Weather Patterns
It happens so quickly, the change in the weather. I guess I should say it happens gradually but suddenly. I like autumn before it gets really cold, before all the leaves fall.
I live in the East now, and although it has four seasons, and is north enough to have snow, the way its seasons manifest seems slightly different than does the weather out West, or more specifically in Colorado.
It seems to me, that seasons begin later in Colorado than they do here. I can count on the change being pretty close to the designated date, i.e., September 21st does seem pretty close to the time when the average temperature drops and the leaves begin to color just slightly. In Colorado, it seemed to me, we had Indian summer more often than not. Then again, those ugly damp snowstorms brew and wreak havoc, like the one that just passed through Colorado, that began with rain and ended with a miserable whiteout, dangerous because the snow, instead of sinking onto the ground, clung to the leaves, the accumulative weight of which broke the branches and no telling where they might fall. A storm like that occurred in 1997, just before I moved to New York.
The weather isn't bad out here. The summers are humid - air conditioners solve that problem - and it frequently rains. New Jersey rivers are prone to flooding . Phenomena unique to this area are "Noreasters" and ice storms, although ice storms are more common a little further north, in New York and New England. Noreasters can be brutal, apparently a result of the collision of temperatures from the Gulf Stream and cold air from the Arctic. It means a lot of rain, wind and snow. Ick.
Ice storms can also be nasty. Until I moved here, I thought they were a thing of myth. Not so. I've experienced them by now, rain that freezes on or near the ground, on electrical telephone wire, rooftops, and roads. The ones I have experienced have been mild and short lived, thank goodness.
I get my seasons out here, so that's fine. What I miss is the sunshine, the plentiful sunshine of Colorado, and the thunderstorms that roll in off the plains, that you can see from miles away, with those gorgeous cumulus clouds that billow upward, tall as skyscrapers. Beautiful.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
To cult or not to cult
A lot of speculation eddies around the question as to whether or not certain “spiritual-philosophic” organizations are cults. People are deathly afraid of cults, and rightly so, in my opinion, for a cult requires a complete conscription unto a way of thinking and a lifestyle of which posthumous escape is difficult.
The word itself does not inherently imply, in its most basic definition, something negative. A cult merely refers to a group of people that all subscribe to a specific set of beliefs and subsequent practices, unique enough to be set apart from a more widely accepted culture or religion. Obviously, most people don’t consider cults to be so innocuous. We think of Jim Jones, the Hare Krishnas, and the Moonies.
These days, it is becoming fashionable to be a member of a cult, especially if you live in Hollywood. Join a cult = possibly become movie star and earn millions. Tom Cruise has made it so. You could even go so far as to convert to a sect like Madonna did in embracing Kabbalism. Just whatever you do, don’t admit to being Christian. How fanatical. (See the irony here anywhere?)
I have to confess, I once belonged to a cult. Granted, I took a lot of cream with that coffee, and all things considered, it wasn’t too hard core, but it still had me spouting dogma, and I’m sure for the few months I was involved, my friends found me particularly irritating. Luckily, this organization, called Landmark Education, didn’t require me to wear odd toga-like garments or surrender all worldly possession. (Although I did spend several hundred dollars in tuition to take their classes). Glad that phase passed.
My mom has been practicing a variation of Buddhism for over twenty years that falls under a similar umbrella as does Landmark Education, kind of a soft-core cult that certainly doesn’t require her to forfeit life in the status quo, but it does shape her thinking about things. The organization she participates in is called Soka Gakkai, or SGI, and its followers include Tina Turner and Marianne Pearl (wife of Daniel Pearl).
In truth, I think it has been good for her to be involved in this; it seems to keep her focused and positive, and she made many friends through its various activities and functions. She chants at a Buddhist alter every day, and often attends chanting sessions with other members. I can find little fault in Soka Gakkai as it applies to my mother. Or Tina Turner for that matter.
From time to time, my mother will encourage me to give SGI a shot. She has sent me brochures, magazines, and booklets of the chants. I must admit, the chanting is meditative. However, I felt chained to the mandatory twice-daily chanting rituals, and felt my time was better spent with a short prayer to the god I am familiar with and some exercise. I mean if I’m going to force myself to do something that errs on the side of being tedious, I might as well try to work off some of that cellulite.
As an isolated activity, the chanting itself is benign, not derivative of what I consider to be cult-like practices (i.e. shaving one’s head, being one of eight wives, collecting chicken heads). So what really cemented my aversion to the organization and its practices were the experiences I had at group meetings and rallies and the people I met while there. I had seen it before, at Landmark, the perceived ubiquitousness of their philosophies, a pompous, dismissive regard of alternative viewpoints and practices, based on the assumption that anyone not subscribed to those believes are indelibly lost in this world and the next. I noticed that many of the people I met there were either semi-mentally imbalanced, or super uptight and hostile (another version of semi-mentally imbalanced) as if their anger was staving off some sort of nervous breakdown or gun rampage. I concede I only met a handful of its members. I should mention that the Japanese people (of which there are many since SGI originated in Japan) I met there seemed normal.
Anyway, Marianne Pearl wrote a book called A Mighty Heart about her husband’s murder, and she mentions her Buddhist practices and her chanting often throughout the book. Kidnappers that later described Daniel’s behavior during his kidnapping say he frequently chanted SGI’s mantra, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, during his captivity. The book is now being made into a movie of the same title, with filming in India, starring Angelina Jolie as Marianne Pearl. I wouldn’t be surprised if some scenes depict Marianne’s practice of SGI Buddhism. Incidentally, I’ve seen snippets of interviews with Marianne Pearl and she seems a bit uptight and hostile. But I guess I would be too if my husband were murdered.
Anyway, what my point in all this? I guess to highlight the hypocracy in a gradual but growing acceptance in this country of soft-core cults, but simultaneously, a widening disdain for Protestantism and Catholicism. I mean, Christianity can be definatively dogmatic, and has its own soft-core cult sensibilities, especially in more evangelical offshoots. However, commonplace denominations of Christianity, like the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians and even loosey-goosey affiliations like the Science of Mind and the Unitarians, don’t seem to require from its practitioners a unilateral steel clad adaptation and promotion of its ideals, to the point of alienating those who adhere to other sets of beliefs. Mind you, I’m not saying certain Christian organization don’t do that, I am just saying I think Protestantism has had copious practice in being politically correct, for better or for worse, simply by virtue of being around several hundred years.
Well, food for thought, at any rate.
A lot of speculation eddies around the question as to whether or not certain “spiritual-philosophic” organizations are cults. People are deathly afraid of cults, and rightly so, in my opinion, for a cult requires a complete conscription unto a way of thinking and a lifestyle of which posthumous escape is difficult.
The word itself does not inherently imply, in its most basic definition, something negative. A cult merely refers to a group of people that all subscribe to a specific set of beliefs and subsequent practices, unique enough to be set apart from a more widely accepted culture or religion. Obviously, most people don’t consider cults to be so innocuous. We think of Jim Jones, the Hare Krishnas, and the Moonies.
These days, it is becoming fashionable to be a member of a cult, especially if you live in Hollywood. Join a cult = possibly become movie star and earn millions. Tom Cruise has made it so. You could even go so far as to convert to a sect like Madonna did in embracing Kabbalism. Just whatever you do, don’t admit to being Christian. How fanatical. (See the irony here anywhere?)
I have to confess, I once belonged to a cult. Granted, I took a lot of cream with that coffee, and all things considered, it wasn’t too hard core, but it still had me spouting dogma, and I’m sure for the few months I was involved, my friends found me particularly irritating. Luckily, this organization, called Landmark Education, didn’t require me to wear odd toga-like garments or surrender all worldly possession. (Although I did spend several hundred dollars in tuition to take their classes). Glad that phase passed.
My mom has been practicing a variation of Buddhism for over twenty years that falls under a similar umbrella as does Landmark Education, kind of a soft-core cult that certainly doesn’t require her to forfeit life in the status quo, but it does shape her thinking about things. The organization she participates in is called Soka Gakkai, or SGI, and its followers include Tina Turner and Marianne Pearl (wife of Daniel Pearl).
In truth, I think it has been good for her to be involved in this; it seems to keep her focused and positive, and she made many friends through its various activities and functions. She chants at a Buddhist alter every day, and often attends chanting sessions with other members. I can find little fault in Soka Gakkai as it applies to my mother. Or Tina Turner for that matter.
From time to time, my mother will encourage me to give SGI a shot. She has sent me brochures, magazines, and booklets of the chants. I must admit, the chanting is meditative. However, I felt chained to the mandatory twice-daily chanting rituals, and felt my time was better spent with a short prayer to the god I am familiar with and some exercise. I mean if I’m going to force myself to do something that errs on the side of being tedious, I might as well try to work off some of that cellulite.
As an isolated activity, the chanting itself is benign, not derivative of what I consider to be cult-like practices (i.e. shaving one’s head, being one of eight wives, collecting chicken heads). So what really cemented my aversion to the organization and its practices were the experiences I had at group meetings and rallies and the people I met while there. I had seen it before, at Landmark, the perceived ubiquitousness of their philosophies, a pompous, dismissive regard of alternative viewpoints and practices, based on the assumption that anyone not subscribed to those believes are indelibly lost in this world and the next. I noticed that many of the people I met there were either semi-mentally imbalanced, or super uptight and hostile (another version of semi-mentally imbalanced) as if their anger was staving off some sort of nervous breakdown or gun rampage. I concede I only met a handful of its members. I should mention that the Japanese people (of which there are many since SGI originated in Japan) I met there seemed normal.
