Yesterday while running errands I was listening to a call-in show on C-Span Radio. The question of the day was whether or not the listeners listened to political talk radio, and if so, to which sort of show: one with a liberal or a conservative focus.
One caller was absolutely adamant that he listened only to conservative shows like Rush Limbaugh's. The reason, as he stated over and over, was "They always tell the truth!"
And I suppose they do...at least, the truth as filtered through an ideological prism. This gentleman was obviously a very staunch conservative, and as such, was ideologically primed to believe whatever a conservative commentator said and discount as lies anything said by a "liberal" one. On the other hand, I can imagine a staunchly liberal listener calling in to say - with equal conviction - that the conservatives were all liars and one had to listen to liberal commentators to hear the truth.
So where is the truth? Who's right? If you have been reading this blog regularly, you know that I believe in weighing the strength of the argument before deciding whether the speaker is right or wrong, truthful or not. The label doesn't really matter - whether the message makes sense does.
The same holds true in the realm of religion. Muslims are absolutely convinced that the Koran represents the ultimate truth and the literal word of God. Christians believe the same of the Bible. Jews venerate the Torah. Hindus look to the Bhagavad Gita as a guide to life.
Who's right? Where's the truth?
One of my favorite quotes is from Andre Gide, who said "Believe those who seek the truth, and doubt those who find it." I think that's a pretty good guide to life. We all need something to believe in, but when we believe too firmly the result can be ugly - you need only look at the chaos and violence of the Middle East to see that.
So seek the truth...but don't blindly believe the man who tells you he's found it. After all, hundreds of people died at Jonestown in 1978 because they believed in the truth as spoken by Jim Jones.
Don't let it happen to you.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Monday, July 23, 2007
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Abibliophobia
I receive a daily e-mail called "Word of the Day" from yourdictionary.com, which - as you might suspect from the name - provides a new word every day to enrich ones vocabulary. Many of the words are so obscure and archaic that they aren't very useful in most instances, but even some of those can be very interesting and descriptive.
Like this past Friday's word: abibliophobia, defined as "the morbid fear of running out of reading material."
This is a word that resonates in our family, and with some of our friends. But actually running out of reading material is something I actually don't have to fear: a week doesn't go by in which we don't buy at least two or three books of one kind or another. The situation was bad enough for years, but when my mother passed away six years ago, I inherited most of her substantial library on top of my own...and I've now got such a backlog of unread books that I'll probably have to live to be 150 to read them all...assuming that new books stopped being published immediately.
So in reality, aibibliophobia is a fear I really don't need. The world has plenty enough things in it for me to worry about without tacking on one that's really not an issue. As my mother always used to tell us, "As long as you have a book, you have a friend."
And right now, I think I'll go and visit with my latest friend, the last Harry Potter story.
Have a good day. Read all you can...your brain needs food, too.
More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Like this past Friday's word: abibliophobia, defined as "the morbid fear of running out of reading material."
This is a word that resonates in our family, and with some of our friends. But actually running out of reading material is something I actually don't have to fear: a week doesn't go by in which we don't buy at least two or three books of one kind or another. The situation was bad enough for years, but when my mother passed away six years ago, I inherited most of her substantial library on top of my own...and I've now got such a backlog of unread books that I'll probably have to live to be 150 to read them all...assuming that new books stopped being published immediately.
So in reality, aibibliophobia is a fear I really don't need. The world has plenty enough things in it for me to worry about without tacking on one that's really not an issue. As my mother always used to tell us, "As long as you have a book, you have a friend."
And right now, I think I'll go and visit with my latest friend, the last Harry Potter story.
Have a good day. Read all you can...your brain needs food, too.
More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Saturday, July 21, 2007
A Moon Called Frank, and Other Thoughts on Names
A short article a few days ago in the New Scientist Space Blog reported that a tiny new moon, a mere 2 kilometers across, has been discovered orbiting the planet Saturn. That brings the total number of known moons of Saturn to 60, and leads to a predicament for planetary scientists: what do you call the new moon? For the moment, it's official temporary name is "S/2007 S 4," but according to the article, pending a decision by the International Astronomical Union on a final name scientists are calling the little moon "Frank."
