While enjoying a third or fourth (or twelfth) time looking through a favorite large coffee-table book displaying our national parks, I suddenly wanted to know when this was published. Checking near the front of the book and finding that typical information page, there was the publishing year of 1993. Followed by the line, "Printed in China."
Somehow this gave me a slight shock, followed by a pang of resentment. Sure, I knew many of our commodities of the day are made in China, but beautiful books with photos of our beautiful home country scenery - reminders of our beautiful lifestyle here in the Good Ole USA - printed in CHINA? This thought was not beautiful. Toys, cameras and a wide array of gadgets that pass through our everyday world, things I have begun to dismiss as unimportant to my "real life," their point of origin hardly matters. But books! Books are sacred to me.
So then I'm forced to remember all the email forwards that drift my way from concerned folks who ask us to avoid buying Chinese products, to help our own economy by buying American. I have often dutifully passed these forwards along with my added minimal comments, and have little-by-little become more aware of the massive trade imbalance between us and China. Well, I say I am aware of imbalance, but truth is, I have no clue how many products line the shelves of Chinese shops that say "Made in USA." My gut feeling is that there is a pretty heavy imbalance, but I can't claim to know the particulars. This business of world trade is far beyond my scope. But it does seem a bit sad that when I stop at the local Walmart to pick up a Stanley tool (bearing that age-old American label) that the clear wording on the tag says, "Made in China." We wanted a lantern to take along on a camping trip. We would just stop and pick up a lantern from Coleman, an American name known everywhere for camping gear quality. All four of their lantern varieties were "Made in China."
By this point, any reader might expect me to launch into a tirade against the trade inequities or indeed, against the Chinese government or its people. In fact, the whole thing causes me to do a good bit deeper questioning. I question the very fundamentals of why things develop the way they do. Since our country took the leading role in creativity and productivity beginning almost two centuries ago, and since these capacities took us to world recognition as the leader in development and production through most of the twentieth century, how have other nations begun to take the helm?
For my simple way of seeing things, it appears to be a matter of evolution. A world filled with people wanting billions of products will naturally buy them wherever they can do so at the best bargain. A nation of people willing to work hard to manufacture those huge numbers of products and sell them for less will become the leading exporter. Of course I know there exists in our world (much is reported concerning China) horrible sacrifices of humanity and there is deplorable treatment by extremist governments that have no concern for their own citizens, but that condition does not change the first premise: where products are produced for less, they will be sold for less and trade imbalances will follow. Is it "right?" I can't say whether the evolution itself can be labeled "right" or "wrong," it's what happens in our world. Watching it happen and hearing of the mistreatment of humans, even including small children, we are told, tries my idealist nature and can make me want to scream insanely. That would do nothing but add more noise to the massive insanity already growing to unimaginable proportions. So rather than scream, I try to think.
Yes, I pay attention to where things are produced, and at times I will spend more for a commodity if I can find it with a USA label. And I drive a Ford. But in this massive world economy, there is going to continue an evolutionary process with supply and demand that will keep me buying items made in China, Mexico, Japan, Korea - anywhere on Earth but my own country - because some things simply are not produced here at all. And a large part of my idealistic nature allows me to see this in a good way, philosophically. One World has long been my desire to witness; a One-World government should eventually grow to be the helping hand to all of humanity - that's the direction my idealism goes. And I'm sure the reason people sneer at such an idea is the pathetic lack of candidates to become that capable world leadership. Though our democratic form of government seems most reasonable to become such a strength, our national twisting and manipulation of the term "democracy" has probably pushed the concept backward in its potential. Sorry to say it, but our way of actually living here in this - even if it is the best example of governance thus far - "Land of the Free & Home of the Brave," under the touted concept of "Liberty and Justice for ALL," just isn't up to the standard we tried to set.
So I say, use the trade imbalances and the fear of other nations' strengths to re-enforce our basic principles that can and should return us to world leadership and respect. Notice I don't add "dominance" to that list. Those in our own system who want to dominate frighten me more than do the foreign powers trying to build their economies and strengths in our world.
I need to study up on Clinton's Global Initiative. He may have something great happening there.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Closer to - What?
Bob Kuhn would have to be my pick for the most capable manager of the neutral zone.