Anyway, Marianne Pearl wrote a book called A Mighty Heart about her husband’s murder, and she mentions her Buddhist practices and her chanting often throughout the book. Kidnappers that later described Daniel’s behavior during his kidnapping say he frequently chanted SGI’s mantra, Nam-myoho-renge-kyo, during his captivity. The book is now being made into a movie of the same title, with filming in India, starring Angelina Jolie as Marianne Pearl. I wouldn’t be surprised if some scenes depict Marianne’s practice of SGI Buddhism. Incidentally, I’ve seen snippets of interviews with Marianne Pearl and she seems a bit uptight and hostile. But I guess I would be too if my husband were murdered.
Anyway, what my point in all this? I guess to highlight the hypocracy in a gradual but growing acceptance in this country of soft-core cults, but simultaneously, a widening disdain for Protestantism and Catholicism. I mean, Christianity can be definatively dogmatic, and has its own soft-core cult sensibilities, especially in more evangelical offshoots. However, commonplace denominations of Christianity, like the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians and even loosey-goosey affiliations like the Science of Mind and the Unitarians, don’t seem to require from its practitioners a unilateral steel clad adaptation and promotion of its ideals, to the point of alienating those who adhere to other sets of beliefs. Mind you, I’m not saying certain Christian organization don’t do that, I am just saying I think Protestantism has had copious practice in being politically correct, for better or for worse, simply by virtue of being around several hundred years.
Well, food for thought, at any rate.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Swiss Miss
In keeping with the theme of yesterday's blog, I decided to share a recipe for a Swiss dish, probably my favorite from over there.
Not much to Swiss food, sort of an amalgamation of French, German and Italian cuisines. They like meats, like charcuterie (sliced cooked meats and sausages), veal, lamb, beef, and they also eat horse. Yes, horse. I ate it accidentally cause I thought it was pastrami or something, but it tasted odd the way lamb tastes sort of odd, gamey, and its color was a alien purplish-red. So I asked what it was, and the woman who I worked for said it was horse. She couldn't understand why we didn't eat it in America.
The Swiss eat a lot of fresh water fish like trout, and a provencial specialty is "blue trout," in which the trout is killed just before it is cooked. A chemical in the fish is released when it dies that turns its skin blue, a color retained if it's cooked right away. I never tasted it, not sure I want to.
Of course, they also eat fondue, and another gooey cheese dish called Raclette. They eat a lot of pasta, borrowed from Italy, and polenta, Italian style cornmeal mush.
My digestion took a hit when I lived there in the 90s for a few months. My body just isn't accustomed to so much dairy and fat-laden dishes. Surprisingly, the Swiss are a pretty svelte, fit folk, so I was surprised at their rich diet. Alas, I gained ten pounds when I was there.
Ok, here's the recipe. It comes from Luzern, Switzerland, and they think it was created in the 1700s. Its really yummy, easy to make, yet appears to be a very fancy, time and effort intensive meal. A great meal for guests.
Chicken Pastetli
One-two packages of puff pastry shells
(in the freezer aisle, Pepperidge Farms makes them)
2 Tbls butter
1 minced shallot
1 garlic clove, minced or pressed
1/2 cup heavy cream
1 Tbls Worcestershire
2 cups sliced mushrooms
2 cups diced cooked chicken breast
(about 3-4 smallish chicken breasts)
1/2 cup white wine (cooking wine ok)
3/4 cup sour cream
1 tsp curry powder (optional)
1/2 tsp paprika
a pinch of nutmeg and/or cayenne pepper
salt & pepper to taste
Preheat oven according to puff pastry package (probably to 350 degrees). Make sure to also check if you need to defrost your shells beforehand. Bake the shells according to package, 15-20 minutes, while you prepare the chicken stuffing.
Saute chicken in butter or oil until fully cooked, dice and set aside. Saute shallots and garlic in butter until they are translucent. Add wine and mushrooms, stir then cover and simmer for five minutes. Increase heat to medium simmer and cook until liquid is reduced by half. Add chicken bits, sour cream, and the heavy cream, Worcestershire and the spices. Fill puff pastry shells with the mixture.
This dish can also be made with beef. It goes well with rice or potatoes, and vegetables.
Bon appetit!
In keeping with the theme of yesterday's blog, I decided to share a recipe for a Swiss dish, probably my favorite from over there.
Not much to Swiss food, sort of an amalgamation of French, German and Italian cuisines. They like meats, like charcuterie (sliced cooked meats and sausages), veal, lamb, beef, and they also eat horse. Yes, horse. I ate it accidentally cause I thought it was pastrami or something, but it tasted odd the way lamb tastes sort of odd, gamey, and its color was a alien purplish-red. So I asked what it was, and the woman who I worked for said it was horse. She couldn't understand why we didn't eat it in America.
The Swiss eat a lot of fresh water fish like trout, and a provencial specialty is "blue trout," in which the trout is killed just before it is cooked. A chemical in the fish is released when it dies that turns its skin blue, a color retained if it's cooked right away. I never tasted it, not sure I want to.
Of course, they also eat fondue, and another gooey cheese dish called Raclette. They eat a lot of pasta, borrowed from Italy, and polenta, Italian style cornmeal mush.
My digestion took a hit when I lived there in the 90s for a few months. My body just isn't accustomed to so much dairy and fat-laden dishes. Surprisingly, the Swiss are a pretty svelte, fit folk, so I was surprised at their rich diet. Alas, I gained ten pounds when I was there.
Ok, here's the recipe. It comes from Luzern, Switzerland, and they think it was created in the 1700s. Its really yummy, easy to make, yet appears to be a very fancy, time and effort intensive meal. A great meal for guests.
Chicken Pastetli
One-two packages of puff pastry shells
(in the freezer aisle, Pepperidge Farms makes them)
2 Tbls butter
1 minced shallot
1 garlic clove, minced or pressed
1/2 cup heavy cream
1 Tbls Worcestershire
2 cups sliced mushrooms
2 cups diced cooked chicken breast
(about 3-4 smallish chicken breasts)
1/2 cup white wine (cooking wine ok)
3/4 cup sour cream
1 tsp curry powder (optional)
1/2 tsp paprika
a pinch of nutmeg and/or cayenne pepper
salt & pepper to taste
Preheat oven according to puff pastry package (probably to 350 degrees). Make sure to also check if you need to defrost your shells beforehand. Bake the shells according to package, 15-20 minutes, while you prepare the chicken stuffing.
Saute chicken in butter or oil until fully cooked, dice and set aside. Saute shallots and garlic in butter until they are translucent. Add wine and mushrooms, stir then cover and simmer for five minutes. Increase heat to medium simmer and cook until liquid is reduced by half. Add chicken bits, sour cream, and the heavy cream, Worcestershire and the spices. Fill puff pastry shells with the mixture.
This dish can also be made with beef. It goes well with rice or potatoes, and vegetables.
Bon appetit!
Monday, October 23, 2006
Eating around the world
I love all sorts of different foods, and when I am feeling brave, I try to recreate recipes from near and far reaches of the world. Some are easy, like Mexican food - tacos aren't a real stretch - and some not so much; I made Indian Chapati by hand, an endeavor that led to back pain and a slight headache, and my experiment with Tapas, a whole day's effort, left me so exhausted I wasn't able to eat the meal.
I was lucky enough to be able to enjoy a myriad of international cuisines when I was in New York, the best of those being Indian food in the East Village (Jackson Heights in Queens apparently surpasses it), pastries from a Portuguese bakery, and the Dim Sum in Chinatown.
Last year, I happened upon a book series published by Lonely Planet - the travel guide people - devoted entirely to foods from around the world. Each little book of a couple hundred pages concerns a single country, and discusses in detail food and drink staples, regional specialties, restaurants, markets, and menus among other things. I purchased the books on France, Greece,India, Italy, and Mexico, but was able to borrow from the library several others in the series. I'm just hoping they write more of them. Here's a few factoids I found interesting:
1) France: Croissants
I found it interesting that the shape of a croissant actually means something! If a croissant is shaped like a half moon, it is made with butter. If it is straight, it is made with margarine.
2) Italy: Cappachino
The quintessential Italian coffee drink, but in Italy, they only drink it in the mornings, as opposed to us Americans who drink it anytime (thus a sure way for Italians to spot a tourist). The drink, a shot of expresso topped with foamed milk called schiuma, is named after the Capuchin monks, who wore robes the same color as the coffee.
3) Greece: outside influences
I was surprised to learn that much of Greek cuisine actually has its origins abroad. Greek food is especially influenced by Turkish and Italian traditions, and this makes sense given the proximity of Turkey to its east and Italy to the west.
The Turks and other Arab cultures serve "Mazza," little dishes familiar to the west and also recognizable in Greek restaurants, called "Mezedhes." Melidzanosalata is virtually the same as Babaganoush, the Middle Eastern dish, basically a pureed eggplant mush.
Venetian control of some parts of Greece led to the adaptation of Italian dishes into Greek cuisine, the most familiar probably being pasta and in particular, the Greek lasagne called pastitio.
4) Mexico: Mole
Mole is that rich, reddish brown sauce often served on top of chicken or turkey. Mole is a unique sauce often made with pumpkin or chocolate, that is in fact difficult to make because of the number ingredients it requires (some moles call for up to 100 ingredients). Mole is definitively Mexican, and while its point of origin can't be proven, most agree that the city of Puebla, southeast of Mexico City, is the Mole capital of Mexico.
5)India: The Punjabs
The type of Indian food most Americans eat and are familiar with come from the Punjabi state of India, on the border of Pakistan. Classic Punjabi dishes include Tandoori, naan, and chicken tikka. After the division of India and Pakistan in 1947, waves of Punjabis fled to other parts of India and abroad, some to America, where they opened restaurants that we have come to know ubiquitously as Indian. In truth, it's Punjabi.
