This morning on NPR, I listened to some old plummy-accented fart who was once a lady-in-waiting to the Queen give instructions on how women should curtsy to any member of the Royal family. Apparently, the segment was due to the impending visit of the French President and same old fart was in a state of high anticipation as to whether the new President's wife would curtsy or not and, if she did, how it would be effected.
I stopped listening to the mechanics of the maneuver when she got to 'Ladies should place their legs apart...chin up...
Men, apparently, must bow in a way that the chin almost touches the chest.
The only thing she did say that made sense was her aside that the Americans no longer curtsy to members of the Royal family.
Duh!
Why the hell should anyone, even the Brits, curtsy? Isn't it enough that they and the person being introduced shake hands.
I watched Barbara Walters' program on ABC the other night about the Royal family, a so-called reality type show of them at play and work, and the only mildly funny bit was a scene showing the Queen at Windsor Castle leaning over the stair banister in her evening gown to try and see how her husband was dealing with a crisis in getting the head of some African nation into the dining room before she made her appearance.
I have no dislike for any members of the Royal family.They were born into the institution of the Monarchy and they effect their duties no matter how irrelevant in a modern democracy with aplomb and dedication. But that does not mean one can despise the Monarchy and demand its abolishment. It really is time this family was relieved of its arcane duties. The Queen performs no purpose that can't be executed by elected representatives. That way Harry and William can also serve in the British Army in any position they so desire, and I'm convinced they'd be relieved because they are smart and I feel see how silly the whole warped and bloated institution has become. The very fact they speak with 'normal' accents--a deliberate decision on their part--and not with the contorted enunciation of The Queen or Prince Charles might support my conclusion here as they are trying to fit in as much as they're allowed..
Quaint just doesn't cut it anymore.
Showing posts with label ABC TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ABC TV. Show all posts
Wednesday
Tuesday
Running on empty
Okay, admit it. We all fear running out of gas when we see the red hand inch over and touch the tip of the 'E' for Empty on the fuel gauge.
We know there's a few miles left, but how much exactly?
Can we risk traveling another five miles, another ten miles, another fifteen in hopes of happening upon a gas station.
Apparently, Empty does not mean empty--at least not in the States. Automobile manufacturers know that Americans like a buffer. They like to feel secure that, when the dial shows Empty, there's a few more miles left before they totally run out. So, in the US, when a car reads empty, there's anything from fifteen to even fifty miles worth of road eating left.
Germans, on the other hand, demand their car fuel gauges reflect reality. So, if your car registers Empty and you're on the fast lane of the Autobahn, pull over to the shoulder and hope they put an empty gas can in the trunk.
Not sure what the British or Irish preference is, but probably more like the Germans.
Here's a website to check out what your cars threshold is
Tank on Empty
We know there's a few miles left, but how much exactly?
Can we risk traveling another five miles, another ten miles, another fifteen in hopes of happening upon a gas station.
Apparently, Empty does not mean empty--at least not in the States. Automobile manufacturers know that Americans like a buffer. They like to feel secure that, when the dial shows Empty, there's a few more miles left before they totally run out. So, in the US, when a car reads empty, there's anything from fifteen to even fifty miles worth of road eating left.
Germans, on the other hand, demand their car fuel gauges reflect reality. So, if your car registers Empty and you're on the fast lane of the Autobahn, pull over to the shoulder and hope they put an empty gas can in the trunk.
Not sure what the British or Irish preference is, but probably more like the Germans.
Here's a website to check out what your cars threshold is
Tank on Empty
Monday
Dubai's dark side
I watched a fascinating documentary on the telly on Friday night. It concerned the plight of Veronique, mother of 16-year-old Alexandre, a French-Swiss citizen who was driven into the Dubai desert and raped by there men including another teenager.