This past week, I caught the TV guide entry of his show Closer To Truth that was to be aired at about 2:00 in the morning. So I set the DVR and enjoyed the show with my wife the next evening. Can't remember which channel it was on, but I'm sure I can locate it again. I could simply go back to his website of that name (linked below) and check their television broadcast schedule. But the same programs are there at the website, each titled and easily accessed to watch at my convenience. Good website!
Most of us who attended Ambassador College (AC) back in the sixties can remember the little buzz created around Bob's association with the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) and his quick ascent to the side of Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA) who recognized a superior mind when it was there in his classrooms. I can't recall now whether Bob was already Dr. Kuhn when he came to the campus in Pasadena, or whether he received his first doctoral status while also studying the Armstrong way to truth. Perhaps the "Dr." title came along later, because we all began to switch from the familiar to the "Dr. Kuhn" reference at some point in the later sixties. I also don't remember when he left the fold, and I have never been privy to any of the particulars of his departure from the WCG.
Bob was definitely a seeker of truth back then, and his specialty was the study of the mind. Rather than kick him down and stifle his esoteric studies, the powers in the church decided to use this new energetic force in their midst as some kind of underscoring of the intent to attain accreditation for the college and to be open to new avenues toward - what, better worship? In my own (admittedly distant and disconnected) view at the time, this genius who joined the ranks of HWA's army in Pasadena was going to assist greatly in the drive for understanding the "Human Potential" at the time being touted by Herbert. From my perspective today, I presume Bob started wondering fairly early on why he had ensconced himself and his agile intellect in such a box. All of us in that organization were well-schooled in the concept (with the ever-present scriptural ties) that any human's "potential" was directed toward the future nebulous time when we could be mini-gods, but only if we spent this life accepting our role as humble worms and small dust in the balance. Any true potential was not seen as something here and now, to be realized while still human, but to be awarded to us as spirit beings. Surely it wasn't long until the astute Dr. Kuhn recognized that his interest in the mind of man had a very short future. The whole change from human to spirit - that moment of in the twinkling of an eye change, was set for a very few years beyond our rushing and hectic world of the sixties. The study of how the human brain works would suddenly seem pretty irrelevant to a dedicated researcher like Bob Kuhn.
So it's clear I do not know much detail of the life of this man from that era of our common history, but I see his output today as some of the most fascinating and single-minded diligence anyone has yet attempted. Bob is amazingly capable of listening intently, trying to understand the meaning of thousands of words poured forth by learned people in his search for what might be truth for him. And I marvel at his calm approach as he remains neutral while compiling all this trash-pile of talk in the hope of mining treasure from it. He spends most of his time with highly educated types, many of them in religion and related fields, and his listening skills are admirable. His skill at keeping himself from looking incredulous and perhaps walking away from some who come across as educated idiots is a thing of beauty. Character, I suppose.
At any rate, if you haven't yet taken a look at Bob's website, it's worthwhile: closertotruth.com
I don't know what truth might eventually satisfy Dr. Kuhn, but I appreciate his dedication in seeking it. It would be more satisfying if his website wouldn't reject attempts to actually respond to some of his output. I wanted very much to introduce my old acquaintance Bob to my now good friend, retired Stanford educator, Dr. John F. Bennett [writings found at longhighsurvival.org], but thus far have been unable to do so. Bob would be able to grasp John's words about a Theory of Everything far better than I can, and he would most likely be enlightened by them far more than he has been by many another physicist or religionist.
This past week, I caught the TV guide entry of his show Closer To Truth that was to be aired at about 2:00 in the morning. So I set the DVR and enjoyed the show with my wife the next evening. Can't remember which channel it was on, but I'm sure I can locate it again. I could simply go back to his website of that name (linked below) and check their television broadcast schedule. But the same programs are there at the website, each titled and easily accessed to watch at my convenience. Good website!
Most of us who attended Ambassador College (AC) back in the sixties can remember the little buzz created around Bob's association with the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) and his quick ascent to the side of Herbert W. Armstrong (HWA) who recognized a superior mind when it was there in his classrooms. I can't recall now whether Bob was already Dr. Kuhn when he came to the campus in Pasadena, or whether he received his first doctoral status while also studying the Armstrong way to truth. Perhaps the "Dr." title came along later, because we all began to switch from the familiar to the "Dr. Kuhn" reference at some point in the later sixties. I also don't remember when he left the fold, and I have never been privy to any of the particulars of his departure from the WCG.