Bon appetit!
I love all sorts of different foods, and when I am feeling brave, I try to recreate recipes from near and far reaches of the world. Some are easy, like Mexican food - tacos aren't a real stretch - and some not so much; I made Indian Chapati by hand, an endeavor that led to back pain and a slight headache, and my experiment with Tapas, a whole day's effort, left me so exhausted I wasn't able to eat the meal.
I was lucky enough to be able to enjoy a myriad of international cuisines when I was in New York, the best of those being Indian food in the East Village (Jackson Heights in Queens apparently surpasses it), pastries from a Portuguese bakery, and the Dim Sum in Chinatown.
Last year, I happened upon a book series published by Lonely Planet - the travel guide people - devoted entirely to foods from around the world. Each little book of a couple hundred pages concerns a single country, and discusses in detail food and drink staples, regional specialties, restaurants, markets, and menus among other things. I purchased the books on France, Greece,India, Italy, and Mexico, but was able to borrow from the library several others in the series. I'm just hoping they write more of them. Here's a few factoids I found interesting:
1) France: Croissants
I found it interesting that the shape of a croissant actually means something! If a croissant is shaped like a half moon, it is made with butter. If it is straight, it is made with margarine.
2) Italy: Cappachino
The quintessential Italian coffee drink, but in Italy, they only drink it in the mornings, as opposed to us Americans who drink it anytime (thus a sure way for Italians to spot a tourist). The drink, a shot of expresso topped with foamed milk called schiuma, is named after the Capuchin monks, who wore robes the same color as the coffee.
3) Greece: outside influences
I was surprised to learn that much of Greek cuisine actually has its origins abroad. Greek food is especially influenced by Turkish and Italian traditions, and this makes sense given the proximity of Turkey to its east and Italy to the west.
The Turks and other Arab cultures serve "Mazza," little dishes familiar to the west and also recognizable in Greek restaurants, called "Mezedhes." Melidzanosalata is virtually the same as Babaganoush, the Middle Eastern dish, basically a pureed eggplant mush.
Venetian control of some parts of Greece led to the adaptation of Italian dishes into Greek cuisine, the most familiar probably being pasta and in particular, the Greek lasagne called pastitio.
4) Mexico: Mole
Mole is that rich, reddish brown sauce often served on top of chicken or turkey. Mole is a unique sauce often made with pumpkin or chocolate, that is in fact difficult to make because of the number ingredients it requires (some moles call for up to 100 ingredients). Mole is definitively Mexican, and while its point of origin can't be proven, most agree that the city of Puebla, southeast of Mexico City, is the Mole capital of Mexico.
5)India: The Punjabs
The type of Indian food most Americans eat and are familiar with come from the Punjabi state of India, on the border of Pakistan. Classic Punjabi dishes include Tandoori, naan, and chicken tikka. After the division of India and Pakistan in 1947, waves of Punjabis fled to other parts of India and abroad, some to America, where they opened restaurants that we have come to know ubiquitously as Indian. In truth, it's Punjabi.
Bon appetit!
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Scare me why don't you?
Halloween is almost upon us. I could care less. I am going to Chiller Theater next weekend in Seacaucus, NJ. That should be interesting. To be honest, I am not real clear about what it is exactly except to say that apparently a plethora of D-list stars will there, signing autographs and the like. (Like Pee-Wee Herman, "Q" from Star Trek Next Generation, Christopher Atkins from The Blue Lagoon). My husband Powell assures me it will be a good time and that the event will sponsor plenty of horror themed displays and booths for our perusal. Powell is the horror affectianado, not me. For the most part, I can't stomach it.
I haven't dressed up for Halloween for a while. I went to a party five years ago in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, with a friend, a strange guy named Theo. His real name is Franz and he's from Austria, but he adapted an English sounding name for the stage; he's a musician. I'm pretty sure Theo thought it was a date. In fact, earlier that week he had asked me if I'd marry him so he could get his green card. I actually considered it believe it or not, until he got stoned, made a pass at me that I immediately rebuffed,lost his temper and in his pot-induced paranoia, predicted I'd take him for all he was worth should he miracuosly find fame and fortune. Don't get me wrong, Theo is enormously talented. I have a couple of his self-produced CDs. His songwriting and his voice are both incredible. But I didn't exactly see Theo as my meal ticket. He was and I think still is a busker, strumming his guitar for coins in New York City subway stations. I told him I wouldn't marry him.
Theo had asked me last minute to attend the party and we schlepped from his apartment in Astoria, Queens, on the G train to a brownstone in Greenpoint owned by Kyra Sedgewick's brother who was hosting the shindig. I have no idea how Theo knew him, but then again, Theo came into contact with a lot of different sorts of folks because of the time his spent in the subway. I hadn't had much time to pull together a costume, so I did what I could with clothes and supplies I had at home, and presented myself as the personification of a rose in a pink skirt and stockings, a green shirt and a lei of plastic roses that I wrapped around my neck. Pretty lame. Theo didn't have a costume.
The party was tedious, at least for me. Theo was mad at me and so universally avoided me and sadly, Kevin Bacon didn't show. I drank a couple of beers in the corner of the room, danced solo to a couple of songs, then got on my coat and left. It was the last time I hung out with Theo.
I dressed up again in 2003, the second year of my graduate studies. Despite having lived in NYC for five years, I had never seen the Village Halloween Parade, NYC's festive, raudy procession of costumed revelers, many of them drag queens. I spent twenty dollars at Ricky's boutique on devil horns, a plastic pitchfork and a spiky red tail that I pinned to my backside. I wore an inexpensive red turtle neck I bought for the occasion, a pair of black pants and black cowboy boots.
I met an ecclectic assortment of grad school friends downtown, only one of them American, the rest from Turkey, Thailand, Germany, and the Netherlands. We pushed our way through the thick crowd to try an get a spot at the guard rail that lined the road. We found room to stand about four of five rows in. Needless to say, I couldn't see a thing. So while I did attend the parade, I didn't actually witness it.
It didn't matter. I wasn't having a good time anyway. Dororthy, the girl from Thailand was going a bit mental on us, and Ingrid, the German, was argueing ad naseum about how I should pronoune her friend Sven's name. I cut the night short and rushed away in the bitter cold towards the subway station to take it uptown to my apartment.
Anyway, that's the last time I dressed up for Halloween.
Halloween is almost upon us. I could care less. I am going to Chiller Theater next weekend in Seacaucus, NJ. That should be interesting. To be honest, I am not real clear about what it is exactly except to say that apparently a plethora of D-list stars will there, signing autographs and the like. (Like Pee-Wee Herman, "Q" from Star Trek Next Generation, Christopher Atkins from The Blue Lagoon). My husband Powell assures me it will be a good time and that the event will sponsor plenty of horror themed displays and booths for our perusal. Powell is the horror affectianado, not me. For the most part, I can't stomach it.
I haven't dressed up for Halloween for a while. I went to a party five years ago in Greenpoint, Brooklyn, with a friend, a strange guy named Theo. His real name is Franz and he's from Austria, but he adapted an English sounding name for the stage; he's a musician. I'm pretty sure Theo thought it was a date. In fact, earlier that week he had asked me if I'd marry him so he could get his green card. I actually considered it believe it or not, until he got stoned, made a pass at me that I immediately rebuffed,lost his temper and in his pot-induced paranoia, predicted I'd take him for all he was worth should he miracuosly find fame and fortune. Don't get me wrong, Theo is enormously talented. I have a couple of his self-produced CDs. His songwriting and his voice are both incredible. But I didn't exactly see Theo as my meal ticket. He was and I think still is a busker, strumming his guitar for coins in New York City subway stations. I told him I wouldn't marry him.
Theo had asked me last minute to attend the party and we schlepped from his apartment in Astoria, Queens, on the G train to a brownstone in Greenpoint owned by Kyra Sedgewick's brother who was hosting the shindig. I have no idea how Theo knew him, but then again, Theo came into contact with a lot of different sorts of folks because of the time his spent in the subway. I hadn't had much time to pull together a costume, so I did what I could with clothes and supplies I had at home, and presented myself as the personification of a rose in a pink skirt and stockings, a green shirt and a lei of plastic roses that I wrapped around my neck. Pretty lame. Theo didn't have a costume.
The party was tedious, at least for me. Theo was mad at me and so universally avoided me and sadly, Kevin Bacon didn't show. I drank a couple of beers in the corner of the room, danced solo to a couple of songs, then got on my coat and left. It was the last time I hung out with Theo.
I dressed up again in 2003, the second year of my graduate studies. Despite having lived in NYC for five years, I had never seen the Village Halloween Parade, NYC's festive, raudy procession of costumed revelers, many of them drag queens. I spent twenty dollars at Ricky's boutique on devil horns, a plastic pitchfork and a spiky red tail that I pinned to my backside. I wore an inexpensive red turtle neck I bought for the occasion, a pair of black pants and black cowboy boots.
I met an ecclectic assortment of grad school friends downtown, only one of them American, the rest from Turkey, Thailand, Germany, and the Netherlands. We pushed our way through the thick crowd to try an get a spot at the guard rail that lined the road. We found room to stand about four of five rows in. Needless to say, I couldn't see a thing. So while I did attend the parade, I didn't actually witness it.
It didn't matter. I wasn't having a good time anyway. Dororthy, the girl from Thailand was going a bit mental on us, and Ingrid, the German, was argueing ad naseum about how I should pronoune her friend Sven's name. I cut the night short and rushed away in the bitter cold towards the subway station to take it uptown to my apartment.