When he went for a medical examination, the doctor twisted the story so grossly that he was branded a homosexual (illegal in this bizarre kingdom of glittering towers and man-made islands formed in the shapes of palm trees that is surrounded by camels, sand and poverty) and a willing participant in his rape. the police were no less sympathetic and now he is facing prosecution for homosexuality. Worse, neither the police nor Dubai authorities informed him that one of the rapists is HIV+
His mother refused to accept this idiotic status quo and has a campaign going to boycott Dubai. Though part of it's in French, you can visit it at www.boycottdubai.com
Here's the ABC Story
When he went for a medical examination, the doctor twisted the story so grossly that he was branded a homosexual (illegal in this bizarre kingdom of glittering towers and man-made islands formed in the shapes of palm trees that is surrounded by camels, sand and poverty) and a willing participant in his rape. the police were no less sympathetic and now he is facing prosecution for homosexuality. Worse, neither the police nor Dubai authorities informed him that one of the rapists is HIV+
His mother refused to accept this idiotic status quo and has a campaign going to boycott Dubai. Though part of it's in French, you can visit it at www.boycottdubai.com
Here's the ABC Story
Tuesday
Food for thought
I watched an interesting segment on telly last night where a chap sets up situations to see how the general public will react. One of the scenarios involved a trip to the Bronx where he began to spray-paint graffiti on a wall to see if some of the neighborhood residents would get angry and stop him or call the police. No one did. Some chaps even offered to help.
More disturbing was his visit to two bars, one at NJ shore and the other in Manhattan. At the NJ pub, he chats to a couple of thirtyish chaps, points out an attractive woman in the crowd (his accomplice), tells them he wants to have sex with her and is going to 'roofie' her. They laugh energetically. He behaves as if he's adding something to her drink in their presence, hands her the drink and fifteen minutes later leaves with her. On his return half-an-hour later, the guys crowd around him and he tells her he's had his way with her and left her to sleep under a pier. Three of them laugh and congratulate him and one tells him he's going to go and get her as he doesn't mind 'sloppy seconds'. A few minutes later, the camera watches him looking under the piers for the sleeping girl, allegedly under the pretext he wants to check if she was okay. Hmmmm!.
He finds no upright men in NYC either. There, a herd of twenty-something chaps laugh, slap him on the back when he tels them he's had sex with his victim and they admit they've always wanted to 'roofie' a girl.
"Whatever it takes," one of them says as he slaps the 'assailant's' back. "Whatever it takes."
They also admit they'd do it if they knew how to get the pills, to which he offers to supply them and they eagerly give him their cell numbers so he can contact them. Two gave him false numbers, but one--a reptilian looking chap--gave him his legit number.
Have young men become so predatory, so hard-assed, so criminal of mentality? Have they got no respect for women, regard them merely as meat to satiate their thrusting penises? Or did the chap making the documentary ask lots of chaps in the bar and some walked away. The fellow making the documentary didn't say if any men walked away and I feel sure he would have had it occurred, which makes me conclude he met far more men willing to be complicit in rape. If so, God help society, young women in particular.
More disturbing was his visit to two bars, one at NJ shore and the other in Manhattan. At the NJ pub, he chats to a couple of thirtyish chaps, points out an attractive woman in the crowd (his accomplice), tells them he wants to have sex with her and is going to 'roofie' her. They laugh energetically. He behaves as if he's adding something to her drink in their presence, hands her the drink and fifteen minutes later leaves with her. On his return half-an-hour later, the guys crowd around him and he tells her he's had his way with her and left her to sleep under a pier. Three of them laugh and congratulate him and one tells him he's going to go and get her as he doesn't mind 'sloppy seconds'. A few minutes later, the camera watches him looking under the piers for the sleeping girl, allegedly under the pretext he wants to check if she was okay. Hmmmm!.
He finds no upright men in NYC either. There, a herd of twenty-something chaps laugh, slap him on the back when he tels them he's had sex with his victim and they admit they've always wanted to 'roofie' a girl.
"Whatever it takes," one of them says as he slaps the 'assailant's' back. "Whatever it takes."
They also admit they'd do it if they knew how to get the pills, to which he offers to supply them and they eagerly give him their cell numbers so he can contact them. Two gave him false numbers, but one--a reptilian looking chap--gave him his legit number.