Bob was definitely a seeker of truth back then, and his specialty was the study of the mind. Rather than kick him down and stifle his esoteric studies, the powers in the church decided to use this new energetic force in their midst as some kind of underscoring of the intent to attain accreditation for the college and to be open to new avenues toward - what, better worship? In my own (admittedly distant and disconnected) view at the time, this genius who joined the ranks of HWA's army in Pasadena was going to assist greatly in the drive for understanding the "Human Potential" at the time being touted by Herbert. From my perspective today, I presume Bob started wondering fairly early on why he had ensconced himself and his agile intellect in such a box. All of us in that organization were well-schooled in the concept (with the ever-present scriptural ties) that any human's "potential" was directed toward the future nebulous time when we could be mini-gods, but only if we spent this life accepting our role as humble worms and small dust in the balance. Any true potential was not seen as something here and now, to be realized while still human, but to be awarded to us as spirit beings. Surely it wasn't long until the astute Dr. Kuhn recognized that his interest in the mind of man had a very short future. The whole change from human to spirit - that moment of in the twinkling of an eye change, was set for a very few years beyond our rushing and hectic world of the sixties. The study of how the human brain works would suddenly seem pretty irrelevant to a dedicated researcher like Bob Kuhn.
So it's clear I do not know much detail of the life of this man from that era of our common history, but I see his output today as some of the most fascinating and single-minded diligence anyone has yet attempted. Bob is amazingly capable of listening intently, trying to understand the meaning of thousands of words poured forth by learned people in his search for what might be truth for him. And I marvel at his calm approach as he remains neutral while compiling all this trash-pile of talk in the hope of mining treasure from it. He spends most of his time with highly educated types, many of them in religion and related fields, and his listening skills are admirable. His skill at keeping himself from looking incredulous and perhaps walking away from some who come across as educated idiots is a thing of beauty. Character, I suppose.
At any rate, if you haven't yet taken a look at Bob's website, it's worthwhile: closertotruth.com
I don't know what truth might eventually satisfy Dr. Kuhn, but I appreciate his dedication in seeking it. It would be more satisfying if his website wouldn't reject attempts to actually respond to some of his output. I wanted very much to introduce my old acquaintance Bob to my now good friend, retired Stanford educator, Dr. John F. Bennett [writings found at longhighsurvival.org], but thus far have been unable to do so. Bob would be able to grasp John's words about a Theory of Everything far better than I can, and he would most likely be enlightened by them far more than he has been by many another physicist or religionist.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Good Spending
Hooray for Republicans who understand the value of good spending!
Not all ideas are reasonable in practicality, but there certainly are a lot of folks tossing out those ideas, all meant to be helpful, I’m sure. Recently economist Paul Krugman began to consider how it might help our economy if we all had to pull together in a face-off against space aliens. I suppose this is a call for bi-partisan cooperation. He seems to have caught on to the repeatedly referenced fantasy of the late President Reagan who saw an attempted take-over by space aliens as a good chance for all humans of the world to work together. Former Pennsylvania Governor Rendell, while admitting he likes the idea of space aliens, thinks we can pull through this economic crisis by just being logical and applying a good old American work ethic.
Being an Independent, I try to be alert to ways in which members of either of the major political parties can impress me with solid ideas. The state of our nation’s economy looks quite grim at present, and if anyone can put forward good proposals to help our country through this bad time, I’m listening and appreciative. Some far-sighted (or merely practical) Republicans are getting my attention right now, and calling for action that impresses me and will still be remembered next time I’m in the voting booth.
Interestingly, I learned of these terrific ideas offered by congressional Republicans while reading an article by contributing writer Steve Benen in Washington Monthly. His comments may have been intended to disparage Michele Bachmann and others who have sought to bring jobs to their districts through government projects, but I say, credit where credit is due. These ideas are superb! This would be money well spent.
What I took from the report is that Congress is working hard to solve our long-term budget and deficit problems, but some members are nonetheless logical about the short-term needs. And they are capable of seeing and pointing out the value to our economy right now in the approval of infrastructure projects. If Ms. Bachmann, Mr. Boehner and many other members of Congress from the Republican Party (apparently hundreds of funding requests have been made) have seen a road to improvement through spending money for these projects, our President should be listening. It has made a major impression on me that these folks had to swallow their pride in asking for federal funding to get some of these needed projects done. They stand for good principles that will help pull our country out of the mess we’re in by putting people to work on important improvements. And the improvements will be lasting ones that will benefit all Americans! These exemplary representatives are worthy of our respect and their requests for federal funding deserve quick administrative action!