And that got me to thinking about how we give names to things.
Names are, of course, critically important. In many cultures, the true name of an individual is a closely-guarded secret, for knowledge of a someone's name is said to give one power over that person. Parents in this country generally try to give their male children strong, masculine names (like "Frank" or "George"), and their female children lighter, more feminine names (like "Donna" or "Michelle"). Of course, some parents afflict their helpless children with silly names - prime examples are rocker Frank Zappa's unfortunate son "Dweezil" and daughter "Moon Unit."
Names of things are also important. Companies spend months of time and millions of dollars on selecting just the right name for new products, hoping the name will help lead to increased sales. Of course, this doesn't always work: the classic example is the urban legend about Chevrolet's attempt to market it's new model, the "Nova," in South America. No one understood why sales were miserable until the realization that in Spanish, "no va" translated as "it doesn't run." According to the Snopes Urban Legends Reference Page (http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp), that story is a myth, but the cautionary lesson is nevertheless real - the names we give to things, and to people, are loaded with meaning and importance, both positive and negative.
Many Muslim imams refer to Jews and Christians as "apes and pigs." Blacks are infuriated when a non-black uses the "n-word," although they tend to use it extensively themselves. "Redneck" is considered in some circles to be an insult, and in others a badge of honor.
Names matter. Whether you're a tiny moon of Saturn named Frank, or the unfortunate daughter of Gwynneth Paltrow named Apple, what you are called shapes your existence in many ways. I chose the screen name Bilbo because of my love for Tolkien's classic tale The Lord of the Rings, and because Bilbo the Hobbit, with his love of friends, travel, good food, books, and learning, was a character with whom I could identify.
Think hard when you give a name to something, or someone, because the act of naming has consequences which may not be immediately obvious. The right name can make you a friend or an enemy. It can mark you as racially and socially insensitive, or as thoughtful and caring. If you're a two-kilometer-wide moonlet orbiting Saturn about 1.35 billion kilometers from the Sun, Frank may not be a bad, if temporary name. If you're a religiously observant Jew or Catholic, hearing a Muslim refer to you as an ape or a pig is unlikely to facilitate understanding and dialog.
And that's the name of that tune.
Have a good weekend. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
And that got me to thinking about how we give names to things.
Names are, of course, critically important. In many cultures, the true name of an individual is a closely-guarded secret, for knowledge of a someone's name is said to give one power over that person. Parents in this country generally try to give their male children strong, masculine names (like "Frank" or "George"), and their female children lighter, more feminine names (like "Donna" or "Michelle"). Of course, some parents afflict their helpless children with silly names - prime examples are rocker Frank Zappa's unfortunate son "Dweezil" and daughter "Moon Unit."
Names of things are also important. Companies spend months of time and millions of dollars on selecting just the right name for new products, hoping the name will help lead to increased sales. Of course, this doesn't always work: the classic example is the urban legend about Chevrolet's attempt to market it's new model, the "Nova," in South America. No one understood why sales were miserable until the realization that in Spanish, "no va" translated as "it doesn't run." According to the Snopes Urban Legends Reference Page (http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp), that story is a myth, but the cautionary lesson is nevertheless real - the names we give to things, and to people, are loaded with meaning and importance, both positive and negative.
Many Muslim imams refer to Jews and Christians as "apes and pigs." Blacks are infuriated when a non-black uses the "n-word," although they tend to use it extensively themselves. "Redneck" is considered in some circles to be an insult, and in others a badge of honor.
Names matter. Whether you're a tiny moon of Saturn named Frank, or the unfortunate daughter of Gwynneth Paltrow named Apple, what you are called shapes your existence in many ways. I chose the screen name Bilbo because of my love for Tolkien's classic tale The Lord of the Rings, and because Bilbo the Hobbit, with his love of friends, travel, good food, books, and learning, was a character with whom I could identify.
Think hard when you give a name to something, or someone, because the act of naming has consequences which may not be immediately obvious. The right name can make you a friend or an enemy. It can mark you as racially and socially insensitive, or as thoughtful and caring. If you're a two-kilometer-wide moonlet orbiting Saturn about 1.35 billion kilometers from the Sun, Frank may not be a bad, if temporary name. If you're a religiously observant Jew or Catholic, hearing a Muslim refer to you as an ape or a pig is unlikely to facilitate understanding and dialog.