Have young men become so predatory, so hard-assed, so criminal of mentality? Have they got no respect for women, regard them merely as meat to satiate their thrusting penises? Or did the chap making the documentary ask lots of chaps in the bar and some walked away. The fellow making the documentary didn't say if any men walked away and I feel sure he would have had it occurred, which makes me conclude he met far more men willing to be complicit in rape. If so, God help society, young women in particular.
Thursday
Hovering parents
While drinking my coffee as I surfed the morning news shows, my attention was seized by a segment about 'helicopter parents' and 'black hawk' parents, the latter being a recently minted pejorative term for those who cross the parental/adult offspring dividing line to commit acts that are at best deceitful, at worst border on the criminal in order to protect their Gen Y 'children.'
Gen Y refers to people born from the early eighties onward and apparently they are the most pampered, over-achieving, technically and financially savvy, and parentally micro-managed generation ever to enter the workforce, which they are now doing in huge numbers. Their schooling, hobbies, friendships and social activities have been meticulously managed to exhausting degrees. The upside is that these young adults feel very connected to their parents. The downside is that these young adults feel very connected to their parents.
Gen Yers are used to constant positive feedback from their parents and, as they enter the work environment, fully expect to have this affirming, ego-boosting feedback shuttle continue from their bosses and become disorientated, resentful and alienated when it doesn't. Simply stated, they have been unable to cut the apron strings and continue to involve their parents in the minutest details of their lives, allowing them to write their college entrance essays (hence the term 'black hawk' parents because Mom and Dad are prepared to resort to this and other forms of cheating in a sort of 'the end justifies the means' strategy), to scope out possible employers, prepare their resumes, attend and inspect the workplace,interview bosses and in other ways interfere.
It must be said that some Gen Yers resent their parents continued interference in their adult lives, though the parents ignore their wishes and often justify the unreasonable interference by asserting they are simply looking after their investment. Indeed some corporations have become so frustrated with this form of bizarre parental interference that they now invite parents in to inspect the workplace and arrange for personnel departments to discuss their 'children's' prospects were they to accept a job with the company. I kid you not.
Interestingly, I noticed a few years into living in the States that America parents really do seem to have trouble letting go in comparison to Europeans parents in general. They still refer to their children as kids after they've left for college, for example. Perhaps it's the laws that have something to do with it because I've always found it a bit bizarre that someone can vote or marry at age 18 yet can't buy a bottle of booze until after turning 21 here. Let's face it, one is a fully functioning adult at 18. In Brit and Ireland, we leave to go to university at 18 and we're on our own from there. That's how it should be and, in this respect, I think the European approach is far more mature. I think helicopter parents just doesn't exist as a dysfunction over there.
Here's a link I came across at ABC to a day in the life of a helicoper parent that I thought you might find amusing...or sad depending on one's perspective.
I suspect this dysfunction to be more associated with mothers than fathers but time will tell. Though I realized many years ago after the thunderheads of teenage angst and petulance had dissipated, my parents were actually very normal. Now I know it.
Gen Y refers to people born from the early eighties onward and apparently they are the most pampered, over-achieving, technically and financially savvy, and parentally micro-managed generation ever to enter the workforce, which they are now doing in huge numbers. Their schooling, hobbies, friendships and social activities have been meticulously managed to exhausting degrees. The upside is that these young adults feel very connected to their parents. The downside is that these young adults feel very connected to their parents.
Gen Yers are used to constant positive feedback from their parents and, as they enter the work environment, fully expect to have this affirming, ego-boosting feedback shuttle continue from their bosses and become disorientated, resentful and alienated when it doesn't. Simply stated, they have been unable to cut the apron strings and continue to involve their parents in the minutest details of their lives, allowing them to write their college entrance essays (hence the term 'black hawk' parents because Mom and Dad are prepared to resort to this and other forms of cheating in a sort of 'the end justifies the means' strategy), to scope out possible employers, prepare their resumes, attend and inspect the workplace,interview bosses and in other ways interfere.