Friday, August 12, 2011
Defining My Neutral Zone
No, I have NOT signed on with “The Federation” and been given a mighty space ship to command on patrol near the Neutral Zone. It actually didn’t occur to me until a few days after the launch of my blog that I had borrowed the well-known term from my old favorite television SiFi drama. Not too surprisingly though, the fit is quite nice. In that futuristic world in which starships tool around the universe looking for new life forms, with ship’s officers and crew always welcoming new contacts, assuming peaceful encounters, I would feel at home.
The Neutral Zone to which I subscribe is pretty much verbal. Would that we could, as a species, find some way to proclaim such a zone in the real world of physical interactions among all peoples, and then nurture it to the point that our planet could be one entire world of harmony and peace. Would that humans could actually learn to live by a true Golden Rule philosophy – that each person could accept others as equally deserving of fair treatment and consideration. Would that men would practice what they preach.
But humans have basically always, from all we read in history, preached peace but practiced war. So my interest in neutrality grew out of the friction among believers.
Strangely enough (and this is the real kicker!), my thought for trying to reach the minds of a few who might appreciate and desire neutrality as I do, was inspired by my recent foray into the world of my religious past. [My time spent in re-connecting with many folks from almost a half-century past has for the most part been positive. I have felt more acceptance than rejection.] Now that I have become entirely neutral to ALL of the many divergent and divisive religious concepts adrift in our society, I find that to some old friends, I am not seen as neutral at all but perhaps subversive. Perhaps frighteningly UN-godly and therefore, a representative of anti-goodness. Perhaps immoral or demonic! Perhaps a devil incarnate.
From a few snippets of the thoughts shared by others from my past, it would seem I’m hardly alone; that my own suspect position is also, in varying degrees, attributed to others, even those who still claim a form of belief but are somehow no longer acceptable. Some have talked of “tolerance” toward others who have slipped into some unfavorable denomination or new sect. Some see themselves as being outcasts from the “group” as a whole, while from my own platform I see all similarly with none having any right or reason to exercise judgment over others – to either cast anyone out or have any fear of being treated in this manner. I truly occupy a neutral stance and harbor respect for each individual, without regard for any belief. I may wonder what makes someone tick, but I don’t want to stop the ticking!
Let me share a story of a neutral zone I was required to create. In my personal world, following my former life of devotion to a belief system and a church that had been for me the embodiment of “truth,” I had some major hurdles to clear. (Cannot most of my former associates grasp this quite well?) One of the highest of these obstacles to happiness was the fact that I entered a Catholic family! No – I did not in any way become Catholic (except in its generic sense, with the small “c”); I merely needed to find a way to live at peace among my newly adopted family. While I was struggling to calm the heavy prohibitions (well-trained into my young mind) against ever associating with the “Great Whore,” those folks who were becoming very important to my future were trying to convince me to become the godliest of all by joining their ranks. And how rank do you suppose this idea was to me?!
In order to build a lasting peace between myself and a very devout Catholic who was going to be a part of my future, whether I liked it or not, I had to adjust a great deal of my thinking. I started by trying to understand all I could about him and his approach to life. I attended mass! Over a period of a year, whenever I was in his home on a weekend, I forced myself to accept his cordial (somewhat insistent) invitation to “his” church. He constantly cajoled me about becoming “closer to God.” He knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that his personal success in life was directly due to his Catholic belief and active devotion.
After that year in which my mental and emotional discomfort during those church meetings was excruciating, I at last asked him to go with me to my church. He wanted to know where that was, and I explained that it would be at any location that we might choose together – somewhere on a mountain top or in a forest, a place of natural beauty and serenity. He outwardly laughed at me. My desire to commune with nature was deemed not equal to his NEED to commune with a supreme being while sitting in a pew and accepting a wafer with wine, calling his action “partaking of the body and blood of Christ.” So “my church” was rejected, but I had taken the high road. He could not deny that I had been willing to subjugate my preferences and to endure something I found repugnant in order to try to accommodate his need.
We then began on a firm footing of live-and-let-live, a comfortable friendship that’s lasted for nearly two decades. He stopped trying to convert me to Catholicism and I never again brought up the concept that spirituality need not be in a huge church with showiness and tokens of worship; that humans can be moral and principled without any outward form of religiosity. Today we are as close as two people can be in most all of life’s important matters. We share time comfortably and we openly express love for each other. He has asked me to be executor of his will. He knows I would act honorably and non-judgmentally upon his wishes.