And that's the name of that tune.
Have a good weekend. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Friday, July 20, 2007
Thoughts on Islam from The Language Guy
I spend a lot of time checking out different blogs and enjoying what the bloggers have to say (well, most of the time, anyhow). I recently found a very interesting blog kept by a retired linguistics professor who calls himself The Language Guy - you can find him at http://thelanguageguy.blogspot.com/, and he's very interesting even if you aren't really into linguistics.
In August of last year, The Language Guy published a blog entry titled, "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?", in which he applied linguistic analysis to the argument, made in the Islam Herald (http://www.islamherald.com/html/index.htm) among other places, that Islam is inherently peaceful because its very name derives from the Arabic word salama meaning, "peace" or "submission." The Language Guy notes that the Arabic language is actually built on three-letter consonant roots to which vowels are added to form words. The root in question here is s-l-m, which gives words as varied as "Islam," "salaam" (or peace), and "salama" (which means the sting of a snake, or the tanning of leather).
Okay, that's deeper in the linguistic weeds than you probably want to go. If you're interested, you can read the entire fascinating analysis at http://thelanguageguy.blogspot.com/2006/08/is-islam-religion-of-peace.html; for now, I think his summary is worth quoting in its entirety:
"I think we must conclude that any claim to the effect that Islam is a religion of peace must be balanced by a recognition that it also supports the use of violence. The linguistic claims made by the Muslim Hearald mean nothing as compared to the actions of Muslims and this includes not just acts of terrorism around the world, but the brutal killings of Muslims by Muslims in Iraq.
"Muslims are not alone in engaging in violence. But let us not be fooled by linguistic analyses that suggest that Islam is a religion of peace. When I was a kid, the lesson that sunk home with me most about Christ was that his was a message of love. But, of course, that message was as irrelevant to the actions of Christians around the world as is the meaning of 'Islam' is to the actions of Muslims."
I think this is one of the best analyses I've ever read. Muslims are fond of castigating Christians for the Inquisition and the Crusades, conveniently forgetting that the Inquisition is long gone and the last Crusade ended nearly 800 years ago. They are less willing to acknowledge that Muslims are murdering dozens, if not hundreds of people every day now in the name of their alleged religion of peace.
Take a few minutes and read The Language Guy's fascinating analysis. It will help you separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of linguistic obfuscation.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
In August of last year, The Language Guy published a blog entry titled, "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?", in which he applied linguistic analysis to the argument, made in the Islam Herald (http://www.islamherald.com/html/index.htm) among other places, that Islam is inherently peaceful because its very name derives from the Arabic word salama meaning, "peace" or "submission." The Language Guy notes that the Arabic language is actually built on three-letter consonant roots to which vowels are added to form words. The root in question here is s-l-m, which gives words as varied as "Islam," "salaam" (or peace), and "salama" (which means the sting of a snake, or the tanning of leather).
Okay, that's deeper in the linguistic weeds than you probably want to go. If you're interested, you can read the entire fascinating analysis at http://thelanguageguy.blogspot.com/2006/08/is-islam-religion-of-peace.html; for now, I think his summary is worth quoting in its entirety:
"I think we must conclude that any claim to the effect that Islam is a religion of peace must be balanced by a recognition that it also supports the use of violence. The linguistic claims made by the Muslim Hearald mean nothing as compared to the actions of Muslims and this includes not just acts of terrorism around the world, but the brutal killings of Muslims by Muslims in Iraq.
"Muslims are not alone in engaging in violence. But let us not be fooled by linguistic analyses that suggest that Islam is a religion of peace. When I was a kid, the lesson that sunk home with me most about Christ was that his was a message of love. But, of course, that message was as irrelevant to the actions of Christians around the world as is the meaning of 'Islam' is to the actions of Muslims."