Anyway, that's the last time I dressed up for Halloween.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Cha-Ching (Part II)
Marx is not a popular figure in the modern capitalist West. In my opinion, some of the prejudice is unwarranted, and in general, most people inimately associate him with Soviet and Chinese communism, brutal regimes based in central economies and dictatorial oppression.
Thing is, Marx was dead long before the Russian Revolution in 1917, the tenure of Mao Tse Dung, or the Cold War. He was born in the early 1800s and an indigenous product of the times, the 19th century, which among other things witnessed the ascendancy of Queen Victoria and a rise of Victorianism in England (the country in which Marx inevitably settled), and more pivotally, social revolutions in Germany and France. Socialism, the vision of Marx and Frederick Engles, could be interpreted as a reaction to brutal inequity of life for the underclasses under an adolescent capitalist system that facilitated the shift from cottage industry to industrialization. Truly, Marx could only so much as consider conditions in which he lived through, and could not have anticipated factors that would lead Russians and other peoples into embracing a socialist model based in Marx's ideas.
Debates centered in the meaning of Marxism, and the pursuit of Marxist study, thrived among intellectuals throughout the 20th century. During the 1920s and 30s, devotees of Marx's ideas and the socialist tenant formed vital organizations promoting the communist model. After World War II, and during the first years of the Cold War that gestated with conflicts in Eastern Europe and Korea, Americans that favored communist ideas were shunned and sometimes persecuted. Senate judicial committees of the McCarthy Era prompted the collapse of the careers of dozens of actors, writers, and artists. However, formidable accord was given intellectual freedom by the 1970s, perhaps as one but many outcomes of the progressive 1960s. The few years before the fall of communism in Europe and Russia ushered in a period of vigorous academic interest in Marx and in applying Marxist interpretation to a variety of studies.
So, what happened after the demise of the Soviet Union? Not surprisingly, interest in Marx and in socialism waned if not practically disappeared. What was the point of discussing Marx in light of the triumph of capitalism? Academics and journalists at least transferred their focus to other events and phenomena like the war in the Balkans, the formation of the EU and middle-eastern politics. Marxism, or rather communism, was an anachronism. Well, maybe not for Fidel Castro.
Based on the failed application of socialism onto the economic and political landscape of Cold War communist states, it is probably safe to say that no one's going to bet on that horse anytime soon. European countries like Germany, Spain, Norway, etc... seem to do pretty well with the light version, the socialist democracy, that sustains itself on a mix of capitalism and social welfare.
It would seem that because socialism or communism is no longer relevant, neither is Marx or anything else he wrote.
But in terms of economic study, a dissemination of capitalism, a blueprint of the system, he should not be so quickly forgotten. Marx wrote the first volume of Das Kapital in 1867, but was never able to fully complete subsequent volumes. Because of the work's breadth, I couldn't possibly summarize it here. Suffice to say, certain concepts he puts forth, like that of "labor theory of value," or the way that time and labor correlates to money, sort of. What one thing I remember from the few chapters of Das Kapital that I have read, is that human labor, in its basic form, is priceless and that a subtle, tragic aberration of humanity is inherent in the act of one individual with power, the capitalist, extracting profit from a persons labor by charging more for the produced goods than the total of wages and overhead.
Anyway, maybe I've wet your whistle. Das Kapital is worth a look, and if that's too intimidating, you can try abbreviated or summarized versions like Sparknotes or the like.
Marx is not a popular figure in the modern capitalist West. In my opinion, some of the prejudice is unwarranted, and in general, most people inimately associate him with Soviet and Chinese communism, brutal regimes based in central economies and dictatorial oppression.
Thing is, Marx was dead long before the Russian Revolution in 1917, the tenure of Mao Tse Dung, or the Cold War. He was born in the early 1800s and an indigenous product of the times, the 19th century, which among other things witnessed the ascendancy of Queen Victoria and a rise of Victorianism in England (the country in which Marx inevitably settled), and more pivotally, social revolutions in Germany and France. Socialism, the vision of Marx and Frederick Engles, could be interpreted as a reaction to brutal inequity of life for the underclasses under an adolescent capitalist system that facilitated the shift from cottage industry to industrialization. Truly, Marx could only so much as consider conditions in which he lived through, and could not have anticipated factors that would lead Russians and other peoples into embracing a socialist model based in Marx's ideas.
Debates centered in the meaning of Marxism, and the pursuit of Marxist study, thrived among intellectuals throughout the 20th century. During the 1920s and 30s, devotees of Marx's ideas and the socialist tenant formed vital organizations promoting the communist model. After World War II, and during the first years of the Cold War that gestated with conflicts in Eastern Europe and Korea, Americans that favored communist ideas were shunned and sometimes persecuted. Senate judicial committees of the McCarthy Era prompted the collapse of the careers of dozens of actors, writers, and artists. However, formidable accord was given intellectual freedom by the 1970s, perhaps as one but many outcomes of the progressive 1960s. The few years before the fall of communism in Europe and Russia ushered in a period of vigorous academic interest in Marx and in applying Marxist interpretation to a variety of studies.
So, what happened after the demise of the Soviet Union? Not surprisingly, interest in Marx and in socialism waned if not practically disappeared. What was the point of discussing Marx in light of the triumph of capitalism? Academics and journalists at least transferred their focus to other events and phenomena like the war in the Balkans, the formation of the EU and middle-eastern politics. Marxism, or rather communism, was an anachronism. Well, maybe not for Fidel Castro.
Based on the failed application of socialism onto the economic and political landscape of Cold War communist states, it is probably safe to say that no one's going to bet on that horse anytime soon. European countries like Germany, Spain, Norway, etc... seem to do pretty well with the light version, the socialist democracy, that sustains itself on a mix of capitalism and social welfare.
It would seem that because socialism or communism is no longer relevant, neither is Marx or anything else he wrote.
But in terms of economic study, a dissemination of capitalism, a blueprint of the system, he should not be so quickly forgotten. Marx wrote the first volume of Das Kapital in 1867, but was never able to fully complete subsequent volumes. Because of the work's breadth, I couldn't possibly summarize it here. Suffice to say, certain concepts he puts forth, like that of "labor theory of value," or the way that time and labor correlates to money, sort of. What one thing I remember from the few chapters of Das Kapital that I have read, is that human labor, in its basic form, is priceless and that a subtle, tragic aberration of humanity is inherent in the act of one individual with power, the capitalist, extracting profit from a persons labor by charging more for the produced goods than the total of wages and overhead.
Anyway, maybe I've wet your whistle. Das Kapital is worth a look, and if that's too intimidating, you can try abbreviated or summarized versions like Sparknotes or the like.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Cha-Ching (Part I)
Honestly, I really didn't learn all that much in graduate school. Maybe my ability to write improved. Through practice, not instruction.
I went for two years and earned an MA. I made tentative plans to get a Phd until I realized I might be buying a one way ticket to habitual under-employment, which in itself isn't half bad (being a secretarial temp for several years, I acclimated to this condition)but add to it the mountain of debt that accompanies grad school, and conditions get ugly.
I attended a state school for undergrad and a private university for graduate school. I'm proud of my alma mater, the first one that is, and while the second degree comes from an institution with some clout, the quality of education itself was far below that of the first. But that's New York City. In that town, product doesn't necessary follow promise.
I am far more endeared to my undergrade professors than my graduate professors. For years I kept in touch with my history and english professors from Metropolitan State College, who were willing and eagar to correspond and write recommendations for my graduate school applications. In contrast, I haven't spoken to any of my grad school professors since I earned my MA.
However, it wasn't all for naught. I did earn the MA degree. And when I look back on my time spent at the New School for graduate studies, I can honestly say that I did learn a few things, and that at least one person, one professor, had a profound influence me. Interestingly, he wasn't a political science professor (that was the department I earned the degree in). He was a Pakistani-American Marxist economist.
All told I took three classes from him, all in something called "political economy." The first two course covered the foundations of intellectual thought in this particular area of economics, and the third class was survey of contempoary world political economy. The undercurrent of the class was based in the professor's propective and philosophical bent based in Marxist economics.
Marx's great treatise is a deconstruction of a global political system, or rather capitalism. Most people are most familiar with the book Marx wrote with Frederick Engles called The Communist Manifesto. I'm not crazy about this work and think that in comparison to Das Kapital, really Marx's life's work, it is insubstantial (not to say that it wasn't profoundly influential to some).
(to be continued...)
Honestly, I really didn't learn all that much in graduate school. Maybe my ability to write improved. Through practice, not instruction.
I went for two years and earned an MA. I made tentative plans to get a Phd until I realized I might be buying a one way ticket to habitual under-employment, which in itself isn't half bad (being a secretarial temp for several years, I acclimated to this condition)but add to it the mountain of debt that accompanies grad school, and conditions get ugly.
I attended a state school for undergrad and a private university for graduate school. I'm proud of my alma mater, the first one that is, and while the second degree comes from an institution with some clout, the quality of education itself was far below that of the first. But that's New York City. In that town, product doesn't necessary follow promise.
I am far more endeared to my undergrade professors than my graduate professors. For years I kept in touch with my history and english professors from Metropolitan State College, who were willing and eagar to correspond and write recommendations for my graduate school applications. In contrast, I haven't spoken to any of my grad school professors since I earned my MA.
However, it wasn't all for naught. I did earn the MA degree. And when I look back on my time spent at the New School for graduate studies, I can honestly say that I did learn a few things, and that at least one person, one professor, had a profound influence me. Interestingly, he wasn't a political science professor (that was the department I earned the degree in). He was a Pakistani-American Marxist economist.
All told I took three classes from him, all in something called "political economy." The first two course covered the foundations of intellectual thought in this particular area of economics, and the third class was survey of contempoary world political economy. The undercurrent of the class was based in the professor's propective and philosophical bent based in Marxist economics.