It must be said that some Gen Yers resent their parents continued interference in their adult lives, though the parents ignore their wishes and often justify the unreasonable interference by asserting they are simply looking after their investment. Indeed some corporations have become so frustrated with this form of bizarre parental interference that they now invite parents in to inspect the workplace and arrange for personnel departments to discuss their 'children's' prospects were they to accept a job with the company. I kid you not.
Interestingly, I noticed a few years into living in the States that America parents really do seem to have trouble letting go in comparison to Europeans parents in general. They still refer to their children as kids after they've left for college, for example. Perhaps it's the laws that have something to do with it because I've always found it a bit bizarre that someone can vote or marry at age 18 yet can't buy a bottle of booze until after turning 21 here. Let's face it, one is a fully functioning adult at 18. In Brit and Ireland, we leave to go to university at 18 and we're on our own from there. That's how it should be and, in this respect, I think the European approach is far more mature. I think helicopter parents just doesn't exist as a dysfunction over there.
Here's a link I came across at ABC to a day in the life of a helicoper parent that I thought you might find amusing...or sad depending on one's perspective.
I suspect this dysfunction to be more associated with mothers than fathers but time will tell. Though I realized many years ago after the thunderheads of teenage angst and petulance had dissipated, my parents were actually very normal. Now I know it.
A word about 75,000 words
Yesterday I reached a critical point in the writing of my first work of nonfiction, the one about my coming to live in America, and have been toying with the idea of publishing an excerpt on the blog.
Anyway, I reached a critical point yesterday and passed the 75,000 word mark. I don't exactly know why 75,000 thousand words is so important, but suspect it's because it would be a pleasingly thick book, a book with heft, if it were to be published tomorrow--the sort of heft that asserts 'I have 270 ragged-edged pages inside for you to feel and I am well worth the $24.95 you'll fork out for me in hardcover.' ($24.95 is a sort of median price for hardcovers here in the US.)
I also know the ending now--the final scene ran in my head yesterday like the speeding ticker tape at the ABC TV studios in Times Square--and the manuscript will come in at around 80,000 words in its rough form.
Of course, word content doth not a quality book make. I know that. That takes good writing and an interesting story, which requires a great deal of drafting and redrafting until one is sick of the manuscript so one doesn't ever want to see the manuscript again, hates and loves and hates and loves the manuscript, sometimes wants to hurl it into a blazing fire because it makes one think one is a shite writer. Oh, and a great book requires a great editor.
But, to get to the love-hate-love stage I must have words, at least 75,000 words. Because then I know I have written a book and I can slash and add and edit with impunity. I can because I do not have to fear facing a blank screen page that cries to be filled. I need to have that knowledge. It's my security blanket.
Now to think up an interesting title because I don't think America and Me cuts it for me any longer.
Anyway, I reached a critical point yesterday and passed the 75,000 word mark. I don't exactly know why 75,000 thousand words is so important, but suspect it's because it would be a pleasingly thick book, a book with heft, if it were to be published tomorrow--the sort of heft that asserts 'I have 270 ragged-edged pages inside for you to feel and I am well worth the $24.95 you'll fork out for me in hardcover.' ($24.95 is a sort of median price for hardcovers here in the US.)
I also know the ending now--the final scene ran in my head yesterday like the speeding ticker tape at the ABC TV studios in Times Square--and the manuscript will come in at around 80,000 words in its rough form.
Of course, word content doth not a quality book make. I know that. That takes good writing and an interesting story, which requires a great deal of drafting and redrafting until one is sick of the manuscript so one doesn't ever want to see the manuscript again, hates and loves and hates and loves the manuscript, sometimes wants to hurl it into a blazing fire because it makes one think one is a shite writer. Oh, and a great book requires a great editor.
But, to get to the love-hate-love stage I must have words, at least 75,000 words. Because then I know I have written a book and I can slash and add and edit with impunity. I can because I do not have to fear facing a blank screen page that cries to be filled. I need to have that knowledge. It's my security blanket.