I think this is one of the best analyses I've ever read. Muslims are fond of castigating Christians for the Inquisition and the Crusades, conveniently forgetting that the Inquisition is long gone and the last Crusade ended nearly 800 years ago. They are less willing to acknowledge that Muslims are murdering dozens, if not hundreds of people every day now in the name of their alleged religion of peace.
Take a few minutes and read The Language Guy's fascinating analysis. It will help you separate the wheat of truth from the chaff of linguistic obfuscation.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Strange Maps
I've found a new and amazing blog that I wanted to share with you: Strange Maps (visit it at http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/, or click the new link in my link list at the left) . If, as I am, you are interested in history and in the world around us, it offers a fascinating look at the world in many different and unusual ways. One map of the United States renames each state for a nation with a similar Gross Domestic Product; another renames each state for a nation with a similar life expectancy. Yet other maps are fanciful or historic, and all are very interesting.
Of course, if the radical Islamists have their way, we will need only one map: the entire world, colored green, and labeled as the New Caliphate...but one hopes we'll never reach that unfortunate situation.
Although geographic literacy among Americans at large is pretty dismal, and a site like Strange Maps won't appeal to everyone, I think those of you who are regular readers of my blog will find it fascinating. Check it out.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Of course, if the radical Islamists have their way, we will need only one map: the entire world, colored green, and labeled as the New Caliphate...but one hopes we'll never reach that unfortunate situation.
Although geographic literacy among Americans at large is pretty dismal, and a site like Strange Maps won't appeal to everyone, I think those of you who are regular readers of my blog will find it fascinating. Check it out.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The Joy...and Danger...of Reading
As my regular readers know, I love to read. At any given time, I'm reading at least two different books: one during the morning and evening commute, and one for the dining table, nightstand, and bathroom (well, I'm just sitting there...might as well read). This love of reading and learning was a major gift from my mother, and I've tried to pass it on to my children and grandchildren.
Have you ever read aloud to a child, or just for your own pleasure? Some books have wonderful passages made for reading aloud (read the description of the Rohirrim's charge across the Pellenor fields in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Return of the King, and compare your mental picture to the same scene in the movie), and there are many wonderful poems that beg to be read aloud (Ernest Thayer's Casey at the Bat and Robert W. Service's The Cremation of Sam McGee are classic examples). Reading, aloud or to yourself, is one of the great pleasures of life.
With this in mind, I was depressed by an article in this past Sunday's Washington Post titled "Harry Potter and the Death of Reading" (read it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2007/07/13/AR2007071301730.html), which lamented the modern American tendency to read nothing but major bestsellers, if that, at the expense of history, literature, or other important books. In the interest of full disclosure, yes, I will be in the heaving throng at my local bookstore this coming Saturday to get my copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but I also spend a lot of time reading other things...a quick look at my "favorite books" section of my blog profile will give you an idea how wide my interests are.
I think it's depressing that many children (and most adults) know every detail of popular TV shows, but don't read. If I were to give you one piece of advice, it would be this: read everything you can get your hands on, and use the knowledge you gain to inform your opinions. As I've said before, don't ever let anyone do your thinking for you.
On a related topic, the online version of the German news magazine Der Spiegel ran an article yesterday titled "Should Germany Republish "Mein Kampf"? The first question, given the theme of this post, is: do you know what "Mein Kampf" is? If not, you need to know that this was the book written by Adolf Hitler that outlined his sick and twisted political and racial philosophies, and previewed the horror of World War II, concentration camps, and genocide. The title translates as "My Struggle." The German State of Bavaria owns the rights to the book, and has not permitted it to be published in Germany (for fairly obvious reasons); however, the copyright expires in 2015, and many Germans are wringing their intellectual hands over whether or not it should be available in their country once it is in the public domain.
I say, go ahead and publish it. I tried to read it in English translation many years ago, and found it so dense and poorly written, full of anti-Semitic drivel and convoluted, cockamamie political rants that I never made it all the way through. What I was able to read in German was even worse. So, go ahead and publish it...let people see for themselves how screwed up Adolf Hitler was, and how much misery his debased ideas brought to the world. It's available around the world and online, anyhow.
By the way, it should come as no surprise that "Mein Kampf" is a bestseller in much of the Muslim world, where the translated title is Jihad.