Marx's great treatise is a deconstruction of a global political system, or rather capitalism. Most people are most familiar with the book Marx wrote with Frederick Engles called The Communist Manifesto. I'm not crazy about this work and think that in comparison to Das Kapital, really Marx's life's work, it is insubstantial (not to say that it wasn't profoundly influential to some).
(to be continued...)
Monday, October 16, 2006
Ha-Ha
I was planning on writing something really serious today, like about how economists won the nobel peace prize last week, or how much I liked the movie "The Queen" that just came out and the deep thoughts that overcame me as I left the theater (the meaning of monarchy, the tyranny of the elite, etc...)
I could also write about the hellscape that is my apartment right now. Electrical fire on Saturday, followed by black-out, followed by reduction of usable outlets to three, no heat, loss of hot water last night (seems to have returned), and the on-going disturbance coming from upstairs of footfall and a crying toddler. But I'm going to focus on something more positive. Humor.
I laugh now a lot more than I used to. I was dour for a least half a decade and for some reason, though my life as an adult is more difficult and filled when bigger challanges, I have lightened up and allow for a few laughs once in a while. Perhaps it's evidence of the correlation between stress and hardship and the need to cut up now and again, a respite from the bullshit.
My husband makes me laugh. Hard. He has at times a dry wit but at other times he's a guy's guy, a take-no-hostages locker room comic. This comedy keeps our marriage well-oiled. (yes, we do have our gloomy moments too, who doesn't?) Powell's taste is slightly different than mine, but somehow we meet in the middle. He gets a kick out of most Will Farrell material - like clips of Saturday Night Live (the Blue Oyster Cult cow-bell skit comes to mind) or the movies Anchorman or Talledega Nights. I admit, I think that stuff is pretty funny too. I give other things a shot - the Jackass movies are just not my cup of tea, I've never gotten into the Man Show, and I don't really like Larry the Cable Guy - but we're not always going to have the same taste of funny. I got him to watch Notting Hill with me, one of my favorite movies, and he loved Rhys Ifans as Spike. Like I said, we meet in the middle.
Anyway, I have decided to list some things that really get me going, that make me laugh many times over, time immemorial. These are in no particular order.
1)This is Spinal Tap
This movie is so frickin' funny. I love it when Nigel goes through airport security with foil wrapped cucumber in his pants.
2)Bumper Cars
I don't know what about bumper cars that crack me up, but I'm telling you, I laugh so hard I cry when I get into a bumper car and start riding around crashing into other people.
3)Karaoke
So wonderfully absurd.
4)Friends
My secret addiction for several years was watching reruns of the TV show Friends, usually on the local network the half hour before I went to bed. I hated the last couple of years of Friends, but there was a time when the show hit a sweet spot - mid-way through its run - and the writing was hilarious. There are so many episodes I loved but one of the funny ones was the episode in which Monica and Rachel try to get their apartment back from Chandler and Joey by winning a round of Trivial Pursuit that Ross facitates based on their personal information.
5)Monty Python and the Holy Grail
I never get sick of this movie. I love it when the knights are trolloping through the forest in their imaginary horses and get attacked by the rabbit.
6)Extras
This is a new show on HBO written and created by Ricky Gervais, the guy who starred in the British version of The Office. Only six episodes have aired and I'm not sure if HBO has planned to continue the show, but it is very funny. Gervais plays the character of Andy, a British actor trying to make it but continually being cast as an extra. On that note, The Office is very funny too. It's on DVD.
7)Live comedy
In general, I have a great time watching live comedy. I've only been a half dozen times in my entire life, but the shows I've seen were entertaining. I have been lucky enough not to attend a bad comedy review, although I admit some of the comedians were just slightly mediocre.
8)Kathy Griffith's My Life on the D-List
Sure that tiny redhead is obnoxious but she's an extremely talented jokester. It's so rare that a petite albeit big mouthed woman makes it in that world and she really delivers on stage and seemingly, in her real life. I couldn't stand her when she co-starred with Brooke Shields in Suddenly Susan, but now I adore her.
9)The Three Stooges
I didn't realize until recently that Three Stooges are simply riotous. I was just flipping channels and got caught on one of their films. The physical comedy - the slapping, the spitting, the kicking - is so fundamentally absurd that I can't help but double over in laughter. I can't watch it a lot or for long sittings but for a few minutes it's great.
10)Sasha Baron Cohen
What a funny guy. I love him as Ali G, doing his British Hip Hop interviews, but I think his Borat character, the Kazakhstani tourist/TV personality,is even funnier. And ballsy. Check it out.
I was planning on writing something really serious today, like about how economists won the nobel peace prize last week, or how much I liked the movie "The Queen" that just came out and the deep thoughts that overcame me as I left the theater (the meaning of monarchy, the tyranny of the elite, etc...)
I could also write about the hellscape that is my apartment right now. Electrical fire on Saturday, followed by black-out, followed by reduction of usable outlets to three, no heat, loss of hot water last night (seems to have returned), and the on-going disturbance coming from upstairs of footfall and a crying toddler. But I'm going to focus on something more positive. Humor.
I laugh now a lot more than I used to. I was dour for a least half a decade and for some reason, though my life as an adult is more difficult and filled when bigger challanges, I have lightened up and allow for a few laughs once in a while. Perhaps it's evidence of the correlation between stress and hardship and the need to cut up now and again, a respite from the bullshit.
My husband makes me laugh. Hard. He has at times a dry wit but at other times he's a guy's guy, a take-no-hostages locker room comic. This comedy keeps our marriage well-oiled. (yes, we do have our gloomy moments too, who doesn't?) Powell's taste is slightly different than mine, but somehow we meet in the middle. He gets a kick out of most Will Farrell material - like clips of Saturday Night Live (the Blue Oyster Cult cow-bell skit comes to mind) or the movies Anchorman or Talledega Nights. I admit, I think that stuff is pretty funny too. I give other things a shot - the Jackass movies are just not my cup of tea, I've never gotten into the Man Show, and I don't really like Larry the Cable Guy - but we're not always going to have the same taste of funny. I got him to watch Notting Hill with me, one of my favorite movies, and he loved Rhys Ifans as Spike. Like I said, we meet in the middle.
Anyway, I have decided to list some things that really get me going, that make me laugh many times over, time immemorial. These are in no particular order.
1)This is Spinal Tap
This movie is so frickin' funny. I love it when Nigel goes through airport security with foil wrapped cucumber in his pants.
2)Bumper Cars
I don't know what about bumper cars that crack me up, but I'm telling you, I laugh so hard I cry when I get into a bumper car and start riding around crashing into other people.
3)Karaoke
So wonderfully absurd.
4)Friends
My secret addiction for several years was watching reruns of the TV show Friends, usually on the local network the half hour before I went to bed. I hated the last couple of years of Friends, but there was a time when the show hit a sweet spot - mid-way through its run - and the writing was hilarious. There are so many episodes I loved but one of the funny ones was the episode in which Monica and Rachel try to get their apartment back from Chandler and Joey by winning a round of Trivial Pursuit that Ross facitates based on their personal information.
5)Monty Python and the Holy Grail
I never get sick of this movie. I love it when the knights are trolloping through the forest in their imaginary horses and get attacked by the rabbit.
6)Extras
This is a new show on HBO written and created by Ricky Gervais, the guy who starred in the British version of The Office. Only six episodes have aired and I'm not sure if HBO has planned to continue the show, but it is very funny. Gervais plays the character of Andy, a British actor trying to make it but continually being cast as an extra. On that note, The Office is very funny too. It's on DVD.
7)Live comedy
In general, I have a great time watching live comedy. I've only been a half dozen times in my entire life, but the shows I've seen were entertaining. I have been lucky enough not to attend a bad comedy review, although I admit some of the comedians were just slightly mediocre.
8)Kathy Griffith's My Life on the D-List
Sure that tiny redhead is obnoxious but she's an extremely talented jokester. It's so rare that a petite albeit big mouthed woman makes it in that world and she really delivers on stage and seemingly, in her real life. I couldn't stand her when she co-starred with Brooke Shields in Suddenly Susan, but now I adore her.
9)The Three Stooges
I didn't realize until recently that Three Stooges are simply riotous. I was just flipping channels and got caught on one of their films. The physical comedy - the slapping, the spitting, the kicking - is so fundamentally absurd that I can't help but double over in laughter. I can't watch it a lot or for long sittings but for a few minutes it's great.
10)Sasha Baron Cohen
What a funny guy. I love him as Ali G, doing his British Hip Hop interviews, but I think his Borat character, the Kazakhstani tourist/TV personality,is even funnier. And ballsy. Check it out.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
The Tired and The Poor
I was on the phone with a friend of mine and the subject of illegal immigration came up. I should mention the friend lives in Colorado while I live in New Jersey, over 1000 miles away. She was dismayed about several incidents of late, occurring in the Denver area, of criminal activity associated with illegal immigrants and the difficulty involved in assigning responsibility or negligence to people without citizenship or green cards. It invited some thought.
According to the Center of Immigration Studies, the 1990s and early part of the 21st century saw the highest numbers of immigration, legal and not, in US history. It stands without saying that the issue of immigration is a tricky thing, especially considering that most of us are the descendents of immigrants to this country how many years ago. It seems we must balance the American credo, “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…,” with other constraints and conditions, the reality of this modern age, that influences how all Americans view immigration nowadays. The vision in Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, of the world’s orphans arriving on our shores broken but strong-hearted, the salt of the earth, is not the romantic notion is might have been once.