Some of those with whom I shared incredibly intense beliefs and devotions, back in my youth, in our college days and beyond, would not be as accepting of me today as is this devout Catholic. Sad state of affairs. I am as accepting of any one who is part of any of the thousands of divergent belief systems as I am of this Catholic man. And those who label themselves “atheist” are not worrisome to me, even though much of their dogmatic absolutism mirrors those who stand firm on dogma of many kinds. I am neutral. To me, if there is a supreme being, It, She or He can do anything so desired to show me how powerless I am. And I already know I am powerless. I also know I am whole and not in need of any belief system guiding my actions. Power, it is said, corrupts. What do I need of power? Never would I say I am above corruption and immune to its pull, but I am certainly not of my own nature corrupt and I give others the benefit of the doubt. I live imperfectly but happily by the single principle that is given lip-service in all known religions yet is shunted aside in practice - the "simple" Golden Rule. Quite sincerely, I see no way of life that could be as desirable.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
A Little Help from my Friends (Please!)
A friend of mine who is as new as I am to the blogoshpere just tried to sign in to the "followers" area. Very pleasing to hear about this interest in my new blog. My friend figured she could do this sign-up with an assumed username and maintain privacy. This did not prove as easily accomplished, however, and her actual name popped up after registering. [Her explanation to me was that "It knew who I was and just put my real name there!" Cute. She and I share this notion that some of these systems drifting in the ether are like poltergeists, not all of them either benevolent or just ornery.] We have deleted that name entry. (I need to protect my friends from openly associating with me, a known nut case!)
Another person thoughtfully offered a comment after my very very first post. I wanted to merely reply to that person within the "comments" area, but I found I could not readily do so. Attempting to add a comment to a comment threw me into an endless loop of signing in/sending comment. I ended up using a new post to make my reply, adding a fuller treatment of the subject. No harm done here, but I wonder why I couldn't do the reply in the simple method I first tried. "Simple" probably explains it; I'm just to simple to grasp the nuances of this site. Realizing almost all difficulties here are due to "pilot error," I beg for help!
Since I obviously started something with only a seed of an idea and little technical prepration for handling it, I would be very appreciative if anyone who knows more about the workings of blog sites, or even how this particular "Blogger" site works, would toss out a pointer or two. For instance, how can I simplify the use of the "Comments" area for anyone to drop me a note? And can I as site "manager" (I speak as a fool), move comments around or archive them with links to find a particular respondent's grouped comments? This operation seems to to be available in some other blogs I have visited.
Obviously there are no time-restrictions on this request for assistance. The sooner, the better would be nice, naturally. But if I prove to be capable of keeping this going for years, most likely I will need to continually learn new things from others more capable and experienced than I. Perhaps my five-year-old grandson will be able to teach me some technical know-how, at least within a very few years.
Good Cheer from the Neutral Zone
Another person thoughtfully offered a comment after my very very first post. I wanted to merely reply to that person within the "comments" area, but I found I could not readily do so. Attempting to add a comment to a comment threw me into an endless loop of signing in/sending comment. I ended up using a new post to make my reply, adding a fuller treatment of the subject. No harm done here, but I wonder why I couldn't do the reply in the simple method I first tried. "Simple" probably explains it; I'm just to simple to grasp the nuances of this site. Realizing almost all difficulties here are due to "pilot error," I beg for help!
Since I obviously started something with only a seed of an idea and little technical prepration for handling it, I would be very appreciative if anyone who knows more about the workings of blog sites, or even how this particular "Blogger" site works, would toss out a pointer or two. For instance, how can I simplify the use of the "Comments" area for anyone to drop me a note? And can I as site "manager" (I speak as a fool), move comments around or archive them with links to find a particular respondent's grouped comments? This operation seems to to be available in some other blogs I have visited.
Obviously there are no time-restrictions on this request for assistance. The sooner, the better would be nice, naturally. But if I prove to be capable of keeping this going for years, most likely I will need to continually learn new things from others more capable and experienced than I. Perhaps my five-year-old grandson will be able to teach me some technical know-how, at least within a very few years.
Good Cheer from the Neutral Zone
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Language Usage - A Zone of its Own
A warm welcome to one "pickypear" who became the first commentor on this blog. You may want to read that comment following my opening post, A By-way To Ramble.