Now to think up an interesting title because I don't think America and Me cuts it for me any longer.
Friday
There are consequences
Grey's Anatomy star, Isaiah Washington, admits he has some major issues he needs to address. In October, he attacked co-star Patrick Dempsey after Dempsey was angry that Washington called another of their co-stars, TR Knight, a 'faggot' when Washington was angry about being kept waiting on the set.
While it was common knowledge among the cast that Knight was gay, it was not common knowledge in Hollywood and Washington's public outburst effectively 'outed' him in a profession that is at best squeamish about having gay actors play leading roles. Being a human being as well as an actor, Knight felt he could not allow the slur to pass without comment and stood up to the plate to announce in an interview with People Magazine that he is gay and Washington was out of line.
Even more shocking, Washington (who'd apologized to the cast and suits at ABC in October about his outburst) showed he'd no balls and that money and retaining his job were of more importance than personal principle because he denied calling Knight a 'faggot' when asked about the October incident by a reporter as the entire cast was interviewed about their win backstage at the Golden Globes.
I do like Grey's Anatomy this season--last season, I stopped watching it as the plot lines were a bit too mushy and maudlin but am glad I gave it a second chance the writers are back on form--and like to forgive, but I think in this instance Washington must go. In America, we keep saying 'there are consequences to our actions' and this is a case where Washington must be made to pay the price. His apology in October appears to have been insincere.
It is not acceptable to use the 'N' word and it is not acceptable to use the 'faggot' word, either. Children have been beaten up and called 'faggot' for years in playgrounds--in fact, it's now conceivable Mr. Washington could have been one such bully during his school days--and Matthew Shepard was tied up, tortured and killed in a lonely Wyoming pasture for being a faggot. Have we not moved forward?
A producer of the show is reported as stating it's not acceptable to fire Washington and to think about replacing him with another black actor. She holds the view that that is insulting to blacks. Obfuscating or attempting to mitigate the real issue, HOMOPHOBIA, by introducing the issue of black discrimination is at best disingenuous. Forget about the tons of money you're earning and try and set the world right in this matter. It is good Mr. Washington is showing a willingness to change his attitudes but there are consequences and the price must be fully paid.
While it was common knowledge among the cast that Knight was gay, it was not common knowledge in Hollywood and Washington's public outburst effectively 'outed' him in a profession that is at best squeamish about having gay actors play leading roles. Being a human being as well as an actor, Knight felt he could not allow the slur to pass without comment and stood up to the plate to announce in an interview with People Magazine that he is gay and Washington was out of line.
Even more shocking, Washington (who'd apologized to the cast and suits at ABC in October about his outburst) showed he'd no balls and that money and retaining his job were of more importance than personal principle because he denied calling Knight a 'faggot' when asked about the October incident by a reporter as the entire cast was interviewed about their win backstage at the Golden Globes.
I do like Grey's Anatomy this season--last season, I stopped watching it as the plot lines were a bit too mushy and maudlin but am glad I gave it a second chance the writers are back on form--and like to forgive, but I think in this instance Washington must go. In America, we keep saying 'there are consequences to our actions' and this is a case where Washington must be made to pay the price. His apology in October appears to have been insincere.
It is not acceptable to use the 'N' word and it is not acceptable to use the 'faggot' word, either. Children have been beaten up and called 'faggot' for years in playgrounds--in fact, it's now conceivable Mr. Washington could have been one such bully during his school days--and Matthew Shepard was tied up, tortured and killed in a lonely Wyoming pasture for being a faggot. Have we not moved forward?
A producer of the show is reported as stating it's not acceptable to fire Washington and to think about replacing him with another black actor. She holds the view that that is insulting to blacks. Obfuscating or attempting to mitigate the real issue, HOMOPHOBIA, by introducing the issue of black discrimination is at best disingenuous. Forget about the tons of money you're earning and try and set the world right in this matter. It is good Mr. Washington is showing a willingness to change his attitudes but there are consequences and the price must be fully paid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)