Until the late 1800s, immigration to American was unregulated save for health exams and those sorts of things. Anyone could come to America, it was a big place, room for everybody. My ancestors, for the most part, immigrated from Germany and Ireland in the 1850s, the result of political upheaval and famine in their own countries. Industrialization and growth of American cities attracted immigrants from abroad, but also caused a worsening in social conditions in urban areas, so in turn, the US government decided that the influx of immigrants needed to be better controlled and regulated. (Incidentally, the Immigration Act of 1882 specifically prohibited lunatics and idiots from entering the country and the Immigration Act of 1891 bars the entry of those “convicted of crimes of moral turpitude.” Those sound like pretty good laws to me.)
Until the 1990s, the largest number of immigrants to pour across American borders was between 1901 and 1910, a substantial percentage of them coming from Eastern Europe, Russia and Italy. In the 1920s, the US government instituted the national-origins quota system that put a cap on the number of immigrants that could come from each county. This policy and many others regarding immigration were consolidated into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which to this day, outlines American immigration policy.
A person is allowed to immigrate to this country for several reasons. A person is allowed to stay in order to work (they have skills that are needed here), to join family in the U.S. already naturalized, to attend college or technical school, to escape abhorrent conditions in their own countries (asylum seekers), to serve as diplomats, to marry an American, or as a benefit of the visa lottery program. Of course, if you are lucky enough to be born here, you become an American as soon as you leave the birth canal (thanks to the fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution). A non-native must do many things before he or she can obtain permanent residency and even naturalized citizenship.
On average, around 800,000 people immigrate to the U.S. using legal means – they have permanent resident status – every year. On the other hand, estimates put the number of annually arriving illegal immigrants at around 1 million, and the estimated total illegals in the country now is somewhere between 12 and 20 million people. More than half of the population of illegal immigrants lives in California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Florida, North Carolina, Texas and Arizona. At least that many people live in what is called the “mixed status” family, meaning they are part of a household in which some members are legal and some are illegal. This applies to immigrant families in which one or more children are born in the U.S. and thus are naturalized citizens, while the parents are not.
So what does it all mean? What is the impact of illegal immigration and how should Americans, the descendents of immigrants respond?
Obviously, I myself can only speculate as to the impact of illegal immigration on the economy and society. I do support immigration in a general sense. I consider myself lucky to live in a first world country; I haven’t been hungry, I have great medical care, I have sound shelter and opportunity. Certainly, people without much of a chance in life because of their circumstances should have a fair shot at success and happiness, or in some cases, mere sustenance. However, illegal immigration for one, calls in to question the fairness of those who gain residency legally and those who do not. I am a big proponent of making all things equal.
But I have bigger concerns. I worry about the way in which the health care infrastructure of this country is able to manage the influx of illegals. Many of these folks are coming from countries where inoculation from deadly disease, the kind that disappeared from the U.S. years ago, is simply not done. I worry about the strain additional uninsured puts on clinics and hospitals that can’t hope to be paid for services rendered. I worry about how the impact a proliferation of cheap labor is going to affect working and middle class Americans over the long haul.
This is not the first time Americans have felt contentious over the issue of immigration. The Nativists, the New York City centered anti-immigrationists of the 1850s, sank to criminal means in an attempt to rid New York ports of the Irish scourge. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 actually barred Chinese from immigrating to America. Despite this history, I still feel that we're facing something new here, with mass immigration considered to be illegal. We face not only the quandary of a crisis in health care and labor standards, but the juxtaposition of two worlds that have no cause to mingle.
I was on the phone with a friend of mine and the subject of illegal immigration came up. I should mention the friend lives in Colorado while I live in New Jersey, over 1000 miles away. She was dismayed about several incidents of late, occurring in the Denver area, of criminal activity associated with illegal immigrants and the difficulty involved in assigning responsibility or negligence to people without citizenship or green cards. It invited some thought.
According to the Center of Immigration Studies, the 1990s and early part of the 21st century saw the highest numbers of immigration, legal and not, in US history. It stands without saying that the issue of immigration is a tricky thing, especially considering that most of us are the descendents of immigrants to this country how many years ago. It seems we must balance the American credo, “Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…,” with other constraints and conditions, the reality of this modern age, that influences how all Americans view immigration nowadays. The vision in Emma Lazarus’ sonnet, of the world’s orphans arriving on our shores broken but strong-hearted, the salt of the earth, is not the romantic notion is might have been once.
Until the late 1800s, immigration to American was unregulated save for health exams and those sorts of things. Anyone could come to America, it was a big place, room for everybody. My ancestors, for the most part, immigrated from Germany and Ireland in the 1850s, the result of political upheaval and famine in their own countries. Industrialization and growth of American cities attracted immigrants from abroad, but also caused a worsening in social conditions in urban areas, so in turn, the US government decided that the influx of immigrants needed to be better controlled and regulated. (Incidentally, the Immigration Act of 1882 specifically prohibited lunatics and idiots from entering the country and the Immigration Act of 1891 bars the entry of those “convicted of crimes of moral turpitude.” Those sound like pretty good laws to me.)
Until the 1990s, the largest number of immigrants to pour across American borders was between 1901 and 1910, a substantial percentage of them coming from Eastern Europe, Russia and Italy. In the 1920s, the US government instituted the national-origins quota system that put a cap on the number of immigrants that could come from each county. This policy and many others regarding immigration were consolidated into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which to this day, outlines American immigration policy.
A person is allowed to immigrate to this country for several reasons. A person is allowed to stay in order to work (they have skills that are needed here), to join family in the U.S. already naturalized, to attend college or technical school, to escape abhorrent conditions in their own countries (asylum seekers), to serve as diplomats, to marry an American, or as a benefit of the visa lottery program. Of course, if you are lucky enough to be born here, you become an American as soon as you leave the birth canal (thanks to the fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution). A non-native must do many things before he or she can obtain permanent residency and even naturalized citizenship.
On average, around 800,000 people immigrate to the U.S. using legal means – they have permanent resident status – every year. On the other hand, estimates put the number of annually arriving illegal immigrants at around 1 million, and the estimated total illegals in the country now is somewhere between 12 and 20 million people. More than half of the population of illegal immigrants lives in California, New York, New Jersey, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Florida, North Carolina, Texas and Arizona. At least that many people live in what is called the “mixed status” family, meaning they are part of a household in which some members are legal and some are illegal. This applies to immigrant families in which one or more children are born in the U.S. and thus are naturalized citizens, while the parents are not.
So what does it all mean? What is the impact of illegal immigration and how should Americans, the descendents of immigrants respond?
Obviously, I myself can only speculate as to the impact of illegal immigration on the economy and society. I do support immigration in a general sense. I consider myself lucky to live in a first world country; I haven’t been hungry, I have great medical care, I have sound shelter and opportunity. Certainly, people without much of a chance in life because of their circumstances should have a fair shot at success and happiness, or in some cases, mere sustenance. However, illegal immigration for one, calls in to question the fairness of those who gain residency legally and those who do not. I am a big proponent of making all things equal.
But I have bigger concerns. I worry about the way in which the health care infrastructure of this country is able to manage the influx of illegals. Many of these folks are coming from countries where inoculation from deadly disease, the kind that disappeared from the U.S. years ago, is simply not done. I worry about the strain additional uninsured puts on clinics and hospitals that can’t hope to be paid for services rendered. I worry about how the impact a proliferation of cheap labor is going to affect working and middle class Americans over the long haul.
This is not the first time Americans have felt contentious over the issue of immigration. The Nativists, the New York City centered anti-immigrationists of the 1850s, sank to criminal means in an attempt to rid New York ports of the Irish scourge. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 actually barred Chinese from immigrating to America. Despite this history, I still feel that we're facing something new here, with mass immigration considered to be illegal. We face not only the quandary of a crisis in health care and labor standards, but the juxtaposition of two worlds that have no cause to mingle.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Things I miss about the 1970s
I used to think of the 1970s as a relatively dreary era, painted in earth tones, textured with synthetic fabrics and an absence of innovation. I was born in the 1970s, and lived out most of my childhood in the 1970s. Maybe my personal history shaped my experience of the time; the fallout of my parents divorce, yadda yadda. Yet I get the sense that most people see the 1970s as an intermission of American culture and history, a decade defined by blunders, debacles and inconveniences: the Watergate scandal, the Vietnam War, the Iran hostage crisis, an oil shortage.
So, I have to think to myself, then why would the 1970s have any appeal at all to me?
The thing is, the 1970s was the last decade to pass before the behemoth of technology took over by way of computers, the Internet, plasma TVs, fax machines and cell phones. It was the last time that anyone would live in more simple ways, practicing customs and behavior more in line with a less advanced era. It was the last time being a stay-at-home mom was still considered honorable, that teenagers didn't loose their virginities until college, and the best thing about summer was roller-skating and drive-in movies. With less to distract, life facilitated conversation and pastimes, and these in turn cemented friendships and community. These things are what pulls me to kindly remember the 1970s. Here is a short list of other things I miss:
1) I miss Saturday night television, when no one had VCRs or cable television, and everybody stayed home so as to not miss the latest episode of the Love Boat or Eight is Enough.
2) On that note, I miss Saturday morning cartoons. That was the big event of my week when I was little. I’d get up early, before my mom was awake, turn on the TV and grab a box of cereal to snack on while I watched Land of the Lost or Scoobie Doo.
3) Although I depend on answering machines and voice mail, and would never give them up, I have a nostalgic yearning for the time before these gadgets when nobody could leave messages and it was your guess or anybody else’s when you might be able to reach someone by phone. It somehow made contacting someone, being lucky enough to call when they were home more special.
4) Sometimes I miss being able to drive or ride in a car and have no understanding of the need to wear a seatbelt.