First, Ms. or Mr. Pear, you did not tend to ramble at all, and second - if you are "picky," at least you are also correct! Authority on the English language I am NOT, however I have always enjoyed the usage of our language which offers a vast array of colors and tones for us to freely apply to the canvas of communication.
Your criticism of television personalities who abuse pronouns (among the many language missteps) is absolutely true, and this is poor handling of the responsibilities of broadcast types. You and I are just two of the millions who cringe when hearing these glaring errors. And though there may be more millions who fail to even notice the mistakes, this is still an egregious miscarriage of responsibility by those who speak to us through the tube. The folks who may not notice the incorrect usage are still being hurt by it. They should be learning better speech by osmosis, but instead, they are getting the message that poor usage is everywhere and that correcting it is unimportant.
But here in the Neutral Zone, there is a giant consideration I must approach. Within our interpersonal communications, restraint is an all-important trait. I have learned this the hard way, and I would bet that Pear has dealt with it also. There is no shortage of language blunders being committed day in and day out by those in our immediate circles of activity. The tip of my tongue is near to falling off due to the many times I've had to bite it. Why stop myself from saying something corrective when I hear horrible language mistakes?
Simple courtesy is a good enough reason. Of course there are others, such as offending a boss by correcting his/her speech could get one fired. But my usual decision to hold back from correcting someone's errors in language usage is the need to keep the peace. Not only is it good to avoid direct offense when we can, we sometimes cause indirect and unwanted interruptions to others by allowing a wince or other facial expression to cause a speaker to stumble. A husband sees the sour look cover his wife's face upon hearing him hit a sour note of usage, and he loses track of his thoughts, maybe wonders if he has food on his face or his fly is open. Any possibility of completing his sentence, perhaps speaking with someone he considers important to his world, is lost.
Then there is the old request, "Please tell me when I say that wrong," coming from a loved one. Do we actually take this to mean the person wants to be corrected? Mistake! If a mate is to ever take this request seriously and try to express that criticism, I advise waiting until a distant moment and perhaps one that is being enjoyed over a fine wine. Actually, for most people, there is almost no way to properly correct a loved one's speech. Only the accomplished communicating couples can pull this off.
I have also noted that some people whose speech is peppered with imperfections seem to make friends more easily than those of us who are somewhat persnickety (I had to try it!) in our efforts to speak properly. Could it be that our attention to this correctness motif makes us less interesting or perhaps intimidating to others? Hard to say. In my experience though, as long as I am staying true to myself and my own desire to use language properly, I can confidently speak with most people comfortably. Others' manner of speaking can not detract from my own, and I need not try to improve theirs. I have even become adept in the ability to curb my tendency to cringe in front of others who hit clinkers of speech. That old expression, "It's the thought that counts," may be the thing to remember here. Perhaps an unusual way to apply the expression, but consider this: if I am too caught up in the usage flaws in someone's speech, I may completely miss out on some information that could be very important.
But really, you people who work in television are paid to present words to our ears and you almost always have the advantage of seeing the whole business written out! At least you should make sure your scripts are prepared with correct language usage! On this point, I can not be neutral!
First, Ms. or Mr. Pear, you did not tend to ramble at all, and second - if you are "picky," at least you are also correct! Authority on the English language I am NOT, however I have always enjoyed the usage of our language which offers a vast array of colors and tones for us to freely apply to the canvas of communication.
Your criticism of television personalities who abuse pronouns (among the many language missteps) is absolutely true, and this is poor handling of the responsibilities of broadcast types. You and I are just two of the millions who cringe when hearing these glaring errors. And though there may be more millions who fail to even notice the mistakes, this is still an egregious miscarriage of responsibility by those who speak to us through the tube. The folks who may not notice the incorrect usage are still being hurt by it. They should be learning better speech by osmosis, but instead, they are getting the message that poor usage is everywhere and that correcting it is unimportant.
But here in the Neutral Zone, there is a giant consideration I must approach. Within our interpersonal communications, restraint is an all-important trait. I have learned this the hard way, and I would bet that Pear has dealt with it also. There is no shortage of language blunders being committed day in and day out by those in our immediate circles of activity. The tip of my tongue is near to falling off due to the many times I've had to bite it. Why stop myself from saying something corrective when I hear horrible language mistakes?