Combined with the utter lack of independent thinking and inquiry in Muslim lands, that's pretty scary.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Have you ever read aloud to a child, or just for your own pleasure? Some books have wonderful passages made for reading aloud (read the description of the Rohirrim's charge across the Pellenor fields in J.R.R. Tolkien's The Return of the King, and compare your mental picture to the same scene in the movie), and there are many wonderful poems that beg to be read aloud (Ernest Thayer's Casey at the Bat and Robert W. Service's The Cremation of Sam McGee are classic examples). Reading, aloud or to yourself, is one of the great pleasures of life.
With this in mind, I was depressed by an article in this past Sunday's Washington Post titled "Harry Potter and the Death of Reading" (read it at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2007/07/13/AR2007071301730.html), which lamented the modern American tendency to read nothing but major bestsellers, if that, at the expense of history, literature, or other important books. In the interest of full disclosure, yes, I will be in the heaving throng at my local bookstore this coming Saturday to get my copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but I also spend a lot of time reading other things...a quick look at my "favorite books" section of my blog profile will give you an idea how wide my interests are.
I think it's depressing that many children (and most adults) know every detail of popular TV shows, but don't read. If I were to give you one piece of advice, it would be this: read everything you can get your hands on, and use the knowledge you gain to inform your opinions. As I've said before, don't ever let anyone do your thinking for you.
On a related topic, the online version of the German news magazine Der Spiegel ran an article yesterday titled "Should Germany Republish "Mein Kampf"? The first question, given the theme of this post, is: do you know what "Mein Kampf" is? If not, you need to know that this was the book written by Adolf Hitler that outlined his sick and twisted political and racial philosophies, and previewed the horror of World War II, concentration camps, and genocide. The title translates as "My Struggle." The German State of Bavaria owns the rights to the book, and has not permitted it to be published in Germany (for fairly obvious reasons); however, the copyright expires in 2015, and many Germans are wringing their intellectual hands over whether or not it should be available in their country once it is in the public domain.
I say, go ahead and publish it. I tried to read it in English translation many years ago, and found it so dense and poorly written, full of anti-Semitic drivel and convoluted, cockamamie political rants that I never made it all the way through. What I was able to read in German was even worse. So, go ahead and publish it...let people see for themselves how screwed up Adolf Hitler was, and how much misery his debased ideas brought to the world. It's available around the world and online, anyhow.
By the way, it should come as no surprise that "Mein Kampf" is a bestseller in much of the Muslim world, where the translated title is Jihad.
Combined with the utter lack of independent thinking and inquiry in Muslim lands, that's pretty scary.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Peace Be Upon...Oh, Never Mind
Given the choice, I would always rather write about pleasant topics, like yesterday's discussion of feminine beauty. Unfortunately, the world just doesn't always allow that luxury. Consider three related articles in the recent news...
An article in last Sunday's Washington Post described local Muslim teenagers who are offended when described as "moderate" Muslims, because they think the use of that term implies that most Muslims are fanatical terrorists.
An article in the July 23rd issue of Newsweek magazine, titled "Last Rites in the Holy Land," describes the flight of Christians from the lands of the Bible, driven out by Muslims who threaten them with death unless they leave, convert to Islam, or pay the infamous jeziya, the tax (the Sopranos would call it protection money) imposed by Muslims on non-Muslims for limited permission to worship as their faiths dictate.
And finally, a July 16th report on the MEMRI website (check the link in my link list) notes that on the Hamas TV children's show Pioneers of Tomorrow, the character of Farfour the Mouse - who was beaten to death by a Jewish character some weeks ago - has been replaced by the character of Nahoul the Bee, who continues to encourage children to revenge and murder.
You don't need to be the proverbial rocket scientist to see the problem here. Young Muslims in America - a land that gives them freedoms and opportunities they would never have in majority Muslim lands (especially if they are women) - complain that they are judged on the basis of the murderous actions of their coreligionists. Muslims in what was once known as the Holy Land display their religious bigotry by killing or driving out Christians and Jews...when they're not busy killing each other for the crime of being either Sunni or Shi'a...while proclaiming that theirs is a religion of peace. And Hamas, a murderous gang of black-hearted thugs if ever there was one, uses television programming for children to sow the seeds of hatred in those too young to realize their manipulation.
