jane Mayer says that the Koch brothers' political involvement with the Tea Party has been so secretive that she labels it "covert".[135]David Koch and his brother are billionaires. Their money allows them to be very powerful and influential. Their interest--not to say that they don't have other aims--is to keep taxes on the wealthy low. Again, on the role of David Koch and his brother in advancing conservative politics:
Americans for Prosperity, an organization founded by David H. Koch in 2003, and led by Tim Phillips. The group has over 1 million members in 500 local affiliates, and led protests against health care reform in 2009.[103]
One million members may sound like a lot but it represents only one-third of one percent of the American population.
And the Wikipedia article quotes others:
In an April 2009 New York Times opinion column, contributor Paul Krugman wrote that "the tea parties don't represent a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment. They're AstroTurf (fake grassroots) events, manufactured by the usual suspects. In particular, a key role is being played by FreedomWorks, an organization run by Richard Armey.". . .The same month, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-California) stated "It's not really a grassroots movement. It's astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class"[219][220]
Some have claimed that the Tea Party is racist. Going back at least to Ronald Reagan, conservatives have tried to play upon racism. If they were a little more blunt in how they state what they believe, we would more plainly see their unwillingness to pay taxes that, in their opinion, go for welfare paid to people who simply don't want to work. A poll (by the University of Washington?) showed that only 35% of Tea Party supporters believe that Blacks are hard working.
Updates December 17, 2011, December 18, 2011
The Koch brothers fund the Acton Institute and the Heartland Institute (among many other Right organizations), which are anti-environmental organizations which deny human-caused global warming. Many of the Kochs' organizations, like a lot of Right organizations, are interlocking in their funding, etc.
If there's anybody who didn't already know the power of money--the influence upon and control of our national affairs--he should just look at the Kochs.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Friday, December 9, 2011
Times Are Tough, Even for Dictators
Two gentlemen meet in a bar in—let's say—Casablanca. Let’s call them "A" and "B".
A: Hey.
B: Hey.
A: So how's the dictating business?
B (Looking around nervously): Shhhhhh!
A: Oh, sorry. What's wrong?
B: We don't call it that anymore.
A: Oh, sorry. . . . So what do you call it now?
B: Country Executive. Not . . . "dictator."
A: Oh, sorry. Well, so how's the country executive business?
B: What, you didn't hear that I got ousted?
A: Oh, sorry. That's tough.
B: Yeah, I had to flee the country. That's what I'm doing here, in this flee-bag joint. And, you know, Country Executive is not a recession-proof business. Been out of work for almost a year.
A: Any prospects?
B: I've sent out nearly 200 resumes, to every place from Saskatchewan to Vietnam.
A: And?
B: Nothing! The market for that line of work has definitely shrunk. We're going to be as obsolete as buggy whips.
A: Well, things have been a little slow in—you know, my line of business, too.
B: Really? I would have thought there would always be a market for smu—oops, sorry, excuse me.
A: Yeah, well no, no one has any money these days. Not even—my usual customers.
B: Well, I'll promise you this: If I ever get back in power, I'll buy from you. Okay?
A: I'll drink to that. (Clinks glasses.) Cheers!
B: Here's to dic—I mean, to country executiving!
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
A: Hey.
B: Hey.
A: So how's the dictating business?
B (Looking around nervously): Shhhhhh!
A: Oh, sorry. What's wrong?
B: We don't call it that anymore.
A: Oh, sorry. . . . So what do you call it now?
B: Country Executive. Not . . . "dictator."
A: Oh, sorry. Well, so how's the country executive business?
B: What, you didn't hear that I got ousted?
A: Oh, sorry. That's tough.
B: Yeah, I had to flee the country. That's what I'm doing here, in this flee-bag joint. And, you know, Country Executive is not a recession-proof business. Been out of work for almost a year.
A: Any prospects?
B: I've sent out nearly 200 resumes, to every place from Saskatchewan to Vietnam.
A: And?
B: Nothing! The market for that line of work has definitely shrunk. We're going to be as obsolete as buggy whips.
A: Well, things have been a little slow in—you know, my line of business, too.
B: Really? I would have thought there would always be a market for smu—oops, sorry, excuse me.
A: Yeah, well no, no one has any money these days. Not even—my usual customers.
B: Well, I'll promise you this: If I ever get back in power, I'll buy from you. Okay?
A: I'll drink to that. (Clinks glasses.) Cheers!
B: Here's to dic—I mean, to country executiving!
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