Simple courtesy is a good enough reason. Of course there are others, such as offending a boss by correcting his/her speech could get one fired. But my usual decision to hold back from correcting someone's errors in language usage is the need to keep the peace. Not only is it good to avoid direct offense when we can, we sometimes cause indirect and unwanted interruptions to others by allowing a wince or other facial expression to cause a speaker to stumble. A husband sees the sour look cover his wife's face upon hearing him hit a sour note of usage, and he loses track of his thoughts, maybe wonders if he has food on his face or his fly is open. Any possibility of completing his sentence, perhaps speaking with someone he considers important to his world, is lost.
Then there is the old request, "Please tell me when I say that wrong," coming from a loved one. Do we actually take this to mean the person wants to be corrected? Mistake! If a mate is to ever take this request seriously and try to express that criticism, I advise waiting until a distant moment and perhaps one that is being enjoyed over a fine wine. Actually, for most people, there is almost no way to properly correct a loved one's speech. Only the accomplished communicating couples can pull this off.
I have also noted that some people whose speech is peppered with imperfections seem to make friends more easily than those of us who are somewhat persnickety (I had to try it!) in our efforts to speak properly. Could it be that our attention to this correctness motif makes us less interesting or perhaps intimidating to others? Hard to say. In my experience though, as long as I am staying true to myself and my own desire to use language properly, I can confidently speak with most people comfortably. Others' manner of speaking can not detract from my own, and I need not try to improve theirs. I have even become adept in the ability to curb my tendency to cringe in front of others who hit clinkers of speech. That old expression, "It's the thought that counts," may be the thing to remember here. Perhaps an unusual way to apply the expression, but consider this: if I am too caught up in the usage flaws in someone's speech, I may completely miss out on some information that could be very important.
But really, you people who work in television are paid to present words to our ears and you almost always have the advantage of seeing the whole business written out! At least you should make sure your scripts are prepared with correct language usage! On this point, I can not be neutral!
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Ah, those forwards!
A forward from a respected member of my email address file drifted into my Inbox today. Yes, I had seen it in a form very close to its present wording (with dates changed) at least three times before, and twice I dutifully followed the request to forward it. It presents (in my opinion) a good idea which was good when I first received it about three years ago. I will copy it here, then follow it with my reply to my sender.
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
I'm asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete.
My reply:
I am in total agreement and will gladly pass this along (as twice prior) - but it needs completion! How is this IDEA to get on any ballot where I can give my unequivocal YES vote? Just passing along good ideas among friends and email lists still leaves us nowhere. IS THERE a plan to get this IDEA to some form of ballot?
Next thing I am going to do with it is to place it in my own blog and hope to get others to comment on it.
Thx for the forward!
So - let's discuss this. I'd love to know whether you agree or disagree, but it would be very helpful also to get input on the question of how to get it onto any ballot. Obviously, if you disagree with the concept, your interest in seeing it reach a ballot would be nil. However, if you're in the spirit of the Neutral Zone and you happen to know the mechanics of directing an idea through channels to find its way to the big voting world, you're welcome to advise us all! It has probably the proverbial "snowball's chance in hell" anyway.
We all probably agree that in today's political climate, if we are concerned about our national predicament(s) we all have the perfect right - even duty to a degree - to become mini politicians. As you have possibly guessed, I personally am an Independent in my political outlook. No single party, major or fledgling, has yet satisfied my total vision for our country. Also my vision is far from infallible and not set in stone anyway; it alters and grows. Therefore I make some difficult compromise decisions when I enter the voting booth. I appreciate hearing many concepts and slants on old ideas of how government should work. But I do feel strongly that government SHOULD WORK, hence my agreement with the forward just posted.
Blast away! Pro or con, it matters not. Even if I find your words vile and offensive to all I hold dear, I will "...defend to the death your right" to speak your mind. And thank you for doing so.
markman
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
I'm asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.
Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.
If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive the message. Maybe it is time.
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!!If you agree with the above, pass it on. If not, just delete.
My reply:
I am in total agreement and will gladly pass this along (as twice prior) - but it needs completion! How is this IDEA to get on any ballot where I can give my unequivocal YES vote? Just passing along good ideas among friends and email lists still leaves us nowhere. IS THERE a plan to get this IDEA to some form of ballot?
Next thing I am going to do with it is to place it in my own blog and hope to get others to comment on it.
Thx for the forward!