5) Yes, I hate smoking, I am glad you can’t smoke too many places anymore, but I sort of miss seeing people light up anywhere they damn well pleased: the elevator, the hospital, an office, bars and restaurants, movie theaters. Wasn’t that sorta cool?
6) I wish people stayed at their jobs longer, you know how people would have jobs for thirty years and then retire with a pension? Nobody really does that anymore.
7) In a bizarre way, I miss the Cold War. I loved how the USSR was so dangerous and forbidden, a dark entity across the ocean, that we were told was the embodiment of evil (but somehow in a more benign, predictable way than the evilness of today’s world). It made things interesting and there was always the distant goal we all hoped for, whether we agreed with politicians or not, that someday we would triumph over communism. I love that kind of structure.
8) I miss records and record players.
That’s the short list folks. Feel free to add to it. )H
I used to think of the 1970s as a relatively dreary era, painted in earth tones, textured with synthetic fabrics and an absence of innovation. I was born in the 1970s, and lived out most of my childhood in the 1970s. Maybe my personal history shaped my experience of the time; the fallout of my parents divorce, yadda yadda. Yet I get the sense that most people see the 1970s as an intermission of American culture and history, a decade defined by blunders, debacles and inconveniences: the Watergate scandal, the Vietnam War, the Iran hostage crisis, an oil shortage.
So, I have to think to myself, then why would the 1970s have any appeal at all to me?
The thing is, the 1970s was the last decade to pass before the behemoth of technology took over by way of computers, the Internet, plasma TVs, fax machines and cell phones. It was the last time that anyone would live in more simple ways, practicing customs and behavior more in line with a less advanced era. It was the last time being a stay-at-home mom was still considered honorable, that teenagers didn't loose their virginities until college, and the best thing about summer was roller-skating and drive-in movies. With less to distract, life facilitated conversation and pastimes, and these in turn cemented friendships and community. These things are what pulls me to kindly remember the 1970s. Here is a short list of other things I miss:
1) I miss Saturday night television, when no one had VCRs or cable television, and everybody stayed home so as to not miss the latest episode of the Love Boat or Eight is Enough.
2) On that note, I miss Saturday morning cartoons. That was the big event of my week when I was little. I’d get up early, before my mom was awake, turn on the TV and grab a box of cereal to snack on while I watched Land of the Lost or Scoobie Doo.
3) Although I depend on answering machines and voice mail, and would never give them up, I have a nostalgic yearning for the time before these gadgets when nobody could leave messages and it was your guess or anybody else’s when you might be able to reach someone by phone. It somehow made contacting someone, being lucky enough to call when they were home more special.
4) Sometimes I miss being able to drive or ride in a car and have no understanding of the need to wear a seatbelt.
5) Yes, I hate smoking, I am glad you can’t smoke too many places anymore, but I sort of miss seeing people light up anywhere they damn well pleased: the elevator, the hospital, an office, bars and restaurants, movie theaters. Wasn’t that sorta cool?
6) I wish people stayed at their jobs longer, you know how people would have jobs for thirty years and then retire with a pension? Nobody really does that anymore.
7) In a bizarre way, I miss the Cold War. I loved how the USSR was so dangerous and forbidden, a dark entity across the ocean, that we were told was the embodiment of evil (but somehow in a more benign, predictable way than the evilness of today’s world). It made things interesting and there was always the distant goal we all hoped for, whether we agreed with politicians or not, that someday we would triumph over communism. I love that kind of structure.
8) I miss records and record players.
That’s the short list folks. Feel free to add to it. )H
Friday, October 06, 2006
Robert Redford
Ok, this post is not really about Robert Redford, it's about Robert Redford cake. That's right, cake.
I did see Robert Redford on TV the other night, on The Actor's Studio. I hate that show. It's super pretentious and nowadays the celebrities on the show don't have any talent half the time, or they are just boring, flavorless people. They used to film that show at the New School, where I got my MA, in the same auditorium I had my graduation ceremony. Crazy, huh.
Anyhoo,(yes, I will be discussing cake, never fear), I guess Robert Redford really wanted to be an artist and ended up in New York broke and on a lark went to acting school. The rest is history.
So I have this recipe for a cake named after Robert Redford. The recipe's been floating around the planet for a while now, and is so popular, two versions have evolved. In fact, the second cake is called "The Next Best Thing to Robert Redford Cake."
I first had the cake in 1993 while on Thanksgiving Break in Sterling, Colorado. I was spending the weekend with the guy I was dating, on his family's farm. Needless to say, it was an interesting experience, if not dreary. We broke up a couple weeks later. What I remember most about the weekend is the cake. His mother, a roly-poly farmer's wife, made it as part as the Thanksgivings Day feast. She told me it was called Robert Redford cake. However, when I wanted to replicate it several years later, I learned from the Internet that her cake was actually the "Next Best Thing to Robert Redford" cake and that the real Robert Redford cake (equally if not more delicious) was something else. Both cakes are decadent, gooey, over-the-top, but mind-blowingly tasty. Robert Redford cake is very chocolatey.
Robert Redford Cake
1 package german chocolate cake mix
(or devil's food, etc...)
14 oz can of condensed milk
1 jar of carmel butterscotch topping
3 Heath Bars (or comparable brand)
8-12 ozs Cool Whip
Bake cake in a 9x13 pan. After baking but when cake is still warm, poke several holes in the top with the handle end of a wooden spoon (around 8-12 holes). Let the cake cool. Mix together condensed milk and caramel topping then pour the mixture over the top, letting it soak into the holes. Spread cool whip over cake and top with chopped up heath bars.
Next Best Thing to Robert Redford Cake
1 cup flour
1/2 cup butter
1 cup finely chopped pecans
8 oz cream cheese
1 cup powdered sugar
3 3/4 oz package instant pistachio pudding
3 3/4 oz package instant vanilla pudding
3 cups milk
Mix together the flour, butter and pecans and press into the bottom of a 9x13 inch baking pan. Bake at 350 degrees until light golden brown. Let cool. Mix together the cream cheese, sugar, and half the Cool Whip. Pour on top of the butter/pecan mix in pan. Mix together pudding mix, milk and rest of Cool Whip. Spread over cake as the top and final layer. Refrigerate for a while then eat!
Ok, this post is not really about Robert Redford, it's about Robert Redford cake. That's right, cake.
I did see Robert Redford on TV the other night, on The Actor's Studio. I hate that show. It's super pretentious and nowadays the celebrities on the show don't have any talent half the time, or they are just boring, flavorless people. They used to film that show at the New School, where I got my MA, in the same auditorium I had my graduation ceremony. Crazy, huh.
Anyhoo,(yes, I will be discussing cake, never fear), I guess Robert Redford really wanted to be an artist and ended up in New York broke and on a lark went to acting school. The rest is history.
So I have this recipe for a cake named after Robert Redford. The recipe's been floating around the planet for a while now, and is so popular, two versions have evolved. In fact, the second cake is called "The Next Best Thing to Robert Redford Cake."
I first had the cake in 1993 while on Thanksgiving Break in Sterling, Colorado. I was spending the weekend with the guy I was dating, on his family's farm. Needless to say, it was an interesting experience, if not dreary. We broke up a couple weeks later. What I remember most about the weekend is the cake. His mother, a roly-poly farmer's wife, made it as part as the Thanksgivings Day feast. She told me it was called Robert Redford cake. However, when I wanted to replicate it several years later, I learned from the Internet that her cake was actually the "Next Best Thing to Robert Redford" cake and that the real Robert Redford cake (equally if not more delicious) was something else. Both cakes are decadent, gooey, over-the-top, but mind-blowingly tasty. Robert Redford cake is very chocolatey.
Robert Redford Cake
1 package german chocolate cake mix
(or devil's food, etc...)
14 oz can of condensed milk
1 jar of carmel butterscotch topping
3 Heath Bars (or comparable brand)
8-12 ozs Cool Whip
Bake cake in a 9x13 pan. After baking but when cake is still warm, poke several holes in the top with the handle end of a wooden spoon (around 8-12 holes). Let the cake cool. Mix together condensed milk and caramel topping then pour the mixture over the top, letting it soak into the holes. Spread cool whip over cake and top with chopped up heath bars.
Next Best Thing to Robert Redford Cake
1 cup flour
1/2 cup butter
1 cup finely chopped pecans
8 oz cream cheese
1 cup powdered sugar
3 3/4 oz package instant pistachio pudding
3 3/4 oz package instant vanilla pudding
3 cups milk
Mix together the flour, butter and pecans and press into the bottom of a 9x13 inch baking pan. Bake at 350 degrees until light golden brown. Let cool. Mix together the cream cheese, sugar, and half the Cool Whip. Pour on top of the butter/pecan mix in pan. Mix together pudding mix, milk and rest of Cool Whip. Spread over cake as the top and final layer. Refrigerate for a while then eat!
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Debugged
The older I get, it seems, the less I want to travel. I don't know if this is because I just don't like to be uncomfortable or inconvenienced the way I am when I travel, or because it's lost its novelty. I can't help but think it also has a lot to do with the terror threat, the huge pain in the ass it is now to fly, and overall obnoxiousness of other passengers. Service isn't so great anymore either. What happened to the food? Great, I get a snack pack containing exactly six pretzels. Oh, and I can pay for extra leg room, the extra four inches that would actually allow me to sit comfortably? Don't get me started on the crying babies and wild children.
Enough whining about airplanes.
When I say travel, I mean purely recreational travel, not travel as an end to a goal, like to see relatives or to do business. I've been to Tennessee this year for a funeral, and to Colorado to visit friends and show my husband my home town, but I don't consider that to be vacation per se. The last purely hedonistic vacation I went on (aside from weekend getaways) was my honeymoon to Germany. I had a great time. I had been to Munich before as a single girl, and this return visit was exponentially more fun. It helps that I speak a little German.