If there are, in fact, "moderate" Muslims, where are their voices? Where is the condemnation of the violence, the bigotry, the ghastly twisting of children into machines of hate? Where is the voice of the Council on American-Islamic Relations speaking out in condemnation of all this? That was a rhetorical question, of course - CAIR is far too busy whining about how Muslims in America are misunderstood and discriminated against to worry about how Muslims are murdering Christians and Jews around the world.
As I've written here before, I'm not a traditionally religious person. I think that a God capable of creating the vast majesty of the universe has better things to worry about than whether or not I shave, or women cover themselves from head to foot, or we say the Mass in Latin or Swahili. If God is watching from wherever He lives, I believe one thing is certain:
She's shaking her head in disgust at the atrocities done in her name.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
An article in last Sunday's Washington Post described local Muslim teenagers who are offended when described as "moderate" Muslims, because they think the use of that term implies that most Muslims are fanatical terrorists.
An article in the July 23rd issue of Newsweek magazine, titled "Last Rites in the Holy Land," describes the flight of Christians from the lands of the Bible, driven out by Muslims who threaten them with death unless they leave, convert to Islam, or pay the infamous jeziya, the tax (the Sopranos would call it protection money) imposed by Muslims on non-Muslims for limited permission to worship as their faiths dictate.
And finally, a July 16th report on the MEMRI website (check the link in my link list) notes that on the Hamas TV children's show Pioneers of Tomorrow, the character of Farfour the Mouse - who was beaten to death by a Jewish character some weeks ago - has been replaced by the character of Nahoul the Bee, who continues to encourage children to revenge and murder.
You don't need to be the proverbial rocket scientist to see the problem here. Young Muslims in America - a land that gives them freedoms and opportunities they would never have in majority Muslim lands (especially if they are women) - complain that they are judged on the basis of the murderous actions of their coreligionists. Muslims in what was once known as the Holy Land display their religious bigotry by killing or driving out Christians and Jews...when they're not busy killing each other for the crime of being either Sunni or Shi'a...while proclaiming that theirs is a religion of peace. And Hamas, a murderous gang of black-hearted thugs if ever there was one, uses television programming for children to sow the seeds of hatred in those too young to realize their manipulation.
If there are, in fact, "moderate" Muslims, where are their voices? Where is the condemnation of the violence, the bigotry, the ghastly twisting of children into machines of hate? Where is the voice of the Council on American-Islamic Relations speaking out in condemnation of all this? That was a rhetorical question, of course - CAIR is far too busy whining about how Muslims in America are misunderstood and discriminated against to worry about how Muslims are murdering Christians and Jews around the world.
As I've written here before, I'm not a traditionally religious person. I think that a God capable of creating the vast majesty of the universe has better things to worry about than whether or not I shave, or women cover themselves from head to foot, or we say the Mass in Latin or Swahili. If God is watching from wherever He lives, I believe one thing is certain:
She's shaking her head in disgust at the atrocities done in her name.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Monday, July 16, 2007
The Eye of the Beholder
Okay, it's time for all my female readers to roll their eyes at me as I take on a topic I have discussed in this space before - feminine beauty.
I thought about this yesterday, while running some errands at a local shopping mall. I usually enter this particular mall through Bloomingdale's and pass through the cosmetics department on my way to the mall proper. There are some very beautiful ladies who work in this department...until you get close and discover that they look, well, too perfect.
Their skin is absolutely smooth and featureless, cheeks shaded and rouged, eyebrows carefully shaped, lips glossy and perfectly outlined, and eyes defined by layers of colors and highlighted by heavily-mascara'ed lashes. To me, they don't look real...they look like mannequins on display. I'd be afraid to kiss one of these ladies for fear of ruining her carefully-crafted makeup, or hug her and risk ending up with smears of makeup and lipstick over my face and clothes.