So - let's discuss this. I'd love to know whether you agree or disagree, but it would be very helpful also to get input on the question of how to get it onto any ballot. Obviously, if you disagree with the concept, your interest in seeing it reach a ballot would be nil. However, if you're in the spirit of the Neutral Zone and you happen to know the mechanics of directing an idea through channels to find its way to the big voting world, you're welcome to advise us all! It has probably the proverbial "snowball's chance in hell" anyway.
We all probably agree that in today's political climate, if we are concerned about our national predicament(s) we all have the perfect right - even duty to a degree - to become mini politicians. As you have possibly guessed, I personally am an Independent in my political outlook. No single party, major or fledgling, has yet satisfied my total vision for our country. Also my vision is far from infallible and not set in stone anyway; it alters and grows. Therefore I make some difficult compromise decisions when I enter the voting booth. I appreciate hearing many concepts and slants on old ideas of how government should work. But I do feel strongly that government SHOULD WORK, hence my agreement with the forward just posted.
Blast away! Pro or con, it matters not. Even if I find your words vile and offensive to all I hold dear, I will "...defend to the death your right" to speak your mind. And thank you for doing so.
markman
A By-way to Ramble ...
Lately I have been enjoying a verbal (online) stroll down Memory Lane, at the same time tapping a source of new friends, all thanks to long-ago friends who took the effort to build a new website in early 2011.
So, this new effort of my own is an attempt to provide for the many whose thoughts and opinions rove to the far reaches of philosphy, humor, reality, reverie and political incorrectness - as my own readily do - a place to discourse without fear. This is a by-way for us to ramble.
You will note that I freely play with my own name in the very title of the blog site, using it as a verb form, just for fun. Those who knew me almost half century ago recall I had a different name, something I often call my "maiden name," which was "Salyer." And even back then, I toyed with the name in my twisted manner of forcing words in general into a multiple-use game. It was a noun form I used then to fit the name. Some of my rhymes and other writings in my college days were hand-printed and given a label at the bottom (or on the backs of cards) of salyer-tations. I once even teamed up with a co-ed to produce some cards under our private label of g-reed-ings & salyer-tations. Her last name is obvious. Can't remember now when or why our small card company failed. Most likely my off-the-wall humor, or lack of any discernible humor, frightened the lady away. She may have been very wise.
So today, as a semi-retired senior citizen with far too many loose-end thoughts flitting through my mind and far too little will power to coax a manuscript treatment out of any of them, I may find that a blog is right up my alley. Now this alley could morph into a "long and winding road" with the occasional hair-pin turn and frequent detours. But you're invited to travel it with me and see where it leads. And along the way, perhaps my own free-associating ramble will encourage others to toss out their far-ranging comments and proffer new ideas that could enrich us all.
Go ahead! Express yourself. This IS a Neutral Zone, and anything goes. The only thing that will shut it down is lack of interest.
So, this new effort of my own is an attempt to provide for the many whose thoughts and opinions rove to the far reaches of philosphy, humor, reality, reverie and political incorrectness - as my own readily do - a place to discourse without fear. This is a by-way for us to ramble.
You will note that I freely play with my own name in the very title of the blog site, using it as a verb form, just for fun. Those who knew me almost half century ago recall I had a different name, something I often call my "maiden name," which was "Salyer." And even back then, I toyed with the name in my twisted manner of forcing words in general into a multiple-use game. It was a noun form I used then to fit the name. Some of my rhymes and other writings in my college days were hand-printed and given a label at the bottom (or on the backs of cards) of salyer-tations. I once even teamed up with a co-ed to produce some cards under our private label of g-reed-ings & salyer-tations. Her last name is obvious. Can't remember now when or why our small card company failed. Most likely my off-the-wall humor, or lack of any discernible humor, frightened the lady away. She may have been very wise.
So today, as a semi-retired senior citizen with far too many loose-end thoughts flitting through my mind and far too little will power to coax a manuscript treatment out of any of them, I may find that a blog is right up my alley. Now this alley could morph into a "long and winding road" with the occasional hair-pin turn and frequent detours. But you're invited to travel it with me and see where it leads. And along the way, perhaps my own free-associating ramble will encourage others to toss out their far-ranging comments and proffer new ideas that could enrich us all.
Go ahead! Express yourself. This IS a Neutral Zone, and anything goes. The only thing that will shut it down is lack of interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)