Anyway, I say in passing from time to time, to my husband or anyone else that will listen, hey, I'd love to see Venice sometime, or Spain, or Tahiti. In theory, it seems like a great idea to visit all these places, but in practice, I don't know if I really want to go. Hey, ten years ago, I would jump at the chance to travel just about anywhere that had potable water and indoor plumbing. Now, I have to be bribed just to go across the state line (a mere ten miles from here). Pathetic.
To make myself feel better about this, I have put some thought into some places I intend to see before I die. This list will probably change, but here what I came up with for now:
Hero's travel wishlist
(not in any particular order)
1. The Canadian Rockies
2. Japan
3. Seattle, Washington
4. Vienna, Austria
5. Hawaii
6. Montreal, Quebec
7. Jerusalem, Israel
8. Tuscany, Italy
9. St. Lucia (or comparable Caribbean island)
10. Greece or Montana. Either or.
Just in case you are interested:
Foreign countries I've been too
1. Mexico
2. Great Britain (incl. Scotland, Wales)
3. Ireland
4. Germany
5. Italy
6. Switzerland
7. Austria
8. Czech Republic
9. France
The older I get, it seems, the less I want to travel. I don't know if this is because I just don't like to be uncomfortable or inconvenienced the way I am when I travel, or because it's lost its novelty. I can't help but think it also has a lot to do with the terror threat, the huge pain in the ass it is now to fly, and overall obnoxiousness of other passengers. Service isn't so great anymore either. What happened to the food? Great, I get a snack pack containing exactly six pretzels. Oh, and I can pay for extra leg room, the extra four inches that would actually allow me to sit comfortably? Don't get me started on the crying babies and wild children.
Enough whining about airplanes.
When I say travel, I mean purely recreational travel, not travel as an end to a goal, like to see relatives or to do business. I've been to Tennessee this year for a funeral, and to Colorado to visit friends and show my husband my home town, but I don't consider that to be vacation per se. The last purely hedonistic vacation I went on (aside from weekend getaways) was my honeymoon to Germany. I had a great time. I had been to Munich before as a single girl, and this return visit was exponentially more fun. It helps that I speak a little German.
Anyway, I say in passing from time to time, to my husband or anyone else that will listen, hey, I'd love to see Venice sometime, or Spain, or Tahiti. In theory, it seems like a great idea to visit all these places, but in practice, I don't know if I really want to go. Hey, ten years ago, I would jump at the chance to travel just about anywhere that had potable water and indoor plumbing. Now, I have to be bribed just to go across the state line (a mere ten miles from here). Pathetic.
To make myself feel better about this, I have put some thought into some places I intend to see before I die. This list will probably change, but here what I came up with for now:
Hero's travel wishlist
(not in any particular order)
1. The Canadian Rockies
2. Japan
3. Seattle, Washington
4. Vienna, Austria
5. Hawaii
6. Montreal, Quebec
7. Jerusalem, Israel
8. Tuscany, Italy
9. St. Lucia (or comparable Caribbean island)
10. Greece or Montana. Either or.
Just in case you are interested:
Foreign countries I've been too
1. Mexico
2. Great Britain (incl. Scotland, Wales)
3. Ireland
4. Germany
5. Italy
6. Switzerland
7. Austria
8. Czech Republic
9. France
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
The Feds
I think any American that holds any sort of political opinion, has a political affiliation of one sort of another, be required to read at least one installment of The Federalist Papers. It is beautiful stuff.
What are the Federalist Papers you ask?
First, let me explain that the word “Federalist” refers to a political party formed in 1783, after the creation of the US,and led by Alexander Hamilton, the same guy shot and killed by Aaron Burr in a duel near Hoboken, NJ. Burr’s bones lay in the Princeton cemetery just a few dozen meters from where I live. Anyway, The Federalist Papers were a series of articles written before the ratification of the US constitution, around 1787, many of which were penned by, yes, you guessed it, Alexander Hamilton.
To gain an understanding of what politicians and other movers and shakers of the colonial era were thinking in terms creating a brand new system of government, uniquely American, one can refer to articles written and published in the Federalist Papers. The articles were a form of banter between thinkers, in disseminating, interpreting and outlining what sort of government should be set in place based on ideas and values Americans hold dear(as reflected in the Declaration of Independence, etc…freedom, equality, all that jazz…).
In short, the authors of these 85 articles also include, aside from Hamilton, James Madison (future president) and John Jay, and although published “anonymously,” the authorship of each is apparent. Federalist papers #10 and #51 are arguably the most well known (and influential). The entire document elaborates on the argument as to how much or how little government was necessary, very similar to the debate that rages today as to how much power our federal government should have and to what degree states should be independent from the whole.
Of course, other issues were also discussed, like what sort of pitfalls and dangers a federal republic (which the US is) would encounter. The Federalist Papers are oddly prophetic. Fed. #10, written by Madison, specifically discusses the problem of “faction,” or the segmentation of the political process into parties and minority and majority groups, formed for any number of reasons. You could say Democrats and Republicans, for example. He talks about his fear that certain groups, or factions, would become more powerful and influential than other groups, and this would lead to corruption. Sound familiar?
Anyway, I’m not going to spoil the fun. I recommend #10 for starters. The articles are a way of understanding the basis, the foundation, of our system and are a good reminder of what the early politicians had in mind. If only we could keep on track.
The Federalist Papers
I think any American that holds any sort of political opinion, has a political affiliation of one sort of another, be required to read at least one installment of The Federalist Papers. It is beautiful stuff.
What are the Federalist Papers you ask?
First, let me explain that the word “Federalist” refers to a political party formed in 1783, after the creation of the US,and led by Alexander Hamilton, the same guy shot and killed by Aaron Burr in a duel near Hoboken, NJ. Burr’s bones lay in the Princeton cemetery just a few dozen meters from where I live. Anyway, The Federalist Papers were a series of articles written before the ratification of the US constitution, around 1787, many of which were penned by, yes, you guessed it, Alexander Hamilton.
To gain an understanding of what politicians and other movers and shakers of the colonial era were thinking in terms creating a brand new system of government, uniquely American, one can refer to articles written and published in the Federalist Papers. The articles were a form of banter between thinkers, in disseminating, interpreting and outlining what sort of government should be set in place based on ideas and values Americans hold dear(as reflected in the Declaration of Independence, etc…freedom, equality, all that jazz…).
In short, the authors of these 85 articles also include, aside from Hamilton, James Madison (future president) and John Jay, and although published “anonymously,” the authorship of each is apparent. Federalist papers #10 and #51 are arguably the most well known (and influential). The entire document elaborates on the argument as to how much or how little government was necessary, very similar to the debate that rages today as to how much power our federal government should have and to what degree states should be independent from the whole.
Of course, other issues were also discussed, like what sort of pitfalls and dangers a federal republic (which the US is) would encounter. The Federalist Papers are oddly prophetic. Fed. #10, written by Madison, specifically discusses the problem of “faction,” or the segmentation of the political process into parties and minority and majority groups, formed for any number of reasons. You could say Democrats and Republicans, for example. He talks about his fear that certain groups, or factions, would become more powerful and influential than other groups, and this would lead to corruption. Sound familiar?
Anyway, I’m not going to spoil the fun. I recommend #10 for starters. The articles are a way of understanding the basis, the foundation, of our system and are a good reminder of what the early politicians had in mind. If only we could keep on track.
The Federalist Papers
Monday, October 02, 2006
Dogs versus Cats
I have two cats, always had cats, since I was little.
Liz and Ruby
What erks me is that people feel the need to divide the world into two groups: dog people and cat people. As if owning a dog or cat, or no pet at all, signifies something (although there is some truth to it, but it's not a universiality).
Here's a shocker. I love cats, and I love dogs. Just about equally. My constant companion in grade school was Dmitri, my tan and white mutt, a tenth birthday present.
Thing is, dogs are a lot more work than cats. Perhaps it does signify something that I haven't felt certain that I could put the proper time and energy into a dog. I'm not terribly active, I don't particularly like to take long walks in all kinds of weather and scrape poop off the sidewalk.
But that doesn't mean I'm a "cat person" or that I dislike dogs. What prejudice. We are considering a dog down the road. We're thinking Corgi (the squat legged, watery eyed cute type) because it was bred as a herding dog and we theorize, would try herding the cats not attacking them (as might a daschaund, bred to hunt badgers).
Here are some cat centric websites I like:
Cute Overload
Ginormous Cats
:)Hero
I have two cats, always had cats, since I was little.
Liz and Ruby
What erks me is that people feel the need to divide the world into two groups: dog people and cat people. As if owning a dog or cat, or no pet at all, signifies something (although there is some truth to it, but it's not a universiality).
Here's a shocker. I love cats, and I love dogs. Just about equally. My constant companion in grade school was Dmitri, my tan and white mutt, a tenth birthday present.
Thing is, dogs are a lot more work than cats. Perhaps it does signify something that I haven't felt certain that I could put the proper time and energy into a dog. I'm not terribly active, I don't particularly like to take long walks in all kinds of weather and scrape poop off the sidewalk.
But that doesn't mean I'm a "cat person" or that I dislike dogs. What prejudice. We are considering a dog down the road. We're thinking Corgi (the squat legged, watery eyed cute type) because it was bred as a herding dog and we theorize, would try herding the cats not attacking them (as might a daschaund, bred to hunt badgers).
Here are some cat centric websites I like:
Cute Overload
Ginormous Cats
:)Hero
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