Now, I understand that every woman wants to look her best. But does that mean covering her face with layers of makeup that hide all the things that give a face character? The answer is, evidently, yes. Clearly, if a woman has serious skin problems or blemishes, she'll want to do something to minimize them...but the artificial, perfectly-crafted look doesn't emphasize her individuality and personal beauty. Well-applied makeup should enhance a woman's features, rather than cover them up.
I feel the same way about the tendency for many ladies to wax or shave away every vestige of body hair. I've always thought that hairy arms on a woman are very sexy, but the prevailing fashion seems to be that hair on the arms needs to go the way of hair on the legs or underarms...ruthlessly plucked, shaved, waxed, or lasered away. And I think that's too bad, because it removes yet another aspect of individual beauty.
I guess I'm just old-fashioned and out of step with current trends. But I would always rather see a lady who looks real, who dresses well and makes the most of her features, rather than hiding or changing them until you wouldn't recognize the original person under the makeup.
It is, of course, your body and you can decorate it as you wish. But don't feel like you have to do it just for me. And for pete's sake, stay away from the tattoos!
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
I thought about this yesterday, while running some errands at a local shopping mall. I usually enter this particular mall through Bloomingdale's and pass through the cosmetics department on my way to the mall proper. There are some very beautiful ladies who work in this department...until you get close and discover that they look, well, too perfect.
Their skin is absolutely smooth and featureless, cheeks shaded and rouged, eyebrows carefully shaped, lips glossy and perfectly outlined, and eyes defined by layers of colors and highlighted by heavily-mascara'ed lashes. To me, they don't look real...they look like mannequins on display. I'd be afraid to kiss one of these ladies for fear of ruining her carefully-crafted makeup, or hug her and risk ending up with smears of makeup and lipstick over my face and clothes.
Now, I understand that every woman wants to look her best. But does that mean covering her face with layers of makeup that hide all the things that give a face character? The answer is, evidently, yes. Clearly, if a woman has serious skin problems or blemishes, she'll want to do something to minimize them...but the artificial, perfectly-crafted look doesn't emphasize her individuality and personal beauty. Well-applied makeup should enhance a woman's features, rather than cover them up.
I feel the same way about the tendency for many ladies to wax or shave away every vestige of body hair. I've always thought that hairy arms on a woman are very sexy, but the prevailing fashion seems to be that hair on the arms needs to go the way of hair on the legs or underarms...ruthlessly plucked, shaved, waxed, or lasered away. And I think that's too bad, because it removes yet another aspect of individual beauty.
I guess I'm just old-fashioned and out of step with current trends. But I would always rather see a lady who looks real, who dresses well and makes the most of her features, rather than hiding or changing them until you wouldn't recognize the original person under the makeup.
It is, of course, your body and you can decorate it as you wish. But don't feel like you have to do it just for me. And for pete's sake, stay away from the tattoos!
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Any Time We Want
Iraqi president Nouri al-Maliki, the man with the most thankless and difficult job in the world, was quoted yesterday as saying that his army and police were ready to step up and do the job, and that American troops can leave "any time they want."
While Mr Maliki was almost certainly speaking for domestic consumption and can't possibly be stupid enough to think that an Iraqi army and police force riddled with sectarian stresses can provide security, he has - however unwittingly - provided ammunition to those who advocate an immediate pullout of U.S. forces from that unhappy country.
Is this wise? I wish I knew. My gut tells me that if we leave, the knives will come out without any of the restraining influences of the U.S. forces and the bloodbath will dwarf anything we've seen yet. On the other hand, if we stay the violence will just percolate along at its current level of agony, slowly bleeding two nations dry.
On balance, I have to say that I think we should begin a speedy, but not precipitous pullout from Iraq. We've given them what Fouad Ajami has called "the foreigners' gift" - eliminated a dictator and provided time and space to build a new and better Iraq. The Iraqis, though, have used the gift not to provide for a better future, but to settle scores and pursue agendas. We don't need to keep providing them with excuses and targets for their hatred.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is credited with using the Pottery Barn analogy before the war - if you break it, you own it. Well, we've well and truly broken it...but we've also bought it with the blood and treasure expended over the last four years on a population unable or unwilling to use the gift we've provided. And once you've bought something, it's yours to do with pretty much as you want.
Mr al-Maliki says we can leave any time we want. I think it's time to call his bluff and see what happens. It will probably be worse...but then, it just might get better.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
While Mr Maliki was almost certainly speaking for domestic consumption and can't possibly be stupid enough to think that an Iraqi army and police force riddled with sectarian stresses can provide security, he has - however unwittingly - provided ammunition to those who advocate an immediate pullout of U.S. forces from that unhappy country.
Is this wise? I wish I knew. My gut tells me that if we leave, the knives will come out without any of the restraining influences of the U.S. forces and the bloodbath will dwarf anything we've seen yet. On the other hand, if we stay the violence will just percolate along at its current level of agony, slowly bleeding two nations dry.
On balance, I have to say that I think we should begin a speedy, but not precipitous pullout from Iraq. We've given them what Fouad Ajami has called "the foreigners' gift" - eliminated a dictator and provided time and space to build a new and better Iraq. The Iraqis, though, have used the gift not to provide for a better future, but to settle scores and pursue agendas. We don't need to keep providing them with excuses and targets for their hatred.
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is credited with using the Pottery Barn analogy before the war - if you break it, you own it. Well, we've well and truly broken it...but we've also bought it with the blood and treasure expended over the last four years on a population unable or unwilling to use the gift we've provided. And once you've bought something, it's yours to do with pretty much as you want.
Mr al-Maliki says we can leave any time we want. I think it's time to call his bluff and see what happens. It will probably be worse...but then, it just might get better.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Saturday, July 14, 2007
The Last and Final Word
We often make jokes about oxymorons - noun and adjective combinations that are funny because they are self-contradictory. The classic examples are "jumbo shrimp," "enormously small," and the ever-popular "military intelligence." But there's another set of words that isn't exactly an oxymoron, but always sets my teeth on edge because it just doesn't make sense. That combination is "last and final."
I got to thinking about this on my recent business trip when I noticed that the gate agents at the airport always seemed to announce that, "This is the last and final call for flight number 666 to Gopher Crotch, Arkansas (or wherever)." Why do they need to say it's the "last and final" call...isn't the final call by definition the last one, or the last one clearly the final one? Is this call more final than other final calls because it's the last one? Why don't they say that "This is the first and initial call for flight blah, blah, blah" when they make the first announcement? Eh?
This isn't just limited to the airlines. I noticed this linguistic phenomenon while riding the Metro here in Virginia: as the train pulls into my station, which is the last one on the line, the train operator always announces that it is "the last and final station." Does that mean that the previous station was the next-to-last and final station on the line? Or the last and nearly final stop?
We sometimes use repetition as a means of reinforcing an idea. The classic speechmaking technique is to "tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them," and in its way that's a good method of being sure you beat your audience over the head to make them absorb your message. But how much repetition do you need to ensure people understand that something is the last one? Or the final one?
No deep message for you today. Just an observation on an expression that affects me like nails dragging across the linguistic chalkboard.
And that's my last and final word on the subject.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
I got to thinking about this on my recent business trip when I noticed that the gate agents at the airport always seemed to announce that, "This is the last and final call for flight number 666 to Gopher Crotch, Arkansas (or wherever)." Why do they need to say it's the "last and final" call...isn't the final call by definition the last one, or the last one clearly the final one? Is this call more final than other final calls because it's the last one? Why don't they say that "This is the first and initial call for flight blah, blah, blah" when they make the first announcement? Eh?
This isn't just limited to the airlines. I noticed this linguistic phenomenon while riding the Metro here in Virginia: as the train pulls into my station, which is the last one on the line, the train operator always announces that it is "the last and final station." Does that mean that the previous station was the next-to-last and final station on the line? Or the last and nearly final stop?
We sometimes use repetition as a means of reinforcing an idea. The classic speechmaking technique is to "tell them what you're going to tell them, tell them, then tell them what you told them," and in its way that's a good method of being sure you beat your audience over the head to make them absorb your message. But how much repetition do you need to ensure people understand that something is the last one? Or the final one?
No deep message for you today. Just an observation on an expression that affects me like nails dragging across the linguistic chalkboard.
And that's my last and final word on the subject.